Discussion of TV Tropes
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
@ Juan: I'm not interested in debating the meaning, I just wanted clarification as to the senses of the words being used in this instance.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
BTL isn't so radical. On the other hand, that means BTL might actually get something done, which is more than could be said for [AOD]'s board.
My point, Juan, was that vM was evidently making a distinction and I wanted to know what that distinction was.
Am I going to get flak for saying that I do not quite understand what anti-intellectualism, as frequently used on the internet, is supposed to be? I know what anti-intellectualism is in theory, but I generally do not see it very often on the internet outside of conspiracy boards (SCIENCE IS EVIL! LOL!) and your imageboards and things like that.
I've heard the term used to dismiss criticism of academia, as well as arguments for the subjectiveness of art/quality/etc., but I'd like to think that that's not what it's supposed to do.
I've been hesitant to use the word in the past to describe TVT because people there do seem to like science a lot, but there's a lot of hate for and dismissal of the humanities and arts subjects and everyone else seems to call this anti-intellectualism.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
How so?
I have seen a lot of dismissal of pretentiousness, but I don't think that disliking elitism is anti-intellectual. And I can honestly say that I don't think that I've ever seen much hate for the humanities as a whole, other than from one or two specific people.
Personally, I think that if you think that Dante's Inferno was boring as shit, you're entitled to think that. Anti-intellectualism would be denying its influence on literature and culture, I'd think.
Sorry, by "science" I meant physics, and by "people" I meant tropers in OTC.
>Also, *their.
Uh. Been reading Homestuck, have we?
>I have seen a lot of dismissal of pretentiousness, but I don't think that disliking elitism is anti-intellectual.
I've seen more dismissal of perfectly valid concepts from the arts and humanities as pretentious, and unwarranted attacks on ideas that elitists happen to use (or even that are used to counter elitists).
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
>¿Yes, but I just think it'd be funnier that way and what does Homestuck have to do with intentional misspellings again?
Not intentional, and you'd know if you'd been reading it. (Character who types when drunk and miscorrects herself.)
^^Roxy Lalonde.
Like what? The only example I can think of is my own dislike of the concept of Death of the Author, and that's more of a personal annoyance than anything.
I don't think that we should fall into the trap of claiming any idea that can be described as elitist or pretentious somehow isn't just because it can be described as such. If you know what I mean. Basically, just because X is saying Y is Z and you like Y and distrust X, does not mean that Y isn't Z.
Basically, it is itself elitist to respond to claims of elitism with "it's just nerds being anti-intellectual".
Obviously, it's different if there really is groundless dismissal going on, but you can't counter groundless dismissal (which is what anti-intellectualism is) with more groundless dismissal.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
Fourier: Is the shit? What the hell does that mean?
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
@ Superglobe: But isn't the inverse of that equally true? That something is not elitist just because people dismiss it as such?
And lots of examples. The True Art articles, the misuse of academic terms in trope names, the Useful Notes, the dismissal of concepts from e.g. feminism as nonsense, the insistance that all works have equal merit even when entertainment value is not the value under discussion, everything Deboss says regarding culture/soft science/the arts, the (deleted, but it was really bad) Lit Crit article...
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
of course not, but at the same time, if someone is calling something elitist, and they actually say such and back it up with something well thought-out I don't think they should be dismissed just for using the word "elitist" in a sentence.
1: True Art Is (etc.) are tropes, occurring within a fictional universe. Now, the Real Life examples might be a case, but that'd depend on what's being said where. I don't think too many people are going to defend Piss Christ, which was on the True Art is Offensive page for quite awhile.
2: That's ignorance, not anti-intellectualism. Most people are unfamiliar with academic terms because they are--by and large--only used by academics.
3: Concepts such as what? I can certainly think of a few things you might be thinking of (eg. I know some people are rather upset about us still having a page on Gainaxing, to name one). But, those are tropes, and TVTropes documents tropes. I don't see why they should be excluded just because they're offensive to some. After all we have an article on Yellow Peril and the like too, and those are pretty offensive as well.
4: All works do have equal merit depending on the perspective being looked at. And, given that most tropers are not academics--nor, I think, should they be expected to be--they are going to be looking at them from an entertainment standpoint. To expect academic analysis from a group of non-academics is rather silly. For much the same reason you don't conduct academic analysis when you're sitting on your couch watching Dr. Who with your friends. Tropers are mostly laymen, not people who do, or even have any interest in, academic analysis. I don't think that being against trying to force them to have an interest in it is anti-intellectual.
5: Deboss is Deboss. He is pretty widely reviled and wouldn't be such if he weren't atypical.
6: Never saw the article in question, but it was deleted, which is satisfactory message to me that it was recognized as bad and dealt with.
...you watch Doctor Who, Superglobe?
@ Superglobe: Agreed on the elitism thing.
1. The articles certainly don't make that clear that they're talking specifically about fiction, and there's a lot of ignorant or strawmannish content regarding actual art on those pages that I don't think belongs there, at the very least (and yes, I have taken that to TRS).
2. And we shouldn't be encouraging that misuse. If you (general you, not you personally) don't understand something, you should either learn it or keep quiet about it, not pretend like you know what you're talking about.
3. Was thinking more about the forums, where philosophers are frequently dismissed offhand and sociological ideas like rape culture are obtusely dismissed by people who plainly don't know what they're talking about, even when confronted with reasoned arguments and verified statistics.
4. That's depending on the perspective being looked at, though. And I do expect decent analysis from enthusiasts - or at least, more advanced analysis than "all works are equal, but these works are more fun, if you don't like them you're elitist, and I still reserve the right to dismiss things I don't like as worthless", which is how some of it comes across.
5. Fair point, but he's just the most extreme, not the only one.
6. That's true, but it stuck around for a long time before that.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
I also hate that he keeps calling my field of study and people who study it worthless.
As for FiM, well, how much detail do you want here? If you'd like me to gush at length about it I'll be happy to but all I was trying to explain was that I don't like it just because I can discuss it with other people.
I thought Mission Hill was OK, but Kevin made me cringe.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
I used to think Shakespeare was some asshole with a stupid collar, but then, I grew out of it when I realized he paved the way for a ton of stories I enjoy.
大學的年同性戀毛皮
aaaaa
*Shrug* That sort of attitude towards art criticism is rather common to the public-at-large. I'm not sure why, exactly. I've always liked abstract art, personally.
You're describing a problem with humanity in general. That's not unique to tropers, or even the internet.
See. I avoided OTC like the plague 99% of the time, so I am not sure what in particular is being talked about when you say this. I will say though, that you may want to consider that people who disagree with you don't necessarily "not know what they're talking about", and that you and others may not be actually presenting "reasoned arguments" even if they are backed up by statistics. It's easy to see when everyone else is most definitely and totally wrong, it's very hard to see when you might be. I'm not saying that that is necessarily the case, again, I don't know what in particular is being discussed here. But it is something to consider.
Furthermore, another problem with people in general, myself included, is that we dismiss things that are not well explained to us. One of the problems subjects like this have is that they tend to have a lot of what I would call jargon for lack of a better term. Jargon's bad when you're trying to explain a concept to people who don't understand it, and personally, I find it frustrating when I'm trying to get someone to explain their thoughts to me and what I get in return is what is--to me--mostly gibberish. That's not to say it actually is gibberish, it could be the most profound thing in the world for all I know, but when people get belligerent/defensive and refuse to explain their terminology, misunderstandings are bound to occur. I've been on both sides of this one and I think most people have.
If someone is saying that they consider all works equal and then turning around and dismissing other works as bad, then they should be disregarded simply for being self-contradictory. That said, I don't honestly think there's anything inherently wrong with not believing in objective quality (I don't, personally). Now, you can argue merits 'til your blue in the face. I will totally admit that Hamlet is a hugely influential work of fiction and has had a massive impact on the culture of the English-speaking world. Did that make it anymore an enjoyable read for me? Absolutely not, I hated it. There's a difference between thinking something is good versus thinking it's important. Hamlet: important, influential, essential? Certainly. Good? Not to me. Not to a lot of people, I assure you. And it's honestly pretty offensive to either be told A) that we just don't understand it, or B) that we're "anti-intellectual".
I mean do you know how offensive that is? To be told, at absolute best that it's "okay to like shit, and hate the good stuff"? Could you imagine if I said that about--to throw something out there--Evangelion? The backlash would hit so hard I'd be able to feel it. I don't think anything should be exempt from the criticism of enjoyability. Hamlet was not enjoyable for me. I understand its importance, but I did not like it. And I likely never will.
That is, of course, just an example. My central point is, I don't believe in "good works" and "bad works". I believe in works that are important, enjoyable, influential--any number of those things--but not "good" and "bad". To reduce fine literature, cinema, and art to such simple terms is insulting to the people who made it.
I don't know. To give an example. An obscure web-anime called Time of Eve had a far bigger impact on the way I think about things than Hamlet did. To me, (and probably only to me, honestly) Time of Eve is more important. Do you think that's wrong or bad?
EDIT: I went off on an absolutely massive tangent. My apologies.
anyway, I'm goin' to bed now.
'night.
The friendship, duh.
Well, OK, I admit, I was being kind of facetious when I said everyone should watch it. I kind of feel that's expected of me.
A lot of why I like it is because it makes me laugh, and humour is really difficult to break down. For example, I find this amusing, and this. The humour is partly why I like the setting, which manages to be a reasonably consistent fantasy world while still being very tongue in cheek and being populated by, e.g. Diamond Dogs, timberwolves made from timber, the Ursa Major, "buzzards that really buzz", etc. It's quirky and silly. I like Rainbow gloating because she got the ticket, or Fluttershy ranting about the problems with her dress and then reverting to being timid when done, or Pinkie assaulting Spike with cake, or Pinkie's song about getting along being so dreadful that it provokes an actual invasion by a tribe of buffalo. That kind of nonsense makes me laugh.
I like the variety. The episodes all adhere to the same basic structure, but the actual mood and story content is very diverse, as are the characters, and sometimes something amusingly unexpected happens. That said, most of the time it's got this sorta very light, feel-good quality pervading it, the kind that you can only really find in more innocent children's series when they're done well. I find that calming.
Then the characters themselves are interesting, because as children's cartoon characters go they're surprisingly relatable, and likeable but flawed. It feels sad to say that I can relate to the characters, but I can moreso than with a lot of cartoons; they're easy to empathise with.
I dunno. I could go on, but that was probably way more detail than you wanted.
@ Superglobe: None of the criticisms that get levelled at tropers are unique to tropers, and contrary to what SA might have you believe, we're not even close to being the worst. But we're supposed to be enthusiasts and hobbyists and the TVT admins do promote the site as a resource, so I think there is an expectation that we'll know what we're talking about.
I do consider that I might be wrong about stuff, all the time. But y'know, I am studying English, which includes critical theories like feminism, and I can tell when somebody presenting themselves as informed on the matter clearly isn't and is just being dismissive, in the same way that it's apparent if somebody makes obviously uninformed statements about, say, hip-hop.
I don't agree that Hamlet deserves recognition solely for its cultural significance. Not to say that it isn't significant, but that's ignoring the intelligence and creativity which went into it, which I think are evident (at least with sufficient study) even if you don't enjoy the work. Neither of those necessarily has any bearing on its entertainment value; I'm not going to claim that.
I don't like, or agree with, the "it's OK to like shit" attitude. If I like it, it's clearly not shit. I don't tend to take terms like "good" or "bad" all that seriously when no specific quality is specified.
And no, I don't think it's wrong or bad that Time of Eve is more important to you than Hamlet. Doctor Who is more important to me thanTitus Andronicus, and that says nothing about the properties of either, only my experiences of each.
And good night.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
It mostly boils down to "You like Show A. I want to provide you with evidence on why you shouldn't enjoy Show A."
If they do not accept the evidence I provide, then my attempt has failed, in which they can respond the same or go "Here is evidence why you should enjoy Show A."
It's people tripping on the "How could you/anyone like Show A" thing and "How could you/anyone not like Show A" that cause most of the problems when it comes to fandoms.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢