FANDOM


  • try to prove me wrong

      Loading editor
    • They were forcing their ideals on others rather than giving everyone free choice to join them. Discussion over.

        Loading editor
    • Lots of Amon's supporters set up peaceful protests such as the protestor in the park in the beginning. However, they were only ignored or physically assualted.

      No progressive movement has ever become successful by simply waiting for people to change their minds, they have to act and change the government or society around them.

        Loading editor
    • try to prove me wrong

      There's the lack of a cogent argument for why what you said is right.

      They were forcing their ideals on others rather than giving everyone free choice to join them. Discussion over.

      I have a problem with this line of reasoning. You can apply it to any side of any social issue. For instance, "abolitionists were wrong because they forced their ideals on slave owners, rather than giving them the free choice to join them."

      Lots of Amon's supporters set up peaceful protests such as the protestor in the park in the beginning. However, they were only ignored or physically assualted. No progressive movement has ever become successful by simply waiting for people to change their minds, they have to act and change the government or society around them.

      That has no bearing on whether specifically Amon or his methods were justified. In fact, under Amon's ultimate goal, a peaceful coexistence isn't even possible. Remember that he didn't just want to enact laws giving nonbenders a fairer shot, his plan required removing bending from people altogether, whether they wanted it or not. That's essentially like saying, "We're gonna combat ableism by hacking off the limbs of anyone without a recognized disability." He cannot do this without violating the basic principle of fairness underlying the entire Equalist case.

        Loading editor
    • I will say this: You're right to a certain level.

      Amon was right to believe benders and non-benders should be equal. However they should be equal in pay, rights and stuff like that. You can't expect them to be physically equal because that's just impossible, so going around Republic City taking away everyone's bending was definitely not the way to go about it. He was an extremist and went about it all wrong. The ideals were correct, the violence wasn't. If he had gone to Korra for help, he might have been able to get things done pacifically.

      Zaheer... is more complicated. There is no way that releasing Vaatu from the tree and turning Korra into a Dark Avatar was going to help anybody. Chaos is definitely not what the world needed. Trying to kill Korra was drastic as well. I actually don't know what you thought Zaheer did right. He's kind of a psycho from my point of view.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      They were forcing their ideals on others rather than giving everyone free choice to join them. Discussion over.

      I have a problem with this line of reasoning. You can apply it to any side of any social issue. For instance, "abolitionists were wrong because they forced their ideals on slave owners, rather than giving them the free choice to join them."

      Yeah, no, that's like saying "The Allies were forcing their freedom on Nazi-occupied Europe in WWII." Also, I feel like that's missing my point of 'stupid statements get stupid responses.' And it's worth noting that in terms of nuance and intelligence, in FireFerret's original post, it bears the closest resemblance to a Donald Trump tweet.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote: That has no bearing on whether specifically Amon or his methods were justified. In fact, under Amon's ultimate goal, a peaceful coexistence isn't even possible. Remember that he didn't just want to enact laws giving nonbenders a fairer shot, his plan required removing bending from people altogether, whether they wanted it or not. That's essentially like saying, "We're gonna combat ableism by hacking off the limbs of anyone without a recognized disability." He cannot do this without violating the basic principle of fairness underlying the entire Equalist case.

      You cannot compare the two. Amon was taking away super powers, whereas disability comes in a wide array of forms, and we cannot achieve true equality by physically making everybody disabled, because of the multitude of complex forms disability comes in. Under the way the United Republic was established, laws and society were inherently designed to give benders an advantage. Benders controlled street gangs, factory jobs were benders only, and sporting outlets (aka how Bolin and Mako were able to get out of poverty) were only accessible to benders. Before the Equalist revolution, the government was also exclusively controlled by benders. No kind of law system could ever fix that kind of deeply wedged inequality.

        Loading editor
    • Tono555 wrote: I will say this: You're right to a certain level.

      Amon was right to believe benders and non-benders should be equal. However they should be equal in pay, rights and stuff like that. You can't expect them to be physically equal because that's just impossible, so going around Republic City taking away everyone's bending was definitely not the way to go about it. He was an extremist and went about it all wrong. The ideals were correct, the violence wasn't. If he had gone to Korra for help, he might have been able to get things done pacifically.

      Zaheer... is more complicated. There is no way that releasing Vaatu from the tree and turning Korra into a Dark Avatar was going to help anybody. Chaos is definitely not what the world needed. Trying to kill Korra was drastic as well. I actually don't know what you thought Zaheer did right. He's kind of a psycho from my point of view.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWcetuR3Jv0

      This video does an excellent job in explaining Zaheer's philosophy: the Avatar exists as a position of power, greanted randomly, who nations are indoctrinated into worshipping and has god like superpowers over everybody for no reason. There is no reason for a god-like entity that is simply a random person to exist, they are not elected, they are not chosen for their good ideas they're simply a person.

      Also, perhaps I'm incorrect, but I do believe all of the plans with Vaatu and such were all on Unalaq, Zaheer was only interested in the absolution of oppressive governments and anarchy.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, no, that's like saying "The Allies were forcing their freedom on Nazi-occupied Europe in WWII."

      I mean...yeah? That's why "they're forcing people to comply!" doesn't work as an argument. Your first comment assumes that the use of force is inherently wrong regardless of the ends, which THIS comment contradicts.

      Also, I feel like that's missing my point of 'stupid statements get stupid responses.' And it's worth noting that in terms of nuance and intelligence, in FireFerret's original post, it bears the closest resemblance to a Donald Trump tweet.

      Maybe, but being that I'm unsure of FireFerret's intentions, I decided to treat this thread as a debate exercise, if only to get an interesting conversation going somewhere.

      You cannot compare the two. Amon was taking away super powers, whereas disability comes in a wide array of forms, and we cannot achieve true equality by physically making everybody disabled, because of the multitude of complex forms disability comes in.

      Oh, but I can. You can't dismiss bending as a "super power," because that's only true relative to our reality. If we were to land on a planet where nobody had eyes, then our ability to see would be a "super power" to them. But in our shared context, it's just a thing that most people can naturally do. Likewise, bending in the Avatar world is just a natural thing that some people can do & others can't.

      Also, whether you want to call bending "super powers" or not, it still does nothing to refute the core argument. The fact remains that Amon is taking something away from people not because of anything they specifically did, but because he doesn't want anyone to have it, since some people abuse it. That is an inherently unfair system, which renders moot Amon's entire claim that he's bringing fairness to the world.

      Under the way the United Republic was established, laws and society were inherently designed to give benders an advantage. Benders controlled street gangs, factory jobs were benders only, and sporting outlets (aka how Bolin and Mako were able to get out of poverty) were only accessible to benders.

      This is not accurate. The United Republic wasn't "inherently designed" to give benders an advantage, it evolved that way over time. Also, Pro-Bending is bender-only, but that doesn't mean there aren't other sports, & also nobody ever says anything about factory jobs being bender-only.

      No kind of law system could ever fix that kind of deeply wedged inequality.

      That's an assertion without basis.

      This video does an excellent job in explaining Zaheer's philosophy: the Avatar exists as a position of power, greanted randomly, who nations are indoctrinated into worshipping and has god like superpowers over everybody for no reason. There is no reason for a god-like entity that is simply a random person to exist, they are not elected, they are not chosen for their good ideas they're simply a person.

      Zaheer's just a person, not elected or chosen by anyone, so what makes his cause more legitimate than that of the Avatar?

      Also, perhaps I'm incorrect, but I do believe all of the plans with Vaatu and such were all on Unalaq, Zaheer was only interested in the absolution of oppressive governments and anarchy.

      You are. Zaheer clearly explained that only the part about the Dark Avatar wasn't part of their plan. They still wanted to release Vaatu.

        Loading editor
    • Firstly, I think it's very important to separate means from ideals. You can have noble ideals and may be correct, but you can still have the wrong means. Conversely, you may have the wrong ideals but the right means and still affect positive change.

      You cannot compare the two. Amon was taking away super powers, whereas disability comes in a wide array of forms, and we cannot achieve true equality by physically making everybody disabled, because of the multitude of complex forms disability comes in.

      Oh, but I can. You can't dismiss bending as a "super power," because that's only true relative to our reality. If we were to land on a planet where nobody had eyes, then our ability to see would be a "super power" to them. But in our shared context, it's just a thing that most people can naturally do. Likewise, bending in the Avatar world is just a natural thing that some people can do & others can't.

      Also, whether you want to call bending "super powers" or not, it still does nothing to refute the core argument. The fact remains that Amon is taking something away from people not because of anything they specifically did, but because he doesn't want anyone to have it, since some people abuse it. That is an inherently unfair system, which renders moot Amon's entire claim that he's bringing fairness to the world.

      I'm just gonna focus on Amon for now. There's two ways of achieving equality: either you bring the upper class to the level of the lower class, or you bring the lower class to the level of the upper class. One is a positive change, one is a negative change.

      There's an excellent short story by Kurt Vonnegut titled Harrison Bergeron which essentially details a fully equal society where literally everything is equal. Intelligent? Well, we'll put something in your head to interrupt your thoughts so you're as dumb as the dumbest person. Strong? Well, we'll put some sandbags on you so you can't lift as much. Beautiful? A mask. It goes on and on. This is the first method I was talking about, and it sounds extremely undesirable.

      The second method is something we see from The Incredibles. (I hope you've seen this movie, but if you haven't what are you doing?) Syndrome aspires to use technology to make everyone super, and "when everyone's special... no one is." Sure he may have had some flawed methods, but ultimately he was trying to bring the lower class to the level of the upper class. This is positive change.

      Back to Amon. It's clear that the benders are the upper class and the non-benders are the lower class. Amon's ideal of striving for equality is noble and agreeable, sure. However, he picks the method of bringing the upper class to the level of the lower class by removing bending. This is his fatal flaw, if he decided to just give electric gloves to everyone or teach everyone chi-blocking then sure, I could support him. But removing people's bending? Not something I can support. His ideals are fine, his means are not.

      You can read this as a critique on social justice as well.

      As for Zaheer... I have no clue where I fall on him.

        Loading editor
    • You can read this as a critique on third wave feminism as well.

      Third wave feminism has nothing to do with "bringing the upper class down to the lower class." The whole concept of the waves is really somewhat arbitrary, but in general, the third is considered to be about increasing recognition of diversity.

      Also, while that all sounds nice in theory, I don't know that it's tenable. Wealth disparity is ridiculous, & there are only so many resources to go around. Quite frankly, it might be a good idea to say that letting individuals accrue billions of dollars was a mistake.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      You can read this as a critique on third wave feminism as well.

      Third wave feminism has nothing to do with "bringing the upper class down to the lower class." The whole concept of the waves is really somewhat arbitrary, but in general, the third is considered to be about increasing recognition of diversity.

      My bad, I was thinking more of the stuff you tend to see on social media of social justice that's like "men are awful, women should be better than men." I revised my comment to reflect this.

        Loading editor
    • Social justice is just a term for various progressive social movements throughout history. The thing about random people on social media is that it's not exactly an organized group. You have people making sarcastic comments, people whose views are widely misrepresented, people who just aren't very good communicators, & the like. There are very few who argue that line in straight-faced seriousness.

        Loading editor
    • FireFerret
      FireFerret removed this reply because:
      Mistake
      08:19, January 10, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • Neo Bahamut wrote: Oh, but I can. You can't dismiss bending as a "super power," because that's only true relative to our reality. If we were to land on a planet where nobody had eyes, then our ability to see would be a "super power" to them. But in our shared context, it's just a thing that most people can naturally do. Likewise, bending in the Avatar world is just a natural thing that some people can do & others can't.

      Also, whether you want to call bending "super powers" or not, it still does nothing to refute the core argument. The fact remains that Amon is taking something away from people not because of anything they specifically did, but because he doesn't want anyone to have it, since some people abuse it. That is an inherently unfair system, which renders moot Amon's entire claim that he's bringing fairness to the world.

      Exactly, in this fictional situation sight would be a superpower. Were we to live in a world in which a majority had no eyesight, yet it was controlled by nearly all people who could see, there were more jobs offered to people who could see, and people who couldn't see were expressing discontent and a desire for people who could see to have their sight removed, then yes. I would support that movement. My point in saying the two were incomparable was to say that in the current world, disability covers an extremely wide variety of people, so many that it cannot be simply contained to a binary has or does not have. In addition, the percentage of people with a specific disability in comparison to people who do not have that disability is not in any way equivalent to the bender/non-bender ratio seen in the Avatar Universe.

      This is not accurate. The United Republic wasn't "inherently designed" to give benders an advantage, it evolved that way over time. Also, Pro-Bending is bender-only, but that doesn't mean there aren't other sports, & also nobody ever says anything about factory jobs being bender-only.

      It quite literally is, the government originally functioned as four elected benders. It was a government controlled by benders. And that's just the United Republic-- Ozai literally lost his throne as Fire Lord once he couldn't bend anymore because to many states it is intrinsic to holding power. These oppressions evolved from a government and state that holds a position of power and attempts to meet it. And have we seen games that are only occupied by non-benders? Nearly all of the sports we've seen (and the only professional sports) are benders only in the Avatar universe. And by "factory jobs" I was referring to Mako's position at the lightning production factory which powers the electricity in the city. If one job like this exists, as do others (see: pro-bending) it's not a stretch to say that there are a high amount of jobs which only benders can perform.

      Also, perhaps I'm incorrect, but I do believe all of the plans with Vaatu and such were all on Unalaq, Zaheer was only interested in the absolution of oppressive governments and anarchy.

      That's my bad. His position was to release Vaatu, but the part Tono was referring to with creating a Dark Avatar never seems to be anywhere in what I've re-read of his plans. Regardless, I couldn't care less about those plans because they're all fantastical in nature and --therefore in my mind-- aren't worth discussing because they in no way relate to the interactions of people or Bryke's political commentary within their shows.

        Loading editor
    • TechFilmer wrote: Firstly, I think it's very important to separate means from ideals. You can have noble ideals and may be correct, but you can still have the wrong means. Conversely, you may have the wrong ideals but the right means and still affect positive change.

      I'm just gonna focus on Amon for now. There's two ways of achieving equality: either you bring the upper class to the level of the lower class, or you bring the lower class to the level of the upper class. One is a positive change, one is a negative change.

      There's an excellent short story by Kurt Vonnegut titled Harrison Bergeron which essentially details a fully equal society where literally everything is equal. Intelligent? Well, we'll put something in your head to interrupt your thoughts so you're as dumb as the dumbest person. Strong? Well, we'll put some sandbags on you so you can't lift as much. Beautiful? A mask. It goes on and on. This is the first method I was talking about, and it sounds extremely undesirable.

      The second method is something we see from The Incredibles. (I hope you've seen this movie, but if you haven't what are you doing?) Syndrome aspires to use technology to make everyone super, and "when everyone's special... no one is." Sure he may have had some flawed methods, but ultimately he was trying to bring the lower class to the level of the upper class. This is positive change.

      Back to Amon. It's clear that the benders are the upper class and the non-benders are the lower class. Amon's ideal of striving for equality is noble and agreeable, sure. However, he picks the method of bringing the upper class to the level of the lower class by removing bending. This is his fatal flaw, if he decided to just give electric gloves to everyone or teach everyone chi-blocking then sure, I could support him. But removing people's bending? Not something I can support. His ideals are fine, his means are not.

      You can read this as a critique on social justice as well.

      As for Zaheer... I have no clue where I fall on him.

      This is innately false. Under capitalism we can not simply make poor people rich to rise them to the same level. Part of the privilege of being wealthy is the inherent power over those who are poor, and the inherent ability to afford more. While rich people exist so too must poor people, we cannot simply rise them to the same level.

      In addition, if we are to look at circumstances like --for exmaple-- white people's statistically higher probability of getting away with crime, should we rise all people of color to the same level, or instead hold white people more accountable? The solution isn't always to give everybody more privilege to make them equal, sometimes the advantages one class has over another are unjust inherently and must be removed.

        Loading editor
    • Exactly, in this fictional situation sight would be a superpower.

      How does that in any way follow from what I said?

      My point in saying the two were incomparable was to say that in the current world, disability covers an extremely wide variety of people, so many that it cannot be simply contained to a binary has or does not have.

      Sure it can. You either do or do not have one of the various things recognized as disabilities. That's why I can't just go get a disability parking permit by saying, "Well, disability is complicated, is it really fair to ask this binary 'do you have one' question?" It's true that simply knowing that someone has at least 1 disability doesn't clarify much, but knowing that someone is a bender doesn't tell what their actual abilities are either. Fire? Earth? Bloodbending? Multiple special techniques?

      In addition, the percentage of people with a specific disability in comparison to people who do not have that disability is not in any way equivalent to the bender/non-bender ratio seen in the Avatar Universe.

      Well, no, but I'm having difficulty seeing why that matters. Why is it any more fair to disfigure a disproportionately powerful demographic simply because they're a numerical minority?

      It quite literally is, the government originally functioned as four elected benders. It was a government controlled by benders.

      It quite literally is not. Sokka & an Air Acolyte were both seen to have served on the Council in the past. I think maybe you should research your points more.

      And that's just the United Republic-- Ozai literally lost his throne as Fire Lord once he couldn't bend anymore because to many states it is intrinsic to holding power.

      I don't dispute that anti-nonbender discrimination is widespread, but it's much more nuanced & less absolutely all-consuming than you're making it out to be. For example, the Earth Queen was a nonbender. So it's not that all positions of governance automatically require bending, it's more complicated than that. The same goes for Ozai, there WAS a movement to put him back on the throne, despite the fact that he couldn't bend anymore.

      It wasn't just the fact that he was debended, he was also deposed more generally. When royals have a power struggle, commoners tend to just go with whoever wins, especially if the last guy's been oppressing them. The only other option is civil war, & that's a really risky proposition, plus the idea of the divine right is so ingrained in the cultural consciousness. So things have to get pretty bad before people are willing to consider that a viable option, especially when they have no organized & agreed-upon leaders of their own to install on the throne.

      These oppressions evolved from a government and state that holds a position of power and attempts to meet it. And have we seen games that are only occupied by non-benders? Nearly all of the sports we've seen (and the only professional sports) are benders only in the Avatar universe.

      Consulting the Wiki page for "recreation in the world of avatar," Pai Sho, Redemption, Kuai Ball, card games, & various street games can all be played by nonbenders. I don't see why any of these have to be nonbender-only, because that wasn't the claim, the claim was that not being a bender wouldn't be a barrier to entry.

      We don't really know how many of these have professional leagues, since the only one we know for sure is Pro-Bending, but using your logic from earlier, it'd be illogical to assume that there's only 1 pro sport in the entire world. You could also go the Hiroshi Sato route, see the market for it, & start a professional league yourself.

      And by "factory jobs" I was referring to Mako's position at the lightning production factory which powers the electricity in the city.

      That would be a power plant, we only see 5 benders doing that, & we know that lightning generation is still a relatively uncommon ability. So it's unlikely that Republic City's power needs can be met entirely by firebenders. They may be preferred, but it's a stretch to say they're the only ones hired. Another problem is that even if we could assume this, it would also be an example where earth & water benders couldn't get that job either. So framing this particular instance as benders vs nonbenders is inaccurate, it's more firebenders vs everyone else.

      If one job like this exists, as do others (see: pro-bending) it's not a stretch to say that there are a high amount of jobs which only benders can perform.

      The only job directly established to flat-out not hire nonbenders is Pro-Bending. It IS a stretch to assume the city is littered with them, because most jobs aren't like Pro-Bending in the sense that they can literally only be performed by nonbenders. But even if I granted all of your examples, even Councilpersons despite the fact that the flashbacks heavily imply it's not a position restricted to benders, that's still only 3 jobs, out of hundreds. Sure, there could easily be others, but we still wouldn't know the breadth of the problem.

      Especially since all of the examples named are jobs that don't really hire a lot of people & you don't have a good chance of getting into regardless. How many Pro-Bending teams can there realistically be in that 1 city? And each of them only hires 3 people, of peak athletic ability. Even if it were completely equal opportunity, you're probably still not getting in. Similar thing for the Council. The point here is not to say that a small acceptance rate is an excuse to practice hiring discrimination, I'm simply pointing out that opening up these jobs wouldn't help most nonbenders get jobs anyway.

      And now that I think about it, this is a great example of a problem that can be fixed with relatively simple rule changes. What if they created a league of Pro-Nonbender sports as a parallel to Pro-Bending, sort of similar to how Title IX affected sports? They wouldn't be able to play the exact game, but they could have a similar sport with its own season that uses the same facilities, similar rules, etc. If there really is a dearth of pro sports in the Avatar World, that's even better news, because there's not a lot of stuff to compete with for sponsorship & ticket sales.

      Might that be difficult, if there's not a lot of interest among the big wigs in pursuing the solution? Sure, but so is taking over the city (& then the world) in a military coup, & doing weird bloodbending shit to the brains of every bender therein. Fact remains, with a bit of ingenuity, you CAN solve most problems without resorting to basically terrorism. Like the next line in "I have a dream" is not "where we kill a bunch of whites & take their stuff!"

      the part Tono was referring to with creating a Dark Avatar never seems to be anywhere in what I've re-read of his plans.

      That's true, I didn't see that Tono had said that.

      Regardless, I couldn't care less about those plans because they're all fantastical in nature and --therefore in my mind-- aren't worth discussing because they in no way relate to the interactions of people or Bryke's political commentary within their shows.

      Ordinarily, I would say that you can't ignore part of the character's ideology just because it's inconvenient, but I did say that I'm treating this as basically sporting debate, & focusing on the fact that Zaheer wants to potentially cause a literal apocalypse would be too easy of a way to win. So go ahead & ignore it, at least as far as I'm concerned.

      This is innately false. Under capitalism we can not simply make poor people rich to rise them to the same level. Part of the privilege of being wealthy is the inherent power over those who are poor, and the inherent ability to afford more. While rich people exist so too must poor people, we cannot simply rise them to the same level.

      I have to say I agree with this. Wealth is defined in relative terms, so if everyone had the same amount of money, goods would just go up in value to accommodate this. This would effectively make everyone poor.

      In addition, if we are to look at circumstances like --for exmaple-- white people's statistically higher probability of getting away with crime, should we rise all people of color to the same level, or instead hold white people more accountable? The solution isn't always to give everybody more privilege to make them equal, sometimes the advantages one class has over another are unjust inherently and must be removed.

      Again, I have to agree with this. It doesn't necessarily hold for every example of white privilege, but in this specific case cited, nobody would say that letting more people get away with crimes is a good thing. So, sometimes a negative change might actually be the way to go.

        Loading editor
    • I thought the whole point of the Red Lotus was to free Vaatu and send the world into chaos. They tried capturing Korra when she was young to raise her in the ways of the Red Lotus. However, they were incarcerated and couldn't do any of their plans, but Unalaq carried them all out alone. Is this not correct?

        Loading editor
    • They wanted to release Vaatu, but not create a Dark Avatar. That was Unalaq's thing.

        Loading editor
    • Here's my answer to the initail post (and only the orignal post):

      Amon:

      1) Amon's revolution wouldn't have helped in the long run, the problems of society would eventually catch up with the post-anti-bender revolution sooner rather than latter. Most of the revolutionaries would still be poor and disenfrancised, or soldiers for the United Republic of Nations as a non-bending state and eventually goes to war with the Earth Kingdom, Fire Nation and Water Tribe, and die in a war of attrition; and assuming Vaatu didn't destroy the world, there's a good chance that the United Republic would be reabsorbed into the Earth Kingdom, and be under the iron fist and cruel focus of Hou-Ting, which would be bad for the common people.

      2) There is no indication that Amon's bending removal would affect the inheritence of bending by the children - and assuming that Amon's non-bending state somehow survives, that's a generation of people oppressed for something that isn't their fault, and oppressed far worst that non-benders in the old regime. Think jews in Nazi Germany for the benders in the non-bender state vs. African-Americans in US for non-benders in the United Republic. And that's including attacks on their parents, who thought they would be living in peace, after giving birth to bending-child. 

      3) Amon's ideas are based on getting Equality through negative  means - it is based on hatred and fear of bending, and thus is a terrible philosophy. Amon was largely basing it off his own terrible childhood under Yakone and the horrific power of Bloodbending he inherited.

      4)The problems the Equalists want to solve - inequality between benders, social divides based on nationally/elementally aligned groups - were largely resolved by peaceful means, and sure the revolution did push it, but think about how much more productive if most of the people had focused on protests and working within the system. But instead Amon causes a massive guerrilla/terrorist/civil war to try and go to anoth extreme; choicing the path of violence to achieve his goals - because his ideas can have no combatibility with real justice or permanent peace. They are discordant, and based on violence against one group - with the problems they promised to solve being much better dealt with by peaceful society and political modification.



      Zaheer:

      1) Anarchism is stupid; it will only lead to violent chaos, or people forming new social orders that go against anarchism ideas of indepence. It was foolish of Zaheer to think that his principles of peace without order would be shared by everyone - and that people wouldn't react in dangerous ways.

      2) Zaheer conspired to release an incredibly powerful and evil spirit, Vaatu, into the world without investigating what horrors that it could do. It is the fundamental spirit of chaos and darkness, and he wanted it out with no-way to really handle it. Great planning there mr. Anarchy.


      Okay I'm going to admit I have less of an arguement with Zaheer than Amon, but I still don't think he was up to any good. Although I am left with two questions for FireFerret:

      A) Why start with the assumptions that Amon and Zaheer are right without proof and demands others disprove this incorrect Axiom?

      and

      B) Why only Amon and Zaheer, why not also demand critiques of  Unalaq or Kuvira? What about the former two makes them more irreproachable than the latter duo?

        Loading editor
    • The thing with Zaheer is that his rationale puts him so outside of normal thinking that it's difficult to really criticize him other than to just throw out his whole argument as craziness. If you told him that his plan will result in roving bands of murderhobos, he'd probably just say, "So?" How do you even argue with that? The only thing he seems to be legitimately disturbed by is if his revolution results in a fascist dictator.

        Loading editor
    • I will give them this:  Both of them were motivated by the desire to strike back against abuse of power; and that's certainly an honorable motive. 

      But Amon was a phony and a self-loathing hypocrite of whom—even if one argues that he was paying evil unto evil when it was mobsters and reactionary politicians he was spiritually mutilating—was at best dispensing vigilante justice.  And Zaheer is the culmination of two unsupportable combinations: an anarchist control freak, and a douchebag idealist (although my interpretation of his reaction to Kuvira being partly his fault was that it was realization that he hadn't thought things through).

        Loading editor
    • Zaheer was right, yes. He was right about the need for change, the Earth Kingdom hierarchy was corrupt and made it very difficult for most people to live in (especially in Ba Sing Se, where the Earth Monarch has the most influence), throughout history, people have had to suffer because of one or two individuals having more power than them (which is exactly what caused the Hundred-Year-War for example. Sozin went crazy and millions of people had to suffer for it). And I agree with Zaheer that the world would be better off without governments, because governments aren't necessary to keep societies organized. And the Red Lotus would be there to make sure no outside forces would conquer the new anarchist communities. However, I disagree with his plan to kill the Avatar. The Red Lotus believes the Avatar is an unnatural advantage over chaos and that balance can only be maintained as long as peace and chaos battle each other on equal grounds, similar to how it was in the era before the Avatar. But what Zaheer didn't seem to realize is that after Wan fused with Raava, he created a world that is dependant on the Avatar. So taking away the Avatar would only make room for more death and suffering and there would be no one powerful enough to counter that.

      As for Amon. He may have been right about that nonbenders in Republic City were treated as if they were less valuable than benders, depriving nonbenders of job opportunities and political voices. But he was wrong about bending being the source of inequality. The only reason he came to that conclusion is because his father ruined his life, and the only reason he did that is because he was a bender and so he saw all benders the same way he saw his father. Not to mention that since Amon uses bending to abuse benders (regardless of how they use their bending), he's doing the exact same thing he says is wrong with benders AND he has an "unfair advantage". And that's just beside the fact that he filled his supporters and followers with false hopes by making them think he was personally chosen by the spirits to eliminate bending. And in the end, Amon became everything his father wanted him to be.

        Loading editor
    • The thing is, Zaheer's ideal would have been unstable by its very nature.  Complete anarchy—except in some ideal situation in which everyone is both libertarian and altruistic, or at least willing to stay out of everyone else's way—inevitably restructures itself into zillions of little oligarchies even if there are no outside forces to try to conquer it.

      The Red Lotus, at their peak, only seemed to have four complete and utter badasses in their corner.  (Unalaq's main gimmick seemed to be spirit-bending, and he had his own agenda and no real loyalty to the organization; Aiwei, despite being a metalbender, never seemed to use that ability combatively and fought via dirty tricks.)  Even if none of said badasses had met violent ends, they would have spent the rest of their natural lives breaking the aforementioned oligarchies.

        Loading editor
    • That's not what anarchy is about. An anarchist community has rules, just no hierchical rulers to enforce them. The rules are based on the people's needs and the people fulfill them according to their abilities. Kind of like Freetown Christiania, an anarchist community in Denmark. People sometimes tend to confuse real anarchism with the kind of anarchism depicted in Hollywood movies.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe because anarchism makes no sense. The only answer anarchists seem to have for the problem of enforcing rules is that someone will still do it, but that somehow isn't a hierarchy. But if someone has the authority to tell others what to do, that's a hierarchy, & if that's in the context of running a society, it's a freakin' government.

      There's also the matter that even that form of anarchy-in-name-only doesn't seem to work very well. I'm on the Wikipedia page for Christiania right now, & they're not truly self-sustaining ("since 1994, residents have paid taxes and fees for water, electricity, trash disposal, etc."), they seem to have persistent problems with violence related to their drug trade, & I question how applicable the situation of ~1000 squatters in an unused barracks in the middle of a city is to that of running a large country.

        Loading editor
    • Anarchists don't want a community where one is given authority to enforce laws on others because the word "law" carries with it a connotation of force and rulers. In fact, anarchists would respond to crime very differently than hierarchical societies. In hierarchies, everything is run by competition, but in anarchist communities, things are run by cooperation and mutual aid (though one could argue that that concept might just work in small towns and communities). So an anarchist society would actually be organized through direct democracy and mutual aid rather than through governments and police. And a government has to have a legislature. Anarchist communities wouldn't have legislatures and therefore they don't have governments. Having some sort of assembly where people attend and discuss certain issues that need to be tackled and are tackled through volunteer works and cooperation, however, is another thing. I don't really have time to explain the whole thing right now, but the answer to your question is pretty complicated so just feel free to read about anarchists' views on hierarchies here

      http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html

      Also, no one said anarchy would prevent violence.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't ask a question, I made an assertion, namely that anarchism is a nonsensical & only approaches some semblance of functionality when self-proclaimed anarchists describe a government but insist it's not a government. In fact, I don't think it's complicated at all, I think the appearance of complications is used to make the ideology look more robust than it actually is.

      Case in point, that link uses a lot of words to say very little. For instance, instead of defining "irrational authority" & "unnatural associations" (the cornerstones of their argument) as most essays would do, this one indirectly communicates their meanings with several different quotes. This isn't more efficient, but it allows the inclusion of more words & sources, so it at least looks more impressive. And hey, that's what I'd do if I needed to fall back on "it's actually very well-reasoned, even if you don't see how."

      They never do quite get around to defining the terms, but the gist seems to be that they're describing a direct democracy (they even use the word "democratically") in which all decisions & assignments are made by group. Once again, that's a form of government. There's also something about positions not being made into institutions, which isn't elaborated on & doesn't really make sense, because presumably you want positions to be able to be transferred, in case it turns out you can't rely on the original holder. And if you have, say, a road building project, you need someone making sure the plans are followed, then people taking those directions & in turn directing specific sectors, & so on. Ergo, hierarchies form as a response to organizational needs, & even if anarchists could get rid of them, it'd result in an ineffectual system.

      The point about the violence in Christiania was that it seems disproportionate for how tiny the community is. If I'm being told that a form of society works, let alone works better than the current models, I expect it to meet standards equal to or greater than its contemporaries. Also, you kind of dodged the fact that the violence is connected specifically to the fact that it doesn't enforce the rest of the city's rules vis a vis drugs. Not to mention the other problems with Christiania as a model self-sustaining community that can be replicated on a large scale.

        Loading editor
    • Whether or not anarchism is workable is irrelevant to the stated goals of the Red Lotus.  As I said up-thread: what they wanted was complete anarchy.  Hell, when Korra called Zaheer on his idealistic claptrap, he admitted that he wanted to "throw the world into chaos" on the grounds that it should be that way.

        Loading editor
    • FireFerret wrote:
      try to prove me wrong

      They were willing to kill people that didn't hurt them.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Hell, when Korra called Zaheer on his idealistic claptrap, he admitted that he wanted to "throw the world into chaos" on the grounds that it should be that way.

      Maybe, but then again, he said nothing about a permanent state of chaos. After all, Zaheer wasn't just an anarchist, he was also a revolutionary who believed chaos was the only way make way for new growth. My guess is that he probably expected the Earth Kingdom communities to become more peaceful once the dust settles. When people have spent most of their lives being exploited or had their opportunities kept down by the government, it's only natural they'd go tear down or take everything the government took. I mean, after the Romanov family was overthrown in the Russian revolution, people looted the whole palace and pretty much destroyed everything that reminded them of the imperial regime. So when Zaheer said "the natural order is disorder" I don't think he meant "chaos reigns forever" or something like that, but his belief that civilization shouldn't have blueprints or be pre-determined by one or few individuals. But should rather embrace change and evolution. The reason the Earth Kingdom was so backwards was because they are the least willing to accept changes, mostly because of the monarchy (which even Suyin admits is outdated and has no place in the modern world) and because it was so fixated on hierarchical structure and retaining authority and class distinctions.

        Loading editor
    • He also said that one's only loyalty should be to oneself and the people one loves (and, face it: in his case, at that point, that was his "brother and sister," if that). 

      Most anarchists in the real world with half a clue (probably a short list, to be honest; even so) are working towards a minimal government (much as it'd gall them to admit even that much) whose only purpose is to serve the needs of the populace.  (As opposed to "minimal government" as the "caters to my interests, and everyone who'd get shafted by that be damned" dog-whistle that it tends to be nowadays...but I digress.)  Which, again, supports my interpretation of Zaheer as a guy who does not think things through very well.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      He also said that one's only loyalty should be to oneself and the people one loves (and, face it: in his case, at that point, that was his "brother and sister," if that). 

      Most anarchists in the real world with half a clue (probably a short list, to be honest; even so) are working towards a minimal government (much as it'd gall them to admit even that much) whose only purpose is to serve the needs of the populace.  (As opposed to "minimal government" as the "caters to my interests, and everyone who'd get shafted by that be damned" dog-whistle that it tends to be nowadays...but I digress.)  Which, again, supports my interpretation of Zaheer as a guy who does not think things through very well.

      I thought he just thought the world should burn every once in a while so people don't get stuck in the old systems.

        Loading editor
    • It remains that he did say that (it was "allegiance" rather than "loyalty," but close enough).  Specifically, it was at the beginning of "Venom of the Red Lotus."

      Zaheer smugly declaimed:
      So we lucky few, this band of brothers and sisters in anarchy, are witnessing the beginning of an era of true freedom. Together, we will forge a world without kings and queens, without borders or nations, where Man's only allegiance is to himself and those he loves.

      I mean, one could probably make an argument that he'd officially flipped his lid once and for all when P'Li died.  Even so.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think that argument works, because Ghazan & Ming-Hua didn't find anything off about his words.

        Loading editor
    • People have defined those two as "the guy who's mainly tagging along with his friends, and the chick who's mainly there to find more asses to kick."  While I don't really buy that specific interpretation—I think they both genuinely supported the cause; and, besides, simplifying Ghazan into "just the tag-along" and Ming-Hua into "just the blood knight" strips them of what little characterization they actually got—my guess is that they were pretty much just...down for whatever their de facto leader said was the plan, as long as the end result was still going to suit their goals.

      Again: the Red Lotus were weirdly and ironically internally hierarchical; and we saw this even within the inner circle.  Zaheer called the shots for everyone; P'Li called the shots for the other two; Ghazan deferred to everyone; and Ming-Hua was the only one to ever challenge the command chain, as we see with her getting up in the radio guy's face in "Long Live the Queen."

        Loading editor
    • I never got what problem Ghazan and Ming-Hua had. I mean, Ghazan is a spiritualist that didn't see the point in systems and rules and differences that would hinder people from being themselves. P'Li was used as a war-machine, it's natural she'd hate governments, after she was basically stripped of her human rights...

      But while Ghazan and Ming-Hua were exceptional benders, I don't see why they'd want anarchy. I wish we'd have gotten more characterization (Is that spelled right? It looks weird...) for those two.

      Actually, I think a big weakspot of LoK is the system of having a specific villain every season. I mean, Aang had season-specific enemies, like Zhao and Long-Feng, but there was always a set of villains we kept and cared about, Ozai, Zuko, Azula and her gang. Especially the Red Lotus would have had the potential to be interseasonal villains, because they didn't work within the government or within great, omnipresent movements, they were a small party of individuals that could have stepped into the background every now and then, because they weren't frequently relevant for the public life in the same way Amon, Unalaq or Kuvira were.

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:
      I mean, Ghazan is a spiritualist that didn't see the point in systems and rules and differences that would hinder people from being themselves.

      I think you meant Zaheer, not Ghazan.

      At any rate: I've been over how I think Ming-Hua's disability (or, rather, being subjected to rampant ableism as a result of it) may have played into her motives.  Ghazan, however, is a difficult read; I've certainly got my speculations about him, but none of them really even have the "obvious shadow archetype" backing from canon that my Ming-Hua hypothesis does.  And I agree that they should have gotten more development.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, sorry, I've been doing lots of mistakes like switching words, lately. It actually worries me a bit, do you think there might be something wrong with my brain? Or maybe I should sleep more. Does lack of sleep affect ones spelling? Probably. I should start going to bed earlier. Like, right now. But there is a new episode of Gotham tonight, so tonight is not a good night to start being reasonable.

      Anyway, I did consider Ming-Hua being subject of discrimination for being born without arms, but seeing as her bending compensates for her disabillity, I wouldn't see why. Of course, she could have developed that bending because of ableistic persecution, but I always thought it developed naturally, like blind people automatically develope better hearing and generally sharpen their other senses. I mean, it'd make sense that a waterbending kid would learn to use water as an extension of her body to balance out diffuculties they have during their developement.

        Loading editor
    • It seems like kids who are going to be benders first manifest it somewhere between the ages of four and ten.  So there would have been a few years before she started waterbending, and then a few more years before she figured out, much less perfected, the water-whip prostheses.

      So let's say that it took her until she was twelve to be any sort of unmitigable badass (that's how long it took Toph, after all; and Ming-Hua is kind of a shadow archetype of her).  That would have been plenty of time for her parents/guardians to nonetheless decide that she was disabled and tiny and helpless and fragile.

        Loading editor
    • I see your point. Amon was convinced that what he was doing, was right. He had good intentions and really strived for equality. Some non-benders had conflicts with benders and were often disadvantaged due to their lack of capabilities. The Equalist movement was only a reaction to the violence brought by many benders in the first place.

      However, benders and non-benders need to learn how to live together, despite their differences. Just because some have made bad experiences with benders does not mean you can overgeneralize. There are some good benders and some and benders just like there are some good non-benders and bad non-benders. You can never genrealize.

      Robbing people of their freedom of individuality and supressing them in a communist regime like Amon did, would only intensify problems. The division between people would only superficially vanish. In cases like those, you need to find peace. Suppression, as one can see in history, held on for a little while, but broke apart because people would eventually speak against it. 

      Even in our world, we face similar problems. People are different, but that is no reason to rob them of their differences. Yes, differences have lead to violence and many problems. Many died for these ridiculous reasons. But int he end, we must move forward, learn from these expereinces and manage to live together in peace.

      Complex problems don't have easy solutions. Just like a wall won't save America. Violence will ultimately backfire. In the end, the Equalists failed in their mission. They wanted peace, but all they brought was vilence and disarray. Even non-benders suffered.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think benders of Republic City were inherently violent to nonbenders (aside from gangsters). The problem was that Republic City appears to have been designed and built to be supported by benders (for example, electricity is provided by firebenders who know how to generate lightning) and on top of that, the entire city council consisted only of benders, leaving no one to represent the interests of nonbenders. So because nonbenders had no political voice and had less job opportunities, they were more or less treated like chopped liver.

      So the Equalist movement was more of a response to that. After all, their intention was to eliminate bending so everyone would be born with same chances (although I doubt even Amon could stop people from being born with bending since bending isn't always dependent on one or both parents being benders).

      And even if someone would tell Amon that not every bender is like his father, he wouldn't have cared. Because the extreme lengths of his bloodbending training ruined him. Practicing bloodbending in general makes you slowly lose your humanity (especially since in order to master the art, you basically need to torture living beings to the point where it stops being a moral dilemma). By the time Amon arrived in Republic City, he couldn't see from right and wrong, he was too fixated on his belief that bending brings nothing but suffering and the fact that nonbenders were treated like second-class citizens only gave him more reason to hate benders. And as Mike DiMartino put it, Amon became so blinded by hatred that he began to believe his own lie.

      On the other hand, even though Amon's solution was wrong, his actions did at least make people see the need to reform and how important it was for nonbenders to have a representative. So the equalists can actually claim a partial victory. That's the point of all the villains in the show. Amon motivated nonbender rights (the revolution made people see the need to reform and treat nonbenders fairly), Unalaq motivated spiritual harmony (by bringing back the spirits, people began to respect them more), Zaheer motivated individual freedom (he liberated Ba Sing Se and the Earth Kingdom from Hou-Ting, giving people the opportunity to walk their own paths) and Kuvira motivated cultural evolution (instead of reinstating the old monarchy, Kuvira modernized the whole nation).

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      It seems like kids who are going to be benders first manifest it somewhere between the ages of four and ten.  So there would have been a few years before she started waterbending, and then a few more years before she figured out, much less perfected, the water-whip prostheses.

      So let's say that it took her until she was twelve to be any sort of unmitigable badass (that's how long it took Toph, after all; and Ming-Hua is kind of a shadow archetype of her).  That would have been plenty of time for her parents/guardians to nonetheless decide that she was disabled and tiny and helpless and fragile.

      Fair point.

      Still I feel like there has to be more to it. There must have been one scarring event that drove her over the edge.

      I mean, having a grudge against a discriminating society is something I can totally understand, believe it or not, and I imagine that a few bones would have been broken had 12-year old me gained superpowers, but this degree of fanatism, joining an obvious nutcase like Zaheer, staying bitter over all these years inside a cell...

        Loading editor
    • Not necessarily.  If the cage wasn't gilded, she had no opportunity to escape it at that early of an age, if she was constantly invalidated (and possibly wasn't even given the rudimentary formal training that Toph got), that could scar her all on its own.  Preadolescent neuroplasticity is a mixed blessing; it's probably the best time in one's life to learn things, but it's also the likeliest time in one's life for something like constant invalidation—and the rage and frustration that come with it—to sink in and stick.

      Also, we don't know if Zaheer was an "obvious nutcase" when the group first formed.  That one Eugene Lee image (in which the victory signs aren't canon, but everything else is at least implied to be) shows them looking very young (early twenties at the oldest), but all acting chummy with each other like they've been friends for a while.  Between that and Bryke implying that they all, under different circumstances, could have been good people: my guess is that they were all relatively innocent teenaged idealists when they met, and became embittered and radicalized over the ensuing years.  (Hell, I don't find her "staying bitter" after her stint in prison surprising at all; the tailored cells likely would have driven them all the more over the edge.)

        Loading editor
    • FireFerret wrote:
      try to prove me wrong

      I see what you mean. But althought both Amon and Zaheer really had good intentions, they were no better than those they were fighting against. They lost not only because their revolutions failed, but also because they let hatred, prejudice (overgeneralizing) and violence prevail. 

        Loading editor
    • Well... Amon and Zaheer weren't wrong, but that doesn't mean they were right. 

        Loading editor
    • Mrsunrider wrote: Well... Amon and Zaheer weren't wrong, but that doesn't mean they were right. 

      "Villain has a point" trope.  (See also: Erik Killmonger, or at least his MCU incarnation.)
        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Yeah, no, that's like saying "The Allies were forcing their freedom on Nazi-occupied Europe in WWII."

      I mean...yeah? That's why "they're forcing people to comply!" doesn't work as an argument. Your first comment assumes that the use of force is inherently wrong regardless of the ends, which THIS comment contradicts.


      Also, I feel like that's missing my point of 'stupid statements get stupid responses.' And it's worth noting that in terms of nuance and intelligence, in FireFerret's original post, it bears the closest resemblance to a Donald Trump tweet.

      Maybe, but being that I'm unsure of FireFerret's intentions, I decided to treat this thread as a debate exercise, if only to get an interesting conversation going somewhere.


      You cannot compare the two. Amon was taking away super powers, whereas disability comes in a wide array of forms, and we cannot achieve true equality by physically making everybody disabled, because of the multitude of complex forms disability comes in.

      Oh, but I can. You can't dismiss bending as a "super power," because that's only true relative to our reality. If we were to land on a planet where nobody had eyes, then our ability to see would be a "super power" to them. But in our shared context, it's just a thing that most people can naturally do. Likewise, bending in the Avatar world is just a natural thing that some people can do & others can't.

      Also, whether you want to call bending "super powers" or not, it still does nothing to refute the core argument. The fact remains that Amon is taking something away from people not because of anything they specifically did, but because he doesn't want anyone to have it, since some people abuse it. That is an inherently unfair system, which renders moot Amon's entire claim that he's bringing fairness to the world.


      Under the way the United Republic was established, laws and society were inherently designed to give benders an advantage. Benders controlled street gangs, factory jobs were benders only, and sporting outlets (aka how Bolin and Mako were able to get out of poverty) were only accessible to benders.

      This is not accurate. The United Republic wasn't "inherently designed" to give benders an advantage, it evolved that way over time. Also, Pro-Bending is bender-only, but that doesn't mean there aren't other sports, & also nobody ever says anything about factory jobs being bender-only.


      No kind of law system could ever fix that kind of deeply wedged inequality.

      That's an assertion without basis.


      This video does an excellent job in explaining Zaheer's philosophy: the Avatar exists as a position of power, greanted randomly, who nations are indoctrinated into worshipping and has god like superpowers over everybody for no reason. There is no reason for a god-like entity that is simply a random person to exist, they are not elected, they are not chosen for their good ideas they're simply a person.

      Zaheer's just a person, not elected or chosen by anyone, so what makes his cause more legitimate than that of the Avatar?


      Also, perhaps I'm incorrect, but I do believe all of the plans with Vaatu and such were all on Unalaq, Zaheer was only interested in the absolution of oppressive governments and anarchy.

      You are. Zaheer clearly explained that only the part about the Dark Avatar wasn't part of their plan. They still wanted to release Vaatu.

      They were forcing people to not have leaders/ have the ability to bend, which, though Amon was right in some aspect of how benders oppose nonebenders it was wrong. The Allies opposed Hitler because he was acting like a Lunatic, everyone else in the world opposed Amon because he was acting like a Lunatic.

        Loading editor
    • Except it's not just a matter of "acting like a lunatic."  (Not even going to go into exactly how subjective people can get regarding the definition thereof, either.) 

      Amonatak was an opportunist taking advantage of people's entirely legitimate concerns about—for want of a better description—setting-specific ableism.  Hitler was opportunistic himself, true; but what he was taking advantage of was people's irrational hatred.

        Loading editor
    • Just in case it's unclear, the point I was making in that comment is that it's perfectly fine to "force your beliefs on someone" if it promotes a healthy society. I mean, that's basically the whole purpose of laws--one might *personally believe* they should be able to do whatever they want with their house (to choose a fairly non-loaded example), but since it could affect other people living nearby, we enforce safety codes. The flaw I think Amon & Zaheer have is that what they think promotes a healthy society actually doesn't. Zaheer just tears down infrastructure that a lot of people depend on without building anything new, & Amon basically just swaps one oppressed class for another.

        Loading editor
    • But is it any better to preserve an unhealthy,, yet already established society?

        Loading editor
    • Do you cure the flu by shooting the patient in the head?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think a flu is severe enough for me to suggest euthanasia.

      But I'm not a doctor, so what do I know?

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Do you cure the flu by shooting the patient in the head?

      No; but if what you're dealing with is a case of rabies, that may be your best chance to keep it from spreading.  The problem is that those guys were out of balance and going after targets that weren't infected.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I think that bat-swarms suspected to be infected won't be inspected but killed as a whole... I might be wrong, though. I'm usually wrong when guys are around.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Except it's not just a matter of "acting like a lunatic."  (Not even going to go into exactly how subjective people can get regarding the definition thereof, either.) 

      Amonatak was an opportunist taking advantage of people's entirely legitimate concerns about—for want of a better description—setting-specific ableism.  Hitler was opportunistic himself, true; but what he was taking advantage of was people's irrational hatred.

      It is though.

        Loading editor
    • Genso~No wrote: It is though.

      Is what?  Just a matter of "acting like a lunatic," never mind how sketchy and subjective that is (not to mention how I went over how there's a difference between opportunistically taking advantage of people's legitimate concerns and opportunistically taking advantage of their irrational hatred)?

      'Kay, but you're wrong, tho.

        Loading editor
    • Though this be madness, there is method in't.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Genso~No wrote: It is though.
      Is what?  Just a matter of "acting like a lunatic," never mind how sketchy and subjective that is (not to mention how I went over how there's a difference between opportunistically taking advantage of people's legitimate concerns and opportunistically taking advantage of their irrational hatred)?

      'Kay, but you're wrong, tho.

      I never said "Kay but you're wrong tho." Also the Nonbenders weren't irrationaly hateful. So rip

        Loading editor
    • Genso~No wrote:
      I never said "Kay but you're wrong tho."

      No; but I did.  Because you were.  And you seem determined to continue that trend.

      Also the Nonbenders weren't irrationaly hateful.

      Considering how I never said that they were: your point is...?

      So rip

      Don't worry; I doubt you'll actually die of either being wrong or putting words in my keyboard.

        Loading editor
    • If I died anytime I was wrong, I'd be dead.

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:
      If I died anytime I was wrong, I'd be dead.

      Well...to be fair, being wrong has killed people.  It's just that being wrong in the way that person was wrong is unlikely to kill you unless you're dealing with, say, an organized crime syndicate or a warning label.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Genso~No wrote:
      I never said "Kay but you're wrong tho."
      No; but I did.  Because you were.  And you seem determined to continue that trend.


      Also the Nonbenders weren't irrationaly hateful.
      Considering how I never said that they were: your point is...?


      So rip
      Don't worry; I doubt you'll actually die of either being wrong or putting words in my keyboard.

      You said they had irrational hatred. And me being wrong is an opinon.

        Loading editor
    • You said they had irrational hatred.

      I said no such thing about non-benders.

      And me being wrong is an opinon.

      I'm not sure if you meant "opinion" or "onion," but it's neither subjective nor an edible flower bulb.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      You said they had irrational hatred.
      I said no such thing about non-benders.


      And me being wrong is an opinon.
      I'm not sure if you meant "opinion" or "onion," but it's neither subjective nor an edible flower bulb.

      Sorry, I barely but any thought into this, "lol" but you know what I meant either way.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Implord wrote:
      If I died anytime I was wrong, I'd be dead.
      Well...to be fair, being wrong has killed people.  It's just that being wrong in the way that person was wrong is unlikely to kill you unless you're dealing with, say, an organized crime syndicate or a warning label.

      Please don't kill me for being constantly wrong. I'm not dumb on purpose, I swear.

        Loading editor
    • Genso~No wrote:
      Deist Zealot wrote:
      You said they had irrational hatred.
      I said no such thing about non-benders.


      And me being wrong is an opinon.
      I'm not sure if you meant "opinion" or "onion," but it's neither subjective nor an edible flower bulb.
      Sorry, I barely but any thought into this, "lol" but you know what I meant either way.

      I know what you meant. Amazingly, you're wrong nonetheless, anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Trust me: we can tell that you barely put any thought into it.

        Loading editor
    • Implord
      Implord removed this reply because:
      Eh
      00:53, April 15, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • They did mean 'opinion', right?

      Except they want to express that the subject of their alleged wrongness is a complex matter, layered like an onion.

      But that'd be untrue and people don't lie.

        Loading editor
    • But that'd be untrue and people don't lie.

      You owe me $20.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      But that'd be untrue and people don't lie.

      You owe me $20.

      Why?

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Trust me: we can tell that you barely put any thought into it.

      You seem rather hostile to me, because I disagree with something in a show you act hostile and tend to insult me for no proper reason? I haven't straight out called you "an idiot" or any thing that can be taken as an insult, yet you seem to stay hostile. I came here to talk about one of my favorite shows and you're acting "toxic". I wish you would act like the mature person I assume you are and have a reasonable argument with someone.

        Loading editor
    • Genso~No wrote:
      You seem rather hostile to me, because I disagree with something in a show you act hostile and tend to insult me for no proper reason? I haven't straight out called you "an idiot" or any thing that can be taken as an insult, yet you seem to stay hostile. I came here to talk about one of my favorite shows and you're acting "toxic". I wish you would act like the mature person I assume you are and have a reasonable argument with someone.

      Don't make me laugh.  Considering you were the one who felt the need to get snippy with me in the "Amon and the Red Lotus" thread: either you are none too self-aware, or you have more gall than a wasp-infested oak tree.

      Also?  Between your sudden coherence, and your attempt to play the "you're being mean to me just because I disagreed with you!" card: I am forced to conclude that your reading "non-benders were joining the Equalists out of irrational hatred" into my posts was not incomprehension (as I had initially thought), but a deliberate strawman.  You are in no position to lecture people on maturity or "toxicity" after you've been arguing with the approximate civility and sincerity of the Ever-Present Wordsnatcher.  (And, really: the only way I'm going to cut you any breaks at this point is if it turns out that you actually are a kid.)

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:

      Neo Bahamut wrote:
      But that'd be untrue and people don't lie.

      You owe me $20.

      Why?

      I don't apologize for this.

        Loading editor
    • Genso~No wrote:
      Deist Zealot wrote:
      Trust me: we can tell that you barely put any thought into it.
      You seem rather hostile to me, because I disagree with something in a show you act hostile and tend to insult me for no proper reason? I haven't straight out called you "an idiot" or any thing that can be taken as an insult, yet you seem to stay hostile. I came here to talk about one of my favorite shows and you're acting "toxic". I wish you would act like the mature person I assume you are and have a reasonable argument with someone.

      Thou, who sits in a glasshouse, should not throw stones.

      Not even if those stones had a point. Because there is glass in the way and that would break and you'd be full of splinters.

        Loading editor
    • Zaheer was proven to be wrong in the following season when kuvira took power. He tried to get rid of world leaders but his dumbass didn't realize that when a leader is brought down, someone is bound to take their place.

        Loading editor
    • Well, Kuvira was empowered by other people, that were still in power.

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:
      Genso~No wrote:
      Deist Zealot wrote:
      Trust me: we can tell that you barely put any thought into it.
      You seem rather hostile to me, because I disagree with something in a show you act hostile and tend to insult me for no proper reason? I haven't straight out called you "an idiot" or any thing that can be taken as an insult, yet you seem to stay hostile. I came here to talk about one of my favorite shows and you're acting "toxic". I wish you would act like the mature person I assume you are and have a reasonable argument with someone.
      Thou, who sits in a glasshouse, should not throw stones.

      Not even if those stones had a point. Because there is glass in the way and that would break and you'd be full of splinters.

      I didnt throw stones. Which I'm assuming to be "insults"

        Loading editor
    • I kinda don't care what you assume...?

      All I'm saying is that you're not being objective nor reasonable, either. Because the reasonable thing to do would probably not be to proceed an evidently pointless "debate" but to continue the actual discussion this thread is about.

        Loading editor
    • Implord wrote:
      I kinda don't care what you assume...?

      All I'm saying is that you're not being objective nor reasonable, either. Because the reasonable thing to do would probably not be to proceed an evidently pointless "debate" but to continue the actual discussion this thread is about.

      Amon and Zaheer had the right idea but went about doing it wrong. I'm being very reasonable.

        Loading editor
    • The first sentence is true.

        Loading editor
    • Genso~No wrote:

      Implord wrote:
      I kinda don't care what you assume...?

      All I'm saying is that you're not being objective nor reasonable, either. Because the reasonable thing to do would probably not be to proceed an evidently pointless "debate" but to continue the actual discussion this thread is about.

      Amon and Zaheer had the right idea but went about doing it wrong. I'm being very reasonable.


      Well, I'd say they had reasonable concerns that led to their actions. Their ideologies were already flawed as they were.

        Loading editor
    • I stand by my previous statements on the both of them.

        Loading editor
    • They do seem legit.

        Loading editor
    • Kuvira proved Zaheer wrong. He wanted freedom from governments, and all he did was create a power vacuum into which another dictator stepped in. That is generally the problem with anarchism, really.

      Amon had more of a point. The ruling council of the Republic was made up entirely of benders, and when their position became threatened, they reacted with suppressive policies against the non-bender majority. It was very much a small elite caste trying to uphold their rule over the common population. So working against the ruling bender system of the Republic, even initiating a coup d'etat, very much is legitimate.

      The problem of course is Amon's wider crusade. Taking away the bending power from people, and then planning to do that worldwide. But isn't the bender rule in the Republic just part of a pattern that has repeated itself over and over in the history of the Avatar world? For example, are not the members of the Fire Nation royal family the strongest firebenders of the world? And that is a large part of why and how they rule the Fire Nation. Oh and look, the maybe strongest Earthbender of Aang's time got himself a city state within the Earth Kingdom. 

      So history kinda does prove that benders have an unfair (because inborn) advantage over non-benders and more importantly that they *are* using it in order to lord over non-benders. And removing bending from the world altogether would be a viable option to stop that.

      That being said - the world war it would take to remove bending from everywhere would probably be far more destructive than a continuation of bending could ever be. So Amon is largely right, but still unjustified in his aims and methods.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message