Well, you responded to me, so I guess I should return the favor.
"(1) I guess it's not a bad thing to point out that TV Tropes is not a Safe Space. I've dealt with that here and there, including here. But, yes, it's not a Safe Space. It's a space that is pretty openly not self-policing, which means that there are some really incredibly good members who fight the good fight and there are some bad members who leave their mess everywhere and there is a lot of in-between. So I guess that bears repeating, thank you."
Sorry for missing it. But why aren't the bad members, some of whom advocate (child) rape, banned? Doesn't that deserve policing, self or otherwise?
"(2) However. There is a big difference between X site has some dreadful people and X site systemically encourages dreadful people. For instance, years ago I actually read through all the Something Awful Hentai reviews in an attempt to work them into a paper for a college class I sadly ended up dropping. I recall that the Hentai reviews were hugely popular on the Something Awful site. I wouldn't say that all of the SAers wanted Hentai reviews because they got an illicit thrill reading about the Hentai that the reviewer(s) chose to review, but I'll bet at least a few of them did and I'll bet a few of them posted comments that were not appropriate on the topic. I'm guessing. Does that make SA a horrible place or does it mean that it has some horrible people on it? It probably depends on one's perspective."
And that's one of the fundamental differences between SA and TV Tropes. On SA, when horrible people post horrible things, they get called out and banned. And on TV Tropes, as I mentioned earlier, when horrible people post horrible things, anyone who calls them out gets banned.
"(3) Having said that, quite a few of those links are exceedingly problematic and say more about the topic starter than TV Tropes. Quite a few of the arguments presented "against" TV Tropes are the bog-standard insults of people online, e.g., that people who are online are unattractive, lack social skills, never leave the house, and therefore should be mocked."
Well, I can't defend that, but that's just the SA thread. Try the This Troper videos, which are just people reading things tropers have posted. An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecS77xIWoNQ
The first entry is a self-proclaimed "misogynist sadist" talking about the pleasure he (I'm assuming it's a he) gets when he sees women hurt. If this isn't deserving of condemnation (and yes, mockery), what is?
"I'm not on board with that, and anyone reading this can consider this post a retroactive TRIGGER WARNING: BODY POLICING for at least a couple of those links."
I'll edit it in.
"Nor am I on board with judging quite a few of those quotes as anything problematic at all! For instance, I sympathize with the TV Troper who mentioned struggling with a reactionary "hit back" reflex when people, including small children, strike zem. That quote does not make TV Tropes a bad place nor zem a bad person, and actually says more about the Something Awfuler that felt that was damning evidence for their thread."
There's one hell of a difference between "a reactionary 'hit back' reflex when people, including small children, strike [you]" and a reflex to CHOKESLAM A TODDLER. If a small child hit me, I too would have to suppress an urge to hit back. If a toddler hit me, I doubt I'd even feel much pain or the urge to retaliate. I certainly would not feel the same urge as the troper, which is apparently to take a two-year old and GRAB HIR BY THE NECK, LIFT HIR UP, AND SLAM HIR TO THE FLOOR. I'm sorry, but that quote does make that troper a bad person, and it says a lot about TV Tropes that nobody called said troper out on it.
"Anyway, those are my two cents. I agree that TV Tropes is not actively a Safe Space, certainly no more than Something Awful."
Again, Something Awful bans horrible people and deletes horrible things. TV Tropes bans people who call out horrible people and horrible things, and allows them to continue being horrible until external pressure fores the admins to ban or delete them.
Exhibit A: The "Stalker With a Crush" troper tales page. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsLewMsZlLU
) It features tropers talking about the various people they've stalked, which is both extremely disturbing and probably illegal. (The stalking, not the page.) The video was uploaded on March 9, 2011, meaning the page was created then at the latest. Troper Tales was deleted August 14, 2011.
That page was left alone for FIVE MONTHS, maximum. Nobody in the administration looked at it and thought it should be deleted.
Exhibit B: Shichibukai. He once posted this:
"The question comes up regularly over here: 'Is Eastern Europe ready for immigration yet?' It is demanded of every country in Europe and America that it literally change its complexion, that they bring in tens of millions of third world immigrants.
This question is never asked of Japan or Taiwan or South Korea, but it is demanded of equally crowded European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium.
No one mentions the reason because we all know it: Europe and America are a majority white.
It is an automatic demand made on ONLY white countries. Massive third world immigration and assimilation is a demand made on ALL white countries.
The cry is 'Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, and white countries for EVERYBODY!'
Answer honestly, people: do you agree or disagree with the principle of retaining White majorities in Europe, North America, and Australasia? If so, would you support measures to block immigration and curb non-White demographics if the White majority risked becoming a minority? Do you agree or disagree with any race having the right to retain a majority in its homeland?"
Everything above that line was a quote from a white supremacist website, and he is on record as having posting similar racist sentiments as early ago as July. He was not banned until October.
EXHIBITS C AND D: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KodomoNoJikan
Exhibit C is, to quote the OP of the third SA thread, "an anime about a pedophile who teaches school for a bunch of ten year olds. There is fan service, AKA inappropriate panty shots and little girls repeatedly asking to have sex." Someone thought this pedophile wank material deserved a page on TV Tropes, and no mods have a problem with it.
Exhibit D is a webcomic focused around a group of women who get tortured and murdered over and over. It is designed to be masturbated to. The SA thread again:
"Yup, this comic where a teenage girl gets shot over and over in the breasts and the camera lingers on the urine running out of the cameltoe in her skintight leotard as she dies sure deserves to be on our wiki!
What's that? You want to say something negatiive about it? GET OUT, TROLL.
The only tropes under the "Your Mileage May Vary" tab are someone describing MISOGYNIST MURDER PORN as having 'rounded characters' and 'tear jerker' moments. The gallery on the guy's website is just women getting raped and murdered, usually at the same time, and not one single word of the TV tropes entry says anything bad about this goddamn piece of human filth who drew this. When someone on the discussion page asked why they had a page for fucking MURDER PORN, someone else said that 'it's art, and it's not for everyone.' Looking at the page history one person added in that it was offensive and that if you got off to women being shot in the head while having sex you were gross, and it was removed for being flame bait."
To hell with No Such Thing as Notability, these works should not have pages.
Call me judgmental, but I think allowing the horrors on that site to fester and not removing them until external pressure forces you to is a Very Bad Thing.
(EDIT: Crap, I can't edit in the trigger warnings. Getting an account so this doesn't happen again. My sincerest apologies to anyone who was triggered by this post.)
TRIGGER WARNINGS: RACISM, MISOGYNY, STALKING, RAPE, PEDOPHILIA, GURO, PROBABLY OTHER HORRORS