Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Determinator / RealLife

Go To

Oct 24th 2013 at 9:24:46 PM •••

I am requesting an entry in the sports section: Jackie Robinson. He was constantly heckled, pitchers sometimes intentionally threw AT him, and he even had death threats made against his family, but he never even thought to stop playing baseball. He play through ten seasons in these conditions, but he kept at it to the end.

Aug 24th 2013 at 12:57:32 AM •••

I don't know who wrote the last example, but to whoever did - I needed that today. Thank you.

Hide/Show Replies
Telcontar MOD
Aug 24th 2013 at 1:55:38 AM •••


The history says that Minister wrote it.

May 30th 2013 at 5:31:02 PM •••

In the sports category, I would like to add Cadel Evans: an Australian Cyclist, who raced in Le Tour de France 6 times, including 2 second places, before he finally managed to win the General Classification in 2011, despite years of bad luck and injury. Also, he became the oldest person to win Le Tour in the post-war era at 34.

What do you guys think?

Mar 15th 2012 at 10:21:23 PM •••

And the Internet. If you don't do something according to the instructions, it will make you do it right. Even if you don't want to.

Edited by kirbymaster7491
Mar 15th 2012 at 10:21:07 PM •••

I just wanted to say that the Asperger/autistic example is quite accurate. This Troper knows a guy who has Asperger's syndrome. He is a dungeon master who keeps our resident loony in check. And if it isn't implied, could stuttering be added to that list? This Troper stutters and does speech team in spite of how his tongue is trying to make a fool of him.

Dec 11th 2011 at 12:55:49 PM •••

Appearently, some people don't think that Gaddafi was a determinator, and one of them, Lord Gro, sent this to me to argue why:

  • It's obviously much more subjective than you realize. I, for one, have a different opinion: There's a difference between doing something that you could easily avoid, but chose to do anyway (which to me is the meaning of 'determinator') and something that you can't you can't avoid. Gaddaffi had no options left. Surrendering to the rebels would have likely amounted to death, or lifelong imprisonment. There is nothing else he could do than to "hold out". I don't think this demonstrates determination — rather, desperateness. Besides, not everyone will agree that he "fought" at all. During the Civil War, Gaddaffi was very likely in one of the safer places in Libya, and not even thought of putting himself in the line of fire. Instead, he commanded others around and let them fight for him. Again, I myself don't think there's anything admirable there.

for the first point; he thinks that holding on because thats the only way he could do isn't determination but desperation, but yet it seems that it's ok to let Sir Winston Churchill to be in, despite he faced the same sistuation. When Germany had overrided France, Churchill had his back on a corner with nowhere to run, and he was so desperate that he not only sent letters to USA begging for help, but he even ordered the attack on his French allies at Mers-el-Kébir on the "possibilities" that the French naval ships may end up in German hands, even if he got a personal message from Admiral Darlan some time before that the French would sink their own ships reather than to let them fall to the Germans. Is that determination or desperation? Same thing with the Red Army during WWII. The reason why the order #227 was made was because the Red Army was so desperate to hold of the Germans that they needed execution squads to make sure no one would retreat, and yet he doesn't mind that this example is there as "determination" instead of desperation.

And for his second point; well, so far I haven't read any book or seen any documentary which says that Churchill fought on the frontlines and putted himself in the lines of fire during WWII, nor de Galliue, nor Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam War, and yet people seems to have no problems with them being there. They all sat inside their offices and let other do the fighting too, and yet no one calls out on that.

Pay attention on how he several times say things like "I don't think..." or "I have a different opinion". It proves that Gaddafi got deleted not because he wasn't an example of this trope, but because people, including Lord Gro, personally don't "like" him, and as I've read, people's personal likes aren't justifications enough to delete things from trope-pages, and Gaddafi is an example of someone/something that got deleted because people just simply don't like him/it being there.

Hide/Show Replies
Dec 11th 2011 at 2:14:26 PM •••

This is indeed what I PMed you. As you can observe, I emphasized how the example is rather subjective (pay attention on how I several times use phrases like "I don't think" or "I have a different opinion"). Subjective examples are not good examples. This is the reason why personal dislikes alone aren't justification to delete things from trope pages; this is the reason why personal likes alone aren't justification to add things to trope pages.

If we go by your way of thinking, it's only a matter of time till people add Hitler, Goering, Stalin, Pol Pot, Osama bin Laden and Anders Bering Breivik as "Determinators" — "you may disagree with them, but you just got to admire them." Ugh.

I also mentioned the other reason in the PM:

Real Life pages are not the main focus of the wiki; it's not worth having them if they cause a lot of trouble. Such a discussion as we have now doesn't contribute to the actual mission of the wiki.

As for Churchill, the Red Army and other examples on this page: My original proposal was to cut and lock the whole page. So I am not particularly inclined to defend anything that is listed on this page.

The Churchill example is indeed shoehorned. But I did let it stay, because it is

  • 1) much less likely to result in natter or edit wars, because Churchill is
    • a) a lot less controversial figure (for a start, he wasn't a dictator but a leader elected by the people, and didn't execute or imprison his political opponents), and
    • b) WW 2 is a lot farther back than the war in Libya;
  • 2) The emphasis of the Churchill examples is on two quotes, which serve to illustrate the trope (even if they don't in themselves make Winston Churchill into a 'real determinator');
  • 3) More of a side thought on your arguments: Churchill would have had the possibility to resign and let another man take his position, for such things are possible in a democracy; I doubt that Gaddafi had such an option; so I don't think that Churchill personally was ever in such a desperate situation as Gaddafi.

Finally, that there are already bad examples on the page is hardly a reason to have more bad examples. Bad and bad doesn't cancel each other out. The adequate solution, in such a case, would be to delete all the bad examples.

Edited by LordGro
FastEddie MOD
Oct 19th 2011 at 12:55:17 PM •••

Let's try a cleanup, rather than just cutting this. Ifg that doesn't work, we can cut it.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 3rd 2011 at 9:36:58 AM •••

I cleaned up the page and also structured the list with some captions. The quality of the examples is still quite uneven, though. More critical editing would not hurt.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: