Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 2 September 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Deletion

Well, I anticipated this. I figured I'd create an article about the show and its connection to skepticism and rationalism (especially that infuriating episode), and its often assholish fandom. But do with it what you want. ShadowUltra (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it is a valid topic - we have articles on Furries so why not Bronies? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a particularly good reason for deletion. Blue (pester) 06:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, give it some clean-up and add a goat or two, and let's see who salutes... --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Furries have a whole lot longer history for one, though I don't really see the reason for parts of that article either. Vulpius (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to keep Furries in my mind is because they often play into a lot of dualism or mind/body/spirit woo because some of the culture is based around avoiding reality and wishing for something 'better' in the same way that a lot of fluff neopagan woo is aimed at teenagers who do the same thing. Bronies? Nah. Some of the fans of the show are annoying, some are not. What are you going to do? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 18:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically, this article isn't supposed to be about Bronies, it's supposed to be about the show itself and how some of the plotlines and criticisms play into topics discussed on this website. ShadowUltra (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

On WP the "other stuff exists" argument would be thrown out on its arse. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth... Balaam (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If we can have an article about Harry Potter and all the fundie dunces screaming "pagan feminist witchcraft inclusiveness conspiracy" about it, then we can have this. Some more cite notes (sourcing criticisms and responses thereof) and debunking crank ideas related to the show (I'm surprised nobody's really mentioned the bitching over "feminisation of America" and how the show doesn't encourage men to lift 300lbs and then go kill brown people) to make it a tad more on-mission (it's there, just a bit more focus) and it looks like it might be handy. I'm also just itching to show this page off to a couple of friends. I'll probably contribute because I can find some things but I stopped watching the show itself about two-thirds into the first season. Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 09:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I do believe this is relevant to our mission, insofar as there is some (relatively small) degree of political controversy over this, especially among social conservatives prone to freaking out (see this hilariously misinformed article, which was highly rated on WIGO Clogs to boot). It could probably use some trimming though. Full disclosure: I am a Brony myself. (Don't worry, I won't be butthurt if it gets deleted.) Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As a brony, I'm leaning towards deletion. Yes, there have been a couple of controversies, but this all seems like a case of molehill mountaineering. Rhodoferax (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be strong consensus to delete this. I'm gonna remove the deletion banner, pending someone shouting bloody murder at me. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

0_o

That is all. Sophie^Wilder 20:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WHAT IS THIS SONG PEOPLE????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXCgIxJgEc

Suggestion

I say we should keep this, but expand it to coover the whole My Little Pony franchise. That way we can work in that Turmoil in the Toybox stuff from the eighties. Balaam (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep: If fundies complain about something as harmless as "My Little Pony" an article is on mission. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"I hate fundies and will nitpick them over everything, to the ends of the earth" is not an especially good reason to keep this article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A list of Stupid Things Fundies Whine About would be good though. But not articles on every fucking one, otherwise we'll end up with articles about the Teletubbies and so on. Sophie^Wilder 11:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention the Teletubbies! It'll give Proxima ideas! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Feeling pinkie keen"

I feel that that section rather misses the point of rationalism, which is sadly quite common on the wiki -making fun of the ideas behind homeopathy is easy, but it is ultimately irrelevant. We practise evidence based medicine, and dismissing homeopathy because it conflicts with existing theories is no more scientific than accepting bloodletting - we reject it because *the evidence shows that it is not effective.*

The same applies to the episode: rejecting a hypothesis because it conflicts with your pre-existing theories (here, on precognition or whatever) is not scientific. If the evidence shows that the unexplained phenomenon is real then a scientists needs to re-evaluate existing theories. Of a guy was able to repeatably predict the lottery numbers in a controlled lab setting then it is unscientific to dismiss it because you think precognition is impossible; clearly, something you don't understand - although not necessarily supernatural - is going.

So, on balance the episode is about as much pro-science as anti-science --86.29.98.236 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. The reason the episode is so hated is not because it introduces something that appears to be impossible but because the "moral" of the episode (if I may use that term so loosely) is that we shouldn't question it, but take it on faith that it works. That's anti-rationalist. Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the section entirely misses the point, but so do you. In the episode, we see Twilight Sparkle investigating Pinkie Pie's "Pinkie sense" methodically. This study consists of testing very specific predictions, and getting the exact same result EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Any sensible, rational, scientifically minded person, would take to mean that the study concluded that Pinkie Pie's "Pinkie sense" is, in fact, real. After all, that's what the (very strong) evidence is telling us. The problem is, that Twilight Sparkle refuses to acknowledge that her scientific study proved the "Pinkie sense" right. She accepts it, due to a (very foolish) leap of faith. Not the blatant and obvious evidence. She rejects the results of scientific investigation, and embraces blind faith. Despite the fact that the results of scientific investigation proves the point, anyway. It's mindblowingly stupid.--213.113.49.27 (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I expanded on Lauren Faust's statements about the episode, but my Wiki-fu is weak. I got the first hyperlink working fine, but adding footnotes are beyond me, so if someone could include this, I'd be much obliged: http://www.mylittleponynews.com/2011/02/feeling-pinky-keen-controversy.html

So...

We can have a section talking about the porn that was created because of it, and we can have a section talking about the 80's version of it, but we cannot have a section talking about how racists see it? Really? Now, isn't that interesting.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If by "how racists see it" you mean some nothing wiki nobody pays attention to but us and a few others? Because i really dont see why "metapedia" saying it makes it worthy when theres plenty of far more notable and important groups we could probably find for it. --^Mikal_lakiM 19:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If CP had said it was fully of faggotry, there would probably be an article called "CP's complaints with MLPFIM" and we all know it. And CP has a lower Alexa ranking than Metapedia, so if our stalking of CP is cool, we should probably be able to mention the neo-nazis who are, you know, worse than some neo-con morons.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You... aren't going to get very far with me by saying "But do X with CP!".--^Mikal_lakiM 02:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you joined because of CP and trolled there for awhile. I cann't imagine why pointing out the hypocrisy wouldn't work.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

that was 2 and a half years ago.--^Mikal_lakiM 02:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Again?

I thought there was a consensus that the political controversy over this show made it mission-relevant. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 01:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Over a Barrel

I think it would be prudent to talk about conservative and libertarian bronies (yes, they exist) who see the show as a platform for their own belief systems. The most prominent example is the episode Over a Barrel in Season One, which they argue is a promotion of free trade and rational self-interest as the keeper of peace. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What the...?

I was surprised to see this article here, and even more surprised that User:Ed Poor hadn't edited it. Godspeed (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Pornography

I think a bit of explanation is needed here. The 34th rule of the internet states 'If it exists, there will be porn of it'. That's the whole point of a RULE. People only point it out more for MLP because it looks weirder, and can be used to support their claim that bronies are evil pedos or whatever. This is not a rational way of behaviour (it's much more similar to cherry picking or quote mining. This is why I think that section should be deleted.--Thedoctor81 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My Little Pony Sums up religion

Could this be incorporated into the article somehow? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MAwKTc2qCTg --Thedoctor81 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

You neckbeards won't allow an Adventure Time article, or an article for any other cartoon for that matter, but you'll allow this goddamn horse show for children to be featured? How is this at all relevant to this wiki. Freaking bronies, being present in places where your not needed.^{— Unsigned, by: 66.87.114.79 / talk / contribs}

Breaking up the scenery, breaking my mind168.91.255.100 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Explain to us why Adventure Time is controversial? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the same dude who wanted to create a neckbeard article? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone} 01:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How about an "Avatar: the Last Airbender/Legend of Korra" article?Chair tater (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Illuminati

There's people complaining about Illuminati symbolism in some episodes of this show.--TemplarJLS (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Alicorn

It's mentioned that Twilight Sparkle is an alicorn being sent to Ponyville, but at the time she was sent to ponyville she was just a unicorn. That sentence needs some work.

"As science minded as possible, given that she can cast magic spells with her horn"

Well, technically... Since magic is entirely possible in the MLP-verse, magic IS science there. If gravitite, a substance that blocks gravity, existed, it would be scientific too.

Chalk it up to Cultism?

New season. New weirdness. The show usually deals with pretty abstract or fantasy concepts. But the season opener this time... is a about a cult. I shit you not. It has everything. Weird isolated village. Creepy not-so-happy happy villagers. Leader who is power mad and above the teachings of their 'philosophy'. (A hypocrite, in other words) Rituals. (Staff of Sameness... Which is also bullshit btw) Forced indoctrination. (The main characters are made useless and then forced into a small room for 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 days with 1984-ish propaganda blasting through loud speakers.) A focus on sameness. A fervent belief in changing others for their own good. Some will say it's Communism (due to the whole 'equal' thing) but the roots of this thing are much more aligned to Cultism instead. ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.174.16.193 / talk / contribs 05:27, 7 April 2015}

LessWrong Bronies

http://www.fimfiction.net/group/1418/lesswrong They're a thing. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to question the missionality of this again?

It's a cartoon that has been criticized by wingnuts and has an awkward fanbase, big deal. What's so special about MLP that it still warrants an article? Vulpius (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well before it was just a big brony puffpiece and a good portion of the page was used to discuss odd rationlist topics. Now Kitsunelaine and I have cleaned it up and made it a bit more snarky and less pro-Brony propaganda singing the praises of the fandom and the show. But it could go. Or be sent to the Fun space.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Have to say, whoever wrote this: "churning out a supernatural amount of pornography" has my admiration. I love the supernatural bit. And, I find this Brony phenomenon pretty interesting and found the article informative. The whole thing is just totally weird. Weird is on mission, no?---Mona- (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No. You can read about it on the front page. Not that it matters anyway - the wiki is largely unconcerned with trivial issues like its purpose. Tielec01 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not seeing the mission-relevance of this (unless we start discussing the concerning popularity of Tibetian Buddhist mysticism in some discussion forums). And personally, judging by the crap going in the discussion topics below, I'm all for nipping a source of additional drama in the bud. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So pulling a Samson Moot Solution and ban the topic MLP from RW?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there tulpa. And I did not expect kinkshaming Bronies to have caused this much of an issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause accusing people of pedophilia and/or zoophilia based not on facts, but on an orgy of asspulls gonna make people really, really pissed at you (I "just" don't like people being accused of some horrible shit, just cause they like or dislike some cartoon, comic or whatever).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging through MLP Tumblr to find people accusing others of pedophilia and such when this page was barely cited before I changed it from its Brony propaganda status.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're not ready to invest time into writing a decent article and not a fucking hit-piece, then don't edit this article at all.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The page was shit before and me cutting out half of that shit doesn't make it more shit just because I put in content critical of the fanbase without citations. Do you know how much of this website has uncited opinions posted on it? Why should this page be any different other than the fact that you lot are preferring the version that was all pro-show and pro-Brony puffery?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cause any version of the page not accusing all bronies of being pedos, ableists and zoophiliacs is clearly "blowing" them, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It was all puffery garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

O rly? Why's that? What exactly was puffery and why?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's justification? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO there is missional content here. There are right-wing people "against it", it's about gender/femenism/all-that, abd there was at least one woo-filled episode. Plus, there's a sort of creepy paedophilia/bestiality thing to it (but probably not in the way as Ryulong describes it). The pre-Ryulong "brony propaganda" version did a better job at explaining this (although it wasn't a great article either, it certainly was better than it is now) Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Woo" episodes come on. It's a cartoon about magical horses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I'll cop that one on the chin - it is kinda stupid that people got worked up about an episode promoting woo from a show about magical talking horses (disclaimer: never seen an episode). Tielec01 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Designed to teach lessons about things to little kids, alongside sell dat merch. Episodes telling kids accepting things like pinkie pies magic power because being overtly skeptical is bad is not a good thing. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The way it was described on the page before my edits was kinda shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And so the solution is to remove it entirely and dismiss criticism of it as "lol kids show talking horses" is the solution to that? Christ. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The solution is to add proper criticism instead of some random Brony's dissertation on how "smart-shaming".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank god your version doesn't do that and instead will just go "lol kids show about talking horses"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can unmodlock the page and can see what I want to fucking write instead of being defensive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could use a draft? I don't trust your version because you've been overtly dismissive of actual criticism of the show while obsessed with the 4chan aspect of the fandom to the total exclusion and deteriment of our coverage of the fandom as a whole. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bronyism and pedophilia

This is apparently a topic of interest. So, discuss! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

People know that characters in the show are underage, including "possibly" the main characters and people know a disproportionate amount of porn is made of characters in the show. Questions of Pedophillia do exist because what else will a person call porn of a underage (not even teen) girl, and thus should be mentioned, though maybe not there. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The question was about the so-called "Mane 6" and in the series, their ages are not stated, which means, that any claim about their ages is idle speculation (including, when their authors do it, since the author is dead).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The speculation only exists because of the porn and whether or not it's okay.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually wrote the statement to not just be about the mane six (and had more in mind the Cruaders or foal clop), but included that there is debate about it, which is relevant to questions of Pedophilia, but also changed it to wording that in any way isn't horribly leading--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The question would likely exist regardless because Wikis exist, actually. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There is porn about ANYTHING (rule 34), MLP ain't the only one with pr0n about it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Making porn of characters most people assume aren't adults is kinda fucked up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Since these assumption are not based on anything approaching facts, why should people even give a fuck?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So we don't mention the mane six, and instead talk about the other porn of characters the show does consider underage children, or babies. Theres lots of it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's split this issue into two questions

1. Should we categorize arousal at porn of animated (human) underage girls (e.g. Misty from Pokémon) or boys as pedophilia?
2. Should we consider arousal from furry fantasies as indicative of bestial desires?

142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

And now we can generalize it to one question again: Should we still call it a creepy-philia when we're only talking about fantasies involving only not-particularly-realistically-drawn characters? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

And my answer to all 3 questions is: there's possibly some difference between the two (maybe it's even substantial), but that doesn't stop either from being potentially creepy-as-hell. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I don't have an answer to those, but I consider it relevant in a section talking about the MLP Clop controversy, which is a major part of the adult fandom, to mention people find some of it pedophilic. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we can describe that in a fairly neutral(-ish) way? the version from yesterday sort-of did that, although it could use expansion (and not of the "Bronies are all 4chan wanking paedophiles"-sort) Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is why my only mention of it has been "There is controversy over the issue of underage clop"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Was Derpy Hooves an ableist joke?

Same as above. Discuss! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yes. People have said as such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a bit more than "people said so" for it to be so. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

A source would be good then, since that was my objection. I'm not just gonna take you an d the wiki on its word that that is their main reasoning--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I added several citations to that effect that shows that the screenwriter for that episode was contacted concerning the possible ableist undertones of renaming the character "Ditzy Doo" to "Derpy Hooves" at the behest of the Brony fandom who are not known for tact. Everything else online is a bunch of handwringing and complaints about censorship and that "Derpy" totally doesn't mean "retarded".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Derpy name is potentially offensive due to "derpy" often having a blatantly negative connotation and sometimes being used synonymously with "retarded", but I'm skeptical whether the original depiction effectively (if unintentionally) mocked people with a mental disability. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I had rewritten the section to say that the initial intent of the background animator wasn't done in bad faith, but certainly the actions of the fandom were.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, some parts of the fandom. And some other parts of the fandom probably thought it was just an innocuous name (like the producers thought at first). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:24, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Every part of the discussion and fan-use I had seen, before the censorship, was that "Derpy" was simply a reference to being clumsy or silly. In the fanvideo characters my sister had shown me (primarily of the Doctor Whooves variety, since she knew I liked Doctor Who), the character is female, so portraying her with a deep voice when she finally got to speak in the show struck us with surprise. After the censorship, we had actually gotten the impression that the show had misinterpreted why the fandom liked the character, portrayed the character as stereotypically mentally disabled, and then had to backpedal on that, and we wanted the character as the fandom had depicted her, a mere cloud-cookoolander barely different from Pinkie, to come back. If "Derpy" had some hidden reference to mental retardation, we were never aware of it, and while I was never as into MLP as my sister, no such mocking ever came up in the fan-uses of the character she showed me.

In other words, people from outside a community looking in and seeing sinister connections are not always on the money. On a similar vein, I think the GGers are full of shit and a toxic community, and I can see how the green and purple colors used on those forums may have originally been used for a rape meme, but I think that it's a huge stretch to claim that those who designed Vivian were aware of the meme's origins and used them as such, and that it's much more logical to assume they were simply used as "team colors" by a team that had done a shit job of policing the colors when they were first introduced.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Freaking inane debate

Do we really have to debate which fictitious age fictitious horses are in a series aimed at little girls? Isn't there some sort of middle ground that skirts this issue? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there something more useful you could have contributed to this?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, where's your Zionist tangent on this, Avenger? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well, this whole Israel/Palestine kerfuffle got boring and people need something to bitch about, which is why Ryulong started on his anti-brony crusade (FYI, I ain't no bony. I don't watch this shit. I just find it idiotic, to make unfounded accusations against people who like cartoons (or fan material about them) you don't like).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask again, what would you consider Porn, high quality and HD no less, of characters who are explicitly considered underage (the equivalent of Preteens), or even better, Babies? . --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WHere exactly do you get the age thing from? For the record, I don't watch this shit and I don't intend to... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Context from the show. the Crusaders, the most prominent example of children ponys in the show, are explicitly references for girls going through the start of puberty, complete with "Getting their Cutie mark" that marks them as a more mature pony. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So not the Mane 6? FYI, if you search hard enough, you find porn of any character of any age of any work of fiction. Rule 34, you know, it's stupid to single out MLP.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

'k, but why single out MLP??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Because this page was unabashed pro-Brony propaganda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A better reason: Because this is the MLP page and in a section about the controversy of Clop, the accussations of pedophilia due to undeniably underage clop is important?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Clop about the Crusaders? But the sites linked were about idle speculation about the age of the so-called "Mane 6"!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I found this page existed and it was unabashedly pro-Brony propaganda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Carpetsmoker doesn't like the images I added.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to go all Wikipedia "citation needed" on you, but, it's a section with all sorts of accusations with 0 references and an untasteful image that implies all sort of stuff. Snark is one thing, but this is just a bit too far. I appreciate that the section wasn't entirely written by you by the way, but it could really have done with a reference before your edit (and even more so with the specific accusations you added). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That image was created by Bronies and the other aspects are Tumblr comments with regards to that image. I would have added citations had you not been spending the past day edit warring over a fucking redirect title and now that one image.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And citations can only really come from first hand accounts on Tumblr that I apparently had archived on my own blog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also Paravant taking away Arisboch's mop over this is just stupid Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker wheel warring over the redirect I made at Gay Agenda is just as stupid.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My redirect Moving the Goalposts (sic!) was deleted twice Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Fource, actually! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Come now, there were 4 clicks on your part. And the point was made: once you feel challenged, which seems to happen rather quickly, you will not back down over even the most minute nonsense. As the current drama shows.

You seem to have an irrational fear of Bronies... Is Broniephobia a word? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it was more sciency sounding, but we have a word for it somewhere. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"I don't want to go all Wikipedia 'citation needed' on you" This site does not suffer from a surfeit of references. Serious claims about matters not utterly basic should nearly always be sourced.---Mona- (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't let Ryulong make the My Little Pony page the center of another shitfest like GG and Zionism. What's wrong with bronies/pegasisters dude? _{You sir frankly disgust me!} ^{Hello! Look!} 00:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All I was doing was changing this page from something that unabashedly praised Bronies and this TV show as being some sort of rationalist utopia and then Carpetsmoker has to wheel war and edit war over stupid shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing it from something overtly praising of the show into something overtly hostile to the shows fandom is not any better. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What you call hostility, I call snark.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Where the hell this side of Equestria did you get the notion that the show was being showered with praise?! _{You sir frankly disgust me!} ^{Hello! Look!} 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

you and me have differing ideas on what Snark is, I think. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I could address these issues if you didn't lock down the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MAybe we should address them before you edit the page more because people are calling serious questions over your change of the article, including accusations of "hit piece"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bronies are mad at being kinkshamed and Arisboch is being contrarian towards me as usual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This starts with the assumption that all bronys are into it for the kink and not because it's actually been a fairly well written TV show.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But the intent is to address the issue of cloppers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

By using sentences designed to make sure people know from the start "these fuckers are pedophiles" right? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the "from 4chan" part. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if you lifted the lock I can apply the changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All of your comments leave me unable to believe any edit you make will do anything but continue your "Bronys are fuckers who like children and are from 4chan" line. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Current draft.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The repeated instances of "GOD DAMN 4CHAN PEDOPHILES" leave me saying no. I'm curious about carpets version however. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

They were just minor things (ie. removing the accusations, adding back removed sections), nothing particularly worthwhile as such. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There's only one mention of "pedophilia" in the draft. The aspects concerning 4chan are more prevalent, I will concede to that, but none of those statements accuse them of pedophilia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Restore to version from 17 October and start from there?

Maybe we can revert the page to the version from 17 October, and start from there? Entire sections were removed without explanation, and all sorts of (unsourced) nonsense was edited in; I was working on cleaning that up a bit, but now it's locked. The version from 17 October isn't great page or anything, but IMHO a better place to start from than what we have now. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather the whole fucking page be deleted. That version was nothing but idiotic fandom wanking and trying to make this show out to be a rationalist's utopia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And your version is nothing but a loaded hit piece designed to make sure we know Bronys are all fuckers who wanna diddle children and hate on dem handicapped people. --01:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And/or wanna fuck horses ponies.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We all know this should be deleted. The slight missionality was when they promoted a little bit of woo for one episode. Everything else is just people mistaking their opinions for facts. Tielec01 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"just people mistaking their opinions for facts" You mean like you just did with your opinion? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

So basically restore the version that blows Bronies because I've pissed off two Bronies who are admins here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you dislike this page so much, maybe you can just leave it alone? Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Creationism. Category:Conservapedia. Category:Woo. Clearly stuff we all dislike and yet we cover it extensively.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I continue to ask why your hit piece that makes sure we know that bronys are all pedophile animal fuckers who hate handicapped people and all hail from 4chan is better. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's better than the version that glosses over or completely omits all this shit. There was a section on "Derpy Hooves" in the October 17 version that completely ignored any actual criticism that exists over the fact that the fan nickname "Derpy" was created to make fun of the mentally disabled and that there's plenty of artwork out there depicting this one character as such. And the section on pornography is mostly the same as it is with my edits except I added content concerning the "Ask Princess Molestia" blog and the debacle over the Make A Wish foundation guest spot. I added one image mocking the "clop" phenomenon which originated from bronies and was since commented upon by others. And I added a silly caption to a piece of Quality animation from the 80s series. You've seriously fucking locked down this page because I called out Bronydom for its bullshit when the page omitted all of that prior. Because you are a Brony and can't stand criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, i locked it down because your version, as i've stated many times, makes very much sure we know bronys are pedophile horse fuckers whom all come from 4chan, hate the handicapped and are all terrible human beings with no redeaming value, while removing criticism of the actual show itself such as its support of Woo-support to an audience that is impressionable. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a draft I had been working down before you locked down the page. And it's fucking ridiculous to talk about a fantasy cartoon about magical talking horse girls as promoting woo.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Then stop talking about it. You will do everyone, including yourself, a favour. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In some ways, yes. But when the show is built around teaching good values to children like sharing, kindness , loyalty, honesty and accepting that we can't find rationale answers to some things and just have to take it on faith, well you tell me. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote what I had put in to address you two's points and neither of you are addressing that and instead insisting that my updated version of the page still paints the fandom as a whole in a certain way when I am insistent in the terminology to say that it's the worst aspects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The implication i get from what you wrote and your comments is you think this is a widespread part of the fandom. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe I can do another rewrite that suggests otherwise. Stop being a pissbaby and unlock the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The key word there is maybe, which, combined with your previous edits discussing Bronys as demons from hell, leave me skeptical. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Have I not already addressed some of the issues you and Carpetsmoker have brought up in the pastebin I showed you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also this is not a rewrite between two extremes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not, but I decided to start from there and edit instead of the original plan i started, idk, half an hour ago before being derailed into this with you of combining the two. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 01:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just nuke the whole thing and we'll all be done with this horse shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

horse shit- Ryulong It's ponyshit :D :D :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I picked "horse shit" over "bullshit" to make a terrible pun already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Any analysis calling individuals or groups pedophiles or sexual deviants -- or strongly suggesting they may be -- must be credibly sourced. Really credibly. In most instances "group libel" is not actionable in the U.S., but this can get tricky; in any event it's not respectable to imply such a thing without very sound support. ---Mona- (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This page was entirely unsourced in the original version except for a few statements attributed to the director. But as soon as Kitsunelaine and I edit it to be more critical of Bronies rather than glossing over all of the existant criticism of the fandom, it causes these edit wars. Because Carpetsmoker and Paravant are out of the stable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh ... No one said the previous version was great. But it didn't call the entire community a bunch of horsefuckers. Blaming the "edit wars" on me and Paravant is just .. wtf .. You refuse to even accept a minor spelling correction. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing "Gay Agenda" to "gay agenda" (when the former was on the page already) isn't a "minor spelling correction" nor is your insistence that that redirect not exist. And you didn't have any issue with the content concerning pornography until today.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's isn't? What's the diff between "Gay Agenda" to "gay agenda"? Please enlighten use with your wisdom about the English language!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The page originally had that capitalization. I kept it by removing a piped link and making a new redirect. Then all this other shit happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Because Carpetsmoker and Paravant are out of the stable" Look, that's just stupid. I thoroughly doubt it, but don't even care if it's true. Nor do I care whether the original version was under-sourced as much as I care about a version implying people are pedophiles or otherwise sexual deviants. Paying attention to sourcing in the latter scenario is not a luxury; it's just short of required, for many reasons. I hold no opinion on the rest of your issues with Paravant and Carpetsmoker.---Mona- (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Except for bronies, who we all know fucking worthless braindead horsefucker pedophile scumfuck bastard pile of mental dickfaces that should be gunned down in the street like the degenerates they are. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{That's why our council tax is so high} 01:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I take offense to that! #NotAllBronies! But no, seriously, Ryulong, making this your personal anti-brony screed page is contrary to the Mission Statement! I love the show and I am frankly disgusted by the clop! _{You sir frankly disgust me!} ^{Hello! Look!} 02:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Making it a puffpiece about the show and the fandom only is disingenuous at best. One episode talking about "woo" and 2 paragraphs dedicated to that and that alone is fucked up. We can have the criticism of the fandom I added and that but nto the asinine whitewashing Paravant and Carpetsmoker have been doing. I presented a draft. But now no one but Paravant is allowed to edit this page (until David Gerard wakes up in 4 hours).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, instead of demanding that the page be unlocked (for you to edit), can't you just do the whole "suggesting concrete changes" thing you ask of everyone else? Your contributions are often useful, but you don't need to own every article.KrytenKoro (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I was the only person interested in editing and that's what led to locking down the page so that only 7 accounts can edit it. I've suggested the changes multiple times. I made changes when it was unlocked. But the nature of the changes rubs certain people the wrong way and now no one is able to edit this page because you can't have minimal criticism of bronies without drama. Also this thread ended 3 days ago..—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That simply doesn't seem true. Looking at the history since you started editing, there have consistently been other editors. None so prolific as you, but then again you're making edits every five minutes instead of using the Preview function or working on a draft, so you're quite clogging up the fossil record. In the discussions on this page, I'm mostly seeing you demand that the page be unlocked so that you, personally, can attempt to address other editors complaints, rather than making explicit change requests to the editors who are allowed to edit the page, as is the traditional custom on wikis. I don't see why their needs to be a confrontational approach of that sort, instead of attempting to work with other editors and get them to understand and agree with your version of things (which, full disclosure, I wholeheartedly disagree with, due to the knowledge of the show I've gotten from my sister, her circle of friends, and the communities she often shared stuff from, none of which ever involved any sort of fetishizing or porn, but happily appreciated brony contributions like the Eurobeat remixes).

Also, this isn't a webchat, it's a wiki. Discussions can go on longer than an afternoon.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Chill out

Here, have another anime to talk about. Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh, by what defintion is that an anime? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:03, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Cory-san is mai husbando. --Ymir (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Brotherhooves Social

HOLY SHIT EVERY TRANSPHOBIC JOKE EVER IN ONE PLACE. Need a good writeup of this landmark episode - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Start the presses! We need a write-up ASAP! And don't let Ryulong get in here! You sir frankly disgust me! ^{Hello! Look!} 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What happens if we link to Ryulong three times? Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 19:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong Ryulong Ryulong! Apparently, he appears out of your computer screen and strips your spirit of any faith in humanity. And he also takes your wallet. Good thing the chain is locked, or else he would've taken my RW password. You sir frankly disgust me! ^{Hello! Look!} 19:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Film" sidebar

Guidelines needed. Captain Planet seems to have the right sidebar, judging by the category pages for "Film" and "Media." Narky Sawtooth (Nyarnyar~) 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "Films" should be expanded to "Films and TV", and "Media" should only apply to "news media", and not TV programmes and the like. Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Easily enough done. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Do we need a 3rd template for YouTube videos then, though? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Like Zeitgeist and such? I don't see why we can't put that in Films? Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Citations

Gotta dash out to a medical appointment, I've added some cite tags to statements that should have citations. Not meaning to be controversial, as I'm sure these statements are true, but let's cite them. Tielec01 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've found more cites criticizing the show:

• http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Brony#.ViskDxFViko
• http://parrotbeak.tumblr.com/post/23491927187/on-the-derpy-hooves-issue
• http://yamino.tumblr.com/post/16428338520/tw-ableism-rape-culture-common-arguments-on
• http://bman44.deviantart.com/journal/About-the-whole-Derpy-Ableism-thing-282516196
• http://americandramedy.blogspot.com/2013/06/derp-is-ableist-and-offensive-stop.html
• http://gyropedia.wikia.com/wiki/Derpy_Hooves
• http://gawker.com/5889084/bronies-furious-after-minor-my-little-pony-character-is-changed-to-seem-less-mentally-disabled

And for Molestia we have:

• http://www.horse-news.net/2014/01/breaking-news-ask-princess-molestia.html
• http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trollestia-molestia-tyrant-celestia
• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Blog/AskPrincessMolestia
• http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/brony-my-little-pony-princess-molestia-deleted/

Good luck with integrating those. Withoutaname (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Q: Why are tumblr posts and deviantart posts sources? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A: Because Ryu agrees with them. Blitz (Complaints Box) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Because as usual a lot of coverage of Internet stuff requires first hand accounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

selection bias ... 82.95.88.48 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Toxic Misogynistic Male Fans

This is the claim made in Ryulong's link, which links to this page as justification . Not involved in the culture but the claim seems very weakly supported. What say you all? Leaving it in for now as I gather Ryu is more familiar with the topic than I am. Tielec01 (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Brony which covers it much better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the section you have created on this need much stronger referencing, as it is a very strong claim. One person's negative experience does not translate into a culture of toxic misogyny. Tielec01 (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The new section is an acceptable compromise - there is no doubt that part of the community is composed of MRAs based on my limited reading. Tielec01 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Having your car destroyed with baseball bats is "perceived persecution" is it Ryulong? Tielec01 (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's not what I expected that covered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Off hand, I can't think of any other sources than tumblrs that document it (or used to back when I still paid attention), but I would agree that there's an undercurrent of misogyny in the fandom, which isn't that surprising when you remember that it's primarily populated by awkward straight teenage boys and has roots in chan culture. Hell, I understand that in the early days there even used to be a lot of hand-wringing over whether girls can partake in the fandom or not. Also, a lot of Gamergate's behaviour is pretty similiar to what was going on during Molestia controversy. Vulpius (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Magical horse ages

Tielec01, are you seriously trying to add content which handwaves accusations of rampant pedophilia amongst the porn consuming Bronies?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the best written, most eloquent, not to mention necessary, part of this very serious article. Tielec01 (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Handwaving accusations of pedophilia is necessary?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not handwaving anything. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"We don't know the age of consent in Equestria" is not a valid counterargument.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Best written, eloquent and necessary; we possibly need an entire article exploring what age it is OK for fictional, magical, talking horses to appear in cartoon porn. Your considerable intellect would be of great assistance Ryulong. Tielec01 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fucking weak apologism and shouldn't have been eloquently written by anyone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it raises a very valid point. You're the one rampantly throwing out paedophilia accusation, and the burden of proof of this is on you. There are other questions, such as whether the attraction is to the "horse" part or the "human" part; if it's the former, one could argue it's zoophilia, and not pedophilia. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the only one making the accusations. They're throughout all the sources added to the page tonight. Giving a half-assed excuse for porn of horses that are at best younger than 18 and then going "we don't know how old they really are or when a cartoon horse is legally an adult" is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right this conversation is ridiculous. So fucking ridiculous. Tielec01 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just lol'd at "magical horse." Reminds me of how fanfics use that and "midget horses." O.o You sir frankly disgust me! ^{Hello! Look!} 15:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The only source you added on the paedophilia claim is the "SJWiki", and that's hardly neutral; it's just an op-ed piece.

Show me some credible research that "cloppers" are people with paedophilia tendencies, and you can consider me convinced. Human sexuality is too damn complicated to just lob people in a "-philia" category just because something slightly resembles something.

And MLP is hardly unique, search for "Pokemon porn" and within 15 seconds you will see Picachu giving Ash a blowjob. Go to a Star Trek fanfiction site, and soon you'll be reading about a lesbian threesome between Jadzia, Yar, and Troi. In fact, on Google, "pokemon porn" returns 55,400,000, and "my little pony porn" about 8,600,000 results, so there, we should be bashing the Picachu fuckers. Is Squirtle of age? And does the age of consent for Squirltle differ from Charmander? Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"let's create a page for Gravity Falls and extensively talk about its fans obsession with incest. Let's create a page for Axis Powers Hetalia and extensively talk about the amount of unironic fascists, racists and japanese far-right nationalists in its fanbase. Let's create a page for Sonic the Hedgehog and extensively talk and document the ludicrous amount of porn about explicitly preteen furries the fanbase creates" -me, two days ago. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Because we're poor and I hate you} 17:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The page isn't just about the fan culture or porn. I have no knowledge of "Gravity falls" or "Axis Powers Hetalia", so I can't say how that compares. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And I still stand by my reply from 2 days ago: Let's! That it seems different from most of the articles that we have currently doesn't mean we should dissmiss its missionality. The wiki is by no means complete. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:28, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'm not sure what was wrong with including snark in an otherwise dry page? Withoutaname (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt some Bronies are into Brony porn, which is kind of sick, yeah. But where is the evidence this is a significant proportion of Bronies, as opposed to a small minority? If it is only a small minority of Bronies, how is focusing on it anything than an anti-Brony smear job, orchestrated by a man consumed by irrational Brony-hate? Resurrection by erection (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bronies aren't marginalized.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Says who? Gender non-conformists are marginalised, and adult men who take a serious interest in media targeted at little girls are engaging in a form of gender non-conformism. Resurrection by erection (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

People do not hate Bronies because they are not conforming to gender norms.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree. I find in Bronyism an outlet for my transgender feelings. I'm sure I'm not the only Brony who feels this way. So in my mind there is a big tie-in between Bronyhate and transphobia. Resurrection by erection (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

People do not hate Bronies because of gender identity issues nor do they hate them because they like a cartoon originally written with little girls in mind. It is because Bronies go out of their way to excuse the shitty behavior by large swathes of the fandom when it comes to misogyny, rape and pedo apologism, and the outright handwaving of all this fucking porn of cartoon horses. You know, exactly like everyone arguing with me on this topic is doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, if a transperson says they feel Bronyhate is tinged with transphobia, who are you to be telling them they are wrong? Check your cisprivilege. Resurrection by erection (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

^^^^^^ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:57, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You forgot #NotYourShield.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, this isn't Gamergate. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's the same fucking tactic. No one goes "check your cisprivilege". "Bronyhate" is not inherently transphobic. It's because Bronies go out of their way to step on everyone else's toes and insist that they are the actual intended demographic of the show, do not effectively apologize or denounce behavior by other Bronies, and insist that they as being Bronies are persecuted because they like a cartoon for girls rather than any other actual criticism levied at them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Fuck you, you stupid piece of transphobic shit. Resurrection by erection (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You forgot #NotYourShield, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean "Bronyism"? "Transgender feelings"? You're trying too hard to end up on TumblrInAction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because none of the people posting about such things on Tumblr do so genuinely? Seriously Ryu, your view is skewed from visiting 4chan and GG-reddits too much. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

You really have no idea that I'm referring to trolls enabling Poe's Law do you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually know exactly what you're referring to, but Resurrection being a troll isn't the only or IMHO the most plausible explanation here. This isn't Gamergate, there's not enough precedence to assume bad faith by default. And checking your cisprivilege doesn't sound like a bad idea when it actually seems like you failing to take it into account might actually be relevant here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

No one has ever seriously used the phrase "check your [cis]privilege". And the arguments raised were #NotYourShield-esque. I can be of the opinion that Resurrection by erection is a Poe's Law troll because they registered their account yesterday and haven't contributed anywhere other than here and someone's user talk. I have shown people whom I know are transgender what has been said to me and they have found it laughable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No one has every seriously used the phrase "check your cis privilege"? Then why does SJWiki use that exact phrase? To quote their exact words, "Check your privilege" is an expression used to remind people they are speaking from a biased perspective due to their intersectional privilege(s). Often it is modified to further specify the type of privilege, e.g., "check your white privilege", "check your cis privilege", "check your male privilege", and so on. I'm pretty sure SJWiki is a seriously meant source, not some kind of Poe's law parody site, so the fact that they use the phrase seriously is evidence that it is seriously used. (They put a space between "cis" and "privilege", I didn't, but let's not quibble over whitespace. "Cisprivilege" without the space is sufficiently well attested to be in Wiktionary.) Resurrection by erection (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to be told to check my privilege by someone who seems to have only joined this website to trot out this accusation. Your experience is your own but you don't speak for everyone. People do not dislike all Bronies because of some sort of inherent transphobia you suddenly decided is part of it, particularly when your first claims were that the reason you personally enjoy the show is because it resonates with your experience as being transgender.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"I've shown this to pals and they agreed with me" isn't and shouldn't be a convincing argument, even if those pals have some expertise on the issue. I once pointed out to the creator of Dumbing of Age an instance where he was inadvertently being acephobic/overtly sex-normative and his reaction was "[overt fan who's ace] agrees with me, so puh, you're wrong" (paraphrased, obviously). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Transgender friends of mine reading what Resurrection by erection said and finding it laughably wrong should have some weight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That depends on whether they can back that up with proper reasons. Also worth noting is that 'being transgender' is a hugely diverse phenomenon, so failure to emphatize with what Resurrection describes here doesn't necessarily mean quite that much. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Resurrection's original argument was that they enjoyed the show because it resonated with their being transgender and then that I'm transphobic for insisting that transphobia is not inherent to kinkshaming Bronies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What you actually insisted on was that "People do not hate Bronies because of gender identity issues nor do they hate them because they like a cartoon originally written with little girls in mind. It is because Bronies go out of their way to excuse the shitty behavior by large swathes of the fandom when it comes to misogyny, rape and pedo apologism, and the outright handwaving of all this fucking porn of cartoon horses." So Ryu, you seem to know not just why you hate bronies, but why other people do too. I'm curious; where did you get this knowledge from? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

I paraphrased the explanations listed on SJWiki's page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

While I don't approve of Ryu's attitude, I must say that foalcon is indeed a thing and, browsing Derpibooru, it's not at all hard to find sexually explicit artwork of ponies that are portrayed as minors. By comparison, all large furry art sites apart from Inkbunny have banned "cub porn" years ago. Vulpius (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No doubt it's a thing, but the question is what percentage of Bronies are in to it? I think it is a small minority. That imageboard proves nothing, because if it allows Brony porn, the sickfucks will be drawn to it like flies to dung, even if they are only a small proportion of Bronydom as a whole.Resurrection by erection (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't "foalcon" it's that the main characters aren't adults even in the magical horse land and that's fucked up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

it's that the main characters aren't adults even in the magical horse land- Ryulong Got any proof for that??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a show originally for little girls and they won't make the main characters in their 20s or 30s. Also, they turn into teenagers in that stupid spinoff thing I already referenced.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The former is mere speculation with no proof from inside the series, the latter a non-canonical spin-off. Nice try.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Made by the same staff, set in the same universe, with the same characters. Their age is the least non-canonical thing, dude. It's official material that supplements the original, non-canon or not. It's a "what if" story where the question is "What if they were regular human girls?" The answer is they'd be prepubescent teenagers. Kitsunelaine (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not set in the same universe or and it does not use the same characters (didn't see any humans in MLP:FiM), but even if it were the case, the ages of human forms of characters in a non-canonical spin-off (whether made by the same guys or not is not relevant) are no proof for the ages of the characters in the original series. And also, you fail biology.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact you're forcing this to be a debate is why it's an issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Why so? Is it an issues, cause I call bullshit on you accusing all bronies of being kid-diddling, pony-fucking ableists??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you have spent the past several hours trying to debate a point that these stupid fucking cartoon characters are of a certain age that would make it vaguely better (although not by that much) that there's excessive pornography featuring them across the Internet rather than accepting the argument that its very likely that these cartoon characters are supposed to be young girls and therefore pornography of them is of a different fucking nature. And I provided fucking sources that feature complaints about issues of pedophilia and ableism but no one has fucking bothered to read them it seems because we all need to justify jerking off to cartoon horses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. I just pointed out, that you have no proof for them being of any age and thus your claim them being prepubescent or teenagers is bullshit and the sources you provided are also fan/detractor speculations about the age of the Mane 6, not about so-called "foalcon" (about the so-called "Crusaders", who, unlike the Mane 6, are apparently under whatever age of majority for magical ponies there is).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So basically it's more important for you, Arisboch, to argue with me personally and make really bullshit and reaching attempts at defeating my argument than addressing the actual ethical issue at hand which is that you're going really out of your way to excuse cartoon horse girl porn for the sake of spiting me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be such a egocentric little shit, Dragondragon. I just think, it's bullshit for you to claim, that clop about the Mane 6 is anything approaching foalcon, since there is no proof of them being of any age, under or over. And I also fail to see, what ethical issue there can be about making porn about fictional sentient magical ponies except you going all EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's all you fucking do on this website when I post. You're obsessed with putting me down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again being an egocentric fucker... I ain't obsessed with pissing you off (no matter how fucking easy that is seeing the giant damn lolcow that you are), you're just a damn zealot about the causes that have the misfortune of being picked up by you. Now you have declared you jihad against bronies by accusing them of a buncha kiddie-diddling, pony-fucking ableists on shacky to non-existing evidence (and kissing the ass of some broad, who used the completely insane copyright of your times to have a blog taken down she disliked).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" Kitsunelaine (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what you and Dragondragon try to do here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. <3 Kitsunelaine (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LAME --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the biggest brony art source hosts it and people silently accept it under the reasoning of NotAllBronies. Vulpius (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My issue isn't with "foalcon" though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, baby-horse-porn is okay but you're intent on making a fuss about teenage-horse-porn? Wut? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Have you seen those super hot tribbles? Those things could turn me into a sex addict, but I do have some concern that any given tribble might be underage. I wouldn't want it getting around that I like my puffy fur young.---Mona- (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUxeRouCx9c Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"the main characters aren't adults" Uh, Ryu, cartoons/animes/etc. with kids as main characters are kind of a regular thing. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:49, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

The point I was intending to raise was not the baby-horse-porn which I had no idea existed but rather the overt sexualization and handwaving of the "mane" characers when they're also not adults.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You continue to argue that they are underage with absolute certainty, but besides a series which is noncanon, though a decent starting point, and some sources that showed anything but certainty, you haven't proven it.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is why porn of teenaged fictional characters (think Pokémon, Digimon, Teen Titans, Harry Potter etc.) is tacitly accepted when the fanbase consists of boys+girls+adult nerds, but all sort of creepy-bells start ringing when it's not targeted at boys, despite the characters in this case not being human and living in an alternative universe where everyone walks around nude and no one seems to even have a concept of sex (there's also no indication that sex organs exist in this universe). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:36, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

It shouldn't be accepted either. But there isn't a tangible community of people supporting or rather denying affiliation with this shit as is evident with Bronies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Try going to a Pokémon forum with porn and ask 'Hey, aren't these kids underage?' I dare ya! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:15, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Also furries wanting to fuck uh the rabbit one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, with women commonly being sexualized wearing bunny-themed accessories and the actual design of that Pokémon that seems like the least surprising thing. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:30, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Gardevoir.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck if some of the goddam ponies are sexualized among some Bronies. (I also don't think computer-generated or human-drawn pictures of sexualized human children should be illegal.) These are fantasy things. Why engage in a moral panic over cartoon ponies? It's beyond stupid.---Mona- (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You think it's harmless; but it's not. Here's proof of how it can warp children's minds. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Segregation"

Words have meanings. Who, precisely, is being forcibly denied what because of their love for a cartoon show? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't segregation usually mean physical separation of recognizable groups either de jure ("separate but equal") or de facto ("white suburbia").... Or am I wrong? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The picture caption is a joke.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jokes are meant to be funny. That is not funny, in any meaningful sense of the word. It is lame. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Appropriation & "propaganda"

Paravant stop removing the criticism concerning how plenty of other people consider the coming out of bronies as appropriative of gay terms. I don't care if you think people hate you for bucking a gender norm. No one else outside of this subculture thinks that's the case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

thank god you know the intentions and reasonungs of all living humans ever--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop protecting the fucking page every time I call you out on your bullshit. This is abuse of powers and you fucking know it. You want sources that say it's appropriative? Then here:

http://www.nymgamer.com/?p=4971

https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/1c1mn1/bronies_coming_out_is_it_appropriation/

https://ladygeekgirl.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/we-need-to-talk-bronies/

http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/noise/bcp-the-problem-with-bronies-20140801-story.html

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

pot, meet kettle.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking Gator or MRA trolls is nothing compared to locking down a fucking page. I have sources to support what I want to say. Unlock it so I can add it and put it back in because this is getting ridiculous, particularly because Mona saw fit to erase a citation she couldn't comprehend as being important.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And your complaints about these sources (aside from the Reddit post) are fucking ridiculous. Why are we suddenly holding sourcing up to such a higher standard on this page? This is abusing your powers plain and fucking simple.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

better sources are needed to convince that bronys are all peraecution complex horse fuckers who like little children and only ever get shit on for the fandom and not breaking gender norms--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There will never be any better sources than the ones I keep digging up. You're just trying to keep out negative criticism. That exists in multiple forms but it's not good enough for RationalWiki. But Mona's discovery of a DeviantArt posting of some kid's homework is somehow better? I found sources that support what I want to say. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they can't be used. This sudden set of stricter requirements is only to protect "the herd".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should consider that your actual opinion is not as right as it is if all you have to back yourself up is wikis, opinion pieces and a reddit? I don't really find deviantart a relevant source either, its why i neglected to use a tumblr post hating on foalcon because tumblr is not a good enough source for most things. If you are going to make accusations of pedophilia, bestiality, appropriation and persecution complex you really are going to need better sources than sites that say "well I think"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona, the films are described as propaganda because there is sourced criticism highlighting how there's no negative criticism of the fandom included at all in the hours of footage they filmed and edited, including an instance where a German guy talking shit didn't get subtitled into English.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Then call it puffing if you have credible sourcing. "Propaganda" is too loaded, and just plain, inapplicable to an issue like this.---Mona- (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Almost any documentary can be called "propaganda", as many only present one viewpoint. The subtitle thing sounds more like a mistake, why even include it in the movie? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't just undo a whole bunch of edits and say "crap edits undone". The complete disrespect you show the other people spending their free time editing this wiki is astounding. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mona's edits removed something that was sourced. Paravant is still being defensive. It's getting ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You undid a whole bunch of stuff. For the umpteenth time. And yes, it is getting ridiculous, but that's not Mona's or Paravant's fault ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I was on mobile and most of the edits were removals of things that I had worked on getting a proper wording in for hours. Mona removed the entire mention of the subtitles and the citation that criticizes the film and describes it as almost like propaganda. Paravant removed criticism that says that coming out as a Brony isn't as valid or equal to coming out as LGBT (which I've provided more sources about above). Mona added a citation that claims that Bronies are simply facing a leftist moral panic based on this Deviantart blog that says "moral panic" all of one time and cites a research study for Bronies and by Bronies that seems dubious at best. Also AgingHippie removed all of the citations to SJWiki because apparently RationalWIki's sourcing guidelines suddenly became much stricter when it comes to criticizing Bronies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If I saw cites to a wiki even more marginal than this one in any article that promised/threatened to draw eyes to this website, I would remove them. No why don't you scurry off to play with your toys for a while instead of stressing over this? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm out of stamina and neither the Medusa nor Fenrir are quests are active. Also for replacement sources on what you cut out here this probably works for the first, while the other two are handled by that citation already in that paragraph.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I give up. Keep your fucking walled garden of Brony propaganda up and believe you're persecuted because you like a girl's cartoon and not because the most vocal and extreme members of the Brony fandom have made anything about My Little Pony too toxic for the show's original intended audience to enjoy. I'll go back to being anti-Gamergate or whatever bullshit moniker you want to give me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I'm niether an invested nor an inveterate editor so I don't plan on sticking around after This.

That being said, I felt this needed to be pointed out. http://m.imgur.com/4JLm0GW

That was a quote taken from Laren Fuast's DeviantArt page. In it, she clearly states that she had envisioned the 6 main characters as young adults with the maturity of teenage girls. While certainly not the most Hasbro endorsed quotation regarding the official age of the characters, given that it's coming from the person who is more or less recognized as the unofficial voice of God regarding the show's cannon, it should at least warrant some level of consideration.

Next and more importantly, if one takes the time to observe these characters in the context of the actual show, it really isn't that hard to see them as being more closer to young adults than children or adolescents. For one thing, each of the six main characters lives on their own (with the exception of Applejack and Pinky Pie) and responsible for their own income. Prior to the end of Season Four, Twilight worked as the local librarian and Rainbow Dash works for and at times even heads up the local weather patrol and is currently in the process of being accepted into Equstria's equivalent of the AirForce. Applejack runs and maintains her family's orchard In addition to selling the literal fruits of her and her family's labors, and Pinky Pie rents a loft from her employers while moonlighting as a party planner (whether or not she makes money off of that has yet to be established) Rarity is perhaps the strongest example, given that she both lives independently of her family and owns her own business. These characteristics, while simplified for younger minds, are more closely found in adults than they are found in children, even in the context of most children's shows. Comparing them to prepubescent girls is not only inaccurate, but also establishes a flawed narrative. Nonentity (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"They're older than 18 stop kinkshaming" got it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bother reading everything you posted and just went to the image you are using to base your arguments off of. So "They're MENTALLY children, and that makes it okay". Super compelling argument. Faust says, paraphrasing, "they're young adults by horse standards, 12-18 by human standards". So, 18 at best. At best. And that's only if the image hasn't been manipulated, because god knows it's not hard to direct link to deviantart. And I'm betting you're not a horse, either. Kitsunelaine (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The bit after "Next and more importantly" is also interesting to read. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:10, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Nope. Source: watched the show, disagree wholeheartedly. Combined with the fact that it can be handwaved away with the very preceeding quote-- they're "young adults" by horse standards (which means responsibility in the horse kingdom), but still "12-18" by human standards, which is what actually fucking matters here. And that means at least one of them is considered 12. Which is not a good look for you. :) (And need I mention, we're humans, not horses, so we are judging it from a human perspective). To say they are all "young adults" by any human standard is an incredible warping of the quote this entire argument is being based upon. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Source of the original discussion: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/223684344/1770555388 Nonentity (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Much better than a dodgy imgur link. Kitsunelaine (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Trying to correct some misinformation above, the "human MLP universe" is not a non-canon alternate continuity. It's a parallel dimension, sure, but is specifically presented as being traveled to by two of the ponies in its introductory movie. Most of the characters are AU expies, but Twilight and the evil pony-turned-human are both very much supposed to be themselves, and presented as if their teenage forms are merely their human manifestations. So, yes, sexualizing the main characters (aside from the Princesses, I guess, since those are paralleled as adults) is definitely bordering on ephebephilia. Even though they are depicted with jobs, the target audience, physical depiction, personality, voices, human forms, and basically everything about them makes it virtually undeniable that they are meant to be interpreted as young teens. (Source: sister made me watch the movie so she could mock my pain.)KrytenKoro (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Again some baseless speculation to try to make clop-fans look like pedos (ephebephiliacs, but it's not that anyone here give a fuck about the diff).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh shit, you just used the ephebe word. I got underage pornography defense bingo. Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I took it from your post, asshole.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no you didn't. Never said the word. The fuck are you smoking? Kitsunelaine (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was KrytenKoro, who said it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What in the actual fuck are you talking about? My sister was actually part of the MLP community. She shared a lot of the show and fandom with me. I've "actually watched this shit", unlike you (see your posts elsewhere this page). I pointed to the evidence in the actual show that these characters are meant to be stand-ins for teenagers. I vehemently disagree with Ryulong that the "clopping" nonsense is at all a prominent facet of the community, but your ignorant misinformation all over this page isn't helping the case against his view. Either demonstrate that you are in any way informed about this topic (contradicting your prior claims), or shove the hell off.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, you (purportedly) the thing, but it is still an AU (a highschool AU and in such AUs, the characters are of course high school age, so the can be depicted in a highschool setting, but it doesn't mean, that they're the same age in the original material), as the original series don't contain any references to the humanoid universe (and even if it were a alternate dimension, it still doesn't necessarily mean, that the ages of the characters in the alternate dimension directly reflect the ages of the original dimension). Your interpretation of the series is basically fanwank.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you watched the movie? The whole framework plot is that the ponies Twilight Sparkle and Sunset Shimmer physically travel to the human universe, and take the forms of teenage girls there. 90% of the humans are parallel versions of the ponies, sure, but it is explicitly presented as a connected world and the two characters that are in both worlds are "main character-age pony" in the pony world and "young teenage girl" in the human world.

It's not, like, Evangelion Angelic Days or some anime AU bullshit. It's explicitly presented as connected to the main universe story.KrytenKoro (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft

FYI, I'm working on a draft version here: User:Carpetsmoker/MLP, which will hopefully something everyone can accept. It's a work-in-progress, feel free to make edits to fix my shit writing, but be reasonable (looking at you Ryulong). Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that it is appropriation to take use of the concept of coming out when your group is violating social norms and gender normative thought, and thus levy a dislike of that part still. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said it's a work-in-progress; just wanted to make it known it exists in case you decide to unlock this page, resulting in potential "edit conflicts" and loss of work ;-) I did change the wording of that part just now by the way. Feel free to improve... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's unprotected now I copied the stuff over. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Jihad"

Really? I reorganized the section, removed blatantly insulting descriptions of issues I had raised, fixed up various other bits, and added content I had suggested from a source I suggested that no one wanted to read, and that's an "anti-MLP Jihad"? This is ridiculous and you're just doing it because it's me who wrote it. This paragraph containing the mildest fucking criticism I can find in something that is a newspaper (as well as adding back the sentence on the German guy not being subtitled) is not an anti-brony hitpiece. And really, at least I didn't leave an edit summary saying how fucking insulting it is to see that the LGBT community shouldn't be swinging dicks over ownership of the phrase "coming out".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't engage in Oppression Olympics in other's people's place, that's being an idiot.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what "Oppression Olympics" is? Calling it coming out of the stable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is you denying, that people get bullied for liking a "girly" cartoon.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

They're equating a hobby with a personal identity. It's insulting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

They don't. They're just calling out people for bullying people because of what they perceive as not gender-conforming behavior .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's still something they chose to do. I didn't choose to be gay. They chose to watch My Little Pony religiously.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is still no reason to bully either of them.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you really just make that argument? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What argument?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That they choose to do it makes it no less gender non-conforming and thus something society will attack them for when they come out as liking it. No, it shouldnt be a big deal, but we live in a gender-normative society and thus it is, so "coming out" really is an apt way to call "Yes, i like a little girls cartoon and im a 22 year old man. No i am not a pedophile"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are Avengers ponies non-conforming or whatever? And while the whole "why do they like a girls cartoon" was definitely something that was a thing 4 years ago? 3 years? 5? whichever, now that's not why people dislike them and that's in that editorial that's linked somewhere on the page. And it's written on SJWiki. No one thinks it's a show for little girls anymore because the big boys took it over and made it difficult for the little girls to enjoy it safely without finding pinkie pie vore on google safe search.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

made it difficult for the little girls to enjoy it safely without finding pinkie pie vore on google safe search- Ryulong What of it? If the parents don't police, how the children use net, it's their business, no-one else's.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone knows about rule 34's reach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

When I was but a lad, I could find Naruto Hentai online with safe search at its strictest, should we now attack Naruto fans? I can easily run into poke34 content without trying, should we assault the pokemon fanbase for this great crime? We already call out that it's esy to run into the R34 content, any more if you reaching for reasons to hate the fandom as a whole.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We have to kink shame the people who run with their body leaning forward and their arms trailing behind them. And we can't trust anyone with a Gardevoir. But someone please explain what the hell the "new sincerity" claim is supposed to mean. Where did it come from?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We have to kink shame the people who run with their body leaning forward and their arms trailing behind them.- Ryulong Not sure, if sarcasm or stupidity.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kinkshame the fighting dreamers something something I didn't watch the anime.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Gawd get with the times. Also Google naruto run and maybe some of that show's theme songs I can't remember.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I've been unable to get explicit content on Google image search without adding explicit words ("porn", "sex", etc.). Things like "Pinkie pie", and "cute pinkie pie", etc all seem safe. I did these searches with SafeSearch turned 'off. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that problem has been solved.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Google seemed to have fixed this sometime in 2014 from what I recall, but back in 2013 I remember this was happening. Regardless of SafeSearch settings it would display clop art. I was discussing this with one of my friends back then and we were searching each character to see how many rows of images you had to scroll down before finding the inevitable clop. It wasn't many. and Bing was even worse. Google's suggested searches at the time also went to things like "Rainbow Dash clopfic" or "Pinkie Pie rule 34". Lightning Dust (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If I was being really petty I could perhaps remove unsourced content like the repeated insistence that Bronies are an example of whatever the hell is meant by "New Sincerity". It's not like I fucking replaced the whole page with "Kinkshame Horsefuckers" in 32 point font.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You did it without using 32 point font and with a lil more words.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you even fucking read anything I added or are you just reverting me because I edited the page because the last thing you reverted included this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for wasting coupla seconds of my life.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And is this what passes for a hitpiece now? I was harsh several days ago but every time I try to dial that back it's just met with repeated statements along the lines of "Stop calling Bronies kid-diddling horsefuckers who want to eugenically murder the disabled" without addressing anything I try to suggest as an alternative to what was on Thursday turning the tone of this article completely from positive to negative with regards to the fans. What more do I have to cut out? Just anything remotely negative that isn't completely refuted a sentence later? This is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire basis of your edits is flawed, and thus are reverted. Your entire criticism is not valid in the first place, it has nothing to do with the fact that its negative. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Then what criticism of Bronies is valid? What's allowed to be said that's critical of the behavior of members of a fandom that isn't no true Scotsman apologism?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And why can't that part about subtitling be kept in? It's a critique that lends to that reviewer's view about the propagandist aspect of the fan film.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms of Bronys is fine, deciding that a group of non-conformists have nothing to fear from society and that we need to write the article in a way that makes sure we know the brony movement as a whole are fucking monsters is not that. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to the young women who watch the show and call out the worst parts of the fandom and have to abandon their entire web presence because Bronies won't kick the bad applejacks out of the herd.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

'Cause it is totally OK to abuse copyright as a stick to clobber MLP fans you don't like, amirite? Reminds me of Scientology and them using copyright to silence critics.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously defending the public Brony pillory of "pinkie pony"? That's a new low. Even for you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. Harassment is major assholery, but using copyright like she did was shit, too. I'm not on her side, but I'm also not on the side of her harassers.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if she was aware Hasbro would actually use a copyright claim to shut down the blog so I don't know if she should be blamed for that. It's probably in some link that I did manage to add but I can't remember the exact wording.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And there's an archive of the "Ask Princess Molestia" tumblr on tumblr itself which wasn't deleted to this day (and I'm sure, that many people have made backups of that tumblr, too. It is very easy, you just need a little knowledge in, say, BASH (I use the BASH script language and zsh as default shell in Linux) to write an primitive script, that'll download all the pictures from this tumblr).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

With the thousands of reblogs it would be impossible to ever truly take down a tumblr blog from the whole site. It's rare to see "this picture has been removed for violation our terms of service" placeholders.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That not being on any side is a problem, Arisboch. What you (and others) forget is that there is no such thing as "neutrality" outside of physics. Remember, silence is agreement, consent, and support. If you do not speak out against, then you are by default supporting the opposing side. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Another clown trying to guilt-trip others to join whatever cause he espouses... I won't. I support neither harassing though copyright claims not through spam and similar shit. Fuck pinkiepony and her harassers.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to guilt-trip you. I'm just reminding you of the reality of life. I don't care what cause you join - and frankly, I'd personally prefer it if you joined the harassers. But which side you choose is up to you; that's free will. But keep claiming neutrality and eventually the side will be chosen for you. Vichy France was all "We're neutral, we're neutral, we're not involved." and they ended up hanged as collaborators. While an over-broad example, this happens in every conflict. By abstaining, you vote away your choice as to which side you are placed on. I never recommend that course of action. Better to decide who you're with than to have someone else determine it. --Castaigne (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already decided my side: NONE of them!

P.S.: That looked like intentionally skirting Godwin's law, which make me even less inclined to choose a side.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, it's your choice. Free will and all that.

Just don't complain when the side is chosen for you and your protests are ignored. Or to paraphrase Khan from the Star Trek reboot, "You think your neutrality is safe? It is an illusion. A comforting lie told to protect you. Enjoy these final moments of peace."

I have chosen my side already, primarily because I know which side I don't want to be lumped into in the inevitable conflict. --Castaigne (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just don't complain when the side is chosen for you and your protests are ignored.- Castaigne You already do that and trying to excuse that by quoting stuff, which doesn't fit the situation AT ALL!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I find this comment incomprehensible. Restate? --Castaigne (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So how should they do this, hm? Hire assassination squads to kill all the "bad" bronies? Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actively denounce their behavior instead of asserting #NotAllBronies. Deny known problem people access to conventions or various spaces. I'm sure assholes get blacklisted from Star Trek conventions or furry conventions if they're not wanted there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Like follow people around, online and not, telling everyone how they aren't a real brony? What level of "problem" should be excluded to meet your desired level of "doing something" about the problem? Should organizations planning on having conventions have surveillance teams to find and root out people who are not welcome? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

They should establish the КББ (Комитет Брони-Безопасности) ^{(Committee for Brony Security, a play on the KGB)}--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure they all have central forums where they can go "yo, thunderh00f is an asshole, don't let him into your convention next year".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not going to encourage doxxing in finding out the true identities of these people, and what level of asshole is decided to be in the "In Group" or "Out Group". It's fandom, not a cult. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How do groups handle such issues then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

not via doxxing to find out "who doesn't belong"?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullcrap, that's EXACTLY how con security handles such things. "Doxxing" is not this evil thing. The information provided by doxxing is available to anyone who wants to pay $50-100 for it. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking more of what level. If someone threatens safety, or is Mikemikev who is just places to troll and doxxed themselves, then it's outside of "doxxing" to me. If people are critical, or behave outside "THE NORM" from what people feel is acceptable for Bronies, that's way out of line. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In the P&P RPG world, we allowed the Cat Piss Man to be a problem. Then we took action, cleaned it up, stopped allowing them to fuck up the program. Today's Cat Piss Man are the MRAs, the channers, the Bronies, the GamerGaters, so on. That's not just "behaving outside the norm". It's purely unacceptable behavior. --Castaigne (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually, this does happen - and not just in Star Trek or furry conventions. Convergence, DragonCon, fan conventions of all sizes and fandoms, we engage in active blacklisting. There's a reason why Ed Kramer was banned from any fan convention (not just DragonCon) for over a decade before he was convicted. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Bronies in a nutshell?

Can someone -- not Ryulong, please -- tell me, in a nutshell, what are 1. the main bad behaviors attributed to Bronies said to be, and 2. how significant a faction of fandom are they said to be?---Mona- (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK bronies are seen as men in their 20's/30's who are consistently also ridiculed as the stereotypical "fedora tipping '7-proxies' atheist." I know that a small minority do love clop, but that is a small portion, and the entire fandom is either pro or contra when it comes to bronies, mothballing into massive flame wars between both groups... You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here! Amen!} 04:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The question is inherently flawed in the same way of asking "Whats wrong with Atheists? Christians? Muslims? Israelis? The Communists? There isn't one single big problem that you can define the whole as, and that is Ryus issue. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just pointing out the biggest stereotype. Those two I pointed out earlier are super common for some reason. The latter, I guess, has to do with that MRA/Red Pill faction of the fandom. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here! Amen!} 04:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised when I learned that some bronies sent death threats to some poor thing. I just added a section concerning death threats to the "Derpy Hooves" part. ClickerClock (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything that is wrong with RW at the moment

This storm in a tea cup highlights everything that is wrong with RW. The article, as was, was pretty innocuous. It highlighted an internet phenomenon where a children's cartoon managed to escape the clutches of the toy makers and made some pretty interesting points - rather than simply "and here's another toy to pester your parents to buy". The creator seems to be pretty sincere about her mission to create something better than the norm and, from what I've heard, she's largely succeeded. Another marginally interesting point was that late adolescent men seem to have latched onto it and made it a thing. (see also the Bagpuss fans and, if you're old enough, The Magic Roundabout - OK, so they weren't such an open thing but we're talking pre-internet)

For years it just sat there. Harmless.

And then, all of a sudden, it's the centre of yet another RW war. The opposing factions seem to see compromise as a sign of weakness and, for the last few days, RC has been nothing but MLP.

Now, let's look at our mission in the larger sense. The dream, way back when, was that RW would be the go-to place for fun but informative and well researched articles on pseudoscience, woo, religion, and all sorts of fundamentalist ideas. Our main catchment were those who googled "Poes Law", for example, found our article and then stayed to enjoy the rest. If you read "How I found RW" you'll see that over and over again. It's how I got here.

But now, should a newcomer stumble upon this site what will they see? Nothing but petty minded squabbling, pages and pages of it. We don't discuss, we don't debate, we don't even argue we bicker like children.

Seriously, take a step back and look at what we've become. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You claim, it's new? You must be new here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You say "opposing factions", but really, it's just one user being an asshole vs. the rest of the site ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Arisboch I don't remember it as this bad since forever. Even the Maratrean thing - along with the dick pics - wasn't as ugly as this. Silver Sloth (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh Maratrean - that was a golden age... Aceⁱ⁹ 00:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Ace, buddy, how's it going? I miss ya! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree more with Doxys Midnight Runner. What is happening with this article is plainly ABSURD. If I first arrived at RW and found all this I would just burst out laughing and move on elsewhere. Either stop it or lock the article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bah. That's all nonsense. It's been like this since the get-go; y'all just have rose-tinted memories of the days of old. --Castaigne (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense. Clearly you are the one who has the distorted view of RW history. I agree with Doxy that the edit war over this article is a fucking joke. This article was great before the edit war, and I think we should revert it back to that version. Conficker^{International womon of mystery} 22:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We more or less have. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This kind of shit going on seems to be regular occurrence here. At least in the past, with my rose tinted nostalgia specs, it seemed to be over more worthy stuff. I have stopped recommending this wiki as a source for anything. Its too embarrassing. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with OP to a certain extent, although argument has been a part of RW culture since Adam was a boy, it was over shit that was relevant to our mission. I see the problem being the poisoned chalice of subjective political content becoming a core part of the wiki. At first this wasn't an issue because it didn't conflict with the general left consensus, but over time the fractures have emerged. The problem is that, for much of our content, arguments can be resolved by pointing to a scientific publication. However, For articles like this one, arguments involve ethical theories, sociological beliefs, outright opinions and meta-narrative interpretations. I was at first weakly in favour of allowing for social justice articles on the wiki, thinking perhaps they might be like some other political articles that are very relevant (eg. republican denial of climate change). However, time has proved that wrong, instead, like with the Israel article, we have two camps that are largely intractable because their positions are not so much based on facts as a whole host of other beliefs (as mentioned above ethical theories etc...)

This wiki's strength lies in debunking outright pseudoscience without false neutrality; our social justice articles (eg. Gamergate, Israel, etc...) are remarkably poor compared to WPs. The more we continue to deviate from the mission statement the less coherent the wiki becomes as a whole. Tielec01 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A recurrent trend I observe among those complaining that we're 'straying away' from RW's mission is the implicit assumption that 'social justice stuff' isn't/shouldn't be relevant to our mission. What is our prime motivation in debunking bullshit if not to protect our fellow man (in the gender-neutral sense) from it? If this is our motivation, of what relevance is it whether the bullshit in question is of a pseudoscientific, religious or political nature? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

the missionality chestnut is meaningless. This will still happen time and time again. Its a pissing contest. No wants to back down and I see the same faces rushing in to stir the pot and masterbate over how many fallacies they can spot. It is not passionate debate over sincerely or deeply held beliefs, its about crushing the opposition by whatever means necessary. No ones minds are changed and positions become more entrenched and intractable, mixed with people incapable of taking even the slightest bit of criticism and lacking any kind of empathy or social skills. If folk behaved like this in real life, they would get a glass pushed into their faces no matter how strong they think their arguments are. Not that they would care - provoking a reaction would be seen as victory and validation. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

These arguments lend themselves to intractability. We may as well be arguing over which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars. There may be a right answer, but it is well outside our abilities to find it. Tielec01 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

BoN, as I said above, there was a time when I thought it was missional. I've changed my mind due to the reasons stated above. Tielec01 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that articles one samesex marriage and gay agenda are missional ... So, where does one draw the line? Why samesex marriage and not transphobia? I'm not a huge fan of this content myself, but I've never been able to come up with a good enough "why not" reason .... 82.95.88.48 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@tielec01, no, the people arguing them lend themselves to intractability. I could argue for or against anything, realising I can never convince everyone or anyone, without screaming obscenities as if there their disagreement is on par with spitting on my mother. Its enough that I can put my point across as best I can. If people, agree, super. If not, well, such is life. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@BoN Gotta give ashort answer as I am at work, parts of gay marriage are missional due to an intersection with fundamentalism and delicious hypocrisy. I don't know much about the gay agenda (perhaps an American thing?) so can't answer. Agree that drawing lines is hard, but it has to be done.

@ AMG True, but I think we have always had persnickety arseholes here, which is fine by me, YMMV. Tielec01 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we add an image to the article?

I uploaded one, even though copyrighted I think it is covered by fair use. Or if someone finds a better one they can. I think the article would be better with an image. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just needs something funny in the description :-) My attempt isn't very good :-( Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit

Maratrean AND Ace are back to hash this out? Unbelievable. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What about Teletubbies?

Well, what about it? ħuman 19:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WRITE AN ARTICLE, ASAP. Write about the r34, the controversies, every-fucking-thing! You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here! Amen!} 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is some missional stuff about Teletubbies and the reaction to as media, though not enough for an article to be written.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories, right-wing nutters spouting off various points of bullshit, and maybe a few other miscellaneous controversies, and you have a nice and short little article. You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here! Amen!} 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)