So can anyone actually give a legitimate argument against Equalism that isn't just a bunch of spooks?
There would never be pure equalism because in the end, there will always be someone in the top getting more shares than the whole community, or someone getting less because of a certain community. Easier with a smaller village but not when you want a kingdom for it.
Starlight failed by enforcing her belief by trickery and indoctrination, and it showed that she can easily use the ponies at her disposal as her personal army just because of their trust to her and her ideology. She's partly for equalism and for an autocracy, and she would fail even if she promoted the opposite of equalism, which is individuality by Cutie Mark enforced by an iron hoof.
>there will always be someone in the top getting more shares than the whole community
Non-sequitur. She wants a general sameness in terms of ability and individual expression, not material wealth.
>Starlight failed by enforcing her belief by trickery and indoctrination, and it showed that she can easily use the ponies at her disposal as her personal army just because of their trust to her and her ideology
How is that failure, exactly? Because "trickery and indoctrination" are against muh morals? Sounds like a spook to me.
>implying equalism isn't a spook
>implying egoist anarchism isn't in and of itself a refutation of equalism
>stealing the idea of spooks from Stirner while failing to understand his philosophy
Get on my level amateur.
>How is that failure, exactly? Because "trickery and indoctrination" are against muh morals? Sounds like a spook to me.
The fact that she had to lock up her...well, prisoners' cutie marks while enforcing fear is one of the reasons why she doesn't completely have power upon her subjects.
As for motive, Starlight's desire is pure for her own self, but it's easy to see how it can easily turn autocratic with the power she has and the way she held their cutie mark half hostage.
what the fuck is a spook?
>The fact that she had to lock up her...well, prisoners' cutie marks while enforcing fear is one of the reasons why she doesn't completely have power upon her subjects.
And if she had no such power, she would have complete power over them? How would she gain power by relinquishing power?
>As for motive, Starlight's desire is pure for her own self
As Glimmer said, she needed the power to make sure, that everyone can be fully equal. Without her magic, this goal can not be achieved. Who cares if she makes an exception for herself, if this exception makes the whole thing work in the first place.
The whole revolution at the end makes no sense to me. If they dont want to be equal, why did they came to Glimmers town in the first place I'm asking.
Basically two things, which was to rid cutie marks because everyone she loved
*cough* >tfw no bfmoved away from her and two, that she hints from the season premiere on Twilight about social bias regarding cutie marks
Even then, Twilight is also a crusader that destroys all ideologies to impose her own.
If she wasn't the hero, she would be another villain, simply because imposing your ideologies is what other villains have done so far.
>which was to rid cutie marks because everyone she loved
*cough* >tfw no bfmoved away from her
I don't care what the script says. Those two things logically have nothing to do with each other.
>social bias regarding cutie marks
So she's fighting spooks. Good for her.
Twi could be a villain, or a neutral antagonist simply by how she chooses to impose her ideologies or unicorn power.
I wonder why we never had a villain that forces friendship with dark magic like some Kylo Ren fanboy for Twilight.
what the fuck is a spook? All I'm getting from google is black people and the CIA
>the right to make your own choices is a "moral argument"
What an idiot. I'm out.
>he's so spooked he can't have his beliefs challenged without ragequitting
lol k bye
>on whose authority
Your statement implies that they need an authority to give them permission to act of their own free will before they can act of their own free will.
Can you prove this?
>provide an argument against
Rather, can you provide an argument for equalism? Why should the status quo be disrupted? As the person who is making a stance for this change, you must provide proof that your stated goal is objectively superior to the status quo.
Moreover, before we begin this argument, I would prefer you to solidify your position, so that you cannot simply wiggle around by changing the intended goal of an unknowable stance. This is a common trick used to fool susceptible contenders into allowing you the freedom to manipulate facts to your end, without defining your end, which would make actual argument against your contentions impossible.
I think of it like the Unity episode of Rick and Morty. Which basically explains (through lots of cartoon violence and philosophical drama) that there is no such thing as a world living in peace, that also lives in freedom
So, I suppose both sides have a valid point. But I don't think either side wins overall
The status quo should be supplanted by equalism because the superstitions behind it prevent ponykind from reaching its true potential through complete cooperation. This cooperation is prevented in the current system by those emotionally driven platitudes and superstitions, i.e. spooks, that prevent their society from fully realising those ideals which it claims to hold in the highest regard.
That partly depends on how exactly you define egalitarianism. If we're talking about the way how it was presented in the episode, it's obviously bad because it actively punishes and forbids individual talents, pulling down society to the lowest common denominator, which destroys one of the very bases of a functioning society which is that different people can do different things differently well and thus contribute by doing the thing they can do well for people who can't, thus improving society.
This would only work in a hypothetical situation where everyone has exactly the same talents, capacities, and dispositions, because everyone would already be equal. And even then there are problems depending, again, on your definition of equal.
For a good example on this topic, read Harrison Bergeron. It's short and has likely served as inspiration for the S5 premiere.
>I wonder why we never had a villain that forces friendship with dark magic
Isn't that pretty much the S5 premiere? With how they all talk about "True friendship"? And "I created Harmony"?
Because it's communism applied in all the bad ways
If you lead a society in which everyone is assigned a task based on the simple notion that the task must be fulfilled, without regard of who would be the best to fulfill that task, you will never see productivity or progress. Who are you to say that this exact point in human/pony (societal) evolution is the one we should be stuck in forever?
If not simply for the fact that she appointed herself as the leader of her society. I couldn't argue against the fact that a leader -to an extent- is required, but in doing so, the concept of actual equality is already defeated by definition.
Plus the whole matter that basically none of the citizens had free will in the first place. Which gets off the whole morality thing.
If you live life without free will in a society that can't move forward (and may very well be moving backward) why not just commit mass suicide and leave the world to the animals.
Yeah sure, because a society where nobody is allowed to do what he can do well and subsequently nothing really works because nobody knows how or is allowed to do anything is a desirable thing. To go further, "improvement" doesn't even need to be considered, alone having a working society is endangered by this ideology. You're going to need actual arguments instead of arbitrarily dismissing any points to be taken seriously.
Also, go read the story.
>Who are you to say that this exact point in human/pony (societal) evolution is the one we should be stuck in forever?
Who are you to dictate the course of societal evolution?
>the concept of actual equality is already defeated by definition
Haven't you ever heard of first among equals?
>Which gets off the whole morality thing.
>If you live life without free will in a society that can't move forward (and may very well be moving backward) why not just commit mass suicide and leave the world to the animals.
Society can function when everyone is at least minimally capable in a wide variety of skills. In fact, it makes for a very flexible labour force that can adapt rapidly to changing economic conditions.
And I read that in high school, bro. Nobody's impressed that you read it. It's full of spooks.
It's not actually communism, communism (in theory) doesn't want everyone to be exactly equal, just have them have the exact same share of the common capital. It's more of a cultist ideology since Starlight wants everyone to do exactly as she says. It does however use things commonly associated with totalitarian regimes (marches, brainwashing, denouncement), which were also used under Stalin in what is usually called communist Russia (which was barely communist at all, about as much as the German Democratic Republic was democratic). inb4 derailment about true communism and what I say I do is totally what I do.
It can function, yes. Starlight's town functioned, but only because she forced her subjects into obedience. However, it cannot function well, as proved by the desolate state of the town in comparison to Equestria. It does not strive to improve it's habitants' lives, because the habitants are forbidden from doing anything that would improve that life. If you're OK with that, fine, that's your choice. However, Starlight did not give her subjects a choice.
Also, "spooks" is still not an argument. Have a good day.
Thank Mr. Skeletal
Keep all the spooks clear and obvious so they can all be refuted as soon as they come up.
That's why I said it was applied badly
To clarify, I'm not implying me nor she has more right to lead humanity to the right end, but the fact that she had to kidnap and brainwash (iirc) the people to get them to follow her cause, does put me on the better side of things
>Starlight's town functioned, but only because she forced her subjects into obedience.
And on what grounds do you claim that this is wrong?
>However, it cannot function well, as proved by the desolate state of the town in comparison to Equestria
Maybe it has to do with a smaller population with fewer resources living in a more hostile climate. Such a deeply esoteric idea, I know.
>anything that would improve that life
>However, Starlight did not give her subjects a choice.
She literally told the mane six they had a choice.
They were being subversive. She did what most societies do with subversive elements within themselves.
Has this purpoted true potential ever been achieved? How can we be sure an idea that has never been tested could reach to their expectations?
Communism goes against human nature and basic biology. It simply can't work in this nature, much less with humans.
>How can we be sure an idea that has never been tested could reach to their expectations?
You can't, but social experiments on this level aren't something you can replicate with mice in a laboratory. You need to actually try it.
Judging by the discussion in this thread:
Has anyone here EVER read Marx' and Engel's works?
If you've ever, EVER taken a book about humans, no matter if biology or psychology or sociology, in your hands you'll find their theories - they're actually untested hypotheses - couldn't possibly work with humans. Communism has been tested more than a dozen times, the best to book has been Mao's, and all of them, every single one of them has been more disastrous than Hitler's regime.
tl;dr: read a fucking ook, niggers
I'll have to admit I never read any of the actual books, but from what I gather from a quick look over Wikipedia and stuff, one of the basic ideas is that for Communism to be even considered, society would need to have advanced so far that working is barely an issue anymore, i.e. that people don't mind doing it. If that were the case, one *could* imagine that everyone would be OK with working enough to keep society going because it would not be much of a chore and the common denominator one gets as payment would be acceptable to live.
However, besides this hypothetical situation being incredible unlikely, it still doesn't address the issue that people want to keep the fruit of their work, since that is human nature and also logical. Not getting to keep the fruit of your labor also renders the labor useless. So yeah, based on this alone, it is very unlikely that humanity would ever reach a state in which communism would actually be a viable form of society.
Also I'd say most of the regimes that claimed to be communist rather were totalitarian oligarchies, so I'm rather careful with calling those tests. However it is true that many of those people tried to do it but in the end noticed that it simply doesn't work like that but wanted to stay in power.
thank mr skeltal for being the spook 4chan deserves, but not the one it needs right now
>And philosophy applied to nature.
Only people who don't understand spook call it an ad hom.
It demonstrates that the case against equalism is lacking substance.
define relatively speaking
Some cases of relative equality can be a good thing for society (giving every kid the chance to go to school is a very good thing), but Starlight's ideas and methods were obviously wrong. If ponies agreed to live with her and have their cutie mark taken, it would be OK. But forcing them is wrong.
In his works the "fruits of their labour" isn't the main theme. Also, in our Western world (which has been arguably the most humane in world) property may and should be considered part of the "labour's fruit" as well.