The lessons are supposed to be simple—it’s a show for little girls after all—and any real wisdom to be found in the show lies elsewhere, mainly on a more meta level in the community rather than canon content, and even then isn’t very Deep.
There are many fan theories about carnivory, but most likely the show dancing around it is a consequence of pony society doing so. Given that she’s quite the scholar she almost certainly already knows about it, although a city pony with no biology education or experience with animals might not. I don’t think anypony would consider it all that big a deal thou or carnivores wouldn’t be around or at least not common.
Yea, it’s been explored a lot. Generaly they are considered godlike.
The lessons are supposed to be simple—it’s a show for little girls after all—and any real wisdom to be found in the show lies elsewhere, mainly on a more meta level in the community rather than canon content, and even then isn’t very Deep.
“Applause lights” doesn’t mean “simple” or even “wrong”; it’s more like “things that sounds good regardless of rightness or wrongness in a particular context”. Or at least that’s how it makes sense to me to use it.
There are many fan theories about carnivory, but most likely the show dancing around it is a consequence of pony society doing so.
Surely causal arrows point from creative decisions to show content, not the other way around. More to the point, not all ponies can dance around it; “animals (don’t) take care of themselves”, so if Fluttershy doesn’t feed the snakes they don’t eat. And she makes a regular census of at least the bunnies, meaning she might know exactly how many die when Rarity lets Opalescence out.
Given that she’s quite the scholar she almost certainly already knows about it, although a city pony with no biology education or experience with animals might not.
I can think of plots that might mitigate that, but yeah, the built-in outsider perspective is another advantage of HP.
I don’t think anypony would consider it all that big a deal thou or carnivores wouldn’t be around or at least not common.
They might see it as a lesser evil than “wiping out” whole species, or they might have the eventual goal of creating a self-sustaining ecosystem where predators would be necessary. But I think all three of those have potential. Unfortunately there’s probably not much interest in writing what would come off as a vegan author tract, even with the difference that the animals would be be sapient.
“Applause lights” doesn’t mean “simple” or even “wrong”; it’s more like “things that sounds good regardless of rightness or wrongness in a particular context”. Or at least that’s how it makes sense to me to use it.
This surprised me. The definition I’d have given for applause lights would have been “A statement so obviously the Right Thing that it provides no useful information”.
So I went back and checked the original article, and it turns out no definition was ever given, just a few examples, and those are compatible with both views and don’t fit either perfectly. So I checked your karma in case it was just a noobish mistake by me, precommited to change my mind if you had a lot more than me, but it turns out you have even less. Thus I’d say you were wrong in correcting me.
Also, the answer to your question is there anyway.
By dancing around it I meant the same way humans do with sex or the conditions in factory farms.
That doesn’t sound like something ponies would do.
The definition I’d have given for applause lights would have been “A statement so obviously the Right Thing that it provides no useful information”.
From Applause Lights: “I think it means that you have said the word “democracy”, so the audience is supposed to cheer. It’s not so much a propositional statement, as the equivalent of the “Applause” light that tells a studio audience when to clap.”
I think that depending on what you mean by “The Right Thing” (whether you mean it mockingly or actually), you’re right or wrong in your understanding of what applause lights means. But either way: the point of “applause lights” is that it’s more of a signal for mutual self-congratulation than something with actual meaning/content.
e.g. “God bless the United States of America”.
So I checked your karma in case it was just a noobish mistake by me, precommited to change my mind if you had a lot more than me, but it turns out you have even less. Thus I’d say you were wrong in correcting me.
Ugh. Seriously? You probably didn’t mean this as bad as it sounded, but it effectively looks as you’re saying he was wrong in correcting you not because he was actually wrong, but because he shouldn’t correct people with higher status (as marked by karma points).
I think that depending on what you mean by “The Right Thing” (whether you mean it mockingly or actually), you’re right or wrong in your understanding of what applause lights means. But either way: the point of “applause lights” is that it’s more of a signal for mutual self-congratulation than something with actual meaning/content.
I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to call it mocking, but I certainly meant it in a way not very correlated with actually being correct or moral.
I use total karma as evidence about how likely someone is to be correct about LW conventions, since in order to get very high karma you have to have been here for a long time and have written a lot and thus getting misunderstandings sorted out by being corrected. I also use it as weaker evidence at being correct in general about anything, since I believe LW consensus to be correlated with that. I put LW karma in roughly the same class of evidence as market prices, something which can sometimes say quite silly things but on other occasions be more trustworthy than your own brain. I could actually feel through introspection I weren’t able to consider the issue without bias so I just let that decide.
Ugh. Seriously? You probably didn’t mean this as bad as it sounded, but it effectively looks as you’re saying he was wrong in correcting you not because he was actually wrong, but because he shouldn’t correct people with higher status (as marked by karma points).
Ironically I considered noting that comment in my reply and saying something like “Respect for recognizing noisy evidence as evidence.”.
You probably didn’t mean this as bad as it sounded, but it effectively looks as you’re saying he was wrong in correcting you not because he was actually wrong, but because he shouldn’t correct people with higher status (as marked by karma point).
I suspect that he meant something like “Applause Lights” is an LW specific term. Therefore, to a very rough approximation, karma levels may be a rough way of estimating who understands how the term is used around here since karma roughly approximates how much time someone has spent here.
That seems like an extremely weak argument, and I agree that the way it was phrased sounded pretty bad. I don’t think my interpretation is that much better.
“Applause lights” doesn’t mean “simple” or even “wrong”; it’s more like “things that sounds good regardless of rightness or wrongness in a particular context”. Or at least that’s how it makes sense to me to use it.
This surprised me. The definition I’d have given for applause lights would have been “A statement so obviously the Right Thing that it provides no useful information”.
Then allow me to step in as one of the foremost experts on the writings of Eliezer (self-proclaimed).
All that applause lights ‘mean’ is “you should clap now”. From the wiki:
It’s not so much a propositional statement, as the equivalent of the “Applause” light that tells a studio audience when to clap.
(Beware—this example is mind-killing)
Thus, you say “democracy” to get people to nod their head and agree with you. This is not because “democracy” means anything obviously right; also, the label gets applied inconsistently in both directions. The entire purpose of calling something “democracy” in those contexts is to mark it as “approved”.
I was correcting your interpretation of my use of the phrase, not your use of it. (On further thought I could reword it “words whose practical meaning is ‘applaud this statement’”; that might cover both.)
That doesn’t sound like something ponies would do.
Not sure which you mean, but I know there’s contradictory evidence to what I cited. I don’t think I want to talk about the “reality” of the show, though, just possible fanfic interpretations. My belief about the show is that it’ll continue to dance around the subject, and that the occasional slips will continue to contradict each other.
I find discussing “possible” interpretations to be rather pointless because basically anything is possible. There are usually 3 interpretations worth going into any depth of; the one intended by the original author, the one that has become fanon and most fans are in consensus about, and the one that would be most likely if the cannon material was interpreted as true observations about the universe.
The lessons are supposed to be simple—it’s a show for little girls after all—and any real wisdom to be found in the show lies elsewhere, mainly on a more meta level in the community rather than canon content, and even then isn’t very Deep.
There are many fan theories about carnivory, but most likely the show dancing around it is a consequence of pony society doing so. Given that she’s quite the scholar she almost certainly already knows about it, although a city pony with no biology education or experience with animals might not. I don’t think anypony would consider it all that big a deal thou or carnivores wouldn’t be around or at least not common.
Yea, it’s been explored a lot. Generaly they are considered godlike.
“Applause lights” doesn’t mean “simple” or even “wrong”; it’s more like “things that sounds good regardless of rightness or wrongness in a particular context”. Or at least that’s how it makes sense to me to use it.
Surely causal arrows point from creative decisions to show content, not the other way around. More to the point, not all ponies can dance around it; “animals (don’t) take care of themselves”, so if Fluttershy doesn’t feed the snakes they don’t eat. And she makes a regular census of at least the bunnies, meaning she might know exactly how many die when Rarity lets Opalescence out.
I can think of plots that might mitigate that, but yeah, the built-in outsider perspective is another advantage of HP.
They might see it as a lesser evil than “wiping out” whole species, or they might have the eventual goal of creating a self-sustaining ecosystem where predators would be necessary. But I think all three of those have potential. Unfortunately there’s probably not much interest in writing what would come off as a vegan author tract, even with the difference that the animals would be be sapient.
This surprised me. The definition I’d have given for applause lights would have been “A statement so obviously the Right Thing that it provides no useful information”.
So I went back and checked the original article, and it turns out no definition was ever given, just a few examples, and those are compatible with both views and don’t fit either perfectly. So I checked your karma in case it was just a noobish mistake by me, precommited to change my mind if you had a lot more than me, but it turns out you have even less. Thus I’d say you were wrong in correcting me.
Also, the answer to your question is there anyway.
By dancing around it I meant the same way humans do with sex or the conditions in factory farms.
That doesn’t sound like something ponies would do.
From Applause Lights: “I think it means that you have said the word “democracy”, so the audience is supposed to cheer. It’s not so much a propositional statement, as the equivalent of the “Applause” light that tells a studio audience when to clap.”
I think that depending on what you mean by “The Right Thing” (whether you mean it mockingly or actually), you’re right or wrong in your understanding of what applause lights means. But either way: the point of “applause lights” is that it’s more of a signal for mutual self-congratulation than something with actual meaning/content.
e.g. “God bless the United States of America”.
Ugh. Seriously? You probably didn’t mean this as bad as it sounded, but it effectively looks as you’re saying he was wrong in correcting you not because he was actually wrong, but because he shouldn’t correct people with higher status (as marked by karma points).
That’s a really really bad attitude to have.
I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to call it mocking, but I certainly meant it in a way not very correlated with actually being correct or moral.
I use total karma as evidence about how likely someone is to be correct about LW conventions, since in order to get very high karma you have to have been here for a long time and have written a lot and thus getting misunderstandings sorted out by being corrected. I also use it as weaker evidence at being correct in general about anything, since I believe LW consensus to be correlated with that. I put LW karma in roughly the same class of evidence as market prices, something which can sometimes say quite silly things but on other occasions be more trustworthy than your own brain. I could actually feel through introspection I weren’t able to consider the issue without bias so I just let that decide.
Ironically I considered noting that comment in my reply and saying something like “Respect for recognizing noisy evidence as evidence.”.
Thanks, I am flatered! ^_^
I suspect that he meant something like “Applause Lights” is an LW specific term. Therefore, to a very rough approximation, karma levels may be a rough way of estimating who understands how the term is used around here since karma roughly approximates how much time someone has spent here.
That seems like an extremely weak argument, and I agree that the way it was phrased sounded pretty bad. I don’t think my interpretation is that much better.
That was a factor in considering karma stronger evidence in this case than I usually do, yes.
Then allow me to step in as one of the foremost experts on the writings of Eliezer (self-proclaimed).
All that applause lights ‘mean’ is “you should clap now”. From the wiki:
(Beware—this example is mind-killing)
Thus, you say “democracy” to get people to nod their head and agree with you. This is not because “democracy” means anything obviously right; also, the label gets applied inconsistently in both directions. The entire purpose of calling something “democracy” in those contexts is to mark it as “approved”.
I was correcting your interpretation of my use of the phrase, not your use of it. (On further thought I could reword it “words whose practical meaning is ‘applaud this statement’”; that might cover both.)
Not sure which you mean, but I know there’s contradictory evidence to what I cited. I don’t think I want to talk about the “reality” of the show, though, just possible fanfic interpretations. My belief about the show is that it’ll continue to dance around the subject, and that the occasional slips will continue to contradict each other.
I find discussing “possible” interpretations to be rather pointless because basically anything is possible. There are usually 3 interpretations worth going into any depth of; the one intended by the original author, the one that has become fanon and most fans are in consensus about, and the one that would be most likely if the cannon material was interpreted as true observations about the universe.