In Defense of Opposition

Though season three's finale has come and gone, discussions still rage on concerning the future of our little studious princess-in-training. And rage is plentiful, both from the pro-Twilicorn and the anti-Twilicorn. Here I'll answer to thirteen common arguments against the anti-Twilicorn mindset.

Before we begin, it's important to note that there are exceptions to just about everything I say. There are the few anti-Twilicorn fans that are contrary to the norm, and some do react and express their dissatisfaction in extreme, hateful ways.

This is not meant to defend them. Rather, this is meant to defend the mindset that anti-Twilicorn fans have, and to show that this opinion is just as legitimate and worthy of respect as any other. Herein, anti-Twilicorn fans shall be referred to as "antis" and pro-Twilicorn fans shall be referred to as "pros".

Bear in mind that this article is not written for the purpose of convincing pros to change their opinions regarding Twilicorn. Rather, it is to dispel common arguments directed toward antis in order to demonstrate which pro-Twilicorn arguments (and anti-anti-Twilicorn arguments!) are invalid when held under scrutiny. The purpose, by extension, is to give antis a defense against common arguments as well as to show pros where not to focus when formulating arguments.

~

Haters need to calm down!

There exists, for some reason, a widespread misconception that those who are against Twilight becoming an alicorn are raging, mouth-frothing sticks-in-the-mud that are only able to express their opinion through insults and yelling. This thought is completely unfounded. The vast majority of pony fans that dislike Twilicorn are content to offer their opinions and respond to opposing viewpoints in the same way that any pro would, which is only reasonable considering that both sides are still pony fans. The fact that antis have differing opinions does not suddenly transform them into screaming hulks, though, as I will note many times, there are exceptions.

While this sort of claim would be appropriate when used against the harsh, vocal minority of antis, it holds little water to the average anti. When this claim is thrown around as frequently as I see it thrown around, it loses what weight it could have when used appropriately. By all means, if you see a caps-lock abusing anti, feel free to use this claim. But the presence of an anti-Twilicorn mindset, even one that is peppered with strong adjectives and extremely dissatisfied language, is not valid grounds to tell a fan to calm down.

Haters are close-minded. They just need to give Twilicorn a chance!

Pros that use this argument seem to be missing the crucial point that if an anti is still inside the fandom to complain in the first place, then they are obviously still fans of the show. Thus, the dissatisfaction they hold is held by one that has no interest in exiting the fandom. Antis are perfectly willing to find out where Twilicorn is going to go. They are still perfectly willing to see how the writers handle the character, whether or not the alteration is one that they approve of.

The thought that Twilicorn needs to be "given a chance" is a thought that actually works against pros, as well. The basis of this claim is that an anti should not judge Twilicorn to be a negative change, because as of yet it is too early to see where the show is going. Conversely, we can reason, it makes just as little sense to judge Twilicorn to be a positive change. If there's not enough to criticize, there is not enough to praise. It is highly illogical for a pro to claim that it is alright to praise Twilicorn with no evidence, and then to claim that there is not enough evidence to criticize. This is not how things work. Story elements, characters, and plot devices do not have a natural tendency toward being positive. Therefore, if a pro believes there is not enough evidence to warrant criticism, they should reason that there is not enough evidence to make any judgment at all. So if a pro allows him or herself to form a positive opinion in spite of this, it is just reasonable (and courteous) to allow antis to form an opinion as well.

However, a pro might be tempted to come right back and say...

Haters just need to have faith in the writers!

Pros that use this argument don't separate the concept of Twilicorn from its execution within the show's narrative. Antis are of the belief that Twilicorn is a negative change- that Twilight becoming an alicorn will, in and of itself, lead to reduced quality or storytelling. Common anti arguments include "Twilicorn will mess with the balance of the Mane Six!" and "Twilight doesn't fit the role of an alicorn!". Like these two points demonstrate, antis are concerned with how Twilicorn will irrevocably alter the core elements of Friendship is Magic. These elements are things that cannot be corrected with a talented writing team. If one feels that Twilight just doesn't fit with being an alicorn, seeing Twilight as an alicorn lends itself only to feelings of the show being "not right" or "off".

Correcting this discomfort can come about in two ways. First, with becoming so used to Twilicorn that one is able to move past the discomfort. This is not the ideal way to solve the problem, as this relies more on numbing the viewer to the awkwardness rather than rectifying it. This solution is not the result of good writing, but the result of long-term exposure to writing of any quality. It's not warming up to Twilicorn; it's seeing the elephant in the room so often that you forget it's there.

Second, the writers can utilize their talents to mold Twilight into a character that feels right with being an alicorn. While this undeniably is the result of good writing, it is a solution that takes time to bring about. Sure, Twilight may eventually grow into the role of an alicorn princess. But this does nothing to alleviate the awkwardness and feelings of being out of place that plague Twilicorn in the meantime, and the episodes that feature not-yet-matured Twilicorn will suffer dearly.

In addition, most bronies in general have a couple episodes of Friendship is Magic that they dislike, for one reason or another. It's all well and good to remember fondly the good episodes, but it would be ignorant to pretend like the writing of the show is consistently flawless.

If haters have nothing positive to say, they shouldn't say anything at all!

This sort of mentality is essentially attempting to limit the free speech of other fans. Simply put, why should I hold my tongue and refuse to express my opinion simply because my opinion isn't completely positive?

This aversion to the expression of differing opinions is simply the pros' way of plugging their ears. Why should discussions, the singular purpose of which being to exchange ideas, be limited to just those that have no criticisms and see no flaws?

This mentality gives the impression of a pro being unable to handle the presence of differing opinions. The more civil way of yelling at antis to stop having different viewpoints, because they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the validity of criticism. The mindless praise that the pros that use this argument apparently desire is even less conducive to worthwhile discussion than constant negativity.

Granted, mindless hate has little place, and this argument holds up when used against criticism that serves no purpose. A throng of messages reading "It sucks! I hated it!" does little to suggest alternative solutions or bring about critical thought. Just as useless, however, are the throngs of messages reading "I love it! BEST. EPISODE. EVER.", although the pros that use this argument are apparently more than willing to allow this kind of content!

Haters are just looking for an excuse to complain!

As above, this claim is just seeking to invalidate the opinions of antis. Not only is this thought presumptuous, it becomes a self-perpetuation of the kind of person that pros (and, most likely, anyone else,) are unwilling to have a discussion with. If you have it in your mind that everyone who disapproves of Twilicorn is only doing so to receive some twisted self-satisfaction (thought, of course, there are antis that do), you eliminate the possibility of maintaining a respectful discussion with anyone whose opinion differs from yours.

This leads into the ever-unfortunate pothole of logic that makes you believe that your opinion has transcended the realm of "opinion" and has become an indisputable fact. This is a very dangerous way to think, and it is absolutely not conducive to any civil discourse.

But the fact is that most antis are here for the same reason pros are: to have an exchange of ideas. Not to make your life suck by forcing you to wade through unfounded criticism, but to present viewpoints for you to consider as you offer up your own. The moment you forget this is the moment that you stop believing other viewpoints to be legitimate, and the moment that reasonable people on both sides will stop believing your viewpoint is legitimate in itself.

Complaining on the Internet does nothing, so why do it?

The fallacy at work here is that pros appear to assume that criticism is solely expressed for the sake of bringing about a change. While this is a wonderful secondary goal (and one that is surely not unattainable, given the team's enthusiasm regarding what bronies have to say), it is certainly not the only thing that antis mean to accomplish.

This argument could be reworded slightly and offered to pros: Praising the show online doesn't reinforce the show's quality, so why do it? Sure, the team might see what we enjoy and give us more of it, but as explained above, antis are still enthusiastic fans of the show. Any comments courtesy of antis would have just as much influence on the team's writing as anything offered from the pros. So if antis can't offer criticism because it might not have a direct influence, pros shouldn't offer praise. All things considered, the vast, vast majority of both pros and antis are simply trying to have a discussion.

Haters do nothing but start fights!

As explained (see Haters need to calm down!, above), antis are not any more or less inclined to resort to harsh or hurtful language than pros. Antis are just fans of the show who disagree with pros; the fact that the two groups are on two sides of an issue does not incriminate either.

That said, this argument becomes rather ironic. If pros truly experience consistent fights when antis are around, and if we've established that neither group is guilty of exclusively starting fights, the issue falls upon pros! The individual pros that use this argument are themselves guilty of either starting fights when exposed to anti-Twilicorn viewpoints, or else interpreting innocuous discourse as angry and confrontational. Though of course there are antis that start fights, there is no good sense in applying such pugnaciousness to antis in general.

If haters dislike Twilicorn so much, why don't they just leave the fandom?

Antis are not inclined to leave the fandom for the same reason that pros are not so inclined after watching an episode they disliked. Just because antis find fault in an aspect of the show does not mean that abandoning the show altogether is suddenly on the table, though of course there are antis that do so. The dissatisfaction with one aspect of the show in no way suggests dissatisfaction with the show in general.

Why do haters feel such a need to convince others? Why can't they let people have their own opinions?

Another ironic argument, given the handful of the ones mentioned above that rally for the silencing of antis! But as mentioned numerous times, the vast majority of antis, just like the vast majority of pros, do not share their opinions with others with the express purpose of changing the minds of those with whom they discuss. Antis are more than willing to allow pros to go about their business with a different opinion. Where appropriate, of course, both antis and pros will attempt to articulate their arguments in a way meant to persuade the other party, but antis are in no way more inclined to do so than pros; to suggest otherwise indicates a bias or an unlucky streak of seeing antis in an effort to persuade.

Tara Strong said that alicorn Twilight will still be the same character we know and love!

While this is true, there are a couple things to consider.

One, Tara Strong is not among the writers. Unless she has seen the scripts, received assurance from the writers, or suddenly and unexpectedly joined the writing team, what she says regarding the writing of future episodes should not be seen as infallible.

Second, Twilicorn may well be the same Twilight we know and love, but there are alterations that cannot be undone, unless she is reverted back to a simple unicorn. She has progressed in her studies to a point where, as Celestia herself said in Magical Mystery Cure, she is more of a leader than ever, and will act as a teacher to everyone around her. This is surely a large change from the norm, regardless of how well it is handled.

In addition, there are things fundamental to Twilicorn that antis can reasonably find problems with. The tidy balance of two unicorns, two pegasi, and two Earth ponies has been broken. Twilight will now likely have more responsibilities that we are unused to seeing, which alters the dynamic of the show. Twilight's seemingly godlike status elevates her above her friends, which does not bode well for a show that has numerous times attempted to emphasize the fact that friendship is a relationship of relative equals (see The Mysterious Mare-Do-Well, Green Isn't Your Color, Over a Barrel, Hearth's Warming Eve, and The Ticket Master).

Regardless of what you believe about how Twilight's new status will affect her and the show, it is fallacious to assume that everyone else sees things the way you do, and that any apprehension regarding Twilicorn is automatically unfounded.

Haters can't criticize the writers like that! Show some respect!

There are two things that must be cleared up to adequately address this argument.

First, it must be recognized that criticism of the show is not to be equated with disrespecting the writers. One can reasonably express dissatisfaction with an episode or character trait without meaning for this criticism to be seen as an insult to the writers responsible. Indeed, pros that believe that any criticism at all is disrespectful are doing the writers no favors by blindly praising their every decision. Granted, it is very possible for criticism and disrespect to blend together, but "I don't think Twilicorn was a smart decision" is surely not the same as "the writers are idiots for making Twilight an alicorn". This distancing of creator from product is not only essential in the context of Friendship is Magic, but in every other aspect of life regarding critique of a product. A good number of people may remember with disdain a friend that would take any criticism as a personal attack.

Second, even the presence of actual disrespect does not invalidate the points of an anti. Saying "Twilicorn messes with status quo, and the writers are morons!" is undoubtedly an inappropriate way of communicating discontent, but the criticism itself (that "Twilicorn messes with the status quo") is still a legitimate point regardless of the questionable means through which it is communicated. It is understandable to be tempted to write off points made by an anti that insists upon disrespecting the writers, but if the claims are otherwise legitimate, the disrespect does not make them any less so.

This is a cartoon about colorful ponies! Haters should stop taking it so seriously!

It is silly to insist that finding a fault with a show suggests that one takes it too seriously. Negative opinions are not necessarily formed through careful deliberation or analysis, after all. To suggest that an anti would turn to the pro-Twilicorn side by "thinking less" or "taking it for what it is" not only works as an insult to the pros ("You'd like it more if you watched it like someone that doesn't think!"), it seriously misrepresents the goal and purpose of Friendship is Magic, and indeed children's fiction in general. Bronies as a whole would not have become fans of the show had it not been for the intelligence and wit present in the writing. As Faust herself intended, the show is wonderfully enjoyable both to children who don't know better and adults that require compelling characters and interpersonal interactions. To suggest that one must stop thinking critically and stop expecting intelligent writing in order to enjoy an episode does not bode well for the episode in question. It is, essentially, an admission that the writing of the episode is not intelligent enough to hold up against the standards the show has conditioned us to expect.

A great writer and cartoon-critic that goes by the pseudonym Antialiasis expanded more on a similar subject, regarding the movies of the Pokemon series, in her website, The Cave of Dragonflies:

Quote


See, the thing is that I think this entire perspective on entertainment "for kids" and entertainment "for adults" is pretty stupid. I myself write stories that would be considered "children's books" if they were to be published. Does that mean that I am writing these stories with the aim of amusing kids of some target age? No, absolutely not.

The thing is that stories ought to be written for their own sake, just because they're there in your head and you need to get them out. Of course you want to be able to share that story with someone, and you can value your audience greatly, and you can have a particular demographic in mind as your likely audience, but if you're writing simply to appeal to some target audience, with no passion about the story yourself, you're missing the point and your work is a marketing ploy, not fiction. I suppose not every creator will agree with my philosophy on this, but I'd at least like to believe the creators of the Pokémon movies (and all other creators) actually care about the works they're producing, and if they don't, pretending they do is most certainly not doing them a disservice. And if they do care, then they want to make something good that anyone willing to understand it can enjoy, even if the "target audience" would settle for much less; that's part of caring about what you're creating. Thus, I consider myself to be within my right to assume that I can judge the movies as I would any other movie; heck, if I were them I would be offended to see them judged any other way. If I ever publish a children's book and a parent tells me they thought it was stupid but their kid loved it, I will consider myself to have failed spectacularly ...

(You can read the rest of her article here.)

Of course there is something to be said about not getting hung up on every insignificant detail, but suggesting that one cannot enjoy an episode because of an excess of thought leaves a lot to be desired about the episode when all is said and done.

Haters just fear change.

Though obviously it is impractical to attempt to rule this out on a case-by-case basis, there is a serious flaw in attempting to assert this about antis in general. While the fact that an anti dislikes Twilicorn may indeed stem in part (or entirely) from a fear of change, it makes little sense to argue that a this fear is the only reason that one could have such an opinion. To do so would be a clear attempt to assert that the opinions of antis are completely invalid, and as explained (see If haters have nothing positive to say, they shouldn't say anything at all! above), this is both undeniably unjustified and incredibly impolite.

This argument can be thrown right back at pros: If antis simply fear change, pros simply accept any change without thinking through what could result of such a change. Both of these claims are entirely untrue, of course, and discussions would greatly benefit if neither are used. "You just fear change" should be replaced with "You're not seeing that Twilicorn could take the show in this positive direction". It's not that antis necessarily fear change; it's that antis disapprove of the things that they feel could come about because of the individual change. If blatant flanderization occurs as a result of Twilicorn, for example, the antis' reluctance to this specific change will have been justified.

~

This article, again, is not meant a means to "convert" a fan to the anti-Twilicorn mindset. It is intended as a guide for pros to construct more substantial arguments and to know which arguments to avoid, as well as a compendium of refutations that an anti could feasibly use when faced with such arguments in the future. Above all else, however, both sides of the Twilicorn debate would do well to be reminded that the opinions of the other side are just as valid and legitimate, whether you believe that pros are mindless fanboys or that antis are hypercritical spoil-sports. Because for all the illogical arguments that we use (and this article is by no means a suggestion that antis possess exclusively airtight arguments!), we're just two sides of the same coin. Despite any differences in opinion, we're all bronies. As the mantra of questionable validity goes, love and tolerance are the most important things we have.