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