That's not an alternative character interpretation, it's a statement of fact regarding what he says and does. We were discussing this in the Korra thread but you never offered an argument as to how his actions are consistent. Aang is a hypocrite. He embraces worldly attachment when it's convenient and then rejects it later as suits his needs at the time.
I mean, if you don't want to consider it selfish then fine, I won't argue about that regarding an entry for hypocrisy, but the fact that his actions do not match his words is undeniable. I added ample evidence to the example so you can't just remove it and say 'nuh uh' in response.
Edited by Arha Hide / Show Replies
Hypocrite gets used as basically a dumping ground for character-bashing, which is clearly what is going on here. It's not the writers' intention that he's espousing hypocrisy.
Though the Thou Shalt Not Kill thing isn't even covering hypocrisy, it's describing confirmation bias.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, especially with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.[1]
Dictionary.com: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
Tvtropes: People — particularly those with authority, be it moral or political — are expected to act in a manner in accordance with the ideals they espouse. That is to say, they should practice what they preach.
I am saying that he professes to believe in one thing and then immediately discards it for its opposite. The example might need rewriting if you believe it is overly negative, such at the comment about not understanding his own culture, but I believe it IS a legitimate example. He claims to be an air nomad that believes in worldly detachment, but is not willing to embrace said ideal except when it is convenient. To summarize my argument.
- Iroh tells Zuko about how the air nomads detached themselves from the world in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment.
- Guru Pathik tells him he needs to let go of his worldly attachments. He doesn't understand why he would want to do such a thing and refuses.
- Unwilling to kill Ozai, he calls up his past lives in theory for their counsel, but in truth wants justification for what he wants to do already.
- The first three don't matter, but when he gets to Yangchen he says that the monks have taught him that he should pursue spiritual enlightenment by detaching from the world, which includes certain teachings such as non violence. This is inconsistent, he has already rejected the value of worldly detachment, but now champions it.
You see? He changed his position as convenient and does not actually follow the beliefs he claims to champion to Yangchen. If he hadn't done that, it would be easy to argue that he simply rejected the culture he was raised under before, but with his arguments to Yangchen it becomes clear that he has not done that.
If I don't get a response soon I'm going to assume I have the okay to go ahead and readd it, but with less negativity.
So, where does Aang say he champions worldly detachment?
I'm seeing some "pick-and-choose what you support" here, but nothing hypocritical.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
During the argument with Yangchen. He says that the monks taught him to avoid killing and that he should strive for world detachment, a viewpoint he is clearly supporting when arguing with her. She responds that as the avatar he isn't allowed to detach himself from the world because the needs of the world come before his own spiritual needs.
Would it be fair to say that Sokka is an Expy of Xander Harris? I wanted to check this with some other tropers before posting. Here's my list of reasons.
- Both are wisecracking Badass Normals.
- Said Badass Normalness comes from military training, which often places both Sokka and Xander in the role of strategist or planner.
- Both form half of a duo that is the first meet and the Chosen One, the other half being a magically gifted female.
- Just as Sokka and Katara are siblings, Willow and Xander have known each other for a long time.
- Both Xander and Sokka get involved with a powerful feminist woman, all though Anya (at first) is significantly more Straw than Suki.
So that's what I can think of, I'm sure other people can think of many more reasons why or why not Sokka is an Expy of Xander.
Hide / Show Replies
An Expy is a deliberate intent by an author to export one of his own characters to another work of his own, so it only counts if Xander was a character created by the same people who made Avatar and they were intentionally making him similar.
I don't think that it has to be by the same author, but it simplifies things because in that case, you know it's not coincidence. The key is intent. The author has to be thinking "I want this character to be Xander, but in the Avatar world." And I don't think that's the case, as most of the similarities are either pretty generic, or a bit of a stretch.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Since Katara, Sokka, and Toph don’t have character specific pages anymore, should their tropes from Legend Of Korra be moved into the past characters page there?
Edited by MB74