That's like eating a cake and its delicious but accidentally had a cherry stem in it, minor issue. We would need to weigh velocities of all good and bad and to all audience members, so its just better to check what kind of audience enjoyed it vs didn't enjoy it and weigh each of those. More people enjoyed it, and the ones who enjoyed it are more reasonable than the ones who didn't enjoy it. Both sides could have perceptional biases. The ep did convey its point well though, if not people would be more often noting how the message was poorly said or such. Instead we get people mad because 'they were mean to muh ponies!' or because 'Hasbro is being rude to us!' which means they missed the point. Which means their negative doesn't count as much because they misunderstood it, but still partially counts because it wasn't showing itself well enough to appeal to them.
In a way its like food, some people just never ever ever try sour food. Or spicy food or pickled food etc. That's them missing out, they can't objectively say the food is bad. Plenty are enjoying it. Like how the Simpsons made fun of how they went to Japan just to try Japan's version of Western food. They could say ew Japanese food is gross 0/10. Doesn't mean their opinion means anything to those who enjoy the food already, and saying its bad because to them it tastes bad, that's just them not being used to it. So saying its objectively bad is objectively wrong, it has objective value.
Technically yeah. But because we are not having a huge science over this, and because its what I have seen elsewhere I am prone to thinking its a healthy representation. I may very well be wrong. But in the objective case of good art being perceived poorly, is that we would expect those that do enjoy the art, if they understands the intent, that it is possible to understand the intent thus they have more weight to it than those misunderstanding the episode. Tho it could be an expressional flaw on the writer's part, the fact they get side-stepped by their own emotional needs does prove its more on them being silly than the show. Like if I mention a study that offends a demographic of people but its true, then some people end up focusing more on the emotional aspect and ignore the technical aspect. It doesn't mean it was a bad study, it means the audience isn't good enough. But this being a show they are to blame somewhat because ya know, appealing to demographics being valued. However critics gonna criticize, and etc, so they might've been displeased with any other episode anyways if they more often than not criticize the show, and this could give them anger and the show more negative attention, which gives more optimists more chances to fight the negativity which means if anything, making the show fan demographic more optimistic about the show which is a good thing, but this isn't a strict possibility, and theres more possibilities we could prolly get into.