FANDOM


  • I get that it adds diversity to the Avatar universe, however, stating that Kiyoshi is bisexual and Aiwei is gay does not change the plot or help readers signifigantly view them differently.

      Loading editor
    • How does this thread help in any way?

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      How does this thread help in any way?

      It's a genuine non rehetorical question. Mabye someone has an answer

        Loading editor
    • It can be as genuine as you want, it still doesn't make sense. You're apparently assuming that everything exists to drive "the plot" or radically alter perspective on a character, but they don't. Knowing Ursa used to star in plays doesn't drive the plot, learning that Teo's chair isn't a part of his glider & he actually can't walk doesn't make him a different person, & that Toph apparently had a crush on Sokka doesn't lead to anything bigger because that isn't the reason why character details exist.

        Loading editor
    • Some people care about these details, some care about those details, so giving us details is a way to make different people happy. I don't know XD

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      It can be as genuine as you want, it still doesn't make sense. You're apparently assuming that everything exists to drive "the plot" or radically alter perspective on a character, but they don't. Knowing Ursa used to star in plays doesn't drive the plot, learning that Teo's chair isn't a part of his glider & he actually can't walk doesn't make him a different person, & that Toph apparently had a crush on Sokka doesn't lead to anything bigger because that isn't the reason why character details exist.

      But it still determines csertain lines and characteristics. I understand Korra and Asami, but revealing Izumi as LGBTQAI+ is not helping with anything, it is only an unneeded fact. It's like if the writers came out and said that Mako is naturally blonde and that his hair is in fact dyed. 

        Loading editor
    • But it still determines csertain lines and characteristics.

      Toph's crush on Sokka literally never comes up again.

      I understand Korra and Asami, but revealing Izumi as LGBTQAI+

      Back up for a second: The only shall we say "orientation revelations" that have appeared in official sources have been that Kya has had more than one girlfriend while Korra, Asami, & Kiyoshi are bisexual. Well, were, in the last case. A fan claimed that Bryan told him Aiwei is LGBT, but that has yet to appear anywhere, & I see no mention of Izumi anywhere. They are "unknowns," if you will.

      is not helping with anything, it is only an unneeded fact.

      In the completely arbitrary terms you have defined, I suppose, but since there's literally no rule that every character detail has to change the plot, why does that even matter?

      It's like if the writers came out and said that Mako is naturally blonde and that his hair is in fact dyed.

      And? Also, this already happened, just that it was Ginger instead of Mako.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe he meant Kyoshi rather than Izumi?

        Loading editor
    • While it doesn’t really add to the plot, it was probably added for representation in the LGBTQAI+ community.

        Loading editor
    • Drag0na v wrote:
      While it doesn’t really add to the plot, it was probably added for representation in the LGBTQAI+ community.

      LGBTQAI+? 

        Loading editor
    • Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer the A can stand for a lot of things depending on whom you ask Intersex +.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer the A can stand for a lot of things depending on whom you ask Intersex +.

      Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote: Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer the A can stand for a lot of things depending on whom you ask Intersex +.

      Not sure if trolling, but if not, is this the kind of ostrich horse**** the world has come to...? Just say 'homosexual', done.

      I am also inclined to agree with Kima that this detail adds nothing. While the analogue serves to develop Korra and Asami's personalities, this fact about Aiwei serves no purpose whatsoever, and does not enrich his character in any way (saying his favourite type of rock is feldspar - equally trivial - would be more interesting, since he's an earthbender), unless it is decided that he had a crush on Zaheer and therefore helped him, or something (note: that'd be a terrible narrative :P).

      Arguably it's not really appropriate to discuss or mention in a children's programme but then Korra is aimed at slightly older viewers so whatever, I don't really care myself.

        Loading editor
    • Or you could try not being a homophobe. Speaking of, only "gay & lesbian" are covered under the term "homosexual," the rest are not synonyms.

        Loading editor
    • Excuse me? That's an unfounded accusation and, more to the point, simply false. I take umbrage at such slander - and to be a homophobe, one would actually have to care whether their acquaintances are gay or not; I do not, it's private business.

      The rest are not synonyms, true, but they are nonsensical.

        Loading editor
    • When you start whinging about homosexuality being "inappropriate," you officially have no business whining about being called homophobic. Also, I don't care about your feelings.

      No they're not, you're just displaying your ignorance &/or bigotry.

        Loading editor
    • Clearly I'm ignorant by not acknowledging figments of loopy people's imaginations as dignifiable constructs, and obviously I'm a homophobic bigot in spite of having gay friends who are likewise annoyed by the attention said figments are receiving in public. Bravo, well done. -_-

        Loading editor
    • 1. Why not? You expect me to acknowledge your imaginary friends as a dignifiable defense.

      2. You're especially wrong in the case of interesex, since it describes a group of medically documented anatomical conditions, for example having XY chromosomes but androgen-insensitive cells that cause you to manifest as feminine, which by the way are also observed in nonhumans. To call that a "imaginary," you must either be ignorant of what it actually is, deliberately misrepresenting it out of bigotry, or a mix of both.

      3. The discussion policy explicitly notes that disagreement over what constitutes bigotry is not a legitimate excuse, but if you want to roll the dice on whether or not the mods consider calling transgenderism "nonsensical loopy imagination" to be a "gender-related slur," I don't mind.

        Loading editor
    • Fswe1 wrote:
      I'm a homophobic bigot in spite of having gay friends...
      I'​​​​​​​m sorry but if you have to pull the "I'm not X because I have X types of friends" that doesn't quell others assertions that the opinions and ideologies you have brought forth seem and do sound bigoted. If you're going to invalidate a bunch of other people's identities by saying "oh just call them all homosexuals and be done with it" (because really dude? How antiquated as hell is it to call someone homosexual? It sounds like such a Karen or Bethany thing to do). It just makes you look like one giant bigoted, pleb; not to mention the defensivness in which you immediatly try to pull the "I can't be a bigot because I have gay friend's" card. News flash, but some people very well can be dicks just because they have a "diverse" group of friends.
        Loading editor
    • I can't be an asshole because I have nice friends.

        Loading editor
    • Kyoshi being Bisexual goes to show that lgbt+ people have existed, and been somewhat known about, for a very long time in the avatar world. It also shows how ingrained the bigotry against them was when Kyoshi wasn't able to do anything about it. How much of an impact kya's history lesson scene has on turf wars as a whole won't exactly be seen yet since part 3 isn't out yet, but at the very least one can argue it adds to the world to see how the different nations viewed the topic. Aiewei being lgbt+ I don't think was meant to add much to the story, since it wasn't even in a story, they were just asked a question and told someone (maybe they threw him in because they knew they wouldn't have to address him again, maybe they realized they had several queer characters but none were male). That being said one could argue that if his sexuality and the discrimination against it were a factor in joining the red lotus (which obviously is speculation) it does add something to his character and perphaps the movement as a whole. Showing how if a government historically oppresses or fails to protect a group, they can grow resentment against it... or something. 

        Loading editor
    • I doubt the history lesson is going to affect the plot much. Seems like more of a worldbuilding thing.

        Loading editor
    • I'm going to say this once instead of repeating myself on various different threats:

      Wherther saying a characters sexualioty is helpful or not, it doesn't diminish the fact that Legend of Korra is one of the first animated TV shows to ever cross that boundary, apart from many other such as making Korra the first female protagonist, who is also a muscular woman of color. Does making her bisexual change anything of the plot of the show? Uuuuh, not directly. Do I care of the presence of LGTB+ characters in the Avatar universe? Yes and no; yes because it show the diversity and all the posibilities the world can even archive and makes it a more believable world; no because, it doesn't change much anything.

      Do I complain of the presence of LGTB+ characters and I think kids shouldn't be exposed to this in an educational way? First of all, if you agree to this, f*** you; and in my personal opinion, I like it, I have no complains.

      So to the question of "How does Bryke revealing a characters sexuality help in any way?", my answers are the following:

      1. Worldbuilding, making the universe and setting more believable and comparable to out real world in social aspects.
      2. Educational approach to children to show how love can work between two persons of the same sex in the same way it can work between straight couples.
      3. Making Korrasami canon (well, not the most important reason but it's true).

      Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

        Loading editor
    • i doubt this is what bryke intended to do cause Irene Koh may be responsible for state in which the franchise is in. it's kinda cool but bold thing to do. For me the tlok franchise isn't doing the fans any favors. bryke or darkhorse continues to let Irene Koh sugar coat TLOK with romance stuff instead of adventures and exploring the world. nope just more tlok comics about korra and asami that doesn't relate to the ATLA at all.

        Loading editor
    • Do me a favor, tell me who is listed as the writer.

        Loading editor
    • NorthernLight343 wrote:
      i doubt this is what bryke intended to do cause Irene Koh may be responsible for state in which the franchise is in. it's kinda cool but bold thing to do. For me the tlok franchise isn't doing the fans any favors. bryke or darkhorse continues to let Irene Koh sugar coat TLOK with romance stuff instead of adventures and exploring the world. nope just more tlok comics about korra and asami that doesn't relate to the ATLA at all.

      Do....do you know how comics work buddy? The artist(s) don't have much say in the outlining of the comic, the idea behind it, the written outline. It's all on the writer who for the TLOK comics is Michael Dante DiMartino, which *le gasp* is actually one of the writers and creator for both TLOK and ATLA. Wow, it's almost like the creators have a hand in seeing their vision for the series being put into a comic form.

        Loading editor
    • Sheka4 wrote:

      NorthernLight343 wrote:
      i doubt this is what bryke intended to do cause Irene Koh may be responsible for state in which the franchise is in. it's kinda cool but bold thing to do. For me the tlok franchise isn't doing the fans any favors. bryke or darkhorse continues to let Irene Koh sugar coat TLOK with romance stuff instead of adventures and exploring the world. nope just more tlok comics about korra and asami that doesn't relate to the ATLA at all.

      Do....do you know how comics work buddy? The artist(s) don't have much say in the outlining of the comic, the idea behind it, the written outline. It's all on the writer who for the TLOK comics is Michael Dante DiMartino, which *le gasp* is actually one of the writers and creator for both TLOK and ATLA. Wow, it's almost like the creators have a hand in seeing their vision for the series being put into a comic form.

      ^This. Not to mention that Koh came in late to the project after the original artist bowed out, didn't want there to be any Gayngst in the comic (ala "Sailor Moon"), but was semi-persuaded otherwise and the closest thing to control over the story (besides working within DiMartino's directions) was shooting down a "problematic" character design though didn't clarify on what it was.

        Loading editor
    • look guys i'm not hating on irene koh or korrasami. i love it! and i hate it! MORE POWER TO YOU!!!! but it's what it brought to the table is what i'm talking about. i want to know this world! why spent money that's wasted on stupid shit! bryke & all you lgbt fans can have your gay fictional couple but I want more Adventures and open world Explorations. at the end of the day that's what the show strong virtues was. In my mind the avatar franchise was the same shit like the elder scrolls franchise. althought they both are in different category and genre BUT they both are the same in telling a story from a 3rd person perspective. I love stories! everyone loves stories! BUT COME ON BRYKE! it seems like you both are giving up in which i don't give a shit since avatar in the show itself doesn't belong to you. it never did since the beginning of ATLA episode 1. NICK please just hire new writers already! SHIT!!!!! it easy!!!!

        Loading editor
    • NorthernLight343 wrote:
      look guys i'm not hating on irene koh or korrasami. i love it! and i hate it! MORE POWER TO YOU!!!! but it's what it brought to the table is what i'm talking about. i want to know this world! why spent money that's wasted on stupid shit! bryke & all you lgbt fans can have your gay fictional couple but I want more Adventures and open world Explorations. at the end of the day that's what the show strong virtues was. In my mind the avatar franchise was the same shit like the elder scrolls franchise. althought they both are in different category and genre BUT they both are the same in telling a story from a 3rd person perspective. I love stories! everyone loves stories! BUT COME ON BRYKE! it seems like you both are giving up in which i don't give a shit since avatar in the show itself doesn't belong to you. it never did since the beginning of ATLA episode 1. NICK please just hire new writers already! SHIT!!!!! it easy!!!!

      Time to be blunt here, but do you even read the damn comic? There's adventure, there's tension, there's angst, and love broiled into the comic. You're not pissed that the comic doesn't "do worldbuilding and focuses on the adventure of characters" if you were, you wouldn't be complaining because all of those things are featured in both the ATLA and TLOK comics and is the very basic forumla that all comics or creative endeavors start off with. Secondly, how dare you say "all you lgbt+ fans can have your gay fictional couple" it's a canon couple, even if you're homophobic or a damn Satanist, you respect the couple, you respect the work DiMartino, Bryke, the rest of the crew, and even the artists have shed their blood, sweat, tears, and sleep for.

      Also, I'm laughing, you can't compare the Elder Scrolls to ALTA or TLOK, the Elder Scrolls had a lot going for it. It was/is a series that focuses on the different race relationships in the series (especially Skyrim with the whole Stormcloaks vs Imperials, the murder of the High King, Elfric Stormcloak, the worship of Tamriel, etc.). The only commonality that these two series share is their worldbuilding, the amount of labor and love that goes into it. Which again, I've pointed out is the most basic building block for creative series. "They both are the same from telling the story in a third person perspective"..............Jesus, I can't believe I actually have to put my English degree to use and explain the difference between first person, second person, and thirdc person POV.

      Ok, ATLA and TLOK are stories told from third person omniscent. Why? Because the viewers are gaining information about the series, including all the character's thoughts and feelings. So that means the viewers are privy to information that other character's in the series doesn't know. Like if the viewers find out Korra's favorite treat is Sweaweed noodles, but character's like Tenzin doesn't know this. The Elder Scrolls is second person perspective. Why? Because, the main character of the game, which is a creation of the player is constantly referred to as "you" (ex. "You over there, the Jarl wishes to see you). Also the player makes direct choices in the game that influence their surrounding, we can murder villagers, steal their belongings, get tossed in jail, married, build houses, have kids. We influence aspects or even the overall plot of the game.

      Also, please be quiet. You don't get to dictate that the series doesn't seem to belong to Bryke or DiMartino anymore. They hold intellectual property over the series and the comics, you don't get to say "you guys don't seem invested in your show or anything related to it anymore because Nick owns it." Like, on behalf of creative people everywhere who produce stories or art or whatever, a big middle finger to you my dude. Also really? "Nick, hire new writers it's easy!" My dude, if I sat you down in front of a blank word document and told you to come up with a better version of the TLOK comic, I bet my entire soul that whatever you came up with would be a pile of degrading garbage compared to anything I or Bryke could push out. Writing may look easy, but it takes a lot to create a story that people find interesting, people are invested in, doesn't have mistakes or plot holes or isn't a rancid pile of garbage. You can't spout shit when you don't have the spine or skills to back it up with.

      At the end of the day your beef isn't with the direction of the comic, you're simply pissed that Bryke is taking the time to explore a relationship that the stuido shot down on him putting into the series. So the only way he's able to flesh out the Korrassami relationship is in the comic. Your beef isn't with anything Bryke is doing in terms of action and adventure, no your beef is the fact that "how dare Bryke shove two women smooching in front of my face! Even though I probably find Lesbian videos super steamy and hot." No, your problem is when the story becomes something that you can't find gratification in based upon your fetishizing interests. That's what the problem is. *Mic drop*.

        Loading editor
    • So far, it sounds to me less like he hates Korrasami & more like he just wants an open world story, which Legend of Korra largely isn't. But you have to go where the plot takes you, & the conflict is in Republic City right now because that's the place that just got trashed & had a huge wormhole ripped into it. I get wanting something that the story's not delivering on, but there's really no point in getting mad about it.

      It's not like the rest of the world is being neglected for nothing, other parts of the plot are the focus right now. I don't even mean the relationship, I mean the triads, the Spirit World, & the general aftermath of Kuvira's invasion. Sometimes you just have to make choices, there's no way to please everyone every time. And, to be fair, this *is* coming after a lot of Earth Kingdom exploration that was done in Books 3 & 4.

      As far as who owns the story goes, well you're right that technically it's Nickelodeon. But even putting aside my philosophical objections to the way the copyright system strips autonomy from the people who actually create the entertainment, it's still not as simple as "just hire other writers." A, Nickelodeon doesn't care, & B, even if they did, people tend not to like it when you phase out the creators & do something that uses the same characters but isn't faithful to their vision. Just look at something like The Goliath Chronicles or even the franchise's very own live action adaptation for good examples of that.

        Loading editor
    • Sheka4 wrote:

      Time to be blunt here, but do you even read the damn comic? There's adventure, there's tension, there's angst, and love broiled into the comic. You're not pissed that the comic doesn't "do worldbuilding and focuses on the adventure of characters" if you were, you wouldn't be complaining because all of those things are featured in both the ATLA and TLOK comics and is the very basic forumla that all comics or creative endeavors start off with. Secondly, how dare you say "all you lgbt+ fans can have your gay fictional couple" it's a canon couple, even if you're homophobic or a damn Satanist, you respect the couple, you respect the work DiMartino, Bryke, the rest of the crew, and even the artists have shed their blood, sweat, tears, and sleep for.

      Also, I'm laughing, you can't compare the Elder Scrolls to ALTA or TLOK, the Elder Scrolls had a lot going for it. It was/is a series that focuses on the different race relationships in the series (especially Skyrim with the whole Stormcloaks vs Imperials, the murder of the High King, Elfric Stormcloak, the worship of Tamriel, etc.). The only commonality that these two series share is their worldbuilding, the amount of labor and love that goes into it. Which again, I've pointed out is the most basic building block for creative series. "They both are the same from telling the story in a third person perspective"..............Jesus, I can't believe I actually have to put my English degree to use and explain the difference between first person, second person, and third person POV.

      Also, please be quiet. You don't get to dictate that the series doesn't seem to belong to Bryke or DiMartino anymore. They hold intellectual property over the series and the comics, you don't get to say "you guys don't seem invested in your show or anything related to it anymore because Nick owns it." Like, on behalf of creative people everywhere who produce stories or art or whatever, a big middle finger to you my dude. Also really? "Nick, hire new writers it's easy!" My dude, if I sat you down in front of a blank word document and told you to come up with a better version of the TLOK comic, I bet my entire soul that whatever you came up with would be a pile of degrading garbage compared to anything I or Bryke could push out. Writing may look easy, but it takes a lot to create a story that people find interesting, people are invested in, doesn't have mistakes or plot holes or isn't a rancid pile of garbage. You can't spout shit when you don't have the spine or skills to back it up with.

      At the end of the day your beef isn't with the direction of the comic, you're simply pissed that Bryke is taking the time to explore a relationship that the stuido shot down on him putting into the series. So the only way he's able to flesh out the Korrassami relationship is in the comic. Your beef isn't with anything Bryke is doing in terms of action and adventure, no your beef is the fact that "how dare Bryke shove two women smooching in front of my face! Even though I probably find Lesbian videos super steamy and hot." No, your problem is when the story becomes something that you can't find gratification in based upon your fetishizing interests. That's what the problem is. *Mic drop*.

      (Forgive me if I double-post or something because I'm still getting the hang of the way this format works and I want to reply to 2 posts at the same time)

      Answering Northern Lights' question before him: No, he didn't read and barely seems literate in general as it is given his previous posts where he's playing the DudeBro (like Greg Cipes's evil twin) so hard that I sooner believe he's 12 or something (ex. claiming 25's "old") pretending to be an adult and just being an immature troll instead.

      Still I applaud you for that well-detailed clinic you put on him.

      Neo Bahamut wrote: So far, it sounds to me less like he hates Korrasami & more like he just wants an open world story, which Legend of Korra largely isn't.

      Oh no he does hate Korrasami (and has been trolling in his few posts here) considering he also made a thread about Korra "getting a new boyfriend" and claiming the shotgun blast of Sue traits he calls a "potential" character (right down to characters behaving OOC in further Sue-ish fashion) and the talk of Elder Scrolls/open-world is just something he threw out there like a smokescreen, so you're giving him too much credit when all of the things he claimed weren't there are not only there, but could be read on this wikia, alone to prove it.

      Hell, the OP's "Just Asking Questions" question is answered by about the middle of Part 1 in WORLDBUILDING as we learn (a bit) about each culture's historical view on queerness and that certainly adds food for thought on things such as "Did Aiwei being gay(?) and persecuted in the EK push him to Zaofu? Was Su all talk about opposing the EK's bigotry that motivated him to join the Red Lotus or was he already a member for that reason and felt Su wouldn't join so 'screw her'? Was he and the acupuncturist dating? Did he have unrequited feelings for Hong Li and framed him because of that?" Are there similar terms like "Kyoshian" for "lesbian" and "Oma Boys" for "gay men"? or is Korra going to fight homophobia after Republic City's stabilized as her new Avatar Duty to succeed where Kyoshi failed and if so, how will she do it?

      That whole concept, alone would involve plenty of globe-traveling, combat, history, new characters and everything else he claimed "weren't there like Elder Scrolls" and like Korrasami, itself would epitomize EVERYTHING the franchise has ever stood for, so it's a steaming load to claim it "superfluous," "pandering" or whatever crap trolls waste time claiming. I just hope DiMartino will do his effing homework and/or get an actual queer writer to do it properly next time.

        Loading editor
    • Oh no he does hate Korrasami (and has been trolling in his few posts here) considering he also made a thread about Korra "getting a new boyfriend"

      One doesn't necessarily mean the other. One of the fanfictions I read has Korra & Bolin as an item & Asami as a villain, & I don't hate Korrasami. I just like that story as a What If Scenario. Which, just for the record, was based on the original idea that Asami was an Equalist spy before Korrasami was even a thing.

      and claiming the shotgun blast of Sue traits he calls a "potential" character (right down to characters behaving OOC in further Sue-ish fashion)

      Yes, that topic is rather silly, but that still doesn't necessarily mean he hates Korrasami.

      and the talk of Elder Scrolls/open-world is just something he threw out there like a smokescreen, so you're giving him too much credit when all of the things he claimed weren't there are not only there, but could be read on this wikia, alone to prove it.

      Kind of an odd smokescreen, given that it has at least as much focus as the Korrasami thing, & he doesn't appear to be saying the new writers should get rid of Korrasami.

      The thing is that none of the examples you gave are proof. They are indirect evidence at best. I'd rather not help along the argument that "Korrasami supporters call everyone homophobes."

      Hell, the OP's "Just Asking Questions" question is answered by about the middle of Part 1 in WORLDBUILDING

      Okay, but the OP is a different person, & seems to accept the answers he got.

      as we learn (a bit) about each culture's historical view on queerness and that certainly adds food for thought on things [about Aiwei]

      I guess, but the "Aiwei is gay" thing comes from a largely anonymous source, & even assuming they're correct, it's not necessarily connected to his motive at all. He could be the Celibate Monk Type, for all we know. Which is nothing, we know basically nothing about Aiwei.

      Are there similar terms like "Kyoshian" for "lesbian"

      I am tempted to steal this...Oma Boys?

      or is Korra going to fight homophobia after Republic City's stabilized as her new Avatar Duty to succeed where Kyoshi failed and if so, how will she do it?

      Doubt it, for a few reasons.

      That whole concept, alone would involve plenty of globe-traveling, combat, history, new characters and everything else he claimed "weren't there like Elder Scrolls" and like Korrasami, itself would epitomize EVERYTHING the franchise has ever stood for,

      I guess, but you can't really punch out systemic homophobia, so it'd also turn the story into a lot of picketing & marching.

      so it's a steaming load to claim it "superfluous," "pandering" or whatever crap trolls waste time claiming.

      Mind you that none of those things were said by either of the people you mentioned.

      I just hope DiMartino will do his effing homework and/or get an actual queer writer to do it properly next time.

      Personally, I don't really have an issue with the plot. We already know the argument with Korra's parents is going to be revisited in the 3rd installment, so fine, what does it matter whether they're going to deal with it in book 1 or book 3, as long as they deal with it? Sozin being against gay people comes across a bit like Cheap Heat, but it's also not implausible, there are a multitude of factors which influence homophobia, some of which are exemplified by Sozin's reign. And I still don't buy the "Korra was regressed" argument.

      And I'd really not like the story to go into full on allegory territory, partly for the reason I've already mentioned, but also because it contributes to the implication that entrenched homophobia is somehow the natural state of things & it would be unbelievable if there were little to no problems with it even in a fictional world, as well as the fact that the story's success has always been in dealing with a lot of different issues.

        Loading editor
    • How can being homophobic help in any way?

        Loading editor
    • Aiwai was indeed confirmed to be LGBTQIA+ in the same source that said Kya was also such.

        Loading editor
    • IAmNothing712 wrote: Aiwai was indeed confirmed to be LGBTQIA+ in the same source that said Kya was also such.

      I csaid that Kya & Kyoshi would be likely candidates a few times before Turf Wars came out, does that make me a "source" that "confirmed" it? Does it mean that I'm automatically right about anyone else I might have suggested?

        Loading editor
    • The fact is sexuality doesn't do anything besides create ridiculous convos like this. I mean what the hell is a LGBTQIA+ lmao. Proves the difference between a well-written bi character and ones that are written terribly. Series like the magicians and even Luke Cage has done it so much better. Fluid reveals without cringe expositions about sexuality. This just creates whiny groups arguing all day. 

        Loading editor
    • Then get the fuck out of the threads if you don't want to have the conversation. Honestly, if I had things my way, there'd be a wikiwide ban on starting "why Korrasami sucks" type threads. That'd stop all the arguments over night, because the truth is, the rest of us have no interest in coming to you.

      Also, if you don't understand something, you could try Google, or just scrolling up to where I explained it. Acting like something is proven wrong by the fact that you don't know what it is is the most "fool's idea of a smart person" shit ever.

        Loading editor
    • I can post anywhere I want loser. You are a petulant child who can't handle a conversation of opposing ideas. The fact remains everyone doesn't like the couple. They also feel it ruins the show. In that same token, there is clearly a crowd of just says shitty brats like yourself defending it. It was the ending of the show and a heavy influence in the subsequent comics. Only an emotionally inept would expect there would be an opposing continuous dialogue on the topic.

        Loading editor
    • No, you're trolling. You went into a topic, said obnoxious shit about how nobody should be talking about it, & then when called on your hypocrisy, suddenly you want to whine about your "right to post anywhere" while making a bunch of insults.

      This "opposing ideas" thing is just a paper thin excuse to throw your own shit around & act like a victim when someone tosses it back. No, we don't have to put up with your shit, & I'm not going to.

        Loading editor
    • No, I answered what the thread asked for. The point remains poorly written sexuality clearly brings out more cons than pros. A quality written character just flows with the story. There shouldn't be a constant heated discussion to explain a pairing. That means the writers did a terrible job. Contrary to what the crybaby defenders of this pairing think a good portion gives zero fucks about the sexuality of the character. Tons of fictional characters who display fluid sexuality males at that have been praised without the nonsense this series brings,

      You don't have to put up with shit you can ignore my post. Other than that you have no control of whether or not I continue to post or not. Live with it kid people don't like the same shit you do. Those are facts of life. I feel sad for you with the tendencies you display on a cartoon forum.

        Loading editor
    • Trying to use the presence of an argument to prove your side in that argument (which, in this case, also STARTED the argument) is circular reasoning, which is the kind of shit I'm talking about when I say the reasoning you guys seem to think is so brilliant is actually "lame." You are the proverbial pigeon who knocks over the chess pieces & claims he won. Only in your imagination does it actually work that way. Other than that, your only recourse appears to be insults.

      And it's true that I don't directly control whether or not you post, but you can bet your ass I'm pursuing the rules you're breaking, because the notion that I have to respect your opinion while you keep calling both everyone who disagrees with you & me specifically names like "crybaby" is ridiculous, & Wikia gives no other tools to handle the problem.

      You can pretend this is about "opposing ideas" or "liking different things," but those guilt trips are about as harmful to me as farts in the wind. I'm no stranger to people pulling that card as a means of saying, "I can say whatever I want, but if you criticize me back or try to hold me accountable, you're the bad person," as you are doing right now.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Trying to use the presence of an argument to prove your side in that argument (which, in this case, also STARTED the argument) is circular reasoning, which is the kind of shit I'm talking about when I say the reasoning you guys seem to think is so brilliant is actually "lame." You are the proverbial pigeon who knocks over the chess pieces & claims he won. Only in your imagination does it actually work that way. Other than that, your only recourse appears to be insults.

      And it's true that I don't directly control whether or not you post, but you can bet your ass I'm pursuing the rules you're breaking, because the notion that I have to respect your opinion while you keep calling both everyone who disagrees with you & me specifically names like "crybaby" is ridiculous, & Wikia gives no other tools to handle the problem.

      You can pretend this is about "opposing ideas" or "liking different things," but those guilt trips are about as harmful to me as farts in the wind. I'm no stranger to people pulling that card as a means of saying, "I can say whatever I want, but if you criticize me back or try to hold me accountable, you're the bad person," as you are doing right now.

      You have yet to actually address anything but circumvent the discussion to create some perceive breaking of the rules. Only because my views are not to your taste. That is a form of trolling you small little child.  Talking about someone ignoring the chessboard. You are a straight hypocrite of the highest level. You are defending something the writers themselves have admitted to being "minimally" written because of network restraints and basically thrown in to appease that crowd. If you have to explain your writing to your audience then you clearly fail as a writer. This isn't even an argument it's a fact. 

      The second portion is you trying to play victim while being an offensive troll. Displaying your hypocrisy once again. I called anyone who gets offended over any criticism of this pairing crybabies specifically because of individuals like yourself. You lash out and call anyone is disagreement homophobic and put elementary defenses for such poor writing.

      This isn't a guilt trip it a point blank breakdown of your terrible character traits. You are the biggest troll on this site. From just a few threads I have seen. You are confrontational and hardly ever actually participate in the actual conversation. You just spend your time attacking any idea you don't like. You are a lame troll who doesn't even recognize you are one.

        Loading editor
    • NOU me all you want.

        Loading editor
    • Really I can't see you have a flourishing social life with your attitude 

        Loading editor
    • Ironbender wrote:
      Really I can't see you have a flourishing social life with your attitude 

      Look who's talking.

        Loading editor
    • I barely posted on this site lol. The only reason I feel the need to even post this much on this site is because of the loser above attitude. Started to see he is not the only one of his kind on here.

        Loading editor
    • Ironbender wrote:
      I barely posted on this site lol. The only reason I feel the need to even post this much on this site is because of the loser above attitude. Started to see he is not the only one of his kind on here.

      Fine, I said all I needed to say, and by the way, Neo was right on his last post: "Trying to use the presence of an argument to prove your side in that argument is circular reasoning". This is my last response since we're not talking anymore about the titular topic of this thread, in which I already stated my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • I think it just adds to their personality and ideals more, I feel mentioning Kya is LGBTQ gives her character more depth and mentioning Kyoshi as Bisexual means that their was an avatar who was LGBTQ, etc. I stay out of the LGBTQ community because I'm straight and christian, but I would never insult one ever, and LGBTQ is just icky for me.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, that's kind of an insult, but at least you're trying.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      I mean, that's kind of an insult, but at least you're trying.

      Thanks, I can understand how that is insulting.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah...being Christian isn't a justification (some Christians are queer, and all too often end up having crises of faith over churches or family members who are shitty about it; but I digress).  And being straight is even less of one. 

      Mind you, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; by my observations, you don't seem to use your bias and/or discomfort as an excuse either to play toxic critic, or to start frantically "martyrbating" when contradicted.  But even so.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Yeah...being Christian isn't a justification (some Christians are queer, and all too often end up having crises of faith over churches or family members who are shitty about it; but I digress).  And being straight is even less of one. 

      Mind you, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; by my observations, you don't seem to use your bias and/or discomfort as an excuse either to play toxic critic, or to start frantically "martyrbating" when contradicted.  But even so.

      I'm not using my Christionailty as an excuse or justification, I'm just saying Christains believe a certain thing and LGBTQ is not one of them. You're right about straight tho, it isn't a justification. I don't use my bias/discomfort to be a rude dickhole to anyone. Just because you aren't straight it doesn't mean you're a jerk or  a bad person

        Loading editor
    • Blur123 wrote:

      <div class=I'm just saying Christains believe a certain thing and LGBTQ is not one of them. You're right about straight tho, it isn't a justification.

      Dude, there's sooooo many denominations/interpretations of any given belief system that you can find the most devout people being pro/anti anything.

      Ex. Turkish coffee. So strong it's been seen as a substitute for alcohol, was declared an intoxicant, thus haram/"a no-no" until an Islamic scholar argued it being a stimulant meant it'd be good for focusing on being holy and the like.

      @Neo:

      Ok, I admit I gleaned through some things in my last post, but here's some followups:

      • I'm not saying Aiwei necessarily is gay/any other orientation, but it's food for thought of whether his sexuality had anything to do with his motivation(s) to join the Red Lotus or whatever, especially we only know about Zaheer, P'Li and Unalaq's motivations for joining.
      • I'm not saying Korra would only/primarily punch out homophobes, but I could see her defending a pride march and maybe coming to blows with a bigot, especially if he's a deep closet case (gay!Amon basically) or has a queer son or something. Besides the marching, a lot of research/fact-finding could be done within the story to discover more than Cheap Heat reasons for certain beliefs considering the Fire Nation already had rewrite history on a number of occasions.
      • My problem(s) of why the thing with Korra's parents happening in 3 instead of 1 is Doylism, (no good internal reason for Korra not to just turn around) and again, DiMartino wants to have Gayngst yet not risk good characters looking bad, so Korra and Asami storm out their house and promise to be there for each other like the parents have kicked her out when that's CLEARLY not the case, so it's a Conflict Ball.
      • I'm not saying it's implausible for Sozin's cheap heat, (again, this is a guy that has always done it all for the Evulz like dragon-slaying and making Agni Kais dangerous,) but there's yet to be specifics beyond "because I'm an evil prick" same way Ozai was one-dimensionally evil and looked cartoonish compared to Korra's villains.
      • Korra's supposed to have matured by Book 4 to not be so impulsive and not lose her cool yet the outbursts at her parents and snapping at Asami over "practical," plus the "I didn't think this through" after her speech feel more impulsive and short-sighted like Book 1-2!Korra and again for the sake of Doylism on DiMartino's part, so I'm sticking by that one. Her outrage at Jargala and Tokuga are understandable though in kidnapping/threatening her girlfriend though Asami getting damseled twice already gives me mixed feelings between "Asami's getting chickified again like Book 2" and "Well she's a non-bender so it's more plausible."
      • I get what you mean about entrenched homophobia, but at the same time, Bryke want to dip their collective toe in there, so they might as well do it more thoroughly/plausibly given this world already does have it's own takes on the various isms even if they're not 1:1 with the real world. It's just eye-rolling/backwards to me that they Black-and-Whited it instead of ideas like Earth Kingdom once having a Spartan/Wakashudo-type system, so that the peasants became homophobic because they view homosexuality as not effeminate, but elitist and power-hungry while the Fire Nation (or at least a part of it) view same-sex relations as more sophisticated/intimate to the point that some lesbians (I wanna call 'em "Emberettes" or something) not only fully accept Korrasami, but think them dating Mako was like an inverted "Gay Until Graduation" thing. Book 1 really didn't go as thoroughly as it did with the bender/non-bender thing IMHO. I mean I even wrote a thing like a year or two ago where I wrote all the reasons why homophobia wouldn't/shouldn't be a thing and that Korra and Asami would be normalized, but Bryke was like, "Noooo, we want to relate to our LGBT audience, so homophobia exists," but decided to be slap-dash in basing the views on elemental mentalities regardless of past canon so here we are.
        Loading editor
    • Dude, there's sooooo many denominations/interpretations of any given belief system that you can find the most devout people being pro/anti anything.

      Yes, it's true that Christians as a demographic are on average less likely to be supportive of homosexuality, but there are still plenty who are, or are even "practicing homosexuals" themseleves, to borrow a phrase I don't particularly like. I don't really see that as any less compatible than eating shellfish, not stoning adulterers, or any of the other ways modern Christians don't listen to the Old Testament.

      I'm not saying Aiwei necessarily is gay/any other orientation, but it's food for thought of whether his sexuality had anything to do with his motivation(s) to join the Red Lotus or whatever, especially we only know about Zaheer, P'Li and Unalaq's motivations for joining.

      I guess.

      I'm not saying Korra would only/primarily punch out homophobes, but I could see her defending a pride march and maybe coming to blows with a bigot, especially if he's a deep closet case (gay!Amon basically) or has a queer son or something.

      Eh, I dunno. Maybe it would make sense to have her appear at a march & give a speech or something if it fits into the plot somewhere, but Korra vs. the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. Even though it would be funny briefly.

      My problem(s) of why the thing with Korra's parents happening in 3 instead of 1 is Doylism, (no good internal reason for Korra not to just turn around)

      I wouldn't. I'm already a ways away from the house & shit is awkward right now, sounds like the perfect time to avoid the problem & put it off until later.

      Korra's supposed to have matured by Book 4 to not be so impulsive and not lose her cool

      Not really, she's always going to have a certain degree of impulsivity & trigger temper, that's just part of her nature. She just becomes better at handling problems in a larger variety of ways. It makes a lot of sense that she would have a strong reaction toward something that's a sensitive issue to her. Think of it like how Aang broadens his views on how to fight, but there are still things he refuses to do, because that's just his personality & values.

      I get what you mean about entrenched homophobia, but at the same time, Bryke want to dip their collective toe in there, so they might as well do it more thoroughly/plausibly given this world already does have it's own takes on the various isms even if they're not 1:1 with the real world.

      I think it's fine as historical context, & also this is a level of complexity that wouldn't really be practical considering the nature of the plot, or the way we were introduced to this information.

      Other than that, it's not so much that I don't see your complaints, it's that they seem to me like very minor things. Sort of like how Combustion Man didn't have any lines in Book 3: Fire. It's true that we don't know a lot about him, but it didn't really hurt anything, so why hold it against the story? At least, that's how I view it.

        Loading editor
    • Do we really know about Zaheer's or Unalaq's actual motivations for joining the Red Lotus?  Because the only backstory detail I remember from Zaheer was about him getting Ideas™ as a new initiate into the society (meaning after he joined).

      Now, P'Li is another matter.  Even so: that detail was apparently just revealed in order to give an otherwise inchoate character some last-minute antivillain cred.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe a little off topic, but what do you think about  "Imbalance Part 1" in the categories "LGBT" on Amazon ?
      How do you think, it's Amazon  mistake , or they know in advance about the content in future product ?

        Loading editor
    • Combustion Man's not really a good example because he's clearly a merc obviously doing it first for money and then for pride, so there's nowhere near as much food-for-thought on his backstory/mindset. The Red Lotus on the other hand are ideologically/fanatically motivated to do what they do (ex. Zaheer takes no credit for killing the Earth Queen) ala Islamic terrorists rather than hired guns or bank robbers, so just like questions about their numbers, influence, bending techniques etc., it's a perfectly understandable question about what motivates each of them especially when their initial plan was releasing the God of Evil for the sake of "balance" and they each kept mum for all the time they were locked up despite being interrogated. I'm not saying we need whole episodes or something dedicated to each's beliefs, but even a one-off line like P'Li being a former weapon to a warlord gives some context about their hatred for the system(s) in place, plus fleshes them out.

      • All we ever knew of Aiwei was that he was a middle-aged man that had been a mole for the RL so long and so deeply undercover that he was "like family" to Su and living a cushy life as her second-in-command and the lynchpin to their security yet he still believed in their cause, but at the same time, was expendable considering he experienced a far worse death than the EQ considering that while his body will eventually die (pity the hotel staff that finds that!) his soul's gonna be no different than Zhao('s). Besides the bigotry, the Earth Kingdom's also known for being secretive, here's a Living Lie Detector, plus he's a fugitive from there, (unless his fugitive status was due to betraying Zaofu though it still could be both considering how Su likes "strays,") but we don't know jack as far as details. It wouldn't just flesh out his brief character, it'd be world-building whether or not, (but especially "whether") this was tied to their bigotry.
      • Ghazan, an earthbender not only (ostensibly) kept his head out on an artificial island out in the middle of nowhere, but the dude was working out like Iroh without a similar escape plan yet at the same time, snapped at the thought of returning to prison to the point of suicide/kamikaze. Was his presuming Ming-Hua to be dead what set him off? Did the presumed sister Bolin guessed play a role in his joining the RL like Grisha's in "Attack on Titan" and/or did he do time in an Earth Kingdom prison before joining the RL that fostered his hatred of the system?
      • And lastly, Ming-Hua, who we know's crazy, but was she a true believer in the cause, a Psycho-For-Hire that went along for the fun of it or some degree of both?

      I'm reminded of the BET Black Panther cartoon from a while back where the villain group are not only multi-national (and represent different colonial powers in Africa,) but also have different motives for why they're there. Black Knight genuinely (and ridiculously) believes he's on a holy mission and that Wakanda is full of "savages," Klaw wants the vibranium, Radioactive Man is part-prisoner/part psycho-for-hire, Batroc is also a mercenary though an honorable one that has no illusions about why he's there and Juggernaut's another psycho that just wants to run wild and maybe get paid, too.

      Back to Korra's tiff with her parents, Except Asami's already calmed her down and they don't give any implication that Korra's going to go back and resolve that issue especially during the talk with Kya and it's completely not talked about in Part 2, so again, it's purely because of Doylism that we know when that issue will be resolved and again, only because of DiMartino's writing habits. Specifically, I'm reminded of the mess in Book 1 where Bryke not only forgot to make at least Mako feel guilty around Asami for cheating on her (even during their hug later in the same ep,) and then when she finally calls him out on it, it's dragged out further purely for drama's sake rather than any internal reason, especially one that would make him sympathetic and making Mako Unintentionally Unsympathetic at the same time since he both knows he's pissed at her yet doesn't seem conflicted about it (with Book 2-3 fixing that).

      And again, I know what you're saying about Korra's character and I stated that I excused some outbursts, but Book 3 and eventually/especially 4 was supposed to be the turning point in Korra's maturity in that she wouldn't be having these childish tantrums (i.e. her outburst at Katara's played dramatically at her frustration) to the extent detractors (ex. Foxie) claiming she'd been "tamed," so it feels part-pleasing those fans who want the "old boisterous, short-fuse" Korra back and part-making a simpler story considering Tokuga's so far been as straight-evil as Ozai rather than Amon.

      What I'm saying in general is just like how "The Headband" showed otherwise good, decent kids being indoctrinated by revisionist history (i.e. "Airbender Army") or even the Rashomon thing between the clans in "The Great Divide" (I know, I know,) it wouldn't be a stretch for Korra and co. to do a history trip to counter a present-day bigot claiming history being on their side w/o deliberately hiding the truth or a conspiracy to hide pro-queer history because it's profitable, so we'd find out Oma and Shu were actually same-sex, a General's failure in combat was spun/blamed on him being gay, Kyoshi having a girlfriend in a similar dynamic as Korra and Asami, research on other past Avatars being queer in some form or another OR The Avatar being potentially bi/pan by default due to being attracted to whoever has the most balanced/harmonious dynamic with them, etc.

      Overall, I'm scrutinizing as much as I am because this franchise was/has been so enlightening and influential to me as a writer that praises/defends some things (deconstructions, themes, heterosexism, how the franchise was essentially pre-Tumblr in inclusion yet trolls didn't care until Korrasami,) while criticizing others (Bryke's writing habits in a nutshell), plus I HATE wasted potential in storytelling/characterization, which is why I've praised/defended them for going as hard as they did in some areas (Korrasami, Korra's PTSD, Well-Intentioned Extremist villains,) but banged my head at others (focusing on Mako when Asami made more narrative sense as a deuteragonist in every season/book series, too much Varrick, basically my Book 2 spiel).

      @Deist He was disillusioned into what the OWL had become (basically The Avatar's Secret Service) instead of what it used to be (beholden to no government but themselves,) so it wouldn't be a stretch that he did his homework and found the RL more his liking then got Ideas with Unalaq. And even though P'Li's backstory was a Doylist thing to make death more meaningful, (still better than how "The Walking Dead" does it,) it still gave context to their relationship and motivations, (steeling Zaheer's in his case,) so better that than nothing.

      @LanoBeniko I just noticed that, too. It might be a head's-up as part of Bryke being more inclusive/world-building, but I wouldn't want anyone to get their hopes up to earlier especially if it's just a glitch, so maybe it's best to wait until there's at least an interview or something.

        Loading editor
    • O-kei Dou-kei wrote:
      And lastly, Ming-Hua, who we know's crazy, but was she a true believer in the cause, a Psycho-For-Hire that went along for the fun of it or some degree of both?

      I...really don't get why people think that Ming-Hua was any more "crazy" or sadistic than the other three?  (Note that all of them were fanatics; and all of them had spent over a decade in solitary confinement; neither says much about their stability; and in the case of the others, you can respectively add bulletproof rationalization, probable PTSD, and...whatever the hell causes someone to snap and commit suicide when cornered on top of that.)  She had a body count of one that we saw (by contrast: Zaheer and P'Li had at least six each—two of whom were named characters—and Ghazan had a minimum of three), occasionally incapacitated foes when killing or seriously injuring them would have been easier, and actually somewhat empathized with her guards despite being in the worst cell of the lot. 

      I mean, yes, she did have a penchant for brutal intimidation tactics (and grinning like a shark in battle).  Keep in mind that she was visibly disabled, she was tiny, and (if we go by Eugene Lee's mostly-canon picture of those jerkbenders in their younger days), she was pretty before thirteen years in the throat of a volcano took its toll on her.  (I mean, not that P'Li wasn't ungodly hawt.  She was also a large scary combustionbender; that would make it a lot less likely, in her case, for anyone to mistake "ungodly hawt" for "vulnerable.")  Any single one of those, much less all three of the above, would be easy to mistake for vulnerability.

      All-in-all: it seemed less like she was any more unstable, or less antivillainous, than the other three than like she was a shadow archetype of Toph with the aggression cranked up.  And I'm fairly sure she was just as loyal as the other three; she'd have had the most to gain by selling the others out if she'd just been in it to raise hell, and didn't seem the sort who could readily be intimidated into keeping quiet.

      @Deist He was disillusioned into what the OWL had become (basically The Avatar's Secret Service) instead of what it used to be (beholden to no government but themselves,) so it wouldn't be a stretch that he did his homework and found the RL more his liking then got Ideas with Unalaq.

      That was Xai Bau (the founder of the Red Lotus), not Zaheer. I mean, Zaheer clearly agreed with him (hell, clearly idolized the guy nearly as much as he did Guru Laghima); still, he was talking about why Xai Bau founded the society in the first place, not why he himself joined.

      And even though P'Li's backstory was a Doylist thing to make death more meaningful, (still better than how "The Walking Dead" does it,) it still gave context to their relationship and motivations, (steeling Zaheer's in his case,) so better that than nothing.

      I agree that it was better than nothing.

        Loading editor
    • On Kyoshi wiki is says she is a gay. Umm where did this information come from, as far as i know in the avatar the last airbender there is no information that points to this.

        Loading editor
    • Junoqueenofjamaa wrote: On Kyoshi wiki is says she is a gay. Umm where did this information come from, as far as i know in the avatar the last airbender there is no information that points to this.

      She's actually bi. It was revealed in Turf Wars Part 1.

        Loading editor
    • This isn’t much different from the Dumbledore discourse in the Harry Potter community. JK Rowling has constantly been in hot water because she tried to appease “fans”. Maybe she gets more crap thrown at her than she deserves because she’s a woman, but I digress.

        Loading editor
    • While I'm not a Harry Potter fan, and I've only seen the first movie, it makes sense for Kyoshi to be bisexual.

      In both shows she never got that much enough screentime to determine her character, and any way. Is there a particular reason for her not to be bi?

        Loading editor
    • It is only a matter of time to decipher what are the sexual preferences of the characters.

        Loading editor
    • Its not surprising for an avatar to be bi in hindsight. Considering the original soul is a man. Even the female avatars clearly show masculinity lol

        Loading editor
    • Ironbender wrote:
      Its not surprising for an avatar to be bi in hindsight. Considering the original soul is a man. Even the female avatars clearly show masculinity lol

      We need more female avatars.

        Loading editor
    • Hong Shen wrote:
      Ironbender wrote:
      Its not surprising for an avatar to be bi in hindsight. Considering the original soul is a man. Even the female avatars clearly show masculinity lol
      We need more female avatars.

      Why does that matter? The fact you wish it makes mev dont want to see it. When a fandom wish for something to happen and the writers do it that is trash writing wish fulfillment to me. I rather they just write a great story. For instance Kyoshi is a better story than Korra by a huge margin. The writer doesn't focus on superficial aspects like shipping and just tells stories of her relationships that flow naturally,

        Loading editor
    • I love so much Kyoshi and Korra.

        Loading editor
    • Why does that matter? The fact you wish it makes mev dont want to see it. When a fandom wish for something to happen and the writers do it that is trash writing wish fulfillment to me. I rather they just write a great story. For instance Kyoshi is a better story than Korra by a huge margin. The writer doesn't focus on superficial aspects like shipping and just tells stories of her relationships that flow naturally,

      The most popular heroes nowadays are mostly male, it's not harmful or wrong to see more heroines (with exceptions like Rey or Capt. Marvel, who have no character).

      I haven't read Kyoshi's story yet, but I have friends that have read it, and while I might agree already by thier word that shipping was handled better, here's a thing: a lot of the story's plot points are copied from a fanfiction called Legend of Genji. I know it cause I'm an artist in it. Also, as far as I know, I think the (unnecessary) focus on the shipping (in Book One only) was part of Nickelodeon's request to attract the audience.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:

      Why does that matter? The fact you wish it makes mev dont want to see it. When a fandom wish for something to happen and the writers do it that is trash writing wish fulfillment to me. I rather they just write a great story. For instance Kyoshi is a better story than Korra by a huge margin. The writer doesn't focus on superficial aspects like shipping and just tells stories of her relationships that flow naturally,

      The most popular heroes nowadays are mostly male, it's not harmful or wrong to see more heroines (with exceptions like Rey or Capt. Marvel, who have no character).

      but why specifically avatars?

        Loading editor
    • but why specifically avatars?

      And why not?

      It's reincarnation, a male can reincarnate on a female.

        Loading editor
    • yeah but there's no reason to suspect the gender ratio of avatars is out of balance  yet. If they started adding a ton of new female avatars then people might interpolate and think that it's not completely random

        Loading editor
    • "Although their names are not known, the genders of several past incarnations were, in reverse order before Yangchen's predecessor: male (earth), male (water), male (air), female (fire), male (earth), female (water), male (air), male (fire), female (earth), female (water), male (air), male (fire), male (earth)."[66]

      This is information straight up from the Avatar page, whith these avatars and the ones we one we can notice three things:

      1. There's no pattern on gender between Avatars.
      2. If we count how many male and female avatars there are, that leaves us with 14 Avatars known to be male, and 7 Avatars known to be female. That's a 2:1 ratio, so right now it's definitely out of balance.

      There can always be an exploration on a male avatar from the ones shown, like Yangchen's three (consecutive) male predecessors. My point is, if they make up a new avatar, they should most probably make her a female, or who knows, maybe agender.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:

      Why does that matter? The fact you wish it makes mev dont want to see it. When a fandom wish for something to happen and the writers do it that is trash writing wish fulfillment to me. I rather they just write a great story. For instance Kyoshi is a better story than Korra by a huge margin. The writer doesn't focus on superficial aspects like shipping and just tells stories of her relationships that flow naturally,

      The most popular heroes nowadays are mostly male, it's not harmful or wrong to see more heroines (with exceptions like Rey or Capt. Marvel, who have no character).

      I haven't read Kyoshi's story yet, but I have friends that have read it, and while I might agree already by thier word that shipping was handled better, here's a thing: a lot of the story's plot points are copied from a fanfiction called Legend of Genji. I know it cause I'm an artist in it. Also, as far as I know, I think the (unnecessary) focus on the shipping (in Book One only) was part of Nickelodeon's request to attract the audience.

      Most popular heroes are male because they don't know how to write female protagonist. Not even female writers know how to. All they know how to create is ironically the ones you name rey and capt marvel. Why because they go in with an agenda instead of thinking about the story itself. The girl ends up a mary sue with no personality that can do anything. Most of them don't go through any real hardships. That right there is why arguements in the fandoms pop up the writing quality. I don't care if the avatar is male or female if the writing is good.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:
      "Although their names are not known, the genders of several past incarnations were, in reverse order before Yangchen's predecessor: male (earth), male (water), male (air), female (fire), male (earth), female (water), male (air), male (fire), female (earth), female (water), male (air), male (fire), male (earth)."[66]

      This is information straight up from the Avatar page, whith these avatars and the ones we one we can notice three things:

      1. There's no pattern on gender between Avatars.
      2. If we count how many male and female avatars there are, that leaves us with 14 Avatars known to be male, and 7 Avatars known to be female. That's a 2:1 ratio, so right now it's definitely out of balance.

      There can always be an exploration on a male avatar from the ones shown, like Yangchen's three (consecutive) male predecessors. My point is, if they make up a new avatar, they should most probably make her a female, or who knows, maybe agender.

      but you're counting avatars the show has no focus on. Also I don't know how you got 14. I count 13 if you add yangchen's predecessors that you listed plus wan and the avatars after her. If you're underrepresented in background characters I don't really think that matters. Like for example, if the setting is modern china women are going to be underrepresented in the population but that doesn't mean the setting needs to be altered because it's just a background. What matters is the characters you pay attention to.

        Loading editor
    • Most popular heroes are male because they don't know how to write female protagonist. Not even female writers know how to. All they know how to create is ironically the ones you name rey and capt marvel. Why because they go in with an agenda instead of thinking about the story itself. The girl ends up a mary sue with no personality that can do anything. Most of them don't go through any real hardships. That right there is why arguements in the fandoms pop up the writing quality. I don't care if the avatar is male or female if the writing is good.

      Korra was an overpowered female protagonist too, yet she managed to have much more character than Carol and Rey combined, and actually went through real hardships (especially in Books 3 & 4). And I haven't watched it but I've heard good things about Adora in She-Ra, another female protagonist who's the most powerful or something (?) (again, it's what I've heard, I haven0t watched the show myself yet, and Idk if it's worth it).

      Instead of just sticking around with going for the male protagonist first because it's a safe choice and easier to write, we have to challenge ourselves to write good female protagonists. Or protagonists that don't rely on their gender to be a good character.

        Loading editor
    • We need more LGBT characters.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:

      Most popular heroes are male because they don't know how to write female protagonist. Not even female writers know how to. All they know how to create is ironically the ones you name rey and capt marvel. Why because they go in with an agenda instead of thinking about the story itself. The girl ends up a mary sue with no personality that can do anything. Most of them don't go through any real hardships. That right there is why arguements in the fandoms pop up the writing quality. I don't care if the avatar is male or female if the writing is good.

      Korra was an overpowered female protagonist too, yet she managed to have much more character than Carol and Rey combined, and actually went through real hardships (especially in Books 3 & 4). And I haven't watched it but I've heard good things about Adora in She-Ra, another female protagonist who's the most powerful or something (?) (again, it's what I've heard, I haven0t watched the show myself yet, and Idk if it's worth it).

      Instead of just sticking around with going for the male protagonist first because it's a safe choice and easier to write, we have to challenge ourselves to write good female protagonists. Or protagonists that don't rely on their gender to be a good character.

      Korra was a mixed reaction You have her hardcore fans but there is more than a sizable amount of fans that disliked her. Disliked her so much they didn't even watch season 3 and 4. I am sure you have heard that in avatar discussions. Granted I will say it had nothing to do with her being female more to do with people not liking her personality lol. Shera I know nothing about her. I don't like the concept of the show.

      The problem with female characters they are always written with a political mindframe. They gotta emphasize feminism or if she is too awesome to be with a man she needs a girlfriend. Those elements are not introduced naturally they are manufactured with preachy messages. You don't engage in  a story like avatar to be preached at or constatntly reminded of the nonsensical real world arguements. You go for escapism. An awesome female character doesn't need to say she is strong she just is. That is why all these female characters are failing and creating backlash.

      Lets use Xena as an example she was just awesome. She had girlfriends and boyfriends. She hit everything. She was just written to be awesome. They didn't go in with any of that in mind they just wrote great stories for her. In fact she was just a spin off character/former villain from another show when she started. Nowadays strong female characters are shallow duplications of her. People should watch blindpsot another great example of a dope female character. Hell look at Kill bill a female dominated movie.That would probably be a top 5 example of greatest female protagonist.

        Loading editor
    • Korra was a mixed reaction. You have her hardcore fans but there is more than a sizable amount of fans that disliked her. Disliked her so much they didn't even watch season 3 and 4.

      If they didn't saw an essential part of the story of a character's development it's literally their problem, not the character's.

        Loading editor
    • On the other hand, there's no denying there's great female characters like Sarah Connor, Leia, probably Xena as you said (even though I have no idea where is she from, I'm going to take your word), that don't need to show how preachy they're. The thing with Korra is, she's an actual character (as well, not like the others are less), she has develpment, hardships, weaknesses, strengths. She's three-dimensional; part on the reason on why she's shown she's strong is, first because you can literally see she's BUFF and JACKED than a typical woman, in Book One: Air, it was literally a part of her personality to demonstrate the need to be strong, because she used to have a big ego and a big image of herself, fast forward to the second half of Book One, she starts to have doubts of herself, she is scared for the first time, she was overpowered, something she believed impossible. There was an undeniable development there. Of course then she got the Avatar State and regained her confidence, but that doesn't erase her trauma or experience, as you can see in Book Three and Four.

        Loading editor
    • Kimathite wrote:
      Neo Bahamut wrote:
      It can be as genuine as you want, it still doesn't make sense. You're apparently assuming that everything exists to drive "the plot" or radically alter perspective on a character, but they don't. Knowing Ursa used to star in plays doesn't drive the plot, learning that Teo's chair isn't a part of his glider & he actually can't walk doesn't make him a different person, & that Toph apparently had a crush on Sokka doesn't lead to anything bigger because that isn't the reason why character details exist.
      But it still determines csertain lines and characteristics. I understand Korra and Asami, but revealing Izumi as LGBTQAI+ is not helping with anything, it is only an unneeded fact. It's like if the writers came out and said that Mako is naturally blonde and that his hair is in fact dyed. 

      Here's a better question, why do you care? Also, it's in the show. It's not out of the blue if you understand what subtlety is.

        Loading editor
    • but you're counting avatars the show has no focus on. Also I don't know how you got 14. I count 13 if you add yangchen's predecessors that you listed plus wan and the avatars after her.

      Male:

      1. Aang
      2. Roku
      3. Kuruk
      4. Yangchen's Predecessor
      5. Male (earth)
      6. Male (water)
      7. Male (air)
      8. Male (earth)
      9. Male (air)
      10. Male (fire)
      11. Male (air)
      12. Male (fire)
      13. Male (earth)
      14. Wan

      Female:

      1. Korra
      2. Kyoshi
      3. Yangchen
      4. Female (fire)
      5. Female (water)
      6. Female (earth)
      7. Female (water)

      Those are shown characters, its a 2:1 ratio. Taking out the unnamed you have 4:3, more males still.

        Loading editor
    • If there's only one more named male than named females and there's 7 people total I still don't think that's a noteworthy difference that needs to be remedied.

        Loading editor
    • If there's only one more named male than named females and there's 7 people total I still don't think that's a noteworthy difference that needs to be remedied.

      Yeah, I get you, but it wouldn't hurt at all to have more female Avatars either to know their lifes. I don't think it would hurt to learn if the second Avatar (Wan's successor) was a female. [Note: there's no canonical information or hints on the second Avatar's gender.]

      In my honest personal opinion, I think that from a storytelling standpoint it would be fairly interesting since people would see Raava's spirit can reincarnate in female bodies as well, not just males. Again, this part is just my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:

      Korra was a mixed reaction. You have her hardcore fans but there is more than a sizable amount of fans that disliked her. Disliked her so much they didn't even watch season 3 and 4.

      If they didn't saw an essential part of the story of a character's development it's literally their problem, not the character's.

      Nah 1 and 2 pacing was terrible. Korra stayed like a brat longer than she showed character growth. She didn't become a more balanced character until 3 and 4 imo. I was one of the ones who left the series and came back because I heard season 3 was great.

        Loading editor
    • Because so much controversy over the amount of avatars that were in that universe.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:
      On the other hand, there's no denying there's great female characters like Sarah Connor, Leia, probably Xena as you said (even though I have no idea where is she from, I'm going to take your word), that don't need to show how preachy they're.

      The thing with Korra is, she's an actual character (as well, not like the others are less), she has develpment, hardships, weaknesses, strengths. She's three-dimensional; part on the reason on why she's shown she's strong is, first because you can literally see she's BUFF and JACKED than a typical woman, in Book One: Air, it was literally a part of her personality to demonstrate the need to be strong, because she used to have a big ego and a big image of herself, fast forward to the second half of Book One, she starts to have doubts of herself, she is scared for the first time, she was overpowered, something she believed impossible. There was an undeniable development there. Of course then she got the Avatar State and regained her confidence, but that doesn't erase her trauma or experience, as you can see in Book Three and Four.

      There is no doubt korra is a character was her official ending  turned political  yes it was. But I don't want to debate that beaten horse. I rather stay on the conversation of proper female character development. Korra whether you like her or hate her is a well written character. She just suffered badly from pacing in the first two seasons to me is. Meaning they are talented enough to write great female characters. They have already anyways Katara was a great character long before her. However if they just follow the trends of current writers I'm going to take a hard pass. Fiction used to be a neutral ground for politics where all types of ideas coexist. Now it seems like a toxic battleground for extremist  to get their ideas off. Well Im open for whatever. But my expectation of a good character coming out is low. The writing trends for female character right now is crappy.

        Loading editor
    • Nah 1 and 2 pacing was terrible. Korra stayed like a brat longer than she showed character growth. She didn't become a more balanced character until 3 and 4 imo. I was one of the ones who left the series and came back because I heard season 3 was great.

      I'm not denying that the pacing of Book One and Two wasn't great, what I'm saying is, if someone only watched half of a movie or show without getting to the end, they can't have a valid opinion on the overall story or character, cause they've literally seen just half of it. It's like someone saying that Raimi's Spider-man Trilogy is bad, but only saw Spider-man 3.

        Loading editor
    • Stop despising Korra.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:

      Nah 1 and 2 pacing was terrible. Korra stayed like a brat longer than she showed character growth. She didn't become a more balanced character until 3 and 4 imo. I was one of the ones who left the series and came back because I heard season 3 was great.

      I'm not denying that the pacing of Book One and Two wasn't great, what I'm saying is, if someone only watched half of a movie or show without getting to the end, they can't have a valid opinion on the overall story or character, cause they've literally seen just half of it. It's like someone saying that Raimi's Spider-man Trilogy is bad, but only saw Spider-man 3.

      Nah not the same principal. If you have a dislike for a character for two seasons. What makes you think everyone wants to stay around until the end. It wasn't just Korra most of the group wasnt that appetizing. Fans clearly hated Makko because of those first two seasons. (Which is weird because they forgave Korra who was extremely similar lol). Then there is Asami who didn't do anything of worth those first two seasons. Bolin was the only somewhat interesting but he was just a dumber Sokka. I mean Amon saved the first season. He was the fan favorite.

        Loading editor
    • It's not like Mary Jane wasn't insufferably clichéd in the entire trilogy (though it's fine since she wasn't really the main focus).

      To be honest, I could relate with the characters, I specially did with Mako because he made similar mistakes like me, and the same with Book One Korra.

      I guess I could give you the "Why would anyone stay around until the end". I particularly didn't like the characters in Dragon Prince after watching season 1 and part of 2 cause I thought they were incredibly annoying, literally every single one of them; that and the animation made me drop the show.

        Loading editor
    • Does it have something wrong to discuss the same subject?

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:
      It's not like Mary Jane wasn't insufferably clichéd in the entire trilogy (though it's fine since she wasn't really the main focus).

      To be honest, I could relate with the characters, I specially did with Mako because he made similar mistakes like me, and the same with Book One Korra.

      I guess I could give you the "Why would anyone stay around until the end". I particularly didn't like the characters in Dragon Prince after watching season 1 and part of 2 cause I thought they were incredibly annoying, literally every single one of them; that and the animation made me drop the show.

      I mean its a realization a lot of us need to have. We all don't like the same things. Some people love Korra some can't stand her. Everybody doesnt necessarily relate or see the same things when we look at the same character. We tend to get in petty circle jerks ove arguing. When in reality you aren't going to probably sway anyones opinion.

      Anyways as far as I original discussion gender doesnt matter to me. I more concerned with the personality. We had a pacifist avatar, and a cocky avatar. I wonder what would be the ideal next one. Personally either want to see a selfish borderline "evil" one or a coward. Both would offer interesting character journeys.

        Loading editor
    • Personally either want to see a selfish borderline "evil" one or a coward. Both would offer interesting character journeys.

      Not to self promote but I'm actually driven to do one of those arcs in my story.

        Loading editor
    • The influence on someone's opinion is worth too much in order to make a big change.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:

      Korra was a mixed reaction. You have her hardcore fans but there is more than a sizable amount of fans that disliked her. Disliked her so much they didn't even watch season 3 and 4.

      If they didn't saw an essential part of the story of a character's development it's literally their problem, not the character's.

      If they need to watch 3 seasons of a show to like a character, then that's the writers problem.

        Loading editor
    • If they need to watch 3 seasons of a show to like a character, then that's the writers problem.

      We were talking about having an opinion on an overall character's story. That has absolutely nothing to do on whether to like them or not.

      And I guess they did a bad job with Zuko then, cause a lot of people didn't like him until Season 3 (not speaking for myself).

        Loading editor
    • So it means that Zuko never had relevance in the series.

        Loading editor
    • Hong Shen wrote: So it means that Zuko never had relevance in the series.

      Never said that Zuko wasn't relevant, I was saying that Zuko wasn't pretty likable in his first episodes.

      Lets look at it this way, 25 episodes in the series, Zuko was a rogue with Iroh, while in her series, Korra was fully determined to make up for her mistakes on Book Two. I'm not trying to say that Korra is a better character than Zuko, I'm pointing out a bigger picture. Am I explaining it correctly? IDK

        Loading editor
    • What you say is true but that happens with Korra upside down that at the beginning of the series was loved by fans but already at the end of the series it was hated by many fans unmistakably but that must be fair for a character to be loved or hated Depending on your circumstances.

        Loading editor
    • Fswe1 wrote:
      I'm a homophobic bigot in spite of having gay friends. 

      This is what's called tokenism:

      "the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality."

      This is also a type of fallacy called "anecdotal evidence." Just because you claim to have gay friends and that your gay frieds are bioted (because gay people can be bigots as well, bigot simply means intolerance of an opinion/view/perspective/individual etc.) doesn't mean you can apply that universally. What you are doing is you are taking your personal, isolated experiences with a small sample of individuals and you are using this experience as evidence for your argument instead of actual facts.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      Fswe1 wrote:
      I'm a homophobic bigot in spite of having gay friends. 

      This is what's called tokenism:

      "the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality."

      This is also a type of fallacy called "anecdotal evidence." Just because you claim to have gay friends and that your gay frieds are bioted (because gay people can be bigots as well, bigot simply means intolerance of an opinion/view/perspective/individual etc.) doesn't mean you can apply that universally. What you are doing is you are taking your personal, isolated experiences with a small sample of individuals and you are using this experience as evidence for your argument instead of actual facts.

      They can't really be his friends if as you're suggesting, he's only around them to give the appearance of tolerance and you can't really contradict him on this unless you know the guy in real life. He didn't claim his gay friends were representative of the whole gay population. Just trying to be objective here, what he seemed to be trying to get at by saying his gay friends were also annoyed by the attention those figments were getting was that his position didn't necessarily come from a bias against gay people since that position was also shared by gay people (assuming they weren't biased against themselves).

        Loading editor
    • Babyfriend1 wrote:
      They can't really be his friends if as you're suggesting, he's only around them to give the appearance of tolerance and you can't really contradict him on this unless you know the guy in real life. 

      Actually I can contradict them on this because I can observe their behavior, you don't have to be aware that you are engaging in tokenism within your friendships to be engaging in tokenism within your friendships. Using the excuse that you have gay friends who have an opinion about the LGBTQIA+ to deflect your bigotry is exactly what they did here, I can observe that and therefore I can contradict them. Did they or did they not say that they had gay friends (who validate their opinion) and could therfore not be a bigot? They did say that, I can observe that, therfore I can contradict that statement and call it what it is. It's like religious people who have gay friends/family in the Church they will love them, care about them, and use them as an example of "see you can be gay and not engage in sin" tokens to deflect their bigotry. You can love and be friends with someone and use them as a token. It's like saying "I have a black/asian/middle eastern friend and they say this so therefore it must be true about all black/asian/middle eastern people." Using your gay friends an authority on the LGBTQIA+ community and formulating your opinion around that is tokenism. A token is someone who doesn't conform to stereotypes, who is designated to be the authority on all things related to their marginalization, that they are somehow elevated because of it. It's called ignorance.

      Babyfriend1 wrote:
      He didn't claim his gay friends were representative of the whole gay population.

      Their claim was that they have: "gay friends who are likewise annoyed by the attention said figments are receiving in public." This implies that because they have gay friends who agree with their position they're recieving confirmation bias that enables them to use this in lieu of evidence that substantiates their original claim that everyone should just be called homosexual. This is their experience with a small group of people who happen to be gay making it anecdotal and inadmissable as a tool for arguing. Just because they have gay friends in their life and their gay friends say they are bothered by these "figments" amounts to their experiences and their experiences alone and therefore you cannot, based on your experience and your sample representation of a broad community, universalize those experiences. Let me explain how this works. For every gay friend they have that agrees with this position I can find evidence within the gay community that contradicts their argument. That's why their argument doesn't work, that's why you don't use an anecdote to represent your argument because anecdotes are relative and cannot be applied to every situation.

      Babyfriend1 wrote:
      Just trying to be objective here, what he seemed to be trying to get at by saying his gay friends were also annoyed by the attention those figments were getting was that his position didn't necessarily come from a bias against gay people since that position was also shared by gay people (assuming they weren't biased against themselves).

      You are not being objective, you have to be able to follow the thread of the conversation in order to make an objective statement. You said, and I'm going quasi-paraphrase what you said so tell me if I am misrepresenting you, but this is how what you wrote reads to me: "his position doesn't come from a bias against gay people, his opinion was shared by gay people, therefore his opinion is validated unless the gay people are biased against themselves." That's what I am reading, the problem is we are not talking about bias against gay people (unless you too are of the opinion that everyone should be mislabeled). Let's go back to the original problem that led to the initial quote, they said that instead of having appropriate lables for describing people that everyone in the GSRM/LGBTQIA+ community should all be lumped under one inaccurate term to describe them all as "homosexual" and that any other lable was a "figment" (fabrication, creation, delusion, imagining etc.). Therefore transgenderism, intersexed individuals, asexuals, bisexuals, and questioning people do not exist which is a false claim. They also claimed that their gay friends are annoyed with the attention that these "figments" are getting, so they use this to continue to validate using homosexual as an umbrealla term to describe anyone who falls under the GSRM or LGBTQIA+ spectrum (while also claiming to not be a bigot because obviously their gay friends represent the entire spectrum). Their gay friends agree with this, that makes his gay friends bigoted, not against themselves (I hope you are following me on this) but against the so called "figments" (transgender, bisexual, asexual, questioning, intersexed). Believe it or not, and I can bring evidence if this needs proof, but you can be a gay man and be bigoted and even prejudiced against a lesbian woman, you can be homosexual and be bigoted and prejudiced against bisexual individuals, you can be a homosexual individual and be bigoted or prejudiced against intersex, asexual, and transgender individuals. You can be a bigot against your own cause, there are transgender people who claim that unless you are bisexual or pansexual you are a transphobe by virtue of being heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or having a preference. Bigotry happens within the spectrum of the GSRM/LGBTQIA+ community.

      So what I am saying is that if their claims hold true and their gay friends are annoyed with the attention these "figments" are getting and the agreement is that everyone within this circle of friends believes the same thing (because their gay friends are where the confirmation bias is coming from you see) then yes, their gay friends are bigoted. It's a bigoted thing to accept your own identity is valid while invalidating the identity of others and if what they are saying about their gay friends is true then what conclusion does one draw here? I have to base my observations around what the individual is saying.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      Babyfriend1 wrote:
      He didn't claim his gay friends were representative of the whole gay population.
      Their claim was that they have: "gay friends who are likewise annoyed by the attention said figments are receiving in public." This implies that because they have gay friends who agree with their position they're recieving confirmation bias that enables them to use this in lieu of evidence that substantiates their original claim that everyone should just be called homosexual. This is their experience with a small group of people who happen to be gay making it anecdotal and inadmissable as a tool for arguing. Just because they have gay friends in their life and their gay friends say they are bothered by these "figments" amounts to their experiences and their experiences alone and therefore you cannot, based on your experience and your sample representation of a broad community, universalize those experiences. Let me explain how this works. For every gay friend they have that agrees with this position I can find evidence within the gay community that contradicts their argument. That's why their argument doesn't work, that's why you don't use an anecdote to represent your argument because anecdotes are relative and cannot be applied to every situation.

      I can't even tell where the basis is for this interpretation of what they wrote. I read the three posts from that guy on this thread and there's nothing that seemed to even remotely suggest he was trying to imply that any belief his gay friends had was universal. As I said before they were most likely trying to offer a counterexample to the idea that his position requires him to be biased against gay people in which case in which case even a small sample size would suffice. Edit: I misread what "figments" he was referring to but I still don't see where the anecdotal evidence fallacy is occurring. Earlier you said 'their claim was that they have: "gay friends who are likewise annoyed by the attention said figments are recieving in public". This implies that because they have gay friends who agree with their position they're recieving confirmation bias that enables them to use this in lieu of evidence that substantiates their original claim that everyone should just be called homosexual'. I agree with the first part but the second part is just a non sequitur. That post was mostly just to defend himself from accusations of bigotry, not strengthen his claim about calling people homosexual.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      Babyfriend1 wrote:
      They can't really be his friends if as you're suggesting, he's only around them to give the appearance of tolerance and you can't really contradict him on this unless you know the guy in real life. 

      Actually I can contradict them on this because I can observe their behavior, you don't have to be aware that you are engaging in tokenism within your friendships to be engaging in tokenism within your friendships. Using the excuse that you have gay friends who have an opinion about the LGBTQIA+ to deflect your bigotry is exactly what they did here, I can observe that and therefore I can contradict them. Did they or did they not say that they had gay friends (who validate their opinion) and could therfore not be a bigot? They did say that, I can observe that, therfore I can contradict that statement and call it what it is. It's like religious people who have gay friends/family in the Church they will love them, care about them, and use them as an example of "see you can be gay and not engage in sin" tokens to deflect their bigotry. You can love and be friends with someone and use them as a token. It's like saying "I have a black/asian/middle eastern friend and they say this so therefore it must be true about all black/asian/middle eastern people." Using your gay friends an authority on the LGBTQIA+ community and formulating your opinion around that is tokenism. A token is someone who doesn't conform to stereotypes, who is designated to be the authority on all things related to their marginalization, that they are somehow elevated because of it. It's called ignorance.

      It may be true that "you can love and be friends with someone and use them as a token" but if you're actually friends with them then even if they also serve the function of creating an appearance of tolerance, it's not tokenism which is having them around for the purpose of serving that function and thus not genuine friendship. More to the point, I agree that defense against bigotry accusations doesn't really work but not because using that defense proves they had an ulterior motive for being around that group of people.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:

      So what I am saying is that if their claims hold true and their gay friends are annoyed with the attention these "figments" are getting and the agreement is that everyone within this circle of friends believes the same thing (because their gay friends are where the confirmation bias is coming from you see) then yes, their gay friends are bigoted. It's a bigoted thing to accept your own identity is valid while invalidating the identity of others and if what they are saying about their gay friends is true then what conclusion does one draw here? I have to base my observations around what the individual is saying.

      Well he never said that his friends agreed with him calling peoples' identities figments. He said "who are likewise annoyed at the attention said figments are recieving" but it's not expressed whether his friends called them figments or not. I also disagree with your definition of bigotry. By analogy, it was once a belief in chinese culture that chinese people were the descendants of dragons (Don't be offended if you think I compared LGBT+ identities to an obviously false belief). Supposing that you disagreed with this that doesn't necessarily mean you're a bigot, right? According to the dictionary google uses, bigotry is intolerance towards those with different opinions, which isn't the same thing as thinking their beliefs about themselves are unfounded or imaginary.

        Loading editor
    • Babyfriend1 wrote:

      It may be true that "you can love and be friends with someone and use them as a token" but if you're actually friends with them then even if they also serve the function of creating an appearance of tolerance, it's not tokenism which is having them around for the purpose of serving that function and thus not genuine friendship. More to the point, I agree that defense against bigotry accusations doesn't really work but not because using that defense proves they had an ulterior motive for being around that group of people.

      Okay so here's where we are crossing hairs. Case in point they are creating an appearance of tolerance and they are using their gay friends to do it, they are a bigot against anyone who does not fall within their arbitrary parameters of what is acceptable or what is in their mind factual. They call these individuals figments suggest that it's all homosexuality, a blatant lie, and when called out on their bigoty they hide behind their gay friends and use them as a shield to suggest that they are not bigots. They are using their gay friends to promote this idea that they are tolerant when they are in fact not, they are using their friends that is bad optics. They are using their friends to deflect accusations, and if you look at more than one definition of tokenism using minorities to deflect accusations is also tokenism. Just because you have the perfunctory google concept of tokenism, does not mean you have the bredth and scope of it, tokenism like racism and sexism and homophobia etc. can be expressed explicitly and implicitly. So they might not be explicitly doing it, but they may very well be implicitly doing it beneath the threshold of their consciousness, I am being generous and granting them that.

      Let's look at another definition of tokenism:

      Tokenism refers to the practice of giving a few members of a disenfranchised group special treatment or benefits in order to appear to be free of prejudice. 

      So the LGBTQAI+/GSRM group is the disenfranchised community. They give the homosexual members of that community the special friendship treatment in order to appear free of prejudice while invalidating the rest of the community or the -BTQIA+ part of the community by calling them figments. They can't be bigots though because their gay friend exceptions prevent this from being true (I am being sardonic here, obviously they are bigots and obviously they are using their friends as a shield). They are engaging in tokenism and their behavior is absolutely bigoted.

        Loading editor
    • Babyfriend1 wrote:

      Well he never said that his friends agreed with him calling peoples' identities figments. He said "who are likewise annoyed at the attention said figments are recieving" but it's not expressed whether his friends called them figments or not. I also disagree with your definition of bigotry. By analogy, it was once a belief in chinese culture that chinese people were the descendants of dragons (Don't be offended if you think I compared LGBT+ identities to an obviously false belief). Supposing that you disagreed with this that doesn't necessarily mean you're a bigot, right? According to the dictionary google uses, bigotry is intolerance towards those with different opinions, which isn't the same thing as thinking their beliefs about themselves are unfounded or imaginary.

      That's not what I said, I said they are using what their friends feel about the situation as confirmation bias for their own prejudices and they were using the confirmation bias they got from their friends to suggest that it's okay to lump everyone into one category. Also your analogy is irrelevant because there's a difference between opinion and oppression and if your opinion suggests intolerance of the opinions of others then it applies. Your google definition is accurate, though not complete because the college of google is always incomplete, but let's run with that.

      They are in fact intolerant of people holding a different opinion because anyone who holds the opinion that the -BTQAI+ part of the community doesn't fall within their opinion that they are all just homosexuals are wrong because anything else to them, in their own words is "ostrich horse****" their opinion prevents them from "not acknowledging figments of loopy people's imaginations as dignifiable constructs." That is intolerance and blatant intolerance in opposition of those who called them out on their prejudice remarks.

      The point is when you hold an opinion of intolerance you are a bigot and the way he described -BTQAI+ part of the community is evidence of this.

      Let's take a deep dive, shall we? According to sociology, when you use slurs, insults, or invalidation, whatever the context or state of mind, that is a clear indication of bigotry. Especially when those slurs, insults, and invalidations are aimed at a group of minorities and according to Sullivan " If you have conflicting and ambivalent feelings about a certain minority group, then you have bigotry issues, period."

      So calling bisexuals, transgenders, intersexed, and asexual individuals figments and referring to their lables as ostrich horse**** is bigoted. Their beliefs come from a lack of knowledge or a lack of desire to acquire the knowledge to understand why these lables are important,  they'd rather throw them all under one term because it's simple. It's intellectually lazy.  

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:

      So what I am saying is that if their claims hold true and their gay friends are annoyed with the attention these "figments" are getting and the agreement is that everyone within this circle of friends believes the same thing (because their gay friends are where the confirmation bias is coming from you see) then yes, their gay friends are bigoted. It's a bigoted thing to accept your own identity is valid while invalidating the identity of others and if what they are saying about their gay friends is true then what conclusion does one draw here? I have to base my observations around what the individual is saying.

      When I started talking about the definition of bigotry I was mostly just reacting to this, not whether the other stuff he said is proof of bigotry. I'll give a more complete response later when I have time.

        Loading editor
    • Babyfriend1 wrote:
      Battlefairy wrote:

      So what I am saying is that if their claims hold true and their gay friends are annoyed with the attention these "figments" are getting and the agreement is that everyone within this circle of friends believes the same thing (because their gay friends are where the confirmation bias is coming from you see) then yes, their gay friends are bigoted. It's a bigoted thing to accept your own identity is valid while invalidating the identity of others and if what they are saying about their gay friends is true then what conclusion does one draw here? I have to base my observations around what the individual is saying.

      When I started talking about the definition of bigotry I was mostly just reacting to this, not whether the other stuff he said is proof of bigotry. I'll give a more complete response later when I have time.

      If I am to believe what they say is true then their gay friends are bigoted as well because let's examine the implications of having gay friends "who are likewise (in the same way, or feel as they do) annoyed at the attention said figments are recieving" and the way they use this piece of information not only negatively but to confirm the biases they hold to be evident. They are are taking their friends' attitudes/feelings/beliefs about the attention the rest of the lgbtqia+ community are recieving and they are using it to confirm their own beliefs. What can be extrapolated here is that their friends also have bigoted beliefs that confirm his own beliefs, ergo the reason he uses that line, specificaly, as a talking point in the first place, as a shield. They feel the same way. If you are a gay person and you can hold annoyed attitudes/feelings/beliefs about another marginalized group that allows your straight friends to use those attitudes to confirm their own bias and their own opinions then yeah, it's safe to say that their gay friends have bigotry issues. That is if I am to believe this individual has gay friends in the first place, it all leads back to using anecdotes as evidence making the majority of these points, other than the fact that they are a bigot themselves, completely moot. I don't take people at their word which is why I am wholly against using your personal life and experiences and the people around you and their experiences in an argument.

      So let's save you some time here.

      1. They are engaging in tokenism. 2. They are a bigot. 3. They made an anecdotal argument that cannot be demonstrated.

      That's it, these are the main points of my argument, because if I am being honest it doesn't really matter to me what his intentions were in using his gay friends, only that his claims demonstrated those three main points, but they have not given me any reason to believe their anecdoral evidence is real or that it even matters (which it doesn't because anecdotes are, as I said, relative). 

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:

      Babyfriend1 wrote:
      Battlefairy wrote:

      So what I am saying is that if their claims hold true and their gay friends are annoyed with the attention these "figments" are getting and the agreement is that everyone within this circle of friends believes the same thing (because their gay friends are where the confirmation bias is coming from you see) then yes, their gay friends are bigoted. It's a bigoted thing to accept your own identity is valid while invalidating the identity of others and if what they are saying about their gay friends is true then what conclusion does one draw here? I have to base my observations around what the individual is saying.

      When I started talking about the definition of bigotry I was mostly just reacting to this, not whether the other stuff he said is proof of bigotry. I'll give a more complete response later when I have time.

      If I am to believe what they say is true then their gay friends are bigoted as well because let's examine the implications of having gay friends "who are likewise (in the same way, or feel as they do) annoyed at the attention said figments are recieving" and the way they use this piece of information not only negatively but to confirm the biases they hold to be evident. They are are taking their friends' attitudes/feelings/beliefs about the attention the rest of the lgbtqia+ community are recieving and they are using it to confirm their own beliefs. What can be extrapolated here is that their friends also have bigoted beliefs that confirm his own beliefs, ergo the reason he uses that line, specificaly, as a talking point in the first place, as a shield. They feel the same way. If you are a gay person and you can hold annoyed attitudes/feelings/beliefs about another marginalized group that allows your straight friends to use those attitudes to confirm their own bias and their own opinions then yeah, it's safe to say that their gay friends have bigotry issues. That is if I am to believe this individual has gay friends in the first place, it all leads back to using anecdotes as evidence making the majority of these points, other than the fact that they are a bigot themselves, completely moot. I don't take people at their word which is why I am wholly against using your personal life and experiences and the people around you and their experiences in an argument.

      So let's save you some time here.

      1. They are engaging in tokenism. 2. They are a bigot. 3. They made an anecdotal argument that cannot be demonstrated.

      That's it, these are the main points of my argument, because if I am being honest it doesn't really matter to me what his intentions were in using his gay friends, only that his claims demonstrated those three main points, but they have not given me any reason to believe their anecdoral evidence is real or that it even matters (which it doesn't because anecdotes are, as I said, relative). 

      I agree with everything you said, I'm a non-binary lesbian. And people in the LGBTQ+ community could be biased and engage in intracommunity problems themselves. Cis gay people can be transphobic, cis gay men can be sexist, our community can be biphobic or lesbophobic, etc. Anyone who says they're an ally should listen to this, because then they are engaging in the wrong way and not being an actual ally. Anyone who has a normative identity regarding their gender identity or sexuality, should not be talking over us.

        Loading editor
    • I'm asexual myself and I see just as much bigotry and bias within the community as I do without, and quite frankly the skeptical community is riddled with just as much bigotry as people who lack the willingness or capacity to understand. The regressive left are the opposite extreme of the conservative right and my favorite one is  Rachel McKinnon, who is a transgender philosopher (she now goes by Veronica Ivy), she made the assertion that if you have any gender preference then you are transphobic. So by virtue of being straight, gay, lesbian having any kind of preference, you are transphobic, and that's a very bigoted opinion to hold. I agree, if you are an ally for the LGBTQIA+ (I prefer acronym GSRM personally) then you you need to go in as a true skeptic and not as someone trying to speak for the community, because it's messy af, it's not all tolerance and rainbows. There are genuine studies out there if people care to look, I just read one recently on lesbian and gay bias against bisexuals and the androcentric desire hypothesis. 

      As for the above argument it's really difficult to say for sure because I would have to take Fswe1's word that these gay friends exist and if they do then the attitudes they hold seemed to be backed with a certain degree of bigotry. If they likewise feel the same annoyance as their bigoted friend does then, yes, they are bigoted and biased. It's a thing. 

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      I'm asexual myself and I see just as much bigotry and bias within the community as I do without, and quite frankly the skeptical community is riddled with just as much bigotry as people who lack the willingness or capacity to understand. The regressive left are the opposite extreme of the conservative right and my favorite one is  Rachel McKinnon, who is a transgender philosopher (she now goes by Veronica Ivy), she made the assertion that if you have any gender preference then you are transphobic. So by virtue of being straight, gay, lesbian having any kind of preference, you are transphobic, and that's a very bigoted opinion to hold. I agree, if you are an ally for the LGBTQIA+ (I prefer acronym GSRM personally) then you you need to go in as a true skeptic and not as someone trying to speak for the community, because it's messy af, it's not all tolerance and rainbows. There are genuine studies out there if people care to look, I just read one recently on lesbian and gay bias against bisexuals and the androcentric desire hypothesis. 

      As for the above argument it's really difficult to say for sure because I would have to take Fswe1's word that these gay friends exist and if they do then the attitudes they hold seemed to be backed with a certain degree of bigotry. If they likewise feel the same annoyance as their bigoted friend does then, yes, they are bigoted and biased. It's a thing. 

      At least you can tell me what is the difference between the regressive left and the conservative right since both are opposite ends.

        Loading editor
    • Hong Shen wrote:

      At least you can tell me what is the difference between the regressive left and the conservative right since both are opposite ends.

      They are equal opposite extremes. The regressive left is essentially the extremeist side of the liberal left as opposed to the classic liberal. A good example of the difference between the two and how they are best explained are best stated by this quote:

      "both classic liberals and regressive leftists will agree that sexual assault and rape are horrible crimes that need to be addressed. However, while a classic liberal may try to address the issue by enacting stricter security measures and protocols, creating safer environments for victims to speak up, and harsher punishments for those who are tried and found guilty of such crimes, a regressive leftist will propose throwing an entire demographic, such as men, under the bus by forcing them all to take mandatory "consent classes," treating all men as though they are potential criminals."

      Another example is one that I mentioned above with transphobia, a regressive liberal like Rachel McKinnon will postulate that genital preference in and of itself is transphobic, and so by virtue of being straight, gay, or lesbian you are transphobic. While the classical left knows and understands and knows that there is a social issue and that transphobia is peoblematic, be calling people transphobic for that reason and forcing people to liberate themselves from their own desires and orientations they cannot control is extreme and oppressive.

      Another example is the Hijab. While I am a firm believer that you can choose to wear or not wear whatever makes you comofortable, I am staunchly against the idea that the Hijab should be considered a tool for women's liberation and I am very much against Hijab day. Regressive lefts will fight for the tolerance of Islamic practices while convieniently forgetting that there are many women around the world who do not have a choice or a voice, women who have been killed for not wanting to wear their Hijab. As an athiest I view this particular brand of thinking flawed, regressive lefts tend to be anti-Christian for Christians holding certain oppressive views, but they will scream tolerance for Islam ignoring the oppression in the name of tolerance.

      Regressive lefts often try to speak on behalf of minorities or other cultures. For example I've seen individuals get in the face of a white girl demanding she remove her yukata because she's not Japanese and it was cultural appropriation, the accuser was not Japanese and felt like it was her duty to speak on behalf of the culture about a concept she didn't fully understand. Having been to Japan myself and having had individuals from that culture happily dress me in kimono I can confidently say that that cultural appropriation is way more nuanced than just wearing a piece of clothing and you shouldn't speak for the culture.

      The regressive left is more about being outraged on behalf of others and less about being rational.

      Conservative right, which is the opposite end of the spectrum, tends to engage in exclusivism, traditionalism, non-individualism, and anti-democratic and you'll often see that this side of the spectrum tends to be (but not always) mixed in with religion in some form or other. This is where your racists, your cult personalities, your traditional mourners who believe in a historical frame of reference for modern society like marriage being between a man and a woman, a family is a mother, father, and 2.5 children, religion (especially Christianity) should be everywhere and shoved down everyones throats (while generally intolerant of other religions), and generally display a lot of authoritarian, intolerant attitudes. They also hold the view that superior people should have more rights and that there should be a social hierarchy. They are the same people who will decry the LGBTQAI+ community, would happily deny them rights, equality, and invalidate their identities. 

      They favor echo chambers and rhetoric over being rational and in my experience very few of them engage in scientific research because science is bad and vaccines cause autism. 

      Does that help? I was more thorough with regressive liberal because it's often times a harder concept to grasp.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      Babyfriend1 wrote:

      It may be true that "you can love and be friends with someone and use them as a token" but if you're actually friends with them then even if they also serve the function of creating an appearance of tolerance, it's not tokenism which is having them around for the purpose of serving that function and thus not genuine friendship. More to the point, I agree that defense against bigotry accusations doesn't really work but not because using that defense proves they had an ulterior motive for being around that group of people.

      Okay so here's where we are crossing hairs. Case in point they are creating an appearance of tolerance and they are using their gay friends to do it, they are a bigot against anyone who does not fall within their arbitrary parameters of what is acceptable or what is in their mind factual. They call these individuals figments suggest that it's all homosexuality, a blatant lie, and when called out on their bigoty they hide behind their gay friends and use them as a shield to suggest that they are not bigots. They are using their gay friends to promote this idea that they are tolerant when they are in fact not, they are using their friends that is bad optics. They are using their friends to deflect accusations, and if you look at more than one definition of tokenism using minorities to deflect accusations is also tokenism. Just because you have the perfunctory google concept of tokenism, does not mean you have the bredth and scope of it, tokenism like racism and sexism and homophobia etc. can be expressed explicitly and implicitly. So they might not be explicitly doing it, but they may very well be implicitly doing it beneath the threshold of their consciousness, I am being generous and granting them that.

      Let's look at another definition of tokenism:

      Tokenism refers to the practice of giving a few members of a disenfranchised group special treatment or benefits in order to appear to be free of prejudice. 

      So the LGBTQAI+/GSRM group is the disenfranchised community. They give the homosexual members of that community the special friendship treatment in order to appear free of prejudice while invalidating the rest of the community or the -BTQIA+ part of the community by calling them figments. They can't be bigots though because their gay friend exceptions prevent this from being true (I am being sardonic here, obviously they are bigots and obviously they are using their friends as a shield). They are engaging in tokenism and their behavior is absolutely bigoted.

      So, let me break this into two parts:

      1. "So they might not be explicitly doing it, but they may very well be implicitly doing it beneath the threshold of their consciousness, I am being generous and granting them that" does not make sense unless you're ignoring the possibility that it's none of the above. You're not being generous by assuming he has an ulterior motive without proof. The same thing happens here: "They give the homosexual members of that community the special friendship treatment in order to appear free of prejudice...". Believe it or not, it's not at all inconceivable for someone who believes homosexuality should not be shown on a childrens' program to still have genuine friendships with homosexuals.

      2. I'll grant you "using minorities to deflect accusations is also tokenism". Definitions are a pain to argue to about because they depend on the meaning conveyed by a sound, symbol or combination of symbols or sounds but then if a bunch of people start using a combination of sounds or symbols the "wrong way" its meaning and its definition by extension change so that it becomes the "right way" to use those symbols/sounds and what the threshold is for when that denotation becomes common enough to become a right way of using those symbols/sounds is not clear which is why many dictionaries may disagree about the definitions of the same sounds/symbols. Actually, it's not that what the threshold is is unclear. It's that there is no singular correct threshold and it's entirely subjective so even though I don't really agree that that is a definition of tokenism, I'll grant you that because there is no objectively right definition.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      Babyfriend1 wrote:
      Battlefairy wrote:

      So what I am saying is that if their claims hold true and their gay friends are annoyed with the attention these "figments" are getting and the agreement is that everyone within this circle of friends believes the same thing (because their gay friends are where the confirmation bias is coming from you see) then yes, their gay friends are bigoted. It's a bigoted thing to accept your own identity is valid while invalidating the identity of others and if what they are saying about their gay friends is true then what conclusion does one draw here? I have to base my observations around what the individual is saying.

      When I started talking about the definition of bigotry I was mostly just reacting to this, not whether the other stuff he said is proof of bigotry. I'll give a more complete response later when I have time.
      If I am to believe what they say is true then their gay friends are bigoted as well because let's examine the implications of having gay friends "who are likewise (in the same way, or feel as they do) annoyed at the attention said figments are recieving" and the way they use this piece of information not only negatively but to confirm the biases they hold to be evident. They are are taking their friends' attitudes/feelings/beliefs about the attention the rest of the lgbtqia+ community are recieving and they are using it to confirm their own beliefs. What can be extrapolated here is that their friends also have bigoted beliefs that confirm his own beliefs, ergo the reason he uses that line, specificaly, as a talking point in the first place, as a shield. They feel the same way. If you are a gay person and you can hold annoyed attitudes/feelings/beliefs about another marginalized group that allows your straight friends to use those attitudes to confirm their own bias and their own opinions then yeah, it's safe to say that their gay friends have bigotry issues. That is if I am to believe this individual has gay friends in the first place, it all leads back to using anecdotes as evidence making the majority of these points, other than the fact that they are a bigot themselves, completely moot. I don't take people at their word which is why I am wholly against using your personal life and experiences and the people around you and their experiences in an argument.

      So let's save you some time here.

      1. They are engaging in tokenism. 2. They are a bigot. 3. They made an anecdotal argument that cannot be demonstrated.

      That's it, these are the main points of my argument, because if I am being honest it doesn't really matter to me what his intentions were in using his gay friends, only that his claims demonstrated those three main points, but they have not given me any reason to believe their anecdoral evidence is real or that it even matters (which it doesn't because anecdotes are, as I said, relative). 

      1. Likewise does not mean "in the exact same way". In practice, "Same" can be used under varying degrees of scrutiny. "At the same time" doesn't have to mean "At the exact same time". Two things can be called the same if they are the same in one or more aspects. For example, "they all wore the same clothes" doesn't mean they literally took turns using the exact same set of clothes. The clothes look similar or possess some commonality and thus can be called the same even if they're not indistinguishable. Two ways can be the same if they both involve being annoyed at something. This would essentially just make "likewise" in this context have the same meaning as "also" (which is already considered part of the definition of likewise) or "in addition to me".

      2. If he intended to use that anecdote as a talking point to support his claim that they are figments or to confirm any other claim he made in the argument wouldn't he have made it more clear? Just having your gay friends be annoyed at the attention TQAI+ are recieving does not support his claim about them being figments. Even if it was true that if your opinions can be used by someone else to confirm bigoted beliefs, that means you have bigotry issues, how do you know he's doing that?

        Loading editor
    • Babyfriend1 wrote:

      So, let me break this into two parts:

      1. "So they might not be explicitly doing it, but they may very well be implicitly doing it beneath the threshold of their consciousness, I am being generous and granting them that" does not make sense unless you're ignoring the possibility that it's none of the above. You're not being generous by assuming he has an ulterior motive without proof. The same thing happens here: "They give the homosexual members of that community the special friendship treatment in order to appear free of prejudice...". Believe it or not, it's not at all inconceivable for someone who believes homosexuality should not be shown on a childrens' program to still have genuine friendships with homosexuals.

      2. I'll grant you "using minorities to deflect accusations is also tokenism". Definitions are a pain to argue to about because they depend on the meaning conveyed by a sound, symbol or combination of symbols or sounds but then if a bunch of people start using a combination of sounds or symbols the "wrong way" its meaning and its definition by extension change so that it becomes the "right way" to use those symbols/sounds and what the threshold is for when that denotation becomes common enough to become a right way of using those symbols/sounds is not clear which is why many dictionaries may disagree about the definitions of the same sounds/symbols. Actually, it's not that what the threshold is is unclear. It's that there is no singular correct threshold and it's entirely subjective but I'm getting off topic.

      1. I'm being generous by acknowledging they have an argument to be made in the first place considering it hinges on an anecdote. They have already made a claim they can't even demonstrate and nowhere did I say that they couldn't hold those views and not have homosexual friends. You can have homosexual friends and still have bigoted views, in fact I think I said that more than once. It's problematic to hold the position that it's okay to be gay as long as you don't get the same visibility as straight people. It's problematic to normalize one and malign the other, so having gay friends does not mean you can't have bigotry issues, you can have both. That it could be implicit bigotry and not something they are doing deliberately is called being generous in the sense of an argument and not assuming that their bigotry is explicit and they know that they are being a bigot.

      2. Why does any of that matter? We agree that using minorities to deflect accusations is tokenism, so what just happened here is that we settled the definition argument by focusing on a very specific definition that we both agree on. In an argument that's all that matters. 

      3. Unfortunately there's a huge issue here that makes every bit of this moot: anecdotal evidence. How do I even know that they have gay friends and that they aren't just feeding lines? They haven't demonstrated that. They haven't demonstrated that their experiences and their friendships are not relative to their situation. Demonstrate your position to me with evidence to back it up, tell me why lumping the entire LGBTQAI+ community under the same lable while using pejorative language to invalidate them isn't bigotry. Do it without anecdotal evidence and hiding behind your shield of so-called gay friends, because 1. you haven't produced them so how do I know they exist and 2. their thoughts and feelings and ideas are relative to them and not applicable.

        Loading editor
    • 1. Likewise does not mean "in the exact same way". In practice, "Same" can be used under varying degrees of scrutiny. "At the same time" doesn't have to mean "At the exact same time". Two things can be called the same if they are the same in one or more aspects. For example, "they all wore the same clothes" doesn't mean they literally took turns using the exact same set of clothes. The clothes look similar or possess some commonality and thus can be called the same even if they're not indistinguishable. Two ways can be the same if they both involve being annoyed at something. This would essentially just make "likewise" in this context have the same meaning as "also" (which is already considered part of the definition of likewise) or "in addition to me".

      I'm not going to respond to this, because it seems like argument for the sake of argument and has nothing to do with the overall point I made which you've only substantiated with whatever this is.

        Loading editor
    • Battlefairy wrote:
      Babyfriend1 wrote:

      So, let me break this into two parts:

      1. "So they might not be explicitly doing it, but they may very well be implicitly doing it beneath the threshold of their consciousness, I am being generous and granting them that" does not make sense unless you're ignoring the possibility that it's none of the above. You're not being generous by assuming he has an ulterior motive without proof. The same thing happens here: "They give the homosexual members of that community the special friendship treatment in order to appear free of prejudice...". Believe it or not, it's not at all inconceivable for someone who believes homosexuality should not be shown on a childrens' program to still have genuine friendships with homosexuals.

      2. I'll grant you "using minorities to deflect accusations is also tokenism". Definitions are a pain to argue to about because they depend on the meaning conveyed by a sound, symbol or combination of symbols or sounds but then if a bunch of people start using a combination of sounds or symbols the "wrong way" its meaning and its definition by extension change so that it becomes the "right way" to use those symbols/sounds and what the threshold is for when that denotation becomes common enough to become a right way of using those symbols/sounds is not clear which is why many dictionaries may disagree about the definitions of the same sounds/symbols. Actually, it's not that what the threshold is is unclear. It's that there is no singular correct threshold and it's entirely subjective but I'm getting off topic.

      1. I'm being generous by acknowledging they have an argument to be made in the first place considering it hinges on an anecdote. They have already made a claim they can't even demonstrate and nowhere did I say that they couldn't hold those views and not have homosexual friends. You can have homosexual friends and still have bigoted views, in fact I think I said that more than once. It's problematic to hold the position that it's okay to be gay as long as you don't get the same visibility as straight people. It's problematic to normalize one and malign the other, so having gay friends does not mean you can't have bigotry issues, you can have both. That it could be implicit bigotry and not something they are doing deliberately is called being generous in the sense of an argument and not assuming that their bigotry is explicit and they know that they are being a bigot.

      2. Why does any of that matter? We agree that using minorities to deflect accusations is tokenism, so what just happened here is that we settled the definition argument by focusing on a very specific definition that we both agree on. In an argument that's all that matters. 

      3. Unfortunately there's a huge issue here that makes every bit of this moot: anecdotal evidence. How do I even know that they have gay friends and that they aren't just feeding lines? They haven't demonstrated that. They haven't demonstrated that their experiences and their friendships are not relative to their situation. Demonstrate your position to me with evidence to back it up, tell me why lumping the entire LGBTQAI+ community under the same lable while using pejorative language to invalidate them isn't bigotry. Do it without anecdotal evidence and hiding behind your shield of so-called gay friends, because 1. you haven't produced them so how do I know they exist and 2. their thoughts and feelings and ideas are relative to them and not applicable.

      1. I won't give a complete response right now because this is tiring but when I said "genuine friendship" I meant friendship that isn't motivated by a need to maintain an appearance of tolerance. I thought you might be excluding the possibility of them not having an ulterior motive for being friends with those gay people because you think he's bigoted. You were saying that he only gave them "the special friendship treatment" in order to not appear bigoted.

      2. I wasn't agreeing with your definition. I was declining to argue about it and explaining why.

        Loading editor
    • This doesn’t really seem relevant so unless either of you talk about the thread I suggest you don’t post. Like battlefairy did say, you two are having an ‘argument for the sake of argument’ and there is no real relation to the thread.

        Loading editor
    • It's tiring because you insist on arguing against an anecdote. Anything that you assume or I assume are just assumptions because they haven't given any evidence that these friends even exist. We're giving them credit by assuming that they do exist and determining whether or not they're using these friendships to maintain an appearnace of tolerance. We can't know that because it's not demonstrable, what is demonstrable is the actual words they use and the sentiment behind those words. And the words say thusly:

      Clearly I'm ignorant by not acknowledging figments of loopy people's imaginations as dignifiable constructs, and obviously I'm a homophobic bigot in spite of having gay friends who are likewise annoyed by the attention said figments are receiving in public. 

      It is terrible optics to say I am not homophobic because I have gay friends, they're deflecting the accusation of their bigotry and using this supposed friendship to do it. By our agreed-upon definition they are engaging in tokenism whether or not these friendships exist, he's hiding behind minority group, the friednship is incidental.

      You were saying that he only gave them "the special friendship treatment" in order to not appear bigoted.

      That's a misunderstanding of my meaning so let me provide you with clarification. Part of what tokenism is from a sociological perspective is that you have a disenfranchised group of people, in this case that group is the LGBTQIA+ community. So from there you give an exception to small part of that community (they've given the exception to the homosexual part of that community because of their "gay friendships") while invalidating the rest, which they clearly did. 

      when I said "genuine friendship" I meant friendship that isn't motivated by a need to maintain an appearance of tolerance

      Prove that the friendship isn't motivated by appearances of tolerance? Motivation is not an easy thing to prove that's why the only thing that matters to me is what they said so I'm not even arguing motive. I'm arguing what they said, I can't know if they have genuine friendships, I can only know what they said, they can't be a bigot because they have homosexual friends. I can only know that they said some bigoted things about minorities. I can only know that they hid behind a minority group as a means of subverting the accusation.

        Loading editor
    • I would second Aang on a sec's comment. This thread seems to have drifted away from discussing anything to do with Avatar. Can I please request that the discussion get back to the topic of the thread.

        Loading editor
    • I'll start by saying that I have not bothered to read this thread, and only write a reply to the OP's question.  Not that it really matters since they are inactive, but whatever.  

      Anyway,  my two cents on the subject is this. If you are asking what purpose it serves, I would say none.  There is no narrative need, nor impact for the mentioned characters to be members of the LGBTQAI+ or GSM community.   Not that there needs to be.  I'd say the only reason they are included is diversity for diversity's sake, which is fine.  As a member of the the GSM community, I can't help but to feel like it reads on the side of tokenism.  But, I can't fault them for not including these things in the series.  They had plenty of others threads to deal with in the story.  They  only way in which they are relevent will be if they are touched on and explored within the companion works, like the Rise of Kyoshi (not that Rise of Kyoshi was even a pipe dream at the time of OP's post.)  As far as I'm concerened, it neither bolsters, nor undermines the story and just is what it is.   (not unlike JK Rowling taking to Twitter to announce that "wizard's didn't use bathrooms until recently." ) In my opinion it is far better to show rather than to tell, which I think the Kyoshi books do a fine job in doing.  Perhaps in the future some other material will make these things more impactful in the story but until then, just let it ride.  

        Loading editor
    • You don't think that both oppositions should be in a neutral point!

        Loading editor
    • It neither detracts from or enhances the series, it is what it is. What can be more neutral than that?

        Loading editor
    • AvatarCorin34 wrote:
      It neither detracts from or enhances the series, it is what it is. What can be more neutral than that?

      Only someone to analyze the decline between the two series.

        Loading editor
    • To what are you sepcifically speaking to when you say "decline?" 

        Loading editor
    • AvatarCorin34 wrote:
      To what are you sepcifically speaking to when you say "decline?" 

      In the sense that fans perceive the plot and development of both series differently.

        Loading editor
    • Was the plot and development of either series impacted in anyway by revealing Kya, Kyoshi, & Aiwei as members of the GSM community? If yes, then how so? 

        Loading editor
    • AvatarCorin34 wrote:
      Was the plot and development of either series impacted in anyway by revealing Kya, Kyoshi, & Aiwei as members of the GSM community? If yes, then how so? 

      Let's just say that the creators wanted to contribute something related to the LGBT community by demonstrating that some favorite characters of the fans are gay in order to give them total satisfaction.

        Loading editor
    • Did it out right impact the story told in LOK? It's really a yes or no question.

        Loading editor
    • It contributed to their characterization and part of the plot dynamic in the Comic Trilogies.

      And I still haven't read it (and I really want to, but physical) but I'm pretty sure something related to the topic happened in Rise of Kyoshi.

        Loading editor
    • AirMasterParker wrote:
      It contributed to their characterization and part of the plot dynamic in the Comic Trilogies.

      And I still haven't read it (and I really want to, but physical) but I'm pretty sure something related to the topic happened in Rise of Kyoshi.

      I recommend you read the Comic Trilogies and The Rise of Kyoshi digitally since getting them in physical is very difficult, so I prefer to watch the stories online instead of looking for a comic post where finding them would be difficult, anyway You have to know the stories that happened recently.

        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
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.