general Why is Diversity Controversial?

[Photon Jet 5,502]

Hi there.

As I saw the details of the upcoming generation, I saw that many users aren't looking forward to it due to this "diversity" stuff. I can't seem to wrap my head around why teaching everypony about diversity is not a good idea. This is just a curious question which is NOT meant to make everypony uncomfortable. Why is it so bad to talk about this topic in the first place and why it rubs everypony the wrong way? Did the School of Friendship already did this sort of thing before by introducing the Student Six featuring a yak, a hippogriff, a Changeling, a griffon, a dragon and a pony? I didn't see any complaints around that time. To me, this is teaching us and our newer generation that we may be different from the outside, but inside we're the same living being. And the second part about somepony being an activist shown in the details, could also give us (and the character) a lesson that you can't force others to do something they don't want to do under the means of friendship.

But that's just what I think. Could you please explain why this is a controversial topic? I just want to fully understand the reason behind it. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Photon Jet

[Megas 28,373]

Because SJW boogeymen. I get not wanting shit to be preachy because it can get annoying, but It's gotten to the point where just acknowledging the existence of minorities and LGBT, or having women in leading roles(which is ironic given its MLP) means they're "shoving politics and diversity down our throats"

[Brony Number 42 10,098]

This will get locked.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 42,207]

26 minutes ago, Megas said:

Because SJW boogeymen. I get not wanting shit to be preachy because it can get annoying, but It's gotten to the point where just acknowledging the existence of minorities and LGBT, or having women in leading roles(which is ironic given its MLP) means they're "shoving politics and diversity down our throats"

This sums it up perfectly. While there have beena few legitimate cases of hardcore pandering to the point of absurdity, the extremism is now mostly on the other side, where the simple mention of a gay character sends people into a frenzy. It is hypocritical, to say the least. 

[SharpWit 3,000]

For me at least it's more about the number of sentient species than anything. We've already been shown that the ponies have a good deal of diversity amongst themselves with traits somewhat unique the races and by regions. I like their being other sentient species but I'd rather explore more of what we've been given than continue introducing new things.

For example, I'd rather learn about a few characters' backstories than get introduced to a whole bunch without ever diving deep. It's substance I'm after. Quality, not quantity.

Edit: And maybe I'm a bit of the old Equestrian mindset. Here it's everypony, not everybody, lol.

Edited January 31, 2021 by SharpWit

[ShadOBabe 19,059]

Then just BE diverse. Don’t be all, “Look at us, look at us, we’re so inclusive and woke, buy our crap!”

[Jesse Terrence 2,971]

1 minute ago, ShadOBabe said:

Then just BE diverse. Don’t be all, “Look at us, look at us, we’re so inclusive and woke, buy our crap!”

This woman knows. Totally based. 

I think there's a saying in my country that roughly translates as "do good because is good". The bothersome thing here is the attention seeking part. They can simply do their thing and shut up about it. Having to put that on the spotlight of a synopsis is downright heartless marketing.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 42,207]

8 minutes ago, ShadOBabe said:

Then just BE diverse. Don’t be all, “Look at us, look at us, we’re so inclusive and woke, buy our crap!”

Problem is that a lot of people automatically brand any kind of inclusion at all anymore as "woke". Remember when Scootaloo's lesbian Aunts were revealed in that book? Massive outrage over that and it was just text. Didn't even come close to "look at us and our gayness" and people still lashed out like crazy. That's where that side of the argument sorta falls apart these days. LGBT people simply existing is a bother to a disturbing amount of people.

[Jesse Terrence 2,971]

7 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Massive outrage over that and it was just text.

Maybe on the superficial parts. The underground scene didn't mind. We were disapointed on those episodes because scoot's crippledness was never addressed. Actually, what bothered us about scoot's development is that there was no development on what mattered and made her an interesting character. We didn't give a hell on the day-ikes. Just the regular souless marketing stunt we would expect from Haber and nu mlp's clowns. Meh episode. We were hyped on her parents because it was a closure to our fanon orphan on le rue.

Is the normies what gives cringe and why we cloverfield landers disown you guys. You guys celebrate "inclusion" when literally these excecutives don't give a damn. We watch you clap like seals and can't help but say "I don't know these guys. I'm not a brony, seriously". We can't believe the cringe that drives us to go underground to be ourselves without the risk of being put in the same group. We love pastel horses and we run the risk of being labeled extremist woke if we use the term we once were proud to use publicly. What a world. 

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 42,207]

21 minutes ago, Jesse Terrence said:

Maybe on the superficial parts. The underground scene didn't mind. We were disapointed on those episodes because scoot's crippledness was never addressed. Actually, what bothered us about scoot's development is that there was no development on what mattered and made her an interesting character. We didn't give a hell on the day-ikes. Just the regular souless marketing stunt we would expect from Haber and nu mlp's clowns. Meh episode. We were hyped on her parents because it was a closure to our fanon orphan on le rue.

Is the normies what gives cringe and why we cloverfield landers disown you guys. You guys celebrate "inclusion" when literally these excecutives don't give a damn. We watch you clap like seals and can't help but say "I don't know these guys. I'm not a brony, seriously". We can't believe the cringe that drives us to go underground to be ourselves without the risk of being put in the same group. We love pastel horses and we run the risk of being labeled extremist woke if we use the term we once were proud to use publicly. What a world. 

I was referring to the book where they were first introduced. I haven't seen the episode. The book drew all sorts of outrage for such simple acknowledgement of LGBT. Wasn't shoving it into anyone's face, they were simple characters and people still lost their minds over it. 

That last bit, I find rather amusing. You could say that about absolutely everything nowadays, especially in the US. Everything is essentially corporate exploition in one form or another. That, combined with the fact that LGBT people (among others) were treated as inferior beings and are still viewed as such by a depressingly large amount of people, we have to celebrate inclusion to some extent. Gay characters even being in shows like this was only ever really introduced in what, the past decade or so? So I think we are in the right to sing at least some praises. While it may very well be some kind of exploitation from the Hasbro Daddies, it is also something they risk pissing off the bigots with, so that has its positives.

[Jesse Terrence 2,971]

2 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

I was referring to the book where they were first introduced. I haven't seen the episode. The book drew all sorts of outrage so simple acknowledgement of LGBT. Wasn't shoving it into anyone's face, they were simple characters and people still lost their minds over it. 

That last bit, I find rather amusing. You could say that about absolutely everything nowadays, especially in the US. Everything is essentially corporate exploition in one form or another. That, combined with the fact that LGBT people (among others) were treated as inferior beings and are still viewed as such by a depressingly large amount of people, we have to celebrate inclusion to some extent. Gay characters even being in shows like this was only ever really introduced in what, the past decade or so? So I think we are in the right to sing at least some praises. While it may very well be some kind of exploitation from the Hasbro Daddies, it is also something they risk pissing off the bigots with, so that has its positives.

As for the book, the clover fields were actually ok with it. No rage. The books usually receive a different feedback. Either pass under the radar as books for prepubecents or early teenagers or hyped due some sort of character portrayal.

And is not a risk at all nowadays. The trend is exactly that. Being "daring" and not giving in to "bigots". Is a calculated cost benefit for hasbro. They can make more money by pandering to the trend than by pandering to conservatives. There's nothing daring about it when the media is crawling with lgbts nowadays. It stopped being dangerous for mediatic figures. Is celebrated instead. Bonus points for corporations, because they know the money is no longer in shotgun lawn-defending ol' Tom. He's too cheap and won't buy but what he already does. The money is in those who wanna be in, wanna be correct and wanna be looked as good people by the trend. Those who want to build a mask of emotional intelligence. The money is in "supporting" minorities. But how much can they be minorities if there are more supporting them than against them in the modern era? Nothing but a facade. Persecution is no longer a thing. Our generations have learned to not mind whatever doesn't affect you. We have a crappy world full of shit like to tell people what to do. Is not that we all know better, is that we don't know what to do in our chaotic world and trying to tell others how to live when we are struggling with figuring how to live ourselves is senseless. Live and let die.

But once again, this is cringe because they are selling it through the inclusivity label. You should be angry at them for treating you, the consumer, as mentally incapable to know what he or she wants and thus a label such as this is their ace card. They think we all are idiots who will eat this up happy because is "defying" the system when it just does exactly as the current system orders. Is insulting at best. Is no actual inclusion, they are just manipulating people around as puppets, and the puppets are happy about it. Inclusivity shouldn't be something they need to advertise, or something they should use to advertise this. It should come within and be done without fanfare. Is what they should do, so why should we clap at them for doing it?

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,219]

I see "diversity" and "inclusion" as primarily political terms. Why should "diversity" and "inclusion" should be considered to be morally righteous in the first place? People are free to associate with and dis-associate from whomever they please even if the reasons are completely arbitrary and even for hostile reasons; why force people who wish not to be together to be together? As I mentioned in the other thread, the underlying belief seems to be that is that, ideally, everyone ought to express themselves to the furthest extent possible and anything that the others would consider to be degenerate behaviour is just blind bigotry or something of the sort and should be "corrected". Holding self-expression as the absolute good, one may end up denying or trivializing the fact that certain types of behaviour are detrimental to the stability of the social order; intolerance is the mechanism by which it can be protected.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Luna the Great of all the Russias