The Diamond Tiara Debate · 9:50pm Oct 18th, 2015
bookplayer wrote a very interesting blogpost, Agency and Character Development in Crusaders of the Lost Mark, arguing that "Crusaders of the Lost Marks" does a disservice to Diamond Tiara (DT)'s character, by blaming her having been a bitch on her mother. It's a really good blogpost, and the comments are good, too. Some of these comments became blog posts of their own, at least those from Aquaman, Inquisitor M, and ArgonMatrix.
(I still agree with bookplayer, though you have to keep careful track of what's being discussed to see when there are actually points of disagreement, and what they are. bookplayer's fundamental claim is that the DT arc is bad writing, and she uses a definition of "agency" that's useful for distinguishing good writing from bad. Avoid arguing over what "agency" means; just remember what she's talking about.)
Titanium Dragon's earlier? blog post says pretty much the same thing as bookplayer.)
I read several academic articles on bullying to figure out what I thought. The first thing I noticed was that when you find an article whose abstract or title says it's about the causes of bullying, it's about 30 times as likely to blame the victim as to blame the bully. For every article that asks why bullies bully kids, there are about 30 articles asking what victims do to be bullied. Some researchers seem not to believe there even are "bullies", but prefer to talk about "mobbing", the idea that the victim provokes an immune response from the community.
The next thing I noticed was that researchers initially had sympathetic ideas about bullies: that they became bullies out of poverty, or because they were bullied, or because they had low self-esteem. And when they asked children to say why bullies bullied other kids, the children gave similar sympathetic answers. But when they looked at real bullies, they were mostly just assholes: kids who were bigger, or had low empathy, or were more aggressive, or wanted to be in control. They weren't poor; results on low self-esteem were mixed; they were about twice as likely to have been bullied themselves, but that was still just 1 in 5 of them, and this "twice as likely" could have been mostly because boys are a lot more likely to bully and be bullied.
What's up for debate is why they became more aggressive, or why they wanted to be in control. One common reason given is that they're modelling aggressive behavior: if they see their parents or siblings being aggressive (with anyone), or they watch violent TV, or play violent video games, they're supposedly more likely to become bullies. (I didn't see any data, though.) A common explanation was that they had parents who were "often absent" or who gave "indifferent" or "inconsistent" discipline. (I have a sneaking suspicion this is a weaselly way to avoid saying that kids are more likely to become bullies if their parents never smack them. An academic would probably get fired if she said that.) There were also explanations that kids bullied other kids to get attention from their parents because they felt ignored, though I couldn't tell whether any real-life bullies had said that, or the researchers were just speculating.
This is a field where, if you aren't careful to look for cited sources and data, but just read pages you find with Google, 90% of them appear to me to be people making stuff up and saying what they want to believe. The other 10% did surveys or wrote down their impressions. I don't recall anyone with numeric observational data. No one even got numerical enough to begin factoring out genetics, so all claims about home environment are suspect.
TL;DR: If there's good data and a consensus based on it to explain why children become bullies, I didn't find it.
Also, when researchers (mostly in Scandinavia) ask adults why other adults bully them at work, they're not sympathetic at all. They say they're envious or jerks on power trips (if the bullies are their boss), or that it's strategic (if they're co-workers).
But in all the ruckus over bullies and agency, I don't want you to miss mylittleeconomy's wonderfully cynical realpolitik take on the episode. Now we know why My Little Pony uses ponies. It was all leading up to this.
3480190
From the point of view of lameness?
Sure, they're not particularly awesome (though after looking at them a bit more, there's a possibility that they might end up with those cutie marks changing a little bit in design - the central marks on their cutie marks blend into the mark, and it is possible - albeit unlikely - that there is some significance to that, and they are going to all discover individual special talents on top of their shared marks and have their cutie marks' central emblems change colors to be more noticeable).
But the thing is, it doesn't really negatively impact their characters - the fact that they have marks on their butts doesn't make them into different ponies, and while it cuts off a lot of interesting stories, there are other stories to be told with them (and there are some stories which can be told now based on their shared mark, and the significance of that, and how it might influence their lives otherwise).
The Diamond Tiara thing, however, both negatively impacts her character, diminishes her as a person, makes her much less interesting, and shows a general lack of care on the part of the show writers in terms of characterization, which IS bad (and has been a problem with Spike - it is bad to see it in Diamond Tiara as well).
It also shows a fundamental lack of empathy on the part of a large portion of the audience, I think, to suggest that they can't recognize her as being out of character - it means they never really understood her in the first place.
Incidentally, as far as bullying goes, I think showing bullies as people - and people with actual legitimate motivations, however horrible they might be - is actually helpful and useful. Moreover, I think giving bullies positive role models - i.e. people who think like them, but who decide to do good things - is potentially much more useful than telling them that bullying is wrong. Telling someone "If you do different things, you'll get better results" is probably more helpful in changing behavior than telling them "The way you think and feel is evil."
"...For every article that asks why bullies bully kids, there are about 30 articles asking what victims do to be bullied..."
And yet we will accept this as scientific, where if you were to do a rape study with the same conclusions, you might as well move to the arctic circle and change your name to avoid the inevitable social backlash. As a matter of personal opinion, bullies bully because they're arrogant jerks who enjoy a feeling of power over their victims, and tend to cluster with jerks of similar mental characteristics. They pick on the helpless because they want to win any conflict they stir up, and if the helpless band together (consider it a tribal response against a predator) to defend themselves, the bully will either go away (smart) or intensify their attacks (dumb). The smart ones we call Annoyances. The dumb ones we call Criminals, or in extreme cases, The Deceased Who Attempted To Carjack The Young Mother With a CCW Permit.
I can see *why* Diamond Tiara was 'redeemed' in this fashion: Time constraints preclude the normal arc of recognizing a character flaw through some tragic event, working to overcome it, and emerging as a new person/pony who then has to gain the trust of those he/she harmed before. Far shorter to blame society (Mom) with DT having been an unwitting dupe of her mother's desire for social status, and once she turns on her mother, her 'normal' attributes can come out. (and also allowing Hasbro to put the CMC and DT/Spoon in the same bubble packaging, on sale now for $14.95)
Personally (as a DT fan of sorts), I would have loved it if they did a two-part episode where the CMC/DT/SS went off to an 'event' of some sort where DT was bullied, the CMC go through their Schadenfreude phase, then do what is right by standing up for her regardless of the consequences (such as getting thrown out of the event), and a wary truce gets called between the warring parties. (thus allowing episodes where DT is an ally, and episodes where she's an opponant in the future). Maybe someday when I run a multi-billion dollar company...
3480320 "...But the thing is, it doesn't really negatively impact their characters - the fact that they have marks on their butts doesn't make them into different ponies, and while it cuts off a lot of interesting stories, there are other stories to be told with them..."
That's a terrifying thought:
Apple Bloom: Dont you worry, Pipsqueak, I think we figgured out what we did wrong the other fifty-seven times. This time we'll get your cutie mark for sure!
Scootaloo: Yeah, just guide your rocket-powered hang glider between the fire fountains, over the shark pit, and eject right before you hit the explosives.
Sweetie Belle: I lit the fuses on the rockets! Go, Pipsqueak! Go!
Pipsqueak: Help!
It wasn't so very long ago that homosexuality was considered a psychological illness, and its cause was usually attributed to one's mother. Either she was cold and distant, or overly involved and over-affectionate, or harsh and demanding, or--anything really. The point seems to have been to blame the mother.
(This was thought up not by ignorant, backward clodhoppers but by forward-thinking, degreed professionals. Which proves that education need be no impediment).
It seems we're back to the same reasoning in this episode. I don't know what anyone can do about it--except maybe make a Diamond Tiara-themed PMV of this:
(Please? Pleeeeeaaase?...)
3480484
The sad thing is, figuring out what causes you to become a target (so that you can avoid said behavior) is actually incredibly useful knowledge, because it is far easier to avoid circumstances which put you into a dangerous situation than it is to make people not be dicks. Or, to put it another way: you have more control over yourself than you do over others.
I think one thing that a lot of folks don't understand (and I suspect, don't want to understand) is that bullying is natural human behavior which is engaged in by pretty much everyone. The difference primarily stems from people who pick on people for sadistic reasons and people who pick on people for other, primarily hierarchical, reasons. A lot of people don't even recognize when they're engaging in the latter kind of behavior, but it is much more frequent (though it tends to be lower key and more temporary). Indeed, I suspect part of the reason that people who struggle socially end up getting picked on so much is that they not only set off the people who see them as easy targets, but they also send off cues that they are trying to assert social dominance and thus get pushed back into their place repeatedly.
Indeed, in some cases, some of the bullied folks are simply folks who are really bad at being socially dominant, and thus constantly challenge others and then get put back into their place. I'm sure many know the type of person who is a jerk who everyone hates.
This also explains why many people are unsympathetic to bullied folks; they're on the bottom of the social totem pole and thus are often perceived as deserving it.
Bullies, then, are either situational (you think they're a bully because they're unpleasant to you, but the behavior isn't actually that frequent) or outliers. The prototypical bully is likely to engage in the behavior for sadistic reasons rather than for reasons of social dominance, because they like to feel power over others, because their position is insecure and they constantly have to fend off "threats", or because they are socially inept and cannot recognize when it is unacceptable to continue to behave in that fashion.
Indeed, through the lens of social dominance, you could see Diamond Tiara's aggression towards the Cutie Mark Crusaders as being a result of her trying to assert her social dominance over a group of individuals who reject her status as being socially dominant. When they are good little underlings who are doing what she wants (Ponyville Confidential), or are in a position where they hold power over her that she can't bully away (Twilight Time), she behaves much more prosocially. When things aren't going her way, she immediately resorts to threats, insults, and blackmail. She resents authority figures telling her what to do (Cheerilee, her dad) but doesn't do anything more than verbally protest. She sees herself as socially dominant and when something or someone challenges that tries to regain her social dominance however she can.
She is sadistic - she likes hurting people - but it isn't the sole motivator for her behavior, and she's capable of keeping it under control when she's not in a situation where it is beneficial to her (or at least, not harmful to her).
Admittedly, this was always what I was hoping would happen: one of them would get their cutie mark, the others would worry about it breaking them apart, and then they'd realize that there was no reason why they couldn't keep doing the stuff they liked to do together, because it was fun!
And all the adults, who had been worrying about them all episode because they were all sad and depressed and worried that their friendships would fall apart for silly reasons, would be relieved... and then horrified as it means that the Cutie Mark Crusaders will never stop crusading.
3481299
To be fair, having freaky shared marks is potentially pretty special in and of itself. And there are ways of playing with the idea - if this sort of mark is extremely rare or unheard of, or if they end up coming to feel like they aren't special because they're not unique, or if they end up falling out as friends and worrying about what that means for their marks...
And to be fair, they're not actually identical marks, they're merely similar. All three of them have unique emblems on the tricolor shields.
I do think it's understandable to say Diamond's problems start at home, but the take on it with her father was much more subtle. In a single scene, you got an understanding of what Filthy Rich stood for, and how it could be taken the wrong way. And we know that Diamond Tiara took it the wrong way. With Spoiled, you we see how she acts, and we're just instructed that she imposes the same thing on Diamond. First off, this felt less creative than seeing how she adopted her father's methods. Secondly, I don't think it excuses Diamond's behavior. Children are more than just whatever an authority figure tells them to do. It still seems to me like DT got way to much of a kick from her actions, and put too much effort and creativity into her tormenting.
Perhaps it would have worked better if the story beats weren't going by so quickly. Like Magical Mystery Cure, musical numbers were used to expedite the storytelling, I didn't feel like I had to time for what I was being told to sink in.
For me, it was all the time spent with Diamond Tiara was the weak link of this episode, on the first watch anyway (I still haven't rewatched the entire episode yet). She ultimately was a vehicle for the Crusaders' development, and I can appreciate that. But on my first watch, I was feeling pretty tested. When the Crusaders talked about following her because she looked so down, my thoughts were "Eh, fuck her." I've seen and read stories about the perspective of bullies and villains before, done well. But a lot of times, that was the reader experiencing the bully's perspective. I didn't like this episode suggesting it's up the VICTIMS to reach out and empathize with the people hurting them. I was bothered by several guys in middle school, including two twin brothers. I overheard my parents talking later (they didn't want me to hear this) that their parents were separated, and the dad was a real loser. I thought that it stunk to be them, but I still went out of my way to avoid those two. I didn't feel safe around them. I also doubt bringing up their separated parents would actually have improved their disposition towards me.
But the special talent of the Crusaders is supposed to be working with people, so I guess it could be interpreted to work for them. Perhaps the show is being too ideal.
I will say that I really like bookplayer's breakdown of "agency," and agree this excuse of her mother doesn't do DT any favors. But I think the tail end of the episode managed to bring her farther than she's ever had before. She actually CHANGES instead of just being defeated and having a hissy fit. Once she decides to not go through with her plan to humiliate Pip, and then vents to her mom, she decides she's going to totally own her new role. She directs efforts to positive effect, is personally involved, and utilizes her connections/reveals her blackmail material to both mend some fences and benefit everyone. She does all this looking determined, and genuinely cheerful. It's clear that this is something she wants and embraces, even if the Crusaders opened the door. I feel like this fits the definition of agency perfectly.
3480770
Okay, even though I think what you're saying is that blaming the parent(s) is a cop-out that even educated social elites have fallen into, you might want to reword or clarify something; you were comparing bullying to homosexuality. You're right that for awhile, people have contested the 'origins' of both, but I think it's fair to say they would be very different. Wouldn't we agree that one of those two ISN'T a choice?
3481299
Hmmm... how about seeing if I see someone as a human being with problems, and one of those problems is being an arrogant jerk?
I did start to view the people who picked on me as three-dimensional (see above), but there are a few things to keep in mind. One, I was made privy to information some in society would have denied me (I know my parents didn't know I was listening). Two, the process of looking at them differently was made more when they eventually just left me alone by the time high school came around.
Can we agree it would be best that people didn't do that crap in the first place? I do believe that hardship is needed for growth, but I suspect that having those kind of encounters is what helped contribute to the nervous mindset I'm still saddled with today. My ability to empathize with people was made possible with practice, which might not have always gone well, but still had better intentions than the malicious and persistent activities of bullies.
3481338
No, I'm not comparing homosexuality to bullying. Christ, man-- excuse me, I mean "WTF bro?" Got to keep up with the times.
I'm saying that people--even and especially people who should, by their own estimation, know better--often blame any thing they find wrong in children on the mother. That's evil and dumb. Thinking of homosexuality as wrong is ALSO evil and dumb and I used that to show how evil and dumb the woman-blamers are.
Look, here's another example: in the 19th century, when only rich people could afford cribs for their children , poor people used to take their infants to bed with them. If the child died during the night, it was blamed on the mother--it was assumed that she had "overslept her baby," lain on top of it and smothered it-- despite the fact that the father was in the same goddam bed as well.
Then poor people were able to afford cribs and we discovered SIDS.
There--better example? Delete "gays," insert "dead babies." Perhaps you'll find that less disturbing.
The problem I have with how social issues such as bullying are perceived is how often people conflate "reasons" with "excuses."
I mean, it should be obvious that there is always a reason why people act the way they do. Maybe people bully because their parents don't discipline them enough or aren't affectionate enough or don't give them enough attention; maybe they do it because of various social pressures or work/school environments; maybe they do it because they have innately more aggressive, socially dominant, or less empathetic personalities. It's almost certainly a combination of factors that predispose some people towards bully-like behavior more than others, and any outside "solution" would almost certainly be a combination of actions taken by parents, schools/workplaces, victims, and anyone else related to the problem.
But the way people perceive issues like bullying tends towards one of two ways: they either place all the blame on the ones perpetrating the problem - in this case the bullies - or they place all the blame on the possible causes for their behavior - in this case, their parents, or schools, or nebulous social pressures or genetics.
The former demonizes them, usually implying that they're just "broken," undesirable, and evil, while also, by not looking at the causes of their behavior, gives no avenue that anyone can take to curb it. This is how characters like Discord (at least S2 Discord) are usually portrayed: evil for the sake of evil, and the only thing you can do is defeat them (or in the case of bullies, punch them in the jaw, socially humiliate them, or whatever).
The latter has the issue that - similar to Diamond Tiara in the recent episode - it victimizes the bully; it takes away their moral agency. It's all too easy to look at a situation and say "her home situation was bad and that's why she was a bully" and then simply pity her and try to rectify the original cause without holding her accountable for her actions, or assuming her even capable of doing anything to curb her own behavior.
That's the biggest problem of the "victim of nature and nurture" focus on original causes, I think. By making someone a victim, you take away both their culpability for their own behavior as well as their responsibility or, indeed, their ability to curb it. This kind of perception works to prevent new, positive behaviors from being enacted by the ones most capable of preventing bullying in the first place; in this case, the bullies themselves.
In my opinion, the best way to approach a social problem like bullying is, yes, to look at the root causes and see what outside actors can do to prevent it, but to also simultaneously hold bullies primarily responsible for their own behavior regardless of whatever outside circumstances might have led them to that behavior in the first place. Unless they are small children or otherwise mentally incapable of understanding the effect of their own actions, then they bear the greatest responsibility for curbing those actions, or else should face the greatest consequences for continuing them. This could imply seeking help for a bad home situation, removing themselves from whatever social situations are pressuring them to bully, redirecting their natural aggressiveness or competitiveness in a more constructive direction, or any number of other things.
(...Obviously older children bear less responsibility for their actions than adults do, but I think the same logic still applies. Even minors have moral agency and should be held accountable for their poor behavior, regardless of whether their parents may have pressured or enabled to do so.)
That's my view on the matter, anyway. I don't like it when "villains" are portrayed as soulless demons or helpless victims; I usually don't like it in fiction, and I never like it in real life. Real life bullies are just flawed human beings like the rest of us, and should be treated with all the sympathy and accountability that that entails. ~ Sable Tails
P.S. How is it that I always come across these blog posts, like, eighteen hours after they've been posted, and ten hours after all the discussion is already over? What's a guy gotta do to stay current, check his feed every ten minutes?
P.P.S. As always, I'm enjoying your blog posts, Bad Horse. Even if the subjects are sometimes a bit too esoteric for me to fully understand (*cough* computer programming *cough*), and despite not always agreeing 100% with your conclusions, I always appreciate the depth of thought that you put into them.