>This isn't how you use that joke.
Yes it is. The joke is dumbdumb rainbow didn't know a word. Seems simple.
>almost like a villain making fun of you and pointing your flaws but not coming up with a solution. It sounds mean spirited.
Actually, yes. I plainly hear it. It's bad dialogue spoken badly. I don't think it even has much personality. Fluttershy is the one out of all her friends who would attempt to make sure that a pony is making an informed decision about accepting a pet. Fluttershy cares about getting these animals good homes, and also about Rainbow being satisfied. That's not much, but it is at least consistent. The dialogue is bad because the only reason fluttershy is saying that is to obviously set up the next scene. She's not REALLY asking rainbow a question, which is why it is phrased so badly. She's telling us what the point of the following scene transition is. It's inhuman, which is why it is so forward and direct and meanly truthful. Like with the binoculars earlier, she's just directing the audience, talking to the camera, not being a full person.
>so, basically
Half of this is your own problem. The other half is for reasons other than what you think, but is real, I agree.
You're not finding intelligence because you don't think there can be any. You're not finding character because only one kind of character counts. Whenever a character uses their old traits to preform a new function in the story you get confused because you think that their function IS their trait. You see them as representatives of their category. To you, Spike is the dickhead, Fluttershy is the quiet lady, and Twilight is the one with specific wording and a brain. To you, the characters ARE their basic appearances. To you, Applejack can't be worried because AJ wasn't worried before.
Well, that's not how people are. It's not how you are. You've felt more than two emotions in your life, right?