[003]
MathsAngelicVersion
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I think we should get rid of this paragraph. Its only purpose is hating on fans who make fan sequels. It\'s fine if you don\'t like fan sequels, but I don\'t think the trope page should push that opinion (clearly a lot of people enjoy fan sequels and would disagree that the people who make them are \
to:
I think we should get rid of this paragraph. Its only purpose is hating on fans who make fan sequels. It\\\'s fine if you don\\\'t like fan sequels, but I don\\\'t think the trope page should push that opinion (clearly a lot of people enjoy fan sequels and would disagree that the people who make them are \\\"blinded by a false sense of entitlement\\\" and \\\"twisted\\\"). We\\\'ve already mentioned that fan sequels can get ScrewedByTheLawyers, and that should be enough. Alternatively, we could rewrite the article to be more neutral and add a couple of arguments from the other side.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Do we really need an entire paragraph just to hate on fans who make fan sequels? We\'ve already said \
to:
I think we should get rid of this paragraph. Its only purpose is hating on fans who make fan sequels. It\\\'s fine if you don\\\'t like fan sequels, but I don\\\'t think the trope page should push that opinion (clearly a lot of people enjoy fan sequels and would disagree that the people who make them are \\\"entitled\\\" and \\\"twisted\\\"). We\\\'ve already mentioned that fan sequels can get ScrewedByTheLawyers, and that should be enough.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
But giving armor separate cups isn’t inherently fanservice, either. That sort of implication is an unfortunate side-effect of the belief that a woman’s breasts, with no other context, are inherently sexy. In this particular case, there is no such context. Nothing else about her armor invokes titillation. So there’s honestly no way we can look at Brigitte’s Legendary armor and say the cups are inherently there for sexualization unless we fall into the trap of CircularReasoning.
to:
But giving armor separate cups isn’t inherently fanservice, either. That sort of implication is an unfortunate side-effect of the belief that a woman’s breasts, with no other context, are inherently sexy. In this particular case, there is no such context. As we’ve established from the very reason the example was removed, nothing else about her armor invokes titillation. So there’s honestly no way we can look at Brigitte’s Legendary armor and say the cups are inherently there for sexualization unless we fall into the trap of CircularReasoning.
