<div class="quote"><i>Deist Zealot wrote:
They <i>will</i> always love each other.  It's just that—even <i>if</i> Mako is possibly dealing with some lingering feelings in that direction—they both know that it can't be in a romantic way due to the aforementioned incompatibility. Plus, <i>Korra has moved on</i>.  (I still think they're <i>especially</i> galled by <i>Korra</i> having been the one to move on first.) <p>I'm torn between <i>wanting</i> to see the junior Fire Princess introduced, and dreading the ruination of my fanon ideas for her.  (Something like Lulu from <i>Final Fantasy X</i>, but a bit wilier, paired with a notable desire to <i>not</i> end up being the Fire Lord.) </p> </i></div>
<p>
Exactly. They keep crying foul about Korrasami because "Korra has no agency in their relationship" but completely ignore the fact that their belief in Mako somehow being entitled to Korra doesn't leave any room for her to have any agency either. Hypocritical/double standard much? It IS possible for people to move on from a failed romance and still be good friends with one another. And Bryke did say in the DVD commentaries for "Beyond the Wilds" that the bond between Korra and Mako was more of a "colleague" sort of dynamic now. Like they used to date but that was "a long time ago" and now it's like "oh, you guys used to date?" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing but either way, the point is that the two of them accepted the fact that they would never work out in a romantic sense a long time ago. </p><p>That's an interesting headcanon for the Fire Nation Princess. If she's half as deadpan as Lulu then she'll definitely shoot down any of Mako's nonsense if they end up dating and he starts falling back on his dithering ways. I have this headcanon that she looks just like Azula but took after her grandfather Lord Zuko (nice and willing to help others for the most part just like Iroh II). </p>

what about Mako/Metal twins?

<div class="quote"><i>NervousShipper wrote:
what about Mako/Metal twins?</i></div>
<p>Didn't really see anything there for Mako/Wing-Wei but there's something there for Bolin and Wei with that friendly bro pay the latter gives him after Bolin catches him in Operation Beifong. People can have a little fun with that lol.
</p><p>@ Deist Zealot </p><p>Oh and semi "Foxie and inner circle related" did you happen to see this article after TLoK finale aired? There also another <strike>moral guardian homophobic</strike> guy named John C Wright that completely lost his shit over the last two minutes of the grand finale as well....Don't know if he's apart of this inner circle (doubt it) but his views are no less bigoted than Foxie and her cohorts.... </p>

<p>John C Wright is a more "respectable" conservative author, which means he's really no different than those wankers but he gets paid for some reason. He had a similarly stupid meltdown over the 5th Edition D&D rules, which he called "Dungeons & Perverts." Yeah, for a writer, his wordplay is not very--what's the word--good. </p><p>In response to the D&D one, he was accused of feigning attachment to a game he really didn't know shit about so he could spin some "you betrayed me with your gay pandering!" nonsense. I'm feeling that same vibe here, since he apparently didn't notice that this show is liberal as all Hell. Either that or he's a level of stupid I've never seen before. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>HolyDragon2808 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">NervousShipper wrote:
what about Mako/Metal twins?</i></div>
<p>Didn't really see anything there for Mako/Wing-Wei but there's something there for Bolin and Wei with that friendly bro pay the latter gives him after Bolin catches him in Operation Beifong. People can have a little fun with that lol.
</p><p>@ Deist Zealot </p><p>Oh and semi "Foxie and inner circle related" did you happen to see this article after TLoK finale aired? There also another <strike>moral guardian homophobic</strike> guy named John C Wright that completely lost his shit over the last two minutes of the grand finale as well....Don't know if he's apart of this inner circle (doubt it) but his views are no less bigoted than Foxie and her cohorts.... </p> </div> <p>Yes, Wright is well-known for having very conservative views on...pretty much everything. The LOK thing is a bit surprising to me, though; his arguments, while I don't always agree with them, are usually well-thought and admittedly persuasive to a degree. In comparison, his condemnation of Korra and Bryke just sounds like....whining at best and overdramatic exaggeration at worst. Not to mention how pretentious it is; he claims to speak for the entire fandom, when as we all know Korrasami has just as many supporters as haters and even claims anyone who isn't upset about it isn't a true fan. Well, i guess i'm not a "true" fan in his eyes nor are most of the people on this wiki. If he was upset, then fine, be upset but don't assume everybody feels the same way as you or demean the ones who don't. The familiar cries of pandering and political correctness and the fact that he seems to think Mako not ending up with Korra or Asumi is somehow related to Korrasami just makes it sadder. Then again, he did delete the whole thing, so maybe he realized he was being petty. </p>

<p>I admit I haven't read much of this guy's stuff, but I'm not seeing thoughtfulness or persuasion from a cursory survey. </p><p>This is a classic gish gallop, & his claim that Baptists don't kill people is easily proven to be a lie by just Googling "Baptist killers." </p><p>This tired old "secularism is religion" nonsense is pretty much just wordplay. </p><p>Whatever the fuck this is. </p><p>This is the only thing I've found that I'm inclined to say appears to be at least well thought out & written, though persuasive is another matter entirely, & I have half a mind to say he's just tricking me into thinking that by namedropping philosophers because he knows goddamn well I'm not reading all of this shit. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>NervousShipper wrote:
what about Mako/Metal twins?</i></div>
<p>Ehh, the only 'shiptease I saw him having with a guy was with Wu, but that was apparently accidental. </p><p>And yes: I <i>did</i>, in fact, see John C. Wright—the patron <s>fuckwad</s> saint of every fandom reactionary everywhere—lose his shit and caterwaul about "perversion" at great length.  Sad part is (as Neo pointed out), dude <i>isn't</i> some random whiny fanboy; he's an at least semi-successful professional writer who'd probably be <i>baffled</i> at people not knowing who he is. </p>

<p>If he gets even half of the simpering fanboys as Vox Day, maybe I'll know of him outside of seeing obscure references to his tantrums on forums. </p>

<p>I know who he is; I simply don't <i>give</i> half a damn about him on any level except "do not engage."  Ditto Pox Go-Away. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: I admit I haven't read much of this guy's stuff, but I'm not seeing thoughtfulness or persuasion from a cursory survey. </p><p>This is a classic gish gallop, & his claim that Baptists don't kill people is easily proven to be a lie by just Googling "Baptist killers." </p><p>This tired old "secularism is religion" nonsense is pretty much just wordplay. </p><p>Whatever the fuck this is. </p><p>This is the only thing I've found that I'm inclined to say appears to be at least well thought out & written, though persuasive is another matter entirely, & I have half a mind to say he's just tricking me into thinking that by namedropping philosophers because he knows goddamn well I'm not reading all of this shit. </p> </i></div>
<p>He wrote a very long essay called "Saving Scifi from Strong Female Characters" that seemed well-written enough, despite the clickbait title. The basic premise of the essay was that he believed that there are different kinds of strengths, masculine and feminine, and that female characters in the past were strong, just in a different way than male characters, and claims that the strong female characters of today are being given masculine strength and he believes this downgrades them because it undermines feminine strength and puts out the idea that to be considered strong, a woman must act masculine. He also admonishes the fact that said strong women of today are often sexualized despite being considered stronger than their past counterparts and that this degrades them too, as opposed to the old days when female characters were often chaste and were worshipped or put on a pedestal, as he claims. I personally found some merit in what he was saying, as i do believe there are different kinds of strength and that characters who are in stereotypically feminine roles can still be considered strong. However, what i don't agree with is that he classifies strengths by masculine and feminine, rather than just different kinds of strengths, like, why must this kind of strength or quality be seen as masculine or feminine as opposed to just, you know, a strength or quality? Nor do I think a woman being sexual degrades her or her character. I mean, it can if it overshadows the rest of the character but it's not necessarily degrading. </p><p>Then again, traditional people tend to care more about those things. The comments on the Korra article he wrote had a few people saying how they disliked Korra because she was too masculine and preferred the characters of ATLA because they were more feminine (though, they acknowledged the exception of Toph and Azula); one mentions how Katara is supposedly properly feminine because she's a healer and is the nurturing one of the team and that (paraphasing) her femininity is what allows her to break Aang out of the Avatar State when he goes out of control. Apparently, that person forgot Katara's healing was just a subset of her waterbending and that she's more often shown using her waterbending for combat than for healing. </p>