MLP Lincoln's Day (?) Show

[Dragon Ball Fan]

nand frustration with this kind of thing in this and other shows has only increased since I started watching Bobsheaux who hates this happening in kids' media, especially in the Alpha and Omega film series. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0XPzwmDL_qeZlR4JuX-VLQ

also, I've read comments that say showing characters getting punished would be out of place, ruin the passing, etc. But then, what was the point of showing Rainbow Dash being punished despite being personally forgiven in "Newbie Dash"?

[Trinary]

nand frustration with this kind of thing in this and other shows has only increased since I started watching Bobsheaux who hates this happening in kids' media, especially in the Alpha and Omega film series. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0XPzwmDL_qeZlR4JuX-VLQ

also, I've read comments that say showing characters getting punished would be out of place, ruin the passing, etc. But then, what was the point of showing Rainbow Dash being punished despite being personally forgiven in "Newbie Dash"?

Because that abominable episode just existed to crap on Rainbow Dash and fans of the show.

But to answer your more pressing point---yeah it is an issue.

Sometimes it isn't necessary to go into the punishment aspect because that's not the point of the episode and it would distract to divert onto that, like "Tanks for the Memories." It's not about learning that actions have consequences or whatnot, it's about the grieving process so focusing on Law and Order: Equestria would not help in that.

But in other places, yeah, you're right. The Cutie Mark Crusaders are more likely to end up punished than anyone else which makes .... SOME sense seeing as they are little kids and analogs for the show's intended demographic. But at the same time it is silly that some things are just shrugged off. It also comes down to, I think, who does it and why.

I think one of the absolute dumbest endings to an episode was "Somepony to Watch Over Me" where Applejack comes to the conclusion that Apple Bloom's lying, stealing and sneaking off with an apple cart to take it through dangerous, monster-infested swamps was okay and showed how adult she was ... since she kept the cart safe.

[Thebestoftherest]

nand frustration with this kind of thing in this and other shows has only increased since I started watching Bobsheaux who hates this happening in kids' media, especially in the Alpha and Omega film series. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0XPzwmDL_qeZlR4JuX-VLQ

also, I've read comments that say showing characters getting punished would be out of place, ruin the passing, etc. But then, what was the point of showing Rainbow Dash being punished despite being personally forgiven in "Newbie Dash"?

Alpha and Omega had more than one movie why???

[Dragon Ball Fan]

nand frustration with this kind of thing in this and other shows has only increased since I started watching Bobsheaux who hates this happening in kids' media, especially in the Alpha and Omega film series. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0XPzwmDL_qeZlR4JuX-VLQ

also, I've read comments that say showing characters getting punished would be out of place, ruin the passing, etc. But then, what was the point of showing Rainbow Dash being punished despite being personally forgiven in "Newbie Dash"?

Because that abominable episode just existed to crap on Rainbow Dash and fans of the show.

But to answer your more pressing point---yeah it is an issue.

Sometimes it isn't necessary to go into the punishment aspect because that's not the point of the episode and it would distract to divert onto that, like "Tanks for the Memories." It's not about learning that actions have consequences or whatnot, it's about the grieving process so focusing on Law and Order: Equestria would not help in that.

But in other places, yeah, you're right. The Cutie Mark Crusaders are more likely to end up punished than anyone else which makes .... SOME sense seeing as they are little kids and analogs for the show's intended demographic. But at the same time it is silly that some things are just shrugged off. It also comes down to, I think, who does it and why.

I think one of the absolute dumbest endings to an episode was "Somepony to Watch Over Me" where Applejack comes to the conclusion that Apple Bloom's lying, stealing and sneaking off with an apple cart to take it through dangerous, monster-infested swamps was okay and showed how adult she was ... since she kept the cart safe.

Bronies who also happen to be in or have been in the military would disagree. so assuming they are correct and they handled the subject matter right, why did she get punished here? what did it have to do with the rest of the episode?

and why couldn't it have been squeezed in somewhere in "Tanks for the Memories"? like I said, I grew up with stuff like 101 Dalmatians and the original Powerpuff Girls where both protagonists and antagonists where punished all the time and not just in the karma why, actually punished by authority figures or by law.

and it happens in other shows too, like Crusher from Blaze and the Monster machines never being penalized for cheating in races or for a good portion of The Lion Guard, where Kion, the main character, screwed up and almost doomed the Pridelands a dozen times and the behaviors that lead to this are never corrected, when Bunga does something that really just inconveniences the Guard, gets punished.

but since you agree it's a problem, what can I do to get over this problem. in MLP and in other shows, the tone of the episode makes it impossible for me to imagine punishments just happening off screen. and dialogue from the show often goes out of it's way to make that idea impossible too. and what does who does it and why matter? please elaborate.

[G-Man]

I actually wrote a long thing arguing against how Chuck depicted critics of Gifted and Talented Programs especially since he omitted one of the biggest and most problematic elements of it: namely the racial disparities involved, but I don't want to drag the thread down into a heated and very political subject.

I think that the "racial disparities" issue is the same sort of thing that Chuck was talking about, just at the population level rather than the individual level.

[AllanO]

I have been anticipating Chuck reviewing the Cutie Map stuff for years because of its heavy forced conformity theme and Chuck's irreverent pulling for rugged individualism. I was impressed by the stories he decided to deploy because they make the point but are also really inspiring and interesting beyond the narrow morality play and the narrow principles at play.

I mean ultimately it is not much to operationalize as ideals.. I mean that we need to tailor education to each student to work to their particular abilities and interests to get best effect tends more to a definition of success less than a method by which to achieve it, like buying low and selling high in finance, but I think the examples are food for thought anyway. Although I guess it does make one more substantial point that a goal of education should be the betterment of the individual not merely some consequential production output quota type goal like getting enough plumbers and doctors.

Otherwise, I have actually seen these episodes, I agree the backstory in the season finale is weak and not quite convincing, but I like both episodes.

Going forward I liked Starlight even if she does get off easy and does not always make much sense and so on. However it is all very subjective. Others have made any points I would, yeah.

I actually wrote a long thing arguing against how Chuck depicted critics of Gifted and Talented Programs especially since he omitted one of the biggest and most problematic elements of it: namely the racial disparities involved, but I don't want to drag the thread down into a heated and very political subject.

At the risk of setting off such a heated discussion I would just say that he suggests that the reasons different students fail to learn are diverse, include both motivations for the students and resources, and he certainly seems to admit things like poverty can be at work, I don't think anything he said ruled out racism and the like as factors also. The point would remain even if things like streamed/gifted education reflect and magnify existing biases in the system, eliminating them would not eliminate those biases or stop the system from perpetuating them etc., but eliminating streaming etc. would (if implemented in a mindless way like Starlight does in Cutie Map) dilute the ideal of tailoring education to the individual with their flourishing as a goal of the system. Basically I don't think he was suggesting that there was no room for criticism of things like how gifted education is implemented, rather the opposite just that one subset of those critics reminded him of Starlight's plan in the Cutie Map. There was plenty of room in his presentation as I saw it for their to be more nuanced critics and reformers of gifted education who his points basically fail to say anything about or who his points support.

[BBally81]

Starlight's redemption was poorly executed especially since she was a pretty good villain (better than Sunset) however she slowly won me over throughout Season 6 and she and Sunburst are an adorable couple.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

Starlight's redemption was poorly executed especially since she was a pretty good villain (better than Sunset) however she slowly won me over throughout Season 6 and she and Sunburst are an adorable couple.

why? maybe it's because of the stuff I watched growing up but I only can get behind a character who takes responsability for their actions and in this case, taking responsability means going to prison.

[Deledrius]

in this case, taking responsibility means going to prison.

I don't get it. That's very specific, and one doesn't follow the other. I assume there's some personal rationale there.

[Trinary]

At the risk of setting off such a heated discussion I would just say that he suggests that the reasons different students fail to learn are diverse, include both motivations for the students and resources, and he certainly seems to admit things like poverty can be at work, I don't think anything he said ruled out racism and the like as factors also. The point would remain even if things like streamed/gifted education reflect and magnify existing biases in the system, eliminating them would not eliminate those biases or stop the system from perpetuating them etc., but eliminating streaming etc. would (if implemented in a mindless way like Starlight does in Cutie Map) dilute the ideal of tailoring education to the individual with their flourishing as a goal of the system. Basically I don't think he was suggesting that there was no room for criticism of things like how gifted education is implemented, rather the opposite just that one subset of those critics reminded him of Starlight's plan in the Cutie Map. There was plenty of room in his presentation as I saw it for their to be more nuanced critics and reformers of gifted education who his points basically fail to say anything about or who his points support.

Okay, so I just spent 30 minutes working on a carefully written, mostly concise and even response and hit submit--and the stupid forum lost it so I'm gonna try to re-encapsulate what I said AGAIN quickly and with far less polish: you're right, he didn't rule it out--but some of the characterizations made of critics of Gifted and Talented Programs sounded JUST close enough to arguments I've heard by other (less honest) people that it got my dander up. Maybe that's unfair to Chuck, and if so I freely apologize, but I'm going by what I've experienced and the experiences of other people I know personally.

I am reacting to the hypocrisy and arrogance of certain people (again, I DON'T mean Chuck or anyone in this chat) who turn up their noses and 'tut tut' at people who criticize or oppose these sorts of Gifted and Talented programs. Those people who portray themselves as being oh-so reasonable and castigating the critics as wanting 'simplistic' solutions ... all the while offering the MOST simplistic and outright fraudulent caricatures of the positions of said critics. They recast the issue of Gifted programs in roughly some variant of the following: "these whiny, self-righteous, simplistic uber-Politically Correct crybabies want to punish smart kids by taking away these programs so less talented ones won't feel bad." When people say crap like that without ever even talking about systemic racism and school segregation you better believe I get pissed right the hell off.

I know Chuck didn't say anything like that and I am sure as hell not lumping him in with that crowd--but those issues are a big part of the controversy and I don't think you can adequately address the controversy, even in brief, without talking about that aspect of it.

You have situations where you can have, in the same school district, a school that is mostly white that is well-funded, well furnished and basically functions as a Gifted and Talented Program for the entire student body. Then in another school, again, SAME district, that is mostly non-white that is underfunded, neglected, etc. that will have a small Gifted and Talented program for maybe 30-40 kids .... not one of whom is black. I've had that exact situation described to me by parents I personally know.

You also have various tests, "standardized" and non, supposedly to reward the best and brightest students, that 'just happen' to consistently weed out black and Latino youth from getting into the best programs, the best schools, i.e. the ones that would offer them the best opportunities that had been denied to them and their parents. There have been numerous studies and papers documenting how biased and rigged such tests are, but they're still used anyway.

Also, in the case of the Gifted and Talented programs in that one district I mentioned? These were at the elementary school level, based on a test given to FOUR year olds. As the mother of one of the children who got into that program told me, if you didn't get in through that test (again, delivered to FOUR year olds!) it was incredibly unlikely that the student would -ever- get into those gifted programs. Those wonderful programs and all the potential opportunities that await those lucky enough to get in--decided when a child is only four years old. [Maybe this is different elsewhere, but this is how it was described to me here].

Stuff like this gets me pretty riled.

I don't have any ready answers, but I have nothing but contempt for people who sneer at the supposedly "simplistic" solutions of people who ARE actually trying to address this problem, but offer no solutions themselves. If you get more worked up over the proposed solution to a problem than you do to the problem itself, then you just might BE part of the problem.