What part of this thread ever ends well? Ending well is not what this thread does, it just gets more brutal until we decide to draw the line and introduce a new topic.
Allow me to say, if your views haven't been challenged here, and if you haven't learned anything or changed your opinions, you're Doin' it Wrong. I don't see this thread as a pointless "spew one's opinion" thread; discussion has a point and purpose, and that is seeing things from different points of view and refining one's opinions.
If anyone here is just posting things that annoy them and asking for a show of hands for agreement and
nothing else, not caring about opposing views or arguments, all I have to say is: get out. Fortunately I don't think anyone's actually doing that.
*goes back and reads responses to my rant*
Ah yes, this is the discussion I wanted and wasn't getting elsewhere.
This looks like the cumulation of all the previous discussion so I'll reply to it:
You say this as if we're talking about a real person, here. We're not. "When they weren't at their best" is a little silly when we're talking about the initial characterization of a fictional entity, which serves as the only possible basis for their character so far, which is something any writer knows and will pay attention to. First impressions matter in life and in fiction, and in fiction, writers know to use a first impression to establish the character's traits in general.
Assuming that anyone is anything because of superficial traits is silly, yes, but we're talking about a fictional character being portrayed as a stereotypical caricature of something. This is completely different. A character having impaired motor control, screwy eyes, a dopey-sounding voice, a generally high level of ineptitude, and a lack of awareness of what they're doing is a pretty solid combination for the stereotypical caricature of a mentally-disabled person, whether you would assume a person to be mentally disabled because of those traits in real life or not. Hell, of course it's silly to assume that someone is a certain thing just because they happen to fit a stereotypical portrayal of that thing, but basing a character on a stereotypical portrayal of that thing is still not a very good idea. Especially not when you name them after something already connected with that thing. Not that I think I'll ever be able to convince you that the word "derp" is at all connected with the concept of ridiculous stupidity, but the fact is that it is.
First off I'll concede to a large degree about the name. The "herp derp" thing has always read to me as an insult roughly equal to "window licker." Were that the only thing changed I wouldn't of made my previous post.
Things of note about the name though:
- I know from personal experience that the name's use, in the fandom at least, is 100% benign. She's not dubbed "derpy" as a way to mock her or her behavior. Outside of that I can definitely see where you're coming from, though.
- An alternative (Ditzy Doo) was originally proposed by the showrunners, since an offscreen pony had that name in one of the episodes (flying dice referred to it). I honestly don't see it as any
less offensive assuming one knows the meaning behind both words, and more so if one doesn't know the term "derp" at all (like, you know, the target audience).
- Finally the naming structure of the show revolves around naming characters based on traits, and it's not always
positive traits. A haughty child character is named "silver spoon" due to being a spoiled brat, for example. Derpy's big trait is being clumsy (for whatever reason), so she should probably have a name about that. If we say Derpy can't have a name based around a flaw of hers, but others can, we're back to positive discrimination territory.
I'll be calling her Derpy rather than any other alternative for the remainder of this post though just to clarify any ambiguity.
The rest of the argument revolves around whether she's a "caricature" or not. G-Flex and Flying Dice both made good points about impressions; all we see is this minute and a half clip, and we're supposed to laugh at her antics. Is it saying that handicapped individuals are like this, or is it saying
Derpy is like this? Only the former is actually bad; a character being a stereotype is nether a positive or negative thing. It only becomes a problem when the story in question appears to be extrapolating the portrayed characteristics to
every other member of the minority's group, and when you only have one character like that (in one scene, no less), it's not too huge a logical leap.
I'm going to side with Flying Dice here and say that if she got more screentime with her old characteristics in different situations, these accusations of her being a caricature wouldn't hold water. Indeed, as the censored scene shows, there's nothing wrong with a character being clumsy or oblivious; it's only somehow wrong when a
handicapped individual is being clumsy and oblivious. If she were shown to be more than just that, first impressions wouldn't be negative, and thus anyone complaining would be saying that handicapped individuals cannot have flaws: the very issue of positive discrimination I'm railing against.
I maintain throughout this that there is nothing wrong with Derpy's old voice or eyes (well, beyond the voice plain sucking -- nothing to do with whether it's indicative of a handicap or not). Things
can be wrong though if these traits are portrayed in a negative manner; as if they're "bad" traits, and something to be ashamed of.
I can make an analogy with pretty much any other stereotype out there, so I'll go with another with an unusual voice: the flamboyant homosexual. It's become a bit of a cliche nowadays, but people like that actually exist, albeit rarely. Are they indicative of homosexuals as a whole? Hell no. And yes, it's a problem when
every homosexual is portrayed that way, because then it's saying that
all homosexuals are like that. But can a show portray such a character (and without positive discrimination)? It's possible. They just have to unfortunately explicitly state "these characteristics are
this particular character's characteristics, not characteristics shared by every person in this minority" because people will unfairly extrapolate otherwise. And do note, if we were to say no flamboyant homosexuals can be portrayed on screen, that's a massive insult to everyone who is actually like that; they're somehow "bad" or "embarrassing" to the rest of their group. "Stop being so stereotypical" is a very offensive thing to say without backing it up with something beyond the mere existence of a stereotype.
I can't really say that real people exist that are 100% similar to Derpy, but I wouldn't be surprised. Regardless, you'll have a hell of a time convincing me that her traits are bad things to have. So she has wall eyes and a funny voice; whup-dee-fucking-do. None of those are reasons to look down on someone, real or fictional, handicapped or otherwise. As for being clumsy... well written characters have
flaws. If you exclude flaws from a character out of fear of offending the group they belong to, then that only weakens the character. Women for example have been trying for decades to actually be depicted as human rather than a very short list of character types with "acceptable" flaws. Sure most of that is motivated by residual misogyny, but they're also pigeonholed into character types like
this for non-malicious reasons, and it is absolutely
no better. Doing the same to handicapped individuals, saying they can't be certain character types or have certain flaws for fear of offending them, is just as bad.