Roughshod

Oh Buckapalooza, I meant in regards to viewers in the real world and how they might interpret the Celestia-Luna rift as having possible racial subtext. Because it's possible, in fact it's plausible. There's the whole gender thing as well but I've already argued that to death with Shimmer5000 and Sunny Fox. At least I think it was them. It's in my post history anyway.

You know Buck Norris, Celestia is a priveleged white mare. She also happened to banish her darker sister from her kingdom for attempting to usurp her power. Don't you think that might send a bad message?

Well this certainly looks like a productive use of my time.

Most likely in April but I voted for March because I don't want to wait any longer than I have to...

I sense that the following quote is addressed to me so I shall reply in turn. Some points to make: 1) I never actually said that I thought autocracy was evil, only that I thought democracy was favorable and more stable in comparison. Nor was I trying to imply that Celestia is evil. Some governments have been shown to have more advantages than others in the world and democracy typically comes out above the rest. That being said you'll never hear me say that our modern democracies are flawless or above criticism, but it's because of democratic values that we can even espouse our opinions. 2) What if? That's an enormous hypothetical. What if Celestia decided one day to just terrorize all of Equestria and ravage the landscape because she felt like it? That probably sounds absurd but so is making blanket statements about a fictional character as if they're some kind of incorruptible paragon of righteousness. If we accept that she is a sentient being then that means we must acknowledge her capacity to think and make decisions, including possible decisions that we may not agree with or believe contradict her general nature. The nature we assume based on what we have seen and know of her which is limited and contrived(being in fact a fabricated entity). This doesn't mean we can automatically predict what she would do in any circumstance or establish a precedence of character that does not allow for any alternative interpretation. That is frankly ridiculous. 3) Would it be an evil dictatorship? Well that depends on your judgment of good and evil doesn't it? How peaceful, creative and prosperous is Equestria really? What if a person(or pony) does not value these things? And what standard of measurement are you using to evaluate them anyway? What of the treatment of Chrysalis and Tirek? One was cast out and the other imprisoned. Perhaps they might have felt like they were being oppressed and living in fear. I'm not necessarily defending their actions but I think it's worth noting that the narrative of MLP is typically very one sided. 4) Again, the criteria for what makes a good government or good leaders is completely up for interpretation and reliant on what one values and believes a government is meant to do. The politics of Equestria have never been disclosed in great detail and likely won't be but your argument could easily be used as a self justification by anyone in power. Perhaps you would like to live in an autocratic state and that's fine if that's your preference. I however would take an imperfect democracy any day, I guess I just have too much distrust for the nature of governments to willingly abdicate all my political decisions to a higher power. Well, it's sort of yes and no. If I am watching an episode of MLP or engaging in another form of media then I can suspend my disbelief and allow the presentation to unfold with credulity. If, on the other hand I am speaking of it such as now then I feel I have to step back and put it into realistic context. Otherwise you can run the risk of making unfounded assumptions that have no concrete basis in reality. When I make a judgement of Celestia I am of course judging the representation she is making of those behind her portrayal. But the thing is, and I keep stressing this, Celestia is not really my problem. I don't particularly like or dislike her either way, in fact I find her somewhat boring. It's the concept of her role as the leader of a country. Of couse I believe that democracy is the better practice, that's the whole reason I've been making these posts. I think that both in theory and in practice democracy has proven itself to be the better system. If anyone fundamentally disagrees with me on this then perhaps we just hold irreconcilable views and that's all there is to it. I can accept that. If you're asking me to make accurate predictions about the effects of political change in a fictional world with any seriousness then I obviously can't do that. I don't think anyone could without a thorough understanding of the Equestrian political system which is unavailable as of yet. I think we've already gone over this but the decision to change, were it to be made, would have to be through a democratic process in order to appeal to what I'm arguing about. For the show to take that direction isn't likely to happen anyway. So many people are saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it". What a lazy attitude towards politics, my word. It's no wonder the democratic process has deteriorated so badly.

"Sic semper tyrannis!" Haha, actually it would probably be closer to this:

So are you saying their appointment is based on nothing more than positive racism? The mere FACT that they're alicorns gives them the right to be in charge? This line of thinking makes itself clear given Twilight's ascension and transformation. But you're in support of that? You seem to be since you're obviously defending Celestia's right to preside over Equestria. And if the princesses aren't really 'princesses' then why are they called such? Why are they addressed as 'your highness' and 'your majesty' and treated with the type of reverence you might expect for royalty? Why do they wear crowns and tiaras and conduct elaborate ceremonies for themselves? Their behaviour seems to contradict your assertion. The only thing I might accept is the idea that they're more or less figureheads but that does not justify their position for me, quite the contrary actually. I'm not going to debate over the idealistic nature of the world of a children's television show or the fact that the conflicts that arise are always quickly resolved by the main characters. This isn't even an argument for me because it's so self-evident and doesn't even address my main point. The argument that 'it works' doesn't satisfy me either because the nature of the show basically requires it to. To clarify, my issue is one of political ideology. I don't think eschewing the idea of a non democratic system is justified simply because a nation may have a 'wise and powerful, goddess-like matriarch' to oversee the lesser mortals. For a show that tries to break stereotypes this does not seem to advocate much equality. No actually you can't safely say that, you're only assuming that based on what you know(which is limited) and how you feel. Celestia is a fictional character produced by writers, directors and producers, she is not some entity that either of us can categorically state the nature or potential choices of with any real credibility. My criticism is based on her position not her character and even the references you made only refer to what she has done and not what she may do in the future. The fact that she possesses humility doesn't change my argument in the slightest as she still retains her title either way. It's already been shown with her sister Luna that princesses' personalities can change quite dramatically given the right reason. I'm not saying that Celestia would or will do that only that it's been shown time and time again that a character need not be static and unchanging. Wow. A lot of big claims in this paragraph, I'll try to address them as well as I can. First of all I didn't make my criticism with the intention of naming a replacement for Celestia. Placing that absurd responsibility on me does not counter my criticism of the principle of her role. But as you may have gathered I'm an advocate for democracy so I would probably leave it to the citizens of Equestria to decide who they want. Evidently they're satisfied with the status quo but I still think they should be given an option, one that is made clear to them. You say there is no one else for the position but why should there be when thete is a nigh immortal being reigning already? The only candidates I can think of that would substitute for her would be the other princesses and princes and after them who knows. If Celestia is more of a figurehead then perhaps a sort of bureaucracy exists that could replace her but that's merely speculation. You can't possibly know that Equestria would "fall apart in a week" if Celestia stepped down. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that she would need to abdicate her role in raising the sun(although the unicorns could theoretically replace her and Luna in that matter) only that she no longer be the head of state. As with any major transition there would surely be some turmoil but I think it's presumptuous to assume that anarchy and chaos would automatically ensue because of that. If anything this would only be more proof of why Celestia is incapable, if she were such a great ruler and did so much for her country then it should be strong enough to carry on without her. I would say she's actually doing them an injustice by making them so dependant on her and thus so vulnerable were she no longer able to rule. Finally, stating she's the best ruler means nothing if there's no source for comparison. You could use Discord as an example of why Celestia is a better candidate but it's not a real argument since he was obviously a tyrant. He was defeated by the elements of harmony that the alicorn sisters possessed but are no longer capable of using. In reality he only serves as proof of the dangers of unlimited power in the hands of a single ruler. The same can be said of most of the other major villains in MLP actually. In summation I don't accept the idea that Celestia is the best possible ruler of Equestria because I reject the premise of a monarchy, duarchy, oligarchy or any other non-democratic state as ideal, real or fictional.

Did this journal happen to mention why they were appointed in the first place? Did it state how old they were or why they were given oversight of an entire country for a seemingly indefinite period, despite having no previous experience in governmental matters? Had there been a state of emergency and the princesses were chosen to briefly take over in order to stabilize the nation that would be more reasonable. But as its been mentioned several times, Celestia has reigned over Equestria for over a thousand years and lately she's been doing a pretty lackluster job at handling any crises that emerge. Honestly I don't see how it makes any difference whether they were chosen by the citizens of Equestria or not. Many autocrats and dictators have been freely appointed and elected in the past. And unless the subsequent generations of Equestrians have had the right to review and reconsider the role of the princesses in an open manner then my main point still stands. I'm also not very suprised by this either. After all, equines are herd animals that establish social hierarchies and usually have an alpha mare as their leader. Perhaps it says something about sociological nature that they would establish two Alicorns as their undisputed rulers. Or maybe it just says something about the people behind the show and their naively romanticized outlook towards monarchy.

Frankly, no I don't think Princess Celestia is the ideal pony to rule Equestria. But this stems not merely from a dislike towards her but rather my disapproval of princesses in general. Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that she's a monarch(or perhaps oligarch) and I simply reject the idea that such a circumstance is the best possible political arrangement. You could call this intolerant or a result of democratic bias but that's how I feel. I fully understand that MLP is a children's show with highly idealized views regarding the world it's characters inhabit and that doesn't change my beliefs or make me feel like I should accommodate them in this scenario. I'm not saying that democratic systems are all flawless but I think real world examples have shown the benefits it has over autocratic and oligarchic governments. As shown in the episode 'Magical Mystery Cure' princesses are evidently not elected or appointed by any public process but chosen by Celestia herself. How and why Celestia and Luna attained their position has not been revealed to me from any canonical source so I think it's safe to assume that it was simply a matter of hereditary succession as is the case with traditional princesses. If anyone has valid evidence that contradicts this I'd very much like to see it. The ponies in MLP are anthropomorphic, meaning they have human like attributes, most obviously in their sentience and social behaviour. Like any beings they are not infallible and neither is Celestia and as such I don't believe there is any credible reason why she should have unchallenged authority over a nation that apparently did not choose her for the role. While this isn't the best example of what I value, here it is: Then again, it's possible Puddinghead's character was deliberately made dumb as a subtle mockery of democracy on top of the negative stereotypes about Earth ponies that the ancient Pegasi seemed to hold. Plus Pinkie Pie is just silly of course.

The ability to think and form a critical opinion on a subject matter. Without this nothing is flawed or flawless.

That would be a very unusual move for Hasbro. To make a stage production based on a children's series mediocre spin off movie doesn't seem like a recipe for success. I'll hold my excitement.

I consider her to be more incompetent than oppressive.

There's something I've been wondering about Pegasi so I made this meme.