It drives me up the wall when people compare Aang and Steven
I mean, I obviously get why. They're the same age and on the surface they have very similar personalities and beliefs.
But I very much dislike that people are more accepting of Aang's pacifism than Steven's (or categorize Aang as the same as Steven). Especially because in my opinion the Crewniverse handled it much better than Bryke did.
Aang's pacifism was thrown into the second half of Book 3 last minute and even contradicts some of what they already established about him and the Air Nomads (Gyatso taking out like 12 firebenders and Aang himself using excessive force like in Siege of the North).
Obviously I can't say this for sure, but I'm pretty confident that the reason for this was that Aang's arc was supposed to be coming to terms with his trauma by letting go of Katara. That's what Book 2 seemed to be setting up specifically.
This scene implies that he replaced his love for his people with his love for Katara. Ergo, he projected his loss onto the first person who showed him care and affection after being frozen for 100 years. And he refuses to let that go when told to.
This was never brought up again. And then we were hit with his refusal to kill out of nowhere in the middle of Book 3. It feels like they were looking for a replacement conflict and happened to land on pacifism and used his culture to justify it.
It never even came up during the Invasion, where they literally had an episode about Aang stressing out about facing Ozai. This circumstance is possibly even more pressing considering that Aang would have had a very limited amount of time to even fight him. So why did this never come up?
Meanwhile, they tell us very early on that the Crystal Gems don't shatter. They always bubble corrupted gems and Rose's sword was specifically designed to poof, not shatter. It's reasonable to infer that killing was taboo for Steven.
Sure, the Bismuth episode is the first time they verbalize it. But we've also been told that Steven has cried over snakes. He's always been established as a gentle, sensitive soul in a way that Aang wasn't shown to be.
Aang refusing to kill Ozai is contentious because it was brought up last minute and was given a deus ex machina to get out of it. Steven not killing the Diamonds shouldn't be contentious because that was something he was always firmly against.
I also hate to bring this up, but what did people want Steven to do? They've established multiple times that they barely stood a chance against Homeworld the first time and that was before their entire army was corrupted. They lost to just Blue and Yellow and the only reason they went to Homeworld was to negotiate with White about the corrupted gems. There was no feasible way to defeat the Diamonds, which they've told us multiple times.
Making peace with the Diamonds was ultimately a better outcome than killing them even if he could. Steven reversing corruption and systemically stopping the colonization of other worlds and the oppression of gems is fundamentally more beneficial than shattering them.
Sparing Ozai had no systemic benefit. In fact, I would argue that his presence still did harm since he was able to weaponize Azula and had a bunch of loyalists in the comics. The one thing I'll give Aang is that the end of the war being peaceful set a more peaceful precedent, but not everyone subscribed to that.
(I actually don't hate Aang sparing Ozai if you can believe it. I just hate how people bend over backwards to defend it. I've seen people legitimately ask why Katara isn't criticized for soaring Yon Rha, a retired old man who can't do anymore harm. Like, why are we playing this game?)
All this to say, I'm tired of Aang fans never daring to criticize him while shitting on everyone else. Whether it's Steven, Korra, or any other character, the nostalgia blinders people have on when it comes to Aang is genuinely irritating