Discussion of TV Tropes

Manly McMacho

^^How many (openly) LGBT tropers are left? And specifically, how many openly gay tropers are there left?

^Please, they're not so bad, it's those fucking Muslims and Mexicans you have to watch out for.

Obā-san

...There are like 3 gay people and a few bi people. ._.

Boney

Seriously? I thought there were more.

Obā-san

Nope. I'll be back later.

Manly McMacho

Oh, that sucks.

...How many lesbians?

lee4hmz

Seriously, I don't see what's so bad about a blanket restriction on stuff like racism and death threats. Most forums (that aren't Usenet, anyway) don't allow that sort of thing, and trying to play the free-speech card in this case is just asking for trouble. 

Also, the other big problem I had with OTC is not so much the subject matter as the attitude certain people there held. Apparently the belief that arguments are allowed in any OTC thread is pretty common, and I've seen at least one thread at risk of turning into a shitstorm simply because one of the more argumentative regulars found it.

Finally: Keep in mind that a good troll isn't looking to actually fix the problem, but to keep the pot boiling like a soap-opera writer would, because as far as they're concerned, the Internet is one big episode of Days of our Lives. (And yes, that's an apt choice, seeing as goofy as it can get.)

Beholder

@Juan

I'm sorry, but it does look like a strawman.

millercross

I'm sorry, but it does look like a strawman.

It would be true if I hadn't decided to pick and paraphrase statements from the Oh Tee Cee

Beholder

"Paraphrase" is the key word, although "pick" is suspicious also.

Boney

Paraphrasing is just saying the same thing in different words, so juan doing that doesn't take anything away from what he said.

Viani

My main problem with TVT is....threads like these.

Some teenagers cannot understand that this is a touchy subject.

millercross

I don't understand how "pick" detracts from what I've said. I mean, these things were said, and the fact that I can read them in a place that goes to great lengths to avoid people from reading things that go against the policies means that the policies are not being enforced.

lee4hmz

Tno: And what's worse, quite a few of the regulars are of the "kill'em all and let God sort'em out" camp, which is pretty much anathema to any sort of balanced, civil argument -- all the energy in moderation will end up trying to keep people from e-killing each other.

Justice4243

^^I just saw the thread title, and it did seem like asking for trouble, to me.

lee4hmz

I'm reading further into that thread, and wow, it just gets worse. It's like the thread equivalent of something Linkara would read. :P

Viani

There's always the justification of "Well they aren't going to learn anything in prison and they'll keep doing what they are doing so the only option for them is to die" and the main problem with that is most people get too excited with the methods of execution, and advocate torture equivalent to the crime committed.

Allowing somebody or a group of people free reign to torment and kill another human being based on their heinous actions is proving that they aren't learning anything from enforcing this punishment, and it's become an uncivilized "good excuse to murder and kill" thing or an encouragement to act on murder fantasies. Advocating death and torture at all just seems very insane.

lee4hmz

Tno: Yeah, and it seems like people with these screwed-up revenge fantasies tend to show up more and more now. I mean, it's one thing to be angry at someone personally and want to hit them or yell at them or something, but to wish death on an entire class of criminals because they did something you find disgusting is pretty harsh.

Viani

I mean, I like the system we have now because any form of humiliation, murder and torture, even on terrorists or mass murderers, is very inhuman and forbidden. The law is there to make sure nobody freely gets away with things like that (except in some circumstances). If we were allowed to have exceptions to this, and justify gruesomely torturing and brutally killing another human being to enforce a punishment...I don't know. It would sicken me.

lee4hmz

And yay, another kill 'em all Nietzsche wannabe. This thread just keeps getting better! :P

Tno: Exactly. We have the laws we do against cruel and unusual punishment for a reason, and it's because both nasty, visceral punishments and wanton vigilantism were big problems back in Europe at the time, and they did nothing except show how awful the ruling class (who most people didn't think much of to begin with) was.

Viani

Who? me?

millercross

wait

vorpy

you're being reasonable

what the fuck is this

lee4hmz

Tno: No, some new person I've never seen before in the "Death penalty for rape" thread. 

Tachyon

There seems to be this misconception that the TV Tropes Forum has ever allowed total freedom of speech.  This was never the case.  There has never been a time when NSFW images were considered OK, or when a troper advocating the slaughter of an ethnic minority or expressing the desire to fuck their younger sister would not have been thumped and banned.  On the old php.BB forum a poster was banned for embedding an image of a used condom, and in the early days of the current YF board, trolling would get all posts by an account TPR'd.  While I believe the rules against personal attacks and incivility have gotten stricter, or at least more heavily enforced, this was long before you signed up, Beholder.

As the rules are currently enforced, any expression of strong distaste for a harmful statement is liable to be thumped.  This means that these opinions, if tolerated, can go more or less unchallenged.  TV Tropes has never been a free-for-all, and the personal attacks rule isn't going anywhere; with that in mind, unless bigotry is also bannable, the implication is that bigotry is less bad than taking offence at bigotry.  Which, I'm sorry, Beholder, is just not something that I can in good conscience promote.

It's not about coddling people.  While I do think that the offence caused by e.g. insensitive posts about rape or paedophilia is a problem, the suggestion that this is due to "supersensitivity" is sheer victim blaming, and nothing short of demeaning.

But no, it's about not being a horrible site full of horrible people.  Posts made on TV Tropes are statements which Eddie permits to be written on his private property; they aren't just shouted into the ether.

>And well, to be quite honest, I still maintain there's nothing wrong with going after a post that suggests that women deserved to be raped, and that maybe, we should kill all of those stinky black people, as we, the oppressed white man, does not deserve to share a world and be oppresed by both black people and women, or god forbid, black women.

Apart from the bit about men and white people being oppressed, which I have seen expressed, I don't remember ever seeing any of these views expressed in the TVT forums.  Can you give examples?

Beholder

@Juan
Could you link who said that?

@Tnophelia


Well, I was among those who said that in theory death penalty for rape would be just (shrugs).
@Fourier
I fully support rule against personal attacks, as you well know, as well as rules against advocating violence and crime. I still don't understand why anything more than that is needed. And yes, I understand that it is FE's property, he can do whatever he wishes and is under no obligation whatsoever to accommodate me. That's why I've left instead of staying and demanding anything

Boney

 There has never been a time when NSFW images were considered OK, or when a troper advocating the slaughter of an ethnic minority or expressing the desire to fuck their younger sister would not have been thumped and banned.

CommandoDude, Ramidel, Steventheman

millercross

Apart from the bit about men and white people being oppressed, which I have seen expressed, I don't remember ever seeing any of these views expressed in the TVT forums. Can you give examples?

Most of the posts have been deleted at one point or another, but there have been (And I think you have seen them and commented to me yourself) posts where the writer has indicated that

*Women wearing a certain kind of clothing invites rapists and thus, they shouldn't wear it (Classic victim blaming and horrible implications that have been made by various posters at different times. I won't call names because there's hardly a point and I don't think Anonus would appreciate it if I did)

*The infamous call for genocide against Africa in order to fix it (Of course, I'm working under the theory that our dear Ramidel wasn't being facetious as he so proclaims. And even if he was being facetious, I'd say that was a grade A dick move, as it didn't foster any productive discussion and automatically put posters in the defensive)

And the rest after "Opressed white man" is simply an extension of that particular problem, really. 

lee4hmz

This is the cancer that is killing OTC. 

By which I mean, posters whose minds are made up, and aren't trying to make a decent argument or move the conversation forward; they're just there to vent and repeat the same vitriol over and over. I've reported people for less before. :P

And it's not like I cna't see where she's coming from, or that I don't understand, it's that she's completely inflexible in her beliefs and will just end up becoming flame bait because of it. 

And that's the problem, I guess. OTC is treated like it's a rap battle and not a debate. OTC should not be about utterly decimating your opponents with sick burns, it should be about discussing the topic of the thread in a civil matter.

Viani

*Women wearing a certain kind of clothing invites rapists and thus, they
shouldn't wear it (Classic victim blaming and horrible implications
that have been made by various posters at different times. I won't call
names because there's hardly a point and I don't think Anonus would
appreciate it if I did)

G: Stop trying to rape me!

R: Stop encouraging me to rape you.

this behavior, right?

Ace Rimmer

@Fourier, so its okay for [Retracted] to say is okay to nuke Iran because they might have a nuclear weapon facility?

What about all those tropers who said it was a good day when that Al-Queda media guy got killed?

Or [Retracted] saying that gay people can't get married because they can't reproduce?

Boney

Do you think rape and murder are inhuman? I don't think they are.

What

Viani

He's saying that it's not akin to the way animals act on impulse and instinct, it's something that is calculated and done on a human basis.

Nevermind it's not my statement so I won't defend it.

Tachyon

I'm against the death penalty myself, but I think that supporting it as a penalty for particularly serious crimes constitutes a fairly conventional political belief in many developed parts of the world, in Texas, Virginia, Florida, Japan, etc.  As such, I don't think that prohibiting its advocacy in the case of rape would be reasonable on TVT.

@ Beholder: But if we only punish personal attacks and not, say, racism, that implies that being rude is somehow worse than discrimination against people based on skin colour.

@ Lucas: I don't remember any of those people advocating those things.  I'm talking about outright "we should kill all the Jews" type statements, here, with no attempt to pretty it up or make it sound reasonable.

And no, because I know that's going to get misconstrued, I am not saying that obfuscation or polite phrasing makes those views any better, just that when bluntly stated like that they have always been grounds for an instant ban.

@ Juan: While I agree that those views are just as unacceptable, that's not the same as what you said, and I think the insistant tendency to conflate offensive views makes it easier for those expressing them to dismiss the criticisms.

@Fourier, so its okay for [Retracted] to say is okay to nuke Iran because they might have a nuclear weapon facility?

What about all those tropers who said it was a good day when that Al-Queda media guy got killed?

Or [Retracted] saying that gay people can't get married because they can't reproduce?

No, and it's starting to annoy me that people keep alledging that I say this kind of thing. Point to where the fuck I said that.

Beholder

*Women wearing a certain kind of clothing invites rapists and thus,
they shouldn't wear it (Classic victim blaming and horrible
implications that have been made by various posters at different times. I
won't call names because there's hardly a point and I don't think
Anonus would appreciate it if I did)

There is a difference between saying that certain kinds of behaviour can provoke criminals and thus might be dangerous and saying that the victim deserved it. Not saying that the statement about rape and clothes is true, by the way, but it is still not quite the same as victim blaming.

*The infamous call for
genocide against Africa in order to fix it (Of course, I'm working under
the theory that our dear Ramidel wasn't being facetious as he so
proclaims. And even if he was being facetious, I'd say that was a grade A
dick move, as it didn't foster any productive discussion and
automatically put posters in the defensive)

Saying that it might solve the "problem" does not mean saying that it should be done. As far as I understand, it might as well mean that if that is the only way to "fix" Africa then it is better to leave it unfixed. In itself, saying that a given action might lead to given result does not mean advocating the action.

Salix Babylonika

And that's the problem, I guess. OTC is treated like it's a rap battle and not a debate. OTC should not be about utterly decimating your opponents with sick burns, it should be about discussing the topic of the thread in a civil matter.

Y'know, having actually been to rap battles. And watching them on Youtube quite often. This is actually a pretty good analogy.

On-Topic Conversations, everybody;

Manly McMacho

Wow those people are sound broken. That's actually sad.

also

vorpy

you're being reasonable

what the fuck is this

Viani

<------------     I am not Vorpy.

Manly McMacho

Oops :X

Viani

Tnophelia and Vorpy are two seperates. They may be responsible for both sides of the opinions that are made in different areas, and are by no means a way to relinquish responsibility of what the entitled says, but they do not share similar views and are to be treated as differentials.

Tachyon

>There is a difference between saying that certain kinds of behaviour can provoke criminals and thus might be dangerous and saying that the victim deserved it. Not saying that the statement about rape and clothes is true, by the way, but it is still not quite the same as victim blaming.

While this might be technically true, it is still an attitude that encourages victim blaming and which, if unchallenged, creates a culture where responsibility to avoid being raped is placed upon the victim, where admission of being raped is shameful, and where dangerous misconceptions are allowed to spread.  It's very much a harmful attitude to have.

Suggesting that genocide would be a way to "fix" Africa implies that Africa is sufficiently bad that more genocide would be somehow an improvement.  I would hope I don't have to explain what is wrong with this.

Ace Rimmer

@Fourier, theres definitely a perception that people who say those things can be say stuff like that and no-one can touch them.

millercross

@ Juan: While I agree that those views are just as unacceptable, that's not the same as what you said, and I think the insistant tendency to conflate offensive views makes it easier for those expressing them to dismiss the criticisms.

Let's see

I still maintain there's nothing wrong with going after a post that suggests that women deserved to be raped

This refers to women being blamed for their rapes because of...well, in this sentence, it's blank. But I referred to the idea that women deserve to be raped with:

*Women wearing a certain kind of clothing invites rapists and thus, they shouldn't wear it (Classic victim blaming and horrible implications that have been made by various posters at different times. I won't call names because there's hardly a point and I don't think Anonus would appreciate it if I did)

As for the second point:

we should kill all of those stinky black people

well, what else is a call for genocide to solve Africa's civil conflicts? 

And you said that the third point was aknowledged and that you've seen this attitude before, so I didn't want to bring examples of that as I felt it was redundant.

Boney

@Fourier

Steventheman definitely advocated nuking Argentina straight up with no sugarcoating here.

Ramidel did the same thing for the Africans, and we all remember that. 

really, there's no point in digging up CommandoDude's "I would totally have sex with my sister if I had one" posts, cause he left.

Tachyon

@Whale, I know there is.  I acknowledged as much.  That doesn't mean I think that's OK.

@Juan, OK, granted, that is what those statements amount to in practice.  Your phrasing threw me.  Sorry, going a bit TVT mod there, I guess.

@Lucas, Ramidel then proceded to weasel his way out of a punishment.  Steventheman phrased it as a political/military opinion rather than a desire for systematic ethnic cleansing (again, not saying that's any better, just that it's less likely to get punished on TVT at present).

I was honestly completely unaware of the Commando Dude thing.  I thought he was just kind of sexist.

Beholder

Being technically true is more important to me than creating any sort of culture. Or, rather, I find the ideas that "X should not be allowed because it creates the sort of atmosphere in which..." very disturbing, even if I happen to disapprove of X as much as anyone else.

(shrugs) Not that it matters much. My apologies if I've offended anyone.

millercross

No worries, Chummer.

lee4hmz

And okay, I know flouncing is a rather attention-getting thing, but the way Eddie is handling it just reeks of "who cares, they're just SA stooges anyway", when I'm pretty sure that's not the case this time.

Manly McMacho

Not to mention he sis that with someone who didn't even flounce.

Tachyon

@ Beholder: But the belief itself is not technically true, as has been explained numerous times on TV Tropes and may easily be verified by referring to other sources.

I really don't see how splitting hairs about two technically slightly distinct but functionally identical claims is less bad than perpetuating rape.

@ Lee: I agree, but you try convincing Eddie that.

I don't think it helps that, well, SA are pointing out a lot of things wrong with the site, and tropers are making use of this, which I know he's noticed.

Beholder

Hmm, "technically true" was not attributed to the belief. It was attributed to the claim that such belief if blaming the victim, which it, technically, isn't. But then again, by now I think I should just drop out lest someone thinks that I support rape.

So sad.

(/bows out/)

Tachyon

Beholder, I agree.  I just don't see why we should allow people who, when confronted with the facts and reasoned arguments, just go "Well, I'm still sceptical of that, sounds like feminist propaganda to me," to just carry on posting as though they're perfectly decent human beings.

The above was in response to the part in favour of confronting the attitude that dressing in a particular way makes women vulnerable to rapists with reasoned arguments.  Please don't change your entire post like that, it makes me look dumb. :/

And no, I know that you aren't in favour of rape.