Here it is being used as someone believing that they are entitled, hence the second person. The fact that they are not entitled to have someone is a granted, because I'm pretty sure most people on this site realize that you're never really "entitled" to have someone.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Yeah, it's a fairly clear example of irony. I got it right away.
'Crisis or no, nothing should interfere with tea!'
I'm not sure how the proper way of doing this, but I fervently disagree with the following under "Web Original". For one thing, it's not a web phenomenon. More importantly, I disagree that it's an example of this trope.
- This is generally what 'friendzone' memes come off as.
^The proper way is to discuss here.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
...So how do I discuss? When do I get to edit the article?
This seems rather pointless.
I don't know, but it's already a Zero Conext Example, so I took it out.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
It's fine to take something out of the article at any point, as long as you give a brief explanation in your Edit Reason. If someone contests that or adds it again, then you're more likely to need the discussion page to sort out the disagreement and decide if it should be on the page and in what form. A Zero Context Example can always be pulled to the discussion page.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
So, you can remove something from an article for any reason at all? Seems like a rule that's begging to be exploited.
Any valid and objective reason that you explain. Edits can be and often are contested; if the reason isn't a good one, then the content will likely be readded. Otherwise, stuff that was wrong, bad, etc. would just accumulate.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
This item became subject of an Edit War. Don't readd it without discussion. Also, Your Mileage May Vary is not to be linked anywhere.
- If you're a man who's ever been rejected by the fairer sex. It's perfectly reasonable for someone with a lackluster love life to feel bad about it - that's not entitlement.
Cut this:
- Debated & Defied in Fiddler On The Roof: An early scene show Tevye's daughters envision (and accept) that Arranged Marriage will lead them to miserable lives with this trope as well as Domestic Abuse. And then Tevye go and marry one of them off to Lazar - a man who is older then himself and who he doesn't even like. The social structure itself is pulling this trope on her, demanding that she spend the rest of her life submitting sexually to a man she find repulsive. However, she stand up for herself, and the family patriarch choose to be merciful - which costs him a lot of prestige in the society they live in, with Lazar publicly humiliating him for it at her wedding.
As it's explained, this barely fits the trope. Tzeitel is the only one of the daughters who has one suitor already planned out for her — the others marry outside of their group but it's not like there's a man in the wings waiting for them. It phrases it more in terms of an arranged marriage, abhorrent admirer, what have you.
The very title of this trope is wrong. "Entitled" means that someone is given a title, authority or rightful ownership of something. Some people however use it as if it meant the opposite, "someone is claiming to deserve something, although he doesn't". Like here.
I would bring this to TRS, but it's full as usual.
Fuhrmann, es kostet dir noch dein Leben Hide / Show Replies