Uploaded by jepso 
1920x1200 PNG 570 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Source
not provided yet
(raises eyebrows at comment)sigh Well…at least we can agree that. There is definitely a communication breakdown; we are definitely on a differnt wavelength of communication. If you want to message me to try to understand my wavelength, I am okay with that. However, even your olive branch is filled with thorns, so before you do message me, this is just a heads up. (I would rather continue the rest with a message, but I can’t since you are a BP)
You instantly say ‘if your not trolling’ and ‘in your favor’ as if your opinion is predestined to be the wiser. That is quite egotistical. I also love debate, teaching AND learning, and using analysis, logistics and rationalism, and I’m obviously not trolling. (Trolling about what anyway? I already admitted that my opinion is not perfect and I could be wrong, so what’s there to troll about?)
Thing is, you are bizarrly inconsistant.
So you write something bizarre and halfway, instead of saying something more comprimising and less…weird(I have honeslty never heard somebody say something like that before) like ‘your comments about such-and-such made me angry, but since I could be in the wrong I won’t make an ass of myself’
In short, you have issues pal. You can’t have it both ways. To be angry is human, to be in the wrong is human.
“If one guy calls you a Hutt, ignore him.
If a second guy calls you a Hutt, begin to wonder.
If a third guy calls you a Hutt, buy a drool bucket and start stockpiling spice.”
As you can see, those arguments of yours bear no resemblence to rationale at all. Its almost as if you have no idea what ‘intent’ really means. Its not always about making it obvious to everyone, intent could be just a small or large piece in the creation of an idea, character or line, something some may get and some may not.
A good debate is like a very even tug of war match. Often its good even if there is no victor. However, one can ruin a debate by trying to pull their flag to the very edge of their side without claiming victory i.e. “Never denied that they might. I deny that it’s ANYTHING close to certain that they did.” Yet debates are most often about determining POSSIBILITY, not certainty, so your debate priorities are very skewed.
I notice you did not say, “I strive towards rationalism, I like teaching, and I like learning.’ Its easy to see why.
@CronoM
[potentially inflammatory comment omitted. disclaimer of omission provided because… I don’t know why, my post feels incomplete without at least saying that such a comment was going to be made, if not actually making it]
…
I strive towards rationalism, and I like teaching. I love debate - a mutual effort to reconcile differing viewpoints (though many seem to define it in rather more negative terms). If you’re not trolling, the most reasonable explanation in your favor that I can think of is that there’s some kind of communicational disconnect going on here, which is something I need to learn to understand/how best to fix.
If you’re willing, I would like to take this somewhere else to discuss our discussion, preferably in real-time.
What’s done is done, and now you’re the one trying to make it worse now. You could of messaged me, but you insist on dragging this 10x longer then it should have. About a tenth of all your posts are just complaining and complaining, always adding fuel to the fire.
“Get lost before you get reported for starting shit.”
“I find it both hilarious and infuriating that social justice cunts like this whine about the etc”
“Stupid fans may be terrible, but you guys are living proof that stupid ANTI-fans are always worse.”
“Sounds like she had lots of fun.
Remember that guys?
Remember when this fandom used to have FUN?”
While its debatable whether some of those others would feel were justified or not (but use of the word ‘cunt’?…realy man?), if you want stop an argument, their is messaging and many more intelligent and practical ways then just whining.
Yes, because the idea that I don’t believe that those writing the dialogue and openly KNOWING and joking what connotations come from that dialogue at the same time does not imply ANY intent, even those are the nigh EXACT requirements for intent…
..falls under the catagory of a ‘headcanon’.
…
Takashi.0, use some common sense before you whine about something that isn’t even your problem. Not only is ‘every thread’ an extremely childish exaggeration, an enormous amount of people post their headcanons to some degree or another on this site. I personally can’t ‘shit up’ anything when I normally post only 1 non-reply comment per page. If you, Takashi.0, have a problem with my replies, I’ll be honest, I really couldn’t care less.
The conversation would of ended ages ago had the other person said ‘I don’t personally believe it but it is a possibility all things considering’. That’s fine with me. Either of us could be wrong, I’m entitled to my claim, he’s entitled to his, correct?
What’s impolite is to play devil’s advocate to the nth degree without any mental flexibility or debate courtesy, like acknowledging a point is possible but unlikely in their eyes, normal polite stuff in a conversation. The person outright admitted his debate style pisses most people off, but he doesn’t understand why. Perhaps I should of taken that as a hint to not even give him a reply. (shrug)
No, but every single argument is you trying to be devil’s advocate to that idea to a nigh insane degree. Realistically, there is no difference. The intent is loud and clear.
Suit yourself. Being caught in a lie will do that. I guess you’ll never understand why people hate the way you talk, as you said. Sorry for trying to help.
AFTER listing so many anal and semantic arguments to try to deny it as a possibility.
Er. No?
Not one of my claims is, nor any of my arguments imply, that it’s impossible for the writers to have intended the things you’re seeing.
And I’m sorry, but the rest of your post is just so off-the-wall “what” that I can’t even figure out how to begin to respond to it, so I’m just going to… leave my reply as this.
How am I misrepresenting your position?
You SAY “Never denied that they might. I deny that it’s anything close to certain that they did.”….AFTER listing so many anal and semantic arguments to try to deny it as a possibility.
Saying your taking a stance of non-assumption, while at the same time coming up with the most desperate and assuming of arguments against the other’s stance with no flexibility on admitting the merit’s of the other argument…
…makes you come across as incredibly insincere! Is it really that hard to understand why it puts a lot of people off? You claim to be unbiased, while your arguments are filled with bias.
I mean, for the love of god, look at this reply of yours…
““when the scene was being written” is a valid instance of “at some point”.
Knowing that something will be seen a certain way is entirely different from intending it to be seen a certain way.”
Your first statement cries out with desperation of trying to come off as still correct, especially so when the second statement makes absolutely no sense when you consider THEY ARE THE WRITERS! Writing it and knowing what it would be interpreted as, AT THE SAME TIME, absolutely implies intent. Every writer in the world knows this most basic of common sense.
You use extremely anal and close-minded arguments for your case
…
That is basically your argument
Both of our arguments basically come down to “My intuitive model of human behaviour and our culture says it’s impossible (or implausible) for an artist to do these things unintentionally” vs “My intuit[ion] … says it’s entirely plausible …”.
Also, interesting that you misrepresented my position there, immediately after I explicitly pointed out that it is not the case; I am taking the position of non-assumption, which is basically the opposite of “close-minded” (which, I would like to note, from my perspective, describes you just as well as it, from your perspective, describes me.).
“This is how I naturally approach friendly conversations, actually. It puts a lot of people off, and I can’t understand why.”
You use extremely anal and close-minded arguments for your case that most people would find unbelievably annoying and frustrating to listen to. ‘Everything is what it is, and the writers have no motives behind any of the extra stuff they add, and anyone who thinks differently has their yuri goggles on’
That is basically your argument, while most normal people with a normal level of open mindedness would think ‘yeah, they’re probably intentionally trolling us here and there. There are injokes in MLP all the time’.
You’re basically the other extreme of the conspiracy nut. ‘speculation is worthless, everything is mundane,’ is how you approach things. I’m not trying to insult you, that’s just how you come across, and it must put a lot of people off talking to you because of that.
No it isn’t different! There’s barely any difference between the two at all! The only difference is the former is considered more safe, while the intention stays the same.
Stereotypes are independant phenomena, and can be used simply because they were, artistically, practically, or for sheer sake of fun to produce, the first best fit for a scene that someone could think of.
That’s a complete guess and nothing more.
On rereading, I misphrased it a bit, sorry. I had intended more along the lines of “it doesn’t necessarily indicate more than …”
I think she is smart and genre savvy enough to know how the line would be interpreted WHEN the scene was being written
“when the scene was being written” is a valid instance of “at some point”.
Knowing that something will be seen a certain way is entirely different from intending it to be seen a certain way.
And it DOES show it isn’t out of character for the writers themselves to joke about it.
When an artist makes a joke about a missing detail or anatomical error in one of their own drawings, does that mean they had intended it to happen?
Willingness to joke about does not imply intention.
Its just jokingly hinting, nothing to get worked up about.
This is how I naturally approach friendly conversations, actually. It puts a lot of people off, and I can’t understand why.
Why are you so obsessed trying to deny they would ever do just that much?
Never denied that they might. I deny that it’s anything close to certain that they did.
To be fair, if you have ever been exposed to the Transformers fandom, different language dubs change random characters’ genders all the time. And for no reason at all.
Umm, I was just talking about how she was portrayed and interpreted by the fans AT THE GALA. In Season One! I JUST said this.
Why are you mentioning her badly written negative traits that were added much later on? That doesn’t make any sense!
Nope, just being aware and genre savvy. If you want to interprete it as ‘gay goggles’, that’s your business, not mine or anyone else’s.
“Whether as visual gags or something more, it seems unreasonable to outright assume that the animators put those things in as deliberate allusions to homosexuality.”
Actually it isn’t that unreasonable at all, especially if the writers have ACTUALLY joked about it. And how far does ‘something more’ range? You’re starting to come across as more then a little unreasonable.
“And referencing stereotypes ‘most’ strongly associated with homosexuality is different from referencing homosexuality itself.”
…what the hell did I just read?
No it isn’t different! There’s barely any difference between the two at all! The only difference is the former is considered more safe, while the intention stays the same.
“It says that, at some point, Meghan thought of (or heard) a funny interpretation of the scene and thought it worth repeating publically.”
That’s a complete guess and nothing more. I think she is smart and genre savvy enough to know how the line would be interpreted WHEN the scene was being written, even if she wasn’t the head writer for that specific episode’s script. And it DOES show it isn’t out of character for the writers themselves to joke about it.
Its just jokingly hinting, nothing to get worked up about. Why are you so obsessed trying to deny they would ever do just that much?
I’m a girl, and I find Spitfire to be incredibly annoying and I never liked her, her design is okay I guess, but her personality beyond recreation is completely abhorrent, Fleetfoot could be given a pass, Poor Soarin’ doesn’t deserve that shit.
I don’t understand that completely myself, being a straight male, but her design in Ep 26 was basically the reason why the meme ‘everyone is gay for Spitfire’ was born. Perhaps a combination of her hair, firey color scheme, and the way she talked to Dash in that episode.
I don’t know. It was less obvious then Gilda or Steven Magnet, but they still made her a guy in certain languages. (shrug)
Nope, going to have to say you’ve got the gay goggles on too tight.
Whether as visual gags or something more, it seems unreasonable to outright assume that the animators put those things in as deliberate allusions to homosexuality. And referencing stereotypes most strongly associated with homosexuality is different from referencing homosexuality itself.
the prime example Meghen’s comment on the line RD says to AJ in Castle-Mania. Look it up.
Referring to the following?
That doesn’t say anything about the intent of whoever put the line in. It says that, at some point, Meghan thought of (or heard) a funny interpretation of the scene and thought it worth repeating publically.
But how is Spitfire Lesbian bait? I don’t understand that one at all. Because she’s an athlete?
Didn’t I just say ‘I’m not saying the characters themselves are gay or bi?’ You really need to read what people say more carefully.
The name of the game is jokingly hinting, not outright implying. Like Mayojar77 said, this isn’t Adventure Time, but it’s far from accidental either. Even the writer Meghan Mccarthy sometimes makes jokes on Twitter about lines within the episodes and how they were intentionally made to be hinted as lesbian flirting, the prime example Meghen’s comment on the line RD says to AJ in Castle-Mania. Look it up.
In other words, they weren’t oblivious when they made those kind of things, but they aren’t things meant to be taken seriously either.
The MLP creators LOVE to put tons of small things in this just as long as it isn’t blatent and contraversial like what was done in Adventure Time. They’ll have it look like RD and AJ look like their kissing in a frame, they’ll have Lyra and Bon Bon on a date in the background in Hearts and Hooves day, that sort of thing.
You don’t need to have shipping goggles on to see these obvious things, you just have to be genre savvy. That’s all. I personally don’t think AJ is a open lesbian, I think her reason for rejecting him was because he was a weird poser type she had no interest in, but its obvious they like putting gay hints around a lot.
Gilda on the other hand….that’s a tough one to put under the category of ‘harmless hint’ cause she was so blatantly a ‘punk dyke’(pardon the term) stereotype that wanted RD for herself for a while, that her episode was actually not aired in several countries.
I hope that clarified things.
I think you may have your Yuri/Yaoi goggles on a little too tight there mate. I’m not saying Steven wasn’t as fruity as a cornucopia. Or that Gilda was really clingy for a friend. But Lesbian Bait Spitfire? AJ/RD Immortalized kiss? Applejack rejecting a guy means she’s a lesbian? That might be taking it a little far here.
Season 1 of MLP started out its first 5 episodes with 2 obvious gay stereotypes, Gilda and Steven Magnet, then ended the season with obvious lesbian bait Spitfire. Now I’m not saying the characters themselves are gay or bi, I’m just saying that was their intention..so much so that some countries had to edit certain lines from them or make them guys to make it less obvious. I heard in some countries they didn’t even release Gilda’s episode.
Trust me, this was as intentional as the whole ‘immortalized as my friend’ AJ/RD troll kiss.
Of course, since this isn’t Adventure Time, that’s probably an accident.