Discussion Main / MoralGuardians

This is something for Trope Talk, so take it there.

Done.

1. Because, even if they don't know it, they are acting like asshats, and this is more about trying to ban Pulp Fiction from everyone because censors don't like it

2. Thats for the groups and it is depressingly common, even if you don't notice it.

3. This is about the over-the-top, nothing I don't agree with is moral type Guardians

For the record, I think censorship is wrong. You can simply not watch/listen/read/play what offends you, and even if there weren't censor limits, common sense dictates that people wouldn't be showing Pornography or Violence 24/7. Besides, whatever happened to responsibility or art?

I don't see how being a Moral Guardian necessarily implies that a person must be an asshat. It just means you're trying to guard the morals. The name alone doesn't say anything about whether it's overzealous or not. That's how I've understood the term even on this wiki, where the general population is much more likely than not to complain about Moral Guardians.

The phrase Moral Guardians usually refers to people how are overzealous and think that they are the absolute purveyors of the Moral code

(Late again to one of my own topics.) Can we clarify exactly what kind of nuts we mean on the main page? Between the description (which used to be more vindictive but basically described the same thing) and the way it's sometimes used, it sounds like anyone who objects to a piece of work on moral grounds is one of those contemptible Moral Guardians.

That is a good point.

I'll see about better clarification of the nutjobs this refers too.

anyone remember the time when comic books where sold at wal mart? no? thats because this moral guardian saw Emma Frost on an xmen cover and flipped out. And for all you MGs out there, if something offends you, don`t be a killjoy, or you'll be the subject of hate on tvtropes.com. ALL TROPERS UNITE!!!!!!!

Chill out, dude.

You people SAY that this is about the over-the-top moral guardians, but it is not. It's about anyone you people think get in the way of your gory, swear-filled, sex-fest fun. It maybe harsh to say that, but I have a feeling that could be an ulterior motive.

Every example of people trying to protect kids is labelled as moral guardian-esque. EVEN censoring swear words and putting age ratings on films, which is a complete contradiction of what you people are claiming about moral guardians. Do we really want to subject and desensitise our kids to this crap? There are some views out there that is it mentally unhealthy to watch violence all the time so much that we adults are desensitised to it, anyway.

The main problem is, we seem to be living in a world that says 'Sort yourself out. I'm not going to help you.' Instead of doing our best as a society to protect our children (and everyone else, for that matter), we leave parents to it, and blame them if it all goes wrong, while we revel in gore-fest videogames, fanservice-filled shows and the like. I still don't know if it is truly a problem, but I don't think it's good to saturate the market with all this crap (and if you're going to start about realism, then don't even bother - it's not about realism and you know it).

So, I'm spoiling your fun, am I? Esacpism is important, but are we living in it too much?

... Moral guardians are a bunch of adults, usally parents, who think they know better. Tv tropes is full of a bunch of young nerds, most likely childless, who think they know better. Who is really right(?

(Here's a fun game. Guess my age.)

Who gives a shit about your age?

And I love the "you people," crap you keep coming out with. This is just another dopey, self-righteous rant from someone who feels they, and they alone, know what "really" is.

Let me say to you, good sir or madame, whatever your age: Get over yourself.

Maybe we should split this trope into two: one for reasonable objections to "objectionable" content, and one for extremists? Maybe a new trope for people who wish to censor or do whatever to "offensive" content because of some objectively reasonable issue, and keep Moral Guardians for people who wish to censor or do whatever to "offensive" content because OH MY GOD!!! DON'T LOOK AT IIIT!!!

One thing's certain, anything that falls under "Moral Guardian" is associated with mindless extremists trying to protect capable people from reality. The problem is when some legitimate reasons to restrict content end up here. Consider A Clockwork Orange (the book) . . . it shouldn't be read by grade schoolers. I can make a logical argument why, but this post is long enough as it is. Anyway, I don't think the book is bad or evil or whatever (it's one of my favorite books), just that grade schoolers shouldn't read it.

Thoughts?

Creating separate categories may actually be a pretty good idea. The problem is that there will inevitably be YMMV problems regarding what exactly constitutes as "objectionable" or "acceptable".

As for the anonymous poster above; I understand your concern, but there is definitely a difference between implied sexual activity (or in some cases, something misinterpreted as innuendo) and an explicit "sex-fest". There is difference between saying the words "suck" or "shut-up" and stronger words more deserving of an R-rating. Just as 1984 (book), Catcher in the Rye (book), and vast others were threatened to be censored or removed from the public due to their "impression on the public/or youth"; we hope that by keeping track of the vast missteps of censorship, we can become a more mature, educated society that understands the difference between using the "think of the children" argument, and a work of literature or film that deserves to be analyzed in its own context.

True. It just seems like this trope has become a license to whine about censorship to the point of being a "bad" trope, which is a problem. Two parts probably wouldn't work, but maybe a three part split is the answer: something along the lines of a Moral Captain Obvious ("A Clockwork Orange has too much rape to be read by grade schoolers"), something like a Moral Templar ("A Catcher in the Rye has f-bombs! It must not be read!"), and a nice big YMMV section. A lot of examples that are already here would fit easily into one of the two extremes, or just drop out.

And to clarify, I'm not saying to look at the books/video games/movies/etc. to see if they're "objectionable" or "acceptable" (it's not my place to do that), but that we look at the Moral Guardian reactions/overreactions to see if they're justifiable or not.

I'm interested in seeing how the "in universe"/"in real life" split works, though.

The page could do with a comment regarding Politics Ensuing for two sets of moral guardians vociferously opposing what each other advocate.

Regarding the section ending with "upper male nudity", this arguably says more about society's standards for nudity between the sexes than it does about the insanity of his system, which appears logically consistent. I'd like some reference to this to be made, if you deem it neutral enough.

Actually, I would like to note some people who are saying "Do you want our children to be desensitized to this crap?" are completely wrong. You CAN be desensitized to it, but oversensitizing people to it is even worse. We SHOULD get to enjoy our gore-fests, so long as we know that in real life, it shouldn't be like that. Children will only be desensitized if you teach them to be. We were all children once, remember? If I was taught "Okay, go murder someone, it's fine" then I would follow it. I'm not saying Moral Guardians are monsters, stupid, or mean, but they do tend to overdo it. People should be able to do anything they want to in our movies, games, books, etc. as long as we know it's wrong in real life. Now I know you'll probably say "But dude, you stated on your page you're a kid!" Well...not exactly a KID, but that WOULD mean I know things about the subject. The Slender Murder attempt: Those girls may not have been taught it was wrong. Most likely, something about them was already... off. The game was not to blame. Children won't be desensitized, traumatized, or anything due to exposure to it, it's not being taught it's wrong that will cause that. And I used to be a Moral Guardian myself, claiming that Slender SHOULD be banned for the murder attempt, but I now see where I went wrong, and I'm writing this to show the other people that they're both wrong. Moral Guardians are not stupid, they have a place in our society, but if we JUST go by their word, most kids would never know anything taboo in their lives. And that would cause a serious drop in population. I ended up having to find out a lot of these things were wrong MYSELF, mind you, because I was always simply told "Don't play Team Fortress 2! It's rated M!" without a reason. Well, now I do play these games, and I'm revealing hidden depths in a speech about this that hopefully resolves this thread, so I sure as the nether haven't gone Ax-Crazy from it yet.

So there's what I say. Neither of you are exactly right, neither are exactly wrong. Moral guardians deserve their place, but mindlessly following them is not the answer. The children will only be desensitized if you teach them to be. Only be traumatized if you teach them to be. It's not going to be Minecraft's fault when they start swearing, it's because they've gotten to the point where it's no longer considered that taboo anymore. But if you teach the, swearing is a crime worse than genocide, then, well... They'll never tell the difference between right and wrong. We should get to enjoy our gore-fests, so long as we know they're not right in real life. Hope that's that and we can get past this.

Remember, folks, this is a discussion tab for the Moral Guardians trope, not a forum to discuss the topic.

I'd love to request an edit due to the entry having an egregious amount of natter and speculation-

This is the current ''Time Squad" listing

Parodied in the Time Squad episode "Child's Play," in which William Shakespeare is under the control of a stereotypical greedy agent who forces him to write plays for children and Larry 3000 intervenes relentlessly to prevent "imitable acts" and anything that could scare or traumatize kids from appearing onstage. The joke works on multiple levels: 1) The show itself lives and breathes on a very Machiavellian moral code. 2) The entire episode plays out as either a meta-commentary on the mediocrity that results from moralistic Executive Meddling (as shown with Larry) and the need to make kids' shows Merchandise-Driven (as shown with the greedy executive) or a personal view of how Dave Wasson note felt his show was being handled (which led to how it got Screwed by the Network), and 3) The Larry 3000 (the Moral Guardian for this episode) is exactly the kind of character that real Moral Guardians would find objectionable.

It desperately needs to be cleaned up to simply this:

Parodied in the Time Squad episode "Child's Play," in which William Shakespeare is under the control of a stereotypical greedy agent who forces him to write plays for children and Larry 3000 intervenes relentlessly to prevent "imitable acts" and anything that could scare or traumatize kids from appearing onstage.

thank you!

I think you want "objective", and it is about the media stereotype, not the Real Life versions.

I think it's better to point out that this isn't The Other Wiki. There is no rule here that there must always be a Neutral Point of View. I would say there is a bias here in favor of letting creators create, because people here love good entertainment and Moral Guardians' restrictions make that harder to do well, and as such I would say that this bias is a good thing. I agree with most (though not all) of the biases on this site, enough that I like the site a lot. If you don't, then fine— go elsewhere and create (depending on whether your gripe is from the left or the right) either an ultra-PC version or a religious fundamentalist version.

You should ask here

Seconded. Plus it would justify unlocking the main page for less controversial edits.

Yeah that sounds like a "point and laugh" group, what are they even supposed to be 'guarding'? Doesn't seem to fit at all.

Seconded. Moral guardians are defined by their desire to censor media, not poke fun at fringe extremists. By that logic, sites such as [Fundies Says the Darnest things] should be on this list.

You'd have to ask here.

I am not seeing what it has to do with this trope, really.

No, edit requests should not be posted here. There is a thread linked on Locked Pages where you can ask for edits.

Eh, that looks like natter and not really pertinent.

Fair enough, I'll hunt around for a trope that fits it better and fix it up (if there isn't already and example about it), cheers.

For God's sake, really?

From a certain point of view. I thought it was funny.

And seriously, disgusted? How are you on the internet then?

Not really a critic just a question: Why on earth is this considered left-wing? Extreme moral guardian Political Correctness Gone Mad yes... but left wing? "Down with the (big or any if we go to the far-far left) enterprises!" "Consumerism is the DEVIL!" "The original sin was the first human who said MINE. We should have lynched him!" kinda stuff is extreme left-wing. :) My best guess is that this probably the American (mis)use of the word... I mean they seem to believe that the Democratic party is somehow left (moderate right if someone asks me). But it's still weird.

Whether you like it or not, women are people, and, actually, about 50% of all people are female. Denying this by defining a character solely by "she is female" IS sexist. As is the lack of female characters in the media.

If it wasn't sexist, the trope would not be called "The Chick",obviously.

Yep, she is fourteen in the light novels.