• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About SanityNotIncluded

  • Rank
    Background pony
  • Birthday 08/27/1995

Profile Information

  • Location
    Western Australia
  • Interests
    Video Games (specifically Final Fantasy, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, Folklore, Dragon Age, Dragonball Xenoverse, Kingdoms of Amalur (seriously underrated) and various pretentious art games)
    Getting Way too Interested in Weird Shit
    British Comedy (specifically 'Allo 'Allo!, Only Fools and Horses, Blackadder, Father Ted and the like
    Lotsa Anime (Death Note, Attack on Titan, Assassination Classroom, Gangsta, The Legend of Arslan, Black Butler, Welcome to the
  • Occupation
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,037 profile views
  1. SanityNotIncluded

    3 Questions For All Bronies Or Pegasisters

    Favourite Episode: The Cutie Map. Loved the fact that the villain was more or less a normal person with really messed up ideas. I also really enjoyed how far they went with all the Orwellian imagery. Least Favourite: As others have said, I don't really hate any episode. I think there are much better hills to die on. That being said, Spike at Your Service and Baby Cakes were painful. Best Character: Look at my avatar xD.
  2. SanityNotIncluded

    About analyzing

    Nope. TL;DR: I've been wanting to talk at-length about these kinds of questions for a long time, and got a tad carried away. It was all hammered out late at night, so hopefully its coherent. In summary, you can't say that anything is objectively good or bad because this can't be measured by any metric which we're capable of discovering. The best we can do is make judgements based on what seems intuitively right. Enjoy what you like and be merry! If I were an analyst, and wanted to establish you were wrong for liking the show, I'd have to do three things: Firstly, I'd have to make a series of observations about the show which are objectively true. Secondly, I'd have to link these observations to a concept of "objectively true" which is also provably correct. Finally, I'd have to establish that enjoying something that is "objectively bad" is morally wrong. Here are some problems with each of those steps: 1.) We could probably agree that some facts about MLP can be observed objectively. For example, most of us would probably agree, "in the cartoon, Fluttershy's fur is yellow" is an objectively true statement. Similarly, you could probably argue that some statements of contradiction like "event A contradicts what was previously established in dialogue B" are objectively true. However, the observations which people will point to as markers of poor quality are very diverse - and more importantly, most of them involve quite a lot of subjective interpretation. For instance, take the claim that somepony's actions are 'out of character'. In order to establish this as an objective observation, you'd have to establish precisely what the 'correct' interpretation of that character is. Then, you'd have to establish why the action in question transgressed the 'correct' interpretation of the character. Finally, you'd also have to establish that the inconsistency was not justified by the relevant context. Are you starting to see some problems with this? For example, how do we know what the 'correct' interpretation of a character is? Sure, you could base that on a series of observations, but then again, a lot of those sub-observations aren't going to be objective either. If we claim that a character is kind, what makes an action kind in the first place? How many actions of kindness do we need to observe because we can say "kindness" is a fundamental part of the character? If we do establish that a character is kind, how far is the context allowed to push them before they're allowed to act unkindly without being out of character? Different people will give different answers to these questions, and that's really my point - how do you establish that any one of those answers is more correct than any another? The observations we use as a basis for judgements of quality are pretty much what we see as 'intuitively correct'. Even if they contain some objective elements, much of it is still subjective at heart. 2.) Putting all that aside, let's assume we can establish that all our observations are 'objectively true'. Now, we need to establish that these observations make the work in question objectively bad. Here is a list of some questions people often ask to decide what objectively good/bad means: Does the work adhere to some set of technical criteria relevant to the medium (literature, film, etc)? Does the work adhere to a set of technical criteria relevant to characterisation, musical composition or some other specific component? Does the work realise the author's intent? Did the work satisfy its fanbase? Did the work satisfy the most dedicated of its fanbase? Was the work commercially successful? Does the work promote good moral values? Did the production staff engage in morally questionable practices during or after the work's production? (e.g insufficient wages to staff or on-disc DLC) Are members of the production staff involved in morally questionable practices which aren't directly related to the work (e.g is the director is a neo-nazi, etc) There are lots of bones you could pick with each line of thinking. For the sake of not making this post longer than it already is, I won't go into the problems with each one. Instead, I'd like to highlight two issues - 'inconsistency across works' and 'quantification'. Observing the opinions of specific individuals, you'll notice very quickly that we don't judge each work according to the same criteria. Each time we decide what 'objectively good/bad' means in relation to a work, we shove a selection of the principles above into an incoherent framework to suit our conclusion. What this suggests is that even if there's some perfect standard for 'objectively good', I'm not convinced that we're capable of discovering what it is and applying it consistently. This is compounded by the issue of quantification: when we speak about what makes a specific work good or bad, we think about the relevant components as if they formed a mathematical equation. That is, that the quality of a work equals the 'bad parts' subtracted from the 'good parts'. Even if we could establish that some things are objectively good and some are objectively bad, that says nothing about the degree to which they are objectively good or objectively bad. Given that we already struggle with the first part, I can't think of any reasonable metric that could be used to clarify the second part. 3.) Even if you assume that all your observations are right and align with a perfect standard of 'objective good', it's another leap entirely to assume that enjoying something "bad" makes you a bad person. On the rare occasion that I do see an argument like this, it usually takes one of two forms: A.) By enjoying "objectively bad" media, you're stifling the creation of "objectively good" media: The first problem with this argument is that the extent to which people like something usually has little to do with whether or not more of it gets made. The primary motivator for large-scale projects is profit, and the number of people who bought something is not necessarily correlated with the number of people who actually enjoyed it (see: Final Fantasy XIII). The best you can do as an enthusiastic consumer is promote something, and that's an entirely separate activity from merely enjoying it. B.) By enjoying works with objectively bad morals, you contribute to the spread of those morals and the subsequent decay of society/youth/cute puppies/ice cream vans/etc: Problems with the idea of 'objective morality' notwithstanding, you can pretty much object to this argument in the same way as the first one - how do you establish sufficient causality? Both of these arguments also skip an essential step by assuming that "objectively good media" is inherently valuable and needs to be promoted above other things. I know the feeling - I feel like I've allowed other peoples' negativity to get to me lately as well. I know it's hard to do when someone seems like a prick, but try to treat opposing viewpoints as opportunities rather than something to beat you down. Instead of turning it into a question of right or wrong, try to empathise with where different people are coming from and think about how their perspectives relate to your own. I know all about Dark Qiviut, and I get where you're coming from with him. He says what he thinks and doesn't remotely apologise for it. To people like myself who lack self-confidence and have low self-esteem, that attitude can look extremely intimidating. Their bluntness and self-assurance makes you feel like you've been mentally 'shut down'. Consequently, you end up feeling marginalised, and you come to resent those sorts of people for marginalising you. Sometimes it can taint our view of the entire topic under discussion. I have the exact same problem with Lilly Peet and some other figureheads, even though I agree with them on 90% of things. Here's the thing about them though - their confidence has no bearing on whether or not they're right. And on top of that, we're all on the internet where it's very easy to misread a person's tone and intentions. An attitude like Qiviut's could indicate arrogance and hostility... but it could also indicate that he has a different communication style which we're misinterpreting negatively. While I'm not a big fan of arrogance or contrarianism (alongside their partner in crime, edgy misanthropy), you'll find people are far less confronting if you give them the benefit of the doubt. Like I said before - I know it's hard to look past your gut reaction, but sometimes when you can, you can actually end up broadening your horizons quite a bit.
  3. SanityNotIncluded

    Hey Peepz

    I'm pretty much that person as well. Either I'm doing that or I'm wandering around the party aimlessly attempting to look like I'm apart of someone's group xD. Mostly stuff like Dear Esther and the Stanley Principle.
  4. What are you trying to say, EqD?

    1. AaronMk


      Friendship is Magic.

  5. SanityNotIncluded

    Lack on interest on the rest of season 6

    This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I've never really been a 'hardcore' fan of the show who loved every episode. It's always been the kind of thing I binge-watch while getting through a pile of ironing. While season 5 nearly raised the show to something I really looked forward to watching each week, it didn't quite there - mostly because its just too inconsistent in quality. So while s6 has been a step down overall for me, all that has really meant in practice is that its gone back to what it was before.
  6. SanityNotIncluded

    S6 - Episode 17 - Discussion

    I agree with your point about timing. A lot of the time, I feel like MLP comes up with intriguing ideas, but fails to utilise them fully because of things like this. Still a fun ep though. I like how Discord has slowly evolved as a character.
  7. SanityNotIncluded

    Guardians of Harmony show.

    I'd definitely watch it and see what its like. As someone who isn't that keen on Equestria Girls, it'd be nice to have a spin off series I can look forward to.
  8. SanityNotIncluded

    Hey Peepz

    Hi everyone, You guys look like a good bunch of people, so I thought I'd sign up. I got into the fandom around 2013 and unfortunately, nobody's been able to scare me off yet. Outside of MLP, I play a lot of video games - especially Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, Ratchet & Clank and pretentious walking simulators. Feel free to hit me up if you like chatting to new people - just be warned (or alternatively, delighted) that I'm fascinated by a lot of weird, morbid shit.