Discussion Main / UnfortunateImplications

It's an Audience Reaction. The audience reacts to the work by getting outraged at something that's probably unintentionally insensitive. It's subjective because not everyone will feel this way.

This is how ALL YMMV items are. They're not for pushing your own opinion, they're for recording how notable portions of the fandom feel.

Of course more obscure works can have U Is too, but the citation rule is needed to stop people from complaining about everything they found offensive (since pretty much every work ever will offend someone). It's unfortunate that we can't list every real example of UI, but the alternative would be the page being flooded with a bunch of minor complaints.

This is how ALL YMMV items are. They're not for pushing your own opinion, they're for recording how notable portions of the fandom feel.

Then once again, they're not subjective. They're cataloguing a thing that objectively exists.

"the page being flooded with a bunch of minor complaints" is a concern for every subjective trope — and a realized one, which is why we have flame-bait tropes no one is allowed to use anymore. I don't see what merits special treatment for Unfortunate Implications. If YMMV tropes are only supposed to be recording the reactions of others, all of them should have a citation requirement; if they're not, this shouldn't either.

Moreover, just below me we have someone complaining about examples containing unreputable sources and research and asking for a protocol to start wanking over how valid a claim is, which seems totally counter to the stated goal of avoiding drama and Conversation On The Main Page. This method clearly isn't even working.

It's a joke at the expense of a marginalized group that offended many people in a way the writers didn't anticipate. It counts.

Not sure. I think it's definitely worth adding to the quotes page.

Unfortunate Implications is Not a Trope, it's an Audience Reaction, so it can't be Deconstructed or otherwise Played With in any way, ESPECIALLY since by definition it HAS to be unintentional, hence it never gets "played" in any way (except for In-Universe examples).

You'll have to find a citation supporting that you are, indeed, not alone in thinking that.

What does that mean?

The rules of this page say that all examples must have proof that this is a widely-held opinion, not just you or a few people on Tumblr. So you need to link to an article describing the controversy and why so many people feel that way.

I agree with you.

I'm fine with it.

Any further opinions?

Unfortunate Implications requires citation to show that you're not the only one who sees the implication. If you can link to something like a news article, critical review, or opinion piece that calls out the implication as unfortunate, then it might count. If not, I'd chalk it up under "I must've been reading too much into it" and move on.

First of all, implying that being an advocate of social progress and equality is "left-wing bias" is kinda gross, dude.

If it makes you feel any better, there's an entry here now about how Game of Thrones might be anti-religion.

double-post

An entry "from a conservative viewpoint" was removed?

I've found that this whole website, Tv Tropes, has a left-wing bias (just look at their pages and discussions on religious subject matter; the wording often indicates the writer is either holding back or subtly trying to express their vitriol. The trope page for the Bible even had to be edit-locked). That post about Game of Thrones has a point (especially after season 6 which that previous Troper failed to mention), especially since I've read the books and know the anti-religion bias isn't there.

I can't say more here for fear of bringing the moderators down on my head (this message may even end up getting deleted and I may get banned; if I don't reply you'll know why), but I know a guy who was banned for, as he put it "agenda-editing" which he said was "adding comments from a pro-Christian perspective", yet anti-religious bias can be found among people of all levels on this site (when he received his first ban, he said he's been blacklisted now, two moderators chewed him out over it and one all but said that people on the site are atheist leaning, and left wing usually tends towards non-religious sentiments).

If that "pro-Christian perspective" from 'some guy you know' is, as I suspect, along the lines of "sodomites are sinners" or "we can't trust dem moslems" then damn right they were banned.

Is Unfortunate Implications going to become Flame Bait because of politics?

That would be terrible if that's what Hartigan Book's friend did, Nithael. However, that is not what Christianity is about (there are people who claim to be Christian that aren't) and I don't think according to Hartigan Book's words that's what his friend said; it sounded more like Hartigan Book's friend was trying to promote Christianity on this site and doing so stepped on certain people's toes. Anti-homosexual and anti-muslim views have been expressed by people of all beliefs (in fact, regarding the latter, the majority of anti-muslim remarks I have heard came from atheists and/or anti-religious people).

On a personal note, Nithael, your suspicion has no basis and, based on your words, I have suspicions about your views (I suspect prejudices would be a more appropriate word) towards the subject.

Well just call it a good guess. I've been on TV Tropes for about a decade, and I don't remember a single user being banned for being Christian (or Muslim or Jewish...). There are many Christians on this site who are not shy about their beliefs, there are forum threads specifically for Christians (including one for Catholics) as well as for other faiths and lack thereof, and no they've never had any problems.

So if Hartigan's friend really was banned for "adding a Christian perspective", only two things can have happened:

• They tried to change the site so that it would agree with their opinion, which is never a good thing whether the opinion is "Christianity is good" or "Christianity is bad" or "the last Star Wars movie wasn't great".
• They said something offensive (like directly insulting homosexuals or people who have abortions or people of other religions and so on) with the excuse that it's just their faith and you can't judge them for it.

I've seen the second being done so many times here and elsewhere that I don't have much doubt about what happened. As for my alleged prejudices against religious people, I'll just let you google "nithael meaning".

"First of all, implying that being an advocate of social progress and equality is "left-wing bias" is kinda gross, dude"

Seriously? Have you ever met a conservative who describes themselves as "an advocate of social progress and equality"? Those are archetypal liberal/progressive/left-wing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it terms.

It seems to me that this page should be about implications that the overwhelming majority of people would agree are "unfortunate". It may be debateable whether a particular work has a given implication but it shouldn't be debateable that if it does have that implication that's bad. So an argument that a work has the implication "black people are inferior" would belong here, but implications like "there's something to Ayn Rand's philosophy", "promiscuity is bad", "adultery is bad and should be punished" and so on that are only unfortunate to left-leaning people would not. Neither would the multiple complaints on this page about video games that don't include homosexual relationships, where no unfortunate implication is even suggested. The entries amount to "there are no homosexual relationships and I don't like that."

Either these entries should be removed or, if the trope is just supposed to be a list of anything anyone has found offensive, there should be more entries from a conservative perspective to balance out the political bias.

The page already has a ridiculous left-wing bias and now there's a call for someone to be banned for adding an entry critical of abortion/teenage pregnancy. Oh, and clearly the point of the edit was that she was "irresponsible" for getting pregnant, not being forced to have an abortion.

Probably yes.

It needs a citation, a third party weblink making the same point to prove it is not just a proper seeing the problem.

I couldn't find a copy of the original comic book online, I looked all over for it. I may actually have a paper copy of it somewhere.

No, that's not what we mean by citations. A citation has to be an article, video or some other third thing that discusses the implication that the work is raising and why it's problematic. That way the entire page won't devolve into constant edit wars and maintains good quality control. Simply linking to the work itself isn't good enough.

fair enough.

I have no idea what you are saying.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't word it out properly. Anyway, what I'm saying is that their are times that people assume it's unfortunate implications, when it's not because they lack awareness.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that one example can be explained

Im sorry, my english is limited

It all depends on the culture imho, for example the picture it shows a basketball player and it's compared to a Gorilla, it's funny, because in America calling someone a monkey it's a racial thing, calling someone "a Negro", etc. but in Argentina (where I live) calling someone a gorilla menas you're oposing Perón, or you're actually really big and badass.

Yes. The YMMV banner has no bearing on this.

Yeah, I agree that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Unfortunate Implications (and also there's no citation, which makes me suspect it might be on here just because it contains a link). Gonna pull that now.

Seussical does seem to have a legitimate example (not listed here, but it's on the work's YMMV page) with the antagonists getting more "ethnic" music (R'n'b and Latino) than the protagonists, but I don't know whether we can find a citation for that.

This trope requires citations. It has nothing to do with us turning into Wikipedia.

Without a citation, it cannot be added.

The example has citation.

But its incorrect. Shouldn't there be some examination into what these citations says and if its true or not? I mean doesn't it having citation, simply prove that somewhere someone complained about it. That doesn't really mean much, there are millions of sites on this internet complaining about things the people don't understand or watch.

Your complaints don't conflict with the entry as written. The entry does specifically say that he was pretty much asexual, then he gets a love interest to avoid rumors that the character is gay. Whether it was done well or gradually is irrelevant to the Unfortunate Implications.

Well can they at least rewrite the section, so it doesn't give the wrong implication.

Also is there really any proof of that being the reason? He had previously rejected men as well as women, and it was specifically stated he wasn't gay.

Edit: This time I actually read the comment instead of skimming it. >_>

Ignore this!

If i am remembering of the example in question, this has a citation, right?

It did, but the citation also felt like it was ignoring Terra's part in the plan simply because she was a teenage girl.

I inserted 2 citations, so it should be okay now. This really is a massive ongoing problem, enormously more severe even than, for example, the page image.

For just one example among thousands, according to a Larry Hama Wolverine comic, not only are mentally ill serial killers, they should be eaten alive by actual Wolverines.

The TRS discussion was purely about the on-page examples.

While I entirely agree with you on all points, if those complaints are properly sourced, they still qualify for inclusion on this page.

a) We decided this in Trope Repair Shop

b) No Such Thing As Notability does not mean what you think it means.

Without the citations this page is just another repository for griping and whining about whatever miniscule, insignificant, and—occasionally—flat-out made up "implication" someone who doesn't like the work can dig up. And we already have a place for that to go, and it's called "the rest of the internet."

Maybe so, but Unfortunate Implications is a subjective trope, that's to be expected, and it's the risk one takes when they make a subjective trope.

Subjective =/= You can add anything you want.

Really, that should be the banner on top of the YMMV tropes. Far too many people think "YMMV" means "anything goes and you can gripe however you want."

As long as it at least vaguely fits the trope, subjective means you CAN add anything you want.

Nope. It means that opinions are going to disagree and that you don't contest examples for disagreeing with your opinion. Not that you can override other policies because you can.

Do I have to literally tell people exactly what subjective is? Fine, here:

sub·jec·tive [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA

adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Even if citations were required in T Vtropes, a subjective trope by it's very nature CAN NOT have citations because any and all things that could possibly be citied are in themselves subjective. There is no fact involved.

When someone creates a subjective trope, especially one which fits such a wide array of situations, they should expect to have that trope filled to the brim in opinionated, even whiny examples, otherwise they shouldn't make that trope to begin with, and once it's been made, they shouldn't whine about it being misused, especially when it isn't being misused. They knew or should have known exactly what they were getting into.

It doesn't matter what people have decided, when you defy your own rules, both the letter and the spirit of said rules, you can't expect no one to take notice and not to call you on it.

Dude, stop Rules Lawyering. We have a perfectly serviceable page YMMV.Home Page that explains the concept of subjectivity on TV Tropes. We don't use that sort of dictionary stuff.

And we are not citing facts here. We are citing to keep nonsense examples off.

That's just perfect isn't it? When you are soundly defeated at every turn you just dismiss what the other says Rules Lawyering, it saves you the trouble of having to provide an actual argument against it.

Besides, what made you guys the authority on what "nonsense examples" are?

Oh, and the YMMV homepage doesn't set any rules one way or the other about what constitutes subjectivity on T Vtropes, try actually reading it.

Nope. The definition of YMMV (Not "subjective") is that you may not pull examples because you disagree. That does not mean you can't pull examples because they violate the rules of the trope.

The authority was given here. People kept adding examples so absurd that we decided to require citations.

Now, if you want to change that, go to TRS. I'll cut this discussion short as it's in the wrong place.

You're missing the point of the citations—the citations are to say, "Enough people think this that it's a legitimate problem and has been noticed outside of here." It's to keep people from just using this page to bitch and moan because a show they don't like had the audacity to portray someone of X race doing Y bad thing, therefore obviously implying that all X's do nothing but Y all the time.

I also do want to note that the example immortalfrieza wanted to add doesn't seem to have anything to do with this trope (at least as currently written).

Here is the example:

• The backstory of the aquatic Dreugh states that they were once a proud ancient civilization, and thus sentient... who are now routinely hunted down and slaughtered for the magical properties of the wax they produce as well as their skins for making armor.

Its not clear at all how the work presents this fact. If presumably, this is a bad thing, then it is just a disturbing detail of the story and not at all Unfortunate Implications.

If the story presents this in a neutral to favorably light, then I could definitely see it being added as an example- you just need proof.

One other thing, is that it would kind of "help" for the purposes of this trope if (for instance, I know nothing about the work), the Dreugh are clearly meant as a fantasy version of Texans.

Actually, that last thing is more about what this "trope" is about—the work making an implication about real life. If it's just that something horrible is happening in the game and most people don't realize it, that's Fridge Horror.

Good point. That's what I was trying to get at but not being concise enough.

Looking at them again and again, and trying to think of them from every angle, I couldn't really see any real offensive/unfortunate implication for the ones I deleted.

You just don't try to find a fault hard enough. Those who really want can (and do) nitpick even a lamppost. =)

I guess Hormone-Addled Teenager fits on further inspection, and so does Club Kid (a stereotype, much like Scary Black Man and Dragon Lady which I left alone) but Fag Hag? I think that's stretching it.

Is it just me, or does the description for Cargo Cult seem to carry its own Implications?

It's just you.

Slightly more seriously, it's pointing out the implication; Cargo Cult is universally used as a shorthand for people who are credulous and backward. The thing is, the things the trope picks out as signs of this are common to all messianic religions, so by extension the unfortunate implication is that all messianic religions are backward. It's particularly true of real Cargo Cults, where observers often make fun of the natives building useless airfields and planes even though they wouldn't dream of doing the same about churches and religious statues.

Maybe because messianism isn't actually a major feature of most Cargo Cults?

To respond to something you said in your edit reasons, Evilest Tim, no, I have no objection to you comparing Christianity to real indigenous religions. I myself have compared it to the Navajo and Hopi religions, to which it bears a great resemblance. But a cargo cult is not an authentic indigenous religion; it's a desperate attempt by a disadvantaged people to prop up their way of life by slavishly aping more successful peoples, with no true understanding. It's more a cultural pathology than a real religious development, an unnaturally accelerated and abrupt syncretism. Know what the Navajo called the Ghost Dance, which was in many ways analogous to a Cargo Cult?

"Nothing but empty words." Many of their more traditional priests (hataali) have the same opinion of the Native American Church.

But please, discuss if you will the theology of the masked dancers in the Yei Bichaai, or the possible Puebloan origins of the Four Male Holy People of the Fourth World. You get self-righteous to me about indigenous religions? Okay, let's hear you discuss the Snake Clan's role in Hopi opposition to snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks.

See, I actually know a thing or two about indigenous religions; you don't appear to know anything about the largest religion on the planet. So quit your posturing.

My objection to your grotesque, laughable, provincial attempt to draw a parallel between Christianity and a Cargo Cult is twofold. First is Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment—it's insulting to a third of the human race, without being fucking funny enough to warrant it. Apart from messianism—which, again, is not actually a major factor in Cargo Cults, claiming a visionary founder isn't the same thing—there is very little in common between Christianity and that kind of religion. Christianity from the very beginning defined itself in opposition to the religion and customs not only of the Romans—which is who they'd have been copying if they'd been a Cargo Cult—but also of the Jews. Christianity, like Buddhism, is one of a very few truly transcendent religions; they're always going to be more different from than similar to any other religion you compare them to, even each other. Just for example, though both Christianity and Buddhism are transcendent religions that promise salvation from existential suffering, messianism does not make up a major component of Buddhist thought. The Maitreya is a relatively minor figure in their cosmology. And identifying him with the Dharmakaya isn't in any way significant, certainly not in the way Jesus' divinity is in Christianity, because the whole point of Buddhism is that everything is identical with the Dharmakaya. It's called advaita.

More importantly, though, your version wasn't accurate. Jesus is not held to be a prophet by Christians, at least Christians who in any way, shape or form accept the ecumenical councils. They consider him to be God. They don't consider heaven a reward; I got distracted by your risible assertion that Sola Gratia is "rather popular"—it's held by a sixth of all Christians, tops—but Sola Gratia itself is the precise opposite of heaven being a reward. All Christians who are in any way "orthodox" deny, explicitly, Salvation by Works. The Calvinists—with their Sola Gratia—deny that the human will has any role at all in salvation; they're monothelite. The Orthodox and Catholics say that the human's role is to cooperate with grace; Lutherans come closest to teaching that heaven is a reward, with their Sola Fide, but it's not even a fair characterization of them. All of them agree that nobody earns salvation; it's a gift. Pretty much from the Council of Jerusalem, Christians have self-defined in opposition to the Jewish concept of "earning a portion in the World to Come". And if you can find me the council, encyclical, or other document of any major Christian body that declared Pascal's Wager anything other than a rhetorical device, I'd dearly love to see it.

Frankly, the current form of the definition is just as bad as the other one, only instead of being shallowly anti-Christian, it's shallowly racist. Because nobody, not even Cargo Cultists, does use their religion as an explanation of things they don't understand. The Thunder People in Navajo mythology are not some dim anthropomorphism to make thunder "understandable"; they are just the Holy People you pray to if you need to be protected from thunder.

But apparently some of us don't know the Golden Bough was debunked?

Ok, let's start on this.

Firstly, all those Christians are not you. It's ridiculously presumptous to assume you speak for even a majority of such a diverse religion on any subject. Off your high horse, right now.

Real cargo cults actually borrowed the majority of the common gross features of a messianic religion; the prophet or messiah comes with the promise of great reward at a non-specific time in return for faith and following rules. This is hardly surprising, as they're basically missionary Catholicism mixed with the people's original beliefs. Your absolute lack of understanding regarding what they're about (mirroring the classic David Attenborough documentary that wrote them off as little more than credulous children) is more than a little amusing given the rest of your claims, as is your hope that throwing out a bunch of examples you don't bother to explain the relevance of will somehow make me hiss and hide away like you're waving a crucifix at a marauding vampire.

Jesus is believed to be a prophet by the Abrahamic religions; Christians believe he was also God, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet since he still acted as one. Claiming otherwise is just hair-splitting.

Also, explicit denial of salvation by works? Not read Rev 20:12-13 recently, I take it. The works / faith argument isn't nearly as clear-cut as you'd like to pretend it is. Regardless, the logic underlying the idea of Heaven remains "do this, get this (ps: this is really, really amazing) else get this (ps: this sucks)." You can twist as much rhetoric around it as you like (which, judging by your previous posts, will be quite a lot), but that, in any sane sense of the term, is a reward / punishment pairing.

As for your ludicrous assertion that religion isn't used to explain things not understood, what do you think it's doing when it offers explanations of what happens when we die, what our purpose is on the Earth and where we came from? Let's not even take into account things like the Flood and Sodom and Gommorrah ("why did that happen?" "oh, they must've pissed off God"), or older religions explaining how thunder was made (such as the various beliefs among iron-working peoples that it was from a great forge in the sky) or what made the sun move across the sky (the Egyptians and their dung beetle, Helios' chariot, etc). More to the point, the trope is about people using technology as a sign of divinity (in other words, assuming things they don't understand are gods or the action of gods), not about real cargo cults; the sentence fits that perfectly.

Also, 77,000 websites seem to think "apologism" is indeed a word. How about that, huh?

Point by point.

Well, let's see—I know I'm right about Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, and Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), so, who's left? Nondenominational Christians usually still have Lutheran soteriology. That's what those sects teach; a given person is only a member of whichever one to the extent he believes what they teach. Sorry, was that complicated?

I don't consider Cargo Cultists "credulous children", anymore than most other humans, which is "somewhat". It's just that a Cargo Cult is not a messianic movement, it is a millennarian one, and the kind of thing that only arises when a people is in crisis—many millennarians adopt practices of peoples seen as being more successful. And that's why the comparison with Christianity can be seen as offensive; Christianity has a millenarian element, but it's not its main feature, and to say it is is a common canard. It's like this: Judaism does, in fact, have an element of concern with worldly success—you're supposed to pray for prosperity for yourself and your family—but to say that's its main feature is just to repeat the old "Jews are greedy" stereotype.

My point in throwing out all that information about Native American religions was simply to demonstrate you don't know what I know, and to demonstrate how arrogant it is for you to take a self-righteous attitude with someone who could write books on indigenous religions.

Jesus is believed to be a prophet by Muslims. He is believed to be a heretic, who may or may not have nevertheless been virtuous, by Jews. He is believed to be God—who emphatically cannot be his own prophet—by Christians. That is not hairsplitting; who and what Jesus was is the question of Christianity. That you don't understand the significance of Christological controversy is you admitting you don't get to have an opinion about that religion. That's like saying karma has nothing to do with Buddhism or the Law has nothing to do with Judaism.

Not read Revelation 20:12-13? You're assuming Sola Scriptura is the correct way of dealing with Christianity; it's held by a tiny minority. And even pretending for a moment that Sola Scriptura weren't a provincialism, you appear not to have read the huge swaths of Paul and Timothy that flat-out deny salvation by works. The whole point of Christianity—Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist, mutatis mutandem—is that that judgment will be made...and then it will be rendered irrelevant by Christ. You're damned by works, or would be, but not saved by them. It's like Pure Land Buddhism. Amitabha Buddha's Dharma vow only has any meaning if you have karmic burdens that you need him to take on. Christianity only has meaning if you're going to receive a judgment—why the fuck bother with a Savior if you don't need to be saved? Heaven is not a reward because "reward" implies earning; it's a gift. You talk about my previous posts "twisting rhetoric"?! You fail to grasp a fairly basic point about a religion that's not exactly fucking obscure.

Oh, and now you repeat things back to me that I said, and it's a point against me? You'll recall I said that Christianity is about things nobody understands, while Cargo Cults aren't; now you just said it back to me. Are you disingenuous, or did you actually forget I had said that? Anyway I was referring to the Golden Bough theory, that religions arose as explanations of natural phenomena, which the current version basically implies. But it's been debunked to hell and back. Most gods actually arise as personalities first, their nature-associations coming much later—what, exactly, is the Navajos' Talking God the god of? He can't even talk, so it's not that.

Anyway, the version of the description that I wrote perfectly incapsulates the problem about that interpretation of a Cargo Cult—that they're unsophisticated savages who have to see everything as magic, a la Clarke's Law for Girls' Toys—without repeating that Golden Bough bullshit. And without saying that Christianity is the kind of religion that only arises from a society in turmoil, which is what Cargo Cults are.

And hey, more than 383,000 websites think "lead" stays "lead" rather than becoming "led" for the past tense, so...nothing, about that, really.

Thing is, you're not right about any of them. Christians aren't a hive mind, they're people, and each one is different in what beliefs they hold and do not hold; there are gay Catholics, Mormons who acknowledge all the silly historical errors in the Book of Mormon, and plenty of people who don't go to church but still hold beliefs that say they ought to. It's like claiming yourself able to speak on behalf of all whites or all liberals; meaningless puffing-up of a point.

Basic reading comprehension: I said the real cargo cults had the common gross features of a messianic movement (and listed such, which you cunningly ignored), which they do. You haven't refuted that. It seems more like you're offended at what you read into my comment than at what I actually wrote; maybe if you focus on what I'm saying rather than what you want me to be saying this conversation will be easier.

Ah, right. It's nice that you admit you were just throwing out irrelevant crap you weren't prepared to explain to try to make yourself look intelligent. That's useful.

Jesus is believed to be a prophet by, essentially, everyone who believes he existed at all. You can split hairs all you like, but what matters about Jesus is what else he is (in Judaism, a false prophet, in Christianity, God, and in Islam nothing much else at all), not if he is one. You're just playing semantic games here to try to make a point where there isn't one; it should be fairly clear that there is a definition of "prophet" which all Abrahamic religions would regard as applying to Jesus, and that I probably meant that one.

Salvation by works isn't that rare; you'll find plenty of Christians who prefer the "do unto others" part as the path to heaven, in every denomination. Sure, the Bible is contradictory about it (Paul says faith, while Rev is very, very clear it's works and nothing else, and Matthew, well...)

And regardless, your definition makes no difference; a gift given to you for a specific action (faith) is called a reward.

Religions generally have some elements designed to explain natural phenomena. Thor, Zeus and the other thunder gods were to explain where thunder came from (hell, even YHWH picks that one up along the way), Helios and Khepri what the sun was and who made it move, the city the Bible calls Sodom was most likely Bab edh-Dhra which appears to have been destroyed by a natural gas pocket, etc. These things seemed supernatural to our ancestors, so they assigned them to Gods. You're into your black / white fallacy here, where either a religion is entirely to explain natural phenomena or entirely not. Most religions include at least some accounts which just consist of God's name slapped on an obviously natural event that seemed so overpoweringly incredible our ancestors invoked divinity to explain it (thunder, volcanos and massive floods being favourites). That's what the trope's about, only the incredible thing is specifically a piece of technology.

The unfortunate implication is not that people would do this, since historically people have done so many times, but that this is usually played up to show how stupid they are, even though more or less every "proper" religion has done the same thing at least once. It's also admittedly often the case that the technology isn't nearly impressive enough to warrant the treatment it gets; to use the classic example, I really don't see any real-world people having to turn to the actions of all-powerful entities to explain an extremely camp robot who can't bend his arms or knees properly (indeed, you've just given me the image of an Ewok Rabbi telling Luke what a crap golem he has). There's a bit of extra Unfortunate in that 90% of the time the natives happen to have some oddly specific myth about the thing in question, despite that by all accounts even the source of this idea, the Aztecs, didn't actually think Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.

Just one point, and then I'm out. Christians are individuals, but Christianity is a doctrine. You either accept it or don't, and if you don't, you aren't one. Socialism is an economic theory—if you don't believe the state should own the means of production, you aren't a socialist. That appears to be hard for you to grasp, but I quit. I'm not certified in early childhood education.

Fuck it; do whatever you want.

Under that definition Protestants aren't Christians because they didn't accept Catholic doctrine. Religion is a whole lot more flexible than that.

It appears someone is towing a donkey. By the ears.

Poor Unfortunate Implications...

As a child I did not notice the some-what "Anti-German" mesages in the Rankin-Bass classic Santa Claus is coming to Town, until I saw images of the famous yodeler Franzl Lang...did you ever come to realize that he wears leaderhozen....did they do it on purpous...was it intended, the world may never know...

Shoot. Ignore this post; I accidentally clicked the wrong button.

Oops, I wanted to create a new topic.

The discussion leading to this really was more about the examples here.

"Who the hell thought this was a good idea?"

Someone who lived during a earlier time, when people hadn't yet seen the Light of Political Correctness, as you so obviously have. This may come as a surprise to you, but there was a time when racial and gender stereotypes were considered a normal aspect of human nature, before people like you taught all of us oldthinking, racist, sexist, xenophobic, misogynistic, right-wing Nazi bigots how to think correctly. The episode you're referring to was written back in that time.

Septimus isn't the one who actually wrote this example. Just saying.

Please head to Image Picking for this.

This is kind of an invoked version, and isn't the DVD commentary a 'citation'? It's something the author himself noted, then deliberately averted.

I have never played that game, but if it's really obvious and the implications come from the work itself, then it may be another trope (like Fantastic Nuke, Anvilicious, Person of Mass Destruction, Does This Remind You of Anything?, Nuclear Weapons Taboo...)

edit: double post

It's more that the WMD parallel also directly connects to other aspects of the plot and specific characters, which implies certain things about that connection. I know I'm not the only person who sees that connection (there are at least other tropers out there who see it) but I don't know where to go to find a credible source.

ZOMG! No citations?!? These pages really sucked.

The rules changed so that there had to be some kind of documentation supporting it, because the UI pages were filled with the flimsiest bullcrap that anyone could come up with to bash whatever show they didn't like at the time.

Well, that's why it's indexed on the Depressing Tropes page.

No, that's what carries it beyond this and into comedy gold.

Somebody "fixed" that, but now it looks too bare. On a related subject, does anybody know where the "Example.com" link is supposed to lead to? It's a dead end.

That's deliberate. It's just an example to show that a link is needed, not an actual citation.

The examples now need proof that the opinion is held by non-tropers. Nothing in the Anime folder had this, so they were removed and the empty folder deleted. If you find a valid anime example, please do go ahead and add it.

No...no it's not.

• Sigh* Should have put a smiley on that.

He is horny. Two horns growing out of his head. It's an Incredibly Lame Pun.

Then put it as Incredibly Lame Pun, but there is no implication of desired sex or the ruthless beating of blacks in the game. Unfortunate Implications entries can be very hurtful to a feature's reputation. Do not use them with reckless abandon.

I didn't post the original entry, and I totally agree that that entry is more of a "Better than it sounds" entry than "unfortunate implications." I knew I should have mentioned it in my original post, but you are totally right that it should be removed from what is largely a serious article. I just thought you missed the incredibly lame pun and needed it pointed out to you.

I really don't think they can.

Wanna bet, Tim? This world is full of overly sensative people just itching for the chance to raise hell where there is no guilt to be had, and recklessly slapping the Unfortunate Implications tag on something like Ico where there is no implication at all, can seriously harm it. If The Nostalgia Critic can take heat for simply not liking Tank Girl or someone isn't allowed to like the Tom and Jerry movie because his fans take his word as gospel, then a poorly chosen edit to a TV Tropes article can cause trouble for a given work if its users are not judicious.

Oh, no, I didn't miss the pun. Its the part about "beating up black people" that I call bullcrap on.

My point for this discussion in a nutshell: Tropers, please, please, please, please, please be careful where you sling things like Unfortunate Implications and the like.

No, it can't. Seriously, you think there's going to be some kind of massive backdraft against Ico because someone, somewhere, wrote something down on the internet? It really doesn't work like that at all.

Yes, I do and it can. If a forest fire can start from a single spark, then a massive backlash can start from something just as minor as an entry on a wiki. In fact, I've seen it happen. People start shit over the stupidest things. Don't you dare hide behind any "negativity directed at something can't hurt something" crap, because it can. You will not convince me otherwise.

Well, that makes for fairly pointless discussions. You're exaggerating, but that doesn't mean the Ico example actually belongs here, so it's rather useless carrying on about this.

I'm not carrying one. I feel very strongly about this, and not just for Ico. I just want to restate the fact that negative tropes should only go where truly deserved. Unfortunate Implications, for a trope, is a fairly serious one, so please: judicious editing, please.

This applies to 300, I think, at least somewhat. Though I suppose the point, of the trope and my objection, is that it can be taken bad, and often is.

The thing is, there is no voice to the story. It was not intended to espouse anything. Thus it can be used to espouse anything. Replace everyone with absurdly coloured aliens, and it would just be another fiction flick with some awesome moments and graphics. People are just so uptight they seem to need to put a spin on everything.

I just wanna go on record as saying this is one of my most hated "tropes." At this point, it exists almost solely so people can point at a movie/show/game they don't like and shout, "Not only do I think it's bad, but it's also racist!"

But of course. The question is whether it's bad, and the answer depends on the sense of humor.

I think Weird Raptor is absolutely correct here.

I concur with this.

Thirded. It's become just a place for people to nitpick and bash any work they don't like.

Fourthed. Geez, most of the examples here are just pathetic.

Fifthed all the way.

^Take it to Trope Repair Shop, then. And you need some evidence, like a wick check

Perhaps that is how it should be, but the description makes it clear that this trope is based entirely on viewer reaction, anything a viewer sees as unfortunate, no matter how hard you have to squint to see it, counts. I'm not sure how that counts as a trope at all, but that seems to be how it works.

Plus, there is the fact that the ladies are all hypersexualised, Talia gets fridged, and so on. So Arkham City does have issues beyond what all the villains have to say.

...........Thanks, Iaculus.

But that's the whole point, no?

No. If you just defined it that way, you could say that literally anything has unfortunate implications. There IS a certain limit to the twisting and squinting you're allowed to do - the problem is that few agree on what that limit is.

Is there any reason at all to link the images? Yeah, when you put them right next to each other they look vaguely similar-ish, but one is a magazine cover featuring a basketballer while the other is a WWII recruitment poster about a giant Nazi gorilla. It's possible I'm missing some kind of context here, but as it is it looks like someone trawled through hundreds of images until they found two that sort of resembled each other.

The quote seems to imply that there was an actual controversy over the image, but this is the first I've heard of it.

There was controversy over the image, but the image it was being compared to was King Kong, not some random WWI propaganda poster that no one's seen in 95 years.

Actual, I think it should be a No Examples Please entry, and potholing to this page should also be stopped. Like you said, some people seem to be able to find unfortunate implications in pretty much anything, and they seem intent on subtly complaining about these supposed implications on TV Tropes.

I third. What's the difference between this and Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, really? What good can come out of this page?

Not as much as you'd think. As the caption points out, it did cause real world controversy, so quite a few people either made the connection or saw the connection and thought it made too much sense.

Except said people grasped at straws, too. A caricature meant to represent WWI-era Germany is now racist. Great going, PC crowd.

Take it to Image Pickn'

Can someone please provide a link demonstrating this supposed controversy? Like a news article or something? And the image should probably link to a relevant news article as well.

I agree.

Me to. Also ban on potholing.

I am against because i guess Darth Wiki is not a dumping ground. However, i am ok with a Flame Bait banner.

http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com/2010/06/asian-men-black-women-datings-final.html

"If it wasn’t already apparent in the media, Asian men and Black women are the most under-sexualized class of citizens in the United States...With that being said, there are some negative views about both Asian men and Black women which poorly represent these two groups of people. Some of these negative views are that Asian men aren’t manly enough and Black women aren’t feminine enough. Another is that Asian men are not as socially outgoing and Black women are too loud and outspoken."

Asian men and Black women are the most under-sexualized class of citizens in the United States.

What.

Oh, and as soon as they're sexualized, BAM! UNFORTUNATE IMPLICATIONS!

I had the same response. The Asian male part makes sense - Asian men aren't exactly given leads in romantic comedies - but I've heard the exact opposite complaint about the depiction of Black women in the American media. They're always hypersexualized.

That's the problem with racist stereotypes - they're incredibly contradictory. Jews: Communist agitators or Capitalist overlords? Backwards traditionalists or radical liberals? Mexican-Americans: Lazy well-fare moochers or so hardworking THEY TURK ER JERBS?! Mainly because stereotyping is about completely removing any shade of grey in the middle of two extremes.

It doesn't help that on the liberal side we frequently forget that the media also has many, many depictions of people that don't fall into our stereotypes about the media's stereotypes, as is the case here.

Under-sexualized, seen as not desirable romantic/sex partners, etc. Plus you ignored the second part of that statement.

I know and commented on it (have you ever seen David Mamet's Race? A big part of it the sexual portrayal of Black women in American culture), and how did I ignore the second part? I was commenting on the weird nature of American stereotyping.

I was talking the commenter above you Matthew. In any case, the point still stands.

@Jack Mackerel: But that's the whole point. You can't objectively comply with any complete ideology, only "waver with the Course Of The Party". Everything is heretical. If it's impossible to lynch anyone at will, it doesn't serve the purpose and thus requirements are going to be patched until they are either meaningless or contradictory. Whether the guilty will be blamed as a faithful of Cthulhu Cuhltist, spy of Antarctica, CO₂-exhaler or visual groper is irrelevant.

There are other implications to that trope, as listed in the main article but we'll leave this off for now since it was taken off twice.

The reaction to Dropped A Bridget On Him is basically a form of homophobia - to be surprised or disappointed of unexpected genitals is one thing, but to react with squick means that you have a very negative view of same sex sex or desire. That, or you have a phobia of your own bits, which isn't really healthy either.

It's not homophobia to dislike seeing a woman with a penis (which is the usual version), more just that most guys don't find the idea of a chick with a dick particularly physically appealing. It's not being homophobic to dislike the idea of same-sex sex happening to you, either, it's called being heterosexual.

Alright, somehow I managed to double post. My apologies, I did not do this on purpose. May one of my entries onto this discussion be deleted please.

This is a highly subjective trope in the first place, so yes I agree that we should delete any (and if you're going to add one, put the implication). I do think it may be time for a clean-up, but suggest that in the discussion first.

And again, Unfortunate Implications doesn't necessarily mean "racist/politically correct," after all the Laconic entry says it itself: A Family-Unfriendly Aesop at it's unfriendliest (which I should probably put in the main descrip).

The laconic version says this? Reading the main entry, this is "The media to which this wiki is devoted generally exhibit greater sensitivity to racial/sexual/cultural diversity, lifestyles, and sensitive subject matter now than in the past, but sometimes something appears that... raises eyebrows. This is a subjective trope, and some tropers believe concerns about such matters simply relate to political correctness rather than anything substantive. Other tropers may see the entire "political correctness" argument as a plausibly deniable defence of racism and other types of outdated thinking." This means only this? A huge Family-Unfriendly Aesop?

Yes, some Family Unfriendly Aesops can have these unfortunate implications. There's going to be some crossover between the two tropes, no need to completely separate them.

Humm...the "sensitive subject matter" bit was put today.

I added it due to the confusion. The implication behind What Measure Is a Mook? is that the mooks' lives aren't worth anything which is Moral Dissonance and can make people uncomfortable.

We never had this problem until now, so I added it to make it clear.

Thanks.

In either case, i read the Family-Unfriendly Aesop trope description and well...

"Note that just because something happens in a story, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a Family Unfriendly Aesop. A story about a criminal who gets away with murder is not necessarily teaching the moral that crime does pay. A story with a big Downer Ending does not mean it is trying to teach a lesson that life is pointless. If it's not the point of a story, it's not An Aesop.

Before adding an example to this list, think about whether the example is actually preaching a moral, or if it is simply telling a story to entertain. An unusual moral also doesn't count if it's played for laughs; that's a Spoof Aesop. If it started out as a good moral, but was broken, that doesn't count either; that's a Broken Aesop. If you are drawing absurd conclusions from a story which doesn't have a moral, then see Warp That Aesop on Darth Wiki.

Compare Clueless Aesop and some cases of Unfortunate Implications. See also The Complainer Is Always Wrong. "

Hmm... sounds as they are saying Accidental Aesops not count as Family Unfriendly Aesops. I guess the laconic version needs an improvement.

The laconic version has been changed to "Potentially offensive tropes."

Ok. Thanks.

Yeah, I would agree that a token can be interesting, but the point of the Unfortunate Implications trope is that the Token tropes can still be seen as offensive/insensitive.

Well I agree it could depending on how the token character is portrayed. I'd say it's more of a Sturgeons Trope. this trope is supposed to be about the portrayal, not how many of a specific ethnic group there are.

It's something that sort-of-looks like the authors did try to send a rather Jerkass message, even though they didn't (usually because it's a mindless copypasta anyway).

IMHO.

Wait, isn't it supposed to be specific to an subtext that can be deemed as politically incorrect and not just something that can be seen as being insensitive. Redemption Equals Death in my opinion doesn't count as this but may count for Family-Unfriendly Aesop as it doesn't specifically target anyone and can be used against anyone regardless of their gender, race, nationality, etc. I think the definition you gave there is the definition that could be used for Family-Unfriendly Aesop

I also guessed this, but others editors already reversed my edits.

I am putting the tropes i not indentified the political incorrectness against a real life group here until the discussion end, depending as she end.

• Redemption Equals Death: No matter how much you try to atone, you deserve death when you did wrong.