Common fallacies amongst fans you find annoying.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Just so you know, a fallacy is essentially a fancy word for misunderstanding. I'm looking to create a list of common fallacies amongst certain pieces of fiction. For example, a common misconception I see in the Kingdom Hearts fandom can be perfectly summed up by an excerpt from the fanfiction "Chasing the Truth" by FlikFreak:

"Every nobody's name," Axel explained, "Is an anagram of their original name... with an 'X' added. Got it memorized?"

"With the only exception being Naminé," Sora added.

This is incorrect. It's true that pretty much every human-shaped Nobody seen in the series has an X in their name, but that's not necessarily a hard-and-fast rule. The only reason the Organisation members are named like that is, according to the Japan-exclusive Ultimania, due to their boss's fascination with this one particular weapon called the X-blade (Long story, play BBS and you'll understand)

However, as stated above, fans often misinterpret this as previously stated, meaning that every time anybody gets turned into a Nobody in a fan-work, their name goes through the same treatment as the Organization, even if said Nobody has nothing to do with the Organization. This is understandable, since the only place where this is all explained is in a Japan-exclusive book, but it still bugs me.

So are there any other misconceptions in your favourite fandom that bug you? If so, explain in the comments.

I'll just get this out now so everyone doesn't have to use it.

Shipping. When one character stands next to another, or has a few conversations = best friend/love interest 4 life.

I have a list a mile long about Homestuck peeves, but I don't feel like writing it out for people who haven't read Homestuck.

The biggest one I have is when people talk about the Elder Srolls lore.

There is inevitably someone who says something like "all the books in the game only contain partial truths that you are supposed to piece together" or something of that level of nonsense.

When in reality all contradictory myths and creation stories happened. I get so fing peeved at having to explain why that is over and over.

Lorkhan having his heart ripped out by triminac? happened
Lorkhan ripping out his own heart? happened
Akatosh putting Alessia into the Amulet of kings? happened
Lorkhan putting Alessia into the amulet of kings? Also happened
Nerevar dieing at Vivec's hands? happened
Nerevar dieing by a wound suffered at the battle of red Mountain? happened

In the Elder Scrolls universe myth becomes reality.

TVTrops terminology incoming:

People who accuse the Final Fantasy games or JRPGs of Wangst.
Multiple categories:

1) The people who have no evidence (ie, have basically never played the games.)
2) People who argue that the angst is an innapropriate response to the TraumaCongaLine typical of the JRPG protagonist. Oh really, and how would you react? (See also: Neon Genesis Evangelion.)
3) People who say that those TraumaCongaLines shouldn't have happened in the first place. We can argue about the extent of the (melo)drama in this genre until the end of time, but the end result usually ends up being that these are the kind of people who like their games completely bereft of drama anyway. Phillistines . . .
4) And without question the most infuriating: people who say they don't care about the character's problems because they haven't been given a reason to. They're human fucking beings, that's why you should care god damnit.

Did your parents raise you at all? I mean christ, how do these kind of people react to people who have these kinds of problems in real life? Are they the kinds of people who think that every person struggling with a mental disorder like bipolar or clinical depression is faking it or just "whining"? Because that's the logical conclusion of those kinds of statements.

So you won't care about people unless you're given a reason which you have to decide meets your standards: Would you ignore someone crying in the middle of the street? A homeless man? Do you hear domestic abuse a few apartments over and just shrug your shoulders?

Someone please clarify this for me, because objectivism is just not that fucking popular!

EA apparently means satan or dead babies.

Its sickening really. They may not have the best track record but they aren't evil.

Also Moviebob, anything involving him is annoying and inhuman. There is no good in someone who belittles other people while claiming he is right and then outright saying he never even experienced it.

Austin Howe:
TVTrops terminology incoming:

People who accuse the Final Fantasy games or JRPGs of Wangst.
Multiple categories:

1) The people who have no evidence (ie, have basically never played the games.)
2) People who argue that the angst is an innapropriate response to the TraumaCongaLine typical of the JRPG protagonist. Oh really, and how would you react? (See also: Neon Genesis Evangelion.)
3) People who say that those TraumaCongaLines shouldn't have happened in the first place. We can argue about the extent of the (melo)drama in this genre until the end of time, but the end result usually ends up being that these are the kind of people who like their games completely bereft of drama anyway. Phillistines . . .
4) And without question the most infuriating: people who say they don't care about the character's problems because they haven't been given a reason to. They're human fucking beings, that's why you should care god damnit.

Did your parents raise you at all? I mean christ, how do these kind of people react to people who have these kinds of problems in real life? Are they the kinds of people who think that every person struggling with a mental disorder like bipolar or clinical depression is faking it or just "whining"? Because that's the logical conclusion of those kinds of statements.

So you won't care about people unless you're given a reason which you have to decide meets your standards: Would you ignore someone crying in the middle of the street? A homeless man? Do you hear domestic abuse a few apartments over and just shrug your shoulders?

Someone please clarify this for me, because objectivism is just not that fucking popular!

I agree with this post wholeheartedly.

I mean, would people rather have the situation have a total lack of believable angst, like Elfen Lied? Where...


In fact, almost all of the negative reviews I have heard of that anime, have focused on Kohta's lack of angst. It's like characters can never react positively or negatively enough. And people hardly ever seem to have sympathy for anything. Sure, they may be fictional, but isn't a part of the fun of fiction, immersion?

Then again, most of this sort of thing happens on the internet, where everyone is a wannabe sociopath.

That their universe is the most powerful. Unless you happen to love W40K. In which case you are correct. Because it was designed that way.

I have played the COD 2 and MW2 demos, and I quite enjoyed them. Does that make me stupid? If you said yes, then there is no hope for you.

I'm sick of the notion that fans are always right, and that game companies have no choice but to acquiesce to their demands.

Big game company = bad game company.

Raging against the machine doesn't really mean much when the machine is simply offering an optional form of entertainment.

edit

Easter Eggs = everything that even most remotely shares any coincidental resemblance to anything else.

Pfheonix:
That their universe is the most powerful. Unless you happen to love W40K. In which case you are correct. Because it was designed that way.

I am going to go with stuff like this. That anything is for sure. It would not be hard for a lot of game universes to add a bit of dialog and make this wrong. Not to try and point you out or anything but nothing is for certain.

OT: I hate to be pedantic, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

"Fallacy" is not the same thing as misunderstanding. A fallacy is a logical misstep.

For example, a long time ago many people used to believe the world was flat, right? That is not a fallacy. It is a conclusion. An incorrect conclusion, but definitely not a fallacy.

On the other hand, the PROCESS of seeing a patch of flat land & then concluding that all land everywhere must be flat (a fallacy of composition) IS fallacious.

The conclusion (i.e. the misunderstanding) is not the fallacy. The broken train of logic by which we got the conclusion is the fallacy.

To put it in a simpler way, when someone says, "2+2=5" they are making a mistake. They are not committing a fallacy.

Ugh, this is right up there with people misusing "oxymoron" & "begging the question" (>n<)

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion thread...

thewaever:
OT: I hate to be pedantic, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

"Fallacy" is not the same thing as misunderstanding. A fallacy is a logical misstep.

For example, a long time ago many people used to believe the world was flat, right? That is not a fallacy. It is a conclusion. An incorrect conclusion, but definitely not a fallacy.

On the other hand, the PROCESS of seeing a patch of flat land & then concluding that all land everywhere must be flat (a fallacy of composition) IS fallacious.

The conclusion (i.e. the misunderstanding) is not the fallacy. The broken train of logic by which we got the conclusion is the fallacy.

To put it in a simpler way, when someone says, "2+2=5" they are making a mistake. They are not committing a fallacy.

Ugh, this is right up there with people misusing "oxymoron" & "begging the question" (>n<)

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion thread...

How meta...

Generation One is not the best Pokemon generation. It's not. It's buggy as hell and was full of glitches that other gens lacked. Also Charizard and Dragonite can't learn Fly.

They also didn't have the best designs. Each gen has a few good ones, and a bunch of crappy ones. Even gen 1.

And if you like the buggy and glitchy 1st gen, don't complain about Obsidian or Bethesada games then.

Luxatrum:
Generation One is not the best Pokemon generation. It's not. It's buggy as hell and was full of glitches that other gens lacked. Also Charizard and Dragonite can't learn Fly.

They also didn't have the best designs. Each gen has a few good ones, and a bunch of crappy ones. Even gen 1.

And if you like the buggy and glitchy 1st gen, don't complain about Obsidian or Bethesada games then.

A-freaking-MEN brother. Every generation since the first has only built on and improved the previous one.

Austin Howe:
TVTrops terminology incoming:

People who accuse the Final Fantasy games or JRPGs of Wangst.
Multiple categories:

1) The people who have no evidence (ie, have basically never played the games.)
2) People who argue that the angst is an innapropriate response to the TraumaCongaLine typical of the JRPG protagonist. Oh really, and how would you react? (See also: Neon Genesis Evangelion.)
3) People who say that those TraumaCongaLines shouldn't have happened in the first place. We can argue about the extent of the (melo)drama in this genre until the end of time, but the end result usually ends up being that these are the kind of people who like their games completely bereft of drama anyway. Phillistines . . .
4) And without question the most infuriating: people who say they don't care about the character's problems because they haven't been given a reason to. They're human fucking beings, that's why you should care god damnit.

Did your parents raise you at all? I mean christ, how do these kind of people react to people who have these kinds of problems in real life? Are they the kinds of people who think that every person struggling with a mental disorder like bipolar or clinical depression is faking it or just "whining"? Because that's the logical conclusion of those kinds of statements.

So you won't care about people unless you're given a reason which you have to decide meets your standards: Would you ignore someone crying in the middle of the street? A homeless man? Do you hear domestic abuse a few apartments over and just shrug your shoulders?

Someone please clarify this for me, because objectivism is just not that fucking popular!

So this is not really OT but on point number 4, I feel I need a reason to care because they are not real. They are imaginary characters with imaginary problems. They don't hold the same weight as a person in real life. If the story does not make them and there problems interesting to me then I don't care. I am not saying that I have not cared about a character in a story, but it was not just because in they story they are a human, It is because the story made me care. as far as in relation to FF games i have never played them so I have nothing to say about the other points, but I felt like this was worth saying. also I am using story here to mean any fictional work be it a game, book, movie, ect.

SajuukKhar:
The biggest one I have is when people talk about the Elder Srolls lore.

There is inevitably someone who says something like "all the books in the game only contain partial truths that you are supposed to piece together" or something of that level of nonsense.

When in reality all contradictory myths and creation stories happened. I get so fing peeved at having to explain why that is over and over.

Lorkhan having his heart ripped out by triminac? happened
Lorkhan ripping out his own heart? happened
Akatosh putting Alessia into the Amulet of kings? happened
Lorkhan putting Alessia into the amulet of kings? Also happened
Nerevar dieing at Vivec's hands? happened
Nerevar dieing by a wound suffered at the battle of red Mountain? happened

In the Elder Scrolls universe myth becomes reality.

Please explain why taking it as only partial truths is wrong? (Not being accusatory, just trying to understand why stringing together pieces that fall in place is supposed to make less sense than contradictions?)

EDIT: Ok just realised how dickish that sounds considering you asked not to be asked. But I REALLLY Want to know. (Just read one of your previous posts and it made quite a bit of sense now I want to know it all!!)

Pfheonix:
That their universe is the most powerful. Unless you happen to love W40K. In which case you are correct. Because it was designed that way.

There's a thread going on about that right now. Chief vs. a Space Marine. There are morons thinking the Chief would have any semblance of a chance.

Fucking. Stupid.

Archraven:

Austin Howe:

snip

So this is not really OT but on point number 4, I feel I need a reason to care because they are not real. They are imaginary characters with imaginary problems. They don't hold the same weight as a person in real life. If the story does not make them and there problems interesting to me then I don't care. I am not saying that I have not cared about a character in a story, but it was not just because in they story they are a human, It is because the story made me care. as far as in relation to FF games i have never played them so I have nothing to say about the other points, but I felt like this was worth saying. also I am using story here to mean any fictional work be it a game, book, movie, ect.

Ok, now that's a valid point. It draws a dichotomy between two equally valid types of people: those who are at least interested by suffering on it's own merits (ie, people like me), and those who are not. (ie, people like you.)

But of course, I think this presents a logical problem. If you don't already care about the character(s) coming in, regardless of what happens in the story, do you ever really have a reason to? Basically, doesn't this boil down to a bias?

My ultimate point anyway was supposed to be that people try and use this as an argument against game quality. Most people don't make the distinction between "Games I like" and "Games I think are good", and that's a real tragedy. I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty. I also happen to think that the battle music in Chrono Trigger is alright, but I can't stand listening to it to the point that it makes me not want to play the game (along with many other things I don't want to discuss right now.) So you've got people who are basically all over the internet saying "I don't like angst, so this must be a terrible game." Well, good for you, go lead your wonderful happy life and let the rest of us not have to defend our right to fuckin' brood a little bit, alright? (I'll take this opportunity to note that the people most critical of angst are among the most bitter kinds of people themselves, and they probably have more in common with, say, Squall Leonhart than they might think.)

People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten? o.O

Austin Howe:
I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty.

Resident Evil 4 is racist, misogynistic, simplistic and empty?

Not really contradicting you or anything I just dont really think "racist" when I think of Resi 4

I usually think of this.

image

xXxJessicaxXx:
People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten? o.O

Oh the infamous scene from Tomb Raider 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLDAmrZl3s

And this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZG24svFXk

Not to disregard your point, but Lara Croft was never a saintly character. In fact one of the criticisms a lot of players had with Tomb Raider Anniversary was that she had the whole emotional fit after killing him

I remember when Toby Gard once said that the reason the majority of enemies in the original Tomb Raider were animals was because of games like Doom popularizing mass murdering enemies.

Indecipherable:
Easter Eggs = everything that even most remotely shares any coincidental resemblance to anything else.

Or how about this one: Anything that even remotely shares any coincidental resemblance to anything else = rip off. Grrrr.. "rip off" is one of that many things I'm so sick of hearing/reading that I could quite literally KILL someone.

DeadYorick:

Austin Howe:
I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty.

Resident Evil 4 is racist, misogynistic, simplistic and empty?

Not really contradicting you or anything I just dont really think "racist" when I think of Resi 4

I'm really happy and also laughing my ass off that you didn't contradict misogynistic, simplistic or empty. Lol.

Anyways, for one there's always the subtextual racism of the "stranger in a hostile land" story, but Resi4 goes a little more egregious than that.

Keep in mind, all of these things are said about Spanish people who are very plainly dirty but certainly don't look like zombies. (I could talk up a storm about "dirty", but let's not.)

"They're planning." That's a direct quote. So what, plainly human Spaniards can't plan shit? Come on Leon.

There's a part where he sees plates on a table and says "They eat just like regular people." I think that kind of speaks for itself, but then there's Ada's chapter where she observed that the tables are covered in bodily fluids and haven't been washed in however long. That's not really so bad, but in the context of the racism of the entire main game, it's pretty bad.

But I think the real winner is when Capcom decided that the thing that should get zombified Spaniards to return to base is the ringing of a (very obviously) Catholic church bell. Really Capcom? You're gonna allow yourself to create the image of a mass of Spaniards walking in a mindless horde towards a catholic church? You couldn't have used anything else?

I mean, it's not as bad as RE5, and some of it is more "They didn't think that out" than "Holy shit how did they not see how incredibly racist that is?" but frankly, considering the entirety of the Street Fighter series, I'm not really willing to cut Capcom any slack on this.

xXxJessicaxXx:
People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten? o.O

Yeah, that Kraken in TR: Underworld was seriously menacing, the way it was just sitting there, not attacking or anything.

The idea that if someone likes something you don't there's a community expectation to think of them on the same level as those with severe mental retardation.

i.e..CoD-tards, or biodrones. Taste is subjective matter no matter how crappy their tastes may be

People who think interstellar travel is impossible in Mass Effect without the Relays.

Buretsu:

xXxJessicaxXx:
People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten? o.O

Yeah, that Kraken in TR: Underworld was seriously menacing, the way it was just sitting there, not attacking or anything.

It tries to attack you multiple times as you swim through the tunnels.

I think when you fight it is bad game design rather than any evil on the part of the character.

DeadYorick:
snip

I'm not saying she's a saint it just seems ridiculous to me to expect her to just stand there while bad guys shoot her.

She kills Larson to save the world. It's not like she just wants the artifact.

Austin Howe:

Archraven:

Austin Howe:

snip

So this is not really OT but on point number 4, I feel I need a reason to care because they are not real. They are imaginary characters with imaginary problems. They don't hold the same weight as a person in real life. If the story does not make them and there problems interesting to me then I don't care. I am not saying that I have not cared about a character in a story, but it was not just because in they story they are a human, It is because the story made me care. as far as in relation to FF games i have never played them so I have nothing to say about the other points, but I felt like this was worth saying. also I am using story here to mean any fictional work be it a game, book, movie, ect.

Ok, now that's a valid point. It draws a dichotomy between two equally valid types of people: those who are at least interested by suffering on it's own merits (ie, people like me), and those who are not. (ie, people like you.)

But of course, I think this presents a logical problem. If you don't already care about the character(s) coming in, regardless of what happens in the story, do you ever really have a reason to? Basically, doesn't this boil down to a bias?

My ultimate point anyway was supposed to be that people try and use this as an argument against game quality. Most people don't make the distinction between "Games I like" and "Games I think are good", and that's a real tragedy. I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty. I also happen to think that the battle music in Chrono Trigger is alright, but I can't stand listening to it to the point that it makes me not want to play the game (along with many other things I don't want to discuss right now.) So you've got people who are basically all over the internet saying "I don't like angst, so this must be a terrible game." Well, good for you, go lead your wonderful happy life and let the rest of us not have to defend our right to fuckin' brood a little bit, alright? (I'll take this opportunity to note that the people most critical of angst are among the most bitter kinds of people themselves, and they probably have more in common with, say, Squall Leonhart than they might think.)

Well I think it is possible to start a story without caring about the characters within or even thinking you will hate them and then have the story make you care about them, but I do agree that it comes down to bias, in the sense that how you feel about a story and its characters are up to you as a person. So I do agree with your main point that I don't think it is a fair way to measure a games quality because it is a subjective viewpoint. No one really can say you are wrong to care, but as far as from a standpoint of fictional characters I don't believe its wrong to not care as well if you don't. Although, I tend to believe that most elements of story that evolve things like character traits (such as brooding) come down to personal preference. Some people like certain character traits and some just don't.

OT to the Thread: people who think Emma Stone is playing MJ in the new spider-man movie because they have only seen the movies and so don't know who Gwen is and then say "why is she blonde".

AntiChri5:
People who think interstellar travel is impossible in Mass Effect without the Relays.

DUDE I so agree with this. one thing about the way people complain about the ending that I don't agree with lol

xXxJessicaxXx:

DeadYorick:
snip

I'm not saying she's a saint it just seems ridiculous to me to expect her to just stand there while bad guys shoot her.

She kills Larson to save the world. It's not like she just wants the artifact.

Is she under some sort of strict NDA that says she's not allowed to tell anyone that she's not just being greedy? Or is it just easier to kill him and be done with it?

Buretsu:

xXxJessicaxXx:

DeadYorick:
snip

I'm not saying she's a saint it just seems ridiculous to me to expect her to just stand there while bad guys shoot her.

She kills Larson to save the world. It's not like she just wants the artifact.

Is she under some sort of strict NDA that says she's not allowed to tell anyone that she's not just being greedy? Or is it just easier to kill him and be done with it?

Larson knows what Natla is and what she's doing, if anyone is greedy it's him.

Archraven:

Austin Howe:

Archraven:
[quote="Austin Howe" post="9.365043.14257351"]
snip

snip

Well I think it is possible to start a story without caring about the characters within or even thinking you will hate them and then have the story make you care about them, but I do agree that it comes down to bias, in the sense that how you feel about a story and its characters are up to you as a person. So I do agree with your main point that I don't think it is a fair way to measure a games quality because it is a subjective viewpoint. No one really can say you are wrong to care, but as far as from a standpoint of fictional characters I don't believe its wrong to not care as well if you don't. Although, I tend to believe that most elements of story that evolve things like character traits (such as brooding) come down to personal preference. Some people like certain character traits and some just don't.

OT to the Thread: people who think Emma Stone is playing MJ in the new spider-man movie because they have only seen the movies and so don't know who Gwen is and then say "why is she blonde".

True. I will say from my bias I think you're automatically going to like something at least a little bit less if you don't go in to the work caring about what happens to the characters at least a little bit.

I've also always been really disturbed by the subtext of the statement "I don't care what happens to these characters." So . . . death? We're good? Torture? I mean, fuck, I can't stand Tidus in FFX at all, but there are things that I do not want happening to him, even if he is fake and he's in a fictional story.

Anyways, I'n actually way more interested to see how Emma Stone does the role of Gwen Stacy than any other particular aspect of the new Spider-Man, although I generally think it's going to be pretty decent.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked