Discussion History YMMV / TheLegendOfKorra

Well, since I suppose I\\\'m one of those \\\"social justice\\\" people Rebochan referenced, thought I\\\'d comment.

There might be a case of WhatDoYouMeanItsNotPolitical with some of this, but my impression was that the show deliberately set up the Equalists as initially seeming to be sympathetic/initially made it appear that nonbenders were disadvantaged, but then went out of its way to disprove these.

IMO, the Equalists do ultimately seem to be a Strawman of equality movements, especially given TheReveal that their leader wasn\\\'t actually a nonbender and its possible didn\\\'t really give a damn about the goals of the movement. And its also kind of galling that the series sort of went with the idea that the oppressed group (nonbenders) weren\\\'t really oppressed and in fact were the real oppressors.

I admit that it is quite possible that myself (and others who share this view) might be reading too much into it. IIRC, Rebochan\\\'s interpretation is that the Equalists were intended by the show to have something of a point, in which case they wouldn\\\'t be a Strawman.

I tend to disagree (I think how if at all the second season treats this will clarify things). Overall, I\\\'d probably consider the Equalists to be UnintentionallySympathetic.

Incidentally, I was kind of amused when I saw the actor who voices adult!Aang was in the second \\\'\\\'Atlas Shrugged\\\'\\\' movie. Maybe my suspicion of the show having an Objectivist bent wasn\\\'t totally off base...

Well, since I suppose I\\\'m one of those \\\"social justice\\\" people Rebochan referenced, thought I\\\'d comment.

There might be a case of WhatDoYouMeanItsNotPolitical with some of this, but my impression was that the show deliberately set up the Equalists as initially seeming to be sympathetic/initially made it appear that nonbenders were disadvantaged, but then went out of its way to disprove these.

IMO, the Equalists do ultimately seem to be a Strawman of equality movements, especially given TheReveal that their leader wasn\\\'t actually a nonbender and its possible didn\\\'t really give a damn about the goals of the movement. And its also kind of galling that the series sort of went with the idea that the oppressed group (nonbenders) weren\\\'t really oppressed and in fact were the real oppressors.

Now iirc, Rebochan\\\'s interpretation is that the Equalists were intended by the show to have something of a point, in which case they wouldn\\\'t be a Strawman.

I tend to disagree (I think how if at all the second season treats this will clarify things). Overall, I\\\'d probably consider the Equalists to be UnintentionallySympathetic.

Incidentally, I was kind of amused when I saw the actor who voices adult!Aang was in the second \\\'\\\'Atlas Shrugged\\\'\\\' movie. Maybe my suspicion of the show having an Objectivist bent wasn\\\'t totally off base...

I have a question - what counts as an alignment being \\\"canonical\\\"? Rarely outside of the RPG universe or creators influenced by it do people say \\\"Yeah, this character is supposed to be ChaoticGood and this one is NeutralEvil\\\" or whatever, but there are some characters where they basically fit the alignment to a tee without using the exact name. For example, D&D didn\\\'t exist when Victor Hugo wrote \\\'\\\'LesMiserables\\\'\\\', but what we now call LawfulNeutral is pretty much Javert\\\'s entire character, and he makes it clear that\\\'s where he stands in other words. Also, his character is the TropeNamer for [[InspectorJavert one of the various permutations]] of that alignment. So is his alignment \\\"canonical\\\"? There are other people who are also fairly clear examples of certain alignments, particularly within the various types of Neutral (Jack Sparrow is also a fairly textbook ChaoticNeutral, for example) but where do we draw the line?

Because right now, there is still plenty of alignmentwank, because people can\\\'t tell the difference between their personal analyses and authorial intent. (For example, I think I\\\'ve seen [[HarryPotter Bellatrix Lestrange]] under just about every \\\"Evil\\\" alignment.) I don\\\'t think we should draw the line at \\\"it has to be stated, in these exact words, by WordOfGod or in-canon\\\" because then we\\\'d have almost no examples outside of TabletopGames, but it has to be drawn somewhere.

I have a question - what counts as an alignment being \\\"canonical\\\"? Rarely outside of the RPG universe or creators influenced by it do people say \\\"Yeah, this character is supposed to be ChaoticGood and this one is NeutralEvil\\\" or whatever, but there are some characters where they basically fit the alignment to a tee without using the exact name. For example, D&D didn\\\'t exist when Victor Hugo wrote \\\'\\\'LesMiserables\\\'\\\', but what we now call LawfulNeutral is pretty much Javert\\\'s entire character, and he makes it clear that\\\'s where he stands in other words. Also, his character is the TropeNamer for [[InspectorJavert one of the various permutations]] of that alignment. So is his alignment \\\"canonical\\\"? There are other people who are also fairly clear examples of certain alignments, particularly within the various types of Neutral (Jack Sparrow is also a fairly textbook ChaoticNeutral, for example) but where do we draw the line? Because right now, that rule doesn\\\'t seem to be stopping alignmentwank over, say, exactly which Evil alignment fits [[HarryPotter Bellatrix Lestrange]], because a lot of people still seem to think their personal analyses are exactly the same as what the author intended. I don\\\'t think we should make it \\\"it has to be in canon or WordOfGod in these exact words\\\" because then there would be almost no examples outside of TabletopGames, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

I have a question - what counts as an alignment being \\\"canonical\\\"? Rarely outside of the RPG universe or creators influenced by it do people say \\\"Yeah, this character is supposed to be ChaoticGood and this one is NeutralEvil\\\" or whatever, but there are some characters where they basically fit the alignment to a tee without using the exact name. For example, D&D didn\\\'t exist when Victor Hugo wrote \\\'\\\'LesMiserables\\\'\\\', but what we now call LawfulNeutral is pretty much Javert\\\'s entire character, and he makes it clear that\\\'s where he stands in other words. Also, his character is the TropeNamer for [[InspectorJavert one of the various permutations]] of that alignment. So is his alignment \\\"canonical\\\"? There are other people who are also fairly clear examples of certain alignments, particularly within the various types of Neutral (Jack Sparrow is also a fairly textbook ChaoticNeutral, for example) but where do we draw the line? Because some alignmentwanky types are going to see \\\'\\\'everyone\\\'\\\' as \\\"obvious canonical\\\" examples of a certain alignment. Like the fact that [[HarryPotter Bellatrix Lestrange]] seems to be bouncing between the various Evil alignments because everyone seems TOTALLY CONVINCED that JKRowling intended her FOR SURE as one or the other. It\\\'s clear \\\"canonical\\\" can\\\'t just be \\\"the creator actually said this in these exact words\\\" or we\\\'d have almost no examples outside of the TabletopGames category, but there needs to be a specific place to draw the line, because some people will never understand just how individual their individual analyses might be.

I have a question - what counts as an alignment being \\\"canonical\\\"? Rarely outside of the RPG universe or creators influenced by it do people say \\\"Yeah, this character is supposed to be ChaoticGood and this one is NeutralEvil\\\" or whatever, but there are some characters where they basically fit the alignment to a tee but it\\\'s never stated in canon. For example, D&D didn\\\'t exist when Victor Hugo wrote \\\'\\\'LesMiserables\\\'\\\', but what we now call LawfulNeutral is pretty much Javert\\\'s entire character, and he makes it clear that\\\'s where he stands in other words. Also, his character is the TropeNamer for [[InspectorJavert one of the various permutations]] of that alignment. So is his alignment \\\"canonical\\\"? There are other people who are also fairly clear examples of certain alignments, particularly within the various types of Neutral (Jack Sparrow is also a fairly textbook ChaoticNeutral, for example) but where do we draw the line? Because some alignmentwanky types are going to see \\\'\\\'everyone\\\'\\\' as \\\"obvious canonical\\\" examples of a certain alignment. Like the fact that [[HarryPotter Bellatrix Lestrange]] seems to be bouncing between the various Evil alignments because everyone seems TOTALLY CONVINCED that JKRowling intended her FOR SURE as one or the other. It\\\'s clear \\\"canonical\\\" can\\\'t just be \\\"the creator actually said this in these exact words\\\" or we\\\'d have almost no examples outside of the TabletopGames category, but there needs to be a specific place to draw the line, because some people will never understand just how individual their individual analyses might be.

I have a question - what counts as an alignment being \\\"canonical\\\"? Rarely outside of the RPG universe or creators influenced by it do people say \\\"Yeah, this character is supposed to be ChaoticGood and this one is NeutralEvil\\\" or whatever, but there are some characters where they basically fit the alignment to a tee but it\\\'s never stated in canon. For example, D&D didn\\\'t exist when Victor Hugo wrote \\\'\\\'LesMiserables\\\'\\\', but what we now call LawfulNeutral is pretty much Javert\\\'s entire character, and he makes it clear that\\\'s where he stands in other words. Also, his character is the TropeNamer for [[InspectorJavert one of the various permutations]] of that alignment. So is his alignment \\\"canonical\\\"? There are other people who are also fairly clear examples of certain alignments, particularly within the various types of Neutral (Jack Sparrow is also a fairly textbook ChaoticNeutral, for example) but where do we draw the line? Because some alignmentwanky types are going to see \\\'\\\'everyone\\\'\\\' as \\\"obvious canonical\\\" examples of a certain alignment.

I have a question - what counts as an alignment being \\\"canonical\\\"? Rarely outside of the RPG universe or creators influenced by it do people say \\\"Yeah, this character is supposed to be ChaoticGood and this one is NeutralEvil\\\" or whatever, but there are some characters where they basically fit the alignment to a tee but it\\\'s never stated in canon. For example, D&D didn\\\'t exist when Victor Hugo wrote \\\'\\\'LesMiserables\\\'\\\', but what we now call LawfulNeutral is pretty much Javert\\\'s entire character, to the extent that he commits suicide when he\\\'s forced to consider becoming some other alignment. Also, his character is the TropeNamer for [[InspectorJavert one of the various permutations]] of that alignment. So is his alignment \\\"canonical\\\"? There are other people who are also fairly clear examples of certain alignments, particularly within the various types of Neutral (Jack Sparrow is also a fairly textbook ChaoticNeutral, for example) but where do we draw the line? Because some alignmentwanky types are going to see \\\'\\\'everyone\\\'\\\' as \\\"obvious canonical\\\" examples of a certain alignment.