I don't mind her new voice. It's not the best, but it's cute, and she comes across as more of a clumsy girl.
I don't have any problem with new new voice ether, actually it's better than some other one-line side characters have had.
I'm just not fan of changing things like that. But that doesn't take away the original Derpy-version, I'm pretty sure it's still findable in youtubes and in people's hard-drives and the DVD version should be the original, at least accordingly to the EqD.
I'm just wondering what actually made them to go through the effort of making that change, it can't be any small thing like couple of hatemails there is a real reason hidden in there somewhere and I'm interested to hear what it was.
Le Sigh... You see, this is why we can't have nice things.
People who tell other people that they don't have the right to be upset at the problematic stereotypes present in media are precisely why we can't have nice things.
The change is fine.
...She doesn't sound Derpy (Read: like a caricature of a developmentally disabled person) at all. She sounds a lot more like Twilight Sparkle to me.
Linkigi, you're an okay dude, but you're itching for a either a debate or a fight. And, while I'm not going to get too much into this, you are reading too much into people's comments.
I'm not saying people don't have the right to express their opinions or to be upset if they feel slighted. My comment was just me pointing out that Hasbro was trying to give us some fanservice and a loud portion of the community turned around and gave them such a hard time they decided to ret-con it into oblivion. And that is ALL I'm saying. I'm not saying if the depiction of Derpy is legitimately offensive or not, nor if it should have been done better or not. I am simply saying that situations like this is exactly the reason why companies like Hasbro and DMX Vancouver hesitate to give us fanservice; they worry about us biting their hand.
Also, and while Clockian is more than capable of responding himself, since I'm already here, it's bad form to put words in people's mouths. If you want to say, "That's a good thing because her voice was like a caricature of a developmentally disabled person", then that's fine. But to put your words as part of a direct quote of someone else, especially if you are doing so as an interpretation, then that's just bad form. In fact, if it was a debate, it would be a straw-man.
I'll admit, this whole debate has put me on a hair-trigger. Mostly because I was upset at the portrayal of Derpy, and when I voiced that opinion the response that I got had pretty strong implications of "I'm not offended and my other friends aren't either, so you don't have the right to be offended." Which is something that happens a lot in media criticism, and why studios can still get away with putting some very problematic content out there.
And the backlash isn't because of the fanservice, it was because the Derpy scene was pretty ableist, more so than we usually see in other episodes. Even though it might look to Hasbro like the inclusion of the fanservice was what provoked the negative response, trying to avoid that image is no excuse to simply ignore the problems with Derpy's voiceacting.
As for my reading of Clockian's statement, he said "she didn't sound Derpy enough." How the fuck else am I supposed to read that!?
I do like her new voice, but I am frankly disappointed that Political Correct-ness had to intervene once again. Was the vocal minority in this case a reflection of a silent majority, or did Hasbro simply dropped the hot potato regardless.
I was frankly too proud of the fandom and studio B responsible for Derpy's creation to be bothered on Political Correct-ness, that was in a huge case a by product of the adult fandom and political mindsets. Too bad, i doubt we'll have any more major screen times of the character from henceforth.
Also Linkiji, how you inserted that "disclaimer" into Clockian's statement was ugly. To play devil's advocate, i had never encountered the word derpy till i listented to Geeknights, and have always equated it to being clumsy, or a "Whoops" situation, not "retarded and mentally handicapped". Again Political and Personal mindsets at play, in the end, not surprised this happened.
Too bad, i doubt we'll have any more major screen times of the character from henceforth.
I find this pretty unlikely. Partly because most of the season's done already, but also because I doubt Studio B will be discouraged too much by a single incident.
Also, I'm fucking tired of "political correctness" being used to complain about people raising issues with offensive/problematic statements. Inevitably it comes from some combination of white/able/cis/heterosexual/male privilege, in the sense that the privileged classes do not have offensive stereotypes that they have to combat.
I'll admit, this whole debate has put me on a hair-trigger. Mostly because I was upset at the portrayal of Derpy, and when I voiced that opinion the response that I got had pretty strong implications of "I'm not offended and my other friends aren't either, so you don't have the right to be offended." Which is something that happens a lot in media criticism, and why studios can still get away with putting some very problematic content out there.
Yes, and I understand what you mean by it putting you on a hair trigger (I have several topics that do that to me), but you can't assume everyone feels that way. I certainly don't.
And the backlash isn't because of the fanservice, it was because the Derpy scene was pretty ableist, more so than we usually see in other episodes. Even though it might look to Hasbro like the inclusion of the fanservice was what provoked the negative response, trying to avoid that image is no excuse to simply ignore the problems with Derpy's voiceacting.
See, you can't really assume it was ableist. I am of the mind that, while all art is open to interpretation, that doesn't mean the interpretation is what the artist intended. I think it was intended just for laughs. Hell, I laugh when a person is being clumsy. It's called slapstick and it's been a staple in comedy since the renaissance. If we assume that the scene in question was intended for the adult fanbase, then we have to consider how that scene originated. WE called the pony Derpy and it isn't hard to make the leap that, when writing that scene, they went to look up what "Derpy" means. WE are responsible for that character because we named it, we asked for it, and they gave us exactly what we asked for going by what we named it. If what they gave us was ableist, then perhaps we need to evaluate our own use of the word "Derpy".
And, OH YES, Derpy's voice acting was TERRIBLE. It was stiff, exaggerated, and just plain bad acting. Perhaps you know, but BaldDumboRat is playing Derpy in the game I'm working on. After the episode came out, I heard from one of the other actresses that she was fretting about how she should portray Derpy in light of the canon voice. I spoke to a couple of the professional VA's on the cast and we all pretty much agreed that Paula's (BDR) acting was leaps and bounds better. So I emailed her telling her that if she tried to voice like the canon voice, it would only be a detriment to her performance.
As for my reading of Clockian's statement, he said "she didn't sound Derpy enough." How the fuck else am I supposed to read that!?
Actually, what you quoted said (in the original post and in your own quoting) "...She doesn't sound like Derpy at all."
Also, I'm fucking tired of "political correctness" being used to complain about people raising issues with offensive/problematic statements. Inevitably it comes from some combination of white/able/cis/heterosexual/male privilege, in the sense that the privileged classes do not have offensive stereotypes that they have to combat.
Two words: Thurston Howell. Or, for celebrities, three words: "infidelity, cocaine, snobbery". Stereotypes go both ways.
The moment somebody brings up "political correctness gone wrong" to back their point, I know that opposing them is correct. Derpy's voice was way ableist and not cool, the new voice is both less problematic and cuter, it's a shame the name had to go but them's the breaks, lets move the fuck on, shall we?
Goofy isn't portrayed as mentally disabled as a joke. He's just, well, goofy. Derpy's portrayal could very easy be (and indeed was) interpreted as "Hah, look at that retard". Big difference.
Goofy isn't portrayed as mentally disabled as a joke. He's just, well, goofy. Derpy's portrayal could very easy be (and indeed was) interpreted as "Hah, look at that retard". Big difference.
Goofy is more like Pinkie Pie than Derpy.
You are derpy if you believe that. You're just looking for an excuse to cover your over-sensitive ass. Pinkie Pie is often protrayed as a secret genius. Goofy is always a complete dumbass. How about Elmer Fudd? Or how about Mugsy, Rocky's assistant gangster? Stimpy? Ralph Wiggum? Cartoon history is filled with complete doofuses. Derpy is the only time anyone has ever had a problem.
Calling me overly-sensitive tells me pretty much all I need to know about this argument. There is no point trying to teach somebody empathy over the internet, so have fun being a bigot, Scott.
Calling me overly-sensitive tells me pretty much all I need to know about this argument. There is no point trying to teach somebody empathy over the internet, so have fun being a bigot, Scott.
I combined my insult with an actual argument. Why haven't you complained even once about Ralph Wiggum in the 20+ years he has been around?
Because I don't watch the Simpsons that much? Ralph is also an ableist character and also not cool, but even he isn't present the same way Derpy was; his joke is primarily in non-sequitors. He's not an ideal character, but he's not nearly as bad. As for the other characters you brought up, they are mostly from old-ass cartoons, and it should go without saying that old cartoons, like old everything, are bigoted as fuck.
(Also, citing history as a counter to progressive arguments is really, really dumb. Because, you know, history is filled with wimmins in the kitchen and black people in the fields. We've never had a problem with it before!)
Also, there is a big goddamn difference between a character who is funny because he is stupid and a character whose joke is that his is disabled. Compare Homer Simpson and Peter Griffen. Homer is definitely stupid, but he isn't disabled. There is a lot of body-shaming going on with him, but whatever, he's a twenty-five year old character; the idea of body-shaming barely existed back then. Meanwhile, a part of Peter's character that we are supposed to laugh at is that he is actually mentally disabled. That's completely fucked up.
It's a pretty obvious bright line and I don't know what to tell you if you can't see it.
I think I like the new voice and lack of "Derpy" as a name better, if only because it seems to actually fit into the show better. Previously, it was just outright Internet fan service, and quite frankly, I'm not a fan of validating rabid Internet fandom.
I didn't have a problem with Derpy or the portrayal. This new take just feels a bit better.
(Also, citing history as a counter to progressive arguments is really, really dumb. Because, you know, history is filled with wimmins in the kitchen and black people in the fields. We've never had a problem with it before!)
No, this is exactly my point. We have been complaining about it all along. We've been complaining about scantily clad watermelon boob superheros for as long as they have existed and we have been alive. If I complain about Catwoman, nobody can say I didn't complain about Power Girl, because yes I did also complain about Power Girl.
Throughout the entire history of cartoons and comedy including straight through the era of political correctness there have been blatantly mentally challenged characters. The Three Stooges, Dumb & Dumber, half of Adam Sandler's characters, Ed, Edd n Eddy, I mean where do you want me to stop?
But even through the '90s and '00s when political correctness was a thing, and people were very sensitive, not once have I seen a complaint about ableism. Even on the entire Internet can you find someone complaining about any of these characters prior to Derpy Hooves?
It is only because she is a fan-creation she garnered excessive attention. Every aspect of her character was picked over with the pointiest tweezers. Then each of those miniscule aspects was put under a magnifying glass and blown up a zillion fold. Some people found one aspect and decided to be offended, and the idea spread.
If you were truly offended by that, as opposed to jumping on the newly invented bandwagon, how come you have never been offended or complained about any of the other stupid comedic characters before? The fact is that you weren't offended until someone told you to be offended. You've just caught the meme that says you should be offended, and you're riding it.
If you were actually offended by characters in media being stupid, you would have been offended long ago and would have been complaining about it long ago. The fact that you only started with this character at this point in time proves that this is a manufactured controversy with no merit.
First off, I'm not "offended". I have no skin in the game; I'm able-bodied and able-minded. You are right; I wouldn't have noticed had somebody not explained to me that it was offensive. However, somebody did. They pointed out why it was bad, they gave all sorts of sound reasoning regarding the devaluation of people and how things like this are picked up by children as ammunition against the disabled, and the convinced me that was wasn't cool and that, in the interest of intersectionality, I should care. So I started caring, because if I don't, if I only get offended by things that offend me personally, I'll end up one of those bigoted old fucks we wish would just die so the smart young people can take over way faster than I'd like.
Scott, you (and I) are what we call "privileged". It means we have the luxury of not being offended by this sort of thing. We can find it funny because we've never seen it in a context where it wasn't funny, then we look over at the people it hurt and go "Hey, grow thicker skin! Get a sense of humour! Why can't you laugh at this? What is wrong with you?"
Privilege is invisible until it's pointed out. People like us didn't always complain about "scantily clad watermelon boob superheros", and when we did, it was usually because they offended an unrelated set of sensibilities (religiously-driven modesty, usually) It took other people being hurt by those stereotypes before privileged folks like us started noticing, and even then, we've not always got it right. For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with scantily clad watermelon boob superheros, the problem come from the fact that they are ALL scantily clad watermelon boob superheros and they are presented in a way that alienates women. If male superheroes get to be male power fantasies, it's wrong that female superheroes don't encompass a range of female power fantasies.
Derpy Hooves wasn't the worst thing in the entire universe, but it was definitely a misstep. I'm proud Hasbro decided to take a look and revise it. The audience this show is intended for is very vulnerable to messages that could lead them to hurtful behaviors. They've toned her down and removed a name that is a budding albeist slur, and as a result she's no longer objectionable. She's ditzy instead of disabled and far less hurtful for it. Why can't you be happy with that?
Dudes, this argument has been had like 5 times already in this thread. We already established that neither side is going to feel any differently no matter what is said. It's a visceral reaction to the character; you either feel wrong about it or you don't. It is what it is. Just move on.
So you aren't offended, but you think it's wrong because it is offensive to someone else and you feel badly for them? How do you feel about depictions of Muhammed? They are offensive to a very large number of people in the world. A lot of people in the world find any homosexuality offensive. Should we get rid of any depictions of boys kissing each other?
The right of people to draw Mohammed or boys to kiss each other override the right for those people not to get offended about it, though if those Mohammads are being drawn or those boys are being kissed for no other reason than to piss off people that's a little scummy; you should do those things because they are fun, not to make other people angry.
Also, drawing prophets and kissing boys is a harmless, fun activity. Reinforcing an atmosphere of othering to the disabled that leads to discrimination is obviously not a harmless activity.
Finally, the reason people are against kissing boys and drawing Mohammad is religion, which is a false premise. If all disabilities were psychosomatic and nobody was disabled for reals, then your analogy would have some more weight.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to portray an ableist character, but that it is morally better if you don't. I don't want to see Family Guy banned, but I will not hesitate to call it out for being horrible and I will be happy if they change their ways. Why is that wrong?
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to portray an ableist character, but that it is morally better if you don't. I don't want to see Family Guy banned, but I will not hesitate to call it out for being horrible and I will be happy if they change their ways. Why is that wrong?
If any of these protrayals were actually ableist, I would be offended by them personally. When something is racist it depicts stereotypes affiliated with a particular race in an exaggerated, unflattering, and false manner. You can look at something that is racist and name the exact race it is racist against. What exact disability are any of these characters ableist against? I guess you could say she is making fun of people with lazy eye, but that's about it. Sorry lazy eye people.
If you really wanted to be ableist, it could easily be done. For example you could make fun of people with Parkinson's Disease. You could have a character that is shaking uncontrollably, and screwing up all sorts of things because of it. That on its own is just sad, but if you depict it in an exaggerated and cartoonish fashion with a laugh track then it becomes extremely offensive. I have never in my life seen a depiction such as this which makes fun of an actual disability in this manner. It's the kind of thing that is offensive to just about everybody.
What link is there between Ralph Wiggum and disability? He's not drawn in a way to suggest he has Down Syndrome. It is not suggested that he actually has any kind of disability. His dad is also dumb, but not disabled. You can easily imagine Ralph growing up to be about the same as his father. He represents the cute dumb aspect of all children, not the failings of those with disabilities.
The fact is these characters like Derpy are not offensive stereotypes of any disability or disabilities in general. They are purely fictional creations that take the stupidity that is present in all humanity, concentrate it, and bring it to the extreme. They're making fun of everybody. Everyone is clumsy sometimes. Everyone does something stupid sometimes. These characters just do those things non-stop. That's what makes them funny, because we are laughing at ourselves. When you laugh at dude in black face you are laughing at black people. When you laugh at Derpy you are laughing at all humanity.
Sorry, Scott, I'm not going to take the able-bodied dude's word on whether or not something can be ableist or not. There is clearly no point in continuing this discussion if you refuse to recognize your privilege.
And this is why everybody hates /r/SRS, and why nobody takes them seriously. Whoever started this stupidity and everyone that continued it, give yourself an uppercut.
Sorry, Scott, I'm not going to take the able-bodied dude's word on whether or not something can be ableist or not. There is clearly no point in continuing this discussion if you refuse to recognize your privilege.
Ah, I know where you learned that trick, the old "Scream privileged" play, normally performed over one's shoulder, as one flees from an argument. It'll fly at SRS, but here, not so much. If you can't or won't argue, have some guts and concede, don't try that childish "OH YEAH? Well I'll take my ball and go home then" nonsense.
On top of that, once again, this is not SRS. Shouting Privileged is not actually an argument here. We generally try to pride ourselves on intelligence, not on how offended we can be and how much we tell everyone we're better than them because of it.
Comments
I'm just not fan of changing things like that. But that doesn't take away the original Derpy-version, I'm pretty sure it's still findable in youtubes and in people's hard-drives and the DVD version should be the original, at least accordingly to the EqD.
I'm just wondering what actually made them to go through the effort of making that change, it can't be any small thing like couple of hatemails there is a real reason hidden in there somewhere and I'm interested to hear what it was.
The change is fine. That's a good thing.
I'm not saying people don't have the right to express their opinions or to be upset if they feel slighted. My comment was just me pointing out that Hasbro was trying to give us some fanservice and a loud portion of the community turned around and gave them such a hard time they decided to ret-con it into oblivion. And that is ALL I'm saying. I'm not saying if the depiction of Derpy is legitimately offensive or not, nor if it should have been done better or not. I am simply saying that situations like this is exactly the reason why companies like Hasbro and DMX Vancouver hesitate to give us fanservice; they worry about us biting their hand.
Also, and while Clockian is more than capable of responding himself, since I'm already here, it's bad form to put words in people's mouths. If you want to say, "That's a good thing because her voice was like a caricature of a developmentally disabled person", then that's fine. But to put your words as part of a direct quote of someone else, especially if you are doing so as an interpretation, then that's just bad form. In fact, if it was a debate, it would be a straw-man.
And the backlash isn't because of the fanservice, it was because the Derpy scene was pretty ableist, more so than we usually see in other episodes. Even though it might look to Hasbro like the inclusion of the fanservice was what provoked the negative response, trying to avoid that image is no excuse to simply ignore the problems with Derpy's voiceacting.
As for my reading of Clockian's statement, he said "she didn't sound Derpy enough." How the fuck else am I supposed to read that!?
I was frankly too proud of the fandom and studio B responsible for Derpy's creation to be bothered on Political Correct-ness, that was in a huge case a by product of the adult fandom and political mindsets. Too bad, i doubt we'll have any more major screen times of the character from henceforth.
Also Linkiji, how you inserted that "disclaimer" into Clockian's statement was ugly. To play devil's advocate, i had never encountered the word derpy till i listented to Geeknights, and have always equated it to being clumsy, or a "Whoops" situation, not "retarded and mentally handicapped". Again Political and Personal mindsets at play, in the end, not surprised this happened.
Also, I'm fucking tired of "political correctness" being used to complain about people raising issues with offensive/problematic statements. Inevitably it comes from some combination of white/able/cis/heterosexual/male privilege, in the sense that the privileged classes do not have offensive stereotypes that they have to combat.
If we assume that the scene in question was intended for the adult fanbase, then we have to consider how that scene originated. WE called the pony Derpy and it isn't hard to make the leap that, when writing that scene, they went to look up what "Derpy" means. WE are responsible for that character because we named it, we asked for it, and they gave us exactly what we asked for going by what we named it. If what they gave us was ableist, then perhaps we need to evaluate our own use of the word "Derpy".
And, OH YES, Derpy's voice acting was TERRIBLE. It was stiff, exaggerated, and just plain bad acting.
Perhaps you know, but BaldDumboRat is playing Derpy in the game I'm working on. After the episode came out, I heard from one of the other actresses that she was fretting about how she should portray Derpy in light of the canon voice. I spoke to a couple of the professional VA's on the cast and we all pretty much agreed that Paula's (BDR) acting was leaps and bounds better. So I emailed her telling her that if she tried to voice like the canon voice, it would only be a detriment to her performance. Actually, what you quoted said (in the original post and in your own quoting) "...She doesn't sound like Derpy at all." Two words: Thurston Howell. Or, for celebrities, three words: "infidelity, cocaine, snobbery". Stereotypes go both ways.
QED
STFU
Goofy is more like Pinkie Pie than Derpy.
(Also, citing history as a counter to progressive arguments is really, really dumb. Because, you know, history is filled with wimmins in the kitchen and black people in the fields. We've never had a problem with it before!)
Also, there is a big goddamn difference between a character who is funny because he is stupid and a character whose joke is that his is disabled. Compare Homer Simpson and Peter Griffen. Homer is definitely stupid, but he isn't disabled. There is a lot of body-shaming going on with him, but whatever, he's a twenty-five year old character; the idea of body-shaming barely existed back then. Meanwhile, a part of Peter's character that we are supposed to laugh at is that he is actually mentally disabled. That's completely fucked up.
It's a pretty obvious bright line and I don't know what to tell you if you can't see it.
I didn't have a problem with Derpy or the portrayal. This new take just feels a bit better.
Throughout the entire history of cartoons and comedy including straight through the era of political correctness there have been blatantly mentally challenged characters. The Three Stooges, Dumb & Dumber, half of Adam Sandler's characters, Ed, Edd n Eddy, I mean where do you want me to stop?
But even through the '90s and '00s when political correctness was a thing, and people were very sensitive, not once have I seen a complaint about ableism. Even on the entire Internet can you find someone complaining about any of these characters prior to Derpy Hooves?
It is only because she is a fan-creation she garnered excessive attention. Every aspect of her character was picked over with the pointiest tweezers. Then each of those miniscule aspects was put under a magnifying glass and blown up a zillion fold. Some people found one aspect and decided to be offended, and the idea spread.
If you were truly offended by that, as opposed to jumping on the newly invented bandwagon, how come you have never been offended or complained about any of the other stupid comedic characters before? The fact is that you weren't offended until someone told you to be offended. You've just caught the meme that says you should be offended, and you're riding it.
If you were actually offended by characters in media being stupid, you would have been offended long ago and would have been complaining about it long ago. The fact that you only started with this character at this point in time proves that this is a manufactured controversy with no merit.
Scott, you (and I) are what we call "privileged". It means we have the luxury of not being offended by this sort of thing. We can find it funny because we've never seen it in a context where it wasn't funny, then we look over at the people it hurt and go "Hey, grow thicker skin! Get a sense of humour! Why can't you laugh at this? What is wrong with you?"
Privilege is invisible until it's pointed out. People like us didn't always complain about "scantily clad watermelon boob superheros", and when we did, it was usually because they offended an unrelated set of sensibilities (religiously-driven modesty, usually) It took other people being hurt by those stereotypes before privileged folks like us started noticing, and even then, we've not always got it right. For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with scantily clad watermelon boob superheros, the problem come from the fact that they are ALL scantily clad watermelon boob superheros and they are presented in a way that alienates women. If male superheroes get to be male power fantasies, it's wrong that female superheroes don't encompass a range of female power fantasies.
Derpy Hooves wasn't the worst thing in the entire universe, but it was definitely a misstep. I'm proud Hasbro decided to take a look and revise it. The audience this show is intended for is very vulnerable to messages that could lead them to hurtful behaviors. They've toned her down and removed a name that is a budding albeist slur, and as a result she's no longer objectionable. She's ditzy instead of disabled and far less hurtful for it. Why can't you be happy with that?
Also, drawing prophets and kissing boys is a harmless, fun activity. Reinforcing an atmosphere of othering to the disabled that leads to discrimination is obviously not a harmless activity.
Finally, the reason people are against kissing boys and drawing Mohammad is religion, which is a false premise. If all disabilities were psychosomatic and nobody was disabled for reals, then your analogy would have some more weight.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to portray an ableist character, but that it is morally better if you don't. I don't want to see Family Guy banned, but I will not hesitate to call it out for being horrible and I will be happy if they change their ways. Why is that wrong?
If you really wanted to be ableist, it could easily be done. For example you could make fun of people with Parkinson's Disease. You could have a character that is shaking uncontrollably, and screwing up all sorts of things because of it. That on its own is just sad, but if you depict it in an exaggerated and cartoonish fashion with a laugh track then it becomes extremely offensive. I have never in my life seen a depiction such as this which makes fun of an actual disability in this manner. It's the kind of thing that is offensive to just about everybody.
What link is there between Ralph Wiggum and disability? He's not drawn in a way to suggest he has Down Syndrome. It is not suggested that he actually has any kind of disability. His dad is also dumb, but not disabled. You can easily imagine Ralph growing up to be about the same as his father. He represents the cute dumb aspect of all children, not the failings of those with disabilities.
The fact is these characters like Derpy are not offensive stereotypes of any disability or disabilities in general. They are purely fictional creations that take the stupidity that is present in all humanity, concentrate it, and bring it to the extreme. They're making fun of everybody. Everyone is clumsy sometimes. Everyone does something stupid sometimes. These characters just do those things non-stop. That's what makes them funny, because we are laughing at ourselves. When you laugh at dude in black face you are laughing at black people. When you laugh at Derpy you are laughing at all humanity.
On top of that, once again, this is not SRS. Shouting Privileged is not actually an argument here. We generally try to pride ourselves on intelligence, not on how offended we can be and how much we tell everyone we're better than them because of it.