Afterthoughts: Honest Apple · 7:51pm Jun 19th, 2017
Note: I draw examples from U.S. politics more often than I’d like to because I assume it is a subject most of my readers are at least passingly familiar with. (If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know!) For the record: I don’t associate with any political party. I prefer to cast my vote based on a candidate’s character rather than policies or party affiliation. That is why neither Trump nor Clinton earned mine last year.
art by hioshiru-alter
Today, I present my Afterthoughts on “Honest Apple”. For those who have followed me for a while, it shouldn’t be a surprise that I’ve got a lot to say about this one.
I deeply appreciate “Honest Apple” for the lesson it teaches. But I should start out by saying that I don’t really like this episode. Seeing Applejack behave badly in the way she did here is, at least to me, deeply unpleasant. It ruins my ability to enjoy the episode, so I haven’t been able to watch it through a second time. Normally, I try to watch the episodes at least twice before writing my Afterthoughts.
If I have a virtue that I hold to be my own, it is honesty. Not that I am any sort of paragon of honesty. (Just ask my closest friends; I have have my moments of failing.) But honesty is a virtue I particularly treasure and that I strive for in my life. Part of that is because my father was a true role model of integrity. It is the one character trait of his that I admire and aspire to the most.
Honesty is not always easy. In my own life, insisting on honest practices has put me at odds with the corporate office. I have fought for and won the ability to modify practices when I employ them so that I am being honest even when that means the practice is less efficient. It took me eleven years to win that battle.
That isn’t to say that open honesty is always the best policy. I’m not promoting actual lies, but I do agree that secrets have their place. In the military, secrets are necessary to save lives and vital to the defense of the nation. In business, it is necessary to protect your patents and processes. Industry secrets shield a company from having their hard work duplicated by rivals, and keeps new and growing businesses from having their ideas stolen and implemented more cheaply by bigger companies with more resources. A studio doesn’t release their products to the public online before they can make a profit from them in theaters or on television, and it hurts everyone involved in the production (including, in the long run, the fans) when hackers maliciously do this to them.
As I stated in my blog On Homage:
Considering her role in the story, some have wondered how Homage could be someone who "lies" about who she is. But Homage isn't really DJ Pon3. DJ Pon3 is a legacy, a position that is filled by one pony after another. I believe it is a mark of her integrity that she holds to the vow of secrecy that she would have had to swear when taking up the mantle so that DJ Pon3 would remain that consistent, unfaltering voice that the Wasteland needs. And that she does not jeopardize the legacy for her own pride.
But secrets are also all too often used to hide dangerous or unethical practices. I have a great deal of admiration for whistleblowers. The title “leaker” does not automatically strike a positive or negative connotation for me. Last fall, I recognized the extremely difficult decision that then-FBI director Comey was faced with, and I can admire his choice to go with honesty over propriety. I similarly admire his choice to do so again in releasing memos to the press through a third party… even though I am surrounded by hypocrites on both sides who have praised the ethics of one action while insisting the other was unethical.
Honesty is a virtue, and it continues to be so even when you aren’t the one benefiting from it. It is necessary to remember that as we look at the very real issue that this episode addresses:
Honesty is far too often used as a shield or an excuse for horrible and hurtful behavior.
art by HiccupsDoesArt
Far, far too often.
Worse, society often allows or even celebrates it. Which judges in televised singing competitions have the most viewer appeal? Is Gordon Ramsey watched because people love his food and his expertise, or because they love watching him be an asshole?
Let’s look at a recent example from the arena United States politics. Last year, in a moment of abnormal honesty, a major presidential candidate said “We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Almost immediately, she drew massive flak from her own party. She had every reason to believe she was just being truthful. The coal industry is in severe decline and a staggering number of jobs in the industry that once existed no longer do. (Observe the much-lauded new Acosta mine which has proven a less effective effort at creating jobs than opening a WalMart.) Short of a communistic governmental takeover of industry, those jobs are not coming back. Any candidate saying otherwise is either lying for votes or severely out of touch with reality. Both progress and the free market have spoken (and you need only look at my Afterthoughts on “Forever Filly” to know my stance on people who stubbornly try to speedbump progress).
But that does not in any way change how many people are struggling to find employment or whose lives have been hurt by the decline of this once-major industry. People are suffering. So even if what she said was true, the way she said it was, at best, callous. Consider how many ways she could have approached her topic in a positive way. There was no need to be egregiously insensitive. And if that was the reason her party was upset, I would have cheered them, because she needed to be called out on that. Unfortunately, shamefully, a great many of them were instead upset that she openly spoken an inconvenient truth that would cost votes. (And before anyone tries excusing or mitigating her behavior by contrasting her to her competition, let me stop you right here: integrity is not graded on a curve. Civility shouldn’t be either.)
Misuse of honesty, whether through intent to hurt or apathy towards other virtues, and people’s tolerance for such misuse, is a crisis of virtue in this world that has reached the scale of a pandemic. If I have one gripe about this episode, it is only that it took seven seasons for the show to tackle the issue.
art by GaelleDragons
In “Honest Apple”, Applejack allows herself to be put into the role of a critic. The episode does well to make her decision to accept the role a difficult one, pointing out the reasons for her not to do so while having those around her emphasize her honesty to the point that it is understandable that she would ground herself in it when it came time to criticize. But while her criticisms had a degree of merit, her behavior did not. Right from the beginning, she was hurtful in her comments. And the more full of herself she became thanks to her perception of her opinion’s merit, the more distressing and harmful her tactics became. Eventually, she drove everyone away and ruined a project that was going to be socially beneficial.
I have run into this behavior, as have many of you, from people who claim they are just offering an “honest critique”, or who try to use honesty as a free pass to be malicious. As I talked about in my blog Regarding Criticism:
A bad critic's goals are usually to make themselves feel good by trashing your work, to promote their own work, to play to an audience for laughs, or to insult or attack you. Such comments are not an act of generosity, but usually stem from pride or envy or cruelty. Listening to them is likely to do you more harm than good. So don't, no matter how starved for feedback you may feel.
[del]
Some critics will claim that even if their behavior is vile, their advice might still be useful or their opinion valid. Even if this is true, it does not matter. Even if a river of feces might contain a diamond, you are not required to jump in and swim through it in an effort to find that diamond. Nor are you under any obligation to give the river's contents the benefit of the doubt.
The episode does a great job in swiftly but effectively teaching both Applejack and the viewers how wrong this behavior is. Honesty is not a free pass to throw tact in the garbage. Honesty is not an excuse to be unkind. And the purpose of honesty is not to make you feel good by making others feel bad.
art by InuHoshi
And yet, a great many of us fall victim to the horrible misconception that because honesty is a virtue, it can and even should be used this way.
Let me admit a personal fault in this area. I was recently pulled into the office of our newest new manager for a frank discussion. (For those who remember my Afterthoughts on “Flutter Brutter”, this is our second new manager since that one. My place of employment is a joke.)
What had I done wrong? Over the last few years, I have grown increasingly frustrated with problems that occur because other employees repeatedly ignore policies or perform procedures in a half-assed fashion. (Worse, the lack of proper management has allowed this situation to degrade.) Eventually, my nightly reports became filled with variants of “Employee X did Y wrong. Again! Knock it off!” Guess what: that doesn’t help. As the newest manager rightly reprimanded me, all my logs were doing was putting others on the defensive, and reading something like that first thing in the morning is demoralizing, not instructive.
I don’t expect this to be an easy habit to break… especially since the frustration that fuels it is still very much present. But this is a behavior that I need to change.
Likewise, when Applejack was shown the error of her ways, she took the initiative to not only improve herself but try to undo the damage she had done. Bravo.
I have to give high marks to Rarity in this episode. Her initial desire to have Applejack as a judge, while misguided, was born of a rather remarkable ideal: the desire for a judge who sees things from an outsider perspective, who speaks to practicality, and whose honesty guarantees a fair and trustworthy voice. Her shock at the callousness of Applejack’s viewpoints, to the lack of empathy and consideration that her friend was showing, was well evoked. Rarity knows that being respectful is never in conflict with being truthful. She had every reason to expect better from her friend.
Rarity’s response was perfectly and succinctly aimed. By introducing Strawberry Sunrise, Rarity went right to the heart of Applejack’s pride, and delivered a lesson that the apple farmer would have to be blind to miss. Again to Applejack’s credit, she didn’t need to be shown more than once. Again, to both, bravo.
art by Powdan
Sadly, because this is an episode that I didn’t particularly enjoy watching and don’t plan to watch again, this tidbits section will be unusually sparse. But…
Apples and Strawberries:
I liked how Applejack, Pinkie Pie and even Big Macintosh questioned the idea of Applejack being a judge for a fashion show. This episode echoes of “Fluttershy Leans In” reminding us of the importance of choosing the right person for the job. Making a choice based on virtue (such as honesty or loyalty) rather than capability is going to lead to trouble. Ideally, your choice should have both virtue and appropriate competence.
Apple Bloom’s hat was adorable, if impractical… at least while it had the ribbon tying it down. (It became a generic western hat when the ribbon was removed.)
Lilly Lace had a beautiful pony design. Also, beautiful dress designs. Sadly, I found her voice grating. Star Streak felt like a parody. But Inky Rose… gawd damn! I know she’s just a goth stereotype, but I’d want to wear dresses by Inky Rose. Every day. (...except maybe in high summer, because that would get hot.)
I loved the role of Strawberry Sunrise. The extreme apple-centered lifestyle of the Apples has long provoked questions on how they interact with ponies with alternate lifestyles fruits. I’m bad and I should feel bad.
art by FanaticPanda
Heh, alternate fruits.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks are pretty much a role model for my view on politics. He and many others risked and still risk their own lives to bring the truth that PEOPLE need to see about the governments they elect.
If there is someone in this world who deserves to be a bearer of the Element of Honesty - it's him. Wikileaks bring out all the truth without editing the info or choosing sides - the main goal is to get the truth out there.
And despite all of this he is still being treated by the media as a crook and a criminal. Tells you all you need to know about the state of MSM in those days.
World needs more people like Assange, Snowden, Manning, Seth Rich (yes, I believe that he paid with his life for the truth even if no one will ever prove it) and numerous anonymous leakers who help to shed a light on the shady and corrupt dealing of the people wanting us to trust them.
Comey's only problem is that he is a hypocrite. He should have done the same he did with Trump conversation but in July 2016 when Loretta Lynch approached him and directly interfered in the Clinton investigation and asked him to call it publicly "a matter" instead of "investigation". I think he should testify to that as well - the more people will be brought to justice the better. Be it Trump, Clinton or whoever else. Law is a law.
I liked Assange's offer for Comey to work for Wikileaks - can you imagine how much the guy knows about the real state of politics on the Capitol Hill? Would be a great addition if he is actually willing to be a leaker.
And now enough of politics and straight to the episode:
AJ is my favourite pony, always was. It was a bit hard to watch her being so rude and harsh towards the others. Yet it's entirely in her chatacter to get carried off and miss important telltale signs that something is going the wrong way. Glad that Rarity was there to give her a perfect example instead of rushing off offended - and Applejack, as you said, got it straightaway and rushed off to fix the things.
Not the best episode but a very good morale.
As for the small details:
Lilly Lace felt a bit too contemporary for the show since she was clearly a parody of the modern day twitter girls who literally use the word "literally" too much.
Rarity's frustration rock was really fun too.
Inky Rose did have a great design.
P.S. Don't know if it has been discussed but what do you think of AJ being the element of Honesty? I always felt that "Honesty" is not exactly the world to describe her virtue. For the lack of the better word her element is "Trust" or "Trustworthiness" or "Reliability". That's why in the very first episodes of Season 1 she asked Twilight to trust her blindly and release the hooves - truth has nothing to with it but trust and reliablilty.
She is the pony that you can rely on, to put your shoulder on, the one pony that won't let you down and will always hold her promise. She is always there for her friends, for her family and for the things she believes are right. In some way she is even more of Loyalty element that Rainbow Dash.
Would love to hear your thoughts/opinion on this.
And this is why I have a lot of respect for you.
As usual this was a nice blog!
Ohhhhh the joys of dealing with co-workers that don't do things right and leave it for everyone else to clean up. Such fun. Know that feeling well.
Still great, spot on thoughts as always.
Though this..... it is because he will tear into idiots, but he's not an asshole just to be an asshole, if he's tearing into someone it's because they royally screwed up in ways that could hurt someone, and/or refuse to admit they screwed up, Or worse, try to blame someone else. He only reams out those that need it. Just look at how he deals with kids on the Jr version, always calm, patient, understanding, helpful and never loses his temper at them.
And yes Inky Rose was best new Fashion Horse!
Think the episode spoke to me on the levelk that even if you do not necessarily appreciate or understand a concept, like fashion, line dancing, or writing, does not mean you should not, or are unable to, respect it.
Applejack does not udnerstand fashion, but she grew to understand the effort and hard work behind it, and grew to respect it. And this comes from a guy who honestly, can be really, really judgemental and a bit biting with his criticism. Applejack hit at me on a few notes there. Still, one can respect effort. And all three of those artists used a lot of effort.
Also i think inky rose has become a fan favorite. She is gorgeous and amusing :P.
....... Bringing up politics, i find that it has to b e a mixture for me. Both persona and political nature....... Generally the politics have ot have generally beneficial things.
The guy i wanted was Bernie Sanders. Because he seemed to either have well hidden skeletons, or non at all, in his closet, has an entire career of being consistent, was honesetly boring as dirt and dry and desert glass and thus was not being flamboyant, but most of all, was ACTUALLY doing someothing that related to his policies to prove he meant what he meant, making that the majority of his campaign funds came from public donation.
I wanted the dry ass bone of an old man who was actually showing he meant what he meant..... Also he was up Hillary's ass the entire election. Inspite of clear disadvantages.
The absolute worst way you could ever get involved with politics. Your story has characters that exemplify why you should never cast your vote this way, yet you apparently did not take that hint.
4576210 Agreed. "Oh, they're a nice guy!" doesn't make up for someone whose political views are utter shit.
Jimbo Comey, "honest". Yeah, that's a good'n.
Woo, I needed that.
I'll say this, KKat...you always know how to make me laugh.
4576210 4576358 You seem to confuse "character" with "charisma". Red Eye is charismatic, yes. But the story reveals explicitly the flaws in his character, including the corruption of his dominant virtue. Red Eye is a great example of why you should never vote proclaimed policies and rhetoric over quality of character.
What happens when you chose politics over character in the real world? Let's look at Trump. The man is utterly, totally devoid of virtue. He doesn't have a single positive quality to his character whatsoever. But he may have (at some point) a political stance that you agree(d) with. Well, now his party has been in total control of the government, having all three branches -- literally as good as it can get for someone to enact those policies you consider more important than character -- for five months, and what does he have to show for it? Virtually nothing, and what little there is largely is bad. The entire presidency is a shit-show of lies, absurdity, misbehavior and the investigations that come of it. In the struggle to show anything positive, the one thing that the administration tries to point to as a victory is the economy. And what does he have to claim there?
He claims jobs created. But the numbers are really not impressive, and the vast majority of jobs created that Trump claims credit for were in the works before the administration changed and would have happened no matter who won. He claims a rollback of a great many of the previous administration's regulations. Guess what: every time the White House changes parties, there are rollbacks of the previous administration's regulations. The fact that he has rolled back so many says a lot more about how much the previous administration got done than what his is accomplishing. He points out that unemployment has gone down. Unemployment has been steadily declining since early in the previous administration's tenure thanks to policies they put in place. The rate of this decrease hasn't improved under the new administration. So all Trump can claim credit for is not fucking it up. Yet. His economic victories have not been completely falsified (looking at you, TPP), but when you take away everything he shouldn't get any credit for, what is left is damn feeble.
Why? Because even in the best conditions, enacting your agenda isn't exactly easy, there are checks and balances in place, and there is always going to be significant opposition.
Hooray. You sacrificed voting for someone who had a shred of human decency so you could get "damn feeble". Yay for you. Me, I'd rather vote for someone who can serve as a role model, who is worthy of respect, and whom I can trust to actually have the positions he or she claims whether I agree with it or not.
4576456
I may be wrong, but I think they were referring to the Mane 6 and how, despite their good intentions, they made decisions with terrible consequences down the line. That’s how I understood it.
The thing is that character alone (how virtuous they may be, or appear to be) is no guarantee of a person’s actions or legislative ability. Party affiliation matters less, since good or bad politicians can come from anywhere, but a legislator’s voting record and stance on policy issues – when it’s consistent – is paramount in determining what good (or otherwise) they might affect once they’re in office. Someone who’s well-intentioned is still a problem if they end up doing the wrong things for the right reasons.
It’s why it kills me that so many people looked at both Trump and Clinton and figured, “They’re both bad, so I’ll vote for neither.” Do they truly imagine, even for a minute, that if Clinton were in the Oval Office now, the country would be in a tenth the shambles it is? I’m no fan of hers – she’s a war hawk, a corporate and bank shill, bizarrely secretive, and so on – but she still has a solid head on her shoulders, she knows how the gov’t works (an important trait in someone who wants to be in charge of it), and most of all, she advocated for (most of) the right things – environmental protection, LGBTQ protections, gender equality, reproduction rights, higher minimum wage, etc.; basically, on the issues, she was practically a liberal’s dream.
Her opponent was a fundamentally ridiculous and appalling man who was proudly and loudly opposed to all those things.
And people couldn’t decide whom to vote for.
In the end, you look at the likely consequences – which politician is likely to engender the most good and inflict the least harm. And on that basic, the choice was more than clear.
I know that voting for someone who doesn’t represent everything you want isn’t fun or ideal. But if enough people had done so anyway, the US might not be entering a four-year-long dark age right now. (Because even if Trump is somehow ridden of – impeached, for instance – the next man up is even worse. Only thing worse than an idiotic villain is a competent one.)
It feels weird to disagree with you, Kkat, since you’re usually resoundingly right about things. But I just can’t agree with you here. I hope none of this comes across as confrontational; that’s not at all my intent.
4576736 Don't worry. I can understand your point. Both in matters of competence and character, if required to choose between the two, the choice was clear. However, I reject the "you have to vote for X or you are actually voting for Y" mentality. I vote for the person that I vote for, no one else. And I need to be able to stand by my decision and not be ashamed of it.
I'm also jaded enough to know that my vote really counts only to myself. Maybe if I lived in major swing state, this would be different. But the reality is that my vote has no influence on the election. It only has influence on my integrity.
The man I voted for was insufficiently experienced and sometimes downright goofy. I didn't agree with several of his policies. But I am confident that he would have been better in the office than either of the mainstream choices. And that his deficiencies would have at worst been mitigated by the established checks and balances, or more likely corrected through his own efforts as he had both the humility to learn and the selflessness to serve.
He had no real chance to win. That didn't matter. I voted for the candidate that I would have wanted most to see in office.
I never cared for her. She doesn't achieve the same loathing I have for Velvet or Fluttershy or disdain for say Go fish or Pinachle of fifty two pick up of whatever that worthless skags name is for PH, but still... she seemed to me to be more using Pip then any actual love, or was more in love with an ideal. And Pip... she was getting her box stamped by someone moderately attractive, and being young was naturally a shallow idiot, so of course she was blind to it.
As for the show... meh. Theres honesty then theres frankness to the point of absurdity. Why was AJ even there, she seems to have dick diddly to do with that line of work so maybe not the best choice
4576456
4576456 Oh, I agree about Donnie J. I supremely dislike Trump; he's not tough enough at all, and he has surrounded himself with the type of people he swore he was going to kick out.
However, when you reach the point that I have and believe that the system is suffering from irreparable mechanical failure (failure that was built-in and hardwired, no less), you realize that all the candidates were crap, the current political system is crap, our pattern with foreign policy is crap, and our economy is crap, and you can't pile crap on top of crap that has a nice foundation of crap and expect anything but crap.
Oh, sure, you can put perfume on it, but then what do you get?
Crap with a nice hint of floral tones.
However, crap is crap, and eventually the stink wears through.
When you hit that point and realize that we are operating with a system that cannot be fixed, no matter whom we elect (and indeed, actively fights being fixed, and fights damn well), then you can have fun.
I voted Trump and enjoyed seeing him elected for one reason and one alone.
He infuriates...no...enrages...Leftists, Progressives, and Left-leaning Republicans (and I have severe disdain for nearly all Republicans, inb4 you call me one of those) of all stripes.
And it is b-e-a-yootiful.
And to be fair (and you like being fair, don't you, KKat?), the Republicans inhabiting Congress...not many are friendly to Trump; how many of them are sworn NeverTrumpers who are digging their heels in at the very thought of cooperating with the man? So of course they are balking at getting anything he wants done.
Don't matter to me in the end; this whole thing is a completely amusing exercise in absurdity.
I assume (and do forgive me if I'm wrong) you speak of Crazy Uncle Bernie, yes?
You mean the same guy who seems unable to grasp basic economic theory, a lá most Socialists?
Little Mister "Free Stuff Even Though The Country Technically Has No Money"?
The same guy who says he's for the little people and represents the working man's best interests, and then went out and bought himself a consolation beach house after the election?
The same guy who claims to know what it is like for us working blue collar jobs, and yet has only worked in government jobs for nearly his entire adult life?
Talk about a shill; I could go on, if you like?
Besides being a Socialist slimerag, he's as greasy as Trump and Clinton.
The only respect I have for him is that a) at least he's...somewhat...honest about what he is (he actually admits being a Socialist), and b) he made that witch Hillary squirm and actually work and sweat a bit for once in her miserable, evil life.
What amazes me is that people who love him can't see that he's just as bad as Clinton and Trump and Obama and Romney and Bush and...well, the list goes on, but he's just as bad as they are when he waxes on and on about how "just like us" he is.
And those who supported him actually...freaking...bought that.
So while I can somewhat agree with you when you say you'd rather vote for someone with a shred of integrity, I must say that, if that was your standard, you were better off staying home and eating some popcorn, because there weren't none.
And if you vote for someone with integrity, yet their politics oppose yours...uh...good for you? Have a brownie, I guess? You're a better human being than most people, even though that makes no sense?
The problem with that viewpoint is that it's emotional claptrap, a way for people to get spiritual chicken tendies and warm fuzzies from others without really doing anything.
It's the equivalent of saying that you care more about the poor than anyone, yet you only send a check once a month to the local food pantry and never actually get your hands dirty in the soup kitchen or talk to the alleydwellers while handing out winter clothes.
If the person is a nice guy, but with utterly stupid political views, then you shouldn't vote for them just because they're nice. That's how you get people like Justin Trudeau in office, whom everyone from Canada that I have talked to agree, both Left and Right, that he is a wonderful person, but a horrid politician, eh?
It would be like electing a Diamond Dog as Mayor of Ponyville if their platform was "Get lot of Ponies to dig for gems for Dogs all day".
The platform is shit, but hey; they are being honest about it! They've got integrity!!1!
Saying that you vote for the honorable (if politically misguided) politician is nonsense, especially if the candidate's political stance is diametrically opposed to yours.
And in fact, I'm going to call you on the spot with this point of view.
I get the feeling, KKat, that you are a Leftist (or Progressive or whatever); no surprise to me, in all honesty, what with your statements regarding progress for progress' sake being somehow a good thing, but I digress.
If...IF...Donald Trump were to be as honest and honorable as the day was long, more so than Bernie or Hillary...yet still held to his campaign platform...
Would you vote for him?
And don't reflexively answer.
Think about it.
Think long, and think hard.
4576456
In a way I sort of agree with you. For a while I was disinterested in the rage surrounding Trump, which felt like nothing but rhetorical clutter from the opposing party. But then I heard about his dirty dealings in Scotland, and that convinced me that it's totally immoral to even consider voting for someone who is willing to evict people from their homes just to set up a luxury resort. I need not mention how and why my distaste for him had grown since.
Beyond that, however, it's more of a semantic debate then. There have been politicians who were absolutely wonderful even as characters, but their policies were still atrocious. This is because quite often the politician is completely disconnected from said policies, and are little more than a face you put on the TV screen for the voters to look at, which means you are better off paying attention to their party affiliation (since you're not just putting that one person in power). At the same time, it's not irrelevant who you put in the big chair either, since the right person can and will have influence on policy. And no matter how you look at it, they were the ones placed into a position of responsibility, so they should be indictable for any crimes that take place.
tl;dr Vote based on awareness of the bigger picture. Politicians don't operate in a vacuum.
4576935
So you think it's worth electing a guy who intends to destroy the environment and risk escalating conflicts all the way to a nuclear war, all because it was funny to watch "leftists" be upset?
So, are you saying that Appejack was out of character or what?
4576941 I think it's going to happen anyway; Hillary was hellbent on going to war with Russia (over Syria, of all things) just to gove us an enemy that she could be seen as fighting against and winning (unlike the smoke-ghost of Global Terrorism, which we will never beat), and Bernie would have led us deeper into financial ruin, and how would that be good for anyone, let alone the environment, and imagine the rioting that would happen as a result.
Nothing we do is going to change this because the system is broken; hell, I'd even argue the other way, the system is working the way it has been designed to.
Might as well enjoy the collective Left gnashing their teeth.
But for the sake of argument...
In what way is he going to destroy the environment? By withdrawing from the Paris Accords, which were nothing more than a political circlejerk that had no real teeth to them anyway? Spare me.
And how would Trump be any worse than Obama or Hillary as far as "conflict escalation" is concerned?
Hell, those two pretty much had a free hand in the Middle East to fix the damage Dubya had wrought (although putting "Clinton" and "fix" within the same ballpark as the other should make anyone shudder in fear).
One Arab Spring later and the "JV Team" is running riot, Libya is a hellhole, Syria ain't much better, Turkey is at the mercy of a dictator (Ataturk would be rolling in his grave if he knew), and Europe is rocked on a near-weekly basis by attack and scandal, and mark my words, we haven't seen the last of it yet; it's only a matter of time before we get something here, too.
As for Bernie? Economic illiteracy aside, did he even have a plausible foreign policy?
Let me tell you something, as an historian. Time is a big circle; the particulars may not be the same, but you realize (when you look at it objectively) that everything tends to repeat itself. What we are looking at is the same set of events that led to the Fall if Rome and the Dark Ages.
Nothing we do, at this point, is going to amount to diddly-squat. No matter who we elect, the DC Machine is going to make sure that they either get in line or are rendered so ineffective as to be nothing more than a butt to occupy a seat in an oval room of the White House or in a chamber at Capitol Hill, and that's if they don't get assassinated like Kennedy was.
It doesn't matter who we vote in, either President, Senator, or Representative.
We are peasants, and they are the aristos; some might be nice, but they are outnumbered by the assholes, and you can count on all but a handful of them to be unintelligent, self-absorbed, and completely ethically constipated because they have no moral fiber.
We The People haven't had any real power over them for decades because We The People allowed the DC Machine to be created in the first place. By previous generations not taking their civic duty seriously, and by allowing a self-sufficient machine to be created so they wouldn't have to bother with onerous responsibilities, they sowed the wind, and now we, their children, must reap the whirlwind.
And there is nothing we can do about it.
So excuse me while I sit back and watch the collapse of the American Empire and laugh at my enemies when they get hit by falling masonry.
It's been a long-assed time coming.
4576935
Many elements of Donald Trump's campaign platform itself were dishonest and dishonorable. If you had a candidate who actually stood for many of the policies that Trump claimed to, but who not only had unimpeachable quality of character, consistency of position, a background of fair and honest dealings, humility and grace... and who didn't employ within his campaign platform stances that are grounded in deep character flaws or moral bankruptcy...
Then it wouldn't look all that much like Donald Trump's campaign platform. Gone would be the racism, the islamophobia, and with it the repulsive rhetoric like the Wall and the Muslim Ban. You would mostly be left with his economic policies. And while I disagree with some of those, I absolutely would consider voting for the opposite-of-Trump figure described in the paragraph above. (Still might have gone for my guy, but that would have given him serious competition.)
A reason that shows severe failure of character and that a decent person would be deeply, gruesomely ashamed of. I'm not a fan of bullies, sadists or sociopaths.
When did misanthropy become the common cultural touchstone in talks about politics?
I guess it would be since the dawn of time since rule by the strongest was the law of the land and people below them would wish death on them, but I would've thought that we'd be beyond that by now. Some things don't change, I suppose. I wish that politics were less about hating one party more and instead going with the one your stances align with the best. I've lost count how many liberals either abstained because they felt like either way, they were screwed or lied to. I'm guessing that some conservatives were the same way. Maybe they're both right, but I don't think it's really productive to be cowed into submission like that.
I'm also guessing that's why this fatalism showed up. This, "I'm going to watch the world burn and eat popcorn as people get hit in the falling rubble this empire is leaving as it crumbles to the ground." It's nonsensical. You live under that roof, you're going to get squashed too. And it won't be funny. People on the internet should be invested in keeping infrastructure alive, since the internet cannot exist without infrastructure. People who say that the government can do nothing to help, and has water in their faucets that you can drink that others /even in the country I live in/ cannot, should think about if they evaluate their safety that low that they want it all to stop. I admit, I'm afraid for the future. As an embarrassing note, I found myself looking up the prices for underground bunkers or barrels of corn and beans. They're, uh. Expensive.
But actually getting to the point of the episode, I wish people could talk to each other about their needs without getting all wrapped up in this 'Us versus Them' shit. I used to think that all this talk about needing to unite and come together for the better good thing was just the right's attempt to cow submission, but I reconsidered. Maybe instead of seeing people who think differently as an emotional enemies who must be defeated is a fallacy, and maybe we should just see them as... Well, people who are trying to also there to try to help people, too that are intelligently opposed. And maybe that's wrong too, but it's better than the former.
Just so that these aren't hollow words, I'm putting this out there. On July 12, there's going to be a day of effort to try to act against the FCC's change of the internet as a service being moved from Title 2 to Title 1 and threats to Net Neutrality in general. I'm not 100% sure what that'll include other than maybe picketing some buildings or signing a lot of petitions, two things I have no real faith in, but I at least want to say I put in something of an effort to try to hold /that/ up. Thing is, I literally cannot conceive of why someone would want to oppose that. I'd sincerely love to hear why.
4577177
Oh, good lord, not McMullin or Johnson...?
However you want to justify it, sweetcheeks.
Oh, dear. Racism. How <yawn> awful.
Not irrational to fear a death cult or the supposed "majority of moderates" who don't seem to feel an overbearing need to stop the supposed "radical minority" from doing what they do best.
Other countries enforce their borders, often with walls, fences, and military presence (who just might have orders to shoot to kill). I don't see how merely having a wall (which is not likely to happen anytime soon, if at all) is repugnant to you...unless you believe that the United States is a "proposition nation" and therefore free bounty to anyone who decides they want to squat here.
Besides that, an enforced border would be a kindness to illegal aliens and their country of origin.
Axe me how. Go ahead.
President's prerogative. The PotUS dictates foreign policy, including immigration policy. If he wants to ban bald, lefthanded male Scientologists from Madagascar for no other reason than that they all had the number 57 tattooed on their scrotum, then that is his right.
What cannot be denied is that there is a problem with violent terrorism in the West, and for the most part, they seem to be coming from the Islamic sectors of our populations (with a handful of notable exceptions). It only makes sense to establish bans on travel from certain areas of the world until we can figure out what is going on.
I'd be saying the same thing if the Sicilian Mafia or the American factions of the IRA was bombing cities here as well. It isn't "racism" (again, yawn), or any of the nonsense "-phobia" terms; it is common sense.
I have often been told, since I was young, to beware of whose approval I gain; if people I find morally repugnant or just plain wrong think I'm a good person, then I must be doing something wrong, myself.
The fact that you are disapproving of me tells me that I am on the right path.
4577222
Well, I do think that ends the conversation, doesn't it. I really think it best if we went our separate ways then. Best of luck to you.
Politics! The adhesive and solvent that glues together or dissolves the bonds that keeps a large group of people together to form a nation. (Edit: Eh, maybe it's unwise to share my political views. Certain arguments and debates passing through congress have been giving me a headache. And t certainly doesn't seem like that is going to change through the next few years.)
As for the episode; I have to admit it's kind of a slippery slope to me. So many ways you could look at an honest answer to a question or an observation. Indeed, 'Tanks for the memories' showed how hard it can be to accept some harsh truth and how not accepting them can be worst then accepting the the truth of the matter at hand. Fluttershy putting her hoof down was a necessary path to take to get Rainbow Dash to accept what was coming.
But at the same time, truth shouldn't be a means of a person to weasel out of social obligation to maintain a polite and candor communication with another. So when I see Applejack going around and giving her honest opinions about the clothes she doesn't think much about, I can't help but laugh when Rarity takes them to see Strawberry Sunrise. It not only mirrors the situation that they just went through, it also keeps Applejack as a bit of the aggressor in the conversation. Thus not giving Applejack any form of traction to dig herself out of the embarrassing scene she put herself through.
4577204
Sorry, brah; you're asking for Mankind to change its most basic nature, and that ain't gonna happen.
Hatred is a virtue, man; the brighter your love of something, the hotter your hatred against anything that opposes it. Love without hatred is cold and passionless, like a fluorescent light; hate without love is dark and directionless, like a space heater.
"Submission"?
"Fatalism"?
My dude, you fail to realize something; people like me and Andy aren't submissive or fatalistic or anything of the sort.
We are the ascetics, aligned against the decadence and corruption of the modern world.
We are the aristocratic souls, diametrically opposed to the materialistic moneygrubbers that society has become. To the modern person, nothing is worse than death, and nothing is better than wealth. To the aristocratic soul, slavery and dishonor are worse than death, and honor and freedom outstrip wealth.
We live for the moment and accept our place in it, rebels against the modern pseudo-understanding of Being, that everything is transparent and can be planned around and controlled. Life occurs where Death is not, and when Death happens, Life is no more, and Death may happen at any time, with no warning, more than a mere possibility, but a probability. We accept this, and it makes us free.
We refuse to give to our inferiors in society without reward until we are husks, dry and lifeless and tired, only for the masses to swarm us demanding more when we have nothing left to give. Giving away food will not fill your belly, and pure idealism cannot feed the soul.
We're Heath Ledger's Joker, himself a form of Nietzsche's Übermensch, wise to the folly of the schemers around him, ascended beyond any fear of death as he taunts the forces of the crumbling empire to crush him, daring them to do their worst in their epoch's final spasmodic twitches.
Hang ten and surf the Kali Yuga, my dude!
Who said anything about us being crushed as well? If one realizes one is living in unsafe environs, one moves out! Granted, we are still likely to suffer some damage, but to the well-prepared individual, such wounds will be superficial.
And besides, even if we did go with them, mighty Samson of Old Testament lore probably had a smile on his face when he brought the temple down upon the men who warred with his people, enslaved him, plucked out his eyes, and treated him like an animal for sport, and he died alongside them.
Oh, no. There won't be any interwebz. Whatever shall we do.
Read books?
Seriously, though; once the withdrawal ends and we re-learn how to live without it, we won't care too much.
Miss it, yes.
Honestly give a rip?
Not likely.
Well water, my dude. I lie on a completely independent water system, with several non-grid backups in place.
Don't be afraid, be prepared.
Why would you be embarrassed?
And don't to barrels; do large sacks, around 50lbs each. Less expensive, and you can buy containers at your leisure. With what you are looking at is the price they are charging for putting it in a container (the barrels).
As for underground bunkers, those are easy to DIY.
Again, you are telling people to change a basic part of their survival nature, bro. Not likely to happen. We are likely to look out for our ingroup/tribe before any outsiders.
Look, this is all well and good, but consider this; the only group of people who tend to think like this on a macro level (and on a long-term micro level) are Westerners, and even then, we aren't good at it. Very little of the rest of the world is this altruistic for even short amounts of time...and I am starting to think that this is why they have stuck around as long as they have. They watch out for Numero Uno, and that is that...and by God, it works for them.
...wait, are you PRO NetNeutrality, bro?
4576954
HANG TEN AND SURF THE KALI YUGA, BRO!!!!
4577177
Hey, neither are we. Hence the antagonism toward the Left and their allies.
No disrespect meant, of course.
Also, it's less sadism and more schadenfreude, which is a big word from the world's angriest-sounding language that means the delicious little feeling you get from watching someone you don't like slip on a banana peel, and you feel horrible for liking it.
Sadism is what the DNC probably engage in while Spirit Cooking.
Or is that pederasty...?
4577222
4577233
Hey, come on, you two; we may hate each other politically (and possibly would in person, yes), but at least we got Ponies, right?
And Fallout!
And Fallout with Ponies!
Speaking of which, KKat, any plans on more FO:E stuff?
Oh, and Andy, you do any more modding your New Vegas game?
4577403 You'll have to talk to Andy on his own page or through PMs, I'm afraid.
People who have followed me for a while know that I don't care if you consider yourself liberal or conservative or any flavor of political. We'll hopefully still be able to find points we agree on. (And I guarantee there will be ones we don't.) I don't care what sexual orientation you have or what gender you identify with. I don't care what religion you consider yourself to be. But I very much care about behavior, so I do care if you proudly self-identify as an asshole. If you openly assert that you don't care about being civil and have no intention of holding yourself to standards of decent behavior, you identify yourself as someone whose company I do not wish to keep nor consider welcome on my blog. Andy's block has been some time coming.
Oddly I find it interesting that Rarity was able to play electric guitar on what appears to be a ukulele. The whole scene reminds me of the episodes that Rarity was bouncing around like Pinkie Pie in Manehatten and the scene from another episode where the CMC took part in a talent show or were Rarity in another episode talked about how she earned her Cutie mark.
I've been finding myself wondering if Pinkie is robbing off on Rarity or if Rarity might have picked up quite a few skills in other arts in pursuit of her career?
4577428
You know Kkat... I'll have to redact my previous statement. Andy dragged it out of me, so apologies, but I think this should be addressed.
He's wrong folks. There's a lot that can be done, though none of it political. As Kermit the frog says
4577428 Eh. Andy's my cousin; believe me when I tell you he really isn't this much of an ass.
It's funny...I'm the Fascist of the family, and he is usually a bigger jackwagon than me.
Problem with Andy is that he's only just recently realised that Conservatism is to Liberalism what rust is to fire.
Both are the same process; the one is just much slower than the other.
And Andy (pardon the semi-repetition there), having put his whole life, heart, and soul into loving his country and being a Conservative (IE, believing that just somehow culturally going back to the 50's will make everything a-okay), is reacting the same way a husband might when his best friend tells him that his wife is banging the whole neighborhood while hubby is away.
Short form...not well at all.
As per his revelation, he's gone, as we say on the Alt-Right, "blackpilled", which has three main settings; Apathy, Depression/Nihilism, and complete Rage (often with vacillation between them).
He's really a nice guy; he's just looking for something to lash out at, and while Leftists are a good start, he's not going about it the right way.
Namely, if he wants to smack Leftists around, FimFic ain't the place to do it, if only because internet trolling only rarey gives the same results (and satisfaction) that going to an Antifa rally and getting into a good ol' fashioned, redblooded, all-American Screaming Match with one of them does.
It's even more cathartic when the fisticuffs erupt, but that's just icing on the cake.
I'll be very surprised if he doesn't apologize within the next few days for coming onto your blog and stirring the antpile.
Either way, please accept my apology for the behaviour of a member of my family; he shouldn't have been an ass on your blog.
If it had been another blog, that would be a different story, but that's a different matter, innit?
And you didn't answer my question!
ARE THERE ANY PLANS A-BAKIN' IN THAT LITTLE OVEN SITTING ON YOUR SHOULDERS?!
4577593 With all due respect, and with as much civility as possible...
My cousin did not "drag" anything out of you. Was he standing behind you and holding a gun to your head? No? Then he did not force you to do anything. You did it on your own; take responsibility for your own decisions.
And as for the suggestions you made, Andy is a huge proponent of self-improvement, as am I. It is the only reason why we are confident enough to say that we are willing to watch the fall of the rotting building that the American Empire has become; we both live out of cities with our families, and are prepared to not only survive, but thrive.
You can't surf the Kali Yuga if you don't have a good board.
Hang ten, my dude.
This off-topic conversation is over. It has ceased to have anything to do with the content of the blog, even with the political example the blog contains.
The conversation has resulted in one individual being blocked. 4577739 The apology is accepted. Please now go about your business. I do not appreciate associates of a blocked individual perpetuating a discussion. I did not answer the question because I found it to be an obvious tack-on designed to mitigate response to why you were actually here (specifically, to argue on your cousin's behalf).
Thank you for writing these. These comments seem to have gotten a little bit heated, so I just thought I should say that I really love your blog posts, and think your examples are explained so well that I, despite not being American, can understand them.
I definitely agree that there's too much hypocritical tribalism in politics, but I think there are plenty of both well-intentioned politicians and those who wear good intentions as a mask whose policies would be disastrous.
My vote goes to whoever's policies and ideology I think will do the least damage.
With a couple of exceptions I'm generally cynical about politicians - or that the ones who claim to want to pursue what I see as a positive change will stick to their guns.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This episode was a bit of a downer for me as both the first Applejack episode of the season, and the first I'd call a bad episode. It is an important moral though.
I also really liked Rarity's idea to bring in an outside opinion, though from what I saw I'm not sure Applejack's opinions would have been seen as helpful even if she was respectful.
(They'd definitely be less hurtful at least.)
It just didn't feel respectful to her as a character with such an emphasis on a character flaw, Rarity pushing her into a role she didn't really understand, and how the resolution felt ethically dubious.
I appreciate that Applejack did everything she could to make things right, but it starting with a simpler apology rather than a sort of kidnapping would have been better in my opinion.
Learning moral lessons is part and parcel of MLP,