Reply – Re: TV Tropes is actually a horrible place.
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: TV Tropes is actually a horrible place.
— by Brahman Brahman
AnaMardoll wrote
I'm really not sure why you are asking all this on my site and not, say, the TV Tropes site. I don't own the site, I just link to the trope pages as needed.
I felt that you wouldn't link to them if you knew the site had articles on pedophile anime and torture porn without condemning them, and banned all forms of criticism and negativity. Also, better people than me have tried to fix the site, and failed. Case in point.

AnaMardoll wrote
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?
Probably because "banning" on the site would be functionally meaningless, based on what little I know of the mechanics of the site. They don't even have classic accounts; they have a "cookie-me-up" system that lets you register a name and not much more. They don't even register an email address, so banning someone repeatedly would do nothing more than take up dozens/hundreds/thousands of names until they got tired of "re-registering", which takes less than 30 seconds to do. Many places choose not to ban trolls because they believe that doing so is enough of a response to encourage them to continue; I do not have enough insight into TV Tropes' administration decisions to guess if that's the case here, but considering it's a Wiki site, it wouldn't surprise me since that seems pretty standard for Wikis.
This was formerly the case, but now it's one account per IP. TV Tropes has banned racists like Shichibukai and pedophiles like Chagen46 before, why can't they keep it up? They haven't tried to come back.

AnaMardoll wrote
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.
I've never seen this happen, and the Something Awful threads you point to -- what I read of the opening posts, anyway -- don't link to this happening. On the threads I've been in, which is largely limited to the ginormous FATAL thread, people have been exceedingly quick to call out racism, sexism, etc. so it would seem that one's experience varies across the site. Again, Not A Safe Place, but that's a far jump to "actually a horrible place".
Not banned, perhaps, but thumped. Here's at least one example. This post was also thumped. There's probably more.

I didn't know the FATAL thread was like that. I just wish they were willing to apply that attitude to the racist and sexist tropers.

AnaMardoll wrote
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.
Here is the actual quote:

This troper has been faced with the dilemma of what to do when the child hits first. Due to being subjected to playground violence as a child, being hit by someone tends to make me react violently and instantly, without thinking. I'm in my early twenties now and have a niece who's a toddler that thinks she can get her way by hitting people who are much bigger and stronger than she is. It is exceedingly hard not to react violently back, but I do try not to give in to my urges to chokeslam her every time she hits me.
The "chokeslam" reads like sarcasm/exaggeration to me. If it doesn't to you, well, that's what the Your Mileage May Vary page is for. As for what you, personally, would or wouldn't feel the urge to do in reaction to being struck, well, that's why being hit is apparently not a *trigger* for you. It would not surprise me even in the least for someone with a trigger against being hit to feel an urge to strike out reflexively at a child. I'm not going to judge someone for having that urge, especially when they've very clearly stated that acting on the urge is something inappropriate that they are actively fighting against.

I want to reiterate that: I am not okay with calling anyone a bad person based solely on the basis of this quote. If you think that makes me a bad person, so be it, but that is my opinion.
You have a point there. I actually missed the bit where it was a trigger... that explains a lot.

AnaMardoll wrote
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.
So a site with thousands (if not millions at this point) pages at this point, which can be created and edited by anyone in the world with a single push of a button, and which is (as far as I know) administered entirely by an unpaid volunteer staff in their free time took five months to notice an objectionable thread and deleted it? That... actually seems like a pretty good reaction time to me.
Again, this is five months minimum. And even if no mods ran across it, why did none of the tropers object? None of them thought, "Hey, this is sick and wrong. Maybe it might be an invaluable resource, but our site's not for that, it's for playing with fiction."

AnaMardoll wrote
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.
Oh... so they do ban people after all. But it takes them... four months to do so? Again, it's a really big site. I'm not seeing this as a damning thing, I'm sorry.
Again, this was due to external pressure. Even ignoring this, there are tropers who deserve to be banned but aren't:

In a thread about forced sterilization, Pink Heart Chainsaw wrote
I am against the use of forced sterilization, simply because it can easily be corrupt. What I don't understand is why it's unreasonable to not want rape victims, idiots and the mentally insane to have children.
Does he get banned for advocating eugenics? No.

And there's a "holler" system for alerting the mods. Tropers should be willing to use it.

AnaMardoll wrote
If you look hard enough, there is/are rape apologetics and victim blaming in the comments on THIS site and I've not banned anyone yet. I suppose it'd be easy for someone on Something Awful to make a thread about how Dreadfully Awful my site is because I didn't ban someone who posts on a rape apologetics board, but to post such a thread would fail to take into account WHY I don't ban jerks willy-nilly. (I have my reasons, but to post them would take more time than I have at the moment.)
Do other commentators call these rape apologists and victim blamers out? If so, do you delete their comments because NO NEGATIVITY EVER GUYS?

If you allow non-jerks to tell jerks "your opinions on [X] are bad, and you should feel bad", then that puts you miles ahead of Fast Eddie.

chris the cynic wrote
So the first thing I see here is:
Well, I can't defend that, but that's just the SA thread.

Again, Something Awful bans horrible people and deletes horrible things.

There's something interesting about that.  Something Awful, the place you describe as indefensible, is being defended by you as not allowing horrible things.  I guess something can be indefensibly hurtful, hostile, wrong and triggering without being horrible.

Where exactly is the line drawn?  When does the indefensible become the horrible?
Poor word choice on my part. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be, "Well, if you don't approve of that, try This Troper."

chris the cynic wrote
It isn't my internet and the point of TV Tropes is not to create a place where only things I like show up.  TV Tropes is there to document everything.  Everything.  Everything includes a lot of stuff I don't like.  I would have been disappointed if I'd found that the Turner Diaries, the worst thing I've ever read, didn't have a page there.  (I just checked and it does, where it is pleasantly and correctly described as "a hate-filled and mean-spirited Author Tract".)
Then why isn't Kodomo no Jikan condemned for portraying pedophilia as acceptable and harmless? Or, to put it another way, why isn't The Turner Diaries simply described as being "not for everyone", like other works promoting pedophilia and rape?

In retrospect, you're right. I shouldn't be condemning the site for allowing these pages. But I will condemn them for denying criticism of them. I accept that there are people who are sexually aroused by children, murder, and mutilation, but I will not accept that I can't criticize it.

There are YMMV pages for all of these. Why can't we just put something like:

*SoBadItsHorrible: Some think this because of its portrayal of a kindergartener-teacher relationship as normal and healthy. YourMilageMayVary.
As you said, "If you sanitize things you erase the truth." That applies to works some might find disturbing, and it applies to criticism of them.

But since you're no doubt sick of tearing apart my half-assed arguments, I'll just summarize my main points in a clear and concise format (credit goes to Anne Beeche):

I feel TV Tropes is a horrible place because:

1. TV Tropes is governed on three principles: "No Such Thing as Notability" (everything deserves an article), "No Negativity" (no criticizing anything ever), and "Don’t Be a Dick" (no calling out racists and pedophiles.)
2. As a result of "No Such Thing As Notability", a lolicon hentai is considered just as worthy of documentation as Lolita. This wouldn’t be a problem, but…
3. As a result of "No Negativity", the lolicon hentai cannot be given the criticism it needs as a work fundamentally disturbed in its values. (Can we agree that sexualizing children is wrong? I hope so.)
4. "No Negativity" and "Don't Be a Dick" also allow people with seriously disturbed views on morals and humanity to voice their opinions largely unchecked.
5. Despite heaps of criticism from outside sources, the administration refuses to change.
If the admins were willing to:

A. Change "No Negativity" to "No Excessive Negativity, But Criticism is Fine"
B. Change "Don't Be a Dick" to "Don't Be a Dick, But Calling Out Racists, Pedophiles And Other Unsavory Folks Isn't Being a Dick"
C. Put "some people think these works are disgusting, others don't, YMMV" on KnJ/USAC/etc.'s pages

I would no longer consider TV Tropes a horrible place.


And IMO, if lurking the site, watching This Troper, reading the SA threads, and this blog haven't convinced you that, at the very least:
Anne Beeche wrote
TV Tropes itself is a good enough wiki, but it also has a great deal of completely unnecessary reputation-damaging baggage that come with the administration's attitude on notability, criticism and negativity. Only when this attitude changes will the wiki and community truly be able to improve. TV Tropes has been working at it a little, but it still has a long way to go.
then I doubt anything I could say will.

tl;dr: You've made some good points, but I still hate the site, and you guys still love it, so let's just agree to disagree. At least I've actually learned how to bring up good points rather than just going