Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / VocalMinority

Go To

Sep 15th 2016 at 5:00:38 AM •••

The page image is downright unreadable in Night Vision mode. I think putting a white background on it, rather than the transparency, might help.

Jan 17th 2012 at 9:01:43 PM •••

I didn't want to touch the example as i want to see if there is a consensus on this or not, but the video game example about hardcore gamers being a vocal minority may not be necessarily wrong, but comes off as very biased, more akin to a personal rant and gets into some bizarre assertions that gaming was viewed as for lazy nerds only before the Wii and somehow the Wii being successful with more demographics fixes this stereotype (Gaming was already growing mainstream years beforehand and i think it's fair to dispute that just because my grandma plays Wii bowling, that doesn't actually change her stereotypical view of gamers as a whole being lazy, but i digress). Anyway i propose it's rewritten in a more general way just assessing how gamers opposed to the mainstreaming of gaming are pretty much rendered a vocal minority based on their platform. Thoughts?

Dec 6th 2011 at 5:20:54 AM •••

About the sex education example. My sex education class actually was about nothing but telling us that sex is bad, give you diesease, messes up your relationship, and makes unwanted babies. Also, the only thing about condoms they talked about is "They never work, and you should never have sex". They also made us sign a absitence contract. I'm sorry, but our class meets the sterotypicality of the minority mentioned in this article.

Oct 27th 2011 at 3:00:35 PM •••

We need to remove the "Americans" example, or at least some of it. It is extremly subjective and you really can't figure that out. ):-(

"Listen To Reason. Not to denial."

Oct 4th 2011 at 7:44:33 PM •••

Homophobes? Seriously? For bonus points, replace all the references to "homosexuals" in that entry to references to an ethnic minority, see how that works out for you.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 6th 2011 at 5:06:24 PM •••

Oh, oh, let me try! "Racists. Shockingly, not all racists are Klansmen whipping up lynch mobs. Many of them are actually, sane, rational people who just don't agree that the (insert minority of choice here) should be seen as our equals."

Also, the first "response" is so oblivious it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Golly gee, I can't imagine why labeling an already persecuted segment of humanity "strange or creepy" would get you in turn labeled as a hatemonger!

Because of this example, and also the feminist one that qwex54 gave above, I'm going to throw my hat in with the people pushing for removing the Real Life examples.

Apr 17th 2011 at 1:50:51 PM •••

This page really needs to get rid of the real life examples, as it isn't really appropriate because it handles them so badly. It mostly serves as a place for people to plug and defend their political point of view. This site is supposed to be mostly about TV and other fictional works, isn't it?

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 4th 2011 at 10:12:52 AM •••

All the examples in this page are Real Life Examples. Maybe what you're trying to say is that it should only have the definition? I'm not sure since I don't see exactly the thing you are complaining about, can you be more specific?

Oct 27th 2011 at 3:01:52 PM •••

Yes, we need to remove a good some of them. He's talking about the examples put into the Real Life section, but keeping everything else

Jan 22nd 2011 at 12:02:15 PM •••

Am I the only one who finds this article disturbing on the grounds that it subjectively relegates certain people as "the bad ones" to be excluded and looked down upon? I mean, within any group there are going to be many many ways of dividing people up into smaller subgroups, and this article seems like an invitation for people to do that and then say which ones they don't like. It leads to a lot of public lynching and members of the group will even get in on it to try to distance themselves from X stereotype.

There are always going to be people who fit X stereotype, but it's not necessarily accurate to claim that the existence of such people GAVE BIRTH to that stereotype and there can be all kinds of reasons someone might fit into the stereotype or for it to be possible to make it look like they fit into the stereotype.

I realize no one has any reason to listen to me, but I would feel much more comfortable if this article were removed. Past that, I would like it much more clearly define when a "vocal minority" is appropriate for this article. I mean, just being vocal and a minority isn't bad in itself, right? So there should be some criteria beyond "ticks me off."

Edit- example here could be saying "Not all feminists are like Andrea Dworkin." Some people are, in fact, like Andrea Dworkin. They may be wrong about some things or many things, but that doesn't mean we need to set up internet pogroms against them to show how superior we are and that kind of thing definitely happens and is happening (and isn't confined to the internet).

The idea that radical feminists or even just certain radical feminists (and "radical feminism" means something specific rather than "crazy feminists") spoil the "good feminists" is a huge value judgement on what feminists are SUPPOSED to be like and in my experience frequently comes from people who don't even consider themselves feminists except maybe in the most abstract ways ("oh yeah, sure, equality for women be great"). So then a lot of the criteria is actually how much you conform to societal standards and don't offend anybody, when feminism is supposed to be all about calling the power structure and current societal values into question even if that's not what everyone wants to hear.

Edited by qwex54 Hide/Show Replies
Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:12:10 PM •••

I agree with you, re furries. Yes, being a furry may be considered weird... but it is not in any way the same thing as pedophilia. Most furries are not bestalist / zoophiles, which is what that seems to be implying. Unless there's an objection, I'm going to remove the comparison in a couple of days.

Yes, there are the furs that wear collars and are led around on leashes in public. There are also non-furs that do that. Most furs, you will never know unless you know them well enough. I found out someone I'd worked with for a couple of years was a fur when we ran into each other at the airport on the way to a convention. I was more 'out' than he was, so he already knew I was, but we didn't otherwise know each other that well.

Dec 15th 2010 at 7:35:43 PM •••

Wrangled this page into something resembling a series of organised piles. I encourage other tropers who spot any faux pas I may have made to correct them at their own discretion; several entries discussing multiple forms of media in a knotted mess still exist.

May 7th 2010 at 8:42:42 PM •••

Would anyone object adding people who endlessly plug firefox into this?

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 3rd 2011 at 8:07:11 PM •••

Add people who endlessly plug anything. Mac vs Windows vs Linux, Firefox vs IE, sub vs dub, their particular paintjob of christianity vs anyone else's.

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: