Well, I won't argue with your point that it is a very bad thing, but there is a bit of a Double Standard in regards to prejudice. For instance, tropes like Abuse Is Okay When It’s Female on Male is unfair and very much of a misandry trope against men, but most find it okay when a woman hits a guy; if you were to Gender Flip them and then play the same scene, people would be up in arms.
The same can be said (to a lesser extent) about some racial standards. Hence why some refer to "non-white discriminating against a white" as reverse racism.*
So is the sentence egregiously understating the fact that prejudice is bad? Yeah, kind of. But 'present day view' kind of comes from the whole Values Dissonance of it all (black slavery, anyone?), and 'generally bad' is how some people think it's okay when done to Acceptable Targets, but not to certain people.
Stoogebie is a textbook example of a polite bigot who fail to understand the actual cause of the double standards they are railing against and used as an excuse to justify why not ALL bigotry are wrong, just ones they disapprove of. The double standard about female on male violence is STILL rooted in the sexist and patriarchal belief that all women are physically inferior to all men and thus their violence is played for laughs as it's no real threat, while conveniently completely erasing trans and intersex people; simply put, it is not any excuse or justification for prejudice, but a direct and obvious example of prejudice, period. Same goes for anyone who actually believe reverse racism is a real thing because black people gets to say the n-slur while white people can't, that is obviously an infringement on white people's freedom of speech, completely ignoring the context of how white people had been abusing black people for centuries, so while a black person using the n-slur can be an attempt at taking away its power, anyone else using it is, at best, a reminder of centuries of slavery and massacre.
You might as well say "Laws against rape, torture, and murder are made due to the present day view that they are generally bad" and use it as an excuse for why raping, torturing, and murdering people you dislike may be okay, and you wouldn't even be wrong in saying that there are times in history where all of these things are legal or even ethical. All that says is that you don't actually care about doing the right thing, you only care about appearing to do so.
Mx
Exactly what is the justification for having a slur in the page image, as opposed to selecting one of the same character's other, equally offensive lines? Slurs at that level of viciousness aren't generally used on TV Tropes.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Seems pretty much identical to Noble Bigot, suggest a merge
, started by Jordan on Jan 4th 2011 at 7:09:00 PM
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Misused, started by shoboni on Mar 7th 2017 at 10:37:22 PM
Just to make sure, what is the difference between Noble Bigot and Politically Incorrect Hero?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that:
- A Noble Bigot is an otherwise decent person, who holds prejudices that are common for the time/setting.
- A Politically Incorrect Hero's prejudices are (or shown to be) unacceptable/controversial even in the setting.
I edited this post due to arguing:
- Jack Crow gets a two-for-one in John Carpenter's Vampires. He's both sexist AND violently homophobic.
- When was Jack Crow shown to be homophobic? The closest this Troper can recall is a couple of passing remarks Crow made about vampires performing homosexual acts, and they probably weren't meant to be taken seriously.
It now just says he's sexist. If somebody could confirm or deny the character's homophobia (and edit if needs be) that would be appreciated.
FruityOatyBars
The bit about "disturbing" similarity to Bury Your Gays is still here. How is being gay equivalent to being a bigot?
Hide / Show Replies
People can be bigoted against gays, can't they?
"If you want to be the best, baby, you've got to work harder than anybody else."
Yes, but that's not what that means- whoever wrote that was saying basically "it's bad that people are bigoted against bigots, because this character (supposedly) often suffers Redemption Equals Death"
Hodor
I noticed how the alternate titles for this trope are "Licensed Sexist". Does the character necessarily have to be a Straw Misogynist? Or can the hero just be politically incorrect? Like, say the hero isn't really racist, but they've used the term "half-and-half" to refer to biracial people and they seem to take it too far with bashing gay people. Or maybe the hero is mostly a Nice Guy, but kind of a condescending ass to women (and maybe is trying to overcome his misogyny).
Azor Ahai
I think I might have brought this up in Trope Repair Shop at one point but it didn't get replies.
Anyway, the whole paragraph about how the character needs to be immacculate in other respects and is subject to Redemption Equals Death.... well, it doesn't seem to be true at all. Only a couple of the examples have this happen to them. That whole paragraph sounds like a Troper Filibuster anyway.
I think I might edit/delete that paragraph once I think of a better way to phrase it.
Edited by Jordan Hodor
'This is mostly due to the present day view that prejudice is generally bad.'
WHAT. Prejudice IS bad. If you're gonna hate on an entire gender/race/whatever for a REASON, that's not the same as prejudice. That sentence is just... so wrong. 'The present day view' - sheesh.
Hide / Show Replies