MLP And Equality

[pony.colin 156]

I'm almost certain this topic has popped up ever since that season 5 premiere happened and I'm sure this won't be the last. I don't think I ever stuck my neck into the first batches because as soon as I read the plot I knew, someone was going to talk about politics, someone was going to talk about cults, and then there will be mud-slinging around and then the mods will have to play clean-up.

I don't actually know if that's what happened because I totally can't remember reading any of those older earlier threads.

sorry I'm blabbering. So I guess to answer your original question, what do I think the moral of the season 5 premiere was? I can't recall the whole two episodes, but I think I had guesses that it was going to be partially interpreted as having partial conflicts by the end of the resolution.

I sort of just brushed off looking at it from a political angle and just took it as, well this is a pretty bad cult you made here Starlight Glimmer, the ethical police are in town to tell you to stop doing this stuff and well, I guess the party has to end some time. Snark and sarcasm aside, I just read it as a straight-forward bad cult episode (or whatever that trope is). I knew they had to make a backstory to Starlight Glimmer to give some viable explanation as to why she went and did the things she did, (waited for it until the very end of season 5 and got a pretty shallow backstory, but it was one there at least. And sort of they've just kind of got worst with her in season 6).


Derailed a bit, the point is that while I knew they were going to go with, 'you should let people decide what they want to be' - and they had the implication here and there that 'there will always be someone better than you'.  The thing is that these are two different trains of thought that have slightly different origins I would say (or at least I think).  They can have a bit of conflict here and there as well, but it's actually possible to have them co-exist as well without conflict.  The former thought has come around due to the concept of modern equality emerging and having to deal with the mass society and the complexities that brought with it. It's no longer elites are living in a bubble world that bends to their whim (not exactly anyways).  Concepts of social equality have existed throughout human history, my personal thought is that I would say it was much easier to try and apply in smaller groups of society (much more smaller ones) or pre-modern societies.

The latter thought about there existing someone better than you feels more like heuristics. The world is a big place (we're somewhere over 7 billion people if I last recall), and that it is likely, you'll find someone who might be better than you in some way.  Both of these can easily associate with conflict, but social equality, maybe seems to want to try and neutralize as much conflict as possible (or maybe at least one of the off-shoots of it wants to try).

Social equality or concepts related to it have been a work in progress for thousands (if not millions) of years, it will probably continue to be a work in progress in my life time and when I pass (I don't believe I'll see it reach a conclusion in my life time at least). 

 

Going back, the moral of letting people think and choose and decide for themselves stems probably from some liberal origins (don't quote me on that cause I'm not bothering to do a real detailed look into it), but is often an idea that is generally supported in probably most modern societies. You can have this exist alongside the notion that you'll probably find some better than you at some thing, at an individual level. And so what does that mean? To me, it just means you're starting to learn that the world is a big place, and that you just haven't really explored all of it. Whether you want to keep exploring new ideas, concepts and other people is up to you.  Even trying to understand what you make of yourself in your own position of the world, is also up to you to find out on your own.

 

I'm kind of not teasing out any particular specific situations because situations can have different circumstances from each other.  And that's partially going into what goat-kun mentioned.

 

In terms of other things with MLP:FIM - I firmly believe MLP:FIM will never go into the major details about how its political structure is actually created because this question has always come up before on other topics related to the political structure of Equestria, but purposely never teased out by the show. I vaguely recall I made a thread long ago where I was ranting and questioning how the heck Equestria is actually ruled and if 'cities' act like city-states with their own legislation and what exact role does the monarchy fit into all of this. Politics has popped up in the show before. Or rather I should say, politics has bled into the show before, but that's only because politics is thought of as existing everywhere.

 

 

Side thing: I'm still surprised that people outside of Canada are actually surprised that the British monarchy is still our figure-head monarchy. But I guess that little fact is not really well known outside of Canada anyways.

PS - I acknowledge this post was a lot of ranting without a specific point in mind.

Edited September 25, 2016 by pony.colin

[OmegaBeamOfficial 622]

I'm almost certain this topic has popped up ever since that season 5 premiere happened and I'm sure this won't be the last. I don't think I ever stuck my neck into the first batches because as soon as I read the plot I knew, someone was going to talk about politics, someone was going to talk about cults, and then there will be mud-slinging around and then the mods will have to play clean-up.

 

I don't actually know if that's what happened because I totally can't remember reading any of those older earlier threads.

 

sorry I'm blabbering. So I guess to answer your original question, what do I think the moral of the season 5 premiere was? I can't recall the whole two episodes, but I think I had guesses that it was going to be partially interpreted as having partial conflicts by the end of the resolution.

 

I sort of just brushed off looking at it from a political angle and just took it as, well this is a pretty bad cult you made here Starlight Glimmer, the ethical police are in town to tell you to stop doing this stuff and well, I guess the party has to end some time. Snark and sarcasm aside, I just read it as a straight-forward bad cult episode (or whatever that trope is). I knew they had to make a backstory to Starlight Glimmer to give some viable explanation as to why she went and did the things she did, (waited for it until the very end of season 5 and got a pretty shallow backstory, but it was one there at least. And sort of they've just kind of got worst with her in season 6).

 

 

Derailed a bit, the point is that while I knew they were going to go with, 'you should let people decide what they want to be' - and they had the implication here and there that 'there will always be someone better than you'.  The thing is that these are two different trains of thought that have slightly different origins I would say (or at least I think).  They can have a bit of conflict here and there as well, but it's actually possible to have them co-exist as well without conflict.  The former thought has come around due to the concept of modern equality emerging and having to deal with the mass society and the complexities that brought with it. It's no longer elites are living in a bubble world that bends to their whim (not exactly anyways).  Concepts of social equality have existed throughout human history, my personal thought is that I would say it was much easier to try and apply in smaller groups of society (much more smaller ones) or pre-modern societies.

 

The latter thought about there existing someone better than you feels more like heuristics. The world is a big place (we're somewhere over 7 billion people if I last recall), and that it is likely, you'll find someone who might be better than you in some way.  Both of these can easily associate with conflict, but social equality, maybe seems to want to try and neutralize as much conflict as possible (or maybe at least one of the off-shoots of it wants to try).

 

Social equality or concepts related to it have been a work in progress for thousands (if not millions) of years, it will probably continue to be a work in progress in my life time and when I pass (I don't believe I'll see it reach a conclusion in my life time at least). 

 

Going back, the moral of letting people think and choose and decide for themselves stems probably from some liberal origins (don't quote me on that cause I'm not bothering to do a real detailed look into it), but is often an idea that is generally supported in probably most modern societies. You can have this exist alongside the notion that you'll probably find some better than you at some thing, at an individual level. And so what does that mean? To me, it just means you're starting to learn that the world is a big place, and that you just haven't really explored all of it. Whether you want to keep exploring new ideas, concepts and other people is up to you.  Even trying to understand what you make of yourself in your own position of the world, is also up to you to find out on your own.

 

I'm kind of not teasing out any particular specific situations because situations can have different circumstances from each other.  And that's partially going into what goat-kun mentioned.

 

In terms of other things with MLP:FIM - I firmly believe MLP:FIM will never go into the major details about how its political structure is actually created because this question has always come up before on other topics related to the political structure of Equestria, but purposely never teased out by the show. I vaguely recall I made a thread long ago where I was ranting and questioning how the heck Equestria is actually ruled and if 'cities' act like city-states with their own legislation and what exact role does the monarchy fit into all of this. Politics has popped up in the show before. Or rather I should say, politics has bled into the show before, but that's only because politics is thought of as existing everywhere.

 

 

Side thing: I'm still surprised that people outside of Canada are actually surprised that the British monarchy is still our figure-head monarchy. But I guess that little fact is not really well known outside of Canada anyways.

PS - I acknowledge this post was a lot of ranting without a specific point in mind.

No offence, but I don't think political pony discussion is banned on these forums.

 

If you look at it with a straightforward perspective like that, I guess it has that effect.

 

The former or the latter seem like they can conflict, but It's easier not to.

 

Neutralising conflict is always good in my book.

 

That's actually really inspirational.

 

Side note: I don't think It's common knowledge. I'm in Britain and I never knew the British Monarchy ruled other places, It's never really mentioned anywhere.

[pony.colin 156]

No offence, but I don't think political pony discussion is banned on these forums.

 

None taken.

 

 

 

Side note: I don't think It's common knowledge. I'm in Britain and I never knew the British Monarchy ruled other places, It's never really mentioned anywhere.

 

Really? It's not mentioned in Great Britain at all? I'm just surprised.  Oh well, it's figure-head status for the monarchy anyways.

Edited September 28, 2016 by pony.colin

[KatonRyu 1,033]

I believe that people are fundamentally equal, but that a person's value in any given situation depends on his or her skills. Being the best plumber in the world won't do you any good if you need brain surgery, but being a brain surgeon really won't help you get a satellite into orbit. I don't think their abilities and skills increase their intrinsic value, but certainly their situational value is vastly different.

 

As for the episode's moral, I think that aside from saying that everyone should be themselves, it also says that you probably won't be the best at what you do, even if you're talented. Given today's trend of telling kids they're special this is an important lesson to learn. It doesn't mean you should stop trying to improve, but if you truly believe you're the best at something you're very likely going to take it badly when you inevitably come across someone better. IMO it's a good thing to teach that to kids.

[OmegaBeamOfficial 622]

I believe that people are fundamentally equal, but that a person's value in any given situation depends on his or her skills. Being the best plumber in the world won't do you any good if you need brain surgery, but being a brain surgeon really won't help you get a satellite into orbit. I don't think their abilities and skills increase their intrinsic value, but certainly their situational value is vastly different.

 

As for the episode's moral, I think that aside from saying that everyone should be themselves, it also says that you probably won't be the best at what you do, even if you're talented. Given today's trend of telling kids they're special this is an important lesson to learn. It doesn't mean you should stop trying to improve, but if you truly believe you're the best at something you're very likely going to take it badly when you inevitably come across someone better. IMO it's a good thing to teach that to kids.

I guess the situational value is useful when it comes into play. That's an interesting analysis.