TV Tropes community

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
GethN7 said:
I just went through our Miraheze article on this very topic, and I saw maybe two examples of pervy drooling, now removed. The rest is just ticking off all the times it appears in media.

I do want to point out I defend having an article on it at all because it's common enough in media to be tropable, while still not common enough to the point of "People Sit On Chairs" to be pointless to catalogue.

And I do need to add, fine, I grant you it is pretty autistic to fixate on all the time in happens in media, point duly noted, but as long as it's just basic information about when it shows up in a work and not written as a masturbation aid, I don't see the problem otherwise.

FYI, thing about troping sites is that the cataloguing all the times media show a certain trope is what they do. Complaining about it is like hitting tropers for breathing. It becomes a problem when it turns into a creepy jacking off exercise, and if you guys see on my sites, point it out and I'll apply the flamethrower to it.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind I was talking about the original TV Tropes article here.

I think an article like this pretty much counts as "People Sit On Chairs", to be honest. It's basically irrelevant to how stories are told and put together, as well as attracting an unpleasant crowd to the article. I don't think most of the stories listed in the article would have been any different if this particular costume wasn't in them.

If you're considering this to be worthy of an article, then characters eating pizza would count as well, since it's a lot less common than sitting on chairs, but also doesn't meaningfully affect the story for the most part.

Replicant Sasquatch said:
Yeah I don't really mind the ruthless cataloging of trope examples. That is kind of the point of the site, even if it reaches autistic levels.

For me, the real humor in TVTropes is how these people try using these nonsense jargon words as normal parts of their vocabulary. Talking in tropes (which I'm sure is a trope in itself) is annoying and no decent fiction writer should ever do it.
Click to expand...

TV Tropes didn't actually invent all the jargon they use. The term "absolute territory" I think is a bit older than that and is just used all too frequently on the site. "Nightmare fuel" predates it as well, I think.
 
Last edited:
Replicant Sasquatch said:
Yeah I don't really mind the ruthless cataloging of trope examples. That is kind of the point of the site, even if it reaches autistic levels.

For me, the real humor in TVTropes is how these people try using these nonsense jargon words as normal parts of their vocabulary. Talking in tropes (which I'm sure is a trope in itself) is annoying and no decent fiction writer should ever do it.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

And yes, it does have a trope for it:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Conversational_Troping

But even then, doing it to the level some of these idiots do is just utterly foolish.

Pointless Pedant said:
Bear in mind I was talking about the original TV Tropes article here.

Personally, I do think an article like this pretty much counts as "People Sit On Chairs". It's basically irrelevant to how stories are told and put together, as well as attracting an unpleasant crowd to the article. I don't think most of the stories listed in the article would have been any different if this particular costume wasn't in them.

If you're considering this to be worthy of an article, then characters eating pizza would count as well, since it's a lot less common than sitting on chairs, but also doesn't meaningfully affect the story for the most part.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but let me point out even pizza can be a plot point. Say, one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles suddenly starts hating the thought of eating pizza and tries to avoid it. Since eating pizza is an omnipresent thing they all do, this would be a big tip off something is really wrong.

So yeah, every time someone eats pizza being catalogued would be silly, but when it becomes a relevant plot point because the not eating of pizza is significant, then it becomes relevant.

You argue, not wrongly, that superfluous mentions of "Zettai Ryouiki" are a bad thing to add, and I find it a credible argument.

Your other point, though, specifically the one about "attracting an unpleasant crowd to the article", I going to have to partially disagree.

Yes, the creeps who write about their masturbation fantasies need to be told to cut it out or be thrown out, no question from me here. However, I do need to point out the trope is a valid fetish that is often invoked in some stories and has been directly referenced or alluded to, especially in anime, that not having an article on it would be a bit odd to say the least.

I agree making sure the examples listed should be free of perverts using it get themselves off, but mentioning when it shows up in a work in a objective, factual manner, while autistic, is mostly harmless.
 
GethN7 said:
Fair point, but let me point out even pizza can be a plot point. Say, one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles suddenly starts hating the thought of eating pizza and tries to avoid it. Since eating pizza is an omnipresent thing they all do, this would be a big tip off something is really wrong.

So yeah, every time someone eats pizza being catalogued would be silly, but when it becomes a relevant plot point because the not eating of pizza is significant, then it becomes relevant.

You argue, not wrongly, that superfluous mentions of "Zettai Ryouiki" are a bad thing to add, and I find it a credible argument.

Your other point, though, specifically the one about "attracting an unpleasant crowd to the article", I going to have to partially disagree.

Yes, the creeps who write about their masturbation fantasies need to be told to cut it out or be thrown out, no question from me here. However, I do need to point out the trope is a valid fetish that is often invoked in some stories and has been directly referenced or alluded to, especially in anime, that not having an article on it would be a bit odd to say the least.

I agree making sure the examples listed should be free of perverts using it get themselves off, but mentioning when it shows up in a work in a objective, factual manner, while autistic, is mostly harmless.
Click to expand...

Then it's not about the pizza at all, now is it?
 
GethN7 said:
Amen, brother.

And yes, it does have a trope for it:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Conversational_Troping

But even then, doing it to the level some of these idiots do is just utterly foolish.



Fair point, but let me point out even pizza can be a plot point. Say, one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles suddenly starts hating the thought of eating pizza and tries to avoid it. Since eating pizza is an omnipresent thing they all do, this would be a big tip off something is really wrong.

So yeah, every time someone eats pizza being catalogued would be silly, but when it becomes a relevant plot point because the not eating of pizza is significant, then it becomes relevant.

You argue, not wrongly, that superfluous mentions of "Zettai Ryouiki" are a bad thing to add, and I find it a credible argument.

Your other point, though, specifically the one about "attracting an unpleasant crowd to the article", I going to have to partially disagree.

Yes, the creeps who write about their masturbation fantasies need to be told to cut it out or be thrown out, no question from me here. However, I do need to point out the trope is a valid fetish that is often invoked in some stories and has been directly referenced or alluded to, especially in anime, that not having an article on it would be a bit odd to say the least.

I agree making sure the examples listed should be free of perverts using it get themselves off, but mentioning when it shows up in a work in a objective, factual manner, while autistic, is mostly harmless.
Click to expand...

I specified "for the most part" for that reason. It is possible that eating pizza could be a plot point, as could costumes or any number of other things, but for the most part those things aren't massively important.

I really don't think there are "valid fetishes" when it comes to cataloguing fiction, unless you're talking about porn, which is banned from TV Tropes in the first place, at least in theory. Fetishes aren't tropes. If you're going to have articles on fetishes, then you're going to need one on inflation for the scene in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where Violet gets turned into a blueberry.

There's probably one already.
 
Pointless Pedant said:
I specified "for the most part" for that reason. It is possible that eating pizza could be a plot point, as could costumes or any number of other things, but for the most part those things aren't massively important.

I really don't think there are "valid fetishes" when it comes to cataloguing fiction, unless you're talking about porn, which is banned from TV Tropes in the first place, at least in theory. If you're going to have articles on fetishes, then you're going to need one on inflation for the scene in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where Violet gets turned into a blueberry.

There's probably one already.
Click to expand...

Unlike TV Tropes, ATT does allow those types of articles on works like hentai games and the like due to our refusal to censor ourselves excepted when required by law.

However, even if we do cover a work with themes of that nature, we have a rule of iron: Stick to the facts, don't use the article to jack yourself off.

Yours truly even makes a point of patrolling articles of that nature to make sure that rule is obeyed.

To paraphrase my colleague Brent on this issue, works with sex and even porn are part of the human condition, for good or ill, and when it's possible to write an article about their contents, they are just as valid a work as any other media, as long as the authors behind it remember to not write it with one hand.
 
GethN7 said:
Unlike TV Tropes, ATT does allow those types of articles on works like hentai games and the like due to our refusal to censor ourselves excepted when required by law.

However, even if we do cover a work with themes of that nature, we have a rule of iron: Stick to the facts, don't use the article to jack yourself off.

Yours truly even makes a point of patrolling articles of that nature to make sure that rule is obeyed.

To paraphrase my colleague Brent on this issue, works with sex and even porn are part of the human condition, for good or ill, and when it's possible to write an article about their contents, they are just as valid a work as any other media, as long as the authors behind it remember to not write it with one hand.
Click to expand...

That puts a different perspective on it. If your remit includes pornography, then having articles on fetishes makes sense, though I still think it will inevitably attract an unsavoury crowd.

TV Tropes' remit, though, doesn't include pornography, so it shouldn't include fetishes either. But it still does anyway.
 
Pointless Pedant said:
That puts a different perspective on it. If your remit includes pornography, then having articles on fetishes makes sense, though I still think it will inevitably attract an unsavoury crowd.

TV Tropes' remit, though, doesn't include pornography, so it shouldn't include fetishes either. But it still does anyway.
Click to expand...

The problem you are referring to is partly administrative, and partly because their own censorship policy forces them to walk a nigh impossible line.

The first problem is hard to fault them for. It's a huge site with tons of traffic and it's hard to police all their users all the time.

The second is an unfortunate result of how they are forced to bend the knee to advertisers so they have to censor themselves after a point. It's a constant balancing act because they have make very sure not to step over the line, but the advertisers have not, to date, given very clear guidelines on what is allowable outside of a few obvious guidelines, so all that gray area on what can be posted is constantly being revised, and the first issue of how hard it is to police a site with their numbers does not help much.
 
GethN7 said:
The problem you are referring to is partly administrative, and partly because their own censorship policy forces them to walk a nigh impossible line.

The first problem is hard to fault them for. It's a huge site with tons of traffic and it's hard to police all their users all the time.

The second is an unfortunate result of how they are forced to bend the knee to advertisers so they have to censor themselves after a point. It's a constant balancing act because they have make very sure not to step over the line, but the advertisers have not, to date, given very clear guidelines on what is allowable outside of a few obvious guidelines, so all that gray area on what can be posted is constantly being revised, and the first issue of how hard it is to police a site with their numbers does not help much.
Click to expand...

Some of the censorship was utterly ridiculous, like deleting the Lolita article because it referenced paedophilia, but I think some of the changes they made were a good idea. I remember years ago they had a load of articles about how rape was okay if it was ___, which would quite understandably put people off. I checked recently and none of those articles are there anymore.
 
Pointless Pedant said:
Some of the censorship was utterly ridiculous, like deleting the Lolita article because it referenced paedophilia, but I think some of the changes they made were a good idea. I remember years ago they had a load of articles about how rape was okay if it was ___, which would quite understandably put people off. I checked recently and none of those articles are there anymore.
Click to expand...

The first item you mention was when Fast Eddie panicked and started putting everything that even mentioned the topic to the bonfire, that was ridiculous.

As for the rape articles, they were still eventually kept, just sanitized and renamed to Double Standard: (Insert the double standard here), which was a good move because some works tend to treat rape as laugh-worthy even when it shouldn't be while treating it seriously other times.

As an interesting aside, the articles were still retained in some form, ironically, because complaints from the feminist crowd that TV Tropes was trying to pretend rape doesn't happen at all in fiction.
 
Last edited:
img_0717.JPG

This is somehow considered "nightmare fuel"
 
Baldur's Gait said:
It's been years since I browsed the Nightmare Fuel section at TV Tropes, but the thing I'll never forget is how easily scared most of them were; most of the shit they listed there barely qualified as scary.
Click to expand...
The worst part is most of it's "Fridge Horror", meaning it's only scary if you overthink it way beyond anything the writers intended. Their cartoon sections for Nightmare Fuel are rife with this.
 
Replicant Sasquatch said:
The worst part is most of it's "Fridge Horror", meaning it's only scary if you overthink it way beyond anything the writers intended. Their cartoon sections for Nightmare Fuel are rife with this.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, I've found the Fridge sections on that site to be cancerous. So many times it's filled with stuff that's purely speculation better suited for the WMG section, or saying things that were outright spelled out.
 
Positron said:
Where did "fridge" in "fridge horror" come from anyway? The term is not intuitive (as if one should expect otherwise), and the top Google results are all from TV Tropes.
Click to expand...

It's supposed to mean when you go to the fridge during the commercial, i.e.: it's something you only realize upon reflection.

Edit: Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "Icebox Scene" for stuff that leaves you wondering when you're not watching the show. The Fridge tropes take inspiration from that.
 
Last edited:
SuperSheep said:
It's supposed to mean when you go to the fridge during the commercial, i.e.: it's something you only realize upon reflection.

Edit: Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "Icebox Scene" for stuff that leaves you wondering when you're not watching the show. The Fridge tropes take inspiration from that.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's basically in the same vein as a shower thought. The horror of what you watched doesn't resonate immediately. It "clicks" in the much the same way as the light in your fridge turning on when you go get a soda during the commercial.
 
There are way too many tropes that do nothing but make anyone seeing them think "what the fuck is this even supposed to mean?"
 
AnOminous said:
There are way too many tropes that do nothing but make anyone seeing them think "what the fuck is this even supposed to mean?"
Click to expand...

Especially since some of them are apparently named after references to TGWTG reviewers, because those aren't dated at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom