Ah, yeah. That's a whole lot of extra complication to carry around on your face.
I wonder if there are many people who actually think that Amon does not just have a point, but that what he's doing is good. I get "yay I'm Team Amon" on a fannish level, because the character is fun and interesting, and his underlings are fun and interesting. (MORE LIEUTENANT PLEASE.) But does fannish liking also mean that people agree with what he does?
Related on an interesting terminology level alone, but I just read this article about the Church of England not liking gay marriage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/gay-marriage-anglican-church-warning) in which a bishop does a really weird thing with the words "equality" (which in this discussion would be "have society treat benders and non-benders equally) and "uniformity" ("take away everybody's bending to create equality"). He says he's okay with civil partnerships for gay couples to create "equality", but that allowing gay marriage would mean substituting "uniformity" for "equality" and somehow deny people their right to be different (?).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-06-12 02:20 pm (UTC)I wonder if there are many people who actually think that Amon does not just have a point, but that what he's doing is good. I get "yay I'm Team Amon" on a fannish level, because the character is fun and interesting, and his underlings are fun and interesting. (MORE LIEUTENANT PLEASE.) But does fannish liking also mean that people agree with what he does?
Related on an interesting terminology level alone, but I just read this article about the Church of England not liking gay marriage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/gay-marriage-anglican-church-warning) in which a bishop does a really weird thing with the words "equality" (which in this discussion would be "have society treat benders and non-benders equally) and "uniformity" ("take away everybody's bending to create equality"). He says he's okay with civil partnerships for gay couples to create "equality", but that allowing gay marriage would mean substituting "uniformity" for "equality" and somehow deny people their right to be different (?).