[005]
216.99.32.45
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* Katara\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\'t because \
to:
* Katara\\\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\\\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\\\'t because \\\"yay, a main character is kicking butt!\\\" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it\\\'s because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, I\\\'ll have you know I am not arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
Truth be told, while Avatar is generally pretty good about avoiding this trope, there are times when it falls into it. For example: after Master Yu and Xin Fu trapped Toph inside a metal cage, she used metalbending to escape, then trapped them back in the same cage, and left them there, in the middle of nowhere, where they could potentially die long before they\\\'re finally found, even though they\\\'re both people who have lives and (presumably) families, and we\\\'re supposed to agree with Toph\\\'s decision just because they were jerks.
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, I\\\'ll have you know I am not arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
Truth be told, while Avatar is generally pretty good about avoiding this trope, there are times when it falls into it. For example: after Master Yu and Xin Fu trapped Toph inside a metal cage, she used metalbending to escape, then trapped them back in the same cage, and left them there, in the middle of nowhere, where they could potentially die long before they\\\'re finally found, even though they\\\'re both people who have lives and (presumably) families, and we\\\'re supposed to agree with Toph\\\'s decision just because they were jerks.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* Katara\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\'t because \
to:
* Katara\\\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\\\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\\\'t because \\\"yay, a main character is kicking butt!\\\" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it\\\'s because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* Katara\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\'t because \
to:
* Katara\\\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\\\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\\\'t because \\\"yay, a main character is kicking butt!\\\" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it\\\'s because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* Katara\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\'t because \
to:
* Katara\\\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\\\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\\\'t because \\\"yay, a main character is kicking butt!\\\" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it\\\'s because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully. If you honestly can\\\'t understand that... I just don\\\'t know what I could possibly say to you. I mean, your entire argument basically boils down to \\\"standing up to bullies is bad.\\\"
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
** Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' defined as \\\"a main character did something I disagree with and wasn\\\'t punished.\\\" At most this is an example of ValuesDissonance, and not an example of PCM.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I\'m afraid I\'m going to have to disagree with you here, too.
to:
It seems that there are two major arguments being made here, so I\\\'ll give a separate response to each:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
* Katara\\\'s use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we\\\'re expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn\\\'t because \\\"yay, a main character is kicking butt!\\\" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it\\\'s because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully. If you honestly can\\\'t understand that... I just don\\\'t know what I could possibly say to you. I mean, your entire argument basically boils down to \\\"standing up to bullies is bad.\\\"
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
** Incidentally, I think it\\\'s also worth noting that Katara \\\'\\\'lost\\\'\\\' that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn\\\'t even violence that let her have her way, and she \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\' get away scot free. Pakku completely \\\'\\\'owned\\\'\\\' Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
* The audience\\\'s intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it\\\'s PCM. Pakku isn\\\'t really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He\\\'s still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he\\\'s simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he\\\'s made this one exception we\\\'re supposed to think he\\\'s a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it\\\'s the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn\\\'t see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.
But as for the argument of \\\"OMG Katara used violence now she\\\'s evul!\\\"... no. Just, no.
Also, it\\\'s very disrespectful of you to claim I\\\'m arguing this solely because I don\\\'t want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn\\\'t care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.
