Ask about it here? https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15186611420A39555800&page=109#2724
What exactly is this person in the religion section trying to say?
"Imagine you are the ruler of a town in ancient Sumeria. Or early-medieval Germany. Or even colonial America. At nearly any time and place, this is very physically close community (by necessity of anyone without a farm needing to take up as little space as possible), but also a relatively populous one, a hundred thousand people densely packed into a couple square miles of buildings. Now imagine there is a sudden plague of horrible, incurable disease, basically certain death without an easy method of cleaning and medicating, that is absolutely ravaging a handful of citizens, not so many that the town cannot push through, but with such hysterics going on it would be devastating to both it and you if you were to let this happen again. The local healers, doctors, etcetera, report only one constant among those dying: All of them are males that recently engaged in sodomy with another male. On only this knowledge and with every other citizen crying for someone to save the town from this wrath of God, what do you propose to do to prevent this from ever happening again?" (There is a note relating to the discovery and diagnosis of HIV hundreds of years later)
Are they trying to suggest that anti-gay rules in the Bible were justified? Were they trying to claim there were HIV outbreaks caused purely by people engaging in anal sex, as opposed to fluid contact with an infected person? Are they trying to claim that HIV outbreaks caused anti-gay laws in religious texts?
In any case, whatever this person is trying to argue, this isn't a page for Intolerance Apologism, and this entry doesn't fit the tone of most entries here. It doesn't compare it to anything for "its day", it just seems to try and justify the homophobia in religious texts. I may have misread, it's not entirely clear, but that's how it reads to me.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, Jesus, that's just straight up apologia for homophobia. Wow. Cut it.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I get that this is a subjective trope, but why do we even need this page? It essentially just describes how closely a work conforms to a particular, modern political viewpoint.
Hide / Show Replies
Well it doesn't just do that.
It tells you how and why, and what context creates this reaction. It's a way of cataloguing how works that are slightly dated and have Values Dissonance still are taught as School Study Media and still inspired others.
Maybe so, but it still reeks of Whig History - these works are to be praised because they happen to most closely align with a certain socio-political view that many Tropers happen to hold. It's sending a normative message - it's using language like "fair" and "enlightened", which in this context seems to mean that the view being presented (liberalism of some sort) is clearly and unproblematically supposed to be considered the best. What about, say, social conservatives, who might consider the "Fair For Their Day" works to be just the wrongheaded forerunners of the even more wrong-headed modern attitude?
Edited by Cantrop
My mum says I'm insidious
In the Star Trek entry, I deleted the bit about casting Ricardo Montalban as Khan being progressive, because, though this seems to be little-known, Montalban was white. He was born in Mexico, but his parents were white Spanish immigrants. The fact that in Space Seed he was wearing heavy, obvious brownface make-up and a bad black wig doesn't really help.
Edited by TheFuzzinator
I don't really get the Duke Nukem Forever example. It was panned for being misogynistic, generally awful, etc. but it's okay because it was stuck in Development Hell for fourteen years so it doesn't count? Seems weird to me. How can it be Fair for Its Day if it came out years after its day? The wording seems odd too. There was no reason they had to make him a misogynist Jerkass just so he could have a personality. He could have easily been made an interesting lead without all the sexism. I'm just not getting this one at all.
Does changing how an idea is expressed for the same result count for this trope?
Why was the Robotech example deleted? The person who deleted gave no reason.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here. Hide / Show Replies
I dunno, but the troper who removed it was banned back in May for unexplained deletions on YMMV pages. I'd say you are free to put it back in.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Would deliberate values dissonance be an inversion?
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence" Hide / Show Replies
No, the inversion would be that something which was considered unacceptable back in times it was made has now become acceptable.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Do you think this trope is related to Seinfeld Is Unfunny? It seems that way to me.
Hide / Show Replies
Technically it could be so. It's more like "To Kill a Mockingbird is Unrevolutionary"
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
Removed:
- Today Disney's The Little Mermaid is considered by some to be rather cringe-worthy, as its heroine is a girl who abandons her family and her home for a guy she hardly knows. At the time, though, Ariel was written by Disney to be a proactive girl, following after the more passive and demure Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora. She also was the first Disney princess to set out and win the heart of the guy she loved, rather than have him show up and carry her off. And she was also the first Disney princess to save the life of her prince, twice (not that doing so does her any favors).
Ariel expresses an obsession with going on dry land before meeting the prince. The prince just gives her the call to adventure to do something about it.
Question here:
In the context of film / literature / media in general, I definitely see that the restrictions of working within a censorship system can put *very* hard boundaries on exactly how "fair" a work can be, and thus, we should note those works which manage to subvert this even a little bit.
However, particularly in real life, I'm not particularly OK with calling stuff "fair for its day" if it didn't take a *significant* step outside the mainstream. Being a little more nice than normal isn't noteworthy. That is, the standard should be that a person at the time would remark that the work/act was quite unusual. A meta example: in a segregated society, running a restaurant that serves a single race is the norm. Having workers of a different race in that business isn't noteworthy. Even allowing them to eat in the restaurant after hours ISN'T "fair". Having a special sections where customers of each race could eat during normal business hours *might* qualify, depending on how rare in the society it was. Serving all races, but being preferential in treatment to certain ones (e.g. whites get served first, etc.) WOULD be "fair for its day"
There are a couple of examples in the Real Life that I'd like to erase, which illustrate my concerns:
The Iranian option of allowing homosexuals to gender flip rather than be executed is definitely NOT this trope. That's a punishment virtually identical in severity (it boils down to "chop off your genitals or we kill you"), and, while it is *slightly* less evil than death, it's certainly not a punishment that is in line with much of the rest of the world.
W/R/T slavery: tales of individuals treating their slaves better than the "work them to death" aren't this trope either. Large percentages of slaveowners (particularly in the North Americas and Old Europe, though less so in the Caribbean) in fact weren't sadists, and, while they considered their slaves property, they were *valuable* property to be taken care of with commensurate care. In order to qualify for this trope, IMHO, a slaveholder must have stepped very much outside the normal treatment zone, such as freeing them or providing them treatment close to normal freeman status.
Comments?
Hide / Show Replies
Agreed. In fact, I'm beginning to think that this whole page should be purged of examples.
An example cut would have to be offered in Trope Repair Shop. I'll offer it up in the Real Life section maintenance topic.
Edited by 82.130.73.35 "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Looks like a pedophile trying to normalize their evil got to this page. There's a few references to a "little girl lover" which I guess is pedo slang for child rape. I'll try to hack out all the references but seems discussion is in order for edits that big.
EDIT: Doing some more reading around the wiki and wondering if I'm supposed to flag this for review rather than do the edits myself?
Edited by Polynices Hide / Show Replies
You can go here to get help with further edits/ask people to go over the page.
Queen of Filks
The punctuation of the title is wrong. It should be "Fair for Its Day," not "It's". It's = It is, and Its is possessive. Can that please be fixed?
Hide / Show Replies
I cringed when I saw that. I put in a request today, otherwise we might have to take it to the main forum.
I'm still seeing FairForItsDay automatically appearing as "Fair For It's Day" (e.g., on Noble Bigot). Any way to change this?
EDIT: And why, for God's sake, does [[FairForItsDay Fair For Its Day]] still show up as "Fair For It's Day"?
Edited by johnnye
The best workaround I've found for people who cringe when "its" and "it's" are confused is to write it as Fair For Its Day, or a similar split between "Fair" and "For" or "Its" and "Day". Should work until a permanent fix is in place (I've sent a report to the mods, and perhaps I'm not the only one to have done so).
Edited by mlsmithca
Removed:
- Further, the "eye for an eye" is very, very widely misunderstood. The full text reads "He who shall cut with the bronze lancet, and cause another to lose his eye, shall lose his own eye in penalty." It was a punishment for medical malpractice.
...because it's not true. The troper's confusing two different laws. Law 196:
- If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
Law 218:
- If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.
Can someone explain the difference between this and Values Dissonance?
Hide / Show Replies