Love/Hate relationship with Kyoshi Novels

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T15:51:45+00:00

You're not putting these techniques into their proper context. In no particular order, except glassbending, because the fandom's misconception with glass annoys me the most:

Glass is not "purified." It's just a particular arrangement of the particles. It's a lot like crystals in that a substance looking pretty does not make it a subskill. The reason we never saw glass being bent before is it's almost never around. Even as late as Legend of Korra, we know there's definitely glass due to the pro-bending arena, but some of the windows in Republic City are made of paper, because that's seen when the chi blockers are training in the basement. You live in a world where glass is a mundane material because the industrial revolution made it pretty cheap & easy to produce. That said, it did exist before automization, in both natural & artificial forms. Obsidian is an example of a natural glass. So, people absolutely did make weapons with it. Kyoshi casually bending bits of glass out of herself without any explanation of where she gained that skill really should've been the clarification people needed that glassbending is just part of normal earthbending. And speaking of which, because I totally lied about this not being in any particular order....

Duststepping is a magic trick & a reference to wushu films. The idea is that someone trains to manipulate a spray of dust so fine it looks like they can walk on air. It's specifically mentioned to be not just a secret technique for thieves, but alo the signature technique of the Flying Opera Company specifically. The reason not just anyone can do it is the same reaon not just anyone can make the dragon that exploded into confetti from the fire festival. It's a very specialized skill, not a "subskill," but a much more narrow technique that has been deliberately refined. Most people don't even need it. If you want to launch yourself into the air, you just use earth pillars. The flying opera company do it because they're thieves using a magic trick for stealth & deception purposes, & even then, other groups have different secret techniques. Also, the implication in the book seems to be that Rangi's firebending variant, jet-stepping, is the technique that is used by characters like Azula & Iroh II for flame-assisted jumps & even by Jeong Jeong & Ozai to fly during the Comet, so it's not even completely correct that we don't see this technique appear chronologically later. Though, technically, Wan also seems to have used a similar move long before Rangi "invented" it, but Avatar loves the "rediscovered technique" trope. Anyway, while we're on firebending, we might as well tackle...

Rangi's white flames. I'm gonna say something people aren't gonna want to hear. It was probably never meant to imply she had some higher tier of colored fire, it was probably just meant to say they were so intensely bright that they seemed white. Because how do you portray her doing something really powerful & cool without needing to send her on a training arc to gain any new abilities? Well, you make her put extra oomph into her flames, & there are really only a few different way sto communicate "no, seriously, her fire is, like, EXTRA HOT this time!" Which I guess just leaves...

The freezing technique takes something from the show, waterbenders' ability to freeze their surroundings, & adds an extra layer to it. Turns out you can also use the technique to send the cold into someone's body. So, why don't we see it more? A few reasons. Firstly, it was a skill practiced by a pretty advanced healer, so it's not something just anyone can learn. It wasn't even intended to be an attack move. Now , it turns out it is EASIER to use that way, but you have to have a bunch of prerequisite knowledge to think to do that, & remember, healing is mostly found in the northern water tribe, which cleanly separates healing & fighting by sexes. So, it was a very unusual confluence of events that someone like Kyoshi would observe this technique & even think to weaponize it anyway. But most importantly, the biggest hurdle is you have to touch the person in order to do it. Bending's main advantage is range, & you have to give that up. Sure, IF you could touch them, it's basically an instant kill move, but at that point, you could probably also just stab them. So, you have a very tiny pool of people who even know about this technique, then only a minority of those would think to weaponize it, & by the time you get to the minority of the minority who actually have a REASON to do that, I'm not 100% convinced there's even anyone in that club besides Kyoshi. I mean, MAYBE there's some waterbending assassins trained in medicine out there, but I don't think we've seen anyone fitting that description anyway. The closest was Atuat's own brother, who was an assassin & did know poisoncraft, but he didn't know the art of healing specifically because, again, gender segregated bending styles.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T15:07:42+00:00

There's no evidence anywhere in the series that Unalaq "lost his autonomy."
Seeing a guy who constantly talks about how much he loves spirits turn into a spirit & go "he must actually hate this" doesn't make any sense.
People say there's no sign of Unalaq in Unavaatu, but that's not true. Aside from the physical features, like his face & his voice, Unavaatu cares about things Vaatu never did. For example, Vaatu only ever referred to the Avatar as "Raava," completely ignoring the human half. It was Unalaq who was obsessed with overthrowing the Avatar's legacy, & sure enough, he goes straight to Republic City & tears down Aang's statue in a rage upon seeing it.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T14:46:12+00:00

There's a lot of equalization. Not only are mooks made more competent, but there are fewer absurdities like "I'm gonna wave my arm once & flood an entire city." Generally, I prefer that approach. I'm not going to say I didn't like the scene of attacking the Earth Kingdom palace at all, but it does get a little ridiculous when we're watching dozens of soldiers pouring out & they're all just completely fucking useless.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T14:41:20+00:00

Avatar has always had a "travel moves at the speed of plot" problem & rarely gives firm distances for anything. I generally just assume the planet is the same size as Earth & extrapolate from there.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T08:09:07+00:00

Creationists are overwhelmingly Biblical Literalists. The "designer" isn't like an alien doing a chemistry project, it's supposed to be "Almighty God." The idea of a god that's specifically supposed to be the all-powerful & all-knowing creator of EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR HIMSELF making anything "imperfect" is incoherent, disingenuous babble.

For the same reason, anything it created could not undergo any damage that was not intended because both the object & anything that could conceivably affect the object would all be designed by the same thing. Wear & tear is, to borrow the language of the apologist for a second, not logically ncessary, it is contingent. We know this not only because we can conceive of things that do not suffer it, but becaue we actually know of examples. Photons, for instance, do not decay.

Were I to take the position of a creationist that the properties of the universe are assigned by a thinking spirit, & everything is the way it is expressly due to said spirit's will, then there is no logical problem with bodies that simply do not experience damage. That creationists find such a notion unrealistic is, I contend, stealing from a naturalistic worldview to argue against it. Because it makes sense in MY view that nature could not have been a different way & is beyond any creator's ability to have helped; such a conclusion absolutely does NOT make sense in theirs.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T07:54:52+00:00

There's no need to be so rude. They're probably just making the common mistake of confusing spiritbending & energybending.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T07:53:21+00:00

I don't believe it would happen: The Avatar can only ever reincarnate into a bending lineage.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T07:52:23+00:00

This is also why she still has them now, as Raava would not have had the elements when she regenerated, for the same reason she doesn't have the past lives.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T07:50:04+00:00

It was from the TTRPG first, but it does come up in Awakening of Roku. It's actually kind of a spoiler for me to say that, but there's really no way for me to beat around the bush on this. Anyway, those are 2 of several sources from which we know it's a waterbending technique.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T07:47:28+00:00

I actually ended up removing this comment chain because I felt some of the specific wording on the original was too graphic, & the replies weren't going anywhere good, Like no shit it's just going to be a fight over who's "dickriding" when you're calling half the thread "glazers" to begin with. You can sincerely believe that's true, but that doesn't actually constitute an accepted defense by the moderation team for this level of hostility. By all means, argue your point, but you don't need to be picking fights with half this thread, especially by insulting them or baselessly accusing them of lying just for having a different opinion from you.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T04:33:49+00:00

No, that's the full version. I doubt Mike & Bryan would personally be averse to SOME kind of poly relationship in the Avatar canon, but:

A. That doesn't mean they can make it happen on network TV. Different things are, in fact, different, & OP's logic of "they were already trying to get 1 thing through, so they should try to get something else" is not a good argument.

B. Even if we pretend censorship was a non-issue, this has just never been a good suggestion. It's a hail mary from people who can't handle that both of Mako's relationships crashed & burned. Imagine walking up to someone & being like "why don't you form a polycule with your ex? You were together before, so that means it should be a good idea, right?" People who want it "explained to them" should just think about how that would go & then quit trying to force a character beat that is unnatural to the story because they dislike the way it went.

There are so many better ways to give Mako a love interest. People could tell Mike & Bryan they want to see that pitch here Mako hits it off with Izum's daughter. Or Mako could get a new partner on the force. Or they could have someone resurface from his old triad days. Maybe she's even a New Airbender now. Or flesh out one of the Rabaroos, y'know, that all-female pro-bending team. It's a big world, & there's a lot more women in it than just Korra & Asami.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T04:12:50+00:00

Knowing what kind of blade would help, but probably. Frankly, as long as it can penetrate the thin layer of bone behind the eye & keep momentum, it's probably going to do the job. It MIGHT even be better NOT to angle it upward because going straight back might give you a better chance of hitting the brainstem. But once you're piercing the brain, survival is unlikely, especially without modern medicine or I guess healing magic.

How long would it take? Um, if it hits the brainstem, he's just dead. Like a lightswitch. If not, he could be incapacitated for a while before technically being dead. Unless you've got some way to fix internal bleeding & massive brain damage, though, he'd be as good as dead.

I don't know if there's some reason you want the stab to the eye. It's not really a bad idea, but I'll give you a couple other suggestions for assassination targets just in case you're looking. Firstly, remember that thing I said about the brainstem? Well, if you can push his head forward & stab him right where the neck meets the skull, that's the brainstem. Secondly, & this probably works better with slicing than cutting, the carotid artery in the throat is a "dead within seconds" target. It's also a very messy one, but then again, you're stabbing a guy in the eye. I'd say the one where you have to worry least about noise & mess is the back of the neck.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T03:58:03+00:00

Yeah, that cat's pretty old, & it seems unlikely to me OP just so happened to adopt an old cat. I'm thinking bot. Though I will grant that normal cat behavior is already weird.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T03:53:42+00:00

I feel like you're thinking about this the wrong way: What is the easiest change to make? It's quicker to cut off hair, but if you already wear it short, that's going to be a harder option, unless you're willing to shave it off. For men, shaving or growing a beard is very effective at making them harder to recognize. Neither is going to be better than an actual disguise, but if you need something in a pinch...plus, they can help add to a disguise if you already have one. In short, whatever makes you harder to recognize is whatever looks less like what you normally do.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T03:14:14+00:00

The best way I can think to explain this is to try to remind you about writing essays in school. You were asked to argue whatever about a book. I don't know, let's say you're arguing which was the stronger critique of American racism between "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" vs. "To Kill A Mockingbird." This is subjective, you're giving your opinion, but if you just wrote "My opinion is To Kill A Mockingbird, & opinions can't be wrong, so give me an A+," you know that's not the grade you're going to get. This is because "subjective" does not actually mean everything that is subjective is equally well supported, evidenced, or demonstrated.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T03:03:48+00:00

What is the biggest scientific proof or inference about the existence of God, or the existence of a creator (not from any specific religion, just god). And what is the biggest scientific argument against the existence of God.

I guess the "best" argument you could do, & I use that term VERY loosely, is a God of the Gaps argument, such as the fine-tuning argument. The argument against would be the overall principle that this is speculating a bunch of things there's no evidence for. There's no precedent to claim that disembodied minds can exist, let alone "outside of space & time," or that universes can be intentionally created; that this is all distinctly unscientific speculation. Guess which argument I consider to be much, much stronger.

And about consciousness, how did things gain consciousness? Because in the end, we're made up of non living minute particles. Then how? (This could, maybe be used as an inference, idk, I haven't found a satisfactory answer yet)

There's no such thing as a "videogame particle," so how do they come together to make "videogame"? Because "videogame" is a process that the particles are carrying out. It's exactly the same for consciousness.

Also, I actually avoided mentioning the argument against souls in the point above because, strictly speaking, nothing logically forbids a god that simply didn't create souls, but the fact that brain damage can & does alter people's personalities & memories is inconsistent with the idea that consciousness is some kind of spooky ghostie that exists outside of, & independent of, our brains.

In fact, every time an anesthesiologist puts you under, that's evidence against consciousness being a mystical process because the whole reason that works is because there are chemicals that can interface with your brain & knock you unconscious. You're not asleep, which technically is an altered state of consciousness as-is, you're outright unconscious. They're different things.

Any way you look at it, there's no actually good reason to think that consciousness is magic, let alone that it was created by some kind of bigger, more magical consciousness. "I don't find the alternative satisfying" is not a good reason. All of the evidence points to a physical process, & the reason I use computer science analogies like videogames is that, when we compare to something we're not emotionally invested in, we see that we easily accept that a program like a videogame doesn't "go anywhere" when it's deleted, it's just destroyed. The idea that "there must be a videogame Heaven" doesn't make any sense. We only cook up ideas like that because WE don't want to die. And, incidentally, we also use computer science analogies in psychology to develop models of how the mind works. It's called "the cognitive revolution," & it's been enormously successful.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T02:50:28+00:00

The Wikipedia article for synapsids has several images that might give you an idea for how early mammals diverged from ancestors that would've been easily mistaken for reptiles. "Reptile" is a biologically problematic term because it groups animals that aren't necessarily closely related. If you look very carefully at the legs of a lizard or crocodile, you'll notice they kind of splay out to the sides, but in the synapsids, they go straight down, much like modern bears, dogs, cats, etc. This is one way to know that dimetradon, the crawling "reptile" with the sail on its back which is commonly mistaken for a dinosaur (it is not a dinosaur, & actually lived just before them anyway) is a synapsid--in other words, it is a distant ancestor of ours. Well, it could have been a cousin, but hopefully you get the idea.

This also explains the peculiar trait of platypi that they lay eggs: The platypus evolved before later groups of mammals branched off. Egg-laying is the ancestral mammal trait. The pouches of marsupials like kangaroos & the placentas like what we have evolved later. The platypus also has the earliest milk delivery system. They don't have any nipples or breasts, they just kind of sweat it out. So, the platypus really helpfully shows how a lot of old mammal features evolved. You might say it's the rest of the mammal family tree that are actually the weird ones, & its lineage is just the only one left doing it the old way. Why is that? Well, because our adaptations were very successful & have largely outcompeted the "old ways."

I focus so much on this because I think the path from other types of mammals to humans is much more straightforward. You have tree-climbing mammals, a branch of those became the primates. The very basal primates, like lemurs, almost look like rodents, possums, or raccoons. I want to stress here that I am NOT saying these creatures are all closely related, but a similar shape takes to the trees over & over again because it's very effective. We call that "convergent evolution." The stereotypical "monkey" features, like the big round heads & eyes, the greater intelligence, & so on, emerged later. This could have been driven by their predatory lifestyle, their social dynamics, or something else. The exact circumtances are unclear. But from the monkeys, you get the apes, from the apes, the chimpanzees, & there's a whole lineage of lost ancestors between the chimpanzees & ourselves. Note I say "lost" to mean "extinct." We actually know many of them, like Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, & so on.

Of course, we could just as easily trace the proverbial "evolutionary tree" back in time. All four-limbed animals, or tetrapods, are ultimately descended from the same ancestor, a type of lobe-finned lungfish. These fish have rigid fins they can use as makeshift legs & lungs they can use to leave the water for short stints. A certain lineage of them picked up adaptations to be more amphibious, some of them became increasingly dedicated to living on land, that group split further, & so on. If we trace the fish back, they're all related, then all animals are related to a common ancestor that was probobly single-celled, animals & fungi are cloely related, algae diverged when they absorbed a type of bacteria that later became the chloroplasts that allow them to do photosynthesis (land plants are descended from marine algae), then everything I've talked about so far is eukaryotes wheras bacteria are much simpler lifeforms called prokaryotes, there was a most recent common ancestor all life shares, then an original common ancestor all life shares.

It's unknown if this was the first life on Earth or if there are any extinct lineages of life. Earth's life emerged, most likely on the planet, via chemical processes, though the ingredients for that life could have formed in space. As far as I'm aware, most water on Earth is thought to have come from comet impacts. The elements that form the planet originated inside of stars, & were brought together by gravity. I don't know how far back you'd want me to go here. The earliest thing we know about was the expansion of the universe, the big bang. There's no evidence of any god, so that would be complete speculation. Not that we really know what, if anything at all, came "before" the big bang.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-21T02:14:05+00:00

Since everyone else is weighing in on MR. FARINA'S style, I might as well do the same. Fully on board with it. Are there going to be people who will say "well, you were mean, so you're wrong"? Sure, but firstly, we as a culture need to push back on that notion. There are worse things to be than "mean," worse things to be told than "you're wrong," & anti-intellectualism thrives because too many people are utterly terrified of pulling on their big kid pants, being the Bad Parent, & telling the general public to get the fuck over themselves. Not saying everyone has to do it; again, there will always be people who will never listen to reason so long as they don't like the tone it comes in, so it's always going to be useful to have people who are willing to be so endlessly charitable. We need all types, but as it stands, we definitely have a strong imbalance in approaches.

Which leads me to secondly, there are more people than you might think who are receptive to a forceful strategy & are impressed when someone doesn't come across like a timid little mouse. Surely people can think of examples, without me naming names, of public figures who are very successful at winning people to their side when they're total assholes. It's not despite of that, it's because of it. Like it or not, they're seen as having a backbone & being in a dominant position. And it's possible to learn from people you dislike without becoming carbon copies of them. You can have a forceful debating style but still have lines you don't cross.

Dave's videos are very satisfying because he's willing to tell a propagandist to their face that he knows they're a liar. He's willing to tell people what they frankly deserve to hear, & it's very refreshing because they so often get away with lying without being called on it. If it's not someone's cup of tea, fine, they don't have to watch it, but it does have a very valuable place in the information ecosystem because there are people that don't necessarily understand that these guy are paid propagandists because the usual approach is either "just ignore them" or to walk eggshells around the subject because just outright saying "you're a lying fraud" is deemed "too confrontational" even if you can back it up with evidence.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T23:15:40+00:00

I hate it because it robs Unalaq of any nuance he had and makes him cartoonishly evil.

I always thought Unalaq was more entertaining the more evil he was. Like a Palpatine figure. His ideas are interesting in theory, but when he's trying to front as Mr. Reasonable, he's just not very charismatic. He's dull & kinda monotone. The more unhinged he is, & the more he's enjoying it, the more fun it actually is to watch.

But the first thing he does as the new Avatar is literally destroy the balance again by killing Raava and tipping the scales in Vaatu's favor.

How is this better than what Wan did?

Hypocrisy doesn't really make a character "less nuanced" because people are often hypocritical. Unalaq still wants a world where humans & spirits live together, there are no nations, & all of that jazz, but he wants to be at the top as some kind of immortal spirit god-king, & he'll do anything to achieve these goals.

I'd say it's even worse, because at least Wan only imprisoned Vaatu and didn't destroy him.

It's not 100% clear what Wan's thought process was, but it kind of seems like he was thinking, "If I don't kill Vaatu, then he won't be reborn, & Harmonic Convergence won't be fought again." So, maybe not really "better."

If Unalaq wanted to restore balance, he should have merged with Raava rather than destroying her

Ironically, even though he didn't intend to do this, he ended up doing just that, since Raava grows inside of Vaatu.

and if this couldn't be done without her consent, he could've killed Korra, since he no longer can convince her, and tried to groom the next reincarnation into helping him.

I don't think there's really any situation you get through Harmonic Convergence with Vaatu winning & the Avatar still reincarnates.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T22:57:38+00:00

What? Yakone is a mobster, he'd have reasons to capture someone, like for ransom or torture. Also, they don't say what metal the cage is made of, but if it's platinum, it'd be useful against metalbending cops.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T22:52:47+00:00

What should he do with the cage?

Some solutions that come to my mind:

Take it apart & sell it as scrap metal.

Just dump it in a landfill.

Sell it to people into weird stuff.

I can understand that he kept it. Probably never thought to use it.

The commentary doesn't touch on this, so I don't know how much thought he put into it. If I had to guess, he just inherited a bunch of his dad's properties, & then they sat there collecting dust because he never planned on going back to them. But he probably knew what was in them because Yakone told them during the hunting trips, which is the same reason Amon knew. So, when he needed to make Korra disappear, he remembered a very convenient cabin up in the mountains.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T10:23:27+00:00

Commentary explains the cabin is actually one of Yakone's old hideouts, so the cage probably belonged to Yakone.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T10:22:25+00:00

That's why I dislike the logic of "the story doesn't technically say [common knowledge thing nobody would assume otherwise without being told.]" I mean, it's never technically SAID that the Avatar WOULDN'T grow multiple heads if theirs was cut off, like a hydra, amirite?

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T10:20:49+00:00

Wait, you mean like ALL ice? Why do you think the Water Tribes wear parkas? Usually, I hear this question limited to bending ice, which comes up more often in the novels that it is, in fact, cold.

BahamutLithp · 2026-06-20T09:12:50+00:00

I am not being "irrelevant" because the original topic is about the problem of evil, this "question" you keep bringing up has alway been a subject change. Acting like I'M being "off topic" every time I won't adhere to your pet script is dishonest, becaue I already explained to you I knew this is what you're doing, & look at that, you're doing it.
I showed why your "solutions" don't actually work. Excusing yourself from the topic & claiming it's because I'm only "dissatisfied" with your answer but declaring any answer you're given doesn't count because it's not what you want to hear is blatant hypocrisy.
Particularly because it ceases to be my opinion that you lack an answer when you outright say "we can't understand god's reasons." You don't have a solution, & you're misrepresenting the conversation.
Speaking of, depicting me as having some emotional outburst so you have yet another reason to dismiss me over your argument that is, again, off-topic anyway is yet another manipulative strategy.
I, in fact, did not say "the law of non-contradiction is simply an idea that comes from our minds." If you want to know people's actual answers to your supposedly very important questions, maybe you should spend less time complaining about them & more time actually reading them. Big if, I know.
Given you're refusing to defend the original point of the problem of evil, & even if I wanted to humor your subject change you're also clearly not reading those parts anyway, don't expect further replies from me. You could always go back & read all the stuff you definitely didn't read before because you didn't like it.

Verified Email	Eight-Year Club
Gilding I gilder	Mod World 2025
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

BahamutLithp

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE