The Legend of Korra

[Kal]

Of course he's an extremist (claiming his philosophy "screams extremism" is a little superfluous, since he's literally attacking all benders in the name of equality), but you're trivializing him if you think he's just a "punk with a power trip." You might be able to characterize Tarlok, Ozai, Zhao, and Sozin that way, but Amon?

Keep in mind that "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are just matters of perspective. To the Fire Nation, Jet and his band of douchebags were terrorists. To the equalists, Amon is a freedom fighter. It's not as black and white as "omfg dat guy is EVOL." Amon is fighting for equality, so that people who are not born with the ability to bend the elements don't have their rights abridged by a society that decides might makes right. That you disagree with how he's going about this doesn't mean he's just on a "power trip."

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Agreed, Amon, unlike Ozai, is a character you can potentially sympathize with and definitely admire. He's not just a one-dimensional evildoer (let's spread the peace and prosperity of the Fire Nation to the whole world - by going to war with everything!). He's fighting for equality.

See bold.

I think this right here is what makes Amon so ****ing dangerous, too. It's a concept that resonates with non-Benders: Empowerment. The course of the world has been steered by the Avatar and the Bending Nations since time immemorial; it's part of the world's history and it's (seemingly) ingrained into the very culture itself. Amon is giving those frustrated souls that are sick and tired of being dictated by the actions of these fuddy-duddy supernatural martial artists a vehicle for change. That's not a concept that's just going to evaporate upon Amon's demise (assuming he isn't a charlatan); it's going to stick, and it's more than likely going to change the whole dynamic between Benders and non-Benders forevermore. It's ****ing pervasive as all hell.

I like Amon as a character; I really like what he stands for. I just have a nagging feeling that because of the target audience of the show, the writers are going to just make all of these good aspects of his character null and void thanks to an asspull.

Smooth Criminal

 

[theeboredone]

Of course he's an extremist (claiming his philosophy "screams extremism" is a little superfluous, since he's literally attacking all benders in the name of equality), but you're trivializing him if you think he's just a "punk with a power trip." You might be able to characterize Tarlok, Ozai, Zhao, and Sozin that way, but Amon?

They are all punks with powertrips. Just defined in their own merit. Amon's is that he seeks to "equalize" everyone through any means necessary. Taking away what some might consider a gift or benefit, because a select few are power hungry with their bending? This stuff has been going on beyond Aang's years. Taking away someone's bending is not gonna make them relate anymore to the non-benders then they are now. If anything, more hatred would come out of it.

Keep in mind that "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are just matters of perspective. To the Fire Nation, Jet and his band of douchebags were terrorists. To the equalists, Amon is a freedom fighter. It's not as black and white as "omfg dat guy is EVOL." Amon is fighting for equality, so that people who are not born with the ability to bend the elements don't have their rights abridged by a society that decides might makes right. That you disagree with how he's going about this doesn't mean he's just on a "power trip."

I agree that it depends on the eye of the beholder. However, I am simply speaking in the perspective from the viewer, and from Korra's side, who also happens to be the protagonist and the Avatar. You know, the person who's meant to bring balance. Amon might be bringing balance through his own P.O.V., but he's completely missing the point, and is fueled by his own personal hatred.

And as I said earlier, he could have fought for "equality" through other means. The way he chose is why I decided to label him as a punk, terrorist, extremist, etc.

 

[Kal]

I'm not disagreeing that what he's doing is wrong. It's just stupid that you think this area is so black and white. Would you say that what Amon is doing is wrong if Tarlok's law to abridge the rights of non-benders were taken to the extreme?

No, because there are scenarios where this "extremism" becomes necessary (c.f. V for Vendetta, where you have a fascist, tyrannical rule that needs to be violently stopped). Do I think that, the way it is currently, this extremism is necessary? No. This doesn't make Amon a simple evildoer, akin to Sozin ("let's spread the Fire Nations sexy awesomeness by conquering everything!") or Ozai ("I burnt my son's face to teach him a lesson!").

Again, you're just trivializing Amon because you disagree with his methodology and the degree that makes this methodology necessary. It's ok to disagree, but that doesn't mean he's just some "punk on a power trip." Like he's just a raging moron, sans intellect or ideals, who just has a lot of power and a direction to point it. He's not The Hulk. He's fighting for what he believes is right.

The fact that Amon does have something of a point, and that what he is doing would be right if the circumstances were dire enough, is exactly what makes him a terrifying and exciting antagonist. The protagonist has to look inwards and ask if he is in the right, or if his enemy might have a point. This is far superior, in my opinion, to anything we got in TLA, where the only protagonist this occurred for was Zuko, and everything else was "Fire Nation bad, other nations good!"

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I'd argue that Aang's opinion of the Fire Nation in TLA fluctuated to some degree (from "oh they can't be THAT ba--HOLY****THEY'REAFTERMEBAD" to "they're simply misguided!"), but otherwise I agree with that summation of the protagonists' viewpoints on the Fire Nation. Zuko definitely saw the most development in that regard. He lived in and lived through the worst his country had to offer, after all.

Smooth Criminal

 

[theeboredone]

I'm not disagreeing that what he's doing is wrong. It's just stupid that you think this area is so black and white. Would you say that what Amon is doing is wrong if Tarlok's law to abridge the rights of non-benders were taken to the extreme?

Tarlok was an extremist in his own right, but we already knew that Korra and Tenzen never liked him. On top of that, Korra, the Avatar was trying to put a stop to it herself. Both are extremists with different methods.

No, because there are scenarios where this "extremism" becomes necessary (c.f. V for Vendetta, where you have a fascist, tyrannical rule that needs to be violently stopped). Do I think that, the way it is currently, this extremism is necessary? No. This doesn't make Amon a simple evildoer, akin to Sozin ("let's spread the Fire Nations sexy awesomeness by conquering everything!") or Ozai ("I burnt my son's face to teach him a lesson!").

But it doesn't NEED to be necessary. Look, I understand this is an action oriented story. No one would watch it if Amon, as popular as he is rose through the ranks like MLK or Gandhi by peacefully protesting, and eventually becoming a part of the council. With that being said, what he is doing has no justification. His ideology of "equality" and "justice" are taking away something people are naturally born with, because a select few decide to run the streets with it.

Isn't that what you can say about anything in real life? Does Al Qaeda represent all of Islam? Do all black people with sagging pants represent gangsters and thug life? Amon, with what he has experienced in his life and the corruption of the gangsters in Republic City is using all of that as leverage to propel his extremism.

Again, you're just trivializing Amon because you disagree with his methodology and the degree that makes this methodology necessary. It's ok to disagree, but that doesn't mean he's just some "punk on a power trip." Like he's just a raging moron, sans intellect or ideals, who just has a lot of power and a direction to point it. He's not The Hulk. He's fighting for what he believes is right.

You can still be an intellect and have ideals, and still be a punk on a power trip. Since when did a punk on a power trip have to equate to being The Hulk? Like I said, there are different variations of being on a powertrip. We've seen what Ozai was capable of. Amon is exercising his power in a smarter manner. That's all.

The fact that Amon does have something of a point, and that what he is doing would be right if the circumstances were dire enough, is exactly what makes him a terrifying and exciting antagonist. The protagonist has to look inwards and ask if he is in the right, or if his enemy might have a point. This is far superior, in my opinion, to anything we got in TLA, where the only protagonist this occurred for was Zuko, and everything else was "Fire Nation bad, other nations good!"

Again, it would make for a boring show, but he could easily have been a peaceful leader/protester. He's a good villain for the show, much better than Ozai, but I'm not gonna sit here and say he doesn't carry some extreme flaws.

And all that might change once we get a glimpse into his background and reasoning. For now though, harming innocent lives (pro bending arena), and potentially harming more innocents is not what I would ever consider "gray".

Korra has it right. She understands she is EVERYONE's Avatar. Not just benders. She just needs a moment of peace and time to get her voice and influence across.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Anyone else find it funny that we're arguing over extremism and terrorists thanks to a Nickelodeon show?

 

[Mr. Johan]

Other forums are raging over Makorra and Makami.

This forum is discussing the perceptions of good and evil, and extremism.

I like this thread better.

 

[Kal]

Theboredone, you keep justifying your opinion that Amon is a bad guy, as though I'm in disagreement. I don't disagree, at all, that he is a bad guy, and that what he is doing is wrong. My point is that you are trivializing it by pretending he's just some angry, angsty little bender-hater who has too much power.

You've completely missed the point on what I said about Tarlok. I was not suggesting that he was not an extremist. Rather, supposing that his law to abridge non-benders rights was taken to an extreme, to the point where being a non-bender basically left you without any rights at all. Would you think the method Amon is employing is wrong? If not, then the difference between you and Amon is a matter of degree. It's not as though Amon is just out to take bending away because benders are special. He's trying to eliminate bending for equality.

"But it doesn't NEED to be necessary" isn't a relevant point. There are times when it's necessary, unless you think peaceful protest is the only means by which one can morally create change (something canonically non-American). So the question becomes "when is it necessary?" Amon happens to think that the way things are now have made it necessary. This doesn't mean he's right, or that I agree with him, or that he's less of a monster for what he does. But it's not as simple as "he's a bad person, and that's the end of it!"

And lets not get into a semantical debate about what constitutes being a "punk on a power trip" when the phrase "punk" has no actual meaning outside of being derogatory; to call someone a punk is to suggest that they are worthless. When you write "he's just a punk on a power trip," what do you expect me to think you mean? What's implied, at least to me, is that you think Amon isn't much more than a junky trying to get his fix, with energybending being his addiction. But that's not the case. He's not Sozin, just trying to conquer the world for the lulz. He's deeper than that: he's fighting a war against a group in an attempt for equality. If that's not what you meant by "punk on a power trip," then please just clarify what you meant.

In the end, I think you're just claiming this issue isn't morally grey simply because you disagree with what Amon is doing. But take it from the perspective of Hiroshi Sato or Amon, or any of the people whose rights were temporarily abridged by Tarlok in episode 8. They aren't necessarily going to see it your way, and, at the very least, they might say "Amon has the right idea, but the wrong execution." Which, to me, suggests that Amon isn't just some "punk with a power trip." He's more than that.

 

[theeboredone]

You talk about Amon responding to Tarlok's oppression, but the real question is this. Why did Tarlok do it in the first place? It was because Amon started his use of terrorizing civilians of all kind to begin with. Tarlok was in turn RESPONDING to Amon's actions. The only thing prior to that were...

1. Mobster benders taking advantage of citizens. And I say citizens, because both non-benders and benders could be affected.

2. The strike force incident.

And to start the season, the council was suspicious of Amon and did not approve of him to begin with.

If you honestly think that Amon skipping over the peaceful protesting part, when there are influences such as Korra and Tenzen was not a need of necessity, then I honestly don't understand. You don't just skip straight to violence. He's as narrow minded as villains come.

Also, you defined the word punk correctly. However, the true semantics is in the word "worthless." Amon to me is worthless. Not as a person with influence, but as a person through actions.

The creators attempted to make him deeper. But sadly, I don't see that. He is 10x better than anything TLA threw at us, simply because Amon is not evil for the sake of evil. He has a "purpose", but I question his purpose. How many times have we seen someone lose their parents only to turn evil/good? Batman? Superman? Spiderman? Harry Osborn? Background story or not, you do not take away INNOCENT lives to justify your reason for equality. That's my main point in the whole white/black area. He doesn't care who's in his way. He doesn't care about casualties. That is my main problem with him in his attempt to spread "Equality."

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I know I've made some complaints earlier that could be countered with what I am about to say with this new criticism, but this is a show targeted for a younger audience. Antagonists, while having a purpose, are not supposed to receive much sympathy. TLA didn't have too much of that, the most you would get is revenge or just misguided feelings in general, so it isn't entirely surprising that they aren't making the good guy vs bad guy theme a lot more "seinen" if you know what I mean. Compare it to like how most shonen's are in Japan, it is generally just a good guy trying to be good and the bad guy wanting to be bad. Unfortunately, all we are watching is something like that.

It is even especially clear for us older viewers that what he means by equality isn't actually equality, it is removing diversity to only leave for equality, rather than giving equality to diversity. It is basically the evil simple version of the latter that is much harder to sympathize with. which I would bet is intentional. They don't want grey areas and all these mixed feelings.

 

[BirthNote]

It is even especially clear for us older viewers that what he means by equality isn't actually equality, it is removing diversity to only leave for equality, rather than giving equality to diversity. It is basically the evil simple version of the latter that is much harder to sympathize with. which I would bet is intentional. They don't want grey areas and all these mixed feelings.

That reminds me of a quote from Mass Effect 2. "Removing evil isn't the same as creating good." Not saying that bending's evil, its just that reading this made that quote come back to me.

 

[Kal]

You're missing the point with the thing about Tarlok. It's not about why Tarlok did what he did in the first place. It's about whether there exists a scenario where Amon's response would be appropriate. If it's possible for the treatment of non-benders to be so bad that Amon would be justified in waging a war against benders. If you don't think such a scenario exists, then you're right to claim that it's black and white; Amon is evil. But if you do think there is a possible such scenario, then we're discussing degree, here. And the question is whether the current situation warrants such a response. It currently does not, in my opinion, but Amon does not see it that way.

Not to be mean, but please try and understand my points, and avoid resorting to straw man arguments. Whether Tarlok has a reason to resort to laws abridging individual rights is not the point of the hypothetical I mentioned.

As I said before, you're just reiterating why you think what he's doing is wrong. I agree wholeheartedly, because I think this absolutist solution should only occur in a situation where no other alternative exists. Currently, it does not appear that way to me. But the very fact that there exist situations where I would agree with and even root for Amon's solution tells me that this is not a black and white issue. Because, instead of debating the actual morality of what he is doing, you would be debating whether the situation warrants it. And that, intrinsically, is not a straightforward, black and white discussion.

Heel, I agree that it's kept simple enough that we can have a clear good guy and bad guy in this show. An ideal of equality is a good one, but obviously, the writers had Amon try to achieve equality through extreme, obviously unethical means to establish a clear good vs. evil dichotomy. The writers don't want to alienate their younger viewers by having them confused as to who they "should" root for.

 

[Alacion]

What happened to this thread? >_>

 

[Holder of the Heel]

...The Fire Nation attacked?

 

[Kal]

That's when everything changed.

 

[z00ted]

^LMFAO post of the year.

 

[ShroudedOne]

You know it gets real when Kal finds a thread to post in. :D

 

[Kal]

​

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That was the reference that I was obviously eluding to. O_O

 

[Kal]

Hey, don't try and take away my post of the year. I don't get those very often.

 

[theeboredone]

You're missing the point with the thing about Tarlok. It's not about why Tarlok did what he did in the first place. It's about whether there exists a scenario where Amon's response would be appropriate.

All we know is this...

1. Apparently, bending introduces an opportunity for non-benders to be oppressed.

2. Such oppression has only taken place by evil benders. Mobsters and villains. This is the information presented to us by the show.

If it's possible for the treatment of non-benders to be so bad that Amon would be justified in waging a war against benders. If you don't think such a scenario exists, then you're right to claim that it's black and white; Amon is evil.

Again, the information given shows that Amon has essentially stereotyped and made extreme beliefs on all benders alike. Mainly due to his own experiences and what he has "seen". Evil benders don't just harm non-benders, but benders as well. Amon's solution is to remove bending in all benders, so everyone is the same. Extremism and terrorism. An individual who has the ego the size of a building.

But if you do think there is a possible such scenario, then we're discussing degree, here. And the question is whether the current situation warrants such a response. It currently does not, in my opinion, but Amon does not see it that way.

He never bothered taking a peaceful approach, and this is why I have trouble appreciating him. The fact he went straight to violence, harming innocent lives in the process is what mainly irks me about him. There is no "gray" area when you're harming innocent lives.

 

[Kal]

You're just reiterating why you think Amon is wrong in what he's doing. I agree. But, again, the fact that there exist scenarios where what he's doing is right suggest exactly that it's not a black and white issue. If you feel that non-benders are truly being severely oppressed by benders, then you won't feel what Amon is doing is wrong. Whether you feel that this is happening is a matter of perspective and opinion. It's silly to think that such a matter is black and white.

And it's simply untrue that there is no grey area when harming innocent lives. That is a matter of perspective. After all, there are people out there who think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified to avert a fight with Japan that would cost the lives hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. It's just not as simple as "don't harm innocents, ever!"

Also, has Amon actually "harmed" innocent lives, outside of taking bending away? We saw Lin shank somebody to death (well, it was implied, at least). We haven't seen Amon actually kill anyone, have we?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Haha I'm not, just confused at the reaction. XD

 

[Kal]

I think we need a separate thread for Meelo appreciation. Who's with me?

I bet this is what Jesus looked like as a child.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

KAL Y U NO LIEK ME? I AM BEST TOADIE.

;_;

(Glad you found this thread. My presence on D3 or any Blizzard game for that matter has been sparse lately.)

Smooth Criminal

 

[Kal]

Leaves from the vine
Falling so slow
Like fragile, tiny shells
Drifting in the foam

Little soldier boy
Come marching home
Brave soldier boy
Comes marching home​

All discussion must end so we can shed our tears.

 

[Spelt]

 

[Disfunkshunal]

Leaves from the vine
Falling so slow
Like fragile, tiny shells
Drifting in the foam

Little soldier boy
Come marching home
Brave soldier boy
Comes marching home​

All discussion must end so we can shed our tears.

No lie, I was JUST listening to an instrumental of this. It went off at your meelo post

 

[theeboredone]

You're just reiterating why you think Amon is wrong in what he's doing. I agree. But, again, the fact that there exist scenarios where what he's doing is right suggest exactly that it's not a black and white issue. If you feel that non-benders are truly being severely oppressed by benders, then you won't feel what Amon is doing is wrong. Whether you feel that this is happening is a matter of perspective and opinion. It's silly to think that such a matter is black and white.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I never say "gray" areas don't exist. Perspective does matter. But Amon made it black and white on his own accord. A refusal to even not try for peace would have at least made the area grayer. Going straight to violence simply shows you are not willing to explore any other alternatives, let alone face a situation where violence is necessary. It's not like he was backed against a wall and had no alternative. He insinuated this rebellion to new heights.

And it's simply untrue that there is no grey area when harming innocent lives. That is a matter of perspective. After all, there are people out there who think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified to avert a fight with Japan that would cost the lives hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. It's just not as simple as "don't harm innocents, ever!"

This is a very poor example. A war that lasted for several years, with no end in sight, with a decision to make on death count one way or the other. Yes it was a "gray" decision. I never said such things don't exist. I simply said that Amon never bothered exploring a route, which would even allow him to become violent in the first place. It's not like WW2 was started with everyone firing away. There were attempts made to prevent a war. When push came to shove, that's when war broke out. I don't see how Amon has been "shoved" per say outside of his parents dying.

Also, has Amon actually "harmed" innocent lives, outside of taking bending away? We saw Lin shank somebody to death (well, it was implied, at least). We haven't seen Amon actually kill anyone, have we?

When you're making explosions, having stuff crumble...I'm sure people are gonna get hurt for the sake of the bigger goal. They aren't going to show dead bodies on a kid's show, but it should be heavily implied such destruction doesn't leave everyone okay.

 

[Kal]

Ok, I'm done arguing this. You keep missing the point of what I'm saying and it's making this discussion less than fun.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Damn it, Kal.

What a buzzkill. I actually quite enjoyed the redundancy. It was...quite redundant.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Kal]

Oh ****, you've reminded me, I have beer!

Also, this.

 

[theeboredone]

Keep in mind that "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are just matters of perspective. To the Fire Nation, Jet and his band of douchebags were terrorists. To the equalists, Amon is a freedom fighter. It's not as black and white as "omfg dat guy is EVOL." Amon is fighting for equality, so that people who are not born with the ability to bend the elements don't have their rights abridged by a society that decides might makes right. That you disagree with how he's going about this doesn't mean he's just on a "power trip."

This was the core of your argument. Your initial response. I've already stated several times I understand those points, but Amon's own method of execution has little to no gray area in it.

 

[Kal]

Par for the course, you've missed the point of what I've said. And merely stating that you understand these points doesn't make it so. You've made it clear that you're either intellectually dishonest or completely ignorant to what my point is by the straw man you've argued several times.

 

[theeboredone]

No, I do understand those points. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Have you even been paying attention to my points?

 

[Kal]

I really don't want to get into a stupid meta debate about whether you understand the points I'm making. It's clear that you don't.

 

[theeboredone]

But the very fact that there exist situations where I would agree with and even root for Amon's solution tells me that this is not a black and white issue. Because, instead of debating the actual morality of what he is doing, you would be debating whether the situation warrants it. And that, intrinsically, is not a straightforward, black and white discussion.

Again, I have stated several times the "morality", just not by word. If Moral is defined on the fact what is right and wrong, it's hard to not link whether the situation warranting it should involve morals or not.

Like I said, I don't think you've even bothered reading my arguments correctly. Do I use a Straw-man method? Sure, but it's only because I like to break down posts and address them more specifically. It has nothing to do with making a point come across more effectively. It's not efficient, but I find it more detailed. I'm even curious to know if you could restate my arguing statement in an accurate manner.

 

[Kal]

You don't even seem to understand what constitutes a strawman argument. Then you turn around and accuse me of not understanding your arguments? How moronic can you possibly be? My argument from the beginning is that it's not black and white, and it's easy to see:

If something is black and white, there is no way it could possibly be "ok sometimes." But you yourself have admitted, by accepting what V did in the film "V for Vendetta," that there exist circumstances in which what Amon is doing would be ok. This means exactly that what Amon is doing is not black and white.

But you don't understand this. You've densely responded with these ridiculous, uninspired, irrelevant explanations for the laws Tarlok has enacted, when those laws were only brought up to explain exactly the above point: that there exist scenarios in which even you would not condemn Amon's actions. And yet you accuse me of not understanding your argument, when all your argument amounts to is "I disagree with what Amon is doing, therefore it's not black and white!"

Cut me a ****ing break. "Straw-man method." What a ****ing joke.

 

[theeboredone]

You don't even seem to understand what constitutes a strawman argument.

My apologies. In my defense, I had looked up the term, but I guess I was given the wrong definition.

My argument from the beginning is that it's not black and white, and it's easy to see:

If something is black and white, there is no way it could possibly be "ok sometimes." But you yourself have admitted, by accepting what V did in the film "V for Vendetta," that there exist circumstances in which what Amon is doing would be ok. This means exactly that what Amon is doing is not black and white.

Seems you didn't read a few of my posts...

I dunno. I already labeled him a terrorist when he decided to blow up the Pro-Bending arena. Compare him to V for Vendetta all you want, but at least V didn't bother harming any innocent lives in the process to my knowledge. Amon essentially has that "You're with us or against me" philosophy, which essentially screams extremism.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I never say "gray" areas don't exist. Perspective does matter. But Amon made it black and white on his own accord. A refusal to even not try for peace would have at least made the area grayer. Going straight to violence simply shows you are not willing to explore any other alternatives, let alone face a situation where violence is necessary. It's not like he was backed against a wall and had no alternative. He insinuated this rebellion to new heights.

You ask if I have been debating the "moral" aspect of this. The justification of what is right and wrong. His justification is what? His parents died to a bender? He's seen bender inequality? His morals are to bring equality. Okay fine. But when you choose to bring inequality through terrorism and extremism, I question if there is even a "gray" area. Like I said though, the situation can warrant the morals and vice versa.

But you don't understand this. You've densely responded with these ridiculous, uninspired, irrelevant explanations for the laws Tarlok has enacted, when those laws were only brought up to explain exactly the above point: that there exist scenarios in which even you would not condemn Amon's actions. And yet you accuse me of not understanding your argument, when all your argument amounts to is "I disagree with what Amon is doing, therefore it's not black and white!"

Cut me a ****ing break. "Straw-man method." What a ****ing joke.

If you think I didn't do myself justice in those areas, then I can accept that failure. However, I still believe you refuse to see my points to justify your own definitions.

And I'd appreciate if you wouldn't insult me. If you do wanna insult me though, I'd prefer you do it in PM.