You know how the joke goes: it's interesting how "politics" sounds as if it's a combination of "poly", meaning many, and "ticks", meaning blood-sucking creatures.

As of the S8 premiere, discussions about ponies have been curbing more toward the political side. I'm not overly surprised by this, as cartoon analytics often tie in the media they consume with the real world - as well they should, as cartoons and other media don't exist within a vacuum. The cautionary tale is not so much in the fact that real world events and politics are being related to the media we consume, but rather that the oversaturation of it is blinding us to what the episodes, and indeed the spirit of the show, are actually primarily about.

This would not be the first time that this issue will come up, and it will certainly not be the last, either. I think the problem in this lies in the assumption that events within a cartoon or any other media are actually, 100%, 1-to-1 parallels of these events and they're intended to be. The problem is that making them like this would make the media not age well, as it will comment on events that may eventually blow over as time proceeds onward, which is why I think reducing it to that can be problematic in the sense that it misses the overall message being conveyed. I am, of course, the first person who will tell you that no interpretation is wrong when it comes to media, and it's why I didn't like Fame & Misfortune, because it attempted to spread the idea there's a wrong feeling to garner about it. Rather, I'm attempting to say that authorial intent is rarely these 1-to-1 parallels as no smart writer would do that; it would date the work unless it's outright about it being that particular parallel (such as older works that specifically talk about an issue). I also find another problem is that these comparisons are, well, to be frank, they're not well thought-out, and I think that's because people oversimplify why something is good or bad, rather than actually considering why they feel that way. In other words, they listen to the authority figures that have told them this over their life, but never stopped and considered why those authority figures said that to them.

I'm not suggesting that such ideas should not be discussed, but I think some of the prevalence of these discussions can be attributed to not thinking enough into what makes a similarity, a similarity. Just because it reminds you of something, doesn't mean it's actually like that something in practice. And some of you who have thought already into what I'm saying know what I'm talking about, but for those who don't, the examples I provide you are: racism & imperialism, especially in the case of the latter.

I don't think, and would never agree with, the idea that the S8 premiere was intended to parallel any particular real world situation. Certainly, it's inspired by real world events, but it's not specifically criticizing anything (except perhaps how the school functions, which arguably parodies real school boards, but even then it's not targeting any specific school board). I also don't think the Cutie Map has any particular implication toward this, either. And I think, given some of the arguments I've seen, people are bringing in their own personal issues with the world into the episode and suggesting that the episode is saying that much. A noteworthy example, though the individual will not be named, is something regarding "white unicorns", despite Chancellor Neighsay never displaying any bias toward a particular faction of pony, nor would any bias toward colors of all things make any sense within the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic universe. And this is what I mean. As I said, there is no wrong way to interpret a work, but I do think there is a simplified way of viewing it and there's a nuanced way of viewing it, and many people seem to be taking the simplified way without considering nuance.

And that is why it's getting so heated and controversial. They're looking at an episode and suggesting it's making a statement that it may not actually be making. You could say it's an unintended side effect of the episode, which I would certainly agree in the case of other episodes, but when examining the actual context, the authorial intent rings clear as day that a political jab is probably not what they were trying to make with the premiere.

Even without that, the focus on this particular aspect of the episodes without even seeing the full season, without giving Chancellor Neighsay a chance to get the development he clearly is going to (given that he's coming back), and the discussion seems inundated with the same talking points. I've noticed that a lot of the topics about these premieres are similar. Of course, be the change you want to see, I'm aware, and making more topics of my own would probably aid to remedy the situation, but I figured it was worth making a journal entry discussing it and pointing out that it's a trend I noticed. And evidently, I wasn't the only one to have noticed it, as I've seen other journal entries and status updates of people growing frustrated with it. I'm not frustrated that politics are being related to ponies, and in fact I believe it to be inevitable. But I do think there's a possibility such discussion is not nuanced enough, and it's also not contained enough.

Those are just my thoughts, though. Feel free to let me know what you think.