Are bronies too hard on G3 MLP?

[Miles 2,514]

@, 

 

1. Ahhh, but you see, you misunderstand what I am arguing for.  I'm not saying that girls don't deserve just as eclectic of shows and toys as boys.  What I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with having "both for both" --- there's nothing wrong with having stereotypically "girly" things out there for girls as long as there are also non-girly things for them as well.  And there's nothing wrong with having "overly boy-ish" things out there for boys, so long as there are also non-overly-boy-ish things out there for boys as well.  You are trying to completely get rid of the "girl's aisles are pink and boy's aisles are blue" concept as to make everything gender-neutral; whereas I am trying to say: don't get rid of the pink and blue, but rather have both gender-neutral things for both genders, as well as still keeping some things pink and some things blue.  (Also realize, I'm generalizing the "Pink and Blue" here to refer to stereotypical girl vs boy things in general).  

 

Furthermore, what I'm trying to say is: It is wrong to decide things for other people.  Let others decide for themselves what they want.  Give them both options.  Some people LIKE gender-specific things, and some like gender-neutral things.  

You are basing your idea on the premise that people aren't smart enough to already understand that alot of shows/toys/etc. are overly stereotypical.  But that's exactly what I'm trying to argue against.  People know that there are lots of overly gender-stereotypical [things] out there, and they know what they are.  And because they know what they are, they decide whether or not they want that.  If they don't want it, they don't buy it/watch it, etc.  But, some people do want and like stereotypical things.  

Therefore: the best way to solve the issue surrounding gender-role/gender-specific [things] is to also have [things] that are not stereotypical as well.  Let the consumer decide for themselves what they want.  

If you take away the "pink and blue" completely, you are taking away things that some people still want and still like.  

---

As far as that article from Lauren Faust goes:  I agree with that!  That's what I'm trying to tell you!

The key phrase in her article, and from a bullet directly from your quote from her:

"Cartoons for girls don't have to be [overly stereotypical/devoid of greater concepts that are gender-neutral]"

(Used brackets as to change the exact quote, so yes, what is in the brackets are not her words, but it is still the same concept of what she was saying).

But: "...don't have to be..." is exactly what I am talking about.  "Don't have to be" is not the same thing as "Shouldn't exist at all."

Ergo, I agree with you that there IS much portrayal of gender stereotypes.  What I am trying to say in my argument, is that removing that completely would mean that there is no such thing as "boy's aisles and girl's aisles" (again, being general, and meaning it broadly) anymore - it would merge them together into one totally gender-neutral aisle.  

Not everyone wants that!

Some people still want the "pink and blue" to exist.  But those people are not saying that they are at the same time against there being gender-neutral [things] - they are saying: have both.

---

Then we go to this:
 

There aren't a lot of feminine products that treat girls as intelligent beings

 
Okay.  Really, honestly, I am not disagreeing with you this.  You are correct.  But, again, what I'm trying to say is that people are smart enough to realize this, and still choose to be okay with the things that undermine their intelligence.  And again, I'm trying to say that those people are not limited to those things.  There are plenty of other choices that don't undermine intelligence.  So, as long as people understand that kids are smart, and as long as kids understand that they have the option to enjoy other things that treat them with more intelligent concepts - they can still choose to be okay with the undermining [things].  

---

I'm not saying that G3 MLP provides intelligent concepts.  Lol.  I know.  I know it is very minimal and basic, and that it lacks greater conflicts, and lacks ideas that are more intellectually challenging.  

But what you are saying is that even having such minimalistic [things] that so lacking is bad.  You are saying they shouldn't exist.  You are saying that ALL [shows/things/etc.] had ought to be based with more intelligent concepts, more and greater conflicts, etc.  

What I am saying is: that is a very authoritarian idea that tries to control and regulate everything.  Such regulation limits what is out there to only have [things/shows/etc.] that are representative of, and withholding concepts of higher intelligence (and thus, more intellectually challenging).

I am not saying there shouldn't be more shows/toys/things/etc. that do ^that^... I am saying it is wrong to only have that, and erase the lesser things ("pink and blue"/overly-feminine/overly-masculine/gender-specific) from existence.  
I am saying that regulating [all these things] to be so limiting (limited to having only the more intellectually challenging & only the gender-neutral [things])... Is taking away the ability for people to choose what they want.  That would literally mean that the regulations cause the people to be unable to choose what they want for themselves.

---

2. Look, I am not forcing you to accept it.  I'm just trying to say - because it is over with, there's nothing you can change about it.

And of course, you also are meaning to say that you want to use that as a basis to say that things should be changed in the future... which, is what I was explaining above, in section one: You can create new things that have more (more, as in, more intellectually challenging, more conflict, etc. and so on), but, you shouldn't try to stop the creation of [things] that don't have that.  Ergo, I know that G3 was bad due to it not having "more" - but I am defending its existence because some people want it and like it just as it was.  

---

3.

 

In other words, an unacceptable ideology to discourage critical thinking.

 

I know this mindset all too well, and it's both stupid and dangerous. Stupid because it shows the people who want this don't give a damn. Dangerous because they're telling others they want objectively bad quality shoved onto others.

 

No. 

The reason you are wrong is because:

There is no "shov[ing] onto others" going on.  Nobody forces people to watch anything.  

People can, and do, choose for themselves.

If people want to watch it, if people want to buy it, if people want to [whatever] [it]...

It's their choice; it's their decision.

---

 

And for your reply to my second post:

 

1. Again you are trying to say that there is a need for regulation.  You are saying it (it = this regulation) is okay to do/should be done.  

 

Then, you bring up how kids are intelligent, and that dumb shows cause kids to become dumb adults.

Oh, and then I can use what you said to put a name to the regulation: "Quality Control."

No, no, and no.  Meaning:

Regulation is not okay, and should not be done.

Dumb shows do not make people stupid.

Quality Control is regulation, and this regulation takes away the ability for people to choose for themselves.
 

Good parents will present specific quality control for their kids to help build better minds and a better palette of family entertainment.

 

This is my argument!  LOL.  You can't use that to argue for what you are saying!  That is in my favor.

Let the people choose what they want.  Let the parents choose for their kids.  Don't choose for them.

---
 

This selfishness only emphasizes my point from earlier in the post.

 

You've got it all backwards.  Your idea is selfish because by saying that there needs to be quality control and regulation, you are saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose for themselves what they want.

---
 

There's no reason to tolerate a work that insults girls and boys, period.

 

Actually, there is.  You keep dismissing the fact that people realize that these works do what they do (insult girls and boys).  They know it does this, and they choose to be okay with that.  Why?  Because they know the truth.  They know kids aren't stupid.  They know that those insults are false.  

Let the people do what they want.  If they want to be okay with these works because they understand the insults are false... then let them be okay with it.

 

---

 

[A]
The very concept that some kids don't deserve objectively good cartoons because they don't want them sets a precedent that negatively affects others via dangerous implications of having others be influenced through poor work. It's an excuse for low-level quality when there shouldn't be one in the first place! To repeat from earlier, kids need a variety of good-quality content to help them grow. More people need to be educated about what makes great family entertainment great. Standards need to be set and then climbed higher and stricter to send messages to everyone here that we need great family cartoons.


Cartoons that contain well-written drama, comedy, or both. Develop likeable, three-dimensional characters that subvert stereotypes. Deliver mature and deep morals if you're writing a show based off them. Self-maintain a strict level of high quality. Show more and tell less. Talk up to both kids and adults, not down.

[C]
Ones like G3, modern Spongebob, Breadwinners, and TTG don't come close to meeting those standards. I don't give a shit if companies like Nickelodeon or any of the people who consistently write horrid work don't like it! I'm not going to change my positions, ignore them, nor tolerate the bad work. I'm keeping them accountable, and I'm going to make sure strict quality standards are met. If it means I'm on an island, so be it.

 

A. It's not for you to decide who deserves what.  It's for the people to decide.  

It's not an excuse, because an excuse isn't needed in the first place.  You incorrectly say that there is something wrong with the existence of low quality works in themselves... when there is nothing wrong with their existence in the first place.  

It's called Liberty.  

It's called Freedom.

You can't stop these things from existing, or being created.  Seriously, you just can't.  Doing so is in direct violation of our rights.  Of our right to choose for ourselves what we want.

To regulate these things would be to take away our liberty, our right to decide for our own selves what we want.

The quality control/regulation that you are advocating for is communistic/socialistic.  It is literally controlling something in a way that doesn't allow people to decide for themselves, but would be deciding for them - forcing them to be unable to choose.

B. These kinds of shows already exist.  Again, people can choose to watch them, people can choose to watch the others that don't have that, people can choose to watch both, or people can choose to not watch either.  It's... Their... Choice.  You cannot decide for them.

C. Good luck on that island, then.   

---
 

I wasn't going to bring this up again.  I didn't want to risk making it look like I was trying to backseat moderate.  But I promise you, I am not at all trying to do that.  

But you brought it up again.  And so, of course I am going to respond to it.

But, again, I promise to you, and to all, this is not backseat modding.  This is, quite simply, just me defending a friend.  

 

No, those questions I called out weren't valid. They each contained "a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition." The user asked if the reason they hated G3 was because some bronies didn't actually like MLP at all or make FIM look better than believed. It doesn't make a difference if it contained "some," "most," "all," or a generalization. The second the questions were asked, they were loaded, and it was asking for a callout.

 

No.

They were completely valid because she wasn't using them as an argument.  Your insertion of "they are logical fallacies" do not apply.

Why?

Because she was literally just asking the questions.  I don't care whether or not you think they were loaded questions.  Loaded questions are still questions.  
 

---

Let me explain to you what she was asking in a different way.  Maybe then you will understand.
 

I think so. Generation 3 is certainly not outstanding by many means, but it's certainly not the worst thing ever. At most, it's simply forgettable. Perhaps some bronies hate on G3 because they don't want to admit fully that they like MLP? Or to make Friendship is Magic seem better in the eyes of people who don't particularly like it?

"Oh yeah, hah. I like Friendship is Magic. But no, I don't like My Little Pony. Generation 3 absolute trash. Now Friendship is Magic, on the other hand..."

 

Here are the same questions, reworded, without changing their meanings at all.

 

Question 1: Is it possible that some bronies hate on G3 because they are trying to hide that they like My Little Pony?

Answer: Yes, it is entirely possible that some bronies might be outwardly expressing that they do not like G3 MLP because they might not want to admit that they like My Little Pony.  

 

Question 2: Is it possible that some bronies hate on G3 because they think it might make FIM look more appealing to the people who don't like it?

Answer: Yes, it is entirely possible that some bronies hate on G3 because they are trying make FIM look much better.
 

See, Old King Q?  Her questions were completely valid.  She wasn't arguing.  She only asked 2 simple questions that are easily answerable.

I am going to politely ask that you do not disrespect her again like the way you did here:

 

If you want your argument to look solid, never use blatant loaded questions. [...]

 

Plain and simply, 

This is outright disrespectful.  Because:

First of all, just telling her what to do... is not okay.

Secondly, rather than giving her a suggestion (which is the more respectful thing to do) like this:

"Just a simple tip/piece of advice, you should try to avoid using loaded questions."

You instead straight up told her "never" to do it.  

Now, this has nothing to do with the fact that I think you are wrong about them being fallacious.  Whether or not I think that doesn't matter in specific regards to this right here.

So,

If or when you think that someone is using a fallacy, and you want to give them advice in the likewise...

(Again, this is disregarding the fact that I don't think she was using a fallacy anyway)

Instead of telling them like you did in the above quote, I ask if you would please word it as a polite suggestion.  Thank you.

(And once more again, just to clarify: All I'm doing is asking something, and defending a friend, respectfully).

---

By the way, Old King Q,

Know that I always understand that everyone is entitled to their opinions.  And so, I know that you, myself, and everyone else, is in the likewise.  

---

TL;DR version of the whole post:

People can choose for themselves what to watch, buy, etc.  Regulating [things] in a way that eliminates the ability for people to have the option to choose to watch or buy something is not okay to do.  

~ Miles