How Would You Define A "Brony"?

[Palanan]

I know what this is, in general terms; but how would you describe it to someone who's never encountered the phoenomenon before, and likely never even heard of My Little Pony?

[QueerKitty]

Someone that insists you're a MLP fan even if you've never seen it or has seen it and don't like it.

[Ravens_cry]

A male fan of a current iteration of an animated TV show where most of the main characters are talking horses, pegasi, and unicorns.

[Jaycemonde]

So there's this show that started out as a kid's show to teach love and tolerance and all that, only kids shows never really get quite as many kid fans as adult fans, for whatever reason, y'know? Anyway, this particular show is called My Little Pony, and I know it sounds like a stupid name and all, but there's a huge subculture surrounding it that calls itself the Brony culture--the name came from a joke on 4chan, originally--where a lot of people try to live by the whole love and tolerance thing the show teaches (not many really do, but that's just the unfortunate truth of majorities and it shouldn't affect your judgement of all bronies) and tend to create pony personas/avatars for themselves, often stylistically unique and based on the art style present in the show, which is pretty cool even if you don't like the show's writing. Oh, also, there's porn of it, because there's porn of literally everything, but if that's not your thing then don't assume all bronies do like it, because a sizable portion don't.

That should cover all the bases. The trick to explaining just about anything is through informality.

[SiuiS]

A term for a fan based on the series they are a fan of.

Quite simple, really. A brony is no different than a Trekkie, trekker, brown coat, or any other fan with a a name.


A male fan of a current iteration of an animated TV show where most of the main characters are talking horses, pegasi, and unicorns.

What, girls can't be fans~?

[Derjuin]

What, girls can't be fans~?

I believe it has to do with the "bro" part. :smalltongue:

I heard someone suggest "pegasister" for girls but it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

I'd define it as "typically male fan of the current iteration of the My Little Pony show". I'd only go further than that if they ask me to, and once you get past that it's not really defining "brony" anymore.

Also @Jaycemonde: I'd completely leave the porn part out because it's really not necessary. :smalleek:

[Palanan]

Thanks for the replies so far, although more comments are certainly welcome.

I should clarify that I'm trying to explain this in a family-friendly context, to a broad audience with people who've never heard of 4chan.


Originally Posted by Derjuin
Also @Jaycemonde: I'd completely leave the porn part out because it's really not necessary.

Thank you, and very much agreed.

[Kalmageddon]

People that watch a cartoon show about ponies and feel the need of letting everybody know about it, regardless of context.

[DigoDragon]

What, girls can't be fans~?

It does seem a bit off in that wording. Even some members of the target audience have called themselves a brony, so I'd go with the term to simply be defined as "Any fan of the show" and leave it at that.

[Coidzor]

It does seem a bit off in that wording. Even some members of the target audience have called themselves a brony, so I'd go with the term to simply be defined as "Any fan of the show" and leave it at that.

Like dude, has connotations of masculinity, but can be inclusive to all genders was my understanding.

[Ravens_cry]

What, girls can't be fans~?
Didn't say that, though female fans I know generally don't identify as a 'brony', instead using alternate terms like 'pegisister'. Given the nature of idiom, I am sure that someone could be called a 'girl brony', despite the etymology.

[No brains]

I find it odd that this inclusive dogma is championed by people who have an exclusive name for themselves.

[SiuiS]

I am surprised and saddened by the number of unnecessary potshots against other people, here. C'est la vie I suppose?


The gender of the word is up for debate, I suppose, but the addition of new words and standards can only breed contention. I prefer pegs sister for being more interesting and entertaining. But debates over which is more valid and that you should stay in your box and I should stay in mine and that inclusion is nice but this is what the term is and you'll have to deal are all, well, needlessly divisive.
Not that anyone discussing the gendering of the word have gone there yet or will, but the concept unfolds pretty easily to the mind's eye. Food for thought I suppose.


I find it odd that this inclusive dogma is championed by people who have an exclusive name for themselves.

Interesting. How so? Nothing in the name says "you aren't one"; in fact, we've had at least two people complain the group isn't exclusive enough.

[Coidzor]

Didn't say that, though female fans I know generally don't identify as a 'brony', instead using alternate terms like 'pegisister'. Given the nature of idiom, I am sure that someone could be called a 'girl brony', despite the etymology.

Girl brony sometimes shows up, though just brony seems to be the more common way of putting it forward, unless it's particularly relevant what gender an individual is and their name and gender isn't being given in another way.

Though, while we're on the subject, I just don't like the way pegasister feels on the tongue when saying it.


I should clarify that I'm trying to explain this in a family-friendly context, to a broad audience with people who've never heard of 4chan.

Like an article or newsletter? Oy gevalt...

[Ravens_cry]

Girl brony sometimes shows up, though just brony seems to be the more common way of putting it forward, unless it's particularly relevant what gender an individual is and their name and gender isn't being given in another way.

News to me, and so idiom moves forward.


Though, while we're on the subject, I just don't like the way pegasister feels on the tongue when saying it.
I don't know, I like how 'chewy' it is.:smalltongue: What bugs me about it is its etymological inaccuracy, as not all the equine characters in the show are pegasi.

[Coidzor]

News to me, and so idiom moves forward.

I don't know, I like how 'chewy' it is.:smalltongue: What bugs me about it is its etymological inaccuracy, as not all the equine characters in the show are pegasi.

*shrug* Knew some people who insisted upon pegasister but have just defaulted to brony due to not being able to be arsed to use a different term, especially when there's not been any real pushback for using brony and not being male as far as I am aware.

I managed to get over that part after about a week, but it still doesn't sit right in my mouth. Sort of itchy. Which is weird in and of itself. :smallconfused:


The gender of the word is up for debate, I suppose, but the addition of new words and standards can only breed contention.

I'd disagree that it's so much a debate over the gender of one term as more that there are multiple versions of the term bouncing around right now and it's probably towards the end of its current batch of evolution, but is still in some level of flux.

[SiuiS]

Debate may be the wrong word, aye.

[Tengu_temp]

A brony is a male fan of MLP: FiM, at least in his teenage years and frequently older. Why do so many of them watch the show? Because all kid's cartoons, as long as they're well-written and funny, are bound to attract an adult audience, and this one is no exception.

Now, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of bronies are obnoxious and annoying, push the show on people who are not interested, read very unintentional, horrible messages from it, and compare themselves to oppressed minorities. But not all people who call themselves bronies are like this, so it's not a part of the definition.

[warty goblin]

I always just considered it one of those obnoxious internet subculture things which life is improved by avoiding. Rather like most fandoms.

[Kalmageddon]

A brony is a male fan of MLP: FiM, at least in his teenage years and frequently older. Why do so many of them watch the show? Because all kid's cartoons, as long as they're well-written and funny, are bound to attract an adult audience, and this one is no exception.

Now, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of bronies are obnoxious and annoying, push the show on people who are not interested, read very unintentional, horrible messages from it, and compare themselves to oppressed minorities. But not all people who call themselves bronies are like this, so it's not a part of the definition.

This.
Thank you.

[No brains]

I see a few statements where it is said that "many", "a lot", or "most" bronies do or do not engage in some kind of frowned-upon behavior. Has there ever been some kind of poll or study that established the percentages of these people? It seems the illusion that an uncomfortable number of bronies do these things is a tremendous barrier to others accepting bronies as a whole. I think if it were proven that only a very small percentage of bronies were actually what the rumors say, the group might be less maligned.

[Tengu_temp]

If I had to guess: the annoying part of brony fandom is not even close to a majority, but they are very visible and very good at making a bad name for the whole fandom as a whole.

So, you know, like most fandoms.

[erikun]

Brony: An adult fan of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic cartoon, particularly part of the brony fandom.

Most bronies are male teenagers our young adults. Bronies produce a lot of fanart, fanwriting, music, animation, games, and other forms of media. They tend towards a community, discussing the show and with gatherings (conventions) to meet each other. Some female fans prefer the term brony, while others prefer the term pegasister, and some people just prefer no label but are still part of the fandom.

Some people are just fans of the show. They do not wish to be called bronies, do not engage with others about it, and are not part of the fandom.


I'm not much inclined to get into the porn, or the obsessive conversations, as that is something you see with every fandom everywhere.

[Tyndmyr]

I know what this is, in general terms; but how would you describe it to someone who's never encountered the phoenomenon before, and likely never even heard of My Little Pony?

Every one of the guys who has eagerly pre-ordered the MLP CCG cards long in advance.

I am debating carrying "My Brittle Pony", the horse-jerky from the UK....dunno if I can sell horse in the US, tho. *sigh* Another chance for humor(at least for me) lost.

[Jaycemonde]

Brony: An adult fan of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic cartoon, particularly part of the brony fandom.

Most bronies are male teenagers our young adults. Bronies produce a lot of fanart, fanwriting, music, animation, games, and other forms of media. They tend towards a community, discussing the show and with gatherings (conventions) to meet each other. Some female fans prefer the term brony, while others prefer the term pegasister, and some people just prefer no label but are still part of the fandom.

Some people are just fans of the show. They do not wish to be called bronies, do not engage with others about it, and are not part of the fandom.


I'm not much inclined to get into the porn, or the obsessive conversations, as that is something you see with every fandom everywhere.

P. much what I wanted to say, but easier to digest, I suppose.
As for the porn, everyone to their own, y'know? I like it well enough, but I get not everyone will.
The reason I brought it up is because a lot of people automatically gravitate to OMG THEY'REZ PR0NZ OF TH1S ON HTE WEBZ and focus solely on that aspect to the exclusion of everything else, which is the same problem lots of other subcultures and communities have, as I am sure does not need to be said. Stating that yes, there's dirty stuff out there, but no, it's not the majority of it, tends to solve most social problems before they ever arise.

[t209]

P. much what I wanted to say, but easier to digest, I suppose.
As for the porn, everyone to their own, y'know? I like it well enough, but I get not everyone will.
The reason I brought it up is because a lot of people automatically gravitate to OMG THEY'REZ PR0NZ OF TH1S ON HTE WEBZ and focus solely on that aspect to the exclusion of everything else, which is the same problem lots of other subcultures and communities have, as I am sure does not need to be said. Stating that yes, there's dirty stuff out there, but no, it's not the majority of it, tends to solve most social problems before they ever arise.
And it's older than TV too. Tijuana Bible (NSFW) made rule 34 on popeye, Mickey and Minnie Mouse, and Betty Boop.
Oh Celestia, Brain Bleach.

[Coidzor]

P. much what I wanted to say, but easier to digest, I suppose.
As for the porn, everyone to their own, y'know? I like it well enough, but I get not everyone will.
The reason I brought it up is because a lot of people automatically gravitate to OMG THEY'REZ PR0NZ OF TH1S ON HTE WEBZ and focus solely on that aspect to the exclusion of everything else, which is the same problem lots of other subcultures and communities have, as I am sure does not need to be said. Stating that yes, there's dirty stuff out there, but no, it's not the majority of it, tends to solve most social problems before they ever arise.

I get the feeling that the context of this piece is one where sexual matters would be inappropriate to bring up, however.

[Jaycemonde]

I get the feeling that the context of this piece is one where sexual matters would be inappropriate to bring up, however.

Fair enough. I was just explaining why I brought it up in the first place. Obviously, in the event you're explaining to somebody that would react negatively to such a statement, you would exclude any mention in the first place.

EDIT: And yeah, for the sake of all our sanity, 'brony' isn't limited to male fans at all. Let's not go all binary-box on people, plx. That results in hurt feelings.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Coidzor
I get the feeling that the context of this piece is one where sexual matters would be inappropriate to bring up, however.

You have the right of it here. Most of the audience won't have any idea that MLP even exists, so they won't "automatically gravitate" to any assumptions whatsoever.


Originally Posted by Ravens_cry
What bugs me about [pegasister] is its etymological inaccuracy, as not all the equine characters in the show are pegasi.

But do you feel the same way about "brony"? Because, as mentioned above, not all the equine characters are ponies, either.

:smallbiggrin:


Originally Posted by Ravens_cry
A male fan of a current iteration of an animated TV show where most of the main characters are talking horses, pegasi, and unicorns.


Originally Posted by Tengu_temp
A brony is a male fan of MLP: FiM, at least in his teenage years and frequently older.

...and these are about the closest to what I was looking for, brief and explanatory. Honorable mention to erikun for an admirably compact encyclopedia entry. :smalltongue:

Thanks, all.

[junglesteve]

An immature attention sucker? Why cant you just be a fan of your preferred show and leave it at that? I also dont like 'whovians' just say "I LIKE DOCTOR WHO!"

[Kd7sov]

Why cant you just be a fan of your preferred show and leave it at that? I also dont like 'whovians' just say "I LIKE DOCTOR WHO!"

In brief, because people like labels, categories, and boxes. Besides, if you want to complain you can aim a lot earlier than "Whovian"; as far as I can determine quickly, that term is a product of the eighties, or perhaps late seventies, whereas "Trekkies" were around in the sixties. And the Baker Street Irregulars decades before that.

[thubby]

fandoms are older than dirt. do i need to point out how many Shakespeare fans have been running around since forever?


An immature attention sucker? Why cant you just be a fan of your preferred show and leave it at that? I also dont like 'whovians' just say "I LIKE DOCTOR WHO!"

ironic you would talk about maturity in a post like that.

it is in the nature of language to develop faster and simpler means of communicating. your idea isn't just applicable to fans, btw.

why have titles like "doctor" when you can have "medical practitioner who treats acute and chronic illnesses and provides preventive care and health education to patients." :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

I'd use a slightly different definition, along the lines of "'Brony' is a title that older fans of a cartoon called My Little Pony apply to themselves." After all, if the line between people who happen to like a particular show and people who are within a subculture defined by liking a particular show correlates pretty strongly with those people identifying themselves as part of the subculture, that identification is an easy aspect to grab on to.

[Shyftir]

For instance I'm 29 years old. I think that MLP:FiM is a really good show. I have watched all that is available. I do not consider myself a Brony. I don't write fanfiction/ create fanart or obsessively argue over which pony is best (BTW: it's Rainbow Dash) But I like the show. It's a good, funny kid's cartoon with fairly solid moral lessons to teach.

You can like MLP and not be a Brony even if you are an adult male.

[Castaras]

Fan of the my little pony show who's not the intended target audience of 6-12 yr old girls.

Depressing to see how many people instantly get hostile towards any mention of it.

[Kalmageddon]

off topic tangent:

Fan of the my little pony show who's not the intended target audience of 6-12 yr old girls.

Depressing to see how many people instantly get hostile towards any mention of it.

Speaking for myself I'm not really hostile to them, I'm annoyed.
Have you ever been minding your own business when you see a group of people acting really loud and obnoxious and you'd want to go over there and ask them to please stop? But you can't because lound and obnoxious are not crimes and they aren't hurting anyone?
That's how I feel about bronies.

In each and every forum there's a bunch of them trying to make their passion for a cartoon show for little girls pass for something more, or something deep or something that has a message.
When all they do is indulging in stupid memes nobody but them understands and making furry fanart of everything they see.

And I've never had any of these problems with any other fandom. I mean, fans (as in "fanatics") are usually obnoxious only when you confront them about their preferred subject. Bronies are actively trying to be acknowledged, to be recognized and to make you react to them one way or the other, so you basically have to try really, really hard to ignore them.

[Coidzor]

But do you feel the same way about "brony"? Because, as mentioned above, not all the equine characters are ponies, either.

Yeah, but the non-ponies are all clearly defined as second-class citizens or legal nonentities. :smalltongue: Or just straight out munsters.

[warty goblin]

For instance I'm 29 years old. I think that MLP:FiM is a really good show. I have watched all that is available. I do not consider myself a Brony. I don't write fanfiction/ create fanart or obsessively argue over which pony is best (BTW: it's Rainbow Dash) But I like the show. It's a good, funny kid's cartoon with fairly solid moral lessons to teach.

You can like MLP and not be a Brony even if you are an adult male.

You know, I'm just generally a bit confused by this whole identifying as a fan of something thing. Don't get me wrong, I like books, tv shows etc, to be sure. Some of them - mostly books - have been intelligent and thought provoking enough to have some significant impact on my thinking, beliefs and feelings. But I don't hang my identity on liking them.

It seems a flighty star by which to steer. I think of my identity is the things I have achieved and hope to achieve and have failed to achieve. It's how I treat other people; whether I conduct myself with honor and integrity, or not. It's actions and feelings and fears and loves and history, not what sort of entertainment product I squander an hour with at the end of the day. Personally, I would have to some serious self-reassessment if I ever got to the point where my enjoyment of a television series became a major part of how I thought about myself.

Now if it works for other people, fine, go for it. I do not understand it though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kalmageddon
In each and every forum there's a bunch of them trying to make their passion for a cartoon show for little girls pass for something more, or something deep or something that has a message.

To me, it's a little odd you say that, since apart from last April Fool's in the Playground, I've barely noticed they exist. Maybe I just don't go into the brony-intensive threads, but apart from the occasional avatar (--which really confused me for a while: why is Starbuck II a pony wearing a flight jacket?!) I've barely noticed their presence.

There was a mainstream news article about bronydom (sensu lato) a year or so ago, but otherwise zilch that I recall. Then again, I only look at sites like io9 once in a blue moon, and this is the only forum I'm on where that demographic tends to hang out.


Originally Posted by warty_goblin
You know, I'm just generally a bit confused by this whole identifying as a fan of something thing. ...Personally, I would have to some serious self-reassessment if I ever got to the point where my enjoyment of a television series became a major part of how I thought about myself.

I have to agree. When I was a teenager I was heavily into comics and Star Trek, but it never occurred to me to actively bond with other fans like kindred droplets of oil. I went to exactly one Star Trek convention, first year of college, and never again. Apart from the issues of identification you've very aptly described, in general there were too many people demanding attention for being cool and different. (Within the narrow confines of their chosen fandom, no less.)

Something like GenCon or DragonCon might be different (and I'm sure I left out an * somewhere)--but I don't really have the time, money or driving interest to pursue it these days.


Originally Posted by warty_goblin
I think of my identity is the things I have achieved and hope to achieve and have failed to achieve. It's how I treat other people; whether I conduct myself with honor and integrity, or not. It's actions and feelings and fears and loves and history, not what sort of entertainment product I squander an hour with at the end of the day.

Very well said, indeed.

[Emmerask]

a few years back if I remember correctly it became kind of a plague in the playground (ie suddenly random brony comments in completely unrelated topics), but atm its perfectly fine (as far as i can tell).

[Jaycemonde]

In each and every forum

I've seen a few forums without any. Like the BMS forum. Then again, most of the regulars there are such ********s to anybody they find even mildly out of the ordinary that it's easy to imagine why. Kinda reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.


When all they do is indulging in stupid memes nobody but them understands and making furry fanart of everything they see.

>implying these are bad things


And I've never had any of these problems with any other fandom. I mean, fans (as in "fanatics") are usually obnoxious only when you confront them about their preferred subject.

****, son, you should see the Whovians and Night Vale fans on Tumblr. They butt into every single conversation they can see and make it all about them, and in the case of the Whovians they've been at war with Gunblr for about a year because real heroes are apparently capable of disassembling a precision-machined military vehicle just by tapping a stupid screwdriver against it and calling servicemen baby murderers.
Also, the larger AdventureTime fandom. I have never seen Social Justice Warriors so rabidly defending fanonical ships. Hell, even gay people aren't safe from being flash-mobbed for being "homophobes" just 'cause they don't ship Bubbline.

So, frankly, I'm calling BS on this post and shoving my size ten hoof up it's arse.

[Mauve Shirt]

Bronies are basically furry pedophiles.
Or they're fans of MLP.

[Jaycemonde]

Bronies are basically furry pedophiles.
Or they're fans of MLP.

I am so glad we haven't devolved to using idiotic, baseless ad hominem just because we don't like other people.

[Kalmageddon]

@Jaycemonde


So, frankly, I'm calling BS on this post and shoving my size ten hoof up it's arse.

It's not BS, it's my personal opinion and I'd ask that you respect it.
I'd also appreciate if you didn't bring physical violence into this.

Thank you.

PS: I think it's common courtesy to reply in spoilers to something written in spoilers.

[Jaycemonde]

@Jaycemonde


It's not BS, it's my personal opinion and I'd ask that you respect it.
I'd also appreciate if you didn't bring physical violence into this.

Thank you.

PS: I think it's common courtesy to reply in spoilers to something written in spoilers.

Fine. Here's my official apology. I will forevermore respect opinions that are basically direct insults and will not retaliate in any way, and will take the sole blame for responding out of spoilers--which another person has done, but it's okay for them 'cause they had something positive to say--because I'm going to be the better goat. Cheers.

[Coidzor]

Bronies are basically furry pedophiles.
Or they're fans of MLP.

Wat? :smallconfused:


Fan of the my little pony show who's not the intended target audience of 6-12 yr old girls.

Depressing to see how many people instantly get hostile towards any mention of it.

Indeed, at least early on it made some amount of sense because it started bursting forth in a lot of places at once due to not having any delineated areas for talking about it specifically until they were created, and for a little while after that. But it's been over a year now, at least, my concept of the passage of time occasionally being a little on the blurry side. :smallconfused:

[Kurgan]

Bronies are basically furry pedophiles.
Or they're fans of MLP.

Um...I do hope that first part is joking?

Also, what is wrong with furries that you'd connect them instantly to pedophiles?


Fine. Here's my official apology. I will forevermore respect opinions that are basically direct insults and will not retaliate in any way, and will take the sole blame for responding out of spoilers--which another person has done, but it's okay for them 'cause they had something positive to say--because I'm going to be the better goat. Cheers.

Bravo.

Plus, I don't consider bronies too intruding, unlike some people, they don't ring my doorbell or try to hand out pamphlets to me.

[warty goblin]

I've seen a few forums without any. Like the BMS forum. Then again, most of the regulars there are such ********s to anybody they find even mildly out of the ordinary that it's easy to imagine why. Kinda reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.

It's fairly absent from the other two forums I read. But they're almost exclusively populated by middle aged dudes, and one of them is extremely limited interest.


****, son, you should see the Whovians and Night Vale fans on Tumblr. They butt into every single conversation they can see and make it all about them, and in the case of the Whovians they've been at war with Gunblr for about a year because real heroes are apparently capable of disassembling a precision-machined military vehicle just by tapping a stupid screwdriver against it and calling servicemen baby murderers.
Also, the larger AdventureTime fandom. I have never seen Social Justice Warriors so rabidly defending fanonical ships. Hell, even gay people aren't safe from being flash-mobbed for being "homophobes" just 'cause they don't ship Bubbline.

So, frankly, I'm calling BS on this post and shoving my size ten hoof up it's arse.
Ya know, it's stuff like that which makes me think staying very far away from fan culture is entirely the right move. I mean how the hell is a fan-invented relationship between fictional characters something worth arguing over in the first place? Let alone an issue of enough weight to warrant invenctive? It's all dust and wind folks.

[SiuiS]

But do you feel the same way about "brony"? Because, as mentioned above, not all the equine characters are ponies, either.

The only remaining characters that are not equine are leonine fowl, and whatever donkeys are.
Thanks, all.[/QUOTE]


off topic tangent:
Speaking for myself I'm not really hostile to them, I'm annoyed.
Have you ever been minding your own business when you see a group of people acting really loud and obnoxious and you'd want to go over there and ask them to please stop? But you can't because lound and obnoxious are not crimes and they aren't hurting anyone?

Yeah. I call those dudebros, and get really tired, personally, of listening to how hot the chick they totally slept with was, and how shes totally a 7.3 compared to the other guys' 7.1, and that is so awesome, y'know?

Or I call then edition warriors, and it's really tiring to listen to them jump in and be all "that's why pathfinder is better" when I'm clearing specifically discussing one edition of the game and no one is interested in bringing in this arbitrary other edition.

or I call them ... Well, basically, the chaff of EVERY GROUP EVER.


In each and every forum there's a bunch of them trying to make their passion for a cartoon show for little girls pass for something more, or something deep or something that has a message.

Have you evaluated the medium enough to be positive there is no message? Or are you inferring there cannot be a meaningful message because it is "for little girls" and little girls cannot have nice things, therefore anything made for little girls is not nice?


Wat? :smallconfused:

Yeah, I'm personally guessing irony, sarcasm or satire. but I've been wrong before.


Ya know, it's stuff like that which makes me think staying very far away from fan culture is entirely the right move. I mean how the hell is a fan-invented relationship between fictional characters something worth arguing over in the first place? Let alone an issue of enough weight to warrant invenctive? It's all dust and wind folks.

Well, everything is just dust in the wind. Everything[/]I. We are all fleeting glimpses of ephemeral meaning and inferred patterns given value out of narcissism.

And if nothing has meaning, then you define what is meaningful for you.

Not that I disagree, mind. I find my own sense of honor and integrity to be more important than a lot of the things valued by society at large. But I do have to stop, sometimes, and consider; Am I in the wrong for not valuing social dominance over objective(-seeming) morality? That has to be a conscious and mindful choice to have any weight and not just be picking an arbitrary side out of backlash or hype.

Which is... A lot of what I'm seeing here. "Brony is a group, and it is not a group I am interested in, so **** them they're bad pedophile jerks". And, well, really, folks? really? Homestuck macros all over, Starwars and warhammer 40k quotes everywhere, but these other people, they're a unique and meaningful problem. That's [I]totes believable.

[Mauve Shirt]

The first part was indeed a joke. :smallannoyed:

[warty goblin]

The only remaining characters that are not equine are leonine fowl, and whatever donkeys are.


Donkeys are equine.



Have you evaluated the medium enough to be positive there is no message? Or are you inferring there cannot be a meaningful message because it is "for little girls" and little girls cannot have nice things, therefore anything made for little girls is not nice?
Things targeted at six year olds in general tend to be kinda low on the content. Because the people they're made for are, you know, six. Which, no offense to six year olds, is not a demographic known for well developed critical senses or sophisticated tastes. As I recall when I was six, my main interest was how many swords a story contained.

...you know, maybe I shouldn't be so fast to criticize six year olds.


Well, everything is just dust in the wind. Everything. We are all fleeting glimpses of ephemeral meaning and inferred patterns given value out of narcissism.

And if nothing has meaning, then you define what is meaningful for you.
Everything is ephemeral sure. But some ephemera at least exist.


The rose in the garden but bloometh a short time,
Yet that is longer than that which in my thought does bloom
Tho' the mind's blossom is ever mine,
It n'er the vine shall brighten, or the air perfume,

But these strange folk make contest on an illusion,
And endless do clash on the shade of the flowery fancy.
Here proclaiming it yellow, there of the deepest crimson.
Forgetting the hue is naught but fantasy.

Such a quarrel can n'er reach a conclusion.
As the fighters fiercely land blows on men of straw.
Proclaiming each strike a lethal resolution,
For a cause honerless as the sooty jackdaw.

But still the rose's illusion does flower,
As cardboard knights tilt at imagined quintain,
It's scent sweetens my mind's bower,
Where I rest, untroubled by their endless refrain

'Nay, this is the number of angels on the head of the pin.'
Easy is it their gnashing and ranting to ignore
Peacefully I sleep through their din.
For truly 'tis only a tremendous bore.

...hey, why not argue in verse?


Not that I disagree, mind. I find my own sense of honor and integrity to be more important than a lot of the things valued by society at large. But I do have to stop, sometimes, and consider; Am I in the wrong for not valuing social dominance over objective(-seeming) morality? That has to be a conscious and mindful choice to have any weight and not just be picking an arbitrary side out of backlash or hype.
Precisely.


Which is... A lot of what I'm seeing here. "Brony is a group, and it is not a group I am interested in, so **** them they're bad pedophile jerks". And, well, really, folks? really? Homestuck macros all over, Starwars and warhammer 40k quotes everywhere, but these other people, they're a unique and meaningful problem. That's totes believable.
Hey, I have nothing more a priori against one fandom than another. Frankly they all kinda weird me out. As Shakespeare put it, 'a plague on both your houses.'

Yes, I'm aware of the irony above. Yes it's on purpose.

[Tengu_temp]

Also, while it technically has nothing to do with the definition of a brony:

Brony Godwin's (Brodwin's?) Law: as an online discussion about MLP grows longer, the probability of it devolving into rabid bronies and rabid brony haters arguing with each other approaches 1.

[Lord Raziere]

The first part was indeed a joke. :smallannoyed:

not the best joke I ever heard. shouldn't you know better than to tell such jokes without a :p by now?

I think the internet takes Poe's law to its logical conclusion: as more people see a joke, the likelihood of someone taking it seriously approaches 1.

as for my definition:

a MLP: FiM fan.

that is all.

[Elemental]

Yeah, but the non-ponies are all clearly defined as second-class citizens or legal nonentities. :smalltongue: Or just straight out munsters.

I always interpreted it as Equestria being a traditionalist country with very stringent immigration policies concerning non-ponies.
Of course, they also have imperialist and expansionist tendencies...



The first part was indeed a joke. :smallannoyed:

Don't worry Mauve, I knew it was a joke.

Which brings to my point: People make too much of a fuss over fandoms these days, be it Star Trek, My Little Pony, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Hat Shop Mercenaries VII, et cetera.
They're just works of fiction, there's no need for conflict over them people! I mean, I'm a fan of all of them, except the last because it doesn't exist, but if it did, I would probably watch it, and I can't see why there needs to be such difficulties.

Now, in answer to the question: Brony is a term applied to fans of MLP:FIM who are not part of the intended demographic, most often applied to those fans who are loudest about it.

[No brains]

I’m really going to try to cut out any smart-alecky comments because I want everyone to see that I am sincere in what I have to say. I have some legitimate problems defining a brony. It is difficult for me to understand the definition they give themselves given what’s at work in these pages.


off topic tangent:


Speaking for myself I'm not really hostile to them, I'm annoyed.
Have you ever been minding your own business when you see a group of people acting really loud and obnoxious and you'd want to go over there and ask them to please stop? But you can't because lound and obnoxious are not crimes and they aren't hurting anyone?
That's how I feel about bronies.

In each and every forum there's a bunch of them trying to make their passion for a cartoon show for little girls pass for something more, or something deep or something that has a message.
When all they do is indulging in stupid memes nobody but them understands and making furry fanart of everything they see.

And I've never had any of these problems with any other fandom. I mean, fans (as in "fanatics") are usually obnoxious only when you confront them about their preferred subject. Bronies are actively trying to be acknowledged, to be recognized and to make you react to them one way or the other, so you basically have to try really, really hard to ignore them.
Kalmageddon doesn't seem to get them either. They’re caught out on their meanings and seem a little intimidated by them. One problem with spreading good will is that people are uncomfortable with how invested others can become with altering their behavior. It is an unfortunate human failing that is responsible for many problems. I think the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” is particularly relevant here.


I've seen a few forums without any. Like the BMS forum. Then again, most of the regulars there are such ********s to anybody they find even mildly out of the ordinary that it's easy to imagine why. Kinda reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.
This isn’t a good foot to start out on. This only affirms their suspicion that they are going to get chastising for raising their concerns.


>implying these are bad things

Making jokes and art is not intrinsically bad. It just doesn’t generally further the agenda of getting people to live happily. It can within the group making the jokes, but it can seem frivolous to those outside.


****, son, you should see the Whovians and Night Vale fans on Tumblr. They butt into every single conversation they can see and make it all about them, and in the case of the Whovians they've been at war with Gunblr for about a year because real heroes are apparently capable of disassembling a precision-machined military vehicle just by tapping a stupid screwdriver against it and calling servicemen baby murderers.

Also, the larger AdventureTime fandom. I have never seen Social Justice Warriors so rabidly defending fanonical ships. Hell, even gay people aren't safe from being flash-mobbed for being "homophobes" just 'cause they don't ship Bubbline.

So, frankly, I'm calling BS on this post and shoving my size ten hoof up it's arse.
What are you so hostile about? I’m seeing you as comfortable as a few of the other posters here in broadly declaring other fandoms bad. You are failing to uphold the tenets of understanding, empathy, and friendship you claim to be defending. It is in situations like these I get confused and think poorly of bronies. Why are you so eager to fight back instead of working towards a more peaceful solution? What in this culture that calls itself safe and welcoming tells you to fuel the flames of hostility?

@Jaycemonde


It's not BS, it's my personal opinion and I'd ask that you respect it.
I'd also appreciate if you didn't bring physical violence into this.

Thank you.

PS: I think it's common courtesy to reply in spoilers to something written in spoilers.


Fine. Here's my official apology. I will forevermore respect opinions that are basically direct insults and will not retaliate in any way, and will take the sole blame for responding out of spoilers--which another person has done, but it's okay for them 'cause they had something positive to say--because I'm going to be the better goat. Cheers.
I could see a brony replying to that better. Any mention of even metaphorical violence gets people nervous, but your response to their fear is to belittle them. I can imagine a pattern where someone expresses their distaste for bronies and their distaste is reinforced by a brony prioritizing a witty response before respect. It would be more effective in convincing someone of bronies’ character to explain that distasteful bronies may have been somewhere else before, but that the one convincing them now is a truthfully caring person.

[snip]
Yeah. I call those dudebros, and get really tired, personally, of listening to how hot the chick they totally slept with was, and how shes totally a 7.3 compared to the other guys' 7.1, and that is so awesome, y'know?

Or I call then edition warriors, and it's really tiring to listen to them jump in and be all "that's why pathfinder is better" when I'm clearing specifically discussing one edition of the game and no one is interested in bringing in this arbitrary other edition.
[snip]
Not that I disagree, mind. I find my own sense of honor and integrity to be more important than a lot of the things valued by society at large. But I do have to stop, sometimes, and consider; Am I in the wrong for not valuing social dominance over objective(-seeming) morality? That has to be a conscious and mindful choice to have any weight and not just be picking an arbitrary side out of backlash or hype.

Which is... A lot of what I'm seeing here. "Brony is a group, and it is not a group I am interested in, so **** them they're bad pedophile jerks". And, well, really, folks? really? Homestuck macros all over, Starwars and warhammer 40k quotes everywhere, but these other people, they're a unique and meaningful problem. That's totes believable.

[snip]
Bravo.

Plus, I don't consider bronies too intruding, unlike some people, they don't ring my doorbell or try to hand out pamphlets to me.
What is at work here? Do goodwill and friendship demand dog-piling someone who was afraid in the first place that their opinion would not be taken well and so gave people a warning not to look if they did not want to be offended? Do they also require shifting blame onto as many other groups as possible? Why I need help defining a brony is because of this blatant betrayal of their touted core values. Do not bite back at someone who unhappy with what they see in your group and do not cheer that another would do it. If someone has trouble believing that you are honest in your adoption of a symbol of joy and community, you can only work harder to convince them of your sincerity by giving them the respect they feel they were denied by others. By failing to help those who have been failed in the past, you only drive them further into more distorted suspicions of what you really are.

[snip]
Have you evaluated the medium enough to be positive there is no message? Or are you inferring there cannot be a meaningful message because it is "for little girls" and little girls cannot have nice things, therefore anything made for little girls is not nice?
[snip]
I am in serious doubt that any of us have evaluated the medium. What I see is a bunch of defensive adults jumping onto the innocent interests of kids and making it all about them. I would listen if you have something else to say. I want to believe you.

[GoblinArchmage]

So, frankly, I'm calling BS on this post and shoving my size ten hoof up it's arse.

Don't you mean "foot?"

[Knaight]

What is at work here? Do goodwill and friendship demand dog-piling someone who was afraid in the first place that their opinion would not be taken well and so gave people a warning not to look if they did not want to be offended? Do they also require shifting blame onto as many other groups as possible? Why I need help defining a brony is because of this blatant betrayal of their touted core values. Do not bite back at someone who unhappy with what they see in your group and do not cheer that another would do it. If someone has trouble believing that you are honest in your adoption of a symbol of joy and community, you can only work harder to convince them of your sincerity by giving them the respect they feel they were denied by others. By failing to help those who have been failed in the past, you only drive them further into more distorted suspicions of what you really are.

I could see my post this far being painted as more of the "Bronies lashing out" phenomenon you're describing, so I'll make a few things clear. The first is that I'm not anywhere close to a fan of MLP. I gave the show a fair shake, and it utterly failed to make much of any impression whatsoever. I also don't have any real motivation to defend the "Brony" group. My problems with your argument have absolutely nothing to do with the Brony phenomenon in particular.

What they lie in is, instead the way your argument seems to come down against criticism at all. The very second line pretty much states that any opinion that is offered when unpopular shouldn't be criticized. It's a broad statement, that applies just as much to the sorts of odious nonsense that tends to follow "I'm not a [whatever], but" as anything discussed in this thread. Providing context is described as shifting blame, and goodwill and friendship are presented as if they are the only things worth trying to make.

The behaviors criticized were, at the very least, obnoxious. Some crossed over into patronizing, some - specifically, the people who brag about 'getting laid' with someone who is 'hot*' with no consideration of that person's actual person-hood - into outright bigotry. All of these behaviors burn through good will, and on the patronizing and bigoted end I'm not even sure why we should want friendship. Moreover, these also provide context for how the obnoxious behaviors being criticized are broad enough that pinning it down to a particular group is somewhat disingenuous. These are valid criticisms.

Not only are these valid criticisms, they are criticisms that should be made. If the criticisms aren't made, the culture as a whole is basically backing the behavior. It might come shy of encouragement, but strict neutrality while there's encouragement elsewhere is a recipe for propagation of the behaviors in question. As such, I'm really more inclined to take an 'open fire' stance than a 'goodwill and friendship**' one. If I accidentally end up on the opposite side of this, as the odious one, I'd also much rather have an 'open fire' stance applied to me than a 'goodwill and friendship**' one.

*And with a number attached at that.

** As you seem to be using the terms.

[SiuiS]

Preamble: my phone is acting up. There may be... Weird word choices where valid words were turned into nonsense by an over sensitive touch screen. I'll try to catch them as I scan.

E: Fairly spoken, Knaight. Thank you.


Donkeys are equine.

I should have known that, what with the breeding, but did not.



Things targeted at six year olds in general tend to be kinda low on the content. Because the people they're made for are, you know, six.

I quite disagree with the premise here, myself.

On a seemingly unrelated tangent, a lot of the praise for Ender's Game you'll hear from people in the 20-35 crowd is "Olson Scott Card writes intelligent children well. He doesn't write them like most people seem to think of children. I was an intelligent child and it was helpful to know that someone else gets it."

Children aren't that dumb. I clearly remember being ten years old. I was just as smart as I am now, as far as raw horsepower. I just needed more experience to base my framework off of and more knowledge to work with. I can also clearly remember being six years old. I can remember all the way down to two, although it gets hazy at that point. My first brush with the fleeting truths of time and reality were when I was about two, at a wedding, toddling up to a wedding cake. I always wondered; were they real? I reached out and tore a chunk out of the cake, and a dozen adults all rushed forward to stop and scold me... And my next moment I was three, remembering that moment so vivid that it was almost seamless in transition. Two, I was looking out of my carrier at my smiling brother while my mom swore under her breath. We were at the SoCal strawberry festival. Four, I had recently seen a VanDam movie, and so when a friend clicked me in the head by accident with a metal pipe, I hit her twice I. The face with a palm-heel strike, chin then nose. The blood was unreal, like a waterfall. Such spankings did I receive.

Five, my birthday, my father showed up out of the blue and asked if I wanted anything. I got in his car and said "I want lifesavers holes!" Because those were new. I got them about three months later. My mother tracked him down and regained custody when I was six and a half. I had to repeat half of kindergarten because they messed up my paper in transit.

Seven, I was bored with standard past times and decided to invent my own internal universe, based off of mortal combat, castlevania, Metroid, super Mario, legend of Zelda, and what D&D books I could. That world still exists these twenty some years later.

And all of this? I can trace the logic of it with ease. Six year olds aren't half as stupid as people think. Did you know new parents are actually scolded for using complete sentences with their babies? 'You should use baby talk, or is your infant a rocket scientist?' They say. One mother replied, quite sincerely, "how can I expect her to grow up to be one if I don't treat her like one?"

Maybe kids would be less dumb if their common media wasn't always baby talk and fart jokes.


Everything is ephemeral sure. But some ephemera at least exist.

The truth of man is in his legacy. 'Loon on my works ye mighty and despair' ozymandius called from his epitaph. We look and laugh, because all ozymandius shows is is our own folly and mortality, but we have greater still.

One thousand or so years ago my blood swarmed with fire and steel to conquer and be conquered. From that, a legacy had been spun, foundational pylons that shape my family and my culture directly even now. My line can be traced back to the battle of Hastings, and the interest my family has shown in this, the story alone, the idea and understanding, is the fire that shapes us.

Surely, the Rose of the mind brightens not the vine if you keep it selfishly to yourself. But that Rose, one Rose, a hundred roses, if it pleases your mind's eye enough to turn hand and talent to clay or tablet, can brighten and inspire hundreds of thousands of lives. In a world as connected as ours, where we've gone full circle from cliquish and tribal, to utterly open, to cliquish and tribal, you touch thousands by accident. To claim that whatever joy your words and functions being to others, no matter how fleeting, is false because it doesn't not exist of objective matter somewhere in the world? That is an idea I cannot in good faith accept. Think now of any flower, and it is dead and gone, ashes to ashes. But it's hues still brighten your heart through the eye of your mind; your phenomenal Rose is no less false and gone than my ephemeral.

It is narcissistic to assume the passions of a mortal human are worth more than what inspires those passions, true, but it is also strange to value only the tangible for the passionately raise in a world where by virtue of electronic devices you and I, worlds and times apart, can hold a conversation. Is that not magic, of time and space? That here, now, I read the words you wrote there, and then?

The weight we give things is just that; value ascribed by mortal hands for mortal consumption.




I'll be talking like this for hours, now. I do hope you are pleased.



...hey, why not argue in verse?


Would that I had the resources!



Kalmageddon doesn't seem to get them either. They’re caught out on their meanings and seem a little intimidated by them. One problem with spreading good will is that people are uncomfortable with how invested others can become with altering their behavior. It is an unfortunate human failing that is responsible for many problems. I think the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” is particularly relevant here.

Kalmageddon doeanr seem to be able to reconcile what the group says about itself with his notions of the group, which is an entirely different trouble.

Kalmageddon also is a body we – Jaycemonde and I – have prior experience with. That may explain the reaction.



Making jokes and art is not intrinsically bad. It just doesn’t generally further the agenda of getting people to live happily. It can within the group making the jokes, but it can seem frivolous to those outside.


As of all things.



I could see a brony replying to that better. Any mention of even metaphorical violence gets people nervous, but your response to their fear is to belittle them. I can imagine a pattern where someone expresses their distaste for bronies and their distaste is reinforced by a brony prioritizing a witty response before respect. It would be more effective in convincing someone of bronies’ character to explain that distasteful bronies may have been somewhere else before, but that the one convincing them now is a truthfully caring person.

I wouldn't. The idea that an opinion is sacred is a fallacious and damaging one.

Further, objectively, judgement happens. In a perfect world this level of discernment comes without connotation, without applying negative and positive. But it is still evaluation ending in acceptance, refutation, or indifference.

If one enters into a forum (in the broad sense) to express displeasure, their manner of doing so sets the stage. If one approaches a subject with an objective, evaluative and understanding outlook, one is often given the benefit of that outcome. If however, one approaches with a more subjective outlook (an unfortunate tendency with opinion), then one will have their words and stance judged as such.

"I think you're stupid" is an insult. No amount of saying it is opinion will make it not insulting not make it irrefutable. This trend continues through any form of opinion expressed as fact.



What is at work here? Do goodwill and friendship demand dog-piling someone who was afraid in the first place that their opinion would not be taken well and so gave people a warning not to look if they did not want to be offended?

What bias is this, that several May voice that me and mine are objectively ruled to be obtrusive, invasive, pushy, that I am misguided for finding value in "a mere children's show", and yet two people alone say otherwise, and say that much the same could be said of any group, and I am the one who is dog piling?

No, friend.

No, that is false, a falsehood of the worst magnitude available! Goodwill is the will to do good for and by your fellows, which I do here.
I point out similarities to other groups who commit the same crimes, and nothing more. I relate the parable of the speck and the plank, that a man or woman be obliged to tend to the plank lodged in their own eye before they bother with the speck in their fellow's eye, that one should judge not others for the crimes they themselves commit.

I call out hypocrisy. If you find this to be lacking in goodwill, or friendship, I remind you pointedly of the show itself which I watch and enjoy. I remind you that while talking out your problems is good, sometimes, you need to kick a dragon in the face.

I have spoken to Kalmageddon before. I have spoke. To others i this thread before. My rhetoric is chosen to deliver the ideas I intend them to deliver. It is an unfortunate truth that many are conditioned to accept rhetoric which points out paralleled between a thing they despise and a thing they love, to cause them to reevaluate. Most people in this situation choose to judge more mindfully lest they be forced to denounce themselves. It is an unfortunate truth, but playing on the narcissism of a human being is often a safe bet.


Do they also require shifting blame onto as many other groups as possible?

What blame? I point at any other object and say "this, too, casts a shadow; I am not unique in that regard". Finding insult there is possible if one looks, but I would be hard pressed to agree. Others create not in me a sense of obligation; if you cut yourself to spite me I will laugh. How could I not? You hurt yourself to win? Taking offense at such is like breaking your own toy and declaring "look what you've made me do!", and little more.


Why I need help defining a brony is because of this blatant betrayal of their touted core values.

Oh? I have betrayed my core values? Pish posh.

The core values ofthe group, "Brony" cover a vague but definable set of 'harmony', which includes six key words as tenants and also the phrase "love and tolerate". But the group is by no means limited to just this! A plumber can also be a family man, a democrat, a gamer, philosopher, a philanderer, and a klansman. Some good, some bad. Those bad traits are reflective of that plumber, not all plumbers! The good traits, as well.

The definition of tolerance is also telling; you cannot tolerate things you like. "Love and tolerate" does not mean sit idly by, however! That is a silly heuristic misunderstanding, a purposeful twisting to make a rhetorical point. I tolerate my kitten when she pees on the carpet, but I still discipline her and teach her to use the sand I set aside for her. I tolerate the words of hatred mouthed by my brother but I still defend the rights of the cultures and ethnicities he derides. If I was truly intolerant of anything. Said here, I wouldn't bother tailoring my methods to the person! I wouldn't have had a meaningful if brief conversation! I certainly wouldn't countenance such insults without paying them back I
In kind.

There is also the truth of catechism. You can be more. And by fire, if I have to be the incentive, if it is my argument which causes someone to think, to actually think rather than regurgitate a slew of mixed-up YouTube comment Internet standard "literature", then I am being completely, utterly true to my ideals and indeed, those of the show.

You are caught up in the wrong part of this; conflict happens. Conflict is, in fact, good. It is a catalyst. What defines good or bad is not the conflict itself – it is the method and after effect. We struggle, we clash, and so longest he truth prevails at the end of the battle, and those who fought submit to it, that is more important than who won or who was right. When the smoke clears, I care not about whose pride I hurt, or who hurt my pride. I care that the truth has been established, and if that truth goes against my own prior stance, so be it.

Fighting is perfectly fine as long as it is a healthy conflict fought for the correct reasons.


convince them of your sincerity by giving them the respect they feel they were denied by others. By failing to help those who have been failed in the past, you only drive them further into more distorted suspicions of what you really are.

Conversely, rewarding someone for baseless insults, after they refuse to prove their allegations, is scientifically proven to be damaging to their health and well being. Respect someone who attacks with vitriol but not proof? No. I am a harsh mistress, with a harsher mistress. I respect he or she who stands toe to toe and makes their case with sense and valor, who will slug it out with me by power of fact and conviction. I have no respect for those who repeate the standard pRty line and claim opinion or that some other people do it so it must be true.


I am in serious doubt that any of us have evaluated the medium. What I see is a bunch of defensive adults jumping onto the innocent interests of kids and making it all about them. I would listen if you have something else to say. I want to believe you.

I have fifty some threads which run the gamut. I have lawyers, philosophers, professional writers, a doctor, a teacher, who have gone through and mindfully dissected and discussed those very things. I have my share of near-porn, stupid jokes, cyclical arguments and egotistical jockeying as well, and have even done those very things myself, but that doesn't undo this tidy that has been done – studying that I will note has been done in Private, in the proper designated space away from others and not shoved in anyone's face... You know, like we don't do?

You are welcome to come over and ask. I will do my best to insure those who have the wherewithal to give complete and thoughtful answers, do. :smallsmile:


Don't you mean "foot?"

Jaycemonde is actually a goat.

[Jaycemonde]

@ SiuiS:
That was beautiful. Like, truly amazingly beautiful. Holy ****. I mean, I know that I could never, ever have said all that myself, since my vocabulary fluctuates and I'm apparently wearing red eye contacts, but if I were capable of staying civil for more than ten minutes that's pretty much what I would have [tried to] say. Also, thanks.

@ Everyone else: I'm not a brony/pegasister/whateverito. Ask SiuiS. We've butted horns about that one time in the past, I believe. I am a goat, but not a pony or anything else, and not particularly a huge fan of the show My Little Pony aside from some of the fanart. I mean, yeh, I've seen a few episodes and I've got my own favorite characters, but I don't really know anything at all about the plot aside from what I've learned from being in the secondhand fandom*. 'Tis disconnect is also the reason I found what Mauve said to be really distasteful.

Point is, I know I'm a violent and somewhat reactionary person, but even if that were all there is to me (which, I would hope anyone present would be able to determine, it is not) I wouldn't be hypocritically breaking any "tenants" or core values.



*A secondhand fandom is a group of people with either passing or no interest in a subject who regardless of that fact know enough to carry on a legit, meaningful conversation with an actual fan, entirely because of things they hear from friends who won't shut up about it. Secondhand fandomers often become true fandomers if the thing their friends won't shut up about is cool enough to them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by SiuiS
*long, rambling, 2200-word thundering waterfall of text*

You wrote all of that on your phone?

:smalleek:




Originally Posted by Tengu_temp
Brony Godwin's (Brodwin's?) Law: as an online discussion about MLP grows longer, the probability of it devolving into rabid bronies and rabid brony haters arguing with each other approaches 1.

Evidently, yes.

Really, this thread has shown me more about the inner workings of bronydom than I ever imagined, or wanted to.

.

[SiuiS]

The delivery truck was late due to rain. I had time, and it was fun. :smallsmile:

[Palanan]

I confess I was wondering how long all that took you.

:smalltongue:

[SiuiS]

Looks like about forty minutes. I would say an hour but I had enough interruptions to really eat into actual typing.

Was fun though! And it felt good. I suppose there is a reason people turn to moralizing. It's addictive.

[warty goblin]

I should have known that, what with the breeding, but did not.

Equine as used day to day generally denotes a certain level of grace and nobility notably absent in your typical donkey. I used to have one, I speak from some small experience.


I quite disagree with the premise here, myself.

On a seemingly unrelated tangent, a lot of the praise for Ender's Game you'll hear from people in the 20-35 crowd is "Olson Scott Card writes intelligent children well. He doesn't write them like most people seem to think of children. I was an intelligent child and it was helpful to know that someone else gets it."

Children aren't that dumb. I clearly remember being ten years old. I was just as smart as I am now, as far as raw horsepower. I just needed more experience to base my framework off of and more knowledge to work with. I can also clearly remember being six years old. I can remember all the way down to two, although it gets hazy at that point. My first brush with the fleeting truths of time and reality were when I was about two, at a wedding, toddling up to a wedding cake. I always wondered; were they real? I reached out and tore a chunk out of the cake, and a dozen adults all rushed forward to stop and scold me... And my next moment I was three, remembering that moment so vivid that it was almost seamless in transition. Two, I was looking out of my carrier at my smiling brother while my mom swore under her breath. We were at the SoCal strawberry festival. Four, I had recently seen a VanDam movie, and so when a friend clicked me in the head by accident with a metal pipe, I hit her twice I. The face with a palm-heel strike, chin then nose. The blood was unreal, like a waterfall. Such spankings did I receive.

I remember being six or ten or so as well. And so far as I can tell, I had roughly the same intellectual horsepower then as now. However the older I get, the more I realize that intelligence is less a matter of horsepower, and more one of experience. That is, I think I was a reasonably bright kid, but also a complete dumbass. Which is kinda inevitable at that age.

One of my key realizations is that smart people can be just as dumb as the less smart.


And all of this? I can trace the logic of it with ease. Six year olds aren't half as stupid as people think. Did you know new parents are actually scolded for using complete sentences with their babies? 'You should use baby talk, or is your infant a rocket scientist?' They say. One mother replied, quite sincerely, "how can I expect her to grow up to be one if I don't treat her like one?"
Now that is genuinely stupid. I grew up watching my sister, six years my elder, learn algebra and literature. I still remember watching her solve for X at the chalkboard.


The truth of man is in his legacy. 'Loon on my works ye mighty and despair' ozymandius called from his epitaph. We look and laugh, because all ozymandius shows is is our own folly and mortality, but we have greater still.
That was never the reading I had on Ozymandias; it always struck me as the point that everything diminished and faded with time. The hubris of 'Look on my works ye mighty, and despair' is therefore tragic in character, for it is the hubris behind any accomplishment, which will be ground to dust and buried by the level sands of time. The tone is therefore melancholy, in the same manner as Scipio Aemilianus saying "A day shall come when sacred Troy shall perish/ And Priam and his people shall be slain" while gazing down at burning Carthage.



Surely, the Rose of the mind brightens not the vine if you keep it selfishly to yourself. But that Rose, one Rose, a hundred roses, if it pleases your mind's eye enough to turn hand and talent to clay or tablet, can brighten and inspire hundreds of thousands of lives. In a world as connected as ours, where we've gone full circle from cliquish and tribal, to utterly open, to cliquish and tribal, you touch thousands by accident. To claim that whatever joy your words and functions being to others, no matter how fleeting, is false because it doesn't not exist of objective matter somewhere in the world? That is an idea I cannot in good faith accept. Think now of any flower, and it is dead and gone, ashes to ashes. But it's hues still brighten your heart through the eye of your mind; your phenomenal Rose is no less false and gone than my ephemeral.
I could have done with another stanza to address this point, though that would have strayed somewhat from the major narrative. Also, it was late, and even doggerel as wretched as mine doesn't compose itself. It might fit reasonably well after the first stanza though, perhaps I'll add it.

That said, your point is valid. That which exists only in the mind can be shared, and can become richer for the sharing.


It is narcissistic to assume the passions of a mortal human are worth more than what inspires those passions, true, but it is also strange to value only the tangible for the passionately raise in a world where by virtue of electronic devices you and I, worlds and times apart, can hold a conversation. Is that not magic, of time and space? That here, now, I read the words you wrote there, and then?
The point of my exercise in dodgy, poorly metered verse was not that the fictitious rose was worthless; indeed I specifically spoke to its purpose in the fourth stanza. My point was that it is silly to clash over the imagined attributes of the fictitious rose as if it were real. Its petals cannot ever be proven yellow instead of crimson, since it exists entirely in the mind. Thus the cardboard knights and men of straw.



The weight we give things is just that; value ascribed by mortal hands for mortal consumption.
Not entirely. Real things have a weight quite apart from us. A cold winter night will freeze the foolish and unprepared to death, no matter what value they give it. The worth of four sturdy walls, a solid roof and a warm fire therefore has a reference beyond what I give it. It has, in fact, a purpose, and can sensibly be evaluated by how well it performs in that purpose.

The value of things that I make up is entirely in my head, or the heads of those with whom I share it. My point is that it's stupid to quarrel over their value or intrinsic reality, because both are entirely figments of the mind. You can't win, you can't lose, and it's an enormous din for no useful purpose.




I'll be talking like this for hours, now. I do hope you are pleased.
Immensely.



Would that I had the resources!
It's not like it's tremendously difficult. It just takes a while, and a bit of forethought.


Further, objectively, judgement happens. In a perfect world this level of discernment comes without connotation, without applying negative and positive. But it is still evaluation ending in acceptance, refutation, or indifference.
Judgement and it's attendant negative and positive connotations are entirely fine things. Otherwise we'd have to accept everything anybody ever did as equally good and equally bad, because we'd lack the power to distinguish positive from negative. I don't want to live in that world, because people do both good and bad things, the first should be honored and rewarded and praised, the second should be condemned.

Like anything else judgement can be used badly and hurtfully. But that's not a good reason to reject it entirely. It's like saying that axes shouldn't exist because of axe murderers, neglecting their excellent and beneficial uses as tools.

[DigoDragon]

whereas "Trekkies" were around in the sixties.

I remember in the 90s that there was a rift within Star Trek fans. They had split into two groups, "Trekkies" and "Trekkers". I can't remember what the difference was between them, other than they didn't like each other.



You can like MLP and not be a Brony even if you are an adult male.

Very true. One doesn't need a label to be a fan of something.

[bluewind95]

An immature attention sucker? Why cant you just be a fan of your preferred show and leave it at that? I also dont like 'whovians' just say "I LIKE DOCTOR WHO!"

I think this kind of reaction is what leaves "bronies" so much on the defensive. I get that people don't like to have things they don't like "shoved in their faces", but I think that a lot of this feeling is mostly a misguided attempt to share something important to them. They're just sharing something enthusiastically, and people take it as things being "shoved in their face". Communication snafu. It reminds me of a comic that had scientists observing two people arguing about opposite life views. I can't link it because it was religion. Anyways, the scientists "dialed down the aggression" and it turned out that the two people angrily arguing the opposite sides of this life view were trying to say the same thing "I want you to be happy". I think a lot of this "shoving in people's faces" that people see "bronies" doing is much the same. Obnoxious and misguided? Perhaps. But this is something that should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement of "bronies shove MLP on people's faces".

I don't think that bronies are necessarily defined as "fans of the show", too. Sure, all bronies are fans of the show, but not all fans are bronies, so they're just a subset of the fandom. Personally, I would define them as a subset of the fandom that identifies with the "brony" sub-culture and community. Because it's a culture, there's a lot of things that define it, such as trying to live in accordance to harmony, and bringing kindness, as well as creating fan artwork (be it written, drawn or otherwise) of the show, discussing it, etc. Like any subculture, not every member will do all of those things, and some people get more "hardcore" about what they do. It's the beauty of any society: everyone is different.

As for belittling the show due to it being for little girls, there's a few things I'd like to say about that. First of all, yes, it's true that the intended demographic is little girls. However, that does not mean that other demographics can't get anything out of it. And I'll speak from experience here, but what I noticed and took out of it was how... positive it was. I live in a place where we're constantly bombarded with bad news. "20 bodies found in a clandestine pit" was one of yesterday's topics. "4 executions here, 5 in the other place". "Protests here". "Group takes government there". "Kid dies". "3 accidents, 2 dead". "Kidnapping". "Murder". "Robbery". And you don't even have to turn on the news to hear that. You'll hear it from conversations, too. To the point where third graders were overhead with the following conversation:

"4 people were killed yesterday"
"Wow, ONLY 4?"

Third graders. Just children and already starting to become insensitive to these kinds of tragedies. It hurts to see this happen. And media? It's filled with tragedy and violence and horror. And oh, don't get me wrong, this can be very good stuff to watch. But it seems that to be "deep", there has to be tragedy. To be smart, there has to be good action and thrilling stuff and violence.

And then I saw MLP. It was... fresh, to say the least. Sure, there were some freaky things (Fluttershy vs the basilisk, anyone?). But the whole atmosphere is positive. Most of the conflicts (if not all) are solved without violence. And it isn't painful to watch. And you know what? I didn't care about the simpler plots. I didn't care that the demographic was girls far younger than I. I could get something out of the show too, and I'm pretty free to watch it. I don't think I should be belittled for watching a show that's for a younger audience just because I do enjoy being able to chill and enjoy an atmosphere that's so sweet and positive and a very welcome contrast to a lot of the things I find elsewhere. I do not consider myself a brony. But I still find it very jarring for people to bash the show JUST because it's for little girls. What's so wrong about a show being for little girls? If you don't like it don't watch it. But just because you're not the target demographic doesn't mean the show is any less. You know what? A lot of "kid movies" are perfectly watchable by adults. Many of them are made for kids, but with the parents in mind, because they're made for parents to watch with the kids. I daresay shows are (or at least should be) the same way. Cos many parents DO like to involve themselves with their children's activities, including TV.

I'm sorry, I'm just really tired of the whole "But it's a show for little girls, why do you like it?!". I saw some things like that pop up a few times here too. There's nothing saying that people "shouldn't" enjoy something others find "stupid" or "pointless" or whatever.

[Faulty]

A miserable little pile of secrets.

[SiuiS]

However the older I get, the more I realize that intelligence is less a matter of horsepower, and more one of experience. That is, I think I was a reasonably bright kid, but also a complete dumbass. Which is kinda inevitable at that age.

One of my key realizations is that smart people can be just as dumb as the less smart.

Okay.



That was never the reading I had on Ozymandias; it always struck me as the point that everything diminished and faded with time. The hubris of 'Look on my works ye mighty, and despair' is therefore tragic in character, for it is the hubris behind any accomplishment, which will be ground to dust and buried by the level sands of time. The tone is therefore melancholy, in the same manner as Scipio Aemilianus saying "A day shall come when sacred Troy shall perish/ And Priam and his people shall be slain" while gazing down at burning Carthage.


Ah, yes. Then I staged my jumping point poorly. The material is indeed, fleeting. It is a thing of sorrow – mono no aware, I believe? – and that leads directly to why the endurance of the mental is important. You cannot kill an idea, simply change it.



The point of my exercise in dodgy, poorly metered verse was not that the fictitious rose was worthless; indeed I specifically spoke to its purpose in the fourth stanza. My point was that it is silly to clash over the imagined attributes of the fictitious rose as if it were real. Its petals cannot ever be proven yellow instead of crimson, since it exists entirely in the mind. Thus the cardboard knights and men of straw.

My mistake then.



Not entirely. Real things have a weight quite apart from us. A cold winter night will freeze the foolish and unprepared to death, no matter what value they give it. The worth of four sturdy walls, a solid roof and a warm fire therefore has a reference beyond what I give it. It has, in fact, a purpose, and can sensibly be evaluated by how well it performs in that purpose.

The value of things that I make up is entirely in my head, or the heads of those with whom I share it. My point is that it's stupid to quarrel over their value or intrinsic reality, because both are entirely figments of the mind. You can't win, you can't lose, and it's an enormous din for no useful purpose.


Ah, I do disagree that all things of thought lack this same value. That words and thoughts can encapsulate something bigger is their point; my family cleaves (with varying fidelity) to several cultural mores the Normans brought with them when they attacked, for example. In fact, disproving this seemingly objective nature is a struggle; how many here immediately went "but t is for girls, and girl things are bad!"? That's a value which has objective weight outside the heads of those who hold it true, for example.

How then, can one say the nature of examples in media (to Wit, the specific relational dynamics of diminutive pastel horse-analogues) has no value? The very nature of that possibility of value is not only why arguments exists on the topic but are part of the arguments.

Specifics reserved for request, because not relevant except as examples.



Immensely.


As was I, truth be told >_>



I remember in the 90s that there was a rift within Star Trek fans. They had split into two groups, "Trekkies" and "Trekkers". I can't remember what the difference was between them, other than they didn't like each other.


Aye. I think it was original series and next generation? As technical and fleeting as the divide between those who love and those who hate ewoks.



Very true. One doesn't need a label to be a fan of something.

The trouble is that people assume the label is prescriptive rather than descriptive. The fan part comes first; a fan of pony stuff, in any form, is called colloquially a brony. It's not like you take up the label and then have to earn rank within it and prove yourself. It's not like a job or military post.

What do you call someone who likes coffee? A coffee drinker. What do you call someone who smokes marijuana? A stoner. What do you call someone who puts money, prizes, or prestige on chance? A gambler. What do you call someone who likes my little pony or one of/any of the derivative works? A brony.

You do not pick up traits that are related to being a brony and then get trapped in that label, just like you do not start smoking marijuana because you have a bad haircut and are lazy and like chips. That's inductive reasoning, and quite backwards.

The validity of whether that definition of brony (someone who likes the base or derivatives) is up for debate. My argument is for the nature of the word not being prescriptive of anything, despite all that is attributed to it.


A miserable little pile of secrets.

http://www.terrariaonline.com/attachments/pinkiewhatisapony-jpg.6519/

[Tvtyrant]

I would define it as anyone who calls themselves one.

[Cespenar]

I'm not going to go into the real subject at hand, but I have to point out: SiuiS and warty really made the thread worth reading. I just wish everyone argued like they do.

[SiuiS]

I'm not going to go into the real subject at hand, but I have to point out: SiuiS and warty really made the thread worth reading. I just wish everyone argued like they do.

Change starts with you! Any argument should be able to include the phrase "I understand but do not agree". If you don't understand, you should ask for clarification! It's really hard. The trickiest part is acknowledging when you were working off of wrong assumptions, and going back. You'll also get some flak when people are angry, and you go "oh, okay. My bad" because they want to keep yelling at you. Humans are weird.

[Gavran]

Also, what is wrong with furries that you'd connect them instantly to pedophiles? I'm trying to not make any judgements here, but there are some parallels between the sexualization of animals and children, no? Neither group is capable of responding appropriately. I'm open to the idea that I'm missing the point, but in all honesty furries (that is, those who explicitly sexualize their furry-ness, not the people who feel they identify strongly with an animal and such*) make me vaguely uncomfortable in the same way that people who are into Lolicon do. I'm confident a very small portion of furries practice bestiality, and a very small portion of Loli fans practice pedophilia, but the fetishization of these highly inappropriate things still seems unhealthy to me.

*I do find people identifying strongly as/with animals to be very silly, given that they generally identify with personifications of said animal which seems kind of redundant. Also that human beings are pretty near objectively better than the rest of the animals. Silly is perfectly fine though.

[warty goblin]

Okay.

Admittedly, this may be because I work with the mathematically inclined, who are on the one hand very smart, and on the other have the emotional sensitivity of a toddler after way too much Mt. Dew, or lack massive amounts of what, at least to me, seems very basic practical knowledge.



Ah, yes. Then I staged my jumping point poorly. The material is indeed, fleeting. It is a thing of sorrow – mono no aware, I believe? – and that leads directly to why the endurance of the mental is important. You cannot kill an idea, simply change it.
Ideas die, frequently. An idea implicit in Ozymandias in fact, since the idea of the titular monarch's greatness has all but perished. More broadly and less metaphorically, every untranslated language is a dead idea, as was every thought that wasn't recorded, or else perished over the eons.




My mistake then.
It's a disadvantage of presenting a thesis through verse, particularly if you're as terrible at it as I am.




Ah, I do disagree that all things of thought lack this same value. That words and thoughts can encapsulate something bigger is their point; my family cleaves (with varying fidelity) to several cultural mores the Normans brought with them when they attacked, for example. In fact, disproving this seemingly objective nature is a struggle; how many here immediately went "but t is for girls, and girl things are bad!"? That's a value which has objective weight outside the heads of those who hold it true, for example.
But here's the critical distinction; you give these ideas meaning. The fire on a cold night has utility, and therefore a sort of objective worth outside of whatever judgement one makes of it.


How then, can one say the nature of examples in media (to Wit, the specific relational dynamics of diminutive pastel horse-analogues) has no value? The very nature of that possibility of value is not only why arguments exists on the topic but are part of the arguments.
I never claimed they had no value. They clearly have value to the people making them; I won't deny that. What strikes me as foolish is impugning others because they don't find meaning in the same fan-invented relationships as oneself. There's a difference between ignoring the existence of something that does in fact exist, and choosing not to imagine one particular fantasy relationship between fictional characters.

Finding meaning in fiction and the mental is, I think, a completely reasonable and very human thing to do. Where I start to have trouble is when the invented becomes a cause for contention, because it seems foolish to me to quarrel over something that doesn't exist, particularly if it doesn't have any direct effect on what does exist. A disagreement about, say, a law that alters people's rights makes sense to me, since it directly pertains to real people. A disagreement over fictional characters does not, since it has no direct correspondence to changes in reality, and no truth can be arrived at.

For a concrete example, I'm extremely fond of The Lord of the Rings, and find it one of the more powerful and important pieces of fiction that I've read. Others do not agree, and find it boring or meaningless. Now I can certainly explain my position to them if they're interested, and perhaps change their mind by doing so. But I cannot prove them wrong, because there's nothing to be wrong about. And given that, what basis do I have for objecting to them, insulting them, or quarreling with them?


As was I, truth be told >_>
It's always the correct time for overwrought prose.



I'm not going to go into the real subject at hand, but I have to point out: SiuiS and warty really made the thread worth reading. I just wish everyone argued like they do.
I think it's more of a discussion than an argument, really.


Change starts with you! Any argument should be able to include the phrase "I understand but do not agree". If you don't understand, you should ask for clarification! It's really hard. The trickiest part is acknowledging when you were working off of wrong assumptions, and going back. You'll also get some flak when people are angry, and you go "oh, okay. My bad" because they want to keep yelling at you. Humans are weird.
Also, you get bonus points for classical references.

[Pseudo_Nym]

A Brony is anyone who wants to be and no one who doesn't. When you have no requirements and are noncompulsory, that's all that's left.




I'm not going to go into the real subject at hand, but I have to point out: SiuiS and warty really made the thread worth reading. I just wish everyone argued like they do.

I think it's more of a discussion than an argument, really.


That's precisely what's being complemented. Every discussion is a search for truth. Arguments are like that, but louder.

[_Brone_]

i am sorry but i must post on this thread saying that i made the name Brone having NO idea that so many people would give me pain that my name sounds like brony im just tried of saying no, no im not a brony

[warty goblin]

A Brony is anyone who wants to be and no one who doesn't. When you have no requirements and are noncompulsory, that's all that's left.

Maybe I'm just being my usual dense self and missing something, but doesn't that render the term essentially meaningless?


That's precisely what's being complemented. Every discussion is a search for truth. Arguments are like that, but louder.
I'd be inclined to think that in this case what's going on is more an elucidation of ideas.

[SiuiS]

Ideas die, frequently. An idea implicit in Ozymandias in fact, since the idea of the titular monarch's greatness has all but perished. More broadly and less metaphorically, every untranslated language is a dead idea, as was every thought that wasn't recorded, or else perished over the eons.


But Ozymandias remains connected to greatness. That idea permeates the undercurrent of our knowledge base. Sun shines, grass grows, and Ozymandias was great, he thought. And really, since greatness is utterly subjective, that's basically as far as greatness ever gets.

The idea has weakened, waned, waxed and flowed, changed certainly, but not died. The specifics of an idea may change, but the core remains. I can't think of any idea I've ever come across that I haven't specifically tried to kill that ever really faded.

Oh, but, maybe we are working on different ideas of what constitutes an idea.
... That sentence was terrible.



But here's the critical distinction; you give these ideas meaning. The fire on a cold night has utility, and therefore a sort of objective worth outside of whatever judgement one makes of it.

Fire doesn't have objective value though. It has qualities, but how valuable those qualities are depends. Heat is problematic for some, valuable for others. The destructive qualities as well. One man's trash and another's treasure.

It's tenuous true, because once something is defined as a tool it is defined by its worth and value, but... Actually, I'm not sure where is and on this anymore. I'm not trying to say that some things don't have value so much as all value is ascribed by those who value the tool.

But yes. Never did mean to imply that raging over quibbles was acceptable though. That level of ridiculousity is always silly. I do what I can to stop it.


i am sorry but i must post on this thread saying that i made the name Brone having NO idea that so many people would give me pain that my name sounds like brony im just tried of saying no, no im not a brony

Man, that sucks. I'm so sorry.


There's someone around named Sulus, really through a me off because it looks like my name at a glance >_<

[Pseudo_Nym]

Maybe I'm just being my usual dense self and missing something, but doesn't that render the term essentially meaningless?

The group defines the term, and the term defines the group. Let me try again.

Say you define a vampire. To be a vampire, say, you must be pale, burn in sunlight, drink blood, hate garlic and crosses, and not have a reflection. All well and good, 'cause it's hypothetical.

Then you meet a vampire. Or he says he is, anyway. You check your definition. Hmm... yeah, he's pale. No reflection either, that's good. Drinks blood, hates garlic, and... yep, that's definitely fire. But he's fine with crosses. So, not a vampire. We can call him a vampyre, maybe, or a vompure, or something. Orrr... we can change our definition. Cross off the crosses. Up to us.

There's a limit, of course. If he didn't match any of the criteria at all, we'd not completely rewrite everything. "Vampire means any person from Minnesota. I should know: I met one!" What that limit is, that's the definition of vampire. The real one. It is what you cannot remove from a vampire without removing the fact that it's a vampire. I vote the teeth, but that's a different debate.

Now say you define Brony. Let's start with: Adult male fan of My Little Pony. Cool. Then you meet one.

Well, she says she's one. She's not male, of course. And I wouldn't call fifteen (and a half!, she shouts) and adult, myself. But she's definitely a fan of My Little Pony, right? Um... she watched an episode, once. It was, she says, "kinda okay." And she claims she's a Brony, for whatever reason. What do we say to that? What can we say to that? Only one thing.

"Welcome aboard."

[Zrak]

But Ozymandias remains connected to greatness. That idea permeates the undercurrent of our knowledge base. Sun shines, grass grows, and Ozymandias was great, he thought. And really, since greatness is utterly subjective, that's basically as far as greatness ever gets.

The idea has weakened, waned, waxed and flowed, changed certainly, but not died. The specifics of an idea may change, but the core remains. I can't think of any idea I've ever come across that I haven't specifically tried to kill that ever really faded.

The idea that Ozymandias was great is not the same, however, as the idea of Ozymandias's greatness; our understanding is one predicated on tense, on the idea that he was great and all that remains of that greatness is this battered, beaten statue. Time has taken Ozymandias's "greatness" and reduced it to ridicule; all that remains is a monument mocking him. The frowning face of "cold command" reflects an imperious disdain for those no more permanent than him. The "trunkless legs" draw attention to what is missing. The hubristic inscription is ironic, now, a boast time turned into a lamentation at his loss. Like his "trunkless" statue, Ozymandias had only emptiness at the very core of his being; he had only his "greatness," and without it, what is he? Ozymandias was great, he is nothing.

As an aside, compare the mighty emperor to the nameless artist; Ozymandias's heart is missing and all his works have turned to dust; the sculptor's work endures and, in the statue, we see the sculptor's "heart that fed."

[Nameless]

*opens up a seemingly harmless thread*
*sees long debates and semi-heated argument*

Well.

Okay.

[Elemental]

*opens up a seemingly harmless thread*
*sees long debates and semi-heated argument*

Well.

Okay.

It is a common difficulty in this world. Those topics which seem most harmless and trivial result in the most disproportionate displays of passion. Perhaps it is because we as humans are afraid of making our opinions and viewpoints on serious topics known for fear of rebuke.

[TuggyNE]

Perhaps it is because we as humans are afraid of making our opinions and viewpoints on serious topics known for fear of rebuke.

Partly that, but partly, as seen in bikeshedding, because it's daunting even to form an opinion to begin with on sufficiently large and complex subjects, especially when there are subject matter experts that only know a subset of the whole. Thus, if a major project is being designed, much of the design conversation will, without strong discipline, relate to tertiary concerns, such as what color to paint the bike shed near the nuclear reactor compound, rather than the design of the reactor containment vessel, the security considerations of the compound itself, the cooling system, or whatever else.

[SiuiS]

Oh, man, we've all been wrong this whole time. (http://tatterdemalionvulpine.tumblr.com/post/67824725795/hiddlesbatchlove-such-innocence)

[Knaight]

Maybe I'm just being my usual dense self and missing something, but doesn't that render the term essentially meaningless?
Not when there are commonalities within the group that chooses to self identify with a term.

[Coidzor]

Not when there are commonalities within the group that chooses to self identify with a term.

Yet they're somehow not worth mentioning.

Tricksy.

[Pseudo_Nym]

If someone claims to be a rocket scientist, you can ask to see their qualifications. Because there are requirements to be a rocket scientist, and they don't just hand out a "certified rocket scientist" badge to anyone who asks.

If someone claims to be a penguin, you can ask to see their qualifications. Their beak, say, or the way they waddle. Their love of fish, or their sinister mind that constantly churns out new plots for world domination. Regardless of the exact criteria, there are, again, requirements to be a penguin. You can't just wake up one morning and choose to be one. Not without lots of surgery.

Nor can you choose to be a vampire, or a toothbrush, or a philosophical axiom. There is more to being these things than simple desire. There are requirements.

But you can wake up and choose to be a brony. No one will turn you away, or ask to see your qualifications, because there aren't any.

[Zrak]

If someone claims to be a rocket scientist, you can ask to see their qualifications.

So, you contend that rocket scientists carry around their college diplomas at all times? Do you think they need them to get their pokemon to obey them? Because that's team rocket. :smalltongue:

[Pseudo_Nym]

So, you contend that rocket scientists carry around their college diplomas at all times? Do you think they need them to get their pokemon to obey them? Because that's team rocket. :smalltongue:

No, no. When I said "ask to see their qualifications," I meant they should immediately build an incredibly tiny rocket launcher out of nearby materials and start shooting at me. That's what rocket scientists do, right?

I did mean the knowledge, though, not the diploma. A rocket scientist is defined, as I see it, by a knowledge of the science of rockets. And while it might be rude, I can ask them to demonstrate that.

Likewise, if someone claims to be a wizard, I can ask for proof. "Do some magic, then." Or if someone claims to be a genius, I can ask for proof. "Do some advanced computational analysis, then." If someone claims to be a brony... well, that's good enough for me.

[SiuiS]

No, no. When I said "ask to see their qualifications," I meant they should immediately build an incredibly tiny rocket launcher out of nearby materials and start shooting at me. That's what rocket scientists do, right?

I did mean the knowledge, though, not the diploma. A rocket scientist is defined, as I see it, by a knowledge of the science of rockets. And while it might be rude, I can ask them to demonstrate that.

Likewise, if someone claims to be a wizard, I can ask for proof. "Do some magic, then." Or if someone claims to be a genius, I can ask for proof. "Do some advanced computational analysis, then." If someone claims to be a brony... well, that's good enough for me.

Pretty much. I think the minimum requirements would be, if there was any pressing need to care;
- knows what the word refers to
- accepts/uses the word

[Coidzor]

Pretty much. I think the minimum requirements would be, if there was any pressing need to care;
- knows what the word refers to
- accepts/uses the word

You're getting into the absurd though, if you don't even mention anything about ponies.

[Pseudo_Nym]

Pretty much. I think the minimum requirements would be, if there was any pressing need to care;
- knows what the word refers to
- accepts/uses the word

Heh. "The term brony refers to anyone who knows what the term brony refers to." Quite the elite group, aren't we? I'm not even sure I qualify.

In seriousness, that's a fine definition. It's a paradox, but it works. That's better than my microwave, at the moment.



You're getting into the absurd though, if you don't even mention anything about ponies.

Why's that? Are you going to tell someone they can't be a brony? That they aren't good enough, or aren't qualified? I'm certainly not. They want to be one, they are.

Love that sentence, by the way. I'd put it in my signature, if I had a signature, or any desire to put things there.

[Coidzor]

Heh. "The term brony refers to anyone who knows what the term brony refers to." Quite the elite group, aren't we? I'm not even sure I qualify.

Why's that? Are you going to tell someone they can't be a brony? That they aren't good enough, or aren't qualified? I'm certainly not. They want to be one, they are.

Love that sentence, by the way. I'd put it in my signature, if I had a signature, or any desire to put things there.

It goes into the absurd, which works in some cases, but only as an in-joke, not as a real thing unto itself.

So you're saying that there are bronies who like no aspect of My Little Pony or fan materials derived from the same?

And, yes, just like I'd laugh in the face of a silly little boy who calls himself a vampire because he's got emotional problems and is seeking an escape from his actual life, I'd question the wisdom and validity of calling one's self a brony if they didn't actually like anything at all related to the origin of the fandom.

[Altessia]

I used to define them as mlp fans; then I found, or I've forgotten who decided to show it to me, a video (http://youtu.be/OV-OF9wZWDs) about the fandom that seems awfully good about showing the positive people within the bronies.

[Pseudo_Nym]

So you're saying that there are bronies who like no aspect of My Little Pony or fan materials derived from the same?

None that I know of, but it's always cool to meet new people. I'm not saying they exist, I'm just saying they're not an inherent contradiction of terms. It'd be like an acrophobic skydiver, or an ophidiophobic Australian. Not impossible, just odd.


And, yes, just like I'd laugh in the face of a silly little boy who calls himself a vampire because he's got emotional problems and is seeking an escape from his actual life, I'd question the wisdom and validity of calling one's self a brony if they didn't actually like anything at all related to the origin of the fandom.

Wisdom? Maybe. I'm not the best judge of that, I fear. But if it makes them happy and hurts no one, perhaps it's wiser than the alternative.

Validity? I honestly don't understand. No one can 'fail' at being a brony. No one can try, but not be good enough. There is no entrance exam. You can want to be a vampire and lack the necessary... qualifications, but to be a brony? Wanting is enough. Do you disagree?

[Coidzor]

Wisdom? Maybe. I'm not the best judge of that, I fear. But if it makes them happy and hurts no one, perhaps it's wiser than the alternative.

Validity? I honestly don't understand. No one can 'fail' at being a brony. No one can try, but not be good enough. There is no entrance exam. You can want to be a vampire and lack the necessary... qualifications, but to be a brony?

Wanting is enough. Do you disagree?

Declaring one's self a brony and then that one hates everything related to brony culture certainly seems like a good way to start pointless bickering and accusations of "obvious troll is obvious." Hence, wisdom, since we weren't talking about someone who was being actively disingenuous.

There would be no bronies without ponies, rejecting the foundation and core of a sub-culture while claiming to be of that sub-culture is contradictory.

Wanting to be a brony while not liking anything about brony culture is oxymoronic. Hence the absurdity.

[Pseudo_Nym]

There would be no bronies without ponies, rejecting the foundation and core of a sub-culture while claiming to be of that sub-culture is contradictory.

Like liking OoTS without liking D&D? I know such people. Even most bronies dislike the earlier generations of My Little Pony, and for my part, I like ketchup better than tomatoes. I see no contradiction.


Wanting to be a brony while not liking anything about brony culture is oxymoronic. Hence the absurdity.

That questions the wisdom, I'll admit. And I'll admit it would be odd to see such a person. I'd ask their reason, out of curiosity, and I doubt they could give me much of one. Except, perhaps, "because I want to." Which is really to say, "because it would make me happy." I'm no expert on wisdom, but there seems to be some logic to that approach.

Regardless, you've made no claim against validity, here. If someone insane wants to be a brony, despite having no good reason for it, then what we've got is an insane brony. It would hardly be the first.

[Coidzor]

Like liking OoTS without liking D&D?

No, it would be beyond that. It'd be wanting to identify as a fan of D&D and an OotS fan while hating D&D and OotS.


Even most bronies dislike the earlier generations of My Little Pony,

Irrelevant. You might be able to argue that some people adopt the label brony despite only having liked the old stuff, but the focus is on the new stuff. But, the definition you propose wouldn't even mention My Little Pony or the Friendship is Magic iteration of it, which is the crux of my contention with your position.


and for my part, I like ketchup better than tomatoes. I see no contradiction.

I think we're having some kind of communications breakdown here.


That questions the wisdom, I'll admit. And I'll admit it would be odd to see such a person. I'd ask their reason, out of curiosity, and I doubt they could give me much of one. Except, perhaps, "because I want to." Which is really to say, "because it would make me happy." I'm no expert on wisdom, but there seems to be some logic to that approach.

I would more say you're not liable to find a person like that in real life, considering the amount of nonsensical thinking necessary for your scenario to play out.

And that's laying aside the question of why it would make someone happy to claim to be a brony when they like nothing of brony media or my little pony without just being a troll and having the cockles of their trollish heart warmed by the lulz they generate by doing so.


Regardless, you've made no claim against validity, here. If someone insane wants to be a brony, despite having no good reason for it, then what we've got is an insane brony. It would hardly be the first.

There's being facetious and then there's this defense of the patently absurd.

Good day, sir or madam.

[Pseudo_Nym]

There's being facetious and then there's this defense of the patently absurd.

Good day, sir or madam.

I'm not being facetious, though I'll admit to defending the absurd on occasion. I rather like absurdity, but I'll admit there are times when it is inappropriate.

I agree we seem to be having a communications breakdown. I will be direct, less to avoid confusing you than to avoid confusing myself.

I believe anyone who wants to be a brony can be. I believe it is highly unlikely, but theoretically possible, that someone could want to be a brony without actually liking My Little Pony. I believe we are both intelligent people, and that it would be a shame to end our conversation on a hostile note.

[SiuiS]

You're getting into the absurd though, if you don't even mention anything about ponies.

Well, you could see it that way. But consider that the first point – knowing what brony refers to, which is knowing who and what you are – includes ponies. The history of the word arose from definite actions and sequences, and while those actions and sequences (the rise of the show, discovery of its character and exploration of the media parts) is part of the history, you don't have to do any of it. It's highly abstract, but neither absurd not contradictory. Especially in light of the second part, which is determining to be one of these things you know of. They must go together; you would not be some absurd brony who knows nothing of what a brony is because knowing what a brony is is the first half. And you wouldn't be one and actively dislike everything about it because if you actively disliked it there is active disincentive to relate yourself to it. The individual parts have holes but they are patched up by the other part.

A very large number of bronies or fans or whatever you want to call them, are in the group because they like the group. I know several bronies who are far happier with their fellows than with the show, or the toys, or the characters. I know many bronies who love the fanfics but dislike the show. I know many bronies who actively dislike the characters in the mane group but like the lore enough to explore the universe in other contexts. I know bronies who give not a flying fig about the show or fiction or characters but find a satisfaction in being a good person as represented bythe elements of Harmony.

All these people a) know what a brony refers to (their relation to what it refers to is undefined by this section of definition), and B) claim that title and it's history for themselves.



Can you say these people are not bronies?


It goes into the absurd, which works in some cases, but only as an in-joke, not as a real thing unto itself.

So you're saying that there are bronies who like no aspect of My Little Pony or fan materials derived from the same?

Why would such a one call themselves a brony? Your example is absurd, but that means you made an absurd example (a fan who is not a fan and cannot be a fan because of active dislike, disassociation and lack of knowledge).


And, yes, just like I'd laugh in the face of a silly little boy who calls himself a vampire because he's got emotional problems and is seeking an escape from his actual life, I'd question the wisdom and validity of calling one's self a brony if they didn't actually like anything at all related to the origin of the fandom.

I would question that as well. I would actively fight it in fact. But that fight would be trough education, not through denial and trying to a trip someone of a title they claim – at first.

[Knaight]

Yet they're somehow not worth mentioning.

Tricksy.

They're worth mentioning, it's just that building a definition out of them is unfeasible. A community exists, and the thing about communities is that they tend to be very fuzzy regarding who is and who is not within them, and just what traits are necessary to be part of a community - particularly when, in many cases, all traits are optional and it's more about having a sufficient concentration of those optional traits. A concise definition is thus very unlikely.

However, if it becomes a matter of how people choose to define themselves, things work out pretty nicely. Take what you've outlined as the core - appreciation of My Little Pony. Somehow, it seems likely that the vast majority of the people who call themselves a Brony meet that. The people applying the name of a subculture to themselves will generally do so because of affiliation to said subculture, and those who don't likely don't have said affiliation.

Basically, I would assume better accuracy out of a group of people asking themselves if they are a Brony than out of any one person trying to determine whether someone else is a Brony, simply because of how subcultures work.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by TuggyNE
...but partly, as seen in bikeshedding...

...bikeshedding? There's something called bikeshedding?!

All I can think of is some great Elemental Bicycle Dragon making its lumbering, squeaking progress high overhead, shedding a fine rain of Shimano components as it goes....

:smalltongue:

[Zrak]

I think it's better known as Parkinson's Law of Triviality, but yes, there is. It refers to debates over the construction of a bicycle shed, rather than the act of shedding bicycles as a snake might its skin.

Personally, I prefer the similar Sayre's Law, but that probably amounts to my background being more in academia than in the construction of either nuclear reactors or bicycle sheds.

[JoshL]

A miserable little pile of secrets.

have I mentioned lately that I like you :smallsmile: I'm totally going to think of any group/culture/subculture that I hear of in that way.

[TuggyNE]

...bikeshedding? There's something called bikeshedding?!

Yes. The term was coined in the BSD community; see e.g. here (http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml).

[GoblinArchmage]

Hey OP, did you consider the possibility that maybe the person who is ignorant of what a brony is would be better off remaining ignorant? Some things really shouldn't leave the internet.

[Knaight]

Hey OP, did you consider the possibility that maybe the person who is ignorant of what a brony is would be better off remaining ignorant? Some things really shouldn't leave the internet.
Bold mine.

You see that bold bit? I'm inclined to say no, on account of that bold bit - pretty much regardless of what surrounds it. The more knowledge, the better, even if the amount better is incredibly minor for some knowledge.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by GoblinArchmage
Hey OP, did you consider the possibility that maybe the person who is ignorant of what a brony is would be better off remaining ignorant?

It's occurred to me.

: /

[SiuiS]

Bold mine.

You see that bold bit? I'm inclined to say no, on account of that bold bit - pretty much regardless of what surrounds it. The more knowledge, the better, even if the amount better is incredibly minor for some knowledge.

Word. That's called prejudice. If you want to dislike or avoid something, it should be done by knowing and choosing, not segregating via policing thought.

[Jaycemonde]

Word. That's called prejudice. If you want to dislike or avoid something, it should be done by knowing and choosing, not segregating via policing thought.

THIS.
whitetext

[warty goblin]

Bold mine.

You see that bold bit? I'm inclined to say no, on account of that bold bit - pretty much regardless of what surrounds it. The more knowledge, the better, even if the amount better is incredibly minor for some knowledge.

Knowledge as an unalloyed good has always struck me as an odd position, and not one I particularly agree with. Knowledge can be good, and very often is good. But to define it as axiomatically good bars the possibility of knowledge which the world or an individual is better off without. And there's definitely knowledge I'm better off without; likewise I can't think of much good that's come to the world from knowing how to weaponize anthrax.

[Pseudo_Nym]

Knowledge as an unalloyed good has always struck me as an odd position, and not one I particularly agree with. Knowledge can be good, and very often is good. But to define it as axiomatically good bars the possibility of knowledge which the world or an individual is better off without. And there's definitely knowledge I'm better off without; likewise I can't think of much good that's come to the world from knowing how to weaponize anthrax.

Socrates would agree with you. So would Sherlock Holmes, for completely different reasons. Plus Thomas Gray, who first wrote "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

I'm uncertain, myself, though. I'd be willing to admit, I think, that knowledge isn't an end unto itself, desirable for its own sake. But surely it brings more good than harm? Even knowing how to weaponize anthrax might one day (theoretically) let you better fight against it, or otherwise help you out of a jam. And what could it hurt?

What I'm saying is, can knowledge ever really make your life worse?

[TuggyNE]

Knowledge as an unalloyed good has always struck me as an odd position, and not one I particularly agree with. Knowledge can be good, and very often is good. But to define it as axiomatically good bars the possibility of knowledge which the world or an individual is better off without. And there's definitely knowledge I'm better off without; likewise I can't think of much good that's come to the world from knowing how to weaponize anthrax.

If you can reliably determine a) that a given knowledge is inherently and disproportionately dangerous; b) that a given knowledge is highly unlikely to lead to any beneficial results of any note; and c) that any attempt at secrecy or halting research is highly likely to be entirely successful globally for a substantial length of time, then sure, go ahead and bar it.

Unfortunately, each of those determinations is likely to be fraught with serious difficulties, since, for example, if you cannot reliably maintain secrecy, then you cannot control who first makes use of the knowledge, which may well hinder attempts to guard against it (as does the attempt to maintain secrecy in the first place). Or, for that matter, how do you determine from A and B that a particular branch of knowledge is just not worth it? Often the eventual developments from some particular idea take a long time and circuitous paths to maturity, and produce unexpected results.

Also, who makes these determinations, and how do you ensure that the conflicting requirements of secrecy and adequate understanding are balanced, internally or externally?

An example of how this breaks down is in Isaac Asimov's short story:The protagonist, a specialist in a narrow and recent field of applied gravitational lensing, is asked by a historian to secretly research a duplicate of the official, government-controlled chronoviewing device, which was unavailable for common use, even by scientists. Unfortunately, it turns out that the device has unexpected and inherent limitations: it can see the past, yes, but only as far back as a hundred-some years, which makes it useless for the historian's research into ancient Carthage. Worse yet, though, it is not limited in its recency, so it can be used to see, with excellent clarity and for very little cost, anything that has happened as recently as a microsecond ago, and at any location desired. And, what with the protagonist's suspicion of a government coverup, and their actions taken to get around that, everything has been irreversibly revealed, and all privacy in society falls apart.

Of course, there actually had been a government coverup, and it had in fact worked for several decades, but once someone figured out a way around it the whole thing collapsed, and then there was no time to deploy countermeasures (if there could be any) before everyone had such a device of their own.

[Cuthalion]

I wouldn't have called myself one until this afternoon when the first thing I did after I got home was watch the new ones.

[Anarion]

It's occurred to me.

: /

Aww, I don't like seeing people get discouraged. Always worth learning stuff, even the weird stuff. Just file it away in your brain until it's useful.

Also, I'm a bit unclear. Was there ever a firm answer to the following two questions
1) who is the intended audience for the definition and
2) How much space is allotted for it?

Because, depending on those two, it can vary anywhere from "older fan of My Little Pony" with no clarification or explanation whatsoever, all the way to its own extended paragraph going into the ins and outs of fan activities and community organization.

[Tengu_temp]

Knowing something, as long as it's a true fact and not a false one, is always better than not knowing. Even if it's an unpleasant one. Harsh reality is better than comfortable ignorance.

Now, sometimes we lie to people, or keep then uninformed on purpose. But in the end it's not for their benefit, but ours or someone else's.

[warty goblin]

Socrates would agree with you. So would Sherlock Holmes, for completely different reasons. Plus Thomas Gray, who first wrote "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

I'm uncertain, myself, though. I'd be willing to admit, I think, that knowledge isn't an end unto itself, desirable for its own sake. But surely it brings more good than harm? Even knowing how to weaponize anthrax might one day (theoretically) let you better fight against it, or otherwise help you out of a jam. And what could it hurt?

What I'm saying is, can knowledge ever really make your life worse?
Sure it can. If my (hypothetical spouse) informs me she had one too many martinis on a business trip and slept with somebody else, my life probably just got worse. Not knowing by contrast hurts me not at all.

Or in the anthrax example, given the entire purpose is to cause highly indiscriminant harm, I think the answer is fairly self evident: namely everybody who dies from its use. Because if you create a weapon, you are responsible for the fact that it can be used.



Also, who makes these determinations, and how do you ensure that the conflicting requirements of secrecy and adequate understanding are balanced, internally or externally?

This is generally what governments are for.


Knowing something, as long as it's a true fact and not a false one, is always better than not knowing. Even if it's an unpleasant one. Harsh reality is better than comfortable ignorance.

Now, sometimes we lie to people, or keep then uninformed on purpose. But in the end it's not for their benefit, but ours or someone else's.
In the previous spousal example, I'd argue Wifey Dear shoving that particular one night stand all the way down the memory hole and never breathing a word of it is in fact a lie for my benefit. It may also benefit her, depending exactly how guilty she feels and how she processes that guilt, but that hardly excludes me being a beneficiary.

There's also, when it comes to acquiring new knowledge, the question of whether its reasonably expected benefit is worth the cost of obtaining it in the first place. Which is about where the Large Hadron Collider and I part ways.

[Palanan]

I'll just stand here and wave as the thread veers off into absurdly abstruse philosophical realms.

--Kind of like the Far Realms, actually, but with slightly less gibbering and slime.

[SiuiS]

Knowledge as an unalloyed good has always struck me as an odd position, and not one I particularly agree with. Knowledge can be good, and very often is good. But to define it as axiomatically good bars the possibility of knowledge which the world or an individual is better off without. And there's definitely knowledge I'm better off without; likewise I can't think of much good that's come to the world from knowing how to weaponize anthrax.

The weaponization is not a really good example though, is it? I'll use pepper spray because I don't want to be flagged for looking up anthrax, but bear with me.

Weaponizing a chemical is not its own, discrete knowledge. It is an application of other knowledges. Knowing oils and essential oils maintain the chemical uses of a thing, knowing how to hydraulically move viscous fluids, knowing bodily responses to foreign contaminants are all their own things. Combining them, you get a fluid which can be shot from a canister and severely hurt and stall someone with little permanent damage, so sure that is weaponizing a pepper. But from that knowledge you also get automotive repair details, medical details, salad dressing, optometrist exams, aroma therapy.

Winnowing a single fact down to knowledge and declaring it unworthy of knowing is rather like splitting hairs. It is one thing to try and keep people from utilizing these disparate knowledges to make a weapon, but it is another entirely to shut it down so that no one can make a weapon because this information was all forbidden.

In the case of infidelity, you learn the character of a person who you are bound to, establish and alter social connections with them, and are prepared to handle any future events which relate (though not everyone is prepared to handle this well, admittedly).


I'll just stand here and wave as the thread veers off into absurdly abstruse philosophical realms.

--Kind of like the Far Realms, actually, but with slightly less gibbering and slime.

*waves from the deck* Bye! Bye! See you when we come back to port!
More seriously, though, the answer has been provided in numerous guises, and now all that remains is to decide which amongst them suits any given person. It's the natural order of conversation, I fear, to head where the connotations naturally lie, even if from outside the connection is almost nonexistent. :smallsmile:

[Lord Raziere]

Hey OP, did you consider the possibility that maybe the person who is ignorant of what a brony is would be better off remaining ignorant? Some things really shouldn't leave the internet.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

the internet is not a place, and you can't contain anything upon it. it is a reflection of what is already there, not something that itself is any way a thing.

forget obtuse philosophy and other such things, the internet is where containment goes to die. Every post, new video or what have you is pandora's box. as soon as its opened, its already beyond your control and will unleash plagues and disasters all across the world.

if brony is even a commonly recognized term, it has already left the internet and caught a fast express train to lots of people knowing about it. posting secrets on the internet is like shouting out that your attempting to keep quiet: the very act is self-defeating.

[Pseudo_Nym]

Sure it can. If my (hypothetical spouse) informs me she had one too many martinis on a business trip and slept with somebody else, my life probably just got worse. Not knowing by contrast hurts me not at all.
Secrets are more likely to damage your relationship, though. With knowledge you can forgive, you can discuss, you can change, you can improve. In ignorance, you'll always wonder why she averts her eyes when you say you love her. It's worse for both of you.

Knowing about starving people all over the world might make you sad, but it might let you help. Knowing you're going to die in six months isn't a happy thing, but it's better than finding out six months later. Right?


Because if you create a weapon, you are responsible for the fact that it can be used.


No one ever says it's wrong to exercise, but every push-up makes you more capable of killing someone. The human body is a very effective weapon. Should we kill ourselves to make sure it is never misused?

I know that's not what you're saying. But it sounds like it, kinda. If I make a fork, am I responsible for the fact that it could be used to stab someone's eye out? The misapplication of knowledge might be evil, but doesn't that apply to literally everything?

I'll admit that misapplication doesn't have to mean use. Giving a loaded gun (dangerous knowledge) to a toddler is just as wrong as using it yourself. I...suppose if I accept that, and I accept that sometimes we are the toddlers, I have to accept that knowledge is a weapon we can't always trust ourselves with.

You shouldn't tell a madman, prone to violent rages, that his wife cheated on him. You shouldn't tell a mad scientist, about to destroy the world, that there's an error in his calculations but it would all work if he took a minute to recalibrate. And by admitting that knowledge should sometimes be withheld, I'm admitting it should sometimes be withheld from me. Huh. I've... never accepted that before. It still sits uneasy with me, but I guess so.

[warty goblin]

The weaponization is not a really good example though, is it? I'll use pepper spray because I don't want to be flagged for looking up anthrax, but bear with me.

Weaponizing a chemical is not its own, discrete knowledge. It is an application of other knowledges. Knowing oils and essential oils maintain the chemical uses of a thing, knowing how to hydraulically move viscous fluids, knowing bodily responses to foreign contaminants are all their own things. Combining them, you get a fluid which can be shot from a canister and severely hurt and stall someone with little permanent damage, so sure that is weaponizing a pepper. But from that knowledge you also get automotive repair details, medical details, salad dressing, optometrist exams, aroma therapy.

I don't think the example really works particularly well with pepper spray, since although it can be misused, it's by intent and general purpose a de-escalation tool. It's something you use because you don't want anybody to be seriously hurt, and are in a situation where such an event is very possible.

Winnowing a single fact down to knowledge and declaring it unworthy of knowing is rather like splitting hairs. It is one thing to try and keep people from utilizing these disparate knowledges to make a weapon, but it is another entirely to shut it down so that no one can make a weapon because this information was all forbidden.
I never said research should be shut down across the board. I like scientific research and progress; by and large I think it is a good thing for the world. Saying something is capable of producing harm, and therefore should be subject to ethical review (and I'd also argue need to justify its cost) is not the same as saying it's necessarily wrong and cannot proceed.


In the case of infidelity, you learn the character of a person who you are bound to, establish and alter social connections with them, and are prepared to handle any future events which relate (though not everyone is prepared to handle this well, admittedly).
Or I can't handle it, the relationship crashes and burns, and what was a good thing gets destroyed by a moment of weakness and an unnecessary insistence on honesty.




*waves from the deck* Bye! Bye! See you when we come back to port!
More seriously, though, the answer has been provided in numerous guises, and now all that remains is to decide which amongst them suits any given person. It's the natural order of conversation, I fear, to head where the connotations naturally lie, even if from outside the connection is almost nonexistent. :smallsmile:
Besides, this is much more fun.


Secrets are more likely to damage your relationship, though. With knowledge you can forgive, you can discuss, you can change, you can improve. In ignorance, you'll always wonder why she averts her eyes when you say you love her. It's worse for both of you.

In some cases probably yes. In others? Hell no. My wife may legitimately love me after all, and therefore keep that secret out of love.


Knowing about starving people all over the world might make you sad, but it might let you help. Knowing you're going to die in six months isn't a happy thing, but it's better than finding out six months later. Right?
The difference with the starving people example is that there is something constructive that can be done with that knowledge.

And personally if I was to drop dead in six months? I wouldn't want to know. I'm going to slaughter a pig today; it gets its first warning of impending doom when the bullet slams through its brain, which is to say no warning at all. Which has always struck me as a pretty good way to go really; one moment you're eating breakfast, before the brain ticks over you no longer exist.



No one ever says it's wrong to exercise, but every push-up makes you more capable of killing someone. The human body is a very effective weapon. Should we kill ourselves to make sure it is never misused?
Er, no?


I know that's not what you're saying. But it sounds like it, kinda. If I make a fork, am I responsible for the fact that it could be used to stab someone's eye out? The misapplication of knowledge might be evil, but doesn't that apply to literally everything?

The purpose of a fork is not, generally speaking, to harm others, spring salads with creamy bleu cheese dressing aside. Both the fork itself, and the knowledge necessary to make the fork, have many applications besides eyeball impalement.

I'm not in any particular way oppossed to knowledge, far from it. I firmly believe that it should be given the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. I am merely positing that knowledge is not, even of itself, an unalloyed good, and is in fact capable of causing harm.


I'll admit that misapplication doesn't have to mean use. Giving a loaded gun (dangerous knowledge) to a toddler is just as wrong as using it yourself. I...suppose if I accept that, and I accept that sometimes we are the toddlers, I have to accept that knowledge is a weapon we can't always trust ourselves with.
My point exactly.


You shouldn't tell a madman, prone to violent rages, that his wife cheated on him. You shouldn't tell a mad scientist, about to destroy the world, that there's an error in his calculations but it would all work if he took a minute to recalibrate. And by admitting that knowledge should sometimes be withheld, I'm admitting it should sometimes be withheld from me. Huh. I've... never accepted that before. It still sits uneasy with me, but I guess so.
Uneasy lies the head that accepts its own limitations.

[SiuiS]

I don't think the example really works particularly well with pepper spray, since although it can be misused, it's by intent and general purpose a de-escalation tool. It's something you use because you don't want anybody to be seriously hurt, and are in a situation where such an event is very possible.

My point is that making a weapon out of [thing] is not its own knowledge but an application of existing knowledge, applied to [thing]. Pepper spray is aerosolizing or creating a hydraulic jet, plus distillation for concentration, plus etc etc etc.

Weaponizing your disease, there, is as simple as "disease sucks, and when I hurt people I want it to suck, so let's slap them with a disease", and it's that simple. The knowledge you want to deny people is an emergent property f otherwise innocuous knowledge. The only way to stop that is to stop the innocuous knowledge, and at that point you are saying "you cannot read Greek philosophy because we secretly fear you'll potentially be a militant communist" or similar. Or maybe "don't read about cultural dance, because the possibility exists to train a militia covertly using dance".

Ethical review lies in the hands of those show old use knowledge, predominantly.



Uneasy lies the head that accepts its own limitations.

I do indeed believe that I should be informed and accept my limitations, rather than be left in the dark. So I am not sure I agree.

[warty goblin]

My point is that making a weapon out of [thing] is not its own knowledge but an application of existing knowledge, applied to [thing]. Pepper spray is aerosolizing or creating a hydraulic jet, plus distillation for concentration, plus etc etc etc.

In some cases yes, in others no. The Manhattan Project for instance required a very large amount of entirely bespoke research and development, entirely purposed for creating a weapon of mass destruction.


Weaponizing your disease, there, is as simple as "disease sucks, and when I hurt people I want it to suck, so let's slap them with a disease", and it's that simple. The knowledge you want to deny people is an emergent property f otherwise innocuous knowledge. The only way to stop that is to stop the innocuous knowledge, and at that point you are saying "you cannot read Greek philosophy because we secretly fear you'll potentially be a militant communist" or similar. Or maybe "don't read about cultural dance, because the possibility exists to train a militia covertly using dance".
This argument is ridiculous. There's a difference between proscribing research that directly lends itself to exceedingly destructive purposes, and proscribing all research. Just like there's a difference between owning a firearm for self defense or hunting, and keeping a surface to air missile in my basement. Both can be used for harm (indeed both are by design harmful), but there's pretty clearly a difference.


Ethical review lies in the hands of those show old use knowledge, predominantly.
Assuming you meant to say 'should use' I rather disagree. Scientists, when not subject to external ethical review, are really pretty bad about maintaining reasonable ethical standards. Besides which, research in the modern world is to a large degree a public undertaking, and therefore should be subject to public review.


I do indeed believe that I should be informed and accept my limitations, rather than be left in the dark. So I am not sure I agree.
What if one of those limitations is that there are things you shouldn't know, for your own good or the good of others? It's a concept I'm quite comfortable with, precisely because I understand I, like everybody else, am limited in ability and understanding.

[t209]

So any fandom that's like Brony fanbase? Just being curious since all I know is Jem fans, Gargoyles (Never saw it except the finale when they fought off the Masons on the trains), and you guess it Bronies.

[Altessia]

What does like Brony fanbase mean? Or is it impersonal definition?

[Anarion]

What does like Brony fanbase mean? Or is it impersonal definition?

I think brony fan base may be a bit redundant since brony already refers to a member of the pony fandom. It's probably just another loose variation on pony fans as a group.

[Knaight]

Sure it can. If my (hypothetical spouse) informs me she had one too many martinis on a business trip and slept with somebody else, my life probably just got worse. Not knowing by contrast hurts me not at all.

Or in the anthrax example, given the entire purpose is to cause highly indiscriminant harm, I think the answer is fairly self evident: namely everybody who dies from its use. Because if you create a weapon, you are responsible for the fact that it can be used.

I'd actually disagree with both of these. I'd rather know in the first case - granted, I suspect I'd care a lot less than many people, but I'd value that knowledge over the amount of personal spousal happiness lost. Plus, if my (hypothetical spouse) said as much, it probably helped them in some way.

As for Anthrax, the vast majority of the technology needed to weaponize it is useful in other contexts. Knowing about Anthrax helps with epidemiology in general, which is a field that directly saves a lot of lives, and that will be absolutely critical if Anthrax ever gets out. I will say that I'd much rather the research that goes into these sort of things goes elsewhere, as I strongly suspect that whatever we would have learned through the redirected studies is far more useful, but that doesn't mean that awareness of Anthrax and it's weaponization is a bad thing.

There's also a difference between whether or not it's good to be aware of existing knowledge and whether or not it's good to find new knowledge. Given that Anthrax is a thing now, we need to know about it and how it is weaponized as a defensive measure - and we also need a system of ethics strong enough to prevent the use of weaponized Anthrax. That doesn't mean that we should look at a system of research to produce a bioweapon and go down that path.

[t209]

What does like Brony fanbase mean? Or is it impersonal definition?
No, something like fans who were not part of children targeted Franchise (AKA adolescents to Adults)?

[Tengu_temp]

So any fandom that's like Brony fanbase? Just being curious since all I know is Jem fans, Gargoyles (Never saw it except the finale when they fought off the Masons on the trains), and you guess it Bronies.

Pick anything intended for kids that's at least half-decently written. Anything. Done. I guarantee that it has adult fans.

[Sabeki]

Just stepping in to say: Talking about stuff like weaponizing anthrax and ethics may be overstepping the Posting rules, as it gets a bit into IRL things that aren't forum-appropriate.

[Jaycemonde]

Just stepping in to say: Talking about stuff like weaponizing anthrax and ethics may be overstepping the Posting rules, as it gets a bit into IRL things that aren't forum-appropriate.

It also is a world of difference away from a show about ponies. I didn't want to derail that big, lovely debate up there, but hasn't anybody else stopped to think about how weird it is that somebody actually compared the fanbase of a children's show to the knowledge required to weaponize a lethal biological agent?

[Zrak]

Probably not, because nobody did that. Someone rejected the claim that all knowledge is categorically beneficial. Other than that claim having been made originally in reference to being aware of fans of a children's show, the points are unrelated.

As for the actual debate, one can pick apart specific examples all day, but there is certainly knowledge from which one would in no way benefit and indeed by the acquisition of which one would or could be demonstrably harmed, or at least knowledge from which one's gains would be far from commensurate with their cost.

[t209]

Pick anything intended for kids that's at least half-decently written. Anything. Done. I guarantee that it has adult fans.
I mean what are the prominent examples?
-http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JV4EThdq6rM/TshRMEM78yI/AAAAAAAAA4o/4oGpYwOIhO0/s1600/20111021.gif (Even worse when TV Tropes mention about large male fans, even one of the bronies claim that he's a fan or was it my imagination).
- Young Justice
- I initially thought the grown gamers in Wreck it Ralph as reference to that fandom (brony and other equivalents)

[SiuiS]

In some cases yes, in others no. The Manhattan Project for instance required a very large amount of entirely bespoke research and development, entirely purposed for creating a weapon of mass destruction.

The manhattan project was "we know about nuclear energy, can we kill people with it", which is pretty directly comparable to "we know about chemical agents in pepper, can we subdue people with it".



This argument is ridiculous. There's a difference between proscribing research that directly lends itself to exceedingly destructive purposes, and proscribing all research. Just like there's a difference between owning a firearm for self defense or hunting, and keeping a surface to air missile in my basement.
Your claim is specious and you're splitting hairs. A more apt comparison is owning a rifle, and knowing or not knowing how to make it an automatic weapon.


It also is a world of difference away from a show about ponies. I didn't want to derail that big, lovely debate up there, but hasn't anybody else stopped to think about how weird it is that somebody actually compared the fanbase of a children's show to the knowledge required to weaponize a lethal biological agent?

Heehee~

[Tengu_temp]

I mean what are the prominent examples?


Avatar the Last Airbender
Spongebob Squarepants
Adventure Time
Gurren Lagann (most of its fans don't even know it's a show for kids!)
classic Cartoon Network originals like Dexter's Lab or Johnny Bravo

That's a short list of things that come to my mind.



- I initially thought the grown gamers in Wreck it Ralph as reference to that fandom (brony and other equivalents)

The grown gamers in Wreck It Ralph are a reference to grown gamers. Don't fall into the trap a lot of fans fall into, thinking that the anything that matches, even slightly, is an intentional reference to the thing they're a fan of.
For example: I saw someone on TV Tropes claiming that the Steel Samurai fandom in Phoenix Wright is a reference to bronies. Seriously?

[Anarion]

The grown gamers in Wreck It Ralph are a reference to grown gamers. Don't fall into the trap a lot of fans fall into, thinking that the anything that matches, even slightly, is an intentional reference to the thing they're a fan of.
For example: I saw someone on TV Tropes claiming that the Steel Samurai fandom in Phoenix Wright is a reference to bronies. Seriously?

Bronies acquired time travel and nobody told me?! :smallannoyed:

[Coidzor]

It also is a world of difference away from a show about ponies. I didn't want to derail that big, lovely debate up there, but hasn't anybody else stopped to think about how weird it is that somebody actually compared the fanbase of a children's show to the knowledge required to weaponize a lethal biological agent?

This is the internet where people regularly advocate diluting our language to the point where as simple a word as up is as meaningless as the scent of the color purple.

[Zrak]

Adventure Time

Eeeeh, I don't know if it really counts. Adventure Time is TVPG and airs during primetime, which I think puts it in a somewhat different target demographic.

[SiuiS]

Bronies acquired time travel and nobody told me?! :smallannoyed:
Crap he knows!

Uh

Look a puppy!


This is the internet where people regularly advocate diluting our language to the point where as simple a word as up is as meaningless as the scent of the color purple.

You say this like purple doesn't have a smell.

[erikun]

What does like Brony fanbase mean? Or is it impersonal definition?
I would say it's the difference between someone who is just a fan of the show independently, by themselves, and someone who is a fan and part of some social network with other fans. The brony fanbase is the social network of fans.


So any fandom that's like Brony fanbase? Just being curious since all I know is Jem fans, Gargoyles (Never saw it except the finale when they fought off the Masons on the trains), and you guess it Bronies.
Pretty much everything has a fanbase, and almost all of them have adult fans. Heck, it isn't children producing these things, so of course adults are involved.

Pretty Cure has a pretty large adult fanbase, large enough to sell figurines of the characters for $60-$100 regularly. (http://prettycure.wikia.com/wiki/S.H.Figuarts)

[Alejandro]

Sometimes, brony (or similar cultures) feel like a replacement for traditional religion to me.

It's a group of people who have a shared commitment to a set of fantastical stories, and believe that the stories have valuable moral lessons, which they often wish to share with others, or bring them into the group and make them fans.

Which is basically a textbook description of evangelicalism. :)

[TuggyNE]

Which is basically a textbook description of evangelicalism. :)

You mean proselytizers. Evangelicalism is something rather more specific. Rather a lot more specific.

[SiuiS]

Sometimes, brony (or similar cultures) feel like a replacement for traditional religion to me.

Couldn't be. Plenty of traditions don't have the proselytization or moralized stories and such.

This would also relegate fraternities, clubs, and schools to the same category – although some of those are quite a bit more believable than others.

[thubby]

Sometimes, brony (or similar cultures) feel like a replacement for traditional religion to me.

It's a group of people who have a shared commitment to a set of fantastical stories, and believe that the stories have valuable moral lessons, which they often wish to share with others, or bring them into the group and make them fans.

Which is basically a textbook description of evangelicalism. :)

such a definition only really reduces the usefulness of the word "religion" by causing it to include ideals and stories that a: aren't held to be true to life such as aesops and nursery rhymes, and b: are held up on wholely different grounds from actual religions

[Alejandro]

Only if you assume popular religious beliefs are actually true, and not just a long-lasting popular fiction, like MLP. :)

But, this forum is not for arguing about religion.

[Worira]

"held to be true".

[Pendulous]

I like the idea that ones identifies themselves as one, not others identifying them. I remember starting watching the show, and liking it, but still feeling myself disconnected to the actual fanbase.I didn't consider myself a "brony", just someone enjoying a show. I don't think you have be an active member of the fandom (Creating art, whatever. best I got is making Magic cards for the fun of it), just whatever you feel you are. Obviously, the base definition is a fan of the show, but I don't think one can define someone else as it.

[Knaight]

Sometimes, brony (or similar cultures) feel like a replacement for traditional religion to me.

It's a group of people who have a shared commitment to a set of fantastical stories, and believe that the stories have valuable moral lessons, which they often wish to share with others, or bring them into the group and make them fans.

Which is basically a textbook description of evangelicalism. :)

Find me a brony who thinks Twilight Sparkle is anything but a fictional character, and you might have a case on your hand.

[SiuiS]

Guys, you're discussing religion.

[Karoht]

As far as the complaint of MLP fans jumping into conversations, I remember discussing an action movie here on GiantITP (though the specific movie escapes me, it may even have been Die Hard, but I'm not sure) and someone butted in with "hey guys, did you see that horse during that scene in the far lower right hand corner? Total shoutout to Brony's huh?" and most of the thread replied with a giant collective "*shrug* sure, whatevs" and moved on. That is about as invasive as I've ever personally encountered Brony's to be. On the whole of the internet or in real life.

I'm actually a little sad that the term Brony is largely considered derrogatory, though this does depend on who you talk too. Insults ranging from fury to pedo can and will get thrown around.

I remember when I first encountered the term yaoi, and how the fans of yaoi seemed almost alien to me. People who were 'shipping' things like Harry X Snape impreg fiction. I mean sure, different strokes for different folks, but it seemed very strange to me that someone would... advertise? ...their fetish/fandom like that. Around that time I came to the realization that there is indeed a line between fetish and fandom, and did my best to treat the two as separate. My friends who were into yaoi were just friends who had shared a preference to a fetish (one that could be applied to a fandom but was not symptomatic of said fandom), much like a male telling another male that he considers [insert female model] to be 'hawt.'

Where Brony's (the horrible stereotype) bother me, is the reports I've heard that they've been mistreating other fans of the show, specifically young girls. Now I can't substantiate such reports of male MLP fans in their late 40's shoving 6 year olds out of the way to get the autograph of Rainbow Dash's (or Fluttershy, or whoever) voice actress. But such stories are unfortunately bandied about in regards to the word Brony, and in some circles the association is rather strong, with the onus on a given Brony to prove that it didn't happen (which is absurd of course). I'll personally give them the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that such stories even exist, true or false or exaggerated, is troubling.

My problem is, I don't know how to define a Brony. It's not a term I want to call someone given the stigma. I want to just say 'any given fan of MLP' but that sounds like I'm branding all the MLP fans with the stereotype, which is highly uncool. So at the moment, if someone were to ask me, I would go with the long and italicized definition that Jayce posted, as it covers all the bases while distancing the word Brony from the connotations. As for someone who likes MLP, I'll refer to them as 'someone I know who likes MLP' and leave it at that.

[Jaycemonde]

As far as the complaint of MLP fans jumping into conversations, I remember discussing an action movie here on GiantITP (though the specific movie escapes me, it may even have been Die Hard, but I'm not sure) and someone butted in with "hey guys, did you see that horse during that scene in the far lower right hand corner? Total shoutout to Brony's huh?" and most of the thread replied with a giant collective "*shrug* sure, whatevs" and moved on. That is about as invasive as I've ever personally encountered Brony's to be. On the whole of the internet or in real life.

Pretty much.


I'm actually a little sad that the term Brony is largely considered derrogatory, though this does depend on who you talk too. Insults ranging from fury to pedo can and will get thrown around.

Saying somebody is a furry is about as much as a native insult as saying somebody is gay. It has a negative connotation in popular society and culture, but it's about as good or bad as the person in question liking cheddar, and usually just as relevant.

http://i.imgur.com/4Zeah.jpg

[TuggyNE]

http://i.imgur.com/4Zeah.jpg

Meh, it's only been like 25 days. Not a big deal. (Limit is 45 these days, up from 42 as of a few months ago.)

That said, the discussion had kind of mostly gone sour before that. Who knows, maybe it'll resume on a better note?

[Karoht]

Pretty much.
Saying somebody is a furry is about as much as a native insult as saying somebody is gay. It has a negative connotation in popular society and culture, but it's about as good or bad as the person in question liking cheddar, and usually just as relevant.
Exactly.
I think much of the problem stems from MLP Fans being mistaken for furries. Mind you, that got me thinking about furries a bit.

I have two on my facebook friends list. Serg and Fox. Serg is constantly posting Sergal pictures (often with explicit... anatomy), and typically getting in trouble with facebook for it, otherwise behaving probably quite a bit like the furry stereotype. He outright claims that he's expressing/exploring his sexuality. I don't have a problem with it personally, but someone else does have a problem with it to the point where he gets reported about once every 2 weeks.
Then we have Fox. Fox is a guy who likes Foxes. Posts pictures and videos of foxes. Hates the song "What the fox say?" Has a fox fur suit, mostly because he enjoys going to conventions and behaving in the manner of a fox. Fox goofing off in a fur suit has nothing to do with his sexuality, and most people get that.

As far as MLP Fans being mistaken (negatively) for furries, it made me wonder just a little. Have furries really "soured the milk" that badly?

As far as my personal stance towards MLP goes, I watched the show with my fiancee's younger sisters (oldest one is 9 I think), and it was fine. I could watch the show, I could completely understand what they enjoyed about it, I even enjoyed watching it, but it was not the sort of thing I would go out of my way to watch without them.

[SiuiS]

As far as the complaint of MLP fans jumping into conversations, I remember discussing an action movie here on GiantITP (though the specific movie escapes me, it may even have been Die Hard, but I'm not sure) and someone butted in with "hey guys, did you see that horse during that scene in the far lower right hand corner? Total shoutout to Brony's huh?" and most of the thread replied with a giant collective "*shrug* sure, whatevs" and moved on. That is about as invasive as I've ever personally encountered Brony's to be. On the whole of the internet or in real life.

I find your example oddly irritating. That is, I would be so irritated at that guy. It's funny, because you're telling this little thing that was barely irritating, to illustrate how noninvasive it was, but my reaction is like "WHAT THE HAY MAN?!"

Heh.



Where Brony's (the horrible stereotype) bother me, is the reports I've heard that they've been mistreating other fans of the show, specifically young girls. Now I can't substantiate such reports of male MLP fans in their late 40's shoving 6 year olds out of the way to get the autograph of Rainbow Dash's (or Fluttershy, or whoever) voice actress. But such stories are unfortunately bandied about in regards to the word Brony, and in some circles the association is rather strong, with the onus on a given Brony to prove that it didn't happen (which is absurd of course). I'll personally give them the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that such stories even exist, true or false or exaggerated, is troubling.

We have our jerks. I've never seen this happen, but then, I've not been to every convention. We did have what I recall as a convention head running away with the money and leaving professional celebrities high and dry, up to and including no ride to the airport. That was a big deal; any one screw up of that magnitude means no one ever does a convention for the fandom again, or if they do it's limited and cash up front.

I should check on how that resolved...


Exactly.
I think much of the problem stems from MLP Fans being mistaken for furries. Mind you, that got me thinking about furries a bit.

Some of us are. I know... Five off top of me head? Thought it was two but then I recalled a couple. There's a distinct overlap.


I have two on my facebook friends list. Serg and Fox. Serg is constantly posting Sergal pictures (often with explicit... anatomy), and typically getting in trouble with facebook for it, otherwise behaving probably quite a bit like the furry stereotype. He outright claims that he's expressing/exploring his sexuality. I don't have a problem with it personally, but someone else does have a problem with it to the point where he gets reported about once every 2 weeks.
Then we have Fox. Fox is a guy who likes Foxes. Posts pictures and videos of foxes. Hates the song "What the fox say?" Has a fox fur suit, mostly because he enjoys going to conventions and behaving in the manner of a fox. Fox goofing off in a fur suit has nothing to do with his sexuality, and most people get that.

Several thoughts.

One, Serg seems deceptive. There are Facebook clones specifically for that; why go about getting in trouble after agreeing not to on this one? Makes me think it's not about exploration, but about making a scene.

Two, I am curious about the last sentence. Dmit seems to imply that if Fox's goofing around in a suit did cross his sexuality, that would be a bad thing. Is that the case and if so, why?

Three, what is our working definition of a furry, here? Because there's 'person who likes anthropomorphic animal art and porn', 'person who identifies with said art/porn', 'otherkin', or even just the brony analogue, 'fans of anthropomorphic animals'. I think maybe this confusion should be a warning sign; brony, like furry, means too many different things.


As far as MLP Fans being mistaken (negatively) for furries, it made me wonder just a little. Have furries really "soured the milk" that badly?

"Yes", for given values. I don't think very many furries ever did anything to sour anyone. I think it's more the reaction from others is extreme and easily propagated. I've met two people on theplayground who made offhand comments, such as "at least they aren't one of those furries" or used furry as an insult... And didn't know what a furry was when asked for clarification.

Furry has become a generic insult, without meaning or rancor. It's a word people are taught means those bad people over there, and gets thrown around without thought the same way slang for parties does in political arguments. It's like calling someone a heathen and not realizing that specifically refers to people from lands with heaths. This makes it really righ for actual furries, who are getting beaten up over a keyword most people wouldn't actually care about.


As far as my personal stance towards MLP goes, I watched the show with my fiancee's younger sisters (oldest one is 9 I think), and it was fine. I could watch the show, I could completely understand what they enjoyed about it, I even enjoyed watching it, but it was not the sort of thing I would go out of my way to watch without them.

Aye. There is better animation and there are better stories. It's selling point for a lot of folks is that it covers just enough bases just well enough to be perfect at the time. It was, and when you ignore the fandom, still is, a bright spot of optimism in a morass of cynicism and grittiness. It is unapologetic but also not rude about it.

For people looking for a way out of depression or cynicism, it's much better than shows that indulge in depression and cynicism or are simply edgy for the sake of it.

[Karoht]

I find your example oddly irritating. That is, I would be so irritated at that guy. It's funny, because you're telling this little thing that was barely irritating, to illustrate how noninvasive it was, but my reaction is like "WHAT THE HAY MAN?!"Hay? Is that a shoutout to brony's?
/obvious sarcasm


We have our jerks. I've never seen this happen, but then, I've not been to every convention. We did have what I recall as a convention head running away with the money and leaving professional celebrities high and dry, up to and including no ride to the airport. That was a big deal; any one screw up of that magnitude means no one ever does a convention for the fandom again, or if they do it's limited and cash up front.
I should check on how that resolved...I work closely with the Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo. The second year I volunteered with them, we had the entire cast of Star Trek TNG for their 25 year reunion. It was nuts.
While I was not involved with the media guest relations department, we were constantly warned about stuff like that. Any one screw up like that can and probably will cause a guest to not want to return. And other guests can and will hear about it.
The fact that this happened to the MLP cast? Wow, that's kinda low really.

Off topic for just a tad...
Sidenote-Wil Wheaton is an awesome dude, Marina Sertis is awesome. Michael Dorn is incredibly personable and hilarious. Jonathan Frakes is just as smooth as you think he is but he's starting to show his age, Patric Stewart is an extraordinary human being which goes without saying. Brent Spiner is actually just a bit abrupt or maybe a bit awkward but funny when he wants to be, Levar Burton is all around a great guy, Gates McFadden is probably the funniest of the lot but is often very quiet until something happens, and the lady who played Tasha Yar (who's name escapes me at the moment) is surprisingly energetic and bubbly and just happy and excited to see other people who love Star Trek and Sci-Fi in general.


Several thoughts.
One, Serg seems deceptive. There are Facebook clones specifically for that; why go about getting in trouble after agreeing not to on this one? Makes me think it's not about exploration, but about making a scene.I personally agree, though I'm taking a hands-off approach and letting facebook handle it with him, rather than saying anything.


Two, I am curious about the last sentence. Dmit seems to imply that if Fox's goofing around in a suit did cross his sexuality, that would be a bad thing. Is that the case and if so, why?It was more that the two are entirely unrelated, ergo no one thinks that Fox goes around 'yiffing' people/things. Or wanting to yiff animals or anything of that sort. Fox doesn't garner the negative stereotype, aside from the odd rude person at a convention.

To be clear, it's not that fur suit + sexuality is bad/wrong or anything like that.
I occasionally do medieval re-enactment. If I walked around a convention dressed as a knight and acted like a jerk, I make a bad name for other guys dressed as knights. The same applies to people in fur suits. John Q Public might not care that someone is in a fur suit per se, but might care if such a costume has connotations regarding one's sexuality. If people in Knight costumes were accused of being pedos, would John Q Public be so keen on having his kids get a picture of the Knight with the really cool sword? Would my presence at a convention make some people uncomfortable/comment negatively the way a fursuit often does?

Mind you this now brings up a chicken or the egg sort of question. Did some furries act poorly in public thereby garnering some of this negative attention and stigma, or did the public just assume it due to some other source?
I blame the internet until proven othewise.


Three, what is our working definition of a furry, here? Because there's 'person who likes anthropomorphic animal art and porn', 'person who identifies with said art/porn', 'otherkin', or even just the brony analogue, 'fans of anthropomorphic animals'. I think maybe this confusion should be a warning sign; brony, like furry, means too many different things.Hence why I gave two examples rather than fixing on one. Furry and Brony really do mean far too many things. Often with the qualifiers being assumptions rather than observed qualities.


"Yes", for given values. I don't think very many furries ever did anything to sour anyone. I think it's more the reaction from others is extreme and easily propagated. I've met two people on theplayground who made offhand comments, such as "at least they aren't one of those furries" or used furry as an insult... And didn't know what a furry was when asked for clarification.

Furry has become a generic insult, without meaning or rancor. It's a word people are taught means those bad people over there, and gets thrown around without thought the same way slang for parties does in political arguments. It's like calling someone a heathen and not realizing that specifically refers to people from lands with heaths. This makes it really righ for actual furries, who are getting beaten up over a keyword most people wouldn't actually care about.Ah. That was more or less my thoughts on the matter. The word has so many connotations it has more or less lost meaning. So the connotations are now incredibly extreme, bordering on the absurd. Again, just like the word Brony.

[SiuiS]

"Extreme, bordering on absurd"

I would say we've found our definition!

[GrassyGnoll]

Brony, n.:1. the worst portmanteau of a decade, combining "bro" and pony."
2. A male fan of the kids' show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
3. An entitled, out-of-demographic fan who fixates on the most recent iteration of a series.

1. "What the hell does 'brony' even mean? IOENO"
2. "My friend is a brony, but I try not to judge them for it."
3. "Can you believe these hella bronies that jumped on the bandwagon after Comic-Con?"

[GoblinArchmage]

****. Not this thread again.

[Jaycemonde]

****. Not this thread again.

Can't stop the signal.

[GrassyGnoll]

Don't hate me cause I'm irrefutable.

[Tvtyrant]

3. An entitled, out-of-demographic fan who fixates on the most recent iteration of a series.


What party about watching an out of demographics show makes me entitled? Is this aiming at specific sections or just in general?

[GrassyGnoll]

What party?

[Knaight]

What party about watching an out of demographics show makes me entitled? Is this aiming at specific sections or just in general?

I'm pretty sure this is just "entitled" being thrown around as a completely generic term devoid of any meaning beyond "bad". It gets employed that way quite often, and it seems to have increased in frequency on the forum recently.

[Jaycemonde]

I'm pretty sure this is just "entitled" being thrown around as a completely generic term devoid of any meaning beyond "bad". It gets employed that way quite often, and it seems to have increased in frequency on the forum recently.

Indeed. Entitled is just like the aforementioned use of "gay" and "furry" as insults--it's basically devoid of meaning in the way it's used, and the word itself (as well as whether somebody is entitled to something or not) is usually irrelevant to the conversation.

[GrassyGnoll]

I cast Fallacy of Extension in attack mode!

[Coidzor]

Two, I am curious about the last sentence. Dmit seems to imply that if Fox's goofing around in a suit did cross his sexuality, that would be a bad thing. Is that the case and if so, why?

The same reason why people would have an issue with people walking around in bondage wear outside of specific areas delineated for such things. I don't care if that's how you wanna have sex, I just don't want to see you have sex.

That and it's just plain rude to loudly declare to the world at large how turned on one is by something outside of specific contexts.

[SiuiS]

Don't hate me cause I'm irrefutable.

Don't think you're irrefutable because we have the class to not do it every time a defunct argument is repeated.


I'm pretty sure this is just "entitled" being thrown around as a completely generic term devoid of any meaning beyond "bad". It gets employed that way quite often, and it seems to have increased in frequency on the forum recently.

Like furry and brony?
Alanis moriset should totally rewrite her song in modern day.


The same reason why people would have an issue with people walking around in bondage wear outside of specific areas delineated for such things. I don't care if that's how you wanna have sex, I just don't want to see you have sex.

Well, no. It's the connection of two things, as if saying "it's okay to be a furry as long as you don't specialize it".

So it would be like saying you can walk around in assless chaps, a gimp mask and nipple clamps, just so long as we know you don't cross that with sex. That's why I thought it was weird; it specifically said [thing] was okay but [thing+sex] was not okay.


That and it's just plain rude to loudly declare to the world at large how turned on one is by something outside of specific contexts.

This is true. But there's nothing common about common sense. That's why we call it...


... Horse sense.

[Coidzor]

Well, no. It's the connection of two things, as if saying "it's okay to be a furry as long as you don't specialize it".

So it would be like saying you can walk around in assless chaps, a gimp mask and nipple clamps, just so long as we know you don't cross that with sex. That's why I thought it was weird; it specifically said [thing] was okay but [thing+sex] was not okay.

More it's OK to like Fursuits, it's OK to like having sex in Fursuits. Just don't wear your sex fursuit outside of your yiffing. If Fursuits are solely sexual for someone, then they're inappropriate to wear outside of sexual contexts. If they're not solely sexual, then it's only inappropriate to wear them outside of fursuit-friendly contexts.

You can't tell whether or not someone is getting off on the fact that they're in a fursuit and you're watching them be in a fursuit, but if they walk up and tell you that it's turning them on, well, it's sort of hard to slap someone in the face when it's obfuscated and padded like that, but, eh, points for the attempt.

[Knaight]

Like furry and brony?

At least those denote some sort of interest in or affiliation towards animals or the MLP TV show. With the way "entitled" is used, it's even emptier. I'd point more towards "appropriate" and "inappropriate" which are frequently thrown around without even having a context for things to be appropriate towards. Similarly, "entitled" is absolutely meaningless without at least implying what people feel they are entitled to.

[t209]

Brony- a Grown adult fan who watches "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic".
Seriously, I don't like MLP toys (liked the blindbag figurines). Sometimes I got pissed at ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07T8bmKt_6Q) like these
She lives in a library!.
edit: I have some stigmas on Furry though. Some of their art is too creepy to watch (Mostly Uncanny Valley).

[SiuiS]

More it's OK to like Fursuits, it's OK to like having sex in Fursuits. Just don't wear your sex fursuit outside of your yiffing. If Fursuits are solely sexual for someone, then they're inappropriate to wear outside of sexual contexts. If they're not solely sexual, then it's only inappropriate to wear them outside of fursuit-friendly contexts.

That does make sense.


At least those denote some sort of interest in or affiliation towards animals or the MLP TV show. With the way "entitled" is used, it's even emptier. I'd point more towards "appropriate" and "inappropriate" which are frequently thrown around without even having a context for things to be appropriate towards. Similarly, "entitled" is absolutely meaningless without at least implying what people feel they are entitled to.

Hmm. That's true. I will now to insight over humor, then. ^_^

[Eldariel]

We have our jerks. I've never seen this happen, but then, I've not been to every convention. We did have what I recall as a convention head running away with the money and leaving professional celebrities high and dry, up to and including no ride to the airport. That was a big deal; any one screw up of that magnitude means no one ever does a convention for the fandom again, or if they do it's limited and cash up front.

I should check on how that resolved...

It's an unfortunate trait of people observing groups in general: It's easy to form generalizations based on visible/loud individuals who announce/obviously belong into said group. The visible/loud individuals have a high likelihood of being quite extreme about whatever the group is about. Therefore, it is terribly easy to form an image of the whole group based on the most extreme individuals of the group, particularly if you don't care overtly much; indeed, I find myself doing it even though I consciously try and avoid it. Consciously avoiding such generalizations takes much more effort than just rolling with them, and to what end? During the writing of this post I realized I was creating a generalization for the group "people", that they label groups based on the loudest examples of the group. I had to remind myself that I'm again just generalizing a trait probably a majority of the group "people" have to the whole.

Anyways, point being, it is very likely that a large number of people observing a group are going to label the group based on the worst members of said group. An unfortunate (if useful) trait, makes sullying the reputation of any group quite easy. Luckily most people are not very invested in such labels, so if shown evidence to the contrary or if they become more involved than neutral on the topic, these labels drop quickly.

[Rosstin]

Pretty much.
http://i.imgur.com/4Zeah.jpg

I am going to steal this and use it forever.