FANDOM


  • Fruipit
    Fruipit closed this thread because:
    constructive discussion is no longer occurring; thread keeps dying and being revived
    08:06, October 20, 2018

    I didn't like Mako and Korra becoming a couple. The whole love thing in LOK was in my opinion, weighing it down. The show always had to stop and focus on the love situation instead of the action. It was tiring and i found myself skipping over those parts. In the Last Airbender, They had love sequences but it wasn't shoved in our face like it is here.

    I wanted Korra to become single. I didn't think she needed a romantic partner. It would of been better if she ended up with no one and focused more on her future plans. But noooo. We must please the LGBT community. Instead of making Korra a strong single women, The creators decided that she go Asami even though it didn't make any sense!

      Loading editor
    • So, in your mind, the creators placing her with Asami was to "please the LGBT community?". And as more than one person on this wiki has pointed out, there were subtle signs of their relationship in the 3rd and 4th season

        Loading editor
    • I was thinking more along the lines of if the choice is to "please the LGBT community" or "to please fans who didn't like the romance," it's not like the 1st group somehow deserves it less.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the main point, but I would like to add that I don't think any romantic ending would've been satisfactory. This show was bad with handling its romantic subplots.

        Loading editor
    • Oh look, another "Korra x Asami is bad" thread! How original!

      How is Korra x Asami shoved down our faces, but Aang and Katara aren't? Korra x Asami detractors cry about not having any development therefore the relationship was tacked on and shouldn't have happened. Then we get "it being shoved down our faces"? 

      Great! When we have LGBT characters, it's pandering. When we have straight couples all over the place, that's totally fine and not being shoved down our faces!

      But okay, let's apply the same logic to Aang; WTF!? He should have been single and focusing on the future! Also, he's like 13, what's he doing getting in a serious relationship!? Therefore, Bryke screwed up the franchise by giving Aang, Katara in the end. As an aside, wtf, why couldn't Katara be a strong single woman focused on the future?

        Loading editor
    • Well, first of all, I think that those "love situations" were suitable for the story. In ALTA there were times of war, so they didn't have time for anything but the action. And also Aang was only 12 years old and it isn't strange that there were not really "romantic situations" in his life. ( Yes, he lived in medieval times and things were different back then but in Avatar World he was still considered a kid ).

      In the other hand, Korra is a teenager who lives in peacetime and it's normal and more realistic that she's not focused only on her duties, etc. 

      And the fact that she has partner doesn't mean that she can't be strong female character any more. Man can be strong and independent while having partner but woman can't or what? Lin always was a strong woman and she was in relationship with Tenzin. Toph also was a strong woman and also she had partner and two children. Zuko's daughter is Fire Lord and has a child. I can continue.... And also Korra and Asami aren't even married. They both may become single once again at some point of their lives. 

      I doubt that showrunners wanted "to please LGBT community". It was just part of the story. Their relationship developed and makes sense IMO. 

        Loading editor
    • I don't think Bryke made Korrasami canon to pander to the queer community, but I do wish Korra had ended the series alone. In Bryan's tumblr post, he mentioned Hayao Miyazaki's quote of the unwritten rule they became skeptical of, that a romance must ensue when a boy and a girl are featured, and adds that there would be a counterpart, that just because two friends are the same sex, it shouldn't mean romance is off the table. By making Korrasami canon, they did go down a less trodden path, but not necessarily the least trodden path, in my opinion. I think they still followed an unwritten that dictates that being in a relationship must be there in the endgoal, even more so for the main character. Like you can't be happy or fulfilled if you're not in a relationship, or healing from a previous, failed relationship. Korrasami was developed well and organically enough for it to work, but if breaking away from traditional rules was the point, having Korra be happy single would have been more effective. Had they decided to go that route, I don't think they'd have developed Korrasami as they did, lest they be accused of queer-baiting. Korrasami was a victory for LGBT representation in animated media, but as far as breaking from tradition goes, it doesn't go as far. So no, Korrasami wasn't a way to appease a section of the fan-base, but to me, it's not the most triumphant way of breaking with tradition, which seemed to have been the objective, per Bryan's tumblr post in which he confirmed Korrasami.

        Loading editor
    • Did he state that breaking tradition was the point? Or did he say that he felt the couple grew together naturally?

      I agree with you about the "why do stories so frequently feel compelled to end with the realization of a romance?", but when this happens here, it's being put under this criticism that our totally traditional formula (boy meets girl, saves world, gets girl) doesn't face. "Korra x Asami doesn't break tradition enough" is counterintuitive when people are complaining about how it pales in comparison to Aang x Katara...which is by the book par for the course. Mix in complaints of "pandering to the LGBT community" (when I don't see "zomg, Aang and Katara is pandering to heterosexuals!") and it really diminishes the value of what you're talking about in this context.

        Loading editor
    • Bryan did mention wanting to do something "for the gay community," but he also mentioned that it was best for the story besides that.

      I don't know why people seem to forget that the rest of the Avatarverse is also, in part, commenting on something in the real world.

      By making Korrasami canon, they did go down a less trodden path, but not necessarily the least trodden path, in my opinion.

      I can think of several protagonists who didn't wind up in a romance by the end of the main series. Luke Skywalker. Roger Smith. Buffy. Edward Elric (2003). Obi-Wan Kanobe.

      The list of main characters I can think of who were gay includes Korra &....

      Obviously you'll find more if you look at stories that specifically focus on gay audiences, but I stayed pretty squarely in the action/adventure genre for both lists. And some of those in the 1st list were in a straight relationship at some point, but so was Korra.

      Point being: Protagonists in a straight relationship>single protagonists>gay protagonists.

        Loading editor
    • @Weltall8000 Bryan spent four paragraphs of his "Korrasami is canon" tumblr post explaining the unwritten rules and the process they went through to break them. If that shows no interest in doing things in an untraditional way, I don't know what does. The traditional formula does face criticism, though less about what it does and more about how or how frequently it does it. Everyone and their mother nowadays knows and expects the formula, it's become stale, which is the main point of criticism it faces. It's more of the same.

      @Neo Bahamut I'm not specifically talking about the absolute protagonist of the series, but more of the main characters in general. In this case, Korra and Asami are main characters, sure, Bolin got in a serious relationship, but Mako ended up single, so that's a plus. Whether he remains single in the comics, depending on whether they introduce Izumi's daughter, is another question. Depending on whether you consider Lin a main character, she also ended up single. Among the core characters of shows, there are always relationship upgrades by the end.

      Characters getting into a relationship at the end of a series reeks of stale story-telling. It's too "and they lived happily ever after". If I character has to be in a relationship by the end of a work, I rather they have a bit more baggage already. Opal and Bolin got some, even though most of it happened offscreen during the three year jump. If Korrasami had been "official" for, let's say half-book at the end of the series, it would have been much better.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think he was exactly saying that there shouldn't be romances among the main cast, I mean that's just People Sit On Chairs.

      If Korrasami had been "official" for, let's say half-book at the end of the series, it would have been much better.

      Okay, but every season finale included something that could be interpreted as either "happily ever after" or "to be continued," depending on whether or not the show got another story arc:

      Book 1: Makorra, Korra becoming a fully realized Avatar.

      Book 2: Leaving the Spirit Portals open.

      Book 3: Jinora becoming a master, the airbenders becoming superheroes, Korra...well, that's not so much "happily ever after" as "bittersweet or possibly tragic ending."

        Loading editor
    • Primary problem I find in the LGBT community. "I want this to be an gay/lesbian relationship, if you have any reason to reject you're an homophobic moron"

      Korrasami was requested frequently which is the reason why I saw them do it, but I felt it was too forced as it was left to last 2 books

        Loading editor
    • @Weltall8000 Bryan spent four paragraphs of his "Korrasami is canon" tumblr post explaining the unwritten rules and the process they went through to break them. If that shows no interest in doing things in an untraditional way, I don't know what does. The traditional formula does face criticism, though less about what it does and more about how or how frequently it does it. Everyone and their mother nowadays knows and expects the formula, it's become stale, which is the main point of criticism it faces. It's more of the same.

      That's not the same thing as breaking tradition for the sake of breaking tradition. Was he breaking an established norm? Yes. Was the point that he was breaking norms in general? Or was it a specific norm that he was breaking because he wanted to break said specific norm?

      I've rarely, if ever, seen Aang and Katara criticized for many of the reasons leveled against why Korra and Asami is, such as; the protagonist should have been single because it would send a better message, their pairing is amoral, or the ultimate coupling of them is pandering.

      You do realize, that's a fundamentally different criticism, right? And even then, are individual instances of this singled out and harped on to the extent that Korra x Asami is? Again, not seeing the kind of hate for Katara x Aang that Asami x Korra is for virtue of what it is.

        Loading editor
    • Primary problem I find in the LGBT community. "I want this to be an gay/lesbian relationship, if you have any reason to reject you're an homophobic moron"

      The problem I find with anti-Korrasami types is that they're so angry at the thought of being called homophobic, but don't seem to want to do anything about:

      • Posting borderline homophobic remarks like "this is the problem with the gay community" or "why does it have to be shoved in our faces."
      • The double standard that straight relationships with similar issues don't get 3 "this killed the show!" threads once a week.
      • The more blatant homophobic remarks that some among them DO post, such as--oh yes, this IS an actual quote:
      It's so typical for people of this mindset to ever believe anyone could possibly be against the LGBT. Yes, I am against it. Yes, I will say that it is unhealthy and it's a lifestyle that is seen as normal, but is not. And yes, I will tell people that their tolerant dreams don't stand up to facts. Sure. I'm anti-gay. What are YOU going to do about it?

      It certainly doesn't help that most of the times I see this complaint, the other person didn't call them a homophobe, ie the stupid backlash about Bryan's hetero lens argument.

      I've rarely, if ever, seen Aang and Katara criticized for many of the reasons leveled against why Korra and Asami is

      Humorously, it seems as if people get defensive if say that pairing had flawed writing in any way.

        Loading editor
    • I like Korrasami, but how sudden was that? I hope they didn't do it just to appease the Korrasami fandom, which is a huge fandom.

        Loading editor
    • Fire Eater wrote:
      I like Korrasami, but how sudden was that? I hope they didn't do it just to appease the Korrasami fandom, which is a huge fandom.

      Like, two seasons sudden. But, since WoG is not ever trusted when it comes to this subject, maybe I'm just unrealistically optimisitc that pointing to Bryan's post which talks about alluding to the relationship for the latter half of the series and that they didn't do it to appease shipping fandoms, will convince anyone what the score is on that.

        Loading editor
    • Was it really planned from early in the beginning? Buildup would've been appreciated, Book 3 didn't imply fullblown romance to come to me.

        Loading editor
    • ...As I was saying.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, go on.

        Loading editor
    • First off, it’s “shouldn’t have become a couple”.

      Second, there’s literally dozens of threads discussing Korrasami already here, and I’m not entirely sure why you didn’t just post in one of those, but that’s irrelevant.

      Thirdly, I disagree completely with…pretty much everything.

      PlantTinker wrote:
      In the Last Airbender, They had love sequences but it wasn't shoved in our face like it is here.

      The Makorra stuff in Books 1 and 2, I will give you that, was pretty in-our-faces, but IMO no more than Kataang was on several occasions in ATLA. As for Korrasami, I'm not sure what you were watching exactly, but it was definitely not "shoved in our face" in LoK.

      If anything, the scenes involving Korra and Asami are far less blatantly in-your-face compared to the Kataang stuff in ATLA, to the point that even I, a Korrasami shipper practically since I saw Book 2, was unsure whether Bryke was actually going there or not.

      Off the top of my head, I can think of three episodes of ATLA where Kataang was quite blatantly the focus of at the very least a substantial part of the episode, and at least one where it was basically the sole focus of the episode. I cannot say the same for Korrasami, although as was pointed out ad nauseam in every thread on the subject, it was subtly and gradually built up starting in Book 3, and through Book 4.

      PlantTinker wrote:
      I wanted Korra to become single. I didn't think she needed a romantic partner. It would of been better if she ended up with no one and focused more on her future plans. But noooo. We must please the LGBT community. Instead of making Korra a strong single women, The creators decided that she go Asami even though it didn't make any sense!

      Again, shouldn’t have. Also, it’s single woman. “Women” is plural. I’m sorry if I’m being a grammar nazi, but I’m only doing it because I’m trying to help.


      That said, if you didn't like it, that is entirely your prerogative. But if you're gonna make claims like "it doesn't make any sense", then you better be prepared to defend that argument. Because I think, based on the evidence provided by the show itself, that it makes perfect sense. 

      To me, it makes more sense and is more strongly established than, for instance, Makorra, and on par with Kataang in ATLA as a depiction of a relationship between two young people who were friends, who have known each other for a substantial period of time, during which their relationship became closer and progressed quite naturally into a romantic one. I do feel that I should point out that at the moment, at the end of Book 4, when Korra and Asami began their romantic relationship, they have known each other for longer than Aang and Katara knew each other when they became romantically involved at the end of ATLA. 

      Incidentally, I regard their respective gender as entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the relationship is sufficiently developed. 

        Loading editor
    • To me, it makes more sense and is more strongly established than, for instance, Makorra, and on par with Kataang in ATLA as a depiction of a relationship between two young people


      Why? I already talked about that in the other topic, but how does it compare to Kataang?

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Primary problem I find in the LGBT community. "I want this to be an gay/lesbian relationship, if you have any reason to reject you're an homophobic moron"

      The problem I find with anti-Korrasami types is that they're so angry at the thought of being called homophobic, but don't seem to want to do anything about:

      • Posting borderline homophobic remarks like "this is the problem with the gay community" or "why does it have to be shoved in our faces."
      • The double standard that straight relationships with similar issues don't get 3 "this killed the show!" threads once a week.
      • The more blatant homophobic remarks that some among them DO post, such as--oh yes, this IS an actual quote:


      It's so typical for people of this mindset to ever believe anyone could possibly be against the LGBT. Yes, I am against it. Yes, I will say that it is unhealthy and it's a lifestyle that is seen as normal, but is not. And yes, I will tell people that their tolerant dreams don't stand up to facts. Sure. I'm anti-gay. What are YOU going to do about it?
      It certainly doesn't help that most of the times I see this complaint, the other person didn't call them a homophobe, ie the stupid backlash about Bryan's hetero lens argument.


      I've rarely, if ever, seen Aang and Katara criticized for many of the reasons leveled against why Korra and Asami is

      Humorously, it seems as if people get defensive if say that pairing had flawed writing in any way.

      Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that (or like some absolutely hellacious Tumblr posts that have been floating around—that little sample actually sounds like it might be from one—or like what comes out of that Lunastar twit on dA) rather than playing victim when someone else does, I'll give their cries of "stop calling us bigots!" a bit more credence.

      But based on my observations, they really aren't doing much of that at all.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that (or like some absolutely hellacious Tumblr posts that have been floating around—that little sample actually sounds like it might be from one—

      It was from some ignoramus I argued with on YouTube. As a matter of fact, here's a link to the original comment chain. You can see how it starts out as this circle jerk of the usual complaints: "There's no developments, Bryan called us homophobes (he didn't, I can't stress this enough), they killed Makorra, etc." Then, when I come in, 1 of the guys complaining about "the homophobe card" quickly descends into raving anti-gay lunacy, & suddenly it gets real quiet.

      But lest people think I singled out that thread for a reason, yeah, because it was easy to retrieve & has been a top comment for long enough that it's fair to say that people have had chances to stand up to that guy, but chose not to. But otherwise, it's by no means a special circumstance.

      If you look in most of the "Korrasami debate threads" around HERE, you can usually find at least 1 person either casually stating that same sex relationships are wrong or going on a full-fledged rant, & that person usually mainly gets shit from Korrasami fans. If anyone else weighs in at all, it's usually an incredibly lame "I don't agree, but you're entitled to your opinion."

      So "I think someone, somewhere, called me a homophobe"=several paragraphs taking exception at the unfairness of it all.

      Actual homophobic remarks in plain sight=Silence, or "you're entitled to your opinion."

      or like what comes out of that Lunastar twit on dA)

      Never heard of them, probably don't want to.

      rather than playing victim when someone else does, I'll give their cries of "stop calling us bigots!" a bit more credence.

      Also, from what I've seen here, people are pretty quick to distance themselves from the "you're just a homophobe" argument whenever it comes up. I have no idea, much less ability to influence, what may or may not be posted on Tumblr. But then again, the Tumblrsphere is hardly an untainted utopia of Korrasami acceptance, from what I've seen.

      I don't really care about the bigotry olympics, I'm concerned with the facts of the argument. If you think whatever I'm criticizing about the argument is an example of homophobia, & the idea of homophobia bothers you, then just don't do it.

        Loading editor
    • I recognized the name of at least one of the Tumblr nasties—some fanboy who always used to make a point of grabbing photo ops with Janet Varney at cons while the show was airing so he could try to front like they were total buddies, could never shut the hell up about Makorra, and went full bigot (link is to a screencap of his post; he deleted it like a wuss when called on his B.S.) when Korrasami happened.  I'm a bit surprised he wasn't actively cheering "blacktigerpaw" on, to be quite honest.

      Lunastar is some snot on dA who similarly never shuts the hell up about Makorra.  She adores Mako beyond all reason and thinks he's victimized by the narrative, claims to like Korra but will throw her under the bus on Mako's behalf in a heartbeat, hates Asami for reasons of which "got in the way of Makorra twice" is the most rational, and hates Korrasami partly just because Asami is involved and partly out of unabashed bigotry.  (And yet—even as she was continuing to insist that not only were Korra and Asami not a couple, but that even their friendship was forced in light of all of Asami's countless sins—she still took the "hetero lens" comment as a personal slight.)

      She's also responsible for such scintillae as:

      A Makorra Batshipper wrote:
      I may hate the Korrasami ship but I would never ever call the Korrasami fans homophobic ever that is really rude.

      ...has some fanfics at the Pit that range from "wildly out of character" to "downright creepy," pitches ridiculous tantrums, and—as if she weren't bad enough already—hates P'heer of all pairings.

      And normally, I wouldn't care about the bigotry olympics...but, despite never having called anyone a homophobe (biphobe, whatever) who wasn't the likes of those two, I've had batshippers randomly put the accusation in my mouth.

        Loading editor
    • I recognized the name of at least one of the Tumblr nasties

      I can't say I'm really shocked. I think there are a great deal more people in this debate who "don't agree with the gay lifestyle" than people tend to think. They just don't want to tell people because they don't want to face the social stigma. But just because they get stigmatized, it doesn't mean it's unfair.

      and went full bigot (link is to a screencap of his post; he deleted it like a wuss when called on his B.S.)

      "telling people to look deeper into something they don't believe in its just messed up."

      Does that explain this person's abysmal grammar? Also, "The fact that not everyone dedicates themselves to creating an echo chamber for my particular opinions is just messed up."

      That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, & I'm including both the guy who told me that bacteria are self-aware & the guy who told me black people are a different species.

      claims to like Korra but will throw her under the bus on Mako's behalf in a heartbeat,

      Kind of how I felt reading the most recent posts on Korra Is Not Tan, if I'm honest.

      but that even their friendship was forced in light of all of Asami's countless sins—

      In a weird way, I'm kind of glad it wasn't Korra getting the blame for a change.

      she still took the "hetero lens" comment as a personal slight.)

      Does anyone not?

      I may hate the Korrasami ship but I would never ever call the Korrasami fans homophobic ever that is really rude.

      Well, I may not like Makorra, but I wouldn't call Makorra shippers "Mako haters," because that makes no goddamn sense.

      Also, does she call people heterophobes? 'Cause I get that one a lot. Despite, y'know, being straight.

      ...has some fanfics at the Pit that range from "wildly out of character" to "downright creepy,"

      Never was fond of shipping fanfics.

      and—as if she weren't bad enough already—hates P'heer of all pairings.

      Arson, Murder, & Jaywalking.

      And normally I wouldn't care about the bigotry olympics...but, despite never having called anyone a homophobe except possibly the likes of those two, I've had batshippers randomly put the accusation in my mouth.

      So've I, I just have a boundless capacity for apathy on the things I've decided not to care about.

        Loading editor
      • shakes head*

      Honestly I'm generally the same way - Korrasami shipper that I am, I still typically usually just flip the "do not care to continue this discussion" switch after a while because it's always the same paper-thin arguments being spat back out in every thread, and it gets a little tiresome. 

      Of course, Korrasami's not the only instance of this that I've run into - just the most recent one.

        Loading editor
    • Even if the show has ended I agree, LGBT characters are stupid I like Mako/Korra. I like The last Airbender better. The forth Arc sucks I mean seriously, whats next they're gonna put LGBT in the next series that probably will never happen. In conclution this is not enviorment friendly for a kid show if it was on Fox the people won't care or notice but if it's on a kid show that's a problem, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF YOU PEOPLE NOW AVATAR KORRA WILL NEVER A FAMILY. 

      Note: This is my opinion anybody ask y'all what y'all think, no. I saw the thread and I'm writing was I feel. I don't care if y'all criticize me, so shut up and untill this thread is deleted it'll stay up and that's the way it's supposed to be

        Loading editor
    • I hate it when people revive long dead threads. Anyway, to the above, your argument is pretty poor, and Korra could easily adopt a child if she wanted to.

        Loading editor
    • Djjayphila123 wrote:
      Even if the show has ended I agree, LGBT characters are stupid I like Mako/Korra. I like The last Airbender better. The forth Arc sucks I mean seriously, whats next they're gonna put LGBT in the next series that probably will never happen. In conclution this is not enviorment friendly for a kid show if it was on Fox the people won't care or notice but if it's on a kid show that's a problem, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF YOU PEOPLE NOW AVATAR KORRA WILL NEVER A FAMILY

      The entire series was first presented with a genocide. The opening credits even has it breaking the fourth wall so that audience can "feel" it too. That's quite a precedent to set for a kids show. Nonetheless, it's still regarded as such--a kid's show.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly could care less about Korra and Asami, being together.

        Loading editor
    • QueenCeline wrote:
      I hate it when people revive long dead threads. Anyway, to the above, your argument is pretty poor, and Korra could easily adopt a child if she wanted to.

      And that's if spirit shenanigans aren't involved.

        Loading editor
    • I only approve of Science Babies.

        Loading editor
    • "Can your science explain why it rains?"

        Loading editor
    • "YES! Yes it CAN!"

        Loading editor
    • QueenCeline wrote:
      I hate it when people revive long dead threads. Anyway, to the above, your argument is pretty poor, and Korra could easily adopt a child if she wanted to.

      you people just anger me for some reason I don't know why

        Loading editor
    • Djjayphila123 wrote:
      Even if the show has ended I agree, LGBT characters are stupid I like Mako/Korra. I like The last Airbender better. The forth Arc sucks I mean seriously, whats next they're gonna put LGBT in the next series that probably will never happen. In conclution this is not enviorment friendly for a kid show if it was on Fox the people won't care or notice but if it's on a kid show that's a problem, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF YOU PEOPLE NOW AVATAR KORRA WILL NEVER A FAMILY. 

      Note: This is my opinion anybody ask y'all what y'all think, no. I saw the thread and I'm writing was I feel. I don't care if y'all criticize me, so shut up and untill this thread is deleted it'll stay up and that's the way it's supposed to be

      I agree with your opinion these people can't just face the truth.

        Loading editor
    • And what is this "truth" we aren't facing?

        Loading editor
    • Are we embarking on another safari? Okay, but please keep your hands & feet inside of the vehicle at all times. The common homophobe, scientific name Communia homophobilis, can be quite territorial & aggressive, though generally their bark is worse than their bite.

      Here we see one scavenging through the remains of a long-dead thread left behind, perhaps, by one of his pack mates. Notice how he attempts to intimidate and confuse predators with ambiguous challenge calls? Will he flee back into the bush, or prepare a more dramatic threat display for us?

      Nature is, as always, quite majestic.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Are we embarking on another safari? Okay, but please keep your hands & feet inside of the vehicle at all times. The common homophobe, scientific name Communia homophobilis, can be quite territorial & aggressive, though generally their bark is worse than their bite.

      Here we see one scavenging through the remains of a long-dead thread left behind, perhaps, by one of his pack mates. Notice how he attempts to intimidate and confuse predators with ambiguous challenge calls? Will he flee back into the bush, or prepare a more dramatic threat display for us?

      Nature is, as always, quite majestic.

      there's no such thing as homophobia 

        Loading editor
    • It seems the common homophobe has taken an interest in your humble safari leader. Unfortunately, he does not realize that his calls are intelligible to all but members of his own genus.

      Nevertheless, the sounds are quite majestic.

        Loading editor
    • there's still no such as homophobia 

        Loading editor
    • it's pathetic how butthurt people get when someone tries to tell them something for their own good especially  when they are speaking the truth. 



      I don't like same sex couples on kids shows it's my opinion and if you don't like it then you shouldn't reply nor speak to me 


      Ignorants like Neo is the reason why the world needs to disappear 

        Loading editor
    • I appear to have angered the common homophobe. Rest assured, you are all safe within the confines of the safari truck.

      Nature is as wrathful as it is majestic.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      I appear to have angered the common homophobe. Rest assured, you are all safe within the confines of the safari truck.

      Nature is as wrathful as it is majestic.

      I'm not a homophobe. the Lgbt nut job just can't accept someone's opinion


      why are you people so delusional? when it comes to someone's opinion?

        Loading editor
    • The common homophobe's bellows are becoming more aggressive. He seems to have decided that I am more appetizing prey than the carrion he was nibbling on moments ago. Perhaps if we drive forward, he will be unable to ford the river, as it winds majestically through the rolling grasslands.

        Loading editor
    • ok whatever have fun with your sexual immmorality in children shows I'm done

        Loading editor
    • The common homophobe shows no signs of slowing in the wake of the truck, but is making a conciliatory gesture. Is he returning to his den, or is this but a feint to throw us off-guard as he prepares for his next attack?

      Either way, we will be witness to a majestic display.

        Loading editor
    • Azuma402 wrote:
      it's pathetic how butthurt people get when someone tries to tell them something for their own good especially  when they are speaking the truth. 



      I don't like same sex couples on kids shows it's my opinion and if you don't like it then you shouldn't reply nor speak to me 


      Ignorants like Neo is the reason why the world needs to disappear 

      You have the right to your opinion and others have the right to object to your opinions; that's the way the world works.

        Loading editor
    • QueenCeline wrote

      You have the right to your opinion and others have the right to object to your opinions; that's the way the world works.

      if that's  the case  then people should have the right to object your opinion

        Loading editor
    • As we cross the river, to your right you will see a flock of flamingos basking in the sun, while straight ahead is a copse of Baobab trees. But what's this? If you gaze into the grasses at your left, you will spot a familiar face--it seems our old friend the common homophobe, after his failed attempt to face off with your safari guide, feinted after all. This is a common tactic employed against particularly slippery predators, but you can tell by his markings that he is indeed the same critter from the opposite bank.

      Slinking through the dry, windswept grasses, he slunk off to find another way around the river. But this time, it seems as though he has taken an interest in another of our safari members, a young woman near the front of the tour.

      So majestic.

        Loading editor
    • Azuma402
      Azuma402 removed this reply because:
      cause
      07:22, April 18, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Neo Bahamut
      Neo Bahamut removed this reply because:
      Not canon to the safari updates.
      07:42, April 18, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Not gonna read through the entire thing. Korrasami wasn't shoved in our faces. How do you think it was shoved in our faces?

      The show isn't primarily action, it follows the lead of a teenager so it wouldn't be much of a surpirse if drama ensues,especially romance. Avatar the Last Airbender involved plenty of romance too, it was brought up or hinted at in the midst of battle and action. Same goes for Legend of Korra; we constantly see displays of affection in both series.

      Future plans can involve a partner. A lot of things happen as you go through life so having a partner while doing so isn't a new concept. Often times, romance is a part of one's future, whether it be marriage, having a family, or finding a lover. So it isn't a random concept that was chucked into the story.

      The creators did not implement Korrasami as a medium to please the LGBT community. That's sort of a baseless assumption. It's like saying Katang is a to cater to straight people. People normally don't think that when they see a straight couple, but whenver a gay or non-traditional couple is involved it's assumed that it's to cater to that minority group, that it's being shoved in our faces. Why is it that whenever a straight couple is involved nothing about the straight community is mentioned, yet when a gay or lgbt couple is involved people say it's trying to please the gay/lgbt community? One of the creators clearly stated that that was not the primary purpose but was actually of the creator's own accord. 

      Korra doesn't necessarily have to be single in order to be strong. Does a man have to be single if he's to appear strong. There are plenty of strong people who are also in relationships.

      I think Korrasami makes sense. Mako wasn't able to maintain proper communication or tolerance with Korra. Asami on the other hand isn't as aggressive as Korra and Mako. She's more level-headed, she somehow neutralizes Korra, leaving a calming affect on her. This person here better explains why Korra and Asami worked but Korra and Mako didn't.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/korrasami/comments/2s8x6h/why_korra_and_asami_work_and_why_mako_and/

        Loading editor
    • If it makes you feel better, this is an ancient thread that was necroposted in, & continued largely because I think it's funny how mad anti-gay commentators get when you don't take their opinions seriously.

      That was a good post. Poor Mako just doesn't know how to relate to people.

        Loading editor
    • In conclution this is not enviorment friendly for a kid show if it was on Fox the people won't care or notice but if it's on a kid show that's a problem, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF YOU PEOPLE NOW AVATAR KORRA WILL NEVER A FAMILY.

      In conclusion, you're a hommophobe. LGBT persons either adopt or have a sperm/egg donor surrogate if they want a "marrîed with children" relationship.

      Also, KorrAsami may've been a first in American family animation (one of the first LGBT pairs on an American cartoon for children), but it wasn't the first entirely.

      The gems on Steven Universe: Garnett's "parents" Sapphire/Ruby and Pearl/Amethyst (and one-sided, unrequitted Pearl/Rose Quartz before Steven Universe was born).

      Princesses Bubblegum and Marceline were together romantically before meeting Finn & Jake on Adventure Time.

      Elphaba Thropp and Galinda Upland from Gregory MacGuire's revisionist OZ in Wicked were bi. Loving each other "for good" before fighting over Fiyero and the inevitable occurred.

      Sailors Uranus and Neptune were lesbian lovers in the actual Japanese episodes of Sailor Moon, although the dub poorly disguised them as "cousins" ("kissing cousins" in this case, as shades of their romance leaked through, anyway).

        Loading editor
    • It's been confirmed by an official source that Pearl/Rose wasn't entirely unrequited.  And I'm fairly sure that the Ruby/Sapphire reveal was after the Korra finale, and Korrasami is the first time it's involved the protagonist.  Even so.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle on this, but the whole "Bubblegum & Marceline used to date" story came from a voice actress who seemed to flip flop on it & hasn't been definitively stated by the show or any other source.

        Loading editor
    • I thought it was confirmed in the comics?

        Loading editor
    • I agree, I'm fine with an LGBT relationship, but Korra and Asami just felt too forced, and they barely even laid any groundwork for it. They should have left Korra single at the end of the series. Why does she need to be in a relationship by the end? 

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote: I thought it was confirmed in the comics?

      Not that I know of, & in any case the comics do not really keep continuity with the show.

        Loading editor
    • Careful, Hydrasaur, you're treading on thin ice. The Thought Police might crucify you.

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote: Careful, Hydrasaur, you're treading on thin ice. The Thought Police might crucify you.

      It's funny, 'cause I ignored him, & also because for all of that bleating you did about "a right to voice opinions even if you don't like them," here you are making passive aggressive whine posts because you got stomped in a debate.

      The higher the moral high ground people try to claim, the harder the fall from their pedestals.

        Loading editor
    • It's funny, 'cause I ignored him, & also because for all of that bleating you did about "a right to voice opinions even if you don't like them," here you are making passive aggressive whine posts because you got stomped in a debate.

      You ignored him? Doesn't it make your skin crawl to know that someone holds Korrasami in contempt?

      And yes, here I am passive aggressively intimating my low opinion of you. This has little to nothing to do with that debate, though. I'm mostly poking fun at your zealous cult of Korrasami fanatics.

      The higher the moral high ground people try to claim, the harder the fall from their pedestals.

      Thank you for imparting some of your trivial philosophy.

        Loading editor
    • You ignored him? Doesn't it make your skin crawl to know that someone holds Korrasami in contempt?

      I'm above the age of 15. To me, such a strong fixation on hating fictional characters is mostly just pathetic & annoying.

      And yes, here I am passive aggressively intimating my low opinion of you. This has little to nothing to do with that debate, though. I'm mostly poking fun at your zealous cult of Korrasami fanatics.

      I suppose there's not much point in pointing out the logical inconsistencies of someone who admits to blatant trolling--though I just did anyway--but I can't say I recommend making a habit out of advertising that.

        Loading editor
    • And today, I learned that picking up on a 'shiptease that other people missed apparently qualifies one as not only a big mean meany-pants with no mind of their own, but also a fanatical thought-policing cultist who nails people to crossbars.  What is a gross exaggeration, and what is a blatant wounded-gazelle gambit?

        Loading editor
    • I'm above the age of 15. To me, such a strong fixation on hating fictional characters is mostly just pathetic & annoying.

      Such a zealous and overbearing infatuation with a fictional pairing is equally pathetic and annoying. If you're above the age of 15, why are you so staunchly determined to probe the forums for Korrasami haters? After all, they are just fictional characters.

      I suppose there's not much point in pointing out the logical inconsistencies of someone who admits to blatant trolling--though I just did anyway--but I can't say I recommend making a habit out of advertising that.

      I don't remember admitting to blatant trolling.

      And today, I learned that picking up on a 'shiptease that other people missed apparently qualifies one as not only a big mean meany-pants with no mind of their own, but also a fanatical thought-policing cultist who nails people to crossbars. What is a gross exaggeration, and what is a blatant wounded-gazelle gambit?

      Yes, that's about right.

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote: Such a zealous and overbearing infatuation with a fictional pairing is equally pathetic and annoying. If you're above the age of 15, why are you so staunchly determined to probe the forums for Korrasami haters? After all, they are just fictional characters.

      Except that it's already pretty clear that by "zealous and overbearing infatuation" you mean "anything short of hate;" and by "probe the forums for," you mean "engage at all, even if provoked."

      And meanwhile?  Y'all want a free pass to not only trash on Korrasami for any petty, contrived, or outright disgusting reason that springs to mind, but to hassle anyone with the gall not to hate it.

      I don't remember admitting to blatant trolling.

      How convenient. Let me refresh your seemingly rather selective memory of something from all of three days ago. 

      Or are you going to try to backpedal about how trying to "stir the waters" or cause a "row" (on the grounds that three people not hating a pairing that you hate in one place qualifies as a "hivemind," no less) should be considered anything other than trolling?

      And today, I learned that picking up on a 'shiptease that other people missed apparently qualifies one as not only a big mean meany-pants with no mind of their own, but also a fanatical thought-policing cultist who nails people to crossbars. What is a gross exaggeration, and what is a blatant wounded-gazelle gambit?
      Yes, that's about right.

      The only part of that post that wasn't a sardonic response to the venom that you've been spouting was the part about how you're also grossly exaggerating and spuriously playing victim. 

      So in light of the fact that you at least were honest enough to leave that last part in...good on you for admitting to what you're doing, I guess?

        Loading editor
    • Thanks. I hoped it would help open up some people's minds.

        Loading editor
    • Except that it's already pretty clear that by "zealous and overbearing infatuation" you mean "anything short of hate;" and by "probe the forums for," you mean "engage at all, even if provoked."

      No, not exactly. By "zealous and overbearing infatuation", I mean zealous and overbearing infatuation. As in, extreme intolerance of any dissenting opinion. Case in point:

      Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that (or like some absolutely hellacious Tumblr posts that have been floating around—that little sample actually sounds like it might be from one—or like what comes out of that Lunastar twit on dA) rather than playing victim when someone else does, I'll give their cries of "stop calling us bigots!" a bit more credence. (implying that "Makorra holdouts" are nothing short of bigots)

      If you listen carefully, you will hear the distinctive call of "Like sisters! That's it!" whispering through the reeds. The common homophobe can, at times, have expansive territories, foraging for miles in search of long-dead threads to feast on. It is not known why they sometimes embark upon these incredibly taxing quests for depleted food sources, despite attacks by more capable predators, but it has been suggested that it may be an attempt to prove themselves to a mate.

      Wherever they go, may they roam majestically. (implying that anyone that is of the opinion that Korrasami is not romantic is a homophobe)

      The other half being that if 1-or-2 line pieces of vitriol are "opinions that people have a right to post," then "that is ridiculous, I shall mock it without mercy" should be too. Either opinions are allowed to offend, or they're not. (an expression of the fanaticism that exists among Korrasami shippers)

      And meanwhile?  Y'all want a free pass to not only trash on Korrasami for any petty, contrived, or outright disgusting reason that springs to mind, but to hassle anyone with the gall not to hate it.

      There's nothing petty, contrived, or outright disgusting about dismissing Korrasami when there's nothing there to begin with. You're just very dogged and clamorous in your conviction.

      I'm also amused by your inversion of reality. It's the "holdouts" who are being hassled by the prickly Korrasami fanatics for having the gall to hate it. It's not enough that almost everyone is in consensus that Korrasami is somehow favorable. Everyone must endorse it.

      I can't imagine why, though; it's an arbitrary pairing.

      How convenient. Let me refresh your seemingly rather selective memory of something from all of three days ago. Or are you going to try to backpedal about how trying to "stir the waters" or cause a "row" (on the grounds that three people not hating a pairing that you hate in one place qualifies as a "hivemind," no less) should be considered anything other than trolling?

      Yes, actually. Firstly, nowhere did I state I was trying to "cause a row". I said "I enjoy a good row". Row can translate to a noisy dispute or quarrel, which is what I was trying to intimate. There was already a row occurring, and I felt like participating. Likewise, I noticed a consistency in opinion in the latter half of that thread, so I was duly interested in stirring the waters. You have a funny impression of trolling.

      The only part of that post that wasn't a sardonic response to the venom that you've been spouting was the part about how you're also grossly exaggerating and spuriously playing victim.

      What is venom even supposed to mean in that context? Coming from someone who has exaggerated that bigotry is the equivalent of vetoing a fictional lesbian pairing, I'm going to take what you say with a whole salt mine.

      And if you think white knighting is playing victim, I don't know what to tell you.

      So in light of the fact that you at least were honest enough to leave that last part in...good on you for admitting to what you're doing, I guess?

      What am I doing again?

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote: No, not exactly. By "zealous and overbearing infatuation", I mean zealous and overbearing infatuation. As in, extreme intolerance of any dissenting opinion. Case in point:

      Yes, let's see what you're labeling "extreme intolerance of any dissenting opinion."

      Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that (or like some absolutely hellacious Tumblr posts that have been floating around—that little sample actually sounds like it might be from one—or like what comes out of that Lunastar twit on dA) rather than playing victim when someone else does, I'll give their cries of "stop calling us bigots!" a bit more credence. (implying that "Makorra holdouts" are nothing short of bigots)

      Nope. Try stating outright that Makorra holdouts seem to get more upset about real or imagined accusations of bigotry than about the actual presence of bigots." (Hell, when I said what added up to "blame the homophobes for that," you somehow managed to interpret that as me calling you one)

      Then again? You've made it clear that you think calling Korrasami "sexual immorality" that doesn't belong in a kids' show is just a "different opinion" to which people are entitled...but called making fun of bigots "barbaric" and "cruel." Considering that, it really comes as no surprise that you'd see "if you're that worried about guilt by association, stop passively condoning the bigots in your midst" as "extreme intolerance of any dissenting opinion."

      If you listen carefully, you will hear the distinctive call of "Like sisters! That's it!" whispering through the reeds. The common homophobe can, at times, have expansive territories, foraging for miles in search of long-dead threads to feast on. It is not known why they sometimes embark upon these incredibly taxing quests for depleted food sources, despite attacks by more capable predators, but it has been suggested that it may be an attempt to prove themselves to a mate. Wherever they go, may they roam majestically. (implying that anyone that is of the opinion that Korrasami is not romantic is a homophobe)

      Correction: implying that the same person who called Korrasami "sexual immorality," quoted a post stating "LGBT characters are stupid" for agreement, and denied that homophobia even exists is a homophobe. Which is rather like implying that water is wet.

      Also: denying a confirmed romantic pairing is, at best, rather like being "of the opinion" that the moon landing was faked.  And it's not as if they were exactly shy about the fact that it was two women playing into their denial, either.

      The other half being that if 1-or-2 line pieces of vitriol are "opinions that people have a right to post," then "that is ridiculous, I shall mock it without mercy" should be too. Either opinions are allowed to offend, or they're not. (an expression of the fanaticism that exists among Korrasami shippers)

      Y'know, if you're going to go around calling random things "fanaticism," at least try supporting your claims. Otherwise, it begins to look like you're calling Korrasami 'shippers fanatics just for supporting the pairing.  (Which isn't to say that, considering these "examples" of yours, I'd really put that past you at this point.)

      There's nothing petty, contrived, or outright disgusting about dismissing Korrasami when there's nothing there to begin with.

      Wrong on all counts.

      First of all: your "dismissal" of a canon pairing in someone else's work counts for precisely jack. It adds up to nothing more than stubbornly refusing to acknowledge its development in some futile attempt to somehow invalidate it.

      Secondly? Claiming that you "dismiss" it because "there's nothing there to begin with" eats its own tail. You refuse to acknowledge its development because you didn't see it, and you didn't see it because you refuse to acknowledge it. Around and around and around in the circle game. That is petty and contrived.

      As for disgusting? Like it or not, blatant homophobia is a factor in more people's "dismissal" of the pairing than a lot of people might want to believe. And no matter how much you want to deny it on the grounds that "opinions" are sacrosanct or whatever, it is disgusting. (Worse than "disgusting," actually; but whatever.)

      You're just very dogged and clamorous in your conviction.

      This time—and this time only—I am going to operate off of the premise that you didn't actively intend anything coded by "clamorous."  Just count your lucky stars that you didn't have the gall to say "shrill" or "strident;" if so, you'd have forfeited all benefit of the doubt.

      And you're really in no position to be making either accusation: This is, after all, the second thread that you've crapped in order to post wall of text after wall of text about how much you irrationally hate the heroine's endgame pairing and refuse to acknowledge that it had any development.

      I'm also amused by your inversion of reality. It's the "holdouts" who are being hassled by the prickly Korrasami fanatics for having the gall to hate it. It's not enough that almost everyone is in consensus that Korrasami is somehow favorable. Everyone must endorse it.

      Care to offer any actual proof of this?  Because to be quite honest, all you've done so far is either try to spin disagreeing with you as such, or try to play the rubber-and-glue game on that count.

      I can't imagine why, though; it's an arbitrary pairing.

      If you ignore—or simply managed not to pick up on—half of the series worth of 'shiptease for some reason or another, I guess it might look arbitrary.

      Yes, actually. Firstly, nowhere did I state I was trying to "cause a row". I said "I enjoy a good row". Row can translate to a noisy dispute or quarrel, which is what I was trying to intimate. There was already a row occurring, and I felt like participating. Likewise, I noticed a consistency in opinion in the latter half of that thread, so I was duly interested in stirring the waters. You have a funny impression of trolling.

      And...there's the backpedal!

      You said that you "enjoy a good row" immediately after stating that you were "stirring the waters." (What is context?)  Additionally, you contradict yourself by claiming that there was both "consistency in opinion" and "a row already occurring."

      And finally: you jumped into that thread to compare Korrasami to bad fanfic after all of two other people—one of whom, like the original poster, was ambivalent on the pairing—had replied.

      What is venom even supposed to mean in that context? Coming from someone who has exaggerated that bigotry is the equivalent of vetoing a fictional lesbian pairing, I'm going to take what you say with a whole salt mine. And if you think white knighting is playing victim, I don't know what to tell you.

      Paraphrasing my words back at me. That's real cute. 

      And not only is there not enough salt in the world to help your case?  The expression "white-knighting" was actually coined for the purpose of insinuating that someone was playing victim by proxy (usually for purposes of seduction, but we won't go into that).  Most of the people you were "white-knighting" were, in fact, being bigoted (or were people to whom no one was even paying attention).  And you can't "veto" a canon pairing.

      What am I doing again?

      Well, let's see: insulting people ("hivemind" and "groupthink" and "thought police" and so on).  Defending bigotry on the grounds that it's just an "opinion" that should be catered to, and demanding proof that there's any harm in it (and meanwhile, when someone posts something snarky at the expense of bigotry, that's "barbaric" and "cruel" and the real intolerance here). 

      And, above all: grossly exaggerating and attempting to pull a wounded-gazelle gambit (portraying yourself and your cronies, on incredibly flimsy grounds, as innocent victims under siege by "fanatics;" comparing getting contradicted on a forum to being literally executed).

        Loading editor
    • Nope. Try stating outright that Makorra holdouts seem to get more upset about real or imagined accusations of bigotry than about the actual presence of bigots." (Hell, when I said what added up to "blame the homophobes," you interpreted that as me calling you one.)

      That's probably because "Makorra holdouts" have unabashedly been accused of bigotry and homophobia for dismissing the Korrasami shipping. You didn't even try to explain away the glaring evidence in your quote, where you evidently claimed that "Makorra holdouts" have little credence to being anything short of bigots.

      Then again? You've made it clear that you think calling Korrasami "sexual immorality" that doesn't belong in a kids' show is just a "different opinion" to which people are entitled...but called making fun of bigots "barbaric" and "cruel." So it comes as no surprise that you'd see "try not catering to the bigots in your midst" as "extreme intolerance of any dissenting opinion."

      I do think that anyone of the opinion that Korrasami is sexual immorality is entitled to said opinion, just as I think that Neo is entitled to believe otherwise. It's his delivery I found vulgar and sardonic.

      Correction: implying that the same person who called Korrasami "sexual immorality," quoted a post reading "LGBT characters are stupid" for agreement, and denied that homophobia even exists is a homophobe. Which is rather like implying that water is wet.

      ...to say nothing of the satirical imitation of most "Makorra holdouts", or anyone that dismisses Korrasami for that matter: "Like sisters! That's it!

      Also: denying a confirmed romantic pairing is, at best, rather like being "of the opinion" that the moon landing was faked.  And if they're, additionally, not exactly shy about the fact that it was two women playing into their denial?

      No one has denied or challenged its canonicity. What we have done is dismiss the alleged "evidence" of a romantic intimacy between the two characters because it's, at best, ambiguous, as well as hold it to be a poor and unripe pairing.

      Y'know, if you're going to go around calling random things "fanaticism," at least try supporting your claims. Otherwise, it begins to look like you're calling Korrasami 'shippers fanatics just for supporting the pairing.  (Which isn't to say that, considering these "examples" of yours, I'd really put that past you at this point.)

      Examples that you have neglected to dispute, such as your own quote? Until you do so, you have no reasonable claims to inadequacy.

      Care to offer any actual proof of this?  Because to be quite honest, all you've done so far is either try to spin disagreeing with you as such, or try to play the rubber-and-glue game on that count.

      Lunastar is some snot on dA who similarly never shuts the hell up about Makorra. She adores Mako beyond all reason and thinks he's victimized by the narrative, claims to like Korra but will throw her under the bus on Mako's behalf in a heartbeat, hates Asami for reasons of which "got in the way of Makorra twice" is the most rational, and hates Korrasami partly just because Asami is involved and partly out of unabashed bigotry. (And yet—even as she was continuing to insist that not only were Korra and Asami not a couple, but that even their friendship was forced in light of all of Asami's countless sins—she still took the "hetero lens" comment as a personal slight.)

      "Some snot"? "Unabashed bigotry"? The quote speaks for itself. I would dare to call this hassling on the grapevine.

      If you ignore—or simply managed not to pick up on—half of the series worth of 'shiptease for some reason or another, I guess it might look arbitrary.

      You forgot, construed differently. Vaguely arguing that your interpretation is squarely right in the case of social ambiguities on the grounds that there's "half of a series worth of shipteases" (and neglecting to explain these alleged shipteases) is the hallmark of self-righteousness.

      You said that you "enjoy a good row" immediately after stating that you were "stirring the waters." (What is context?)  Additionally, you contradict yourself by claiming that there was both "consistency in opinion" and "a row already occurring."

      Yes, and what of it?

      And yes, minus one person, there was a consistency in opinion in the latter half of the thread. The dispute in question happened to be with this one person, none other than the infamous Azuma.

      And finally: you jumped into that thread to compare Korrasami to bad fanfic after all of two other people—one of whom, like the original poster, was ambivalent on the pairing—had replied.

      So stating an opinion is now analogous with trolling. I see.

      Paraphrasing my words back at me. That's real cute.

      I thought so. 

      And not only is there not enough salt in the world to help your case?  The expression "white-knighting" was actually coined for the purpose of insinuating that someone was playing victim by proxy (usually for purposes of seduction, but we won't go into that).  Most of the people you were "white-knighting" were, in fact, being bigoted (or were people to whom no one was even paying attention).  And you can't "veto" a canon pairing.

      And gay derived from the French word meaning happy. Thank you for that history lesson, but the meaning of white knighting has evolved from that. On subject, vetoing = dismissing. It may be canonical, but that doesn't make it anymore sound. They could have confirmed Bolin gay, and I wouldn't have believed it until I could reason that it was true with unambiguous contextual proof.

      Well, let's see: insulting people ("hivemind" and "groupthink" and "thought police" and so on).

      You take hivemind as an insult? Interesting.

      Defending bigotry on the grounds that it's just an "opinion" that should be catered to,

      Is the opposite of catering to a bigot, verbally accosting the bigot? Is that how you fight bigotry? That's little less than counterproductive.

      and demanding proof that there's any harm in it (and meanwhile, when someone posts something snarky at the expense of bigotry, that's "barbaric" and "cruel" and the real intolerance here).

      Well, vaguely claiming that there is harm in it isn't going to convince me. And when you do give an honest answer, it's some rubbish like, Contributing to an environment that disenfranchises and endangers marginalized people for the sake of the bigots' comfort zones is not an opinion that merits catering to.

      I'd like to know how it contributes to that sort of environment.

      And, above all: grossly exaggerating and attempting to pull a wounded-gazelle gambit (portraying yourself and your cronies, on incredibly flimsy grounds, as innocent victims under siege by "fanatics;" comparing getting contradicted on a forum to being literally executed).

      What cronies? I've been fighting this tag-team of Korrasami enthusiasts single-handedly. If you mean the infrequent poster who stumbles in to leave their opinion, you can hardly call them cronies. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone that vetoes (yes, vetoes), Korrasami is innocent. When the thread is literally an appeal to opinion, any opinion is innocent. It's when it becomes an abysm of insults (case in point: this argument, the previous one, Neo's beef with Azuma, virtually any discussion pertaining to Korrasami) that it loses any claim to innocence.

      Also, you compared an opinion to literally contributing to the endangerment of the lgbt community. I don't think you have much room to talk.

        Loading editor
    • Also:

      (Hell, when I said what added up to "blame the homophobes," you interpreted that as me calling you one.)

      At the time, I mistook you for Neo. And frankly, minding Neo's sardonic homophobe comments, if you had been Neo, I wouldn't have put it beneath you.

        Loading editor
    • I have no problem with homosexual relationships. but it seemed like an "easy out" from under the nickelodeon thumb. something like..

      a: "dude I don't want to do another season for this network"

      b: "we've done so well you know they are going to want season 5"

      long silence.....

      a: "let's imply that korra and Asami are lesbians.. they won't want us to develop that relationship.. I mean think about all the kids parents who will raise hell about their kids watching a gay couple in a cartoon."

      b: "what? just... what? I think you've lost it."

      a: "seriously.. remember the whole SpongeBob thing?"

      b: "dude.. that might just work."

      b: "we can finally do our own thing again!"

      a: "hell yea. l. Korrasami it is!"


      imo.. I thought it was a rather terrible way to end it.. we didn't need a romantic last note.. we didn't need any of that MTV drama crap in any of it. the personal relationships between the friends and family was more than enough.

        Loading editor
    • Skipper8888 wrote: ..... And the fact that she has partner doesn't mean that she can't be strong female character any more. Man can be strong and independent while having partner but woman can't or what? Lin always was a strong woman and she was in relationship with Tenzin. Toph also was a strong woman and also she had partner and two children. Zuko's daughter is Fire Lord and has a child. I can continue.... And also Korra and Asami aren't even married. They both may become single once again at some point of their lives. 

      I doubt that showrunners wanted "to please LGBT community". It was just part of the story. Their relationship developed and makes sense IMO. 

      while it is evident that there was a relationship forming between them.. it seemed (to me.. imho) more like a strong sibling bond.. rather than a romantic one.

      but why couldnt korra just be a strong character (female or male) without a relationship... why is it that single characters are seen as "incomplete" or in some sort of need for a partner (homo or hetero)?

      why does "love" always have to take on a sexual implication? why cant it just be the love of friends and family.. and not a lover?

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote: That's probably because "Makorra holdouts" have unabashedly been accused of bigotry and homophobia for dismissing the Korrasami shipping. You didn't even try to explain away the glaring evidence in your quote, where you evidently claimed that "Makorra holdouts" have little credence to being anything short of bigots.

      And I'll ask you the same thing I ask of every Makorra holdout who claims this: Show me proof that this actually happens, on any kind of a regular basis, without provocation.

      And if you're so horrified at the thought of being suspected of ulterior motives in complaining about the pairing, try coming up with some "dismissals" that aren't either excruciatingly flimsy or outright fabricated. And, while we're at it: stop coddling the undeniable bigots.

      I do think that anyone of the opinion that Korrasami is sexual immorality is entitled to said opinion, just as I think that Neo is entitled to believe otherwise. It's his delivery I found vulgar and sardonic.

      Yes, you've already made it quite clear that you think bigotry is sacrosanct and snark at its expense is "vulgar."

      ...to say nothing of the satirical imitation of most "Makorra holdouts", or anyone that dismisses Korrasami for that matter: "Like sisters! That's it!

      So he snarked at a bigot for using one of the oldest and tiredest erasure tactics in the book. This has precisely what to do with your accusation of "fanaticism" or the price of peppercorns in Beijing?

      No one has denied or challenged its canonicity. What we have done is dismiss the alleged "evidence" of a romantic intimacy between the two characters because it's, at best, ambiguous, as well as hold it to be a poor and unripe pairing.

      Good thing that evidence doesn't depend on the willingness of y'all to acknowledge it, then. It remains that you are trying to somehow invalidate the pairing on grounds that are at best subjective and at worst spurious. (And like hell does no one deny that it's canon.)

      Examples that you have neglected to dispute, such as your own quote? Until you do so, you have no reasonable claims to inadequacy.

      Bisonshit, and you know it.  Let's recap, shall we?

      First, you strawmanned one of my posts about certain patterns that I've noticed as "implying that Makorra holdouts are nothing short of bigots." I replied as follows:

      Nope. Try "stating outright that Makorra holdouts seem to get more upset about real or imagined accusations of bigotry than about the actual presence of bigots." (Hell, when I said what added up to "blame the homophobes for that," you somehow managed to interpret that as me calling you one).

      Then again? You've made it clear that you think calling Korrasami "sexual immorality" that doesn't belong in a kids' show is just a "different opinion" to which people are entitled...but called making fun of bigots "barbaric" and "cruel." Considering that, it really comes as no surprise that you'd see "if you're that worried about guilt by association, stop passively condoning the bigots in your midst" as "extreme intolerance of any dissenting opinion."

      You even replied to that...if only to re-iterate your strawman and demand an explanation. (Meanwhile, you have continued to simultaneously get offended at the thought of being viewed as a homophobe, and defend the blatantly homophobic "sexual immorality" post.)

      Then, you strawmanned one of Neo Bahamut's "homophobe safari" posts as "implying that anyone that is of the opinion that Korrasami is not romantic is a homophobe." (While we're at it: so much for no one denying that it's canon.) To which I said:

      Correction: implying that the same person who called Korrasami "sexual immorality," quoted a post stating "LGBT characters are stupid" for agreement, and denied that homophobia even exists is a homophobe. Which is rather like implying that water is wet.

      Also: denying a confirmed romantic pairing is, at best, rather like being "of the opinion" that the moon landing was faked. And it's not as if they were exactly shy about the fact that it was two women playing into their denial, either.

      You also replied to this, with what added up to it being just awful to mock people's attempts to invalidate or erase Korrasami.  (And, again: you nonetheless continue to defend that "sexual immorality" post even as you express outrage at the very thought of being suspected of agreeing with it.  To say nothing of backpedaling on what, precisely, "the opinion that Korrasami is not romantic" is supposed to mean.)

      The final quote was Neo Bahamut saying what adds up to "if bigotry is okay, the same should be true of snark at its expense." And you called that "an expression of the fanaticism that exists among Korrasami shippers." Which was just such a bizarre jump to conclusions that I suggested that you try actually supporting your accusations, pointed out that your examples were flimsy, and expressed a suspicion that you might just consider Korrasami 'shippers "fanatics" by definition.

      Your response was to claim that I'd "neglected to dispute" the "examples" that you'd already provided...which brings us right back here.  That's twice that I've "disputed" your strawmen and wild accusations—and to a significantly greater extent than they ever merited—now; I will not do it a third time. 

      Lunastar is some snot on dA who similarly never shuts the hell up about Makorra. She adores Mako beyond all reason and thinks he's victimized by the narrative, claims to like Korra but will throw her under the bus on Mako's behalf in a heartbeat, hates Asami for reasons of which "got in the way of Makorra twice" is the most rational, and hates Korrasami partly just because Asami is involved and partly out of unabashed bigotry. (And yet—even as she was continuing to insist that not only were Korra and Asami not a couple, but that even their friendship was forced in light of all of Asami's countless sins—she still took the "hetero lens" comment as a personal slight.) "Some snot"? "Unabashed bigotry"? The quote speaks for itself. I would dare to call this hassling on the grapevine.

      Of course you'd call it that; and you'd doubtless continue to call it that even if I offered proof that it's merited (which it is). You, after all, defend unabashed bigotry and think that it's just awful to make fun of it.

      As it is, I'm not even directly engaging the individual in question, much less "hassling" her.  (Directly engaging her would be an exercise in futility anyway; her usual response to being disagreed with at all is to ignore-list the person and cry about how she's being bullied.)

      You forgot, construed differently. Vaguely arguing that your interpretation is squarely right in the case of social ambiguities on the grounds that there's "half of a series worth of shipteases" (and neglecting to explain these alleged shipteases) is the hallmark of self-righteousness.

      Except—at least, if we take your word on it—you "construed" it so "differently" that you literally couldn't perceive any basis whatsoever for them to fall in love.  That, like it or not, speaks to you either missing or actively denying the cues.  (Based on your track record, I'm leaning towards the latter.)

      And I suppose you're going to try to argue that there's absolutely nothing "self-righteous" about getting indignant on behalf of bigots while taking umbrage at the thought of guilt by association.

      Yes, and what of it?

      It means that, even if the "hivemind" accusation weren't out of line to begin with, the excuse that you made for crapping the thread holds no water.

      And yes, minus one person, there was a consistency in opinion in the latter half of the thread. The dispute in question happened to be with this one person, none other than the infamous Azuma.

      Even if there were a "consistency in opinion," what's it to you? You'd said your deliberately inflammatory piece already, and clearly aren't interested in any sort of proper debate. Does a canon pairing that you don't like being popular really irk you that much?

      But I took a look anyway. There was a very brief window of time between when the thread got necro'd and when you butted back in again during which there could be said to be "consistency" of opinion...and only if you discount both Azuma demanding that the thread just die already and at least one poster who was ambivalent on the pairing. (But I suppose that from a position of such vehement hatred, ambivalence probably doesn't look all that different from unalloyed praise.)

      So stating an opinion is now analogous with trolling. I see.

      If done in a deliberately inflammatory manner?  Yes, it can be.

      Sorry to break this to you, but "opinion" means subjective, not sacrosanct—especially if it's bigoted or otherwise wrongheaded.

      And gay derived from the French word meaning happy. Thank you for that history lesson, but the meaning of white knighting has evolved from that. On subject, vetoing = dismissing. It may be canonical, but that doesn't make it anymore sound. They could have confirmed Bolin gay, and I wouldn't have believed it until I could reason that it was true with unambiguous contextual proof.

      Even if I were to take it at face value that "white-knighting" having taken on any meaning other than playing victim by proxy (with the additional connotation that the proxy didn't merit it) because you say so? What you've been doing is playing victim by proxy—and in general, really.

      And on the subject of connotations: "veto," like it or not, carries the connotation that you have the power to prevent it from happening. It is not synonymous with "refusing to acknowledge the canon support for the pairing," (which is what you're using "dismiss" to mean).

      You take hivemind as an insult? Interesting.

      I personally find it "interesting" that you'd try to claim that accusing people who disagree with you of being incapable of independent thought could be construed as anything but an insult. Especially if you're taking offense at "snot" when it wasn't even directed at you. Or at "homophobe" and "unabashed bigot" when not only were they not directed at you, and not only were they justified, but you see nothing wrong with such behavior.

      Is the opposite of catering to a bigot, verbally accosting the bigot? Is that how you fight bigotry? That's little less than counterproductive.

      I'm sure you're just going to dismiss this as an "ad hominem," as if it weren't actually relevant to your attempt to derail there. But considering that you view bigotry as defensible, if not outright sacrosanct? Like hell is your word on what is or isn't "counterproductive" when it comes to dealing with it any good.

      Well, vaguely claiming that there is harm in it isn't going to convince me. And when you do give an honest answer, it's some rubbish like, Contributing to an environment that disenfranchises and endangers marginalized people for the sake of the bigots' comfort zones is not an opinion that merits catering to. I'd like to know how it contributes to that sort of environment.

      I gave your disingenuous question one answer already.  Your response was to call it "rubbish," insinuate that it was somehow dishonest, and then have the gall to demand another answer.

      Aside from being under no obligation to spoon-feed you Systemic B.S. 101?  You've given me plenty of reason to doubt that you're arguing in good faith. So if you're actually serious about learning how bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum, I suggest that you go read a history book that hasn't been sanitized for the sake of mainstream comfort. Or pay attention to what any reasonably objective news source has to say about current events.

      What cronies? I've been fighting this tag-team of Korrasami enthusiasts single-handedly. If you mean the infrequent poster who stumbles in to leave their opinion, you can hardly call them cronies.

      With that spin that you put on it, one would almost think that you were doing something considerably more heroic than complaining about 'ships you don't like and white-knighting bigots because they agree with you.

      And I don't particularly care what the homophobes you've been defending from the barbaric cruelty of being mocked for their hate are to you. It remains that you've been both reciting the script about spurious accusations of homophobia, and knowingly defending homophobes. (Seriously, if the idea of guilt by association really upsets you that much, here's a novel idea: quit trying to defend them.)

      And as far as I'm concerned, anyone that vetoes (yes, vetoes), Korrasami is innocent. When the thread is literally an appeal to opinion, any opinion is innocent. It's when it becomes an abysm of insults (case in point: this argument, the previous one, Neo's beef with Azuma, virtually any discussion pertaining to Korrasami) that it loses any claim to innocence.

      Wrong.

      No matter what you wanna call your refusal to acknowledge the validity of a pairing that you don't like (although that's still not what "veto" means)?  Even if it ever actually was innocent to begin with, it loses that as soon as it hinges in any way on the fact that they're both women. The closest bigotry gets to "innocent" is "ignorant."

      And your attempt to give yourself an out with the word "virtually" aside?  If discussing a pairing is not "innocent," neither are attempts to tear it down—especially not on the disingenuous-as-hell grounds that y'all tend to go about it.

      Also, you compared an opinion to literally contributing to the endangerment of the lgbt community. I don't think you have much room to talk.

      If that's so, your room to talk is in the negatives.

      I stated that homophobia on the Internet (seeing as, y'know, the "opinion" in question was that pairing two women in a cartoon is "sexual immorality" and inappropriate for kids) and systemic homophobia are both examples of homophobia, and that no example of homophobia exists in a vacuum as long as the latter exists.

      You, by contrast? Dismissed that like it was the two-season 'shiptease for Korrasami...and then, compared getting snarked on the internet to getting executed.  Trying to present my statement as anywhere near that level of gross exaggeration or false equivalence does not, to say the least, reflect well on your credibilty.

        Loading editor
    • and by "probe the forums for," you mean "engage at all, even if provoked."

      He also means we should ignore that the Wiki sends me notifications about every thread that's posted in, & that I've posted in non-Korrasami related threads too.

      XXTaiWolfXx wrote: Also:

      (Hell, when I said what added up to "blame the homophobes," you interpreted that as me calling you one.)

      At the time, I mistook you for Neo. And frankly, minding Neo's sardonic homophobe comments, if you had been Neo, I wouldn't have put it beneath you.

      I have called you a homophobe, & no it's not because you "veto" Korrasami, it's because you consistently attack people dismantling anti-gay arguments while defending blatant attacks on gay people as pure, holy opinions exempt from scorn.

      What you're doing is transparent concern trolling. If you did not believe this shit, you would not disproportionately defend it from criticism. And even if your tone arguments weren't fallacious, there's a notable discrepancy in what you apparently consider to be "inappropriate tone" between pro & anti gay posts.

      E.g. Even IF you were right that DZ said that "Makorra holdouts are obviously bigots" (she clearly didn't), how THIS is "extreme intolerance" but "homosexuality is immoral & inappropriate" is an innocent opinion defies any rational explanation.

      or anyone that dismisses Korrasami for that matter: "Like sisters! That's it!

      Not that you actually care about the truth behind your strawman, but I'm pointing out that clearly a lot of homophobes make these arguments, so if someone alleges to not support homophobia, they may want to consider whether or not they want to continue to use them.

      Or they can just get mad at me, because it's totally my fault that there's an overlap between people who say things like "they were just like sisters" & also things like "gay pairings are gross!"

      Is the opposite of catering to a bigot, verbally accosting the bigot? Is that how you fight bigotry? That's little less than counterproductive.

      And yet, after declaring us "bigots" (albeit for profoundly stupid reasons), you've done nothing but "verbally accost" us. If you're not going to take your own tedious, moralizing bullshit seriously, why the Hell would you expect us to?

      I don't remember admitting to blatant trolling.

      You admitted to making passive-aggressive attacks on my person, as well as apparently persons of Korrasami shippers in general, which have nothing to do with the thread. A post with no aim but to piss people off with irrelevant character attacks is, by definition, trolling.

      I'd like to know how it contributes to that sort of environment.

      No you wouldn't, you're just sea lioning.

      I have no problem with homosexual relationships. but it seemed like an "easy out" from under the nickelodeon thumb. something like..

      Then I recommend not upvoting a guy who has stated multiple times that he thinks there's nothing wrong with saying that homosexuality is immoral or inappropriate, but bitches ceaselessly at people who disagree with those notions.

      I also have misgivings about leaping to the conclusion that it was done just to get cancelled, not the least of which being that it doesn't really reflect the reality of the situation very well.

      Nickelodeon had cut their budget for Book 4 soon after the completion of Book 3, had moved them around to several different timeslots without warning, ultimately made them go online-only because they weren't satisfied with the ratings, & overall showed no signs of liking the show's performance or wanting a 5th season.

      In fact, Nickelodeon actually pulled a complete 180 after Korrasami happened, milking that in their marketing for all it was worth. Suddenly, Korra & Asami started appearing in their flash games, their Valentines Day posts, & other site ads. They even agreed to let Mike write comics about the pair for Dark Horse.

      In any case there's little sense to drop the show when they could just tell Mike & Bryan, "No, you can't do that. And you can't tell anyone we said that, because non-disclosure agreement."

      but why couldnt korra just be a strong character (female or male) without a relationship... why is it that single characters are seen as "incomplete" or in some sort of need for a partner (homo or hetero)?

      Here's my question: Who said that?

      Korra was "strong & not in a relationship" for the better part of 2 books. I certainly wasn't complaining about it. I don't know anyone else who was.

      Of course, I did expect her to get into another relationship at some point, whether that be onscreen or not. Fact is, people generally don't want to be single forever. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you, but surely you must notice that most people around you are either dating, engaged, married, or wondering if they should "get back out there again."

        Loading editor
    • Also, double posting because I can, why do people forget the "opinions are like assholes" adage? Ask yourself how much you want to hear about whatever came out of my butt this morning & hopefully you'll understand why I don't particularly care about your argument & might even find it kind of gross if it doesn't have a basis besides your opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Once again, memory overload. Lost all of my content, and I'm not interested in retyping all of that. I appreciate the engrossing argument, nonetheless.

        Loading editor
    • No you wouldn't, you're just sea lioning.

      Internet slang doesn't do an argument justice.

        Loading editor
    • Your idea of "doing an argument justice" appears to be claiming that you're done only to come back 7 minutes later & ignore every single point in favor of making a poison the well fallacy.

      You, child, are in absolutely no position to give advice on how to look credible in a debate.

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote:
      No you wouldn't, you're just sea lioning.
      Internet slang doesn't do an argument justice.

      You wanna complain about Internet slang, kiddo?  Start by removing "white-knighting," whether or not you're going to try to redefine it, from your vocabulary.  If it applies to Neo Bahamut, it also applies to you

      And it remains that you have been arguing in bad faith.  Being sixteen only gets you so much leeway in that regard.

        Loading editor
    • I never said I was done. I'm only done with that long recitation from Deist Zealot.

      And what are you, twelve? Painting me as a "child" doesn't do your argument justice either.

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote: I never said I was done. I'm only done with that long recitation from Deist Zealot.

      And what are you, twelve? Painting me as a "child" doesn't do your argument justice either.

      You are sixteen, and—accordingly—seem to be going through a phase in which you think that being a wiseacre represents actual wisdom (and having apparently just read Nineteen Eighty-Four probably just exacerbates that).  But, again: that only grants you so much leeway.  If you're going to try to apply certain arbitrary standards to others' arguments (arguably a derailing tactic in its own right, but whatever) you need to at least attempt to adhere to them yourself.

      For the record: that means that if painting one's opponent as a "child" weakens their argument. you need to quit flinging around "juvenile" as an attempted discrediting tactic.  (And I hate to break it to you...but, unlike "being purposely obtuse," saying "what are you, twelve?" actually is an ad hominem).  Similarly, if using Internet slang is out, that includes "white-knighting."  And unlike your attempt to accuse myself and Neo Bahamut of branding all Makorra 'shippers homophobes without provocation, both of the above are readily verifiable from you.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't make you come into this thread & start throwing out insults because 2 people argued against your opinion. I'm not forcing you to ignore entire posts or demand that people stop saying things you don't like. You're doing just fine painting yourself as a child without my help.

        Loading editor
    • You are sixteen, and—accordingly—seem to be going through a phase in which you think that being a wiseacre represents actual wisdom (and having apparently just read Nineteen Eighty-Four probably just exacerbates that).  But, again: that only grants you so much leeway.  If you're going to try to apply certain arbitrary standards to others' arguments (arguably a derailing tactic in its own right, but whatever) you need to at least attempt to adhere to them yourself.

      Sixteen? I'm afraid you're off by a few numbers.

      Also, where did you learn that I just finished reading 1984? Your information is all fallacious.

      If you want to discuss argumentative arbitrary standards, let's begin with "sealioning", some B.S. coined just two years ago. Memes hardly maintain much integrity in an argument.

      For the record: that means that if painting one's opponent as a "child" weakens their argument. you need to quit flinging around "juvenile" as an attempted discrediting tactic.  (And I hate to break it to you...but, unlike "being purposely obtuse," saying "what are you, twelve?" actually is an ad hominem).  Similarly, if using Internet slang is out, that includes "white-knighting."  And unlike your attempt to accuse myself and Neo Bahamut of branding all Makorra 'shippers homophobes without provocation, both of the above are readily verifiable from you.

      "Flinging around", when it was applied only once. Okay.

      Also? Obtuse is nothing short of an ad hominem, and placing purposely in front of it (as if it holds any water) doesn't make it less so. Your point about "white-knighting" qualifying as internet slang is fair, but you're wrong on one account: you very clearly branded "Makorra holdouts" bigots in a post on this thread for not countering genuine bigotry, as if that's somehow they're responsibility. Never mind the fact that you think a "pattern" of bigotry among certain "Makorra holdouts" is somehow applicable to the whole lot of them. That simply can't be sugarcoated.

      I didn't make you come into this thread & start throwing out insults because 2 people argued against your opinion. I'm not forcing you to ignore entire posts or demand that people stop saying things you don't like. You're doing just fine painting yourself as a child without my help.

      Of course you didn't.

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote:
      Sixteen? Where did you learn that? I'm afraid you're off by a few numbers.

      Then either update your profile, or quit lying about your age.

      Additionally, in light of how you go about arguing—which is to say, attempting to overwhelm via sheer persistence and volume rather than coming up with any sort of an actual case—your being a teenager (and thus, right in the age range to pull that sort of thing) made sense.  To say nothing of the magnitude of the snit into which you've so clearly worked yourself.

      Also, where did you learn that I just finished reading 1984? Your information is all fallacious.

      Apart from your quite telling use of Orwellian buzzwords such as "thought police" and "groupthink," there's also your framing it as my having "learned that" you'd just read it (hello, inadvertent admission via Freudian slip). In light of those, you're protesting way too much.

      If you want to discuss argumentative arbitrary standards, let's begin with "sealioning", some B.S. coined just two years ago. Memes hardly maintain much integrity in an argument.

      As opposed to "white-knighting," some B.S. coined a similarly irrelevant number of years ago.  Using a snarl phrase (and one which was originally coined specifically to silence men who spoke out against sexism or harassment by implying that they were only doing so as a seduction tactic, although it's since taken on a wider meaning of "playing victim by proxy," no less), even if paradoxically self-applied in some bass-ackwards attempt to deny that you're playing victim at all, contributes slightly less to your argument than spamming lolcats would.  

      And "sealioning" is essentially a more concise way to say "arguing in bad faith, especially if one does so incessantly in the apparent hope that the opposition will eventually give up out of sheer exasperation."  (Which is what you've been doing.)  The fact that it was inspired by a webcomic does not make it a "meme."

      "Flinging around", when it was applied only once. Okay.

      The fact that you used it at all, then said that Neo Bahamut somehow discredited himself by calling you a "child," still displays a double standard on your partYou're allowed to accuse others of immaturity for any reason or none at all, but Raava forbid anyone say the same of you.

      Also? Obtuse is nothing short of an ad hominem, and placing purposely in front of it (as if it holds any water) doesn't make it less so.

      Again: an "ad hominem" is a shot at you as a person. "Being deliberately obtuse" describes the tactic that you were using.  If you take it personally when someone calls you on disingenuously feigning complete ignorance of basic matters, that's on no one but you.

      Your point about "white-knighting" qualifying as internet slang is fair, but you're wrong on one account: you very clearly branded "Makorra holdouts" bigots in a post on this thread for not countering genuine bigotry, as if that's somehow they're responsibility. Never mind the fact that you think a "pattern" of bigotry among certain "Makorra holdouts" is somehow applicable to the whole lot of them. That simply can't be sugarcoated.

      Were two bedamned explanations as to how that's a strawman interpretation on your part really not enough to hammer "quit strawmanning so blatantly" into your skull already?  After a certain point, presenting a strawman as fact is nothing short of an intentional barefaced lie.

      Besides, I don't know why you're even getting offended at perceived (read: imagined) accusations of bigotry anyway. You've made it clear, time and time again, that you have less of a problem with bigotry than with snark at its expense.

      Of course you didn't.

      Exactly. You came in of your own accord after wrecking yourself in the other thread, and immediately started flopping around like a mama plover with a coyote at her nest. You're bringing this upon yourself.

        Loading editor
    • Then either update your profile, or quit lying about your age.

      I didn't know neglecting to update a profile qualifies as lying.

      Additionally, in light of how you go about arguing—which is to say, attempting to overwhelm via sheer persistence and volume rather than coming up with any sort of an actual case—your being a teenager (and thus, right in the age range to pull that sort of thing) made sense.  To say nothing of the magnitude of the snit into which you've so clearly worked yourself.

      "sheer persistence" - Are you not being persistent? That is to say, are you not firmly continuing to dispute me? If you're going to cheapen me, perhaps persistence isn't the right word to use.

      "volume" - If anyone is pumping volume into their posts, it is you. There's no harm in that, but to be clear, there's no great proportion of content in my replies.

      Apart from your quite telling use of Orwellian buzzwords such as "thought police" and "groupthink," there's also your framing it as my having "learned that" you'd just read it (hello, inadvertent admission via Freudian slip). In light of those, you're protesting way too much.

      I don't think "groupthink" appears once in the book... but I digress. Yes, I've read the book, but not recently. Neither am I protesting, I'm simply correcting you.

      As opposed to "white-knighting," some B.S. coined a similarly irrelevant number of years ago.

      I've already conceded to that double standard.

      Even if we were to argue that what's essentially just a more concise way to say "arguing in bad faith, especially if one does so incessantly in the apparent hope that the opposition will eventually give up out of sheer exasperation"

      That's not the quite the context to which Neo was applying that meme. Neo used that word to insist that I was somehow being intrusive by requesting an elucidation of how Azuma's moral convictions directly impact the LGBT community (since you insist that "nothing exists in a vacuum"). If either of you find that intrusive, that's on you; if you're anticipating an understanding on my part, I'm anticipating some clarification on your part to reach that understanding.

      (which, for the record, still is what you have been doing)

      I'm under no impression that you have any intention of backing out. You've made it very clear that once you've committed, you're committed. If there's any probability of one of us giving up, it's going to be me. Arguing with you two is mentally exhausting. Take it as a compliment.

      is a "meme" just by virtue of having been inspired by a webcomic?

      Well, it's recognized as a meme, so I would assume so.

      Snarl phrases ("white-knighting," although it's since come to mean "playing victim by proxy" in a wider sense, was originally coined specifically to silence men who spoke out against sexism or harassment by implying that they were only doing so as a seduction tactic) would count for less even if the alternative were lolcats.

      I've never heard "snarl phrases" before.

      The fact that you used it at all, then said that Neo Bahamut somehow discredited himself by calling you a "child," still displays a double standard on your part.

      Probably so.

      Also? Obtuse is nothing short of an ad hominem, and placing purposely in front of it (as if it holds any water) doesn't make it less so.
      Again: an "ad hominem" is a shot at you as a person. "Being deliberately obtuse" describes the tactic that you were using.  If you take it personally when someone calls you on disingenuously feigning complete ignorance of basic matters, that's on no one but you.

      I wasn't feigning ignorance when there is nothing to feign ignorance on. I would not equate "storytelling principles" to literary elements because that's hardly what I mean by the phrase, storytelling principles. Maybe that was just poor wording, but what I was referring to were standards to which a narrative can be held, which is built on nothing less than personal bias.

      So yes, I do take offense at your use of obtuse because it was employed where it should not have been.

      Your point about "white-knighting" qualifying as internet slang is fair, but you're wrong on one account: you very clearly branded "Makorra holdouts" bigots in a post on this thread for not countering genuine bigotry, as if that's somehow they're responsibility. Never mind the fact that you think a "pattern" of bigotry among certain "Makorra holdouts" is somehow applicable to the whole lot of them. That simply can't be sugarcoated.
      Were two bedamned explanations as to how that's a strawman interpretation on your part really not enough to hammer "quit strawmanning so blatantly" into your skull already?  After a certain point, presenting a strawman as fact is nothing short of an intentional barefaced lie.

      Yet you seem to be making "Makorra holdouts" liable for the behavior of other bigoted "Makorra holdouts" in that quote of yours. You say, Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that, as if it is somehow our responsibility to debunk the notion that we're all innate bigots for disapproving of a canon pairing by contradicting actual bigots. (consult: your comment about a chance pattern of bigotry among "Makorra holdouts").

      Besides, I don't know why you're even getting offended at perceived (read: imagined) accusations of bigotry anyway. You've made it clear, time and time again, that you have less of a problem with bigotry than with snark at its expense.

      What accusations of bigotry? You have never directly accused me of it, and before you reference that one instance where I thought you had, I cleared up that confusion here: (if I knew how to hyperlink, I would do so)

      At the time, I mistook you for Neo. And frankly, minding Neo's sardonic homophobe comments, if you had been Neo, I wouldn't have put it beneath you.

      You're right; I formerly had no problem with Azuma's commentary in the other thread because it was delivered in a peaceable mode (minus one comment she made deriding you both, but that's irrelevant where her convictions on homosexuality are concerned), whereas Neo stooped to antagonism to settle his differences with her. It's pretty telling that a moderator had to come in and entreat civility following his procession of sardonic insults. I don't mind her sentiments because she apparently kept her poise without completely disparaging anyone (again, minus that one comment she made in that other thread, for which I do find her blameworthy).

      Then I checked this thread, and I can see her vulgarity in full effect. With that all said, I do see where I have been wrongfully defending discourtesy against discourtesy.

      Exactly. You came in of your own accord after wrecking yourself in the other thread, and immediately started flopping around like a mama plover with a coyote at her nest. You're bringing this upon yourself.

      Then it's a grand thing that I don't mind at all. There's no innate harm in arguing, and neither is there any in losing. I've learned a thing or two from you, so I'll be better equipped next time I find myself head to head with someone.

        Loading editor
    • XXTaiWolfXx wrote:
      I didn't know neglecting to update a profile qualifies as lying.

      And there you go, being disingenuous again. You know damned well that I was insinuating—seeing as you didn't specify whether you were older or younger than sixteen—that you might have added a few years in your profile.

      "sheer persistence" - Are you not being persistent? That is to say, are you not firmly continuing to dispute me? If you're going to cheapen me, perhaps persistence isn't the right word to use. "volume" - If anyone is pumping volume into their posts, it is you. There's no harm in that, but to be clear, there's no great proportion of content in my replies.

      Oh, hush. You are, at very least, equally guilty of both. Additionally, your investment in this discussion consists of "offended on behalf of some bigots' feelings" and "how dare a canon pairing that you hate be popular; must deride the standards of the supporters!"

      I don't think "groupthink" appears once in the book... but I digress. Yes, I've read the book, but not recently. Neither am I protesting, I'm simply correcting you.

      My mistake; I was thinking of "doublethink." In my defense, it's been quite a bit longer since I've read the book; I've been somewhat soured on it by how many people seem to paraphrase it at the slightest whiff of accountability.

      That said: "correcting" implies that I'm actually wrong, which I continue to sincerely doubt. A year ago, at the absolute maximum; and that's if it left an especially significant impression on you.

      I've already conceded to that double standard.

      And you haven't quit harping on how I supposedly called all Makorra 'shippers homophobes, despite that having never happened in the first place, so...

      That's not the quite the context to which Neo was applying that meme. Neo used that word to insist that I was somehow being intrusive by requesting an elucidation of how Azuma's moral convictions directly impact the LGBT community (since you insist that "nothing exists in a vacuum"). If either of you find that intrusive, that's on you; if you're anticipating an understanding on my part, I'm anticipating some clarification on your part to reach that understanding.

      It continues to not fucking be a meme.  He was accusing you, in a concise manner, of arguing in bad faith. Simple as that.

      Additionally?  The first time you demanded an explanation of how homophobia on the Internet does not, in fact, exist in isolation from the systemic variety, I gave you far more of one than said demand merited.  Your response was to call said answer "rubbish" and dishonest, and to continue to demand that I spoon-feed you Systemic B.S. 101 info that you could easily find out for yourself.  So you're really not helping any case that you might want to make against his having called it.

      I'm under no impression that you have any intention of backing out.

      So why don't you? You've been given plenty of outs—hell, you essentially flounced at one point. Is your pride really that wounded?

      You've made it very clear that once you've committed, you're committed. If there's any probability of one of us giving up, it's going to be me. Arguing with you two is mentally exhausting. Take it as a compliment.

      Please, by all means, do. Hell, if you reply after this, I'm going to conclude that you're just trying to "win."

      Well, it's recognized as a meme, so I would assume so.

      Recognized as a "meme" by what authority, exactly? KnowYourMeme? Sorry, but that's a slightly less reliable source than any given rando on Tumblr or Facebook or whatever site is being used as a dog-whistle these days.

      I've never heard "snarl phrases" before.

      Back-formation from "snarl word." In other words: a knee-jerk discrediting attempt.

      Probably so.

      So why are you still here?

      I wasn't feigning ignorance when there is nothing to feign ignorance on. I would not equate "storytelling principles" to literary elements because that's hardly what I mean by the phrase, storytelling principles. Maybe that was just poor wording, but what I was referring to were standards to which a narrative can be held, which is built on nothing less than personal bias.

      Again: bisonshit. To state that a narrative is "bad" or lacks "substance" is to pass an objective judgment on it; and playing the opinion card is a lazy evasion.

      Also: if you don't care about character dynamics in the first place (to which you've admitted)? You're not in a position to argue that they don't count.

      So yes, I do take offense at your use of obtuse because it was employed where it should not have been.

      Again: if you took offense, that's your problem and doesn't change the fact that it was aimed at your tactics. I might consider retracting my accusation of disingenuousness if I thought that you were genuinely ignorant. But as it is, you've acted more like you're just upset that a pairing you don't like was endgame, and like you're willing to grasp at absolutely any flimsy excuse to invalidate it.

      Yet you seem to be making "Makorra holdouts" liable for the behavior of other bigoted "Makorra holdouts" in that quote of yours. You say, Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that, as if it is somehow our responsibility to debunk the notion that we're all innate bigots for disapproving of a canon pairing by contradicting actual bigots. (consult: your comment about a chance pattern of bigotry among "Makorra holdouts").

      If you've got a visible bigot problem of any magnitude?  Sorry, but...if you're that outraged at the very idea of being perceived as guilty by association, it kind of is your responsibility to collect your trash.  Twisting that into "Makorra holdouts are all innately bigoted by default" is a bizarre strawman.

      And, again: why do you even care? You've made it clear, time and time again, that you find bigotry more acceptable than snark at its expense.

      What accusations of bigotry? You have never directly accused me of it, and before you reference that one instance where I thought you had, I cleared up that confusion here: (if I knew how to hyperlink, I would do so) At the time, I mistook you for Neo. And frankly, minding Neo's sardonic homophobe comments, if you had been Neo, I wouldn't have put it beneath you.

      I'm talking about your strawman interpretation of my post. And your strawman interpretation of Neo Bahamut's post.  And every other time that you've claimed that y'all get unjustly branded as homophobes just for refusing to acknowledge the buildup for Korrasami (never mind that being that actively in denial is sketchy in its own right).

      And, again: why does it even matter to you if such accusations—direct or otherwise—have been made if you consider bigotry defensible to begin with?

      You're right; I formerly had no problem with Azuma's commentary in the other thread because it was delivered in a peaceable mode (minus one comment she made deriding you both, but that's irrelevant where her convictions on homosexuality are concerned), whereas Neo stooped to antagonism to settle his differences with her. It's pretty telling that a moderator had to come in and entreat civility following his procession of sardonic insults. I don't mind her sentiments because she apparently kept her poise without completely disparaging anyone (again, minus that one comment she made in that other thread, for which I do find her blameworthy).

      Then I checked this thread, and I can see her vulgarity in full effect. With that all said, I do see where I have been wrongfully defending discourtesy against discourtesy.

      Okay, but: aside from the utter irrelevance of whether or not she "kept her poise," and how easy it would have been for you to find out that she had a track record before you posted? There's a big difference between "discourtesy" or "vulgarity" and bigotry. And claiming that queer characters were only included in order to please the queer fanbase (thus implicitly stating that the queer fanbase are somehow less deserving) is by definition not "peaceable."

      I hope that, some day, the "why" of that sinks in for you. But after the way that you rudely brushed off my explanation of it? As far as I'm concerned, it's up to you to learn it yourself.

      Then it's a grand thing that I don't mind at all. There's no innate harm in arguing, and neither is there any in losing. I've learned a thing or two from you, so I'll be better equipped next time I find myself head to head with someone.

      Cool. But, again: if you come back after this post, you've kind of blown any last benefit of the doubt that you had remaining.

        Loading editor
    • That's not the quite the context to which Neo was applying that meme. Neo used that word to insist that I was somehow being intrusive by requesting an elucidation of how Azuma's moral convictions directly impact the LGBT community (since you insist that "nothing exists in a vacuum").

      DZ explained it, I explained it, & the notion that you don't know where to look to find out how ideology precipitates real world discrimination is absurd. Yet you still ask for "explanations" that you don't seem to be interested in but to waste people's time. Thus, sea lioning.

      And I must be sounding like a broken record by now, but tone arguments are a poison the well fallacy.

      You say, Yeah...when the Makorra holdouts start standing up to counter crap like that, as if it is somehow our responsibility to debunk the notion that we're all innate bigots for disapproving of a canon pairing by contradicting actual bigots.

      "Responsibility" is a strange term to apply here. I would figure it's the natural recourse to counter anyone distorting MY arguments, at least when they're in plain sight.

      Though that implies that anti-Korrasami arguments initially came from an innocent place & were corrupted, rather than by & large being variations of older anti-gay arguments, repackaged & disguised so as to be palatable to the masses...but, y'know, whatever.

      It's pretty telling that a moderator had to come in and entreat civility following his procession of sardonic insults

      Appeal to authority. Fact is, I've complained many times about flawed methods of moderation on this site, such as:

      A. The method of resolving pretty much any dispute, regardless of whether or not it was equal, is to threaten closing the thread. As Azuma helpfully showed us, this is often what trolls want in the 1st place. So it's rather like telling an arsonist that if they misbehave, you'll give them matches. And as you helpfully show, when nobody is "singled out," it tends to reinforce perceptions that the instigator did nothing wrong.

      B. The arbitrariness of holding ad hominems to a different standard if they're cloaked in enough pseudo-polite passive aggressive bullshit. My favorite example is how a certain someone who shall remain nameless more for my protection than his has literally gone around calling people Nazis, but oh my GOD the shitstorm that would ensue if I ever called this person a stupid asshole. Because that's apparently so much worse than being called a Nazi.

      C. Related to that, just in general privileging dishonesty & false information over "meanness."

      Definition of a meme:
      an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.

      Well, I would consider the term sea lioning to be a meme by both definitions, especially since the 2nd pretty much includes the 1st by proxy. But I fail to see how this is an issue.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Definition of a meme:

      an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.
      Well, I would consider the term sea lioning to be a meme by both definitions, especially since the 2nd pretty much includes the 1st by proxy. But I fail to see how this is an issue.

      Ehh...I'd argue that the original "Wondermark" strip became memetic (in kind of a horrible way, considering how most of the variations of it that I've seen have been disingenuousness about racism and so on; but I digress).

      The term "sealioning," on the other hand—although it references that same comic where the meme originated—is no more an "element of a culture" nor "a system of behavior" than any other Internet neologism; it's just a more concise way to describe a pre-existing tactic.  (For one, it actually seems to pre-date the memetic status of the strip.)  So...it's not a "meme" unless you want to argue that literally every Internet neologism is a "meme."

        Loading editor
    • I would indeed say that. In fact, one criticism of the term "meme" is that it's "an unnecessary synonym for the word 'concept.'"

      Of course, that doesn't mean I'd say that all neologisms fit the "humorous thing spread rapidly by internet users" definition, but I think it's pretty obvious that "sea-lioning" is meant to be an amusing term.

      Now, the problem is I have no idea where he got the idea that because something might be amusing, it can be dismissed out of hand. It's roughly like saying that all of the information we know about this dinosaur is invalid because the guy who discovered it gave it a silly name.

        Loading editor
    • Pardon me, i couldn't help but read this. I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing evidence of the name "Dracorex" being silly?

        Loading editor
    • Serious now, how is sea lioning a bad thing? Isn't it just asking you to back up your claims? And since you did, like you said, is the term still valid in this case since sea lioning is when someone keeps bothering you for proof and you refuse to give said proof?

      And let's no use Freud, the guy was a moron.

        Loading editor
    • I'm...just going to assume that when you said "serious now," you actually transitioned into being serious. No, the comic is ironically not very good at demonstrating what sealioning is. Basically, it doesn't really matter whether you answer a sea lion or not, because the endless "requests" for explanations IS the point. Kind of a more sophisticated version of when kids go "Why? Why? Why? Why?" Answering them doesn't actually stop it.

      The questions are also usually about "entry-level" information waaaay below what should be expected of any informed debate or discussion.

      The question that usually follows this is how you know that someone is sea lioning--which is what makes the tactic so effective, you don't, you can only use best judgment. I tend to use an unspoken 3 strikes policy. If it's the 3rd time I've explained something to someone, whether they're doing it intentionally or not, either way that's enough of that shit.

      I don't know what Freud has to do with anything, except your obvious castration anxiety & sexual attraction to your mother.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Of course, that doesn't mean I'd say that all neologisms fit the "humorous thing spread rapidly by internet users" definition, but I think it's pretty obvious that "sea-lioning" is meant to be an amusing term.

      Except not even the wildly biased site where its history was chronicled attempted to write any attempt at a joke into its early use (although people who liked to argue in bad faith at length certainly were quick to try to make a joke out of the idea).

      SaitamaBro wrote:
      Serious now, how is sea lioning a bad thing? Isn't it just asking you to back up your claims? And since you did, like you said, is the term still valid in this case since sea lioning is when someone keeps bothering you for proof and you refuse to give said proof?

      And let's no use Freud, the guy was a moron.

      Sealioning (that, and the link in the first paragraph, are the simplest explanations I can find that aren't whiny attempts to dismiss the concept out of hand) is arguing in bad faith.  Badgering the target (usually about something that they've already explained, is a matter of personal experience that they're not obligated to explain to some stranger, or is self-evident); not because you actually want "proof," but because you want to trip them up on some trivial detail (and hold the gaffe against their premise), waste their time, or simply annoy them.

      For example: demanding, over and over again, that I explain how bigotry isn't just some harmless opinion (which I did, only to have him insult the answer that I gave him) and justify calling all Makorra holdouts homophobes (which I'd never actually even done to begin with).  Considering how he was also making some fairly wild accusations of his own and offering absolutely nothing resembing a proper explanation?  (Seriously: he tried to spin what added up to "if bigotry is to be permitted, so should mocking the bigots; fair is fair" as proof of "fanaticism" on the part of Korrasami 'shippers.  That's out there.)  I have plenty of reason to doubt that he was arguing in good faith.

      Freud is irrelevant.

        Loading editor
    • Lampooning bad faith arguments by means of a stalker sea lion popping out & complaining incessantly about some slight against it is a pretty good example of absurdist humor.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Lampooning bad faith arguments by means of a stalker sea lion popping out & complaining incessantly about some slight against it is a pretty good example of absurdist humor.

      The comic itself was meant to be amusing...in a way that, along with being absurdist, was slightly sardonic.  It was "it's funny because it's true; people actually pull this shit."  (Although—much as I like the sardonic humor that "Wondermark" seems to employ—I agree that it was a better example of what people claim sealioning is when trying to discredit the concept than of the actual tactic.  Even David Malki has admitted that he probably sent the wrong message by having the woman's initial complaint be about sea lions, and that it might have been more effective to have her say that she could do without—just to give an example—loud animals with fish breath.)

      But it doesn't necessarily follow that the usage of the term as shorthand for an all-too-real tactic is intended to be amusing just because the source was a joke at the expense of people who use that tactic.  (Again: the "Wondermark" strip was rather bitter humor to begin with.)

        Loading editor
    • That could be, I don't know the motives behind most people's use of the term.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      That could be, I don't know the motives behind most people's use of the term.

      For the most part?  To point out that someone is deliberately attempting to steer a discussion into going in circles, and call bullshit on the tactic.

        Loading editor
    • That's... really different from the comic then. Even more so when you can interpret the woman there as someone talking shit about a whole group of "people", and then running away when confronted by someone from this group. In that case the sea lion was just pushy. And being a term made by the GG and anti-GG "fight" just give it less credibility. But i see where you are coming from and how this is a real thing, though like Neo said, this depends on the person judging if the other is arguing in bad faith or not[and the post with a tutorial on how to not sea lion just show that this is something that people do without thinking they are doing it].

      And Neo, i'm just curious if you have any sources to back up your opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:

      Neo Bahamut wrote:
      That could be, I don't know the motives behind most people's use of the term.

      For the most part?  To point out that someone is deliberately attempting to steer a discussion into going in circles, and call bullshit on the tactic.

      Well, yeah, but I could've just said "you're just asking for things you have no intention of reading" or something. I went with "sealioning" because it amused me.

      [and the post with a tutorial on how to not sea lion just show that this is something that people do without thinking they are doing it].

      "Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice. Never assume stupidity where ignorance will suffice. Never assume ignorance where lack of information will suffice. Never assume lack of information where some unforeseen factor will suffice."

      And Neo, i'm just curious if you have any sources to back up your opinion.

      Batman.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not a Batman specialist, but i'm pretty sure he never talked about the Dracorex. And you lost this debate since, just like Nazis, bringing Batman to a debate spells an instant loss.

        Loading editor
    • Only a supervillain would argue with Batman.

        Loading editor
    • Korrasami really was cancerous to the community huh?

        Loading editor
    • No more so than Makorra was after Book 1.  The pairing isn't at fault for the ensuing fanwank from frustrated 'shippers, much less the bigots crawling out from under their rocks.

        Loading editor
    • But it only got worse after Korrasami was confirmed.

      Because Korrasami has, and always will be, a bad example of fan pandering.

      Because the fan base is overrall really stupid to be blunt.

        Loading editor
    • I disagree entirely. When you get an LGBT couple, that's not pandering to fans. That's recognising that not all fans follow the same mold, and choosing to represent them. Makorra would be pandering, as they had already established it wasn't going to happen. Korrasami is not.

        Loading editor
    • AvatarKatar wrote: But it only got worse after Korrasami was confirmed.

      Because Korrasami has, and always will be, a bad example of fan pandering.

      No, it's not. As has been mentioned several times in at least one previous thread on the subject, most of the series, including Book 4, was already in the can - as in, completely done - by the time Book 2 was finished and fans started commenting about the Korrasami buildup in Book 3. So it can't be "fan pandering" because it was done before there was a substantial fan community to pander to.

      Hang on a minute, let me find the post in question in the other thread.

        Loading editor
    • I love Korrasami, but it could've been introduced way better. And a lot of the romance stuff from the first seasons was pretty distracting and unnecessary (in my opinion). My main objection here is that "of" is not an auxiliary verb.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like you're using Korrasami as a shield so you don't have to acknowledge your own actions. Such as regurgitating a talking point that's been refuted a million times now, & implying that people who like the pair are "really stupid."

      Hey, if you want to make incendiary claims, I don't care. But it's just nonsense to turn around & bemoan the state of "the community" because you see, it's not the fault of the people making those attacks, Korrasami is to blame.

        Loading editor
    • AvatarKatar
      AvatarKatar removed this reply because:
      Fuck it, I really don't want to be dragged into another debate on this same shit and I definitely think the post was unfairly hostile.
      04:19, June 11, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      I feel like you're using Korrasami as a shield so you don't have to acknowledge your own actions. Such as regurgitating a talking point that's been refuted a million times now, & implying that people who like the pair are "really stupid."

      Hey, if you want to make incendiary claims, I don't care. But it's just nonsense to turn around & bemoan the state of "the community" because you see, it's not the fault of the people making those attacks, Korrasami is to blame.

      Refuted? That's a complete lie, it has never been refuted and no, I don't think Korrasami shippers are stupid but my experience with a good majority of them are that they're incredibly defensive about it and I've known a few people who have been driven out of the fanbase for even supporting any other shipping.

        Loading editor
    • Fruipit wrote:
      I disagree entirely. When you get an LGBT couple, that's not pandering to fans. That's recognising that not all fans follow the same mold, and choosing to represent them. Makorra would be pandering, as they had already established it wasn't going to happen. Korrasami is not.

      And I wish I could go all out on this comment but I cant because that will violate the rules.

      Edit: Well, meh, I don't think so, so I'll just say, that is pandering, because it's still trying to appease a certain part of the fanbase. Just because it is LGBT doesn't mean it isn't.

        Loading editor
    • Ignoring the example of a refutation that DrachenRitter just posted, falsely accusing me of lying, & then making dark insinuations of how you want to say things to Fruipit that will "break the rules" because she had the gall to disagree with your pandering accusation doesn't really help your case.

      But if you want to keep going as you are & try to frame the inevitable backlash as you being mobbed by overly defensive Korrasami fans, do what you feel you have to do.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Ignoring the example of a refutation that DrachenRitter just posted, falsely accusing me of lying, & then making dark insinuations of how you want to say things to Fruipit that will "break the rules" because she had the gall to disagree with your pandering accusation doesn't really help your case.

      But if you want to keep going as you are & try to frame the inevitable backlash as you being mobbed by overly defensive Korrasami fans, do what you feel you have to do.

      Ignoring the example? I was going to address him later but if you want me to, I don't ever trust a damn thing coming from the creators because they have a massive tendancy to lie about production. On top of that, no sizeable fanbase? That's fucking complete shit, there was a massive fanbase for Korra when it came. A shipping for Asami and Korra existed immediately after they were alone with each other or arguebly the moment Asami appeared.

      Accuse you of lying? What that you went off to say that the entire debate on "it's fanservice" is refuted because some production manager says it was all done by then? The show wasn't even done being animated until a month before the final was released, on top of that, it goes against the entire narrative of "Nick pulled an entire series order on them and they had no idea what to do!"

      The dark insinuations? I just didn't want to be a fucking dick on here, because she disagreed with me? Fuck no, because what she said was completely stupid, "It's not pandering because it's LGBT! It's being represenative!" THAT IS PANDERING. When you do something to appeal to certain part of a fanbase. There, if that the fucking dark insinuations you said doesn't help my case? Because at this point, I'm only replying to you and accusing me of just using Korrasami as a "shield" so I can mock people, honestly? I don't like the Korrasami fanbase, I thought the last thread I particapated in was "autistic' because it was the same people arguing over the same crap two years later. I give my opinion now, once again, because I see, again, the same people arguing, the same thread, and crap happening once more..

      Being mobbed? It's the same fucking people who keep defending it, and you just admitted that Korrasami fanbase tends to mob people, and yet it is not cancerous?

        Loading editor
    • Ignoring the example? I was going to address him later

      Even if I believed this, it's not an excuse. You still accused me of lying about there being refutations before you even attempted to disprove the refutation that was presented to you. This made your claim an unsupported accusation, which I have every right to protest.

      but if you want me to, I don't ever trust a damn thing coming from the creators because they have a massive tendancy to lie about production.

      Whether or not you personally trust the information is actually irrelevant. If you had a reason for dismissing the source other than more unsubstantiated claims, that would be one thing. But all available evidence contradicts you, & you can't offer any compelling argument against that evidence, so claiming you haven't been refuted is just plain wrong.

      On top of that, no sizeable fanbase? That's fucking complete shit, there was a massive fanbase for Korra when it came. A shipping for Asami and Korra existed immediately after they were alone with each other or arguebly the moment Asami appeared.

      I was on this Wiki at the start of Legend of Korra, & that's not even close to what I observed. Makorra, Masami, Borra, & even Bosami were all more popular pairings. As were Pemzin & Tenlin. The first times Korrasami was presented as an option, it was more of a joke. If you want to say otherwise, that's fine. But at that point, it's my word verses yours. That certainly doesn't prove that Korrasami was popular enough to influence the creators at that time.

      Accuse you of lying? What that you went off to say that the entire debate on "it's fanservice" is refuted because some production manager says it was all done by then?

      It is refuted because everyone who actually has behind the scenes information & is willing to talk about this have contradicted the people claiming pandering, who are citing only their own personal outrage as proof. Frankly, I'm not even willing to classify that as a "debate."

      Imagine if I picked some random thing on the Wiki & said that it had to be changed because the creators are obviously lying about it. I would be told, with more than a bit of mockery, that my suspicions cannot be taken as evidence of anything, & to come back when I have a proper source. And rightfully so. And claiming that this is an "unresolved debate"--implying that my arguments pose a challenge simply because I was unwilling to drop them--simply wouldn't be true. The fact would still remain that my arguments were little more than the appeal to incredulity fallacy.

      The show wasn't even done being animated until a month before the final was released,

      Not even relevant, as there are multiple steps that precede animation, including writing, storyboarding, & idea pitching, where as this person notes, Bryan suggested Korrasami long before anyone had even seen the show. You can claim that everyone is lying about that, but that's just straight up conspiracy theory territory.

      on top of that, it goes against the entire narrative of "Nick pulled an entire series order on them and they had no idea what to do!"

      In what way does it contradict that?

      The dark insinuations? I just didn't want to be a fucking dick on here, because she disagreed with me?

      You have completely & utterly failed in that goal.

      Fuck no, because what she said was completely stupid, "It's not pandering because it's LGBT! It's being represenative!" THAT IS PANDERING. When you do something to appeal to certain part of a fanbase.

      Uh-huh. And if that's all that you mean when you say "pandering," then this is a reason why it's "cancerous" because...?

      There, if that the fucking dark insinuations you said doesn't help my case? Because at this point, I'm only replying to you and accusing me of just using Korrasami as a "shield" so I can mock people.

      In that post you are responding to, what I pointed out was that you had entered the thread after it had already settled down, largely ignoring the points people had raised in favor of making aggressive remarks towards me, Fruipit, & "the fanbase" in general. I added that this is at odds with your claim that Korrasami is to blame for the arguments in these threads.

      I don't buy that Korrasami somehow made you do any of that. So I'm not going to retract my claim that you're using it as a shield for your own poor behavior, & I'm not going to apologize. If you can't handle that & feel the need to fight me over it, then that will also be your decision, whatever comes of it.

      Being mobbed? It's the same fucking people who keep defending it, and you just admitted that Korrasami fanbase tends to mob people, and yet it is not cancerous?

      No I didn't, I implied a belief that you were going to try to frame rebuttals as you being mobbed, a prediction which you appear to be living up to.

      I further predict that multiple people are going to make critical responses towards you, at the very least DZ & myself, & you might even have the mods coming after you. That's not because "the Korrasami fanbase mobs people," it's because you're making terrible arguments, antagonizing people, borderline breaking the discussion policy, & your response to having these things pointed out to you is apparently to escalate & try to shift the blame.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote: Even if I believed this, it's not an excuse. You still accused me of lying about there being refutations before you even attempted to disprove the refutation that was presented to you. This made your claim an unsupported accusation, which I have every right to protest.

      How would you be able to prove otherwise that I wasn't? I'm sorry for "accusing you of lying" if that's really what you want to hear but I don't believe it'd make the situation any better.


      Whether or not you personally trust the information is actually irrelevant. If you had a reason for dismissing the source other than more unsubstantiated claims, that would be one thing. But all available evidence contradicts you, & you can't offer any compelling argument against that evidence, so claiming you haven't been refuted is just plain wrong.

      Because for the foremost, the creators have lied about production, such as when the all so planned marketing on the 3rd book began and was a complete mess.


      I was on this Wiki at the start of Legend of Korra, & that's not even close to what I observed. Makorra, Masami, Borra, & even Bosami were all more popular pairings. As were Pemzin & Tenlin. The first times Korrasami was presented as an option, it was more of a joke. If you want to say otherwise, that's fine. But at that point, it's my word verses yours. That certainly doesn't prove that Korrasami was popular enough to influence the creators at that time.

      There's more to the community than just the wiki, what about Reddit? Or any of the thread board/imageboard sites, Korrasami had to start off being taken seriously somewhere. And I'm sure it was since as the series continued, so did the support for Korrasami, what may have been a joke had exploded big enough to become official. You have to admit that it's popularity has been massive over the years, and even if I "can't prove" that is the case, then how can anyone prove that it isn't? Though to be fair, and to contradict ourselves, none of us can say what happen, just theorize but I don't believe it wasn't for it's popularity.




      It is refuted because everyone who actually has behind the scenes information & is willing to talk about this have contradicted the people claiming pandering, who are citing only their own personal outrage as proof. Frankly, I'm not even willing to classify that as a "debate."

      As I've said, there's no real reason to take their word at face value as true. I personally believe it isn't because of how unfocused the entire series is, how they said there would be "no romance" passed Book 2, which I can assume is why so many people have a hard time believing it.

      Imagine if I picked some random thing on the Wiki & said that it had to be changed because the creators are obviously lying about it.

      I have never said it had to be changed, but am doubtful that it isn't true that is not fan service.

      I would be told, with more than a bit of mockery, that my suspicions cannot be taken as evidence of anything, & to come back when I have a proper source. And rightfully so. And claiming that this is an "unresolved debate"--implying that my arguments pose a challenge simply because I was unwilling to drop them--simply wouldn't be true. The fact would still remain that my arguments were little more than the appeal to incredulity fallacy.

      It's not the first time someone would lie, and then have that lie be a source, it happens quite often that not everyone is going to be credible. Why don't people believe it? Because it's hard not to believe it is not the case.


      Not even relevant, as there are multiple steps that precede animation, including writing, storyboarding, & idea pitching, where as this person notes, Bryan suggested Korrasami long before anyone had even seen the show. You can claim that everyone is lying about that, but that's just straight up conspiracy theory territory.

      That's a fair point, but that stuff takes a year at max to be finished, and I doubt it's been ongoing for more than that. On top of that, the screenwriting could easily have changed throughout the production at any time.


      In what way does it contradict that?

      Because it goes against the "it's been planned before" idea of the story. I recall seeing a script for Book Two's first episode dating back to 2010 (that I cannot find and can't even prove its validity) but even if it isn't, why has there not been hints to Korrasami before Book 3?


      You have completely & utterly failed in that goal.

      What do you expect? I'm arguing with someone, arguing implies hostilities. I could say "sorry" but it'd mean a damn thing.


      Uh-huh. And if that's all that you mean when you say "pandering," then this is a reason why it's "cancerous" because...?

      You just merely have to look at the attitudes of the Korrasami fanbase. All I've seen are very aggressive people, to be fair on both sides, attacking each other at once ever since its confirmation. Though I've heard and seen more attacks on the Korrasami side of things, not as much on the wiki, but on other sites.


      In that post you are responding to, what I pointed out was that you had entered the thread after it had already settled down, largely ignoring the points people had raised in favor of making aggressive remarks towards me, Fruipit, & "the fanbase" in general. I added that this is at odds with your claim that Korrasami is to blame for the arguments in these threads.

      What I claim is that it is cancerous because of all the nonsense it can spark when brought up. Was it my fault that I reignited it? Perhaps but I've never would have known this thread even existed if activity on it didn't re-start without me even being present.

      I don't buy that Korrasami somehow made you do any of that. So I'm not going to retract my claim that you're using it as a shield for your own poor behavior, & I'm not going to apologize. If you can't handle that & feel the need to fight me over it, then that will also be your decision, whatever comes of it.

      I've never said it makes me do that, but it can spark a lot of passion in both sides of the argument to re-ignite. I think if it never did happen, then it wouldn't be as argued on here or anywhere really. Fight you over it? I'm merely just killing time.


      No I didn't, I implied a belief that you were going to try to frame rebuttals as you being mobbed, a prediction which you appear to be living up to.

      I'm not "framing rebuttals" as being mobbed, but merely pointing out it wouldn't be actual mobbing if it's the same people arguing over the same thing.

      I further predict that multiple people are going to make critical responses towards you, at the very least DZ & myself, & you might even have the mods coming after you. That's not because "the Korrasami fanbase mobs people," it's because you're making terrible arguments, antagonizing people, borderline breaking the discussion policy, & your response to having these things pointed out to you is apparently to escalate & try to shift the blame.


      The only way that could happen is if someone continues the conversation, which it doesn't have to be. I won't blame "Korrasami fanbase mobs" but the act of two (or multiple) people, or rocks really, who can't and won't change their minds or stance on a subject, which is what we're doing. If that is how you see my arguments as "escalating" then I apologize. But at the end of the day, neither of us are going to really convince each other.

        Loading editor
    • I'm sorry for "accusing you of lying" if that's really what you want to hear but I don't believe it'd make the situation any better.

      I'll repost what I said on the chat, for the benefit of others: I appreciate the gesture here, though my concern wasn't so much that I got called a name, but that I felt the claim was erroneous. That's why I generally don't complain when people call me an arrogant dick. They're not wrong.

      I also believe you when you say that you didn't intend to start anything, but just get heated in arguments. So I guess I was wrong when I said I wouldn't be retracting that claim.

      Partly in light of you implying that you plan not to continue & partly because a lot of these arguments share a common thread, I'll make the rest of this brief.

      There's more to the community than just the wiki, what about Reddit? Or any of the thread board/imageboard sites, Korrasami had to start off being taken seriously somewhere. And I'm sure it was since as the series continued, so did the support for Korrasami, what may have been a joke had exploded big enough to become official. You have to admit that it's popularity has been massive over the years, and even if I "can't prove" that is the case, then how can anyone prove that it isn't? Though to be fair, and to contradict ourselves, none of us can say what happen, just theorize but I don't believe it wasn't for it's popularity.

      Yes, there is more to the community than just this Wiki, which is sort of the problem with "prove it wrong" arguments (AKA argument from ignorance). It is unreasonable to expect me to have detailed knowledge about the entire history of the fanbase in order to rebut the claim that it directly resulted in Korrasami.

      But just because I am not omniscient, that does not mean I am contradicting myself. Yes, it is hypothetically possible that everyone involved in the show is complicit in lying about Korrasami. But it's not a very reasonable thing to claim without compelling evidence. When there is evidence on 1 side & all the other side can do is claim it's all lies because they don't believe it, as far as I'm concerned, that's rebutted.

      As I've said, there's no real reason to take their word at face value as true. I personally believe it isn't because of how unfocused the entire series is, how they said there would be "no romance" passed Book 2, which s It's not the first time someone would lie, and then have that lie be a source, it happens quite often that not everyone is going to be credible. Why don't people believe it? Because it's hard not to believe it is not the case.

      I don't remember the exact wording of their "no romance" post, so there's not much I can say about that. You say it's very hard not to believe that everyone is lying about this? I say otherwise, the intuition of fans simply being wrong seems much more plausible to me than that everything they don't like is explained by the entire production staff lying, especially when they've outright admitted to having not planned things in the past. But it actually doesn't matter what is "easier to believe," because there's no correlation between how "easy" an idea is for the brain to accept & how true or even likely to be true it is.

      I've never said it makes me do that, but it can spark a lot of passion in both sides of the argument to re-ignite. I think if it never did happen, then it wouldn't be as argued on here or anywhere really.

      Generally, yes, people are less likely to fight over developments that didn't happen. I think that's a poor reason to consider them mistakes, though. Even making the series improves the likelihood that people are going to argue about it. What if fans & haters of a character start to fight? What if there are fights from people not liking how bending is portrayed? Or over which characters are better? Is it best to just not make the show, because it's the only way to avoid people fighting about it?

      The only way that could happen is if someone continues the conversation, which it doesn't have to be.

      This is true, but I saw no particular reason to abstain from arguing.

        Loading editor
    • They said that there would be less focus on romance past Book 2, IIRC—not that there would be none whatsoever.  See also: Kainora, Bopal, P'heer, Zhurrick.

        Loading editor
    • Bopal kind of pushed that "not focusing on romance" thing. I mean, yeah, it was less than Book 1, but Book 1's love triangle was so obnoxiously all-consuming that this would not be a difficult feat to achieve. Personally, I think they just made a...let's call it a promise for lack of a better word that they couldn't hold themselves to.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Bopal kind of pushed that "not focusing on romance" thing. I mean, yeah, it was less than Book 1, but Book 1's love triangle was so obnoxiously all-consuming that this would not be a difficult feat to achieve. Personally, I think they just made a...let's call it a promise for lack of a better word that they couldn't hold themselves to.

      There was also the Kai and Jinora relationship but that could really just be easily passed up as a one sided puppy love relationship. Not like it was followed up on either way.

        Loading editor
    • Bryan suggested Korrasami long before anyone had even seen the show.

      Okay, explain further. I read somewhere they only made one season, and after it's popularity they decided to make more. And then i read things like "they weren't going to make Makorra" or "They changed Asami's role middle way", wich shows they weren't really sure about what to do. And that season 2 was made in a hurry and that's why it's so bad.

        Loading editor
    • Timeline:

      Earliest stages of developing the show: Bryan proposes Korrasami, nobody thinks it will go anywhere, the idea is just sort of dropped. Makorra is presumably planned soon after.

      During creation of Book 1: Asami is changed from an Equalist spy to a member of Team Korra, since they liked the character so much.

      Halfway through Book 1: Show is picked up for Season 2, & then Seasons 3 & 4 very soon after, resulting in changes to the finale, mostly changing Asami's role so she does not get with Iroh & join the United Forces.

      Early in Book 2's creation: Writers decide that Makorra doesn't really work well after all, & decide to break it up.

      Early Book 3: Creators revisit Korrasami idea, much bisexual subtext ensues.

      Unclear point, probably during Book 4: Creators approach Nickelodeon, asking if they can be bolder about Korrasami. Strongly implied by Bryan's "most deduced [their answer]" remark that it was that they could do anything short of having them say they're in lesbians with each other, or kiss. Plans for the finale are kept on a Need-to-Know-Basis. I think the voice actors said they had knowledge. I know Jeremy Zuckerman was told to make the music romantic.

      Shortly before Book 4's ending: Revisions to the final scene, suggested by later comments to be the addition of the duo turning towards each other in mimicry of the wedding pose.

      And none of these changes are really unusual in any way, it's just how TV writing works. There are broad plans, but things change a lot along the way. Besides, I don't think Book 2 is as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

        Loading editor
    • Earliest stages of developing the show: Bryan proposes Korrasami, nobody thinks it will go anywhere, the idea is just sort of dropped. Makorra is presumably planned soon after.

      I don't understand how "Korrasami" could have worked in Book One considering Asami was going to be a villain that got close to the Ava- oh (Or wait, was it that she was going to date Mako to get closer to Korra, I honestly don't know, it doesn't make any sense to me either way.)

      Actually, that'd be fucking interesting for Asami's character to have started out bad but then turn good. A bit cliche'd but it'd be better than nothing which is what the majority of Asami's character is.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Timeline:

      Earliest stages of developing the show: Bryan proposes Korrasami, nobody thinks it will go anywhere, the idea is just sort of dropped. Makorra is presumably planned soon after.

      During creation of Book 1: Asami is changed from an Equalist spy to a member of Team Korra, since they liked the character so much.

      Halfway through Book 1: Show is picked up for Season 2, & then Seasons 3 & 4 very soon after, resulting in changes to the finale, mostly changing Asami's role so she does not get with Iroh & join the United Forces.

      Early in Book 2's creation: Writers decide that Makorra doesn't really work well after all, & decide to break it up.

      Early Book 3: Creators revisit Korrasami idea, much bisexual subtext ensues.

      Unclear point, probably during Book 4: Creators approach Nickelodeon, asking if they can be bolder about Korrasami. Strongly implied by Bryan's "most deduced [their answer]" remark that it was that they could do anything short of having them say they're in lesbians with each other, or kiss. Plans for the finale are kept on a Need-to-Know-Basis. I think the voice actors said they had knowledge. I know Jeremy Zuckerman was told to make the music romantic.

      Shortly before Book 4's ending: Revisions to the final scene, suggested by later comments to be the addition of the duo turning towards each other in mimicry of the wedding pose.

      And none of these changes are really unusual in any way, it's just how TV writing works. There are broad plans, but things change a lot along the way. Besides, I don't think Book 2 is as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

      I think some of the first few items are mixed up:  For obvious reasons, they didn't start batting the idea of Korrasami around until after they'd decided that Asami was neither villainous nor thirty. 

      It remains that it was fairly early in development (as in, the script for Book 1 was not yet finalized) when they did start batting it around.

        Loading editor
    • I see what you're saying, but not necessarily. It is entirely possible that Asami was drawn & named before many details were attributed to her. Bryan claims that he pitched Korrasami before anyone else had seen the characters, a statement that has been corroborated by at least 1 other staff member. Since that pitch quickly fizzled out, they could have gone anywhere from there, including making Asami into a villain.

      It may be possible that when they said they "liked the character," they were referring to the design, but I don't think that's very likely. Because of that, & because of other plotlines that would have had to be in place first (Masami, the Satos' backstory, & Hiroshi financing the Equalists comes to mind) I think they must have written at least a few episodes in order to have a standing plan of "Asami is an Equalist," & also have given her enough of a character to justify changing her to a protagonist.

      This would thus put the "Asami as a protagonist" pitch after the "Korrasami" pitch.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      I see what you're saying, but not necessarily. It is entirely possible that Asami was drawn & named before many details were attributed to her. Bryan claims that he pitched Korrasami before anyone else had seen the characters, a statement that has been corroborated by at least 1 other staff member. Since that pitch quickly fizzled out, they could have gone anywhere from there, including making Asami into a villain.

      It may be possible that when they said they "liked the character," they were referring to the design, but I don't think that's very likely. Because of that, & because of other plotlines that would have had to be in place first (Masami, the Satos' backstory, & Hiroshi financing the Equalists comes to mind) I think they must have written at least a few episodes in order to have a standing plan of "Asami is an Equalist," & also have given her enough of a character to justify changing her to a protagonist.

      This would thus put the "Asami as a protagonist" pitch after the "Korrasami" pitch.

      I don't know about that, that sounds like a very bad narrative to have a romance before even establishing the role of the character and unlikely honestly. If anything I think Korrasami would have come after they've thought up what Asami's role would be if that is all true because if it is, then it must have come sometime within the middle of production that he pitched it, maybe like how Toph changed from a guy to a girl in Book Two.

        Loading editor
    • "Tossing out ideas before you know what you're doing" is the literal description of brainstorming. Calling it "bad narrative" doesn't even make sense, because this is something that's done before a script is even written. The timeline I proposed is also supposed to align with the various statements the crew has made.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      "Tossing out ideas before you know what you're doing" is the literal description of brainstorming. Calling it "bad narrative" doesn't even make sense, because this is something that's done before a script is even written. The timeline I proposed is also supposed to align with the various statements the crew has made.

      Yeah but you have to lay the foundation of where everything fits into the story and while yes, the story of book one changed drastically, it makes no sense that Bryan saw Asami's finished designed and decided that she and Korra need to be together and so pitched "Korrasami". I understand brainstorming is a process but it's pretty random for her to be the "love interest" so swiftly if she wasn't already fully planned out. Unless he said it as a joke initially which make more sense to me if that did happen.

        Loading editor
    • Weltall8000 wrote: Oh look, another "Korra x Asami is bad" thread! How original!

      How is Korra x Asami shoved down our faces, but Aang and Katara aren't? Korra x Asami detractors cry about not having any development therefore the relationship was tacked on and shouldn't have happened. Then we get "it being shoved down our faces"? 

      Great! When we have LGBT characters, it's pandering. When we have straight couples all over the place, that's totally fine and not being shoved down our faces!

      But okay, let's apply the same logic to Aang; WTF!? He should have been single and focusing on the future! Also, he's like 13, what's he doing getting in a serious relationship!? Therefore, Bryke screwed up the franchise by giving Aang, Katara in the end. As an aside, wtf, why couldn't Katara be a strong single woman focused on the future?

      At first, I misread your comment and I was going to rant about it. Then I saw what you meant xD
      
        Loading editor
    • I personally feel like everybody would be pleased if the legend of korra spent less time on the romance. 

      Not really sure though lol.

        Loading editor
    • Well fans were furious over Makorra and Tenzin x Lin was seriously unnecessary, so yeah I'd say the show fares marginally better when you don't discuss the romance. 

        Loading editor
    • Agree with Wyper26 and Fire Eater. It would be better if they spent less time on romances, just mentioning them as they did in the beginning with Tenzin and Lin would be fine, but developing them is pretty unnecessary I agree. But if I would have to chose between Makorra and Korrasami, I would say Korrasami is better because it's not that annoying and better developed.  Avatar is more about bending, about beautiful geographycal places, compelling fantastic creatures, about mythology and spirituality, and of course fighting villains :D And they unnecessarily added this stereotypical teenager dumb and absolutely senseless love triangle, I didn't like the show for their love triangles, but for what I mentioned above. It would be better if they made Korra for example sacrifice both romances to complete her duties of avatar at least, but no, in middle of chaos Asami and Korra decide to go to a vacation. It seems like more of a propaganda to attract attention to the series. 

      Note: By propaganda I meant the propaganda of the show, not of lesbian relashionship. 

        Loading editor
    • Wyper26 wrote:
      I personally feel like everybody would be pleased if the legend of korra spent less time on the romance. 

      Not really sure though lol.

      There's no way to please everyone, especially in a relatively big and diverse fandom like Avatar. Given how mch shipping there is the fandom, I think a lot of fans wanted romance (though not necessarily the canon pairings of course). Anyway, I don't think creators should try to pander or please everyone too much, they should just write the stories they want to write. If Kataang and Korrasami were the endgames Bryke wanted, then I'm glad they just went for it, rather than worrying/pandering to Zutara/Makorra/anti-romance fans. 

        Loading editor
    • Fire Eater wrote: Well fans were furious over Makorra and Tenzin x Lin was seriously unnecessary, so yeah I'd say the show fares marginally better when you don't discuss the romance.

      As I remember it, there were about as many fans who were gloating over Makorra happening as who were "furious" over it. Exasperation and indifference were far more common reactions.  (Korrasami, by contrast, had almost everyone either squeeing or reeing.)

      But yeah: Linzin was unnecessary. Bolin's brief crush on Korra (note that Bolin was literally the only male character with whom I ever 'shipped Korra) actually comes off, in retrospect, as little besides invalidating him on Mako's behalf. Every romantic subplot in Book 2 (unless one counts the 'ship-sinking) was kind of unnecessary. 

      Hell, Makorra seems like it only happened in order to kill the Avatar soulmate fanon and pee on its ashes.  But because something needed to, I suppose one could argue in favor of that qualifying it as marginally necessary.  (Rot in pieces, Avatar soulmate fanon.)

        Loading editor
    • But Tenzin & Lin is just a few brief mentions that they used to have a thing.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      But Tenzin & Lin is just a few brief mentions that they used to have a thing.

      I've actually seen more of people raging that Pema stole Tenzin from Lin than anything else. Which is weird really because we really don't know enough to claim that one way or another. But I never really thought Linzen or whatever their ship name is was obtrusive or anything because like you said, it was only mentioned like what 3 or 4 times in the entire show if that much.

      Deist Zealot Wrote:
      As I remember it, there were about as many fans who were gloating over Makorra happening as who were "furious" over it. Exasperation and indifference were far more common reactions.  (Korrasami, by contrast, had almost everyone either squeeing or reeing.)

      Yep...those were the days. Don't forget how entitled and arrogant some of the more rabid Makorra stans were.

      But yeah: Linzin was unnecessary. Bolin's brief crush on Korra (note that Bolin was literally the only male character with whom I ever 'shipped Korra) actually comes off, in retrospect, as little besides invalidating him on Mako's behalf. Every romantic subplot in Book 2 (unless one counts the 'ship-sinking) was kind of unnecessary.

      Like I said, I'm personally not really upset that Linzin was added in. It really isn't touched upon enough for me to care one way or another really (though I could see why it would be considered unnecessary). And as for Borra....as I've said plenty of times on tumblr...the ship that got lost at sea....

      Hell, Makorra seems like it only happened in order to kill the Avatar soulmate fanon and pee on its ashes.  But because something needed to, I suppose one could argue in favor of that qualifying it as marginally necessary.  (Rot in pieces, Avatar soulmate fanon.)

      Huh....and here I thought the only positive thing I could say about Makorra is that Korra and Mako had enough sense to end it permanently. This is definitely a plus as well, though there are plenty of folks out there who would say Korrasami sucks because it borrowed the spirit vine cannon and shot the soulmate "canon" (at least canon to these people) to pieces...

        Loading editor
    • PlantTinker wrote:
       

      I didn't like Mako and Korra becoming a couple. The whole love thing in LOK was in my opinion, weighing it down. The show always had to stop and focus on the love situation instead of the action. It was tiring and i found myself skipping over those parts. In the Last Airbender, They had love sequences but it wasn't shoved in our face like it is here.

      I wanted Korra to become single. I didn't think she needed a romantic partner. It would of been better if she ended up with no one and focused more on her future plans. But noooo. We must please the LGBT community. Instead of making Korra a strong single women, The creators decided that she go Asami even though it didn't make any sense!

      1. If you want to explain why something shouldn't have happened, never start with "I didn't like it". Because that's your subjective opinion. Which doesn't matter.

      2. I agree on the romance-part. Legend of Korra would have done better without romance. Or, y'know, with less. Whatever.

      3. Again, no one cares what you wanted. Romance isn't always something you need, but something you want. This is, again, just your overly subjective rant because things didn't turn out aligning to your headcanon.

      4. I'm swinging back and forth on that "Pleasing the [Insert minority here]-community"-arguement. On the one hand, I get a bit annoyed whenever a show goes "Hey, let's stop the plot for a moment, we have to include diversity so we can pat our own backs about how progressive we are! Weeeee!". I mean, many shows feature a great deal of diversity without showcasing it like that and I feel like that is the more progressive way to go. If you cannot feature a same-s*x relationship without effectively crying out "HEY! WE HAVE GAY PEOPLE, CELEBRATE US!", they're probably not helping to establish whatever they show as normal. Just like every time a strong, independant woman is featured, someone goes "Everyone look, there is a competent woman!", like we should feel this is something unusual or special.

      However, I am not sure this applies to Korrasami. I don't think this was just about "Pleasing the LGBT-Community". I mean, when I first watched the finale, I thought it was, but now that I have some temporal distance towards the whole thing, I gotta say, I don't think they just "threw this in" for diversity. I think the reason they did this is because they were afraid the wrong people would react overy poorly and get the show cancelled. So they did it in the end, when no one could touch them anymore, laughing like mad scientists while doing so.

      Or maybe they wanted shock-value, who knows? Who cares?

      The point is, LoK has always been inept in presenting romance, as you yourself have pointed out, and all the other idiotic ships have just been ignored or treated like an annoyance, whereas Korrasami is treated like a big mistake that was objectively awfull and ruined the franchise or whatever, which it really wasn't, it was just another bad ship, like all the other ships on the show (Except for Varricks ships, which can escape from crazy, water-bending ex-girlfriends, which is a nice feature to have) and the fact it is same-s*x shouldn't matter. I mean, who cares if it was done to please someone? Romance in television is always done to please someone. TELEVISION is done to please people. "They did this to make this or that community happy!" is not a counter arguement in any way.

      5. It made sense to some people, so I gotta call "You're being subjective and therefore wrong" on you, once again.

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:
      PlantTinker wrote:
       

      I didn't like Mako and Korra becoming a couple. The whole love thing in LOK was in my opinion, weighing it down. The show always had to stop and focus on the love situation instead of the action. It was tiring and i found myself skipping over those parts. In the Last Airbender, They had love sequences but it wasn't shoved in our face like it is here.

      I wanted Korra to become single. I didn't think she needed a romantic partner. It would of been better if she ended up with no one and focused more on her future plans. But noooo. We must please the LGBT community. Instead of making Korra a strong single women, The creators decided that she go Asami even though it didn't make any sense!

      1. If you want to explain why something shouldn't have happened, never start with "I didn't like it". Because that's your subjective opinion. Which doesn't matter.

      2. I agree on the romance-part. Legend of Korra would have done better without romance. Or, y'know, with less. Whatever.

      3. Again, no one cares what you wanted. Romance isn't always something you need, but something you want. This is, again, just your overly subjective rant because things didn't turn out aligning to your headcanon.

      4. I'm swinging back and forth on that "Pleasing the [Insert minority here]-community"-arguement. On the one hand, I get a bit annoyed whenever a show goes "Hey, let's stop the plot for a moment, we have to include diversity so we can pat our own backs about how progressive we are! Weeeee!". I mean, many shows feature a great deal of diversity without showcasing it like that and I feel like that is the more progressive way to go. If you cannot feature a same-s*x relationship without effectively crying out "HEY! WE HAVE GAY PEOPLE, CELEBRATE US!", they're probably not helping to establish whatever they show as normal. Just like every time a strong, independant woman is featured, someone goes "Everyone look, there is a competent woman!", like we should feel this is something unusual or special.

      However, I am not sure this applies to Korrasami. I don't think this was just about "Pleasing the LGBT-Community". I mean, when I first watched the finale, I thought it was, but now that I have some temporal distance towards the whole thing, I gotta say, I don't think they just "threw this in" for diversity. I think the reason they did this is because they were afraid the wrong people would react overy poorly and get the show cancelled. So they did it in the end, when no one could touch them anymore, laughing like mad scientists while doing so.

      Or maybe they wanted shock-value, who knows? Who cares?

      The point is, LoK has always been inept in presenting romance, as you yourself have pointed out, and all the other idiotic ships have just been ignored or treated like an annoyance, whereas Korrasami is treated like a big mistake that was objectively awfull and ruined the franchise or whatever, which it really wasn't, it was just another bad ship, like all the other ships on the show (Except for Varricks ships, which can escape from crazy, water-bending ex-girlfriends, which is a nice feature to have) and the fact it is same-s*x shouldn't matter. I mean, who cares if it was done to please someone? Romance in television is always done to please someone. TELEVISION is done to please people. "They did this to make this or that community happy!" is not a counter arguement in any way.

      5. It made sense to some people, so I gotta call "You're being subjective and therefore wrong" on you, once again.


      Amen :D

        Loading editor
    • Wyper26 wrote:
      Implord wrote:
      PlantTinker wrote:
       

      I didn't like Mako and Korra becoming a couple. The whole love thing in LOK was in my opinion, weighing it down. The show always had to stop and focus on the love situation instead of the action. It was tiring and i found myself skipping over those parts. In the Last Airbender, They had love sequences but it wasn't shoved in our face like it is here.

      I wanted Korra to become single. I didn't think she needed a romantic partner. It would of been better if she ended up with no one and focused more on her future plans. But noooo. We must please the LGBT community. Instead of making Korra a strong single women, The creators decided that she go Asami even though it didn't make any sense!

      1. If you want to explain why something shouldn't have happened, never start with "I didn't like it". Because that's your subjective opinion. Which doesn't matter.

      2. I agree on the romance-part. Legend of Korra would have done better without romance. Or, y'know, with less. Whatever.

      3. Again, no one cares what you wanted. Romance isn't always something you need, but something you want. This is, again, just your overly subjective rant because things didn't turn out aligning to your headcanon.

      4. I'm swinging back and forth on that "Pleasing the [Insert minority here]-community"-arguement. On the one hand, I get a bit annoyed whenever a show goes "Hey, let's stop the plot for a moment, we have to include diversity so we can pat our own backs about how progressive we are! Weeeee!". I mean, many shows feature a great deal of diversity without showcasing it like that and I feel like that is the more progressive way to go. If you cannot feature a same-s*x relationship without effectively crying out "HEY! WE HAVE GAY PEOPLE, CELEBRATE US!", they're probably not helping to establish whatever they show as normal. Just like every time a strong, independant woman is featured, someone goes "Everyone look, there is a competent woman!", like we should feel this is something unusual or special.

      However, I am not sure this applies to Korrasami. I don't think this was just about "Pleasing the LGBT-Community". I mean, when I first watched the finale, I thought it was, but now that I have some temporal distance towards the whole thing, I gotta say, I don't think they just "threw this in" for diversity. I think the reason they did this is because they were afraid the wrong people would react overy poorly and get the show cancelled. So they did it in the end, when no one could touch them anymore, laughing like mad scientists while doing so.

      Or maybe they wanted shock-value, who knows? Who cares?

      The point is, LoK has always been inept in presenting romance, as you yourself have pointed out, and all the other idiotic ships have just been ignored or treated like an annoyance, whereas Korrasami is treated like a big mistake that was objectively awfull and ruined the franchise or whatever, which it really wasn't, it was just another bad ship, like all the other ships on the show (Except for Varricks ships, which can escape from crazy, water-bending ex-girlfriends, which is a nice feature to have) and the fact it is same-s*x shouldn't matter. I mean, who cares if it was done to please someone? Romance in television is always done to please someone. TELEVISION is done to please people. "They did this to make this or that community happy!" is not a counter arguement in any way.

      5. It made sense to some people, so I gotta call "You're being subjective and therefore wrong" on you, once again.


      Amen :D

      I always thought I'd make a great god.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't realize I'd get a response that fast.

      Wow.....0_0

        Loading editor
    • Don't rely on it. I am a very moody god.

        Loading editor
    • yup it was to attract the lgbt considering they never built up to that relationship

      I was even joking once that korra and asami were going to end up together because this show is a complete joke

        Loading editor
    • How was this a debate the creators said out of their mouth it was for the lgbt community? They even threw in the rainbow background for the ending. Never mind the first issue of turf wars spent a good deal talking about gay community in avatar lol.

        Loading editor
    • How was this a debate the creators said out of their mouth it was for the lgbt community?

      Because salty goobers like you guys insist on repeatedly coming back to it, twisting quotes out of context to drum up outrage over something you allegedly "don't care about" & "ignore."

        Loading editor
    • 1. This thread (and those like it) just won't fucking die already (the Kataang/Zutara ship war was childish yet harmless while the homophobic trolling just makes it asinine) and 2. It's "curious" that this thread's had some posts removed yet the whole thing's yet to be nixed despite ones just as hostile died almost instantly.

      Fine, I'll say my peace on it:

      @Plank: This shit right here is what I said about you necro/shit-posting like a MGTOW who says he doesn't care about Korra yet keeps going out of his way to bring up old thread to troll.

      @Ironbender: Basically ditto, but also it was the bi pride colors that was shown at the end not a rainbow. The sky at the end is (beautifully) colored blue, pink, and purple. The only rainbow was a meme that also had Korra wearing flannel for Raava's sake.

      @Implord (even though your profile's inactive, but whatever, people'll read this anyway): Reading Bryan K's post would answer most, if not all of your questions/whatnot, namely that no, they weren't doing it for shock value, nor did they save for the end to go out "like mad scientists". Externally, the writers only intended on a deeply close friendship between Korra and Asami yet listened to the characters (anyone who doesn't get that concept/isn't the creative type should at least Google "listening to your characters" FYI,) wrestled with making such an unprecedented move, (Bryan stated in an interview that he stayed up night really pondering it) before deciding to finally ask Nick and got a "proceed with caution" go ahead. Meanwhile internally, their relationship happening at the end is no different than Kataang or Makorra, especially as it's a culmination of how close they've come together at that part as the day's saved, Asami's at her lowest point and now Korra can be there for her as Asami was for Korra at the end of Book 3. The show was going to end at Book 4 anyway just like the previous series ended with Book 3, so it wasn't an issue of ratings.

      Also while we could do the whole (lame) "agreed to disagree" thing, I'm just gonna say it:

      Calling it "bad romance" is bison. shit.

      The reaction videos of shock and even people crying from joy can not be understated, especially when that led to those closeted to feel empowered to come out. Stories like a 20-year-old Frenchman who said listening to the end theme helped him come out as gay to his mom or the lesbian couple (Jeeli) that broke down crying together (well in-synch as they were physically separate with picture-in-picture) will forever be burned into their hearts, the people who worked on the show and scores of people who watched the reaction videos, (I personally have a couple long ones saved that I rewatch almost like a holiday and/or whenever I'm down,) and that's before I get even to my own reaction.

      All the previous couples happening and/or breaking up didn't mean shit to me as I was either "meh" (Kataang and to a lesser extent, Zutara as too predictable for my liking) or "ugh gawd" (Makorra, Book 2!Masami, both of Bolin's Book 2 "romances,") and as I've stated in other threads, Book 4 had a bunch of problems that I felt I was watching more out of completion/apathy than real interest. Combine that with how everything else was going on in 2014 and I already felt like Comic Book Guy pushing 30 that saw it all (pop culturally), expecting Korra to simply ride off into the sunset atop Naga like a CallBack to the beginning. I'm not going to go (further) into a wall of text, but that scene, alone shook me to the core in a way that I never truly recovered from and felt immensely motivated as a writer as well as just a human being in general to study not just the last two seasons, the entire show, it's themes, character dynamics, LGBT issues, how pop culture and reality intersect, etc. that no other show could over do to me and I'll always be grateful for what they did rather than just bitterly shit on them for what they didn't do (at all and/or done "right") as too many trolls in this thread, alone seem to exist purely to do.

        Loading editor
    • <divclass="quote">Neo Bahamut wrote:<divclass="quote">How was this a debate the creators said out of their mouth it was for the lgbt community?</div> Because salty goobers like you guys insist on repeatedly coming back to it, twisting quotes out of context to drum up outrage over something you allegedly "don't care about" & "ignore." </div> This thread legit is rage debate saying otherwise. This is legit a thread about people being overreactive defending of this couple

        Loading editor
    • You're straight-up delusional, this thread was started by someone bitching about Korrasami, & has been repeatedly necroposted by people bitching about it.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't really like how the writers  handled relationships in LOK. ATLA did a lot better in regards in handling relationships. I didn't like makorra or Korrasami, I liked Makosami better, but Mako still treated Asami badly, I liked Borra and  Bopal, but that is about it. I hated Korrasami back in 2014 when they first became a couple due to homophobic reasons and I felt like it came out of nowhere. Now I am more mature so I don't hate Korrasami because it's just an LGBT couple. I don't like Korrasami because I feel like it came out of nowhere. Now I may be wrong, because my "gaydar" is incredibly weak, because I am as straight as they come. I feel like the writers could have developed the relationship more and give more hints.

        Loading editor
    • Mageddon725 wrote:
      I agree with the main point, but I would like to add that I don't think any romantic ending would've been satisfactory. This show was bad with handling its romantic subplots.

      I completley agree with this statement. The show didn't handle romance well. I would have perferred Korra to stay single as I feel like that would've been the most satisfactory conclusion.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      You're straight-up delusional, this thread was started by someone bitching about Korrasami, & has been repeatedly necroposted by people bitching about it.

      I am looking at the comments the debate and the subsequent years of back and forth start off with people denying the lgbt pander...fanservice lol. Which is stupid whether you for the couple or not that much is fact.

        Loading editor
    • What you're doing is trying to spin it so you can shift the blame, as is the signature technique of your bitch-fu, oh master of bitching. Seriously, five ancient sages of bitchdom all gathered together one day on the peaks of Mount Bitch to proclaim your birth. And a hundred years later, when all the bitch stars had aligned, you were born.

        Loading editor
    • "So, in your mind, the creators placing her with Asami was to "please the LGBT community?". And as more than one person on this wiki has pointed out, there were subtle signs of their relationship in the 3rd and 4th season"

      Denial

      "Great! When we have LGBT characters, it's pandering. When we have straight couples all over the place, that's totally fine and not being shoved down our faces!"

      Denial 

      "I doubt that showrunners wanted "to please LGBT community". It was just part of the story. Their relationship developed and makes sense IMO. "

      Denial

      This shit goes on and on and on. You people are like a cult when it comes to defending every little thing about this nonsense. This shouldn't even have been an argument the creators said why they did it like a day later lmao.

        Loading editor
    • Blur123 wrote: I didn't really like how the writers  handled relationships in LOK. ATLA did a lot better in regards in handling relationships. I didn't like makorra or Korrasami, I liked Makosami better, but Mako still treated Asami badly, I liked Borra and  Bopal, but that is about it. I hated Korrasami back in 2014 when they first became a couple due to homophobic reasons and I felt like it came out of nowhere. Now I am more mature so I don't hate Korrasami because it's just an LGBT couple. I don't like Korrasami because I feel like it came out of nowhere. Now I may be wrong, because my "gaydar" is incredibly weak, because I am as straight as they come. I feel like the writers could have developed the relationship more and give more hints.

      While I (and presumably others) appreciate you working on overcoming your homophobia, I want you to think about this:

      From Book 3 onwards, imagine if Asami were a man.


      Still saying and doing the exact same things, but a man. The pep talk after Korra's tiff with Raiko, the car ride, fighting together, eating together, taking care of her after she'd been poisoned, etc.

      Notice how quickly you'd recognize that as romantic? Notice how you wouldn't say "That came out of nowhere" or "it was under-developed" and instead how you'd think, "what a nice slow-burn that was. Asano really cares for Korra."

      That's called heterosexism.

      I'm not (or at least trying not) to go on a wall of text here, but I thought I was a decent enough ally (voted for same-sex marriage, argued against homophobia and biphobia beforehand, consider myself friends with a butch Filipina lesbian neighbor, etc.) until I not only took Bryan K.'s words to heart, but also read/watched the queer shippers who talked about double-standards and representation that really looked eerily familiar to similar things said about race, (I'm Black and Korrasami is one of a number of normalized interracial relationships in the franchise) that I truly understood what those fans longer for and why it was so powerful/important for them that absolutely pales in comparison to which guy gets with Katara in the end.

      Besides that, Korrasami happening instead of Korra remaining single, let alone getting back with Mako epitomizes everything the franchise has ever thematically stood for ever since Katara, a dark-skinned WOC, explicitly and accurately called out a guy for being sexist in 2005, (seriously, the people crying "Social Justice Warrior!" over Korrasami spent so much time focusing on shipping her that they forgot Katara was one dye-job away from being a "Tumblrina",) considering this was two people from different parts of the same world with different personalities and abilities representing different concepts yet overcame numerous obstacles to become closer than ever before.

      Especially on a narrative level it still tells a solid yet unconventional story:

      Book 1: Two girls fight over the same guy. One initially/secretly doesn't like the other though eventually bonds with her over an activity together and despite drama over the men in their lives, remain good friends.

      Book 2: Both girls learn the hard way that the guy they desperately chased ain't worth it though still remain a team with one entrusting the other to look after her dad.

      Book 3: Drama over the guy is in the past and they resolve to become closer friends, increasingly finding out how compatible they are in ways that neither was with the guy to the extent of a spark happening between them that neither's consciously aware of.

      Book 4: Despite (if not because of) time apart, both realize the spark between them but a whole host of high-priority issues keep them from acting on it though are exceptionally happy to see each other again with a tension that even their mutual ex is raising an eyebrow about. Despite tragedy and near-death, one is just glad the other's alive to the point of admitting she doesn't believe she could've handled both of her loved ones dying while the other comforts her and decides for both ("just the two of us") to take a vacation wherever the other wants. All their immediate problems behind them, both are so at peace and happy together that true love naturally blossoms from strong friendship.

      That's not even counting the comics, but that certainly beats the fuck out of the typical "Boy meets Girl" bisonshit the first season (and even the original) was about.

        Loading editor
    • This shouldn't even have been an argument the creators said why they did it like a day later lmao.

      They also said they did it because it felt natural for the characters, so again you are selectively quoting out of context to prop up a homophobic narrative & framing rebuttals as "denial" because you can't handle being told you're wrong. But you're right that it shouldn't be an argument. You should've been banned during your last hissy fit.

      Also, inb4 histrionics that I used the "phobic" word as if "they're a cult shoving things in our faces!" isn't classic homophobic rhetoric.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      This shouldn't even have been an argument the creators said why they did it like a day later lmao.

      They also said they did it because it felt natural for the characters, so again you are selectively quoting out of context to prop up a homophobic narrative & framing rebuttals as "denial" because you can't handle being told you're wrong. But you're right that it shouldn't be an argument. You should've been banned during your last hissy fit.

      Also, inb4 histrionics that I used the "phobic" word as if "they're a cult shoving things in our faces!" isn't classic homophobic rhetoric.

      Artistically I put the key part in bold not only because that's what creative people are supposed to do to make great characters and stories as I already mentioned, but it's also the exact opposite of what happened in the first season with Mako from his lack of consistent personality to be defined as nothing more than "Teen Drama Love Interest" and how Makorra die-hards keep making shit up (ex. "Mako loves Korra as a person, unlike Asami who only likes her 'cause she's The Avatar!") and the hypocrisy that Asami didn't do enough to justify being with Korra yet it's perfectly fine for Mako to just swoop in at the last minute despite not doing shit for the last two seasons/three years In-Universe, let alone make up for the fact that he gaslight his amnesiac girlfriend t keep their dysfunctional relationship together, (plus he spent more of the first season being catered to than the other way around.)

      Bryke's statements (especially Bryan K.'s,) have been out for almost four years where it was laid out about original ideas, the writing process, etc. with the main part being that going into Book 3, Korra and Asami were initially intended just to have a super-close friendship, but the idea of romance organically began to form as they wrote about it. They debated for like a year and eventually decided to go for it and knew full well they'd be accused of just catering to shippers and the like, but felt it was right to do it anyway.

      The other parts being in bold are because, quite bluntly, Ironbender, you're a troll and you're only here to troll.

      • You cherry-pick Word of God to suit your own narrative despite said narrative being the exact opposite of what said Gods obviously decreed.
      • You project your flaws onto others to claim they're the problem such as claiming their denials when you are the one with your head in the sand.
      • You act like you're too cool for all this as if you're just sitting sideways in front of a monitor, leisurely typing away with one hand yet you're pushing 100 posts on only this wikia to make the same shit-posts about how "screwed" Mako was and how Asami/Korrasami sucks.
      • And most of all, when poke holes in your claims (read: tantrums) with actual logic, you throw an even bigger fit in hopes that people'll get tired of you so you can "win," but it's so obvious that instead, people have just called you out LOUDER as you try to play the victim.
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message