Jump to content

Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?


Lady Winter Rose

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

It's more than having a long face.  She is called horseface.  

Sure. By older, pre-teens whose desire was to hurt her and make her cry. I'd discount it as an accurate description.

21 hours ago, Noble Lothar Frey said:

Are you asking me?  Your question are numerous but I shall try to address each of them.  

  1. Arya has an advantage on her mom.  She's still alive and capable of choosing.  Sandor's effect on Arya has yet to be determined but he is a jaded fellow and it's not going to be positive.  He stood up to the brotherhood and he stood up to Arya, but what it does in the final analysis? Both believe they are delivering justice but I have issues over the killing of Merrett and the assassination of the Insurance Underwriter.
  2. Nymeria has gone savage.  Maybe it is Arya's madness bleeding over through their bond.  Nymeria will be of no help in reforming Arya.  She will only make Arya more primal.  
  3. My opinion, Arya will be put on the right path only if she meets someone with an important cause.  Jorah the slaver is redeemed when he helped Dany rescue 8000 unsullied from Kraznys.  Jorah sold a few but rescued thousands [helped rescue thousands].  Is that redemption?  I think so.

Well, thanks for trying! I don't entirely agree with everything.

1. Arya doesn't think of Sandor much, as it turns out. Merrett Frey was killed by the Stoneheart Brotherhood, and neither Arya and Sandor were anywhere around. As innumerably many have pointed out, the elderly insurance dude was an order/assignment from the House of B&W; even Arya knows that you have to follow orders. I frankly can't believe how many of y'all enjoy the idea of insurance fraud. Do you sell insurance products yourselves?

2. Nymeria is an animal. She's no longer a pet. Going feral is totally normal behavior. And what's with this obsession with "madness"? Isn't this the 21st c anymore? We have words for various psychiatric conditions. Arya ain't "mad"; she's traumatized, and trying to establish or find her own sanity in a cruel world. Doing a really good job of it, in my opinion.

3. Ah! The handsome prince who will ride up and make everything right for her! Sorry. That's Sansa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I don't think that's contradictory. She could be swayed, so she specifically didn't listen (no trial). Deaf ears because she wouldn't listen, not because she couldn't be swayed if she did. And when I say "wouldn't listen", I don't mean just ignoring the words, I mean that she wouldn't allow the words to be said in her presence.

Perhaps they could have tried to convince her she crucified a bunch of innocent people. But do they even care to make her see it? Whether she thinks she was wrong to crucify those people or not, the vast majority of the Meereenese want her dead or gone, and she's not just leaving. They don't want to convince her that she was wrong, and that she should make amends, and that they can work for a better future, or anything like that. They just want her out.

Not to mention, if Reznak and Skahaz are former Great Masters (I think they are, at least. I do wish it was clearer if the Great Masters were just some top tier group among the nobility, or if they're just all of the nobility) it seems she doesn't hold them responsible for the crucifixion of the children. So, she must know that not all of the Great Masters were responsible, even if she somehow thinks that the 163 she had crucified were responsible, by some freak chance.

"She could be swayed, so she specifically didn't listen" could be easily shown by having one of the GM start to proclaim their innocent, only to be cut off by Dany, either verbally or in her thoughts.

I'm not seeing the problem with Dany's dissenters mentioning "innocent" slavers either. They were trying to undermine her confidence by trying to convince her she was hypocritical that her anti-slavery campaign was pointless. Narratively, her arc was about her doubting her own capacity for cruelty. I think adding that some of the GM were actually against the crucifixions would work well. Plus, her enemies are already spreading rumors that paint her as a viscous baby eating tyrant - wouldn't the fact that she cruelly tortured innocent slavers fit perfectly?

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Well, it is what I inferred from what GRRM had written, so it obviously can be. Your assertion that all of the Great Masters were complicit is also not explicitly stated.

Yeah, that's Daenerys's thoughts as she's advancing on Meereen. What, exactly, makes you think she has some knowledge of what the Meereenese are planning, despite being days out from the city? There's nothing to support her narration. She's just using a generalisation. For instance, Catelyn could have thought something along the lines of "the Westermen had done blah blah blah" while referring to the actions of some of Tywin's forces, but that doesn't mean that literally all of the people from the Westerlands had some part in it.

I disagree. As you say, at least some of them are the decision makers. Powerful people. Theoretically, the slaves all belonged to one person, who could easily have had the children crucified without mentioning it to any of the other Great Masters. I'm sure they have some sort of democracy, some say in what happens, but for the most part they're probably quite independent. It's not like Varys runs all of his plans by Littlefinger, is it? Same thing here.

OK, but from what parts of what GRRM wrote have you inferred this from? So far all you've given me is people wouldn't sell themselves into slavery if the Great Masters were all that cruel, and we've already agreed that it is possible.

While there is nothing explicitly stating all the GM were unilaterally for crucifying the children, I've already given evidence of how it is implied that they at least all responsible. To counter your points:

1. Dany's narration is the only one available to us. Therefore, absent of any info that contradicts her thoughts, we must take it to be true. And she doesn't need magical mind reading abilities to know the GM were the culprits behind the crucifixions. If you question that, you might as well question how she knew it was them that burnt the olive trees.

2. If Dany's using "Great Masters" to refer to Meereen's leaders, as Catelyn uses "Westermen" to refer to Tywin and his forces, well she punishes the right people, doesn't she? She asks for 163 of their leaders.

3. So one guy is nailing up slave children along the road between Yunkai and Meereen, and no one stops him? Should we also assume some the Good Masters are "innocent" of the methods used to create the Unsullied? This isn't a Varys-LF situation where what they're doing is secretive, and where they don't have the same level of official power.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

You are asserting that everyone thinks like you, though. You say that everyone has these biases that effect their behaviour, and I really don't think that's true.

As for being rude, well, perhaps I was a bit brusque, but I was replying to the fact that you admitted that you had accused literally everyone in the world of being sexist. That doesn't really endear me to you. I'm usually quite polite, but when someone levels baseless accusations at billions of people...

Oh, I see. You're offended because you think I'm accusing you of being a sexist. *sigh* ok...you're not sexist. You've never exhibited sexist behaviour or had sexist thoughts. You've never told sexist joke or made a woman uncomfortable. And you've definitely 100% never once been influenced by anyone else's ideas in your adult life because you're old and you have critical thought! You're the most fair, most egalitarian, most women respecting internet stranger I know. Gloria Steinem should hoist you up on a pedestal so she can show all feminists what they should strive to be.

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Right, but how? I understand if you're very young, you're more impressionable, but once you're a grown person, you don't just believe things. You think it through. So no matter what the environment may be telling you, you're probably not just going to automatically believe it. And if you consciously don't believe it, I don't see how it could worm it's way into your subconscious.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. It's not a matter of hearing a novel idea once and accepting it just like that. It's encountering that idea over and over again throughout your lifetime, with reinforcement. For example, from childhood we learn that girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks because that's the type of toys adults buy for us. Then, that idea is reinforced when almost every ad we see has girls playing with dolls and boys playing with trucks, and when our peers mimic that pattern. Now, as an adult, you have to buy a present for a little girl but you don't know her well, and you can choose either a doll or a truck. Unless you're trying to prove a point, the instinctual decision is going to be the doll, even though you know, intellectually, that girls can also like trucks. (And that's the story of why I had dozens of Barbies even though I really liked diggers).

Now, that isn't a perfect example, but it's pretty much what happens when women are discriminated against when seeking positions of power. People may want to be fair and egalitarian but they'll still carry stereotypes of women not being fit to handle power, etc. And it won't be obvious because those biases will be cloaked under justifications that sound perfectly rational, like "I think women are just as capable as men, but Susan is too unlikable to lead a team".

12 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

As long as there have been studies about it, there have been those who opposed it. Educated people, of course. The link between unconscious bias and biased behaviour (which is to say, whether or not an unconscious bias actually has any effect) has long been a topic of debate.

What studies? Who opposed it? And how many? The concept of implicit bias is widely accepted in psychology. The only debate is whether the IAT is reliable, which is what that research paper you brought up is about (I have many problems with it myself), but even there, the general consensus is that it's ok.

12 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

If they were actually effecting your behaviour, you'd be able to pick up on them. If you're biased in a way that doesn't affect your behaviour in any way at all, so much so that you can't detect it, can you really call that a bias? Even if it is a bias, it's beyond benign.

Impossible to pick up by yourself, I meant.

12 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

You don't need to be thinking critically 100% of the time, though. If you thought about why you don't like Daenerys, and you came back with "because she's a woman", either you're an unrepentant sexist, or you're going to change your mind. It's as simple as that. If you came back with a different answer as to why you don't like Daenerys, you're either not a sexist (at least, not in this situation), or you didn't actually think critically, but I stand by my assertion that the vast majority of the people of this forum fall into the "not a sexist" category. Or, at the least, the vast majority of this forum has actually bothered to critically think about why they like or dislike particular characters, even if they are unconsciously biased. Which was, of course, my original point.

But this thread isn't just asking why people don't like Dany. It asks why people don't like Dany but like Arya in the context of sexism.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I followed that link, and it was one of the most frustratingly vague and contradictory things I've ever read. Everyone has them, even if they don't want them. They're malleable, but they're not accessible through introspection. They don't necessarily align with our stated beliefs, but they don't necessarily oppose them. Sometimes the biases support our "ingroup", but you can also hold biases against your ingroup. What meaning does it have, then? You can have, say, an unconscious bias against women, but be any kind of person. You could outwardly be sexist, you could outwardly not be. Is the bias actually having any effect on your behaviour? And I love that, despite the fact that you can't access your bias through introspection, you can "cleanse" it in seven days! What utter tripe.

The Bias Cleanse thing is some sort of project done with MTV, so of course it's marketed like it's a hippy detox drink. But what's so vague and contradictory about the rest of it? Even the Cleanse doesn't contradict the idea that implicit biases aren't accessible through introspection. I haven't looked into the program, but it's likely it involves activities like spending more time around Asians, exposing yourself to things that contradict common stereotypes...stuff to "train" yourself into being less instinctively biased.

13 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I really don't know what that means. No one is immune to being shot in the head. Most people don't get shot in the head. To put it another, less facetious way, it's a common saying that everybody has the potential for evil, or that everyone has the potential to become a murderer. But that doesn't mean that evil pervades the opinions of all people, or that most people look on things with murderous intent.

You don't know what that means? C'mon, now you're being deliberately obtuse. Shall I put it another way then? How about: no one is immune to being sexist AND since we don't have gender equality it's very likely we will exhibit sexist behaviors at some point in our lives? I shouldn't have had to add that last part - it was evident that was what I meant, given what I've been writing so far. And if you're going to tell me gender equality has already been achieved, we're going to have to take this to pm, because that discussion is going to make this conversation waaay too long for this thread.

Oh, and I'm going to be busy with real life stuff, so don't expect a reply from me in the next 6 or 7 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

"She could be swayed, so she specifically didn't listen" could be easily shown by having one of the GM start to proclaim their innocent, only to be cut off by Dany, either verbally or in her thoughts.

That kind of did happen. She later thinks about how it was wrong (well, seeing them dying didn't make her feel like an "avenging dragon" like putting them up did), but she immediately stops thinking about that, and tries to reinforce the idea in her mind that it was correct. She starts to think it's wrong, then puts her fingers in her ears saying "la la la la la" until she can't hear it anymore.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'm not seeing the problem with Dany's dissenters mentioning "innocent" slavers either. They were trying to undermine her confidence by trying to convince her she was hypocritical that her anti-slavery campaign was pointless. Narratively, her arc was about her doubting her own capacity for cruelty. I think adding that some of the GM were actually against the crucifixions would work well. Plus, her enemies are already spreading rumors that paint her as a viscous baby eating tyrant - wouldn't the fact that she cruelly tortured innocent slavers fit perfectly?

It's entirely possible the rest of the Great Masters don't know why she did it. She came along, sacked Meereen and crucified a random number of people. If they think that it was just a show of power, then there's nothing to convince her of. They were slavers, she's not wrong about that, so if the Great Masters think that's why those people were crucified, they can't really say anything about it.

I'm not certain that they don't know the reasoning behind those crucifixions, but I don't think Daenerys was particularly forthcoming about her motivations. After all, there was no trial. She never told them "you had these children crucified, so now I'm crucifying you!". She just had a bunch of people crucified.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

OK, but from what parts of what GRRM wrote have you inferred this from? So far all you've given me is people wouldn't sell themselves into slavery if the Great Masters were all that cruel, and we've already agreed that it is possible.

It's the fact that I don't think that they all needed to be in on it for the crucifixion of the children to happen, and the fact that she randomly chose 163 of them to crucify. By those measures, she's bound to have randomly chosen those who had no part in that crime.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

1. Dany's narration is the only one available to us. Therefore, absent of any info that contradicts her thoughts, we must take it to be true.

I completely disagree. Her assumption is shaky, at best. Just because there's no direct contradiction, that doesn't mean it automatically makes sense. If I tell you a lie that you can't disprove, that doesn't mean you have to believe it.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And she doesn't need magical mind reading abilities to know the GM were the culprits behind the crucifixions. If you question that, you might as well question how she knew it was them that burnt the olive trees.

Just because "the Great Masters" were behind something, that doesn't mean that all of the Great Masters were complicit. She's taken all of the Great Masters, the individuals, and put them into one group, and conflated all of their individual crimes together. By this logic, yes, of course the Great Masters were the ones who had those children crucified. I'm not denying that whoever had the children crucified was a Great Master (or that they were several Great Masters).

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

2. If Dany's using "Great Masters" to refer to Meereen's leaders, as Catelyn uses "Westermen" to refer to Tywin and his forces, well she punishes the right people, doesn't she? She asks for 163 of their leaders.

She may ask for their leaders, but what she got was what those people were willing to give up. Who's to say that they'd give up their leaders? Not to mention, what are the chances that there are 163 of their leaders?

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

3. So one guy is nailing up slave children along the road between Yunkai and Meereen, and no one stops him?

One very powerful man. Why would anyone stop him? They're his slaves, and he's allowed to do whatever he wants with them, by Meereenese law, no matter how distasteful the others might find it, no matter how much the others might disapprove.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Should we also assume some the Good Masters are "innocent" of the methods used to create the Unsullied?

Uh, kinda? The ones that are actually making the Unsullied are the ones who are actually using the methods. That said, the Good Masters have been making Unsullied for centuries, so being a Good Master implies at least tacit acceptance for such methods (they are, at least, willing to profit from it).

On the other hand, the crucifixion of the children was a one time thing, that doesn't imply acceptance from the other Great Masters.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

This isn't a Varys-LF situation where what they're doing is secretive, and where they don't have the same level of official power.

Isn't it? We don't know whether or not they're open with each other about their plans, but I think it's fair to say that they don't all have equal power. Some of them will have more money, more slaves, more political pull, etc. There are hundreds of them, after all, they're bound to have different levels of power.

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Oh, I see. You're offended because you think I'm accusing you of being a sexist.

Uh, no? Firstly, you did accuse me of being a sexist, but you also accused literally everyone else in the world of being sexist, and that's what I took issue with. If you inferred something sexist from my comments, that'd be one thing. I wouldn't mind. If you were right, it might be a good opportunity to make me reflect on myself. If you were wrong, no harm done. It was the baseless, blanket accusation of everyone ever that "offended" me. You haven't met everyone in the world, you haven't had occasion to speak to everyone in the world, you haven't had occasion to witness sexism from everyone in the world. You don't know that everyone in the world is sexist.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

*sigh* ok...you're not sexist. You've never exhibited sexist behaviour or had sexist thoughts. You've never told sexist joke or made a woman uncomfortable. And you've definitely 100% never once been influenced by anyone else's ideas in your adult life because you're old and you have critical thought! You're the most fair, most egalitarian, most women respecting internet stranger I know. Gloria Steinem should hoist you up on a pedestal so she can show all feminists what they should strive to be.

You should lose the condescending attitude. It doesn't help your position, it just makes you come across as an asshole.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Unless you're trying to prove a point, the instinctual decision is going to be the doll, even though you know, intellectually, that girls can also like trucks. (And that's the story of why I had dozens of Barbies even though I really liked diggers).

I'll concede this one, but it's really quite benign, and it's more to do with the fact that it's a girl child or a boy child than it is to do with it being a girl or boy. 

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Now, that isn't a perfect example, but it's pretty much what happens when women are discriminated against when seeking positions of power. People may want to be fair and egalitarian but they'll still carry stereotypes of women not being fit to handle power, etc.

Okay, but what gets reinforced in us, as children, about women being unfit for positions of power? The example with the trucks and dolls makes a lot of sense, as it's something that you learn as a child. But you never learn as a child that women can't lead (unless your parents are sexist, I guess), and it's never reinforced by the media. The only idea that television might reinforce is that some women can lead, and some can't. Which is perfectly true.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And it won't be obvious because those biases will be cloaked under justifications that sound perfectly rational, like "I think women are just as capable as men, but Susan is too unlikable to lead a team".

That is perfectly rational. Just as rational as "men are capable, but Craig is too unlikable to lead a team". What if Susan really was too unlikable to lead the team? She obviously shouldn't be hired for that leadership role, surely? Nor should Craig. Not all people are suited for all positions. The person who gets hired for that role might've been Janet, who was likable enough to lead the team. It's not sexist to not hire a woman if she's not fit for the role.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The concept of implicit bias is widely accepted in psychology.

Yes, the fact that it exists isn't really up for debate. Whether or not it has any effect on your actual behaviour, however, is.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The only debate is whether the IAT is reliable, which is what that research paper you brought up is about (I have many problems with it myself), but even there, the general consensus is that it's ok.

The conclusion of the paper I brought up is that the effect implicit bias has on the actual behaviour of people is much smaller than previously thought. To the extent that you can change implicit bias without changing behaviour in any way.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Impossible to pick up by yourself, I meant.

I still don't see how. If something effects your behaviour, you should be able to figure out what it is. If it doesn't effect your behaviour, then I can see why it's impossible to pick up. But that also means that it's meaningless.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But this thread isn't just asking why people don't like Dany. It asks why people don't like Dany but like Arya in the context of sexism.

Right, but the reason I even brought it up was that people were voicing their dislike of Daenerys, and others were saying they must be sexist. My original point was that the people of this board are generally not sexist. I wasn't answering the OP.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But what's so vague and contradictory about the rest of it?

The fact that you can have biases about damn near everything, to the extent that it obviously can't really predict behaviour. You can be biased to support your ingroup, but also biased against your ingroup. Why bring up the ingroup then? But, you're also still part of the ingroup, but are biased against it? So, you can't tell, by being a part of the group, that someone supports said group? A person can be biased against their ingroup, but only ever work towards the support and betterment of said group? What's the bias doing, then? There was never even a cohesive point.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You don't know what that means? C'mon, now you're being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm really not. I just don't understand what you're trying to say. Or, more specifically, how what you're saying leads to your conclusion that everyone is sexist.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Shall I put it another way then? How about: no one is immune to being sexist AND since we don't have gender equality it's very likely we will exhibit sexist behaviors at some point in our lives? I shouldn't have had to add that last part - it was evident that was what I meant, given what I've been writing so far.

That's really not put another way. It's the same point, but with your conclusion tacked on. I understood what you were driving towards. But that's not a logical conclusion. Look, nobody is immune to being a greedy bastard, but that doesn't mean that everyone is a greedy bastard. Just because somebody could be sexist, that doesn't mean that that person is sexist. Which is the point you're making.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And if you're going to tell me gender equality has already been achieved, we're going to have to take this to pm, because that discussion is going to make this conversation waaay too long for this thread.

Heh, fair enough. I will tell you that, though. I do think that gender equality has been achieved, at least in some parts of the world. I do hope we won't have to talk about the "wage gap".

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Oh, and I'm going to be busy with real life stuff, so don't expect a reply from me in the next 6 or 7 days.

Not a problem. Real life has to take precedence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2018 at 5:19 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

She firmly opposed to the fighting pits on moral grounds ("my answer is still no. For the sixth time”).

Uh yes, that's kind of the point. 

On 4/8/2018 at 5:19 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

So what of it? Stannis has fans, Dany has fans, almost every character minor or major has fans. Ser Boros Blount might be the sole exception so far. That proves what exactly?

That you are biased. In any case, the character that doesn't have fans is the Mountain, or at least he really shouldn't. 

On 4/8/2018 at 5:19 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

If you consider Hizdahr zo Loraq sincere and acting in good faith, then you might be in minority.

Aren't we talking about Dany here?

On 4/8/2018 at 5:19 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Let me guess, peace, prosperity and universal happiness?

Very much like what happened with Emancipation. 

Your argument is disjointed and confounding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, zandru said:

Sure. By older, pre-teens whose desire was to hurt her and make her cry. I'd discount it as an accurate description.

I am inclined to think she is horsefaced.  Sansa and Jeyne were full of themselves, Sansa is on the extreme side of selfish, but taunting for the sake of taunting is not her style.  There is more than a little bit of truth to the horseface reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

It's entirely possible the rest of the Great Masters don't know why she did it. She came along, sacked Meereen and crucified a random number of people. If they think that it was just a show of power, then there's nothing to convince her of. They were slavers, she's not wrong about that, so if the Great Masters think that's why those people were crucified, they can't really say anything about it.

I'm not certain that they don't know the reasoning behind those crucifixions, but I don't think Daenerys was particularly forthcoming about her motivations. After all, there was no trial. She never told them "you had these children crucified, so now I'm crucifying you!". She just had a bunch of people crucified.

She did not crucify "random people," she nailed up grand masters to match the number of children they had crucified. And of course the GM knows why Dany did it. The GM are defending slavery and Dany is anti-slavery. That is the sole reason for the conflict here. The GM would be complete morons not to realize that. 

Dany doesn't need to hold a trial because as queen as conqueror, she is the judge, jury, and the executioner. It's the same elsewhere in Westeros and the parts of Essos that we know of. Ned. Randall Tarly, Tywin, Jon, and other lords and commanders execute people without holding trials. The story even begins with Ned chopping off the head of a NW deserter. There's no trial there. 

Even by modern standards, even after a modern-day trial, those slavers would have ended up being executed for mass child murder. 

2 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Just because "the Great Masters" were behind something, that doesn't mean that all of the Great Masters were complicit. She's taken all of the Great Masters, the individuals, and put them into one group, and conflated all of their individual crimes together. By this logic, yes, of course the Great Masters were the ones who had those children crucified. I'm not denying that whoever had the children crucified was a Great Master (or that they were several Great Masters).

The GM suffer collective punishment because they act collectively. You can argue that there are nice GM and bad GM, but in the end, they are all working together to keep slavery going on. The point is, though they may have individual differences, there is no disagreement among GM about slavery. And there's no cause to believe there were GM who didn't want the kids killed. The presumption of innocence based on  individual capacity doesn't really apply to a group that takes action collectively. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2018 at 5:05 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

There are many reasons that I can think of.

  1. This is the best fan site.  The site owners co-authored one of the books.  I suppose many people are trying very hard to influence the direction the author may take the story.  In other words, they want the author to write an ending that favors the characters they love.  I see this mostly in the fans who like Jon Snow.  They are worried right now because George is more than likely going to keep Jon dead.  They are doing what they can to sway George.  
  2. I have said above that I am a fan of Daenerys Targaryen.  She is the "most beautiful woman in the world," the Mother of Dragons, Azor Ahai, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, the Mhysa, the Unburnt, an honest-to-goodness princess, heir to Westeros. Daenerys is very intelligent, slim, athletic, astute, brave, and charismatic.  Personally, those are some of the reasons why I love Daenerys.  Those blessings are also enough to shake the self-confidence of a lot of insecure boys and girls among the fans.  That is the not the case with me.  I am not as beautiful, as athletic, nor as smart as Daenerys but I have never lacked in those qualities.  Reading the text that describes Daenerys as an almost goddess-like figure does not shake my confidence in the least.  It just makes me admire her more.
  3. Arya is not attractive.  She does not possess charm and elegance.  I suppose that appeals to some of the fans out there.  I do not find Arya interesting.
  1. I was on another fan site not too long ago and the ones who like Jon are worried.  George already said Rings could have been better had Gandalf stayed dead.  Jon dying and staying dead would greatly improve the story for me but his fans see things differently.  I don't want another Snow Flake pov.  So yeah, there is truth to this and I am a little guilty too.  If I could beg George to kill Jon, I would certainly do so.
  2. People's insecurities probably affect who some of the fans root for.  There is truth here.  I suppose an intelligent, beautiful woman like Dany will make more than a few feel a little less good about themselves.  I am guy though and I like Dany a lot.
  3. See my convo with Zandru.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

What do kids call each others when they want to hurt or pick on someone? Do they say, "oh you're so gorgeous/smart/awesome? Or do they call them names they know the others won't like?

But we know Lyanna was a yoing woman of surpassing loveliness, and we know Arya looks like her. And that's it. 

It is an unflattering look.  That is why they called her horseface.  I'm not claiming she won't grow out of it.  I'm only saying as things stand during her youth at Winterfell, Arya was not a cute kid.  I don't know what others mean when they critique Arya.  I am only saying she was not a cute kid.  She may grow out of it and end up not looking like Mr. Leno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I am inclined to think she is horsefaced.  Sansa and Jeyne were full of themselves, Sansa is on the extreme side of selfish, but taunting for the sake of taunting is not her style.  There is more than a little bit of truth to the horseface reference.

Yes, I suspect it refers to the ‘long face’ look. There is obviously childish nastiness in phrasing it as horseface but Arya probably does have that look (this does not contradict her resembling Lyanna, or Lyanna being beautiful)

Winds spoilers

Spoiler

The Waynwoods are also noted as looking this way, and there is a familial connection somewhere along the line there

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She did not crucify "random people," she nailed up grand masters to match the number of children they had crucified.

Yes. People that she randomly chose from among the Great Masters. Or, in other words, random people.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

And of course the GM knows why Dany did it. The GM are defending slavery and Dany is anti-slavery. That is the sole reason for the conflict here. The GM would be complete morons not to realize that. 

The reason that the Great Masters were crucified is not because they were slavers. It's because of the crucifixion of the children. Or, at the least, that was a large motivating factor for Daenerys. That is something that the Great Masters may not know, and thus they might not point it out to her (which was my point). Of course they understand that they're on opposite sides of a conflict.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Dany doesn't need to hold a trial because as queen as conqueror, she is the judge, jury, and the executioner.

That doesn't mean she can crucify people, with no evidence of what they're being accused of, without coming off as a mad tyrant.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

It's the same elsewhere in Westeros and the parts of Essos that we know of. Ned. Randall Tarly, Tywin, Jon, and other lords and commanders execute people without holding trials.

That's not true. A trial is customary. If there's no trial, they're not doing what they're supposed to do. Tyrion had multiple trials, for instance, from people who wanted him dead. If they didn't need a trial, Lysa would've killed Tyrion in A Game of Thrones. A trial is needed, if there's any room for doubt.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The story even begins with Ned chopping off the head of a NW deserter. There's no trial there. 

The man was a Night's Watch deserter. A fact he didn't hide. You may recall that Ned spoke to him, though. He hardly just executed him at a whim.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

Even by modern standards, even after a modern-day trial, those slavers would have ended up being executed for mass child murder. 

I disagree. Innocent until proven guilty. There are provable crimes that can be laid at their feet. Being slavers, for instance. The crucifixion of the children isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. There'd be ways to find the guilty party, of course. Who the slave belonged to, etc. Those people would be found guilty of that crime. Daenerys didn't try that, though.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The GM suffer collective punishment because they act collectively.

Do they? I've never heard of a group that runs all things by each member. Do they collectively decide what to have for lunch? When to have a bath? It seems unlikely.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

You can argue that there are nice GM and bad GM, but in the end, they are all working together to keep slavery going on. The point is, though they may have individual differences, there is no disagreement among GM about slavery.

I agree. It's not why those people were crucified, though.

Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.

Approval of slavery doesn't imply approval of the crucifixion of 163 children.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

And there's no cause to believe there were GM who didn't want the kids killed.

The fact that there's no proof is cause enough. Innocent until proven guilty is hardly a novel concept.

2 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

The presumption of innocence based on  individual capacity doesn't really apply to a group that takes action collectively. 

So, what if, pre-Daenerys, a Great Master kills another Great Master. Should they all be punished for that one's actions? Presumably the murder of a Great Master is punished by some form of torturous death. Does that mean that no Great Master has ever killed another? They'd all be dead if one did, right?

The Great Masters aren't some kind of hive mind collective. They're individuals, with individual desires, individual motivations, who commit individual crimes. We know that they're all guilty of one shared crime. Slavery. That doesn't imply, in any sense, that all of their crimes are shared crimes. There could be cannibal Great Masters. That doesn't mean they're all cannibals. There could be paedophile Great Masters. That doesn't mean they're all paedophiles. There could be vegetarian Great Masters. That doesn't mean they're all vegetarians. There are male Great Masters. Not all of the Great Masters are male. They are not the same person. They do not share guilt for crimes they aren't a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people refer to what the Great Masters did, to include slavery and the crucifixions, as crimes in this case? Yes, to us that have the privilege to live in a civilized society, it is a monstrous crime. To the Mereenese however, no crime was committed.

Dany wasn't looking for justice, for if she were, there would have been investigations and trials. There is sufficient evidence in ASOIAF that this would be so.

Dany is angry, is an adolescent with raging hormones and wants to lash out at what she perceives as crimes (and she is right to be angry) however, her actions are those of vengeance. She thinks murdering people within a group that did commit a monstrosity will make her feel better.

If she wanted justice, she had ample opportunity and resources to have begun an investigation and rounded up the true culprits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I enjoy Dany's story more than her character. Though the story definitely fizzled out in the last novel. My biggest peeve about her is her self righteousness and condemnation of people coupled with a willingness to act in a heinous manner when it suits her needs. She has some awesome moments and has accomplished a lot, but I think the potential for her to become the villain is there as well.

Arya, I enjoy her character and story both, but both her character arc and story have fizzled out. I can't say I'm a fan of the Faceless Man arc at all, it really seems as if her narrative has lost direction. Even if Arya also has, it doesn't mean reading about it is particularly compelling. I thinks she gets a pass from more people because she's consistent and honest about her nature rather than cloaking it with self righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ResidentHi11 said:

Dany is angry, is an adolescent with raging hormones and wants to lash out at what she perceives as crimes (and she is right to be angry) however, her actions are those of vengeance. She thinks murdering people within a group that did commit a monstrosity will make her feel better.

Not at all. Her action is rash but it's not vengeance. I think you've never had to deal with an adolescent with raging hormones :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ResidentHi11 said:

Why do people refer to what the Great Masters did, to include slavery and the crucifixions, as crimes in this case? Yes, to us that have the privilege to live in a civilized society, it is a monstrous crime. To the Mereenese however, no crime was committed.

The crucifixions of the slave children were war crimes.  It was an act of war against the liberation forces.  The masters were using this tactic in an attempt to intimidate.  Therefore, it was punishable.  As a war crime, the victor gets to punish them for these acts of war.  

Dany wasn't looking for justice, for if she were, there would have been investigations and trials. There is sufficient evidence in ASOIAF that this would be so.

In a world where people think there could be a fair trial in combat, what Dany did is more than good enough to serve justice.  This is the world of Slaver's Bay, where masters kill and torture the less fortunate for their perverted pleasures.  Those masters deserved what they got.  The ones who wear the tokar belong to the master class.  In the military, they would be high ranking officers.

Dany is angry, is an adolescent with raging hormones and wants to lash out at what she perceives as crimes (and she is right to be angry) however, her actions are those of vengeance. She thinks murdering people within a group that did commit a monstrosity will make her feel better.

No, Dany is a very brave heroine who fought against the slave masters and liberated many hundreds of thousands of people from slavery.  

If she wanted justice, she had ample opportunity and resources to have begun an investigation and rounded up the true culprits.

Those masters are the true culprits.  Morally, all of the masters should have been executed for the heinous practice of slavery.  Dany was actually being too lenient.  So you argue that slavery is legal in the lands of Slaver's Bay.  It's not legal in Naath and many of the other places where slaves were captured.  That slave masters either captured them (which is kidnapping) or bought them from those who did at the very least make them accessories to the crime.   Those people who got executed were all guilty.  They had choices.  They could have left the city a long time ago and practiced another form of business in place of slaving.  They chose to stay and continue the practice for their personal gain and enjoyment.  All of them were slave owners.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nowy Tends said:

Not at all. Her action is rash but it's not vengeance. I think you've never had to deal with an adolescent with raging hormones :P

Oh I have and it is a fun time! :P (I used to work in an after school program for teens in another life)

At that moment in her life, any eye for an eye or blood for blood is tempting and she gives in to that. What she did (at least to me) was commit vengeance against a whole group of people for what may have been the actions of a few. We don't get a POV as a Great Master, therefore we don't know the details that led to the children being crucified. 

Take government for example, in the U.S. we have a congress, Senate, President etc. If some politicians vote in favor of committing a war crime and others do not but the motion passes, would you round up all politicians and sentence them to death, even if some were voting against and perhaps working against what the others were doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ghost+Nymeria4Eva said:

She did not crucify "random people," she nailed up grand masters to match the number of children they had crucified. And of course the GM knows why Dany did it. The GM are defending slavery and Dany is anti-slavery. That is the sole reason for the conflict here. The GM would be complete morons not to realize that. 

Dany doesn't need to hold a trial because as queen as conqueror, she is the judge, jury, and the executioner. It's the same elsewhere in Westeros and the parts of Essos that we know of. Ned. Randall Tarly, Tywin, Jon, and other lords and commanders execute people without holding trials. The story even begins with Ned chopping off the head of a NW deserter. There's no trial there. 

Even by modern standards, even after a modern-day trial, those slavers would have ended up being executed for mass child murder. 

Correct.  There are no innocents among the masters.  They have been guilty of atrocities for so long.  To let the deaths of those children go unpunished would have been tragic.  Those masters were all guilty.  I am sure they ordered their overseers to do the job.  It is hard to climb up on the cross while wearing the tokar.  But they were all guilty because they ordered it and signed off on it.  They have committed enough cruelty that they deserved death a thousand times over.

10 hours ago, Allardyce said:

The ones who wear the tokar belong to the master class.  In the military, they would be high ranking officers.

Wearing the tokar is a sign of their status as the oppressors of other men and their support of slavery.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ResidentHi11 said:

Oh I have and it is a fun time! :P (I used to work in an after school program for teens in another life)

At that moment in her life, any eye for an eye or blood for blood is tempting and she gives in to that. What she did (at least to me) was commit vengeance against a whole group of people for what may have been the actions of a few. We don't get a POV as a Great Master, therefore we don't know the details that led to the children being crucified. 

Take government for example, in the U.S. we have a congress, Senate, President etc. If some politicians vote in favor of committing a war crime and others do not but the motion passes, would you round up all politicians and sentence them to death, even if some were voting against and perhaps working against what the others were doing?

You are giving a poor analogy.  In the case of the slave masters, simply belonging to that group means they are all oppressors and slavers.  That is guilt by doing, guilt by active participation.  Politicians are elected, public servants from any walk of life.  They are not committing atrocities simply by being who or what they are.  The Masters commit atrocities every day.  Each and every day they own slaves and continue the practice of slavery is an act of cruelty and oppression.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

 In the case of the slave masters, simply belonging to that group means they are all oppressors and slavers.  That is guilt by doing, guilt by active participation. 

Or, f*ck the lore, the context, etc. of a given culture… and I have no sympathy for the Great Masters…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...