Why Starlight Glimmer and villain reform is genius (a criminal justice view)

[Zamasu 20]

It's factual that these standards developed for the purpose of telling a good story, its a fact that these standards produce results, its a fact that writers keep these standards in mind for that very reason. 

these standards constantly change, depending on time,culture and other variables.

whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant - they are still based on opinions and not on facts by definition.

As i said, look up what the term "objective" actually means... it doesnt fit no matter how hard you want it to.

[user1342342 143]

these standards constantly change, depending on time,culture and other variables.

whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant - they are still based on opinions and not on facts by definition.

As i said, look up what the term "objective" actually means... it doesnt fit no matter how hard you want it to.

 

Think of a scientific theory that was developed with strict standards in place. Is the model subjective? No. Even when revisions are made with new data, the model is still objective.

 

Storytelling may not be of the same caliber when it comes to what should be done, but it definitely does have standards. Ignoring them will produce crap stories, and I don't care if you like them.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by 1CJB

[Zamasu 20]

Think of a scientific theory that was developed with strict standards in place. Is the model subjective? No. Even when revisions are made with new data, the model is still objective.

 

Storytelling may not be of the same caliber when it comes to what should be done, but it definitely does have standards. Ignoring them will produce crap stories, and I don't care if you like them.

The model is definitely subjective by definition, and any good scientist will tell you that.

 

In fact, this is currently the best model in terms of results, which is why its used to define what is considered "subjective" and what is considered "objective" (because without it, everything is subjective by definition, something that can create problems).

 

The model has changed considerably throughout history, and STILL changes today to make it even more accurate and useful.

 

since there is no scientific proof for "storytelling standards", its not considered a fact and therefore not objective.

Ignoring the standards cant produce "crap stories", since there is no such a thing as factually "crap story".

in the worst case scenario, ignoring them would result in negative opinions about them from most ppl.

[user1342342 143]

The model is definitely subjective by definition, and any good scientist will tell you that.

 

In fact, this is currently the best model in terms of results, which is why its used to define what is considered "subjective" and what is considered "objective" (because without it, everything is subjective by definition, something that can create problems).

 

The model has changed considerably throughout history, and STILL changes today to make it even more accurate and useful.

 

since there is no scientific proof for "storytelling standards", its not considered a fact and therefore not objective.

Ignoring the standards cant produce "crap stories", since there is no such a thing as factually "crap story".

in the worst case scenario, ignoring them would result in negative opinions about them from most ppl.

 

A scientific theory (model) is objective by definition. It's based on facts, what we can DEMONSTRATE to be true. True based on what we human beings have defined true to be.

 

It's objectively true that these standards developed for the purpose of making a GOOD story. Why else would we even have them in the first place? Whats the point of them at all?

[Zamasu 20]

A scientific theory (model) is objective by definition. It's based on facts, what we can DEMONSTRATE to be true. True based on what we human beings have defined true to be.

 

It's objectively true that these standards developed for the purpose of making a GOOD story. Why else would we even have them in the first place? Whats the point of them at all?

A scientific theory isnt the same as a scientific model - its based on the scietific model which defines what is considered "sufficient" to count as "objectively true" and what isnt, and "what is considered sufficient" changed quite a bit throughout history.

 

Im not saying the standards for "good" story are useless - they have a point and thats to create stories that are considered "good" (NOT factually good, since there is no such a thing) by the target audience.

Im just saying its not considered objective by definition - thats a FACT, thats not my opinion.

 

If you want, there are several posts someone else made about this topic (In newbie dash episode discussion - page 14).

I dont really have time to continue and I also think that if you are not conviced by now, it will just be a waste of time.

[NeonCobalt 256]

A scientific theory (model) is objective by definition. It's based on facts, what we can DEMONSTRATE to be true. True based on what we human beings have defined true to be.

 

It's objectively true that these standards developed for the purpose of making a GOOD story. Why else would we even have them in the first place? Whats the point of them at all?

Objective standards are in place to keep stories from being absolutely terrible. They are not there so you can shut down the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you.

 

And for what it's worth, I've seen people disagree on what is "objectively" good before. As a member of the Star Wars fandom, I see this happening all of the time with the Prequel Trilogy. There are people in the fandom who insist that those films are objectively horrible. Then there are other parts of the fandom where people will tell you that they are objectively the best films in the series. And both groups I have seen using the term "objective". The point is, don't try to use your personal standard of objective quality as an end all argument, because there could just as easily be someone who insists the exact opposite of what you are.

Edited May 17, 2016 by NeonCobalt

[Zamasu 20]

Objective standards are in place to keep stories from being absolutely terrible. They are not there so you can shut down the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you.

 

And for what it's worth, I've seen people disagree on what is "objectively" good before. As a member of the Star Wars fandom, I see this happening all of the time with the Prequel Trilogy. There are people in the fandom who insist that those films are objectively horrible. Then there are other parts of the fandom where people will tell you that they are objectively the best films in the series. And both groups I have seen using the term "objective". The point is, don't try to use your personal standard of objective quality as an end all argument, because there could just as easily be someone who insists the exact opposite of what you are.

you mean "Standards", not "Objective standards". and the are being used to appeal to most ppl in the target audience.

They are not cosidered as "facts" by definition, but many ppl to consider them as facts to make themselves feel more confident about their claims.

 

Also, i dont have personal standard of objective quality, since there is no such thing as objective quality.

The only standard i accept is the standard that proved itself the most - the scientific method.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Twily

[user1342342 143]

A scientific theory isnt the same as a scientific model - its based on the scietific model which defines what is considered "sufficient" to count as "objectively true" and what isnt, and "what is considered sufficient" changed quite a bit throughout history.

 

Im not saying the standards for "good" story are useless - they have a point and thats to create stories that are considered "good" (NOT factually good, since there is no such a thing) by the target audience.

Im just saying its not considered objective by definition - thats a FACT, thats not my opinion.

 

If you want, there are several posts someone else made about this topic (In newbie dash episode discussion - page 14).

I dont really have time to continue and I also think that if you are not conviced by now, it will just be a waste of time.

 

A scientific theory is a model of reality aimed at explaining a phenomenon, based on observable, testable facts. Don't argue semantics with me, I won't listen.

 

You're right. The writers don't need to care at all what others think, they can do it however they want, anyway they want it. No standards considered, it's all subjective. Every great story ever made is coincidental, the writers just happen to pull it out of their bum. They didn't sit down and think about what should be in a great story, they just did whatever they wanted. These standards didn't develope to make great stories, people just made up whatever and went with it.

Riddle me this, why would any writer bother to improve or even try to write a good story if it was subjective?

Edited May 17, 2016 by 1CJB

[NeonCobalt 256]

You're right. The writers don't need to care at all what others think, they can do it however they want, anyway they want it. No standards considered, it's all subjective. Every great story ever made is coincidental, the writers just happen to pull it out of their bum. They didn't sit down and think about what should be in a great story, they just did whatever they wanted. These standards didn't develope to make great stories, people just made up whatever and went with it.

Did you not read the first sentence of my post? I literally prefaced the entire thing by saying that there SHOULD be standards, and that there are standards in place. I never said that the writers shouldn't care about making good stories, but what I did say was that you shouldn't pretend to have some immovable argument because you think it's "objectively" true. Because different people have differing views on what that means.

 

you mean "Standards", not "Objective standards". and the are being used to appeal to most ppl in the target audience.

They are not cosidered as "facts" by definition, but many ppl to consider them as facts to make themselves feel more confident about their claims.

 

Also, i dont have personal standard of objective quality, since there is no such thing as objective quality.

The only standard i accept is the standard that proved itself the most - the scientific method.

Sorry, I probably should have worded that first bit better, I was simply trying to answer the question he had asked, which is why those standards were there. And I agree that there really is no standard of objective quality, I was just giving an example of why. Edited May 17, 2016 by NeonCobalt

[user1342342 143]

Did you not read the first sentence of my post? I literally prefaced the entire thing by saying that there SHOULD be standards, and that there are standards in place. I never said that the writers shouldn't care about making good stories, but what I did say was that you shouldn't pretend to have some immovable argument because you think it's "objectively" true. Because different people have differing views on what that means. Sorry, I probably should have worded that first bit better, I was simply trying to answer the question he had asked, which is why those standards were there. And I agree that there really is no standard of objective quality, I was just giving an example of why.

 

That was actually meant for the post above, my bad. I didn't even notice your quote in there until it was posted.

[Zamasu 20]

 

Sorry, I probably should have worded that first bit better, I was simply trying to answer the question he had asked, which is why those standards were there. And I agree that there really is no standard of objective quality, I was just giving an example of why.

There is obviously very good reasons for these standards, as i already said several times.

I just fixed him since he considerd it as a standard of "objective quality", and such a thing obviously doesnt exist.

[user1342342 143]

I think I should reword what I mean. These standards are not objective, but it's objectively true that they exist for the sole purpose of telling a good story. Writers that ignore these standards make terrible stories in my opinion. Starlight's redemption is a perfect example of this, and couldn't be further from genius writing.

[Zamasu 20]

I think I should reword what I mean. These standards are not objective, but it's objectively true that they exist for the sole purpose of telling a good story. Writers that ignore these standards make terrible stories in my opinion. Starlight's redemption is a perfect example of this, and couldn't be further from genius writing.

Yep, that makes more sense.

[cmarston1 5,954]

Like I said in the OP, whether the stories themselves were written well is a subjective thing. To me they were, to another they weren't and that's fine. Some people don't like the show at all... our taste in art is always going to be subjective.

 

The main point I'm trying to address is those people who dislike the redemption stories altogether. I can totally agree that the ending montage kind of sucked and would have been better spent time other places, but the fact that the show is bothering to allow villains to reform instead of just permanently casting them into bad-guy land, and moreover the fact that they're willing to take a villain and bring them in as a full-on protagonist in future seasons is awesome to me. Whether a particular moment is written well is something far too subjective to really discuss as a right/wrong thing.

 

 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree, but I think that's also one of the strengths in the show. You can't show the right way to respond to something as a moral lesson unless you show the wrong way first. They showed the city not taking the time to listen to his point of view and immediately locking him up, and then the show made it clear that those people were in the wrong for doing so. No different than the show having one of the mane 6 make a bad choice to teach a moral about their mistakes.

 

Had the show simply ended with him sitting in a jail for something he didn't do, then I'd agree they screwed up, but that's simply not what happened.

It's not that I dislike redemption stories in general, but after seeing so many happen in this show I am a bit burnt out on them. It doesn't help matters when I feel that Starlight's redemption was derevitive of Sunset Shimmer's but without the time given in Rainbow Rocks to expand it and have her deal with any sort of consequences. I never had a problem with the idea of Starlight redeeming in general, but after all of her horrible actions it was hard to accept her weak motivation and forgiveness montage. I feel it would have been much stronger if the writers handled it like Peridot's redemption by giving multiple episodes focusing on Starlight Glimmer interacting with members of the mane 6 and the whole cast from the village in order to gain their trust and show a natural progression in character growth. As how she acted in the premiere felt really sudden and as if we missed multiple episodes of her development. Edited May 17, 2016 by cmarston1

[Goat-kun 2,505]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: this venerable OP is using some generally well-accepted opinion situated deep on the right side of history to explain how a specific character is actually well-made and we haters are just hating for no good reason. Seems good to me.

 

Too bad this wall of text tries to explain something anime enthusiasts have been enjoying for ages while circumventing the very stuff that explains why we have been enjoying it. This is nothing new and revolutionary as it just places her into a relatively well known position of an ex-villain turned nakama. It’s not the reformation, it’s the character itself that I find wanting. I suspect that I am not the only one with such position. However, this is, like, just my humble opinion, as I can’t possibly compete with such science.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,153]

This is just a small reminder to keep things on topic. While the subject of acceptable standards in storytelling does somewhat relate, that isn't the overall point of the OP. Just be careful so that the topic isn't derailed further.

 

Thank you.

[pony.colin 156]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: this venerable OP is using some generally well-accepted opinion situated deep on the right side of history to explain how a specific character is actually well-made and we haters are just hating for no good reason. Seems good to me.

 

Actually, I could've sworn the main point of this thread was to explain and validate the reformation and rehabilitation process as a valid framework to be used in the work of fiction for those who are largely skeptical of it when it seems "rushed".

 

 

 

The main point I'm trying to address is those people who dislike the redemption stories altogether.

 

Or mainly this I think Simon is addressing. 

 

There are though other reasons as @@Goat-kun has hinted towards for explaining other things not related to the process that is being used, but actually for explaining why viewers might like characters for other reasons and vice-versa about being disgusted with them afterwards after some arcs in the story.

 

Side other thing: Rainbow Dash's ability to get away with property damage without any explanations of reparation is amazing, but can be trumped up to "non-lasting effects in cartoon". Although perhaps it should be a little bit more addressed.

 

I'll maybe look at the other antagonists later if I see anything else.

Edited May 18, 2016 by pony.colin

[Goat-kun 2,505]

Actually, I could've sworn the main point of this thread was to explain and validate the reformation and rehabilitation process as a valid framework to be used in the work of fiction for those who are largely skeptical of it when it seems "rushed".

Perhaps it’s a misunderstanding, but it does seem that, by OP’s logic, Snips and Snails would become excellent characters if only they had Starlight’s circumstances. Good characters are subjective after all, wink, wink. Again, I have nothing against reform and I think that it has always been as common as dirt within certain shows while this thread paints it as something recent and unique.

 

And I do understand that this is supposed to be primarily a thought piece on our justice apparatus, but then the OP starts implying that those who do not like reform within the show are “not true believers!” while the question “why we hate” has not even once been truly entertained. In fact, our OP tries to shut down any debate about the latter question, stating not that it is irrelevant to his own thoughts about justice, but that it is also irrelevant in regard to show’s own quality in the face of them great, great benefits. I wonder how that resonates with those haters he’s trying to convert.

 

After all, this is still primarily a show meant to entertain and sell toys, and things that pertain to these two pillars of MLP should always be put into account. Characters, reforms, punishments, a bathroom break, they all can be badly written in regards to what you were trying to achieve. One’s effort towards greater good does not make them any less debatable. That is all.

[cider float 2,537]

The main issue with what you're saying is that if you teach people to forgive and forget and care about rehabilitation then you're throwing people off the edge.

 

Nobody gets rehabiliated easily, have you seen the internet before? And you might say people only act that way because they're behind their computers but that is how they really are inside and won't hesitate to continue their way if some kind of law enforcement did not stop them from acting out that way. Criminals are even worst in that sense. Unless they have done a minor offense they can probably be rehabilitated but the ones that have extensive records that can put them on the plane of evil refuse to see it any other way.

 

Yes it's a children's cartoon but even a children's cartoon's got to have some limits on how it's not easy to rehabilitate someone so easily. Especially someone like Starlight who would go so far as to learn how to travel through time to stop an event that turned the mane six into what they are, who advanced a spell that Twilight could only do briefly, you really think someone that would go out of that way to do all that work and decide she's going to step off the gas pedal and hit the brakes? Not very believable even in children's standards. 

[SBaby 660]

Yes it's a children's cartoon but even a children's cartoon's got to have some limits on how it's not easy to rehabilitate someone so easily.

 

You're correct.  And in fact, there are limits, even in a world like Equestria.

 

For one thing, there's Tartarus, where really bad creatures and beings get sent.  I doubt beings and characters living there are going to be reformed any time soon.

 

Second, there's the Elements of Harmony/MacGuffin of the Time.  They are there to keep things in check as well, even going do far as to banish ponies and other characters who get too out of line.

 

Even Snips and Snails had to repair the damage they caused (which could be considered community service).

 

So, while there is reformation, there are still laws in Equestria, and there are still penalties for committing major crimes, and some of them are harsh.  And the wielders of those tools are essentially the executioners.

 

 

On the flipside, the other thing that everyone has to remember about Equestria is this.  The crime rate is nowhere near what it is in our world.  So of course laws here have to be more harsh than they do there, because there are far worse and far more sinister crimes that get committed here than in Equestria (such as murder, rape, torture, war crimes, genocide, etc...; they're not exposed to those things). 

 

These are things you just don't see in a place like Equestria, because such atrocities don't exist there.  And because of that, any form of law enforcement they have doesn't have to factor those in.

 

So in the end, I will say this.  As Simon has said, it is very believable that reformation and rehabilitation are preferred methods in Equestria, based on what kinds of things they deal with, and what kinds of villains they have.  But the reason for this is because they aren't exposed to the ugly and sinister side of society like we are.

Edited May 20, 2016 by SBaby

[Just Jessi 81]

I go and check on this guy who friended me, and I found this on his latest status update. 

 

@@Simon, I haven't delved into the replies to this skillful thesis, but we are in general agreement. I am a fervent supporter of observational learning as part of a child's social instruction. You may be familiar with Albert Bandura and his Bobo doll experiment. I hope so because I would love to hear your opinion. You crafted a strong defense for the show's tendency to take a restorative position with characters that have fallen from grace. You are more familiar with the show than I am. Do you think that moral lessons could have a lasting impact on children that watch the show? 

 

I am not sure if my reputation proceeded me, but yours proceeded you! I can certainly say that this topic just validated what I have been told.

[Simon 4,556]

You may be familiar with Albert Bandura and his Bobo doll experiment.

I am , I've always been a big proponent of social learning theories. I think particularly when you start looking at some of the demographic statistics in criminology it becomes apparent there has to be a very heavy social factor in criminology and behavior in general. I mean bias can only explain away the demographic disparities so far.

 

I've always found the bobo doll experiment interesting. I think the biggest weakness of the experiment as a model, at least in terms of criminology, is that it doesn't demonstrate longevity which has always been the big dispute on the criminal justice end. It also was done with an age range that makes it questionable how strongly the data applies to the older age ranges that juvenile justice covers. At least in the criminology circles some level of social learning is relatively accepted, but there's a much larger dispute on how social learning impacts punishment theories. That's another tangent for another day though.

 

On they psychology/child development fronts though it's a pretty invaluable experiment. I mean that's quite a bit out of my area of expertise, but it's always been an extremely interesting experiment from that perspective. I think the general existence of imitation is something even most lay people accept as a truth for kids, particularly in that age range, but the severity and degree that Bandura demonstrated it was quite drastic.

Do you think that moral lessons could have a lasting impact on children that watch the show?

Honestly, some of them have had a lasting impact on my life so I don't think it's much of a stretch that younger viewers who are far more prone to developmental influences are going to be impacted in a large way. Again, a bit outside my area of expertise, but personally I think in general media - and how that media is presented to the child - has a lasting impact on development. Particularly when you're talking about Bandura-esque social learning, the show takes a far more demonstrative route than other media for that age and gender range, so if you subscribe to observational learning it has a pretty strong approach in influencing children.

 

In terms of the actual topic of villain reform, I mostly appreciate it for the perspective of exposing children to a non-retributive approach. I think as a society we have far too strong a tendency to acknowledge things like social learning, and then not apply the causal factors when we look at punishments in criminal justice. Exposing children to a system in which it's not necessary to take a retributive stance is such an invaluable thing to expose future generations to. Far too often there's an emphasis on just deserts in children's media imo.

 

I am not sure if my reputation proceeded me, but yours proceeded you! I can certainly say that this topic just validated what I have been told.

I really appreciate that :3

[Aurora Glimmer 494]

In terms of the actual topic of villain reform, I mostly appreciate it for the perspective of exposing children to a non-retributive approach. I think as a society we have far too strong a tendency to acknowledge things like social learning, and then not apply the causal factors when we look at punishments in criminal justice. Exposing children to a system in which it's not necessary to take a retributive stance is such an invaluable thing to expose future generations to. Far too often there's an emphasis on just deserts in children's media imo. 

 

But children also need to learn that there are some people who can't be reformed or are too far gone to have anything done to help them. It's unrealistic to teach children otherwise.

[Just Jessi 81]

 

 

I think the biggest weakness of the experiment as a model, at least in terms of criminology, is that it doesn't demonstrate longevity which has always been the big dispute on the criminal justice end.

 

 

Criminologists are not the only detractors. Plenty of behavioralists also have a bone to pick with both Bandura's methodology, and conclusions. Speaking of applying observational learning in crime, a poignant case in South Florida comes to mind. A child named Lionel Tate was accused of first degree murder of a girl half his age. His attorney used observational learning as a defense due to his enjoyment of wrestling. That case has quite a few interesting oddities, such as the prosecution breaking the time-honored Adversarial System by assisting with the conviction appeal. Someone is itching to pop on here and make a point about how sometimes violence witnessed at a young age can actually become a catalyst for wanting to avoid it as an adult. I'll beat him to the punch by saying that is also a slight flaw in the Bobo experiment. 

 

I am going to kill two birds with one stone. 

 

 

 

In terms of the actual topic of villain reform, I mostly appreciate it for the perspective of exposing children to a non-retributive approach. I think as a society we have far too strong a tendency to acknowledge things like social learning, and then not apply the causal factors when we look at punishments in criminal justice. Exposing children to a system in which it's not necessary to take a retributive stance is such an invaluable thing to expose future generations to. Far too often there's an emphasis on just deserts in children's media imo.

 

 

 

Imagine you are a ten year old child growing up in a stable environment, have no mental disorders, and have no general health concerns. You are presented a picture with a series of blocks in a 5 x 5 pattern of squares. All of the squares are red, save for one lone blue square. The human mind is naturally primed to detect and process stimuli it recognizes as unique and different. Of course, this is just the bonus content of a system that is really meant to tell us something really simple -- OUCH I'VE BEEN BIT! RUN OR EAT IT!

 

You are correct. We have plenty of media that teaches us villainy is always bad and must be punished. The red blocks are everywhere. What My Little Pony may actually achieve is be that small blue dot in the crowd. Contrast is noticed. While this isn't going to change opinions outright, a few kids will dwell in the mind a bit longer if reflected on. A good case study for me would be Jem and the Holograms. The Misfits were the antagonists, but there was one among them that had a slight redemption. That little moment stands out to me, even decades later. For all we know this show will one day lay a seed that will give someone a moment of restraint on handing out punishment, even if they can't identify what it was that gave them that thought. I'm pretty sure that Hasbro won't mind them taking credit for going soft on someone. 

 

quote name='Silvestra Spooner' timestamp='1465802742' post='4560418'] But children also need to learn that there are some people who can't be reformed or are too far gone to have anything done to help them. It's unrealistic to teach children otherwise.

 

As far as the comment about kids needing to learn that people can't be reformed, my opinion depends on why you think a kid would need to learn that. If you mean that kids need to learn a measure of suspicion to protect them, done and done. This is naturally observed and hardcoded in us. Unless of course your parents let you cry yourself to sleep at a month old because they were tired. In that case you already learned it, you just won't be able to understand when you are eight why you don't trust people. 

 

I won't argue that the adage, 'fool me twice' isn't a good one to learn. I would just prefer people have as many tools in their belt in other to tackle everything that life throws at them. Pony is just one of those nifty tools for kids (and possibly adults).

[Yufery 205]

Honestly, if I could applaud you, I would. This is amazingly analyzed, and I enjoyed reading it all the way through. It really gave some insight to how this show is smarter than it may let on.