You are misreading the trope description, but in a way that is very easy to do. The part you are talking about is about two links being made: One link between gay and pedophile, and one link between sadomasochist and bad person.
In the interest of avoiding confusion, I'm changing "(in this case pedophile or generally bad person)" to "(in these cases "pedophile" and "generally bad person" respectively)". That ought to make it clearer that we are still talking about two distinct tropes.
But I think that putting pedophile next to "generally bad person" reinforces negative and highly stigmatizing stereotypes against pedophiles.
Reinforcing negative and highly stigmatizing stereotypes is not a priority here.
The example is about two tropes. Messing that up on purpose for no reason other than "reinforces negative and highly stigmatizing stereotypes"... WTF?
I don't think we should make this a self-demonstrating article. And if we should, we shouldn't half-ass it.
Okay, more seriously, though? If you're a pedophile, that's bad. And if you're going to argue that it's not, then there's something wrong with you.
All the examples here boil down to a) one really crazy Catholic guy and b) people parodying or complaining about this kind of people. I'm not convinced that this is something else but a troper filibuster.
Hide / Show Replies
a) Jack Chick is Evangelical, not Catholic.
b) It is true that this trope is often used for satire. This mean one thing, and this one thing only: That it should be included on the Stock Parodies index. Adding it there now.
"With the last two tropes, it comes in the form of deciding that everyone who have quality X also has the unrelated quality Y. This line of thinking easily leads to an Abomination Accusation Attack. "
The prototypical example of this is pedophilia. Having a quality X (pedophilia) is completely unrelated to being a bad person or criminal in general. Reducing a person to his sexuality is pretty bad, right?
Hide / Show Replies