TV Tropes jumps the shark

[Matar]

You're implying that paedophile means someone who causes harm and commits crimes. But it just means someone who's attracted to children - they're not any more likely to harm children than the rest of us are to harm adults. You hear more about the ones who do, though, because it's not something you'd want to make public (and "YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER" sells newspapers like nothing else).

This is true, and I'm well aware of this. I apologize for not being clear enough.

That we agree on, I never said it was. I specifically said Call of Duty is a subset of games about military combat (aka military combat games).

I just misunderstood you. Although I'm not really sure why you mentioned that, as that wasn't what I was asking. You'll have to understand my confusion on the matter.

It's related to pedophila (that is, the state of being attracted to children), which distrubs some/many/most (choose whichever you find most accurate) people.

In the same sense that GTA is related to murder, yes. That is to say, vaguely.

Again, I'm not defending child molesters. But lolicon doesn't hurt children, it doesn't make people child molesters, and it shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against. There are plenty of things that we find distasteful or can't understand. But that doesn't make them -wrong-.

And provided examples/possibly links of them.

We don't really know that, do we? They were taken down after all. And even -if- they linked to lolicon hentai (which I find unlikely, as linking to porn is against rules of that website as far as I know), the links should be taken down. Not the whole article.

[Traab]

This is true, and I'm well aware of this. I apologize for not being clear enough.



I just misunderstood you. Although I'm not really sure why you mentioned that, as that wasn't what I was asking. You'll have to understand my confusion on the matter.



In the same sense that GTA is related to murder, yes. That is to say, vaguely.

Again, I'm not defending child molesters. But lolicon doesn't hurt children, it doesn't make people child molesters, and it shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against. There are plenty of things that we find distasteful or can't understand. But that doesn't make them -wrong-.



We don't really know that, do we? They were taken down after all. And even -if- they linked to lolicon hentai (which I find unlikely, as linking to porn is against rules of that website as far as I know), the links should be taken down. Not the whole article.

Which basically agrees with an earlier post I made a few pages back. Since terms like lolicon ARE legitimate tropes used in manga and other japanese anime, the best way to handle that and other potentially inappropriate terms is, define the trope, provide a list of media that uses said trope, and provide no links to images. That way those who want to avoid said tropes can, and those looking for them have a list they can use. No porn is posted or linked to, and everything is fine. Objecting to that would be like refusing to post ads on a site with a dictionary on it, as it has the word "sex" in it, and is therefore porn.

[Reverent-One]

I just misunderstood you. Although I'm not really sure why you mentioned that, as that wasn't what I was asking. You'll have to understand my confusion on the matter.

Fair enough, I should have been more thorough in my point. What I meant by that is that we can say that Call of Duty is a subset of military combat games, because they're both things, your original analogy compared a thing (a video game specifically) to an action (military combat or murder), which makes no sense. It's also not equivalent to what I was doing, which is comparing one concept to another concept.

In the same sense that GTA is related to murder, yes. That is to say, vaguely.

Again, I'm not defending child molesters. But lolicon doesn't hurt children, it doesn't make people child molesters, and it shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against. There are plenty of things that we find distasteful or can't understand. But that doesn't make them -wrong-.

Again, you're acting as if pedophila (paedophila?) is the act of hurting children, otherwise your video game analogies would be irrelevant. Since it's just being attracted to children, being attracted to a certain sort of children (girls for loli, boys for shota) is directly related to it, simply from a definitional standpoint. Someone who is a lolicon (if we're using it to describe a character type) is a pedophile by definition.

We don't really know that, do we? They were taken down after all. And even -if- they linked to lolicon hentai (which I find unlikely, as linking to porn is against rules of that website as far as I know), the links should be taken down. Not the whole article.

And the Lolicon article is still up.

[Matar]

Again, you're acting as if pedophila (paedophila?) is the act of hurting children, otherwise your video game analogies would be irrelevant. Since it's just being attracted to children, being attracted to a certain sort of children (girls for loli, boys for shota) is directly related to it, simply from a definitional standpoint. Someone who is a lolicon (if we're using it to describe a character type) is a pedophile by definition.

Again, calling someone a lolicon can mean that they're attracted to real children, fake children, or both. So yes, A lolicon is a pedophile but they don't -have- to be. Plently of people enjoy lolicon but are not interested in looking at real naked kids.

Compare to watching an R-Rated movie. I would not want to see someone murdered in real life, even if I take no part in it. But -fake depictions of murder is not the same as seeing someone get murdered-.

Same thing with lolicon. Depictions of fake kids in sexual situations is not the same as actually watching a real child get molested. Ones fake and hurts no one, the other is real and can ruin someones life.

And the Lolicon article is still up.

And both inaccurate and extremely judgmental. Also, Kodomo No Jikan is still down. And who knows what else.

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.

[Prime32]

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.

They're probably just too obscure for anyone to have thought of them.

[OracleofWuffing]

And both inaccurate and extremely judgmental. Also, Kodomo No Jikan is still down. And who knows what else.

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.

From what I can see, the blank sweep was on anything that was listed in TVTrope's "Hentai Index." If the page was listed there, it was blanked, if it wasn't listed there, it may have been avoided. Since Lolicon gets used outside of Hentai, I could see it not being listed in the Hentai Index.

That said, you can see Google's Content Policy for Adsense here. For what its worth, that policy uses a broad enough definition of pedophilia that all of your examples of lolicon fall under that topic.

[Reverent-One]

Again, calling someone a lolicon can mean that they're attracted to real children, fake children, or both. So yes, A lolicon is a pedophile but they don't -have- to be. Plently of people enjoy lolicon but are not interested in looking at real naked kids.

I'm not sure the definitions of either distiguish between being attracted to real children, fake children, or both.

Compare to watching an R-Rated movie. I would not want to see someone murdered in real life, even if I take no part in it. But -fake depictions of murder is not the same as seeing someone get murdered-.

Same thing with lolicon. Depictions of fake kids in sexual situations is not the same as actually watching a real child get molested. Ones fake and hurts no one, the other is real and can ruin someones life.

And some/many/most people find them similarly disturbing.

And both inaccurate and extremely judgmental.

Hmm, I can agree it should probably be changed to more like the Shotacon article, which is more neutral and analytical.

Also, Kodomo No Jikan is still down.

No idea that that is.

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a LOT of stuff on TV tropes, if you feel there's something they've missed, report it to them.

[Soras Teva Gee]

No idea that that is.

Here you go.

[Reverent-One]

Here you go.

I see, look like something that's ok to stick around, someone actually on TV tropes should probably bring that up in their thread about reinstating closed pages to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

[Seraph]

I see, look like something that's ok to stick around, someone actually on TV tropes should probably bring that up in their thread about reinstating closed pages to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

It has been brought up.

repeatedly.

in every case, it is immediately shot down as being "pedosh*t," and in one case one of the people on the "impartial council" supposed to JUDGE these things referred to it directly as "pedosh*t no fapfapfap."

[Avilan the Grey]

Oh? How would you describe them then? Are they not about military combat? It's a first person shooter, set during a war, and you're a member of a military force, so I'm not sure what other sort of game it could be.

Ah, but the question you agree to is if you see a combat game as an equal of ACTUAL COMBAT. That is a VERY weird way of looking at things.

Edit: I am definitely split on the Lolicon thing. One one hand I hate the whole censorship thing. On the other hand this has always creeped me out to no end.

[Reverent-One]

Ah, but the question you agree to is if you see a combat game as an equal of ACTUAL COMBAT. That is a VERY weird way of looking at things.

Notice the clarifing statement I make about it. Still, as I said to Matar, I should have been more detailed.

It has been brought up.

repeatedly.

in every case, it is immediately shot down as being "pedosh*t," and in one case one of the people on the "impartial council" supposed to JUDGE these things referred to it directly as "pedosh*t no fapfapfap."

And looking in the thread and seeing this about it:

The story is about a schoolchild trying to a seduce a teacher with another adult character trying to seduce the schoolchild. It also features a scene in which a child is explictly masturbating with a shower head.

I take back my guess that it would be alright. I did not get that from the wiki page.

[Tvtyrant]

Has here been any discussion about simply splitting off the sections that google finds offensive into a separate website?

[TARDIS]

Jegus... I don't know who to be more annoyed over with this revelation - Google, the company that pulled out of China because they couldn't deal with communist censorship; or TVTropes, which was supposed to be a place where political correctness took a back seat to what is actually out there in modern culture. Good job, both of you, you have my slowclap of disapproval...

And the unfortunate thing is I can't really protest TVTropes like I have Google... while I've moved over to using Bing as my primary search engine and have always used Yahoo for almost everything else that Google provides (other than YouTube), there really is no alternative to TVTropes - Wikipedia and individual show wikis might come close, but they don't have anywhere near the same discovery potential.

Please note, this is coming from a prude who would personally be fine with reducing the pr0n on the interwebs, but who understands that others are less inclined to agree. This is more about the principal of what TVTropes is doing than the action itself.

Mind you, renaming some of the sexual assault-related tropes probably wasn't a bad idea. Nowhere near the level of nixing Colonel Makepeace or Jonas Quinn *gripe gripe gripe*

[Seraph]

I take back my guess that it would be alright. I did not get that from the wiki page.

I've never read KnJ, but neither have you, so we seem to be on a level playing field.

The impression I have always been given about Kodomo No Jikan is deliberately written subversively, not unlike Hard Candy but without the moral-guardian-satisfying sequence of the pedophile being physically and psychologically tortured. From what I understand, the entire point of the manga is that the adult in the situation is having an extended nervous breakdown because he is aware of being attracted to a preteen and is very unhappy with that fact.

Again, I haven't read it, but considering the Author is a woman, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that it exists purely for masturbatory purposes.

[Reverent-One]

Given their stance on the matter though, unless that poster was outright lying, it crosses their line of appropriate material for indexing, whatever the author's intent was.

[willpell]

Has here been any discussion about simply splitting off the sections that google finds offensive into a separate website?

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

[Pokonic]

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

Well, a entire section (Like the Darthwiki) of the site could be dedicated to the stuff that perhapes would not normaly in the regular page, so you realy could not be excused for not clicking on the page and finding yourself face-to-face with the Sex tropes.

[Elm11]

no, the advertising pays for the site, which is what all of this started over. In fact, there are rumors that if anything, Fast Eddie uses the surplus admoney as personal income, which is why he was so eager to fold like a leaf in the face of google's complaints.

No, the advertising most certainly does not 'pay' for the site. FastEddie pays for the site, and he uses the advertising as a means to ensure that he personally doesn't go broke paying for the site. Furthermore, I don't believe you have any evidence at all that Fast Eddie is using surplus to bolster his wallet, so you'd do well to provide some. In other words - [CITATION NEEDED].

considering the incredibly condescending language used in the new wiki pages, as well as the mass, hivemind use of the phrase "pedo****" in the forums to label and decry everything they don't like, no. No, person A has not learned ****, and they appear to be gaining a support base.

The Wikia pages were made by users, not the admin. In case you'd forgotten, Person A was the admin removing pages, not a contributor spamming expletives. I'm not prepared to make any comment on the state of the contributors that visit TVtropes, only that the admin is clearly cleaning up it's mistakes, which you seem to be disregarding in favour of railing on them for having made the mistakes in the first place.

You are. What I am saying is that the assumption that just because you have a fetish, you are also perverse, is making me angry.

I apologise if I gave the impression that everyone who has a fetish is perverse, because that certainly wasn't intended. I did, however, imply that I believe some fetishes are most certainly perverse, and while it's true that nobody is being hurt directly by the sharing of upskirt shots of young girls from animated shows, I am making the moral call that no good can come of it. You like feet? Fine by me. Nothing wrong with liking feet. It's simply my subjective opinion that not all fetishes are the same - some are perfectly acceptable, and I couldn't give a hoot about them. Others, however, sicken me, and I do believe that people with those fetishes are, if not perverse, at the very least in need of a good talking to.

By that logic Call of Duty is bother a subset of military combat and also a subset of murder.

Military combat has never been considered murder by mainline historians, ethicists, etc. But we are straying kind've close to real-world politics, so let's avoid that particular issue completely.

Again, calling someone a lolicon can mean that they're attracted to real children, fake children, or both. So yes, A lolicon is a pedophile but they don't -have- to be. Plently of people enjoy lolicon but are not interested in looking at real naked kids.

Okay, this, I have serious issues with. Combat games are a far cry from warfare - most of them are unrealistic, and you can't simply step outside after playing a combat game, say 'Wow, I really feel like shooting up X', then go shoot up X because there's a war going on next door. Lolicon, on the other hand, is no far cry at all from paedophilia. If someone enjoys looking at animated/drawn/whatever pictures of naked little girls, they're only a few short clicks away from looking at real pictures of naked little girls, which, If I'm not mistaken, is both morally bankrupt and a felony.

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

I think this might be the best result for all involved. I don't care in the slightest for that kind of thing to be on TVtropes, but personally, I couldn't care less, since it won't bother me unless I'm dumb enough to go looking for them. At the same time, if people care so greatly about the existance of hentai-tropes that they're prepared to raise such a big stink about their removal, perhaps the situation could be solved if those people went elsewhere for those particular tropes, and TVtropes could be made properly 'family friendly'.

Of course, at the same time, Tropes doesn't need to be family friendly, and I'm not necessarily for it becoming so. It seems the only point I agree with many people here on is that political correctness is meant to come second. I'm not in favour of seeing the site completely devoid of swear-words and mature themes, but I draw a big, clearly defined line between 'mature themes' and those I consider morally bankrupt. Things like paedophilia are most certainly morally bankrupt, and I'm afraid I'm not prepared to hear any defence of them. Things like violent games that involve murder may or may not be - it really depends on the person.

In fact, technically the same is arguable for 'lolicon' etc. Some people may just enjoy looking at naked little girls who are drawn, and may be wonderful people otherwise... I'm sure...

In all seriousness, there most certainly are people who enjoy lolicon but are perfectly normal human beings (I should hope the vast majority of cases), sure as there are people who play violent videogames and are influenced (like raging, screaming twelve year olds, who've apparently had more intimate moments with my mother than I'd care to count).

In the event that these acceptable people get upset because their unacceptable fetish is no longer allowed on a respectable site, it's their responsibility, not the site's, to look elsewhere for their fetish material. If that means they leave the community, then so be it. If good people are doing something bad, don't expect more good people to cover for it.

[Seraph]

No, the advertising most certainly does not 'pay' for the site. FastEddie pays for the site, and he uses the advertising as a means to ensure that he personally doesn't go broke paying for the site. Furthermore, I don't believe you have any evidence at all that Fast Eddie is using surplus to bolster his wallet, so you'd do well to provide some. In other words - [CITATION NEEDED].

If I had proof I would be stating it as fact. I am calling it a rumor because I have heard it from multiple places but lack concrete proof.

in other words, learn vocabulary.

The Wikia pages were made by users, not the admin. In case you'd forgotten, Person A was the admin removing pages, not a contributor spamming expletives.

Person A is both. As in, The Admins are removing pages and spamming the phrase "pedosh*t" on the forums.

[Elm11]

If I had proof I would be stating it as fact. I am calling it a rumor because I have heard it from multiple places but lack concrete proof.

in other words, learn vocabulary.





Person A is both. As in, The Admins are removing pages and spamming the phrase "pedosh*t" on the forums.

Please don't insult my vocabulary, I don't appreciate ad-hominem attacks.

Furthermore, examination of evidence is the greater part of good history, and I can start pulling rumours out of the air with no evidence too. The problem is that you're providing only the rumours that suit your ends - to make out Fast Eddie and the admin staff as the next Mussolini. I've done my best to criticise my own arguments, and I've been very careful not to waste time with rumours and speculation. After all, unless someone on the admin staff or very close to Fast-Eddie has been leaking information, the only logical origin of these rumours will be someone going 'Hey, I bet you FastEddie is pocketing the excess money for himself!' and somebody else later saying 'So I hear FastEddie is pocketing the excess money for himself.'.

[Tvtyrant]

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

I think it would certainly make more sense then mass extermeletion.

[Chen]

Has FastEddie ever said he's not taking the extra money? I mean I assume if its being run as a business the INTENT is to make money off it no? Why are we considering that a problem?

[Prof. Noname]

Okay, this, I have serious issues with. Combat games are a far cry from warfare - most of them are unrealistic, and you can't simply step outside after playing a combat game, say 'Wow, I really feel like shooting up X', then go shoot up X because there's a war going on next door. Lolicon, on the other hand, is no far cry at all from paedophilia. If someone enjoys looking at animated/drawn/whatever pictures of naked little girls, they're only a few short clicks away from looking at*real*pictures of naked little girls, which, If I'm not mistaken, is both morally bankrupt and a felony.

This...is a very nasty contradiction. So nasty that I would easily compare it to two, rocket fueled freight trains filled with dynamite and gasoline, roaring toward each other at twenty times the speed of sound. A contradiction so disgusting that when these two trains of thought collide, they make a horrible, glorious, burning explosion of anti-logic that is so common in arguments such as this. An explosion so great that God himself would step down from heaven, point at the burning mass and say in his booming voice:

“That's a contradiction.”

In all seriousness, and no real offense to you Mr. Elm11, this is the purest form of anti-logic I've seen in a while. There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even really know where to begin to take it apart. You've made such a huge leap in logic that I can never hope to understand how you got from point A to Xhosa in this. Do you have any sort of proof to back this statement up? Have you had any personal experience with this? Please tell me you're not just pulling this from the “This stuff is icky” part of your brain because seriously...that statement makes little sense. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm not trying to start a flame war but my goodness, just looking at this makes my head hurt.

Seriously, reread that paragraph, what I see here is this: You're trying to say that the typical army themed first person shooter; where the developers go out of their way to mimic real guns, real world locations, real world army wear, and graphics so good and realistic that the player can step inside the screen and indulge in the bullet slinging chaos in the notMiddle East...is somehow less realistic than a nasty smut comic starring a female with humungous bug eyes, disproportionately large head, and other warped proportions penned by a lonely Japanese man who thinks all real women are disgusting pigs and his ideal wife is from a show for 10-year-old girls. Not only is the army simulator less realistic, in all it's bloody, gritty, gun porn glory; but it's also less likely to make people shoot people with gun in real life than a bunch of lines on paper.

I really want you to sit down and think about this, neutrally. To me, using my logic and setting aside the fact that I'm not a fan of lolicon either, this statement makes no sense, none at all. I'd go as far to post this quote:

[...]At its most simplistic level, this argument is valid when conjoined with an absence of social conditioning and rational intelligence. In effect, the argument against lolicon only works if common sense is set aside. And if the argument against fictional depictions of child sexuality are applied, the same principles must also be applied to all art, sports, politics, and religion - concepts which all have a potential to desensitize and influence behavior.

[...]If a large number of people observed lolicon material then transformed into vicious sexual abusers, I would have to concede that lolicon is dangerous material with a harmful influence. However, that has never happened, and, I believe, never will happen. So I consider lolicon material no more “wrong” to enjoy than, say, a tall glass of beer - which also has a potential to influence behavior and is also restricted to consumption by only rational, responsible adults.

...Because your paragraph is a perfect example of what the above poster is talking about. It's so common in these sorts of arguments that it's baffling. Yes, the thought of pedos doing pedo things are icky. No, I would not suffer a child molester (note the use of a different term) to be let loose in society. I am well aware that defending children is a soft spot for most people in general, myself included. But even with all that, I am not the type to set aside my own common sense and thinking mind to go on a witch hunt for people who like cartoons I don't care for. I grew up, like many people here I would assume, knowing the difference between fantasy and reality, and that most people were smart enough to know this difference. The whole fiasco with video games cemented this.

Now, this comment is gotten pretty long, and it's more about the general issue of how lolicon material is treated rather than TVTrope's specific policy. Then again, I feel it's impossible to properly comment on that without going straight to the core of the issue, the anti-logic that makes it an issue in the first place. Many have stated that the issue is because of Google, but FastEddie and his partner's rather inflammatory statements, nazi-like banning of anyone who disagrees with them, and blind page deletion reveals a slightly different picture of the issue. Even if the team has put some pages back, the very fact that they were taken down is call for alarm, especially since those pages were only placed back up because of their popularity, not because it was proven that it didn't violate their own new policy. Not only that, but neutrally speaking, this new policy contradicts what the site was made for in the first place. It was meant to be a rather lighthearted and lax place to archive media and the certain properties said media shared. The “No such thing as notability” was a purely inclusive policy, meaning that it could be use to archive any sort of media. Even if you try to say that's not what the founder meant, that's how it was taken by the majority of users on the site, and the fact that the higher ups didn't discourage this justified the inclusion of non-TV media. (Video games, comic, webcomics, literature, music, fanfiction, etc.)

This new policy flies in the fact of “No such thing as notability”, as the only ones that are saved from the cut are things that are notable/popular. Furthermore, the claim that this is to make the site “family friendly” rings hollow, as the site is filled with profanity, tales of murder, rape, and other sorts of stuff that is hardly “family friendly”. As well, “removing perverts and undesirables” from the site rings just as hollow. Why is that, you may ask? Because if there is one thing that I've learned from the internet, it's that all media, even the most innocent and well meaning, has a bunch of perverts that like it. Getting rid of porn will not remove the perverts, because the perverts often don't come for works that are explicit. I can say, from very personal experience, that fans of risque works like Kodomo no Jikan are not even in the same ballpark of perversion as, say, fans of My Little Pony. The absolute most perverted folk I've seen online were fans of Pretty Cure, a Sailor Moon-like action show aimed at young girls. Getting rid of KnJ will do nothing about the multitude of fetishists that cling to kid's shows and write creepy stuff that got TVTropes it's bad reputation. This policy does nothing but show the site's owners to be huge hypocrites, and possibly lose it many, many users. The fact that their nuking any thread that mentions any descent of their new policy only makes them look worse. The only reason they have any support right now is because porn, especially of the cartoon sort, is a very easy target, and as shown in this thread, people have no problem denying that sort of stuff as “free speech”, not really realizing that this act flies in the face of the very concept of free speech.

This has gone on too long, and I would like to conclude. What I really want most from this site is to be both consistent and polite about it. If they want to make the site family friendly, do so across the board, including more popular works and the language used in the entries. If they're only doing this because of Google, either they should find another ad company, or they should have forewarned people before randomly deleting pages. Or better yet, make a specifically NSFW TVTropes spin-off for that sort of thing. As It is, FastEddie and his ilk are just being jerks and are in the wrong. I don't care if the victims of their wrongdoing are “undesirables”, wrong is wrong to me. I don't abide by bullying, and this is what I see this whole situation as. For those who read this whole thing, I thank you for considering my position. I would also like to reiterate that I am not attacking Elm11, simply his opinion. Have a nice day.

[Lord Raziere]

Darn it, Noname, now I wish this forum had a thank button for posts, caused I wanted to thank that post!

Why? Why doesn't it have a thank button!?

[Eerie]

So, is anyone saving the pages that are getting deleted? I think The Epic Rise and Fall of TVTropes should be preserved for future generations.

[Soras Teva Gee]

@Prof. Noname:

[Man on Fire]

Vaguely related to the problem and those who says there is no harm in banning articles featuring something erotic should really read it.

Anybody knows if they deleted Berserk's page?

[Elm11]

It's not often for someone on the internet to say they're beaten, and I'll not pretend that it doesn't hurt like a kick in the balls to do so, but well played. I really can't argue against most of your logic there, and I'm not the kind of person who goes on tugging at straws to pretend he's won when he hasn't.

I will, however, beg to disagree on the following statement:

This...is a very nasty contradiction. So nasty that I would easily compare it to two, rocket fueled freight trains filled with dynamite and gasoline, roaring toward each other at twenty times the speed of sound. A contradiction so disgusting that when these two trains of thought collide, they make a horrible, glorious, burning explosion of anti-logic that is so common in arguments such as this. An explosion so great that God himself would step down from heaven, point at the burning mass and say in his booming voice:


“That's a contradiction.”

In all seriousness, and no real offense to you Mr. Elm11, this is the purest form of anti-logic I've seen in a while. There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even really know where to begin to take it apart. You've made such a huge leap in logic that I can never hope to understand how you got from point A to Xhosa in this. Do you have any sort of proof to back this statement up? Have you had any personal experience with this? Please tell me you're not just pulling this from the “This stuff is icky” part of your brain because seriously...that statement makes little sense. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm not trying to start a flame war but my goodness, just looking at this makes my head hurt.

Seriously, reread that paragraph, what I see here is this: You're trying to say that the typical army themed first person shooter; where the developers go out of their way to mimic real guns, real world locations, real world army wear, and graphics so good and realistic that the player can step inside the screen and indulge in the bullet slinging chaos in the notMiddle East...is somehow less realistic than a nasty smut comic starring a female with humungous bug eyes, disproportionately large head, and other warped proportions penned by a lonely Japanese man who thinks all real women are disgusting pigs and his ideal wife is from a show for 10-year-old girls. Not only is the army simulator less realistic, in all it's bloody, gritty, gun porn glory; but it's also less likely to make people shoot people with gun in real life than a bunch of lines on paper.

I really want you to sit down and think about this, neutrally. To me, using my logic and setting aside the fact that I'm not a fan of lolicon either, this statement makes no sense, none at all. I'd go as far to post this quote:

First, I do find your opening metaphor both condescending and quite rude, and am offended by it. This is because I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of my statement. Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I meant, so I will attempt to clarify. If you wish, however, to debate, please be civil and avoid insults, intended or no. The best way to do this is to avoid emotive language.

Modern representations of violent videogames may be both explosive and glamorous, may be filled with, as you put it, 'gun porn' and may most certainly seem realistic, but they aren't. Combat, tactics, strategy and war as they appear in videogames in no way reflect (except in a few very rare cases, which are often classed as tactical simulators rather than games) those same conditions in real life. The argument that warlike games inspire people to commit acts of violence has been thrown around the world hundreds of times by the likes of disbarred lawyer Jack Thompson (The most famous opponent of video-games in this way), and research does exist (such as, for ease of reading, here) that violent videogames do correlate with increases in violence, but it's clear for all to see that the likes of call-of-duty do neither of the following:

Turn us all into rabid seriel killers, supersoldiers, terrorists etc.

or, much more importantly: Provide us with the means to undertake such acts of violence.

I don't live in a country like America, where guns are as common as daisies, so the means to commit acts may be present there where it is absent here, but it is the presence or absence of such means that I believe most conclusively seperates these violent games from fetishes such as lolicon. Because there is such a wide gap between acquiring firearms and having an internet connection, lolicon needs not provide any means which someone who is interested in drawn pictures of naked children would require to transition to real pictures of naked children. Since the above is a bit convoluted, allow me to summarize:

Playing CoD doesn't hand you a gun so you can murder people.
You don't need lolicon to 'hand' you anything to transition to something far, far worse.

Rather than making the same blanket statements which you decry in my post, please specify exactly what issue you find with the statement so that I might explain it more clearly.

Addressing the second half of your argument: As I stated in my opening, what you are arguing is largely irrefutable, and I see that I was misunderstood in my opinion that the admin has committed no wrongs in their reforming/cleaning of the site. Unfortunately, the points which you have so successfully conveyed are only some of those I have been arguing, and some of these have not been addressed. I can't be bothered typing out my opinions for the previous three pages, so I will simply summarize those points which I believe I am quite correct on:

The mods are not:
'Pure Evil', 'Louis XVI', Emperor Palpatine/Zerg for reforming the site. In other words, mistakes or no, they are still people and are undertaking these acts out of both convinience and necessity.

We, the users of TVtropes, do not have the right to:

A) Decry the admin for choosing to reform the site rather than change to different advertisers (for the myriad of reasons that have been displayed by various posters throughout the thread)

B) Pretend that our freedom of speech is paramount on a site which to which we contribute no tangible aid - we write on it, but we don't support it.

Furthermore:

I still believe the reactions of many people in this thread are both over-reactions and poorly informed.

I might as well add that I am concerned that people with views less valid and more radical than your own may see your above argument and believe that this immediately validates their own views, which may or may not be related at all to yours. As a result, I'd appreciate you laying out your viewpoint on the matter. Call me pedantic, but it drives me mad when:

-SNIPPED-

EDIT: In fact, to avoid beating around the bush, I'll say this.

Your arguments may have been logical, but those of some other people arguing against me have not been. It would be very disappointing if they pounce on your successfully refuting some of my statements and immediately presume that all of theirs must be right. Especially if such people have been constantly making use of straw-man arguments and emotive language and failing to address points that I don't believe them capable of accurately addressing. It frustrates me no end that some people are incapable of accepting logic.

[Traab]

Oh god this topic is gonna get locked so fast. Can you guys please drop disputes over whether or not looking at animated little girls nude means you like looking at living little girls nude, or at least take it to private messages?