Don’t let the ship distract you from the fact a being with hooves only getting fingers for a very short amount of time can play the piano while her native human counterpart cannot.

@MajorBrons  
You really wanna know why it chafes me to this day? It’s the false sense of triumphalism that surrounds it. That’s why I keep coming back to DeSean Jackson and similar cases.
 
The whole point of equal representation is that it be equal. With straight pairings you can say “THEY’RE A COUPLE!” in big bold letters, and no one bats an eye. But with gay couples you gotta tiptoe around it, ‘cause God forbid you jeopardize the international market for a show that spent two seasons in burnoff mode. And tiptoe they did. Then they went online and acted like the finale was a 22-minute wedding and honeymoon. They’re trying to have it both ways, scoring their social justice points stateside while the network gets to turn around and say “no, no, BEST. FRIENDS.” to the Russian censors. That’s crap, and I won’t stand for it.

@Background Human  
You sort of missed the point I made with that joke, but thats fine, my point was, one, calm your tits, and two, the intent is everything, as that was the point of the ending.  
You’re basically saying that just because they didn’t hold up a sign that said “ THEY’RE A COUPLE!” Means it doesn’t count? Have you no clue what subtlety is?  
If things aren’t clearly spelled out for you you think it doesn’t count? I have seen the show, more than once, and when they first aired the last episode everyone (excluding you) saw that scene and thought, “My, that looked quite romantic. Are they a couple?”  
To which the creator and writer of the show said, “Yes, that is what that last scene meant”. and everyone (mostly) was like, “Awesome!”.  
Not everything has to be displayed out front for it to be real, and it’s not as if people only thought this because of a tumblr post after the fact. It was heavily implied, in show, and then later confirmed.
 
My question is, if you’re so pro gay relationship, why do you have such a stick up your arse about this? Because you hate tumblr? Because the fans proclivity to ship any and all characters annoys you personally? Because if those are the reasons it doesn’t prove you’re right, it just proves you’re cranky. So I guess, get over it?

@MajorBrons  
Of course, by acknowledging the implication you are now plainly stating it. Whoops. And you’ll note that you didn’t have to run off to Tumblr to clarify your stance. You were able to do it in the same context, the same “canon” as it were, as the original implication.
 
Back to my point: the creator’s intent is not in reruns. The creator’s intent is not on Blu-Ray. The creator’s intent cannot be downloaded from iTunes or streamed on Netflix. Only the final product, the thing by which canon is traditionally defined. And the final product is a function of many people, some of whose intents will contradict each other. The only way for us as fans to resolve such contradictions is to see who made the final cut. The head writer says “totes lesbians,” Standards & Practices says “ambiguously gay.” Who wins? Watch the show.

@Background Human  
Never said homophobic, I only implied it, so according to you what I said never happened, so why are you so upset? It wasn’t canon, right?  
Only things that are plainly stated count as actual intent, right?  
And for the record it wasn’t “some guys blog”, the shows creator and head writer said that that relationship was indeed exactly their point in the final scene. Whether you personally think the creators intent “counts” is pretty irrelevant. Sorry dude.

@MajorBrons  
Because it can only be homophobia, right? BULLSHIT. I eagerly await the day when American children’s media can portray two chicks or two dudes in an open romantic relationship without having to maintain plausible deniability. But to pretend that that day has already arrived, on account of some guy’s blog written after the fact, only does a disservice to the LGBT community. Be glad for what the network let them get away with, but don’t spike the ball when you have to settle for a field goal. Keep fighting so you can cross the plane next time.
 
(Huh. I’m using a lot of sports metaphors in this thread.)

@Background Human  
Alright man, believe whatever you like. Your weird refusal on”principal” only makes you sound salty that a girl/girl relationship happened on a popular show known for its progressive ideals within it.  
Deny it all you like, it happened, it’s real. Sorry if that idea makes you uncomfortable.

@MajorBrons  
When you spend a full decade fucking with shippers (between Avatar and Avatar II: The Wrath of Quaritch), you don’t get the benefit of the doubt. Either they wake up in bed next to each other, or it’s a no-goal.
 
And I’m denying it as a matter of principle. Authorial intent means jack squat for a movie or TV show with dozens if not hundreds of “authors,” collaborating over months if not years. You have to go with what made the final cut, and if the final cut only has >implying, then >implying is all you get. Look at Independence Day, right? Roland Emmerich, 1996. Strongly implied that Data got killed by that autopsy alien. Now we find out that, yeah, not so much.

@Background Human  
So them walking hand in hand towards the portal while they face each other mere inches away from each other as the camera pans up implies nothing? Come on man, you know what’s going on. The only reason it didn’t actually go any further was for the reason you said, it’s on Nickelodeon. Doesn’t mean their relationship isn’t canon just because the camera didn’t linger long enough to see them make out. Why even try and deny it? It was heavily implied IN SHOW and then the creators affirmed it after the fact.  
It’s real and it’s canon no matter what semantic spin you put on it. Deal with it.

@Background Human
 
This.

@Marusame  
Yes, yes, I know. And unless their Tumblr post is included in the director’s cut of the finale, it ain’t canon. You want something to be in the show, it’s gotta be in the show.

@Background Human  
No, creators in interviews and on their own blogs and such said directly that is what it meant. They had to get around censors but it was intentional that they be considered at least in a romantic relationship. I havnt seen the series yet, but i seen the final bit to see what the buzz was about. It wasnt a full on 3rd base thing but it was more of a START of a real girlxgirl relationship. Basically they became girlfriend girlfriend.

@MajorBrons  
Tumblr ain’t canon.

@Background Pony #969D  
Except when the creators themselves straight up said that it was a relationship they set up. Korrasami is real, other countries be damned.

@Background Pony #140D  
Nick didn’t do it for Korrasami, they piled on as much subtext and implying as they possibly could but didn’t go to the extent of actually being explicit.
 
Because it’s illegal in several countries these shows are aired in.

@Marusame
 
This. I’m totally ok with >implied sunsetsparkle shipping in the next movie.

@Background Pony #140D  
Don’t think they’ll canonize anything, ship teasing is alot more fun.
 
Steven Universe spoiler  
Don’t forget about Garnet.

Nickelodeon did it for Korrasami, it seems likely they may do someting for a pony…

Equestria Girls had Flashlight, Rainbow Rocks had Twishimmer, so I assume Friendship Games will have Flashimmer.

@mrdoctorderpy  
better hasbro than gainax (gainax is not done whoring evangelion, not by a long shot)

@BK_Leonidas  
it’s hasbro

@BK_Leonidas  
to sell toys (that or drum up interest for customers and customizers)

No seriously. What’s with the new clothes?