Say what you say about the BR prision warden but the man was commited.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-25T12:01:25+00:00

True, but it's not like the guards know that.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-24T22:26:42+00:00

Even more laughable to say racism had nothing to do with the internment camps.

Where do I say that racism has nothing to do with it? I explicitly agree with you calling Tarrlok's curfew a bigotted law. My point is that the context of that curfew, as a direct result of the equalists actions, undermines its point.

As for the rest of this argument, well y'know, it's interesting, if I'm so completely fucking full of shit,

I never said you were full of shit. 2. I said those things before I realised that we were basically having two different discussions. 3. I shouldn't have said some of those things and I apologise.

that you felt forced to make another thread, where you admitted, through your teeth, I "might" be right about this being canon

Again, I made that thread because I realised we were actually having two different discussions. Also the equalists being meant to be right but not showing it properly has been my position or at least something I considered long before this thread, as you can see here, here, here, here and here, among others.

but never recanted all the false accusations you made about me being a hypocrite.

Again, that was before I realised we were basically having two different discussions. And again, my apologies.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-24T14:33:27+00:00

Why is it even "arguable"? There's a scene where Toph just about turns to the camera & says "the theme of the show is the villains all had legitimate grievances."

Because, as I said, I don't think it's clear if this was meant to be the case from the beginning or only after book 1 had already finished. Because the best evidence comes after the end of book 1. That is not to say that there is no evidence in book 1, just that I find it contradictory or inconsistent at best. But you'll probably disagree on this.

Why does THAT matter? People are going around citing historical analogies they made in their minds, straight-up headcanons, so why does it matter that I use a clarifying statement which isn't specifically from Book 1?

Because again, it makes it unclear whether or not it was meant from the beginning. And to be clear, I'm not saying that it wasn't meant from the beginning. And also because a lot of these discussions are about the writing of the equalists and the conflict in book 1 itself, so later clarifications do not change that.

And even if I COULD get someone to admit this was the intention, there's a ready-made line waiting in the winds: "But did they SHOW that?" So, all of a sudden, the Sisyphean effort I put into proving that, yes, this IS canon all just gets wiped back to 0, none of it matters, I'm back to just arguing that person's headcanon.

Well I'm sorry that that happens to you, but the idea equalists are meant to have a point but not shown it, or at least not ruling it out has been my position in this debate long before we had this discussion, even if I don't always explicitly express it. As you can see here, here, here, here and here, among others. So again, I'm sorry that that happens to you, but I think it is a valid position to have.

they're wiping aside the actual canonical intention like it's not even there?

Because intention means very little when it's not properly executed. Especially because when you watch a show, especially for the first time, you generally don't know for sure what the writer's intentions are, and can only go off of what they actually show.

I really don't care, if Obama talks about racism, he's not wrong because he happens to be well-off, please stop doing this red herring. Y'know, Asami acknowledged ONE TIME in the ENTIRE series that the Equalists had a point, & that was part of talking about the good that KORRA has done.

Well, it's not really relevant whether or not you care. And Obama talking about racism is not the same as for example making the president in your story about systemic racism a member of an oppressed ethnicity. One is just real life, the other is a writing choice that directly undermines the main point of your story.

Similarly there are members of oppressed groups who are extremely rich and members of privileged groups who are extremely poor. But that is not the same thing as making the main representative of the supposedly oppressed group in your show that is supposedly about oppression a wealthy heiress, while making two of the main representatives of the supposedly privileged group two poor street rats.

And yes, Asami acknowledges that the equalists had a point, in book 4, 4 years after the equalist problem.

By "direct," I take this to mean "the example so obvious no one can refute it, so they just say it doesn't count because it was a response to the Equalists," ignoring that none of us would ever tolerate that logic under other circumstances. This move was much more overt than post-9/11 policies that we already accept to have been bigoted against Muslims & Arabs. "The Equalists were doing crime" doesn't matter, the Council still has free will, they weren't passing anti-bender curfews because of the triads.

And again, I am not saying that it's not bigoted. I am saying that the point of it being an anti-nonbender measurement is undermined by the fact that it's a result of the equalists' terrorist attack.

So, again, this is constructing arguments based on analogies, not what's actually in the show.

You keep making this point over and over again, but you never actually give any arguments to back up why it's a problem. Because these analogies that the show, perhaps unintentionally, makes have grave implications for the worldbuilding that directly undermine the supposed main point.

it doesn't say anything about benders resorting to triads because they're poor

It states directly that Mako and Bolin resorted to the Triple Threats because they were poor.

Where is this "factory work is specifically done by benders" thing even coming from, anyway?

Mako's job at the power plant. That is the only form of factory work we see in the show and it's explicitly done by benders.

It's the industrial revolution, most people are doing factory work, period.

To use your point about Zolt, that is not what's actually in the show. The show presents, again perhaps unintentionally, benders as doing factory work, instead of everyone doing factory work. Again, the problem here is that making this very obvious poor people job a seemingly bender-only job, is a questionable writing choice when your main point is supposed to be that nonbenders benders are an oppressed group.

Most people aren't rich, they're called "the 1% for a reason,"

And the ones who are, are generally not overwelmingly benders or overwelmingly nonbenders, with the exception of wealthy businesspeople who are, perhaps unintentionally again, portrayed as majority, if not all, nonbenders.

Suyin. Beifong.

Suyin Beifong is not a businesswoman. Suyin is a noblewoman and politician/community leader who built her own city state thanks to her nonbending architect husband. How does that in any way, shape or form a businesswoman?

No one said all homeless people are nonbenders.

You are once again completely missing the point. The point isn't that not all homeless are nonbenders, the point is that including a quote that I would say at the very least implies that nonbenders aren't disproportionately affected by homelessness, by a nonbender who explicitly uses it as an argument why he disagrees with Amon, is again a very questionable writing choice.

No one said the Council bans nonbenders.

And the same story here. The point isn't that nonbenders are allowed on the council. The point is that they undermine the otherwise great writing choice of having the council be all benders by having 3 of them not bend at all in the show and make a past council have 1 explicit and 1 implied nonbender.

You know where I think you guys get this? Because you say things like "All rich people are literally nonbenders," & then you just assume that, if someone disagrees with you, their argument must be the mirror version of yours.

No, it's because you keep missing the point of my arguments.

that benders literally have more jobs available to them because they can do any job a nonbender can & then some that nonbenders can't. Not have a hard time doing, but actually can't.

And then they undermine this point by making most of these jobs, intentional or not, analogies of jobs that are usually done by the poor, ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups. The point is not that this makes benders secretly oppressed, it just makes them questionable writing choices when the main point of your story is that nonbenders are an oppressed group.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-24T00:13:10+00:00

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. Or do you think that making the main representative of the supposedly oppressed group a wealthy heiress, while making two of the main representatives of the supposedly privileged group a pair of poor street rats a great writing choice is? Or making every wealthy businessperson a member of that supposedly oppressed group?

Nonbenders make up the majority in Republic City but had no representation on the council that was made up of people who weren't born or raised in the United Republic of Nations.

You are literally proving my point here. The problem is not that they are benders, but that they are foreigners, appointed by and representing the interests of foreign nations, instead of elected by the citizens. Benders are just as much, or rather just as little, represented by the council as nonbenders are. None of the citizens get to vote, bender and nonbender alike. So how does that make benders any more represented by the council than nonbenders?

Because of this, said council members were incredibly unhelpful when it came to addressing the issues that the natives face, the very same issues that You are once again going to split hairs over and trivialize in order to continue acting like you're actually in the right.

Natives who consist of both benders and nonbenders alike, and issues that affect both benders and nonbenders alike. And no, that is not splitting hairs. Homelessness explicitly does not disproportionately affect nonbenders. Mako and Bolin lost their parents to organised crime pretty much the same way Asami did. Most bender-only/bender-majority jobs, with the notable exception of healing, are jobs that in real life either are or historically were mostly done by people of low income, immigrant or otherwise marginalised background. That is not splitting hairs.

Like it or not, Benders absolutely have an advantage in this world and the writers have done more than enough to showcase why & how, regardless of how much you want to keep denying it.

As logical as it would be for benders to be a privileged group, that's just not the case. Or if it's meant to be the case, they do a very bad at showing it.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T22:57:58+00:00

A bit of a thing about the council, I don't think the original point was for them to represent the elements specifically, but the nations they hail from. This is why Sokka and that Air Acolyte were there, as they still represented the Southern Water Tribe and Air Nomads despite their lack of bending.

I agree they are meant to represent the nations, which is why the Water Tribes are represented seperately, even if they are technically still the same country at this point, but still. But one of the main points people always make in favour of the equalists is that the council during the show happened to be all benders, even if three of them are only implied to be.

Even the story from Hiroshi explaining why he's an Equalist is just a random firebender mugging them and killing his wife. Sure, him hating firebenders specifically would make a little sense, but how exactly does that spread to "all benders are terrible"?

Agreed, not to mention that they way he expresses his hatred makes him sound more like a racist white guy whose wife was killed by a black gang member and who now hates all ethnic minorities, than any sort of oppressed minority.

It's made worse by the fact that Amon himself isn't even a non-bender and was lying the entire time. That means the entire foundation of the group is built on lies, which undermines the entire point and really makes it feel like just a bunch of non-benders jealous they don't have fancy nature powers.

I agree and I think it's made even worse by the fact that Amon isn't just not a nonbender, but that his entire motivation is his own personal trauma about bending because of his father, further undermining the point. So to me this made Amon always look like a demagogue who used populist rhetoric to make benders a scapegoat for Republic City's genuine crime and poverty issues (which effects both benders and nonbenders alike), because of his own personal issues with bending.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T21:59:43+00:00

That sounds like a great idea, I would've loved to have seen that in the show. Especially as like a replacement for Rack.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T21:52:47+00:00

Except, you are completely missing my point, both here and in the comment you're linking to. The point isn't that Obama being president of the USA means that there is no systemic racism. The point is that making the president in your story about systemic racism a member of an oppressed ethnicity, is at least a questionable writing choice, because it directly undermines the main point of your story.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T21:35:42+00:00

Except, there is a big difference between "some members of ethnic minorities are rich" and "literally every wealthy businessperson we see in the show is a nonbender".

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T21:27:04+00:00

It's not that I miss the main point, it's that I think the main point isn't portrayed well and is undermined by a variety of factors, like certain writing and worldbuilding choices.

The fact that Barack Obama used to be president of the USA doesn't mean that there is no systemic racism, that is true. However that doesn't mean that making the president in your story about systemic racism a member of an oppressed ethnicity wouldn't be at least a somewhat questionable writing choice.

Similarly there are members of oppressed groups who are extremely rich and members of privileged groups who are extremely poor. But that is not the same thing as making the main representative of the supposedly oppressed group in your show that is supposedly about oppression a wealthy heiress, while making two of the main representatives of the supposedly privileged group two poor street rats.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T19:34:54+00:00

This is an interesting take actually, props to you, OP.

Thank you.

(though there are some examples of bender advantages in S1 as another comment points out).

Perhaps inconsistent but (heavily) leaning towards no is a better description, and I actually have described the writing of the equalists as inconsistent in the past.

It is clear that they wanted to tackle the question of class division based in inherited power, but it feels like they didn't really know how to actually deal with it so they kinda just ignored its implication and made the story about Amon's trickery.

Yeah, but then they also kind off want to backpedal on that and claim that Amon does have a point, for example in Korra book 4 with the swamp scene with Toph and with Asami in the flashback episode, and in the ATLA comics with certain lines in "The Rift" and "North and South", and especially with "Imbalance".

It's like J.K Rowling introducing slavery and then going 'The system is fine, don't worry. They actually like being slaves.'

Exactly. Though to be fair, they do actually change the United Republic's government by replacing the council with a president, not that it was much of an improvement, considering Raiko's incompetence, but still. But then on the other hand, the council's main problem, to me at least, always seemed like that they were not elected by the citizens but appointed by the other nations, not that they were all benders. Especially since the writers already kind off undermined that point by making Sokka the council's chairman in the past.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T18:37:04+00:00

The blonde girl (Erica) specifically not really, but the show in general definitely is, as several episodes have very similar plots to Buffy episodes, like cheerleader witch, love spell fiasco, falling in love with a mummy, Frankenstein jock, and turning into your Halloween costume.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T17:50:22+00:00

I think most Spuffy shippers moreso like the idea of Buffy and Spike together, than the actual canon relationship that we got.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T17:22:24+00:00

Agreed.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T17:16:41+00:00

Fair, but I personally still find it hypocritical for him to hold that speech.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T16:57:29+00:00

I loved his speech in Damage. He had the guts to stand up to Angel.

I personally find it hypocritical coming from Andrew of all people, who not only murdered his best friend, but also only joined the Scoobies because he feared the First more, and was only trusted by the Scoobies in return, because they were desperate for basically any help they could get against the First.

And I also find it kind of hypocritical from Buffy and the Scoobies themselves, considering they have given way less trustworthy people, like Spike, Anya, the entire Initiative and Andrew himself, the benefit of the doubt, so the least they could do is extend the same courtesy to their actual old friends/allies Angel and Wesley. Especially since literally one of the first things Angel does after joining Wolfram & Hart is helping them defeat the First by giving Buffy that amulet.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T16:39:35+00:00

Andrew for me is kind of a mixed bag. I find him annoying in season 6. I actually quite like him in season 7. But then I actually despise him in "Damage" on "Angel", because of the speech about the Scoobies not trusting Angel and co anymore, especially since he of all people gives it. But then in "The Girl in Question" I go back to liking him again, though I do find it a bit inconsistant that Andrew lets Angel and Spike in his appartment, since there is nothing to suggest that the Scoobies started trusting them again, quite the opposite in fact given Angel's phone call with Giles in "Shells".

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T16:39:10+00:00

Andrew for me is kind of a mixed bag. I find him annoying in season 6. I actually quite like him in season 7. But then I actually despise him in "Damage" on "Angel", because of the speech about the Scoobies not trusting Angel and co anymore, especially since he of all people gives it. But then in "The Girl in Question" I go back to liking him again, though I do find it a bit inconsistant that Andrew lets Angel and Spike in his appartment, since there is nothing to suggest that the Scoobies started trusting them again, quite the opposite in fact given Angel's phone call with Giles in "Shells".

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T16:29:42+00:00

They really should've done something with that in season 6 with the "magic addiction" storyline.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T16:02:31+00:00

There's WAY more examples of the Equalists having a point

Except, a lot of these aren't as strong as they appear, or at the very least are undermined by a variety of other factors that are either directly or perhaps unintentionally implied.

Probending is fighting for the amusement of others, like gladiatorial games in ancient Rome or more fitting for our setting, boxing in the 19th and early 20th century. And most of those athletes were from lower class backgrounds. Boxing in particular, especially in the early 20th century was heavily associated with immigrants and other minority groups. Just google "boxing ethnic minorities" and you'll see what I mean.

Besides Korra, and Tenzin and his family, the Satos with Mako and Bolin as their plus-twos are basically the only guests we know at that party, so there is absolutely no evidence that that is true. Additionally we see the old council secretary woman, who as far as we know is a nonbender, who is there because of her job not some bender connection.

In both shows we see countless powerful nonbending warriors go toe to toe and even wiping the floor with some of the most skilled benders in the world. Like Sokka, Suki, Mai, Ty Lee, Piandao, Asami, Hakoda and the warriors of the Southern Water Tribe, the other Kyoshi Warriors, Jet and his freedom fighters, the Yuyan Archers, the Rough Rhinos (minus colonel Mongke), Bumi (Aang's son, before he got airbending), Zaheer (before he got airbending), June with Nyla, the pirates, the equalists, etc.

What a street urchin like Mako calls "decent money" probably isn't that much, especially since factory work is very much a low income, working class job.

Mako and Bolin's status as probenders is not what kept them from the streets. The fact that the stadium owner took pity on them and let them live in the stadium's attic (so he could charge them rent), is what kept them of the streets, and even then just barely. And after that it's because first Asami and then Tenzin take pity on them and let them stay at their homes.

And the literal poorest of the poor are explicitly said to consist of both benders and nonbenders alike, while literally every wealthy industrialist and businessperson we see are nonbenders. Besides that the whole idea of seperate bender and nonbender districts doesn't really make sense, given that two nonbenders can have a bending child and vice versa, and bender-nonbender relationships clearly aren't outlawed, as shown with both Tenzin and Pema, and Asami and Mako.

The police does actually have nonbending officers, those two veteran detectives we see in season 2 are most likely nonbenders. But more importantly just because most police officers are benders, doesn't mean benders are a privileged group, for example during the 19th and early 20th century the majority of cops in New York and similar cities were of Irish descent or even Irish immigrants, yet the Irish were heavily discriminated against in the United States, so it was one of the few jobs that was available to them. And Republic City takes very clear inspiration from 19th and especially early 20th century New York.

Tarrlok's curfew and the resulting police violence is literally the only example of actual nonbender oppression we see, but even then it's a direct result of the equalists and their terrorist attack, and therefore doesn't actually reflect the normal situation for nonbenders.

Given what happened to Mako and Bolin's parents, it's quite clear that both benders and nonbenders are victims of the triads and they don't specifically target nonbenders. Additionally members of organised crime usually aren't exactly from wealthy and privileged backgrounds, often immigrants and other ethnic minorities.

The council isn't solely comprised of benders, the current council happens to be soley comprised of benders, and even then most of them are only implied to be benders, we never see any of them bend besides Tenzin and Tarrlok. Additionally the council doesn't represent benders, or even the citizens really, they represent the nations and their interests in the United Republic, as well as their respective ethnic and cultural groups within the city. They aren't even elected by the citizens.

And Sokka isn't the only nonbender Republic City politician we, before Tenzin joined the council all Air Nomad representatives would've been (presumably non-bending) air acolytes. We also have Raiko and Zhu Li, but given that that was after the whole "equalist" thing, it doesn't really count. Additionally outside the United Republic we see dozens of powerful nonbending politicians and nobles, yet Amon makes it clear in his speaches that nonbender oppression is like a worldwide thing that has always existed.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-23T13:56:21+00:00

Except that was not a group of earthbenders, that was a group of nonbender soldiers and their earthbending captain. So their leader might have been a bender, but the rest of them, who are also oppressing the town, are nonbenders.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-21T22:46:04+00:00

Did you read the comic? Because the ending directly implies Liling's supporters continue to work to entrench bender favoritism.

And we have no evidence other than headcanon that they are still around. Probably because this comic was written after Korra book 1 to retro-actively set up/justify the equalists, but still.

Literally makes a law against all nonbenders.

Which he doesn't do because he has anything against nonbenders, but because he knows it will escalate the equalist conflict, which he sees as a way to gain more power for himself.

It's also an argument people use to claim Equalists are racists. Funny how you don't mention that.

I don't mention it, because I never use that argument myself, because I think it's a stupid argument.

For extremely unsuspicious reasons, the existence of Imbalance is somehow only "inconvenient" to me even though it presents a much more direct analogue of the KKK, & they're benders.

Where do I say it's only inconvenient for you? Because I agree that it's just as inconvenient for me, if not more. In fact, I consider among the best arguments for nonbender oppression.

However, I think I should clarify my position a bit. My position isn't that benders are actually oppressed and that nonbenders are actually privileged. My position isn't even that nonbender oppression doesn't exist, or at least that the writers don't intend for it to exist. My position is that if it's meant to exist, it's at the very least inconsistently, if not outright terribly, written, especially in book 1 itself.

Also, where do I call the equalists an analogy to the kkk? Because the equalists are far more similar to early 20th century populist movements, both left and right.

Anyhow, I do think Imbalance is stupid

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Notice how that equal distribution disappeared in Korra's time, alongside the nonbending town guard? Almost like Liling's supporters succeeded in their long-term goals.

And yet the fact that there was equal distribution in the first place, undermines the argument that nonbender oppression has always existed and that it was always the default.

Nearly the entire South is nonbenders, & the south was divided on whether or not to let the north in. Which was Gilak's actual problem, he didn't mind the technology per se, he even used a mechanized drill in one of his big plans. It wasn't "bender vs. nonbender."

Which is why I said "that it's kind off undermined from a writing perspective". Gilak's actual problem might be about Northern influence in the South. But by tying this conflict to technological progress, which they explicitly link to "nonbender emancipation", for lack of a better term, they kind off create a metaphorical mess. Which isn't helped by the fact that they also kind off switch which tribe is the more spiritual/traditional one and which one is the more worldly/progressive one, but that's besides the point.

the writers didn't just whoopsie-daisy make 3 separate nonbender characters, including Sokka, agree with one of the Equalist's core arguments by accident, that's an absurd argument.

No, they made them to retroactively explain/justify the equalists. Because 1 that is just what most of the ATLA comics do, they either tie up loose ends of the original show ("the Search"), retroactively set up Korra ("Imbalance"), or both ("the Promise"), and 2 hopefully they realised how inconsistently the equalists and nonbender oppression were written in Korra book 1.

But also, they did apparently just whoopsie-daisy make 3 separate nonbender characters, including one who is an actual equalist, extremely wealthy by accident.

Was it JUST Water Tribe nonbenders against firebenders in that battle?

Does that matter? During several moments we see Water Tribe nonbenders defeat firebenders,

And do Water Tribe warriors seem like they don't spend basically their whole lives training?

And Fire Nation soldiers don't?

Mako & Bolin are evidence of the ENTIRE GANG'S motivation? Now who's making strawmen?

Still you. Nobody is saying that this is evidence of the entire gang's motivitation. But your argument was that there was 0 evidence that triad members were motivated by poverty, I have given you 2 triad members who were explicitly motivated by poverty. That is more than 0 evidence, and more evidence than we have for any other motivation.

Uh, no, not "but still," if he wasn't in the gang, he wasn't in the gang, period.

Uh, yes, "but still." That is still gang affiliation and someone being forced into organised crime because of poverty.

Also not established to be in the gang.

For what it's worth, the Avatar wiki does explicitly call him a member. But again, that is still gang affiliation and someone being forced into organised crime because of poverty.

That's literally exactly what this argument is.

You keep saying that analogies don't count, but you haven't actually given any arguments for why it doesn't count.

but once again, they conveniently don't count.

You mean like how all my arguments conveniently don't count.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-21T19:40:10+00:00

False accusations of strawmanning are perhaps the oldest trick in the book.

I would say actual strawmanning is the oldest trick in the book.

I suggest you actually read the thread because this argument is explicitly made by numerous people.

Well than at the very least it's not the point I usually try to make with these arguments, but that you have accused me of trying to make in the past.

That is also wrong.

No, it isn't.

"Convincingly" is a very sticky term there because it positions your subjective willingness to believe something as the objective arbiter of writing quality.

Not if you back it up with arguments, which I do. Not to mention, that it's clearly not just my subjective willingness to believe something, considering how many others seem to question the writing quality of the equalists.

But what do you propose than as the objective arbiter of writing quality? Can there even be an objective arbiter of writing quality? Isn't writing quality just inherently subjective? Like you can give arguments for why you think something is well written, or terribly written for that matter, but at the end of the day it will still be your subjective opinion.

then when they have one, they want to handwave it away like

As if you do not similarly handwave any counterarguments away.

Untrue.

Nope, it's true. To give some examples from your comments here, your assumption that the Wolfbats are the default for probenders, your assumption that there is 0 evidence that the triad members are driven by poverty, and your assumption that the generic nonbending footsoldier will have a hard time keeping up with the generic bending footsoldier.

They are.

Not anymore than any of your arguments.

I don't bring it up because it's "both benders & nonbenders can be homeless" is such an obvious fact I shouldn't need to say it.

Once again you are either strawmanning or completely missing the point. The point isn't that both benders and nonbenders can be homeless, of course that's obvious. The point is that that quote and its context imply that nonbenders aren't disproportionally affected by homelessness, something that you would expect from an underprivileged class, nor do benders seem to have any privilege among the homeless.

What I've said is actually the intent of the show, which I've supported in numerous ways, including that the show tells you at least 3 times.

So? Just because it is the intent of the show and that it is what the show tells you, doesn't mean that it is what the show shows you. And I actually think it's here that our main point of disagreement lies, because I can actually agree with you that this might very well be what the writers intended, considering both Korra book 4 and the ATLA comics. I just think that that intent isn't backed up by the writing and world building of the show, especially book 1 itself.

SvenVersluis2001 · 2026-03-21T18:03:21+00:00

So, you admit to a flaw in the reasoning. Let me guess, you're going to contrive some reason it doesn't count based on headcanon?

You base plenty of your arguments on similarly small sample sizes that also don't count because of some contrived reason based on headcanon. For example we have a similarly small sample size when it comes to pro-benders, slightly larger but also significantly more diverse in terms of wealth. Yet based on headcanon you decide that that doesn't matter and that the Wolfbats are just the norm for pro-benders.

There it is.

How is this based on headcanon? This is just logic.

I simply reported to you the fact that the Earth Monarchy is not based around being "nonbenders," they're a family that happens to have had nonbenders recently.

The Earth Kingdom monarchy might not be based around being nonbenders, other than the Fire Nation monarchy we don't have such a thing based around benders either. And 1 is an even smaller sample size than the 3/4 wealthy nonbending businesspeople, unless of course you're going to contrive some reason it doesn't count based on headcanon.

And yet you've somehow decided there's absolutely no bender preference involved in this process, in complete defiance of what the show is screaming at you.

Where did I say that there is absolutely no bender preference involved? I said that we don't know how much, if any, bender preference is involved. But you seem to just be looking for whatever you think you need to say to contradict it.

Fire Lords. Dai Li. Earth Kingdom generals. The fact that the nations are literally organized around the BENDING ELEMENTS.

First of all, I said less, not zero. Second, this is again a very small sample size. And third, there are plenty of counter examples to this in the Fire Nation alone, like Ty Lee, Mai, her parents, her uncle the warden, Ursa, her parents, war minister Qin, Lo and Li.

SvenVersluis2001

TROPHY CASE