Jump to content

Varysblackfyre321

Members
  • Content count

    2,530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Varysblackfyre321

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday February 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hell?
  • Interests
    Sitting on my ass and watching dumb videos on YT.

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Roose

Recent Profile Visitors

2,674 profile views
  1. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    No. Not really. You don’t need to “ believe” in being scared shitless if you think you’re about to die. It’s a totally natural reaction. Seriously, when a Deer sees a hunter about to shoot it there’s no “belief” it should be scared about you dying. It gets scared and runs away. Again no to all of this. Dogs love, fear, and hate, can feel anger at those around them if treated harshly, or positively enough or because they some neurological defect. There’s no “belief” in it. And please by virtue of you erroneously having decided that “emotions are beliefs” does not mean everyone else will adhere to your logic. You take a too high view of yourself quite frankly. And literally a precursor of basic research Psychology shows in regards to some the neurological basis for emotions. Like it’s not exceptionally hard to find dozens of cases of someone suffering some form of physical and biologically not being process certain emotions or emotions in general. But then again this seems merely a distraction because you’ve posited “Emotions prove the divine” or some such nonesense. Emotions by themselves show nothing of god or gods. Literally not believing them to be creations of such is no more unreasonable than not believing they’re a byproduct of Leprechauns. The assertion could be true. But it’s on the person making the claim to prove it. You’ve seem to have a limited understanding of the philosophy of “nihilism” if you think it could be used interchangeably with atheism in general. Nihilism rejects morality along with god. Atheism says nothing in regards to the subject and simply does not believe in god.. Even most Dictionary definitions(which are by no means perfect ) of Atheism holds no of mention of a stance of “Morality” in it’s description. Nihilists are atheists. Not all Atheists are nihilists. All Lutherans are Christian, not all Christians are Lutherans. And I find you’re argument for Nihilism being listed as a synonym for atheism as indicative on a lack of research on your part. I imagine you’ve only heard Nihilism is listed as a synonym for atheism and never bothered to see if it was true because you would probably have seen Agnosticism being listed as a synonym for Nihilism as well. Along(laughably) with non-theism. I imagine you’d tell the Dali Lama that he is Nihilist too because it’s listed as a synonym for nihilism lol? Seriously, if you’re going to argue for your interpretation of “true atheism” reference the views of actual scholars, philosophers, secular activists, or poll of those who actually self-identify and have built they’re likeness on discussing atheism and are prominent figures in discussion of it. My main point here was merely acting within accordance to nature-that is to help your kind-doesn’t make atheists hypocrites for doing so. They’d mostly be following the ingrained nature that allows most mammals to survive. And emotions like love or the physical stimulation we label “love” could help facilitate that avenue. “I don’t want you to feel you’re wrong to think that but I must tell you you’re absolutely wrong” lol. For much of your objections of me being so close-minded you’ve taken a hardline stance that without a shadow of doubt emotions are beliefs. I think you probably have as a profound misunderstanding of agnosticism as you do atheism. I think you’ve refused to actually do a nominal amount of research on theology philosophy, evolutionary psychology, and have instead have decided to take your own basic prejudices as factually grounded. You demonstrated you don’t know what atheism is. You’ve conflated religion with justifying human superiority and further seem to have taken religion as sysnomous with theism-as if religions like Buddhism don’t exist. And have taken a denial of a god with denying spirituality-which again is absurd given there are non-theistic religions. “White-supremachist are not bad people, just because they want to genocide and to ethnically cleanse their land of non-whites and such ideas are not offensive stop being so quick to judge them” paraphrasing here. but even my tolerance has its limits when it comes to people who would see me and my loved ones dead. Yeah I’m not going to respectfully disagree on their ideas that I deserve to be treated as subhuman or killed because I’m black. Sorry if you see my intolerance towards racist so closed minded. I will not pretend I’ll see you anything but vile if you agree with them or think the ideas they espouse are not offensive. And please “Atheists are hypocrites if they act nice to other people” is not worse than saying White supremachists are bad people for being white supremachists. Actually make an argument the ideas they’re espousing shouldn’t offend people. Not really. You have a juvenile view of free-will. No, advocating for a creator to not do something, or do something is not violating his or her free will. Free-will does not equal people not being tell you should do or not something. It merely means you could choose to ignore them. You are not entitled to whatever platform you’d want. A Yeah you seem to be conflating critiquing something as offensive with being as bad as literal censorship. An artist in not entitled to never be criticized or derided for his or her work being offensive in sort of way. Or instead of passively taking racist propaganda being spewed one should deride it as such. And not care that it *may* make those who feel comfortable with the art uncomfortable. Ideas could be put forward. That doesn’t necessitate I not negatively comment on some of them or criticize the author for seemingly to push the ideas as bigoted and offensive. A man could make a movie about how evil Jews are behind every bad thing that’s happened in the world and I will however call him an idiot for spewing such nonsense. If that hurts his feelings and he’ll feel more self-couscous about spewing such drivel-good. If it makes movie-producers more hesitant to fund this anti-semite’s project-also good. I’m also not going to act as if I’m violating his or anyone’s rights by criticizing his movie as racist drivel.As as you tout out the importance of allowing ideas in media you don’t seem want them to actually be challenged.
  2. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I think the show’s depiction of Daenerys occupation of In Essos isn’t entirely better or worse than in the books. Like for instance her deciding to burn one of former slavers in response to the sons of the harpy’s terrorism. It was was much more nuanced in the books. She did the 7 kingdom custom of taking in children to be wards/hostages from the noble houses. The situation kinda demanded Daenerys to kill one of the children in response to the children much as the way Jon would be pressured to kill some/all his wildling hostages should they’re parents start to rebel. I have to say I’m alway flummoxed no one’s mentioned the fact Daenerys had the Unsullied butcher all noble sons in Astaphor who were over 12. Her kicking out of Jorah was framed way more in favorably in the book. Given she did initially plan on pardoning him for his valiant service and only changed your mind once Jorah acted like an entitled possessive ass. In terms of the crucification of the GM meh. I honestly thought it could’ve deterred other slave-masters from committing similar acts of depravity just to spite her should Daenerys choose to invade other slave cities. No to part of this. I have no problem story-wise with the concept of Daenerys destroying a city in pursuit of conquest-it would be in alignment with acting to the likes of a typical conqueror. But KL was too important to destroy at whim.
  3. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    My pointing to it was merely a demonstration of bigoted cliches not just being because of some biological basis. But you do go on to to call every atheists who does good hypocrites. So not that much better a stance in regards to them since you clearly think atheism demands immortality or amorality. You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism and really religion in general. Atheism has no belief in divinity by definition and most atheists will tell you that they simply don’t believe in whatever divinity you think has set up some form of rules. Most do not actively deny god(I assume that’s what you had in mind) exists anymore than you actively deny leprechauns exists. They don’t have to try to prove a god does not exist to anyone anymore than you have to prove leprechauns do not exist. The people making the claim do. It’s a patently absurd thing to demand someone prove a negative and being smug they can’t and pretending as if that in it of itself makes them on equal footing. You’ve also seem to have adopted this idea that religion in itself justifying this idea of human superiority. This is false. Plenty of religions throughout history have placed humans as a part of the world-but not an exceptionally important part. Your case for why it’s impossible to reasonably to do good act without religion must something “divine” is also simplistic but sadly not exactly new or rarely used.It relies on wanting humans to be special. “We want these things true right? So it’s only logical we should believe them” It’s not rational, it merely supposes that it must be true. There are a whole heap of philosophical and theorists who’ve given compelling arguments for human superiority-a lot of the time pursuant to our sentience. This idea of “you cannot differentiate yourself between a bug and human baby if you don’t believe in a god” really isn’t one of them. Also “love” and “hope” aren’t beliefs. This is idea is quite frankly too ridiculous to even pretend to have the chance at being remotely true. They’re emotions. No one literally believes in “love” anymore they believe in “tiredness” or “hate” they feel it regardless of what they believe. Atheists do not have to deny the existence love, or hope or whateverbecause they do not believe in some form of a god. Because these emotions don’t showcase that there is someone. They could(and probably are), a totally natural by product that emerged due to the species evolution. Or you could say magic leprechauns infected us in our sleep. You’d have a strong case for why it’s stupid for “leprechaun skeptics” to deny the things that make they’re oh so clear lol.The existence of those those don’t prove god. Actual displays of affection between members of the same are by no means rare in the animal kingdom. A monkey could help out another monkey. Fuck your idea of Atheists being hypocrites if they act like humans and theighn to feel emotions, and have the audacity to show care for another. Again more excuses/justifications for racism. responsible with their rescources and smart(because they were often ostracized and persecuted) =/ Jews in general “biologically more greedy than any other demographic. There is and never has been rational reason Jews for perceived as more greedy. Prejudice doesn’t work off of only real attributes like you seem to want to frame it doing. I’m holding to your actual words because they’re flat-out contradictory. You’ve touted you love getting offended at things for entertainment, you actively try to, and can’t enjoy something unless it does-now you’re you’re saying people shouldn’t be offended. . Pick one argument and stick to it. Yeah no. A lot of things you’ve disagreed with have hideous implications. Like touting out I should be wary of condemning white supremachists as bad people because I haven’t “lived in their shoes”. Or some such none sense. And I don’t respect/accept your sentiments on this for the sake of “variety”. I don’t respectfully disagree. You’re wrong if you don’t see people who advocate genocide and ethnic cleansing as bad people for doing just and my thinking white supremachist are bad for being white supremachists is just due to my “limited” experience. You’ve argued you shouldn’t be offended by any ideas-actually give a defense why someone should not be offended at ideas like genocide or ethnic cleansing cleansing being espoused or concede you were mistaken.
  4. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yeah, a character’s sexuality shouldn’t being the thing that determines he or she is relatable. And, 4-5 percent is the amount of people who have freckles. It’d be rather ridiculous to complain about the fact a character like Ygritte has freckles when only have such a thing. Shouldn’t you think the author should do what he or she feels is right regardless of what offense it may cause who are offended at the level of depiction of certain groups? If he or she wants to write a character having the trait of being gay without it’d being majorly important why should they care if jives with the reader? Or you could make them gay and not waste time having to justify showcasing a biological trend in nature of members of the same-sex, copulating. There no more reason for why sexuality should be justified than other traits that aren’t shown by the majority. No not really. Renly, Loras, and Yara’s sexuality aren’t things that they use to assert power over others. It’s just presented as a part of them. No, Jews aren’t naturally greedy, atheists aren’t naturally evil, and not all gay men are feminine. If you think all ideas could be treated with tolerance when they’re espoused then you’re being naive at best. Some ideas such, as genocide, ethnic etc are deplorable. The people who think they are good ideas are deplorable and people aren’t wrong at finding offense at the idea it’s ok to mistreat someone because of their race, sex or sexuality. So, since you haven’t even seen part of the movie I referenced or seemed to have cared to give a quick google search of it, perhaps you could theighn not to get aggrevied people got offended and called it racist without having read the minds of the people who made it. Just a thought. This is basically apropos to nothing to you’re quoting. You’ve said don’t think people should find any type of ideas offensive. That’s patently absurd. Point to 4 threads declaring Martin some sort of bigot in its title or the OP is centered around specifically calling Martin a bigot. If you merely meant post despite, you’re insistence on total censorship of those who express anti-leftist sentiment the fact that I am able to quote this post at all kinda negates your point.
  5. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yes. I disagreed with her. Not all those who’ve suffered sexual abuse will arrive at the conclusion on things regarding it I could just as easily cite survivors who agree my sentiments. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/ok-sexual-violence-game-thrones-gone-far/ And I’ve talked with other survivors who expressed similar sentiments to the author. I’m not going to accuse you of acting wrongly if you disagree with the author for having an opposing view towards your in it of itself in regards to this scene No, Jamie isn’t some helpless duckling especially at this juncture of his life where he shortly after helps Tyrion(someone who Cersi thinks murdered their son) escape. He did not stop when Cersi began to weep or try to push him off. He did not obey her all things. And, still no to this idea of her not resisting more making this not rape. No their relationship being taboo, doesn’t actually mean it’s generally not consensual.This scene was a break from how they typically act. They’re relationship being taboo that doesn’t mean all sex, regardless of what the other says or does is consensual. Yeah, no. Pressuring someone to cave into your sexual desires, isn’t rape in it of itself, but proceeding to act on your sexual desires regardless of being told no and being shown physical resistance is. Which is what Jamie did. Cersi in the end did not accept this. Hence her begging Jamie to stop, and trying to physically resist. crying afterwards. Jamie did not have her Consent when he began fuck her. Whatever her reasons for refusing-she did. It’s not less of an assault by virtue of you not seeing as good enough reason for her refusal. The fact is she refused him, and Jamie didn’t stop. And once again having relationship with Whether they do or don’t it really wouldn’t make the scene that had been depicted prior them not rape. Probably.
  6. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Do what and who exactly are you talking about? Are you referring to those who are expressing viewpoints you find wrong on a topic. If so I must say, the forum isn’t just open to those who agree with you. If not I’m struggling to see who you could mean.
  7. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I honestly think you may have gotten your timeline mixed up. I joined this site relatively soon after the #Metoo started. I think I have an idea what you’re talking about but I don’t think (from what I could recall) what I said wasn’t warranting such a visceral reaction.
  8. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Why would the story being about ancient world military make such a character more intolerable? Men who only really like having sex with men have served in the military. And Not all cultures throughout time were even so bigoted for it’d to be unrealistic to have it depicted. China, Persia, Rome, are just some examples of countries who for the most of their history didn’t really have a stigma on this. Like a story set in athentes fighting their neighbors could probably showcase a romantic relationship between a man and man just as validly as showcasing a romantic relationship between man and woman. “Need it” lol? There’s was no “need” for anything to ever be depicted for any story. Authors put in what they think should go in. Or simply feel like. If there is a gay character in this someone offended is wrong. Because they’re working off the basis the entirety of human history had the same exact views on sexuality. And I find most complaining about “forced inclusion” to just be inclusion. I know you’d like it if the amount of inclusion was offensive to you but It shouldn’t be controversial for an action movie to have gay protagonist anymore than the thousands of actions that firmly establish the main character’s heterosexuality. Or for a show to feature a gay couple when they could easily have a straight couple. Including members from groups is not wrong. The framing of them is what should be judged. Cliches should possibly be used cautiously but then so should inclusion - but you should never break the rules of real world biology unless there is an invented magical or scientific reason for it in the narrative. Another odd reference to biology. Not all cliches could be explained away with just following the “rules of real biology” Yeah, I’m not going to pretend the people who made BoN where attempting to do anything but create racist propaganda which helped glorify a terrorist organization that murdered thousands or show it any degree of personal tolerance. If you don’t think blacks at the time should have felt offended in response to the movie advocating them being killed off because of they did ok. But they were. A lot. Being offended at this is not something only some modern thing. It’s just the people offended we’re people who were seen as subhuman. I don’t need a “modern” perspective to see why plenty of blacks where offended with the story basically saying they’re evil, raping savages who deserve to be exterminated. Next, you might go “geez I shouldn’t judge Hitler, I haven’t lived in his shoes” But nor did I judge the actions a century ago. But also the monsters who are doing the same thing in 2019 I had two grandfathers that fought in WW2 - they both hated the Japs more than the Gerrys because they said the Japs were more cruel - seeing as they were there, fighting and killing these people, I will take their recollection far more seriously than any who thinks they have anything meaningful to add on the internet. And? Are you now arguing that you wouldn’t rjudge the people advocating genocide, and ethnic cleansing harshly because they might have a good reason fo do just that? No, I won’t not judge white supremachists people who thinks I as a black man and my black family member are am inferior, deserve to be killed, or cast out of my own country because they want it to be all white, as bad people. And dude, the KKK neo-nazis, other types of white supremachists are still around and still pressing that people get expunged from “their” land and actively pushing their agendas, they’re marching and I’m not going to wag my finger at those who have the audacity to protest the guys advocating genocide and ethnic cleansing when said advocates go out to March and try to push their message getting rid of all non-whites. I could have pointed out any other current despicable organization touting any loathsome ideology in the world. It could have been in the the British, it could have been a group in France. In my point would basically be the same. I only chose the KKK because they were the first example that came to mind. It’s ludicrous to act it’s wrong to be offended by any ideas-even ideas of genocide, ethnic cleansing or the subjugation of others. When you hear someone seriously go an tirade about how Hitler was right about the Jews, there shouldn’t any question to you that the guy is an awful person.
  9. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    And having another job means less time to actually work on whatever novel you want to produce. And the job still may not mean a comfortable living. Honestly, I’m not going to expect someone to suffer struggling to make ends meet for “artistic integrity” and expect them to put that as their chief concern rather than you know not being broke. They are free to do that. More power to them, it’s not my life, who am I to judge. But if they don’t well that’s not in it of itself some big crime. Because it’d be pretentious as hell. Not sure - I don't know what you term is a cliche and what isn't - and I am pretty sure that is different for everyone. Write what you need to write to tell your story. If you need a pretty princess to be saved by a muscular knight, have the pretty princess saved by the muscular knight. If you read it back and worry it's too cliche, change it, if not, leave it. If no one is writing it anymore because they are afraid it is too cliche, does that stop it being cliche anyway? Um no. You don’t need to be a genius to figure not every cliche presented concerning race, sex or sexuality is just writers being biological realistic. You probably don’t need to make all your gay characters basically every stereotype associated with them-and only have them as that. Odds are the use of the cliches probably doesn’t enhance the story. And too be clear this depiction of only being this way isn’t really rare. But the point is not every racist/sexist/ cliche could be excused by virtue of following “biology”. And being mindful of not generalizing an entire group Oh no, I’m definitely offended at the idea of it being ok to kill Jews or that other races are inferior. These ideas are reprehensible and should draw offense by good people when they’re touted. Seriously, you might as well say it’s wrong for protesters to demonstrate against the KKK when those monsters do a march. And if a film features clearly very pro-fascist elements, I’m going to criticize it for its presentation and explain how it’s just that. I do not to have literally talked with any of the people who made “A birth of a nation” to recognize it’s racist as hell and not pretend that maybe there’s something I missed that makes what the film did less offensive. That I need to hear the stated intention from the creators own lips before condemning it. Please, don’t tell me you’d tell blacks, back when the movie came out that they were once again depicted in media as murdering raping savages. No, it would be reasonable to offended if a story basically presented this messages “All women want is a strong man” or “all gay men are girly” “all non-Christians are evil” And, I criticize these aspects in a person’s writing more heavily than just mindless being presented in it.
  10. Varysblackfyre321

    The First Law Re-Read Volume II - rereads are a dish best served cold

    I always pictured him being played by the actor who played Doran in AGOT.
  11. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Much of Westeroes is far colder than that of the free cities. Winter is firmly established as a bigger problem they’re than in the east generally. Given the main conflict centering a war in winter, it’s perfectly reasonable given the setting that has been established that most of it’s occupants to have whiter skin than most in the East. I would agree. We were given basically the same tale that Jon and Aegon has multiple times in FaB. “Long lost secret prince/favored son suddenly appears after his father’s death suddenly appears” They’re always concluded to be false when they fail to get the recognition of an established member(s) of House Targaryen.
  12. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yeah integrity doesn’t put food on the table man. I would wager few authors, even really good ones, put art above being able to getting enough money to live comfortably. I actually remember one author who I enjoyed flat-out admitting he wrote the 4th book in his series because he needed money. I appreciated he was honesty quite frankly. I’m not going to chastise a an author for staying totally true to his or her vision, and only write what they truly to believe to be great readers be damned. But I also won’t chastise the authors who are less noble than that. Are you arguing all or most of the racial/sexist cliches we see in fantasy are fine because they have a biological basis? Or writers could use it as a crutch to appear “edgey” or “deep” without being either. Something being “offensive” does not in itself mean it’s particularly thought provoking. Meh, I’d excuse it. GRRM seems to have wanted to model them after Tolkien elves, and their unusually pale skin given their homeland in my opinion helps highlight a sense of alieness.
  13. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Yes, she kisses him back momentarily after her first no. She even plays along until their pressed against the ground. Then she tells him she doesn’t want to have sex. She doesn’t follow this up with a kiss or a tender touch. She follows it up with a shove and proceeds to cry for him stop. He doesn’t. Oh I fully acknowledge that part. But I also don’t think that at no point after those actions that it’s impossible for her to rescind her consent. You actually think her not fighting enough and the fact she had a complicated relationship with Jamie are good reasons for why this is not rape? Like, what in particular in Jamie and Cersi’s relationship, makes what happened in this scene not rape? I’m simply counting the part where she stops being a willing participant altogether. I discount this idea of once a person commits certain actions with someone they’re insistence of not wanting sex could be ignored by the person(s) they did the certain actions with without it being assault. It could be rescinded at any point. A couple could be be having full on consensual sex. If one of them says they no longer want to do it, and tries move way only to be physically restrained have their pleas ignored partner it becomes rape. Also are you saying no, to the question of you mocking the #Metoo movement or just no to my statement that you’ve misjudged the scene? I just don’t get the reason you placed it where you did given you’ve lamented you don’t see what happened to Cersi as rape.
  14. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    Their general relationship being complicated doesn’t make this not rape. Ah the old “He or she would’ve fought harder if they didn’t want to be sexually assaulted” To be clear she’s not Briene of Tarth. Physically she has strength of the typical middle aged woman. And Jamie is still a really strong man. Acting like she could’ve likely pushed him off if she truly didn’t want sex is absurd. Yeah when she says no and starts to resist and he still proceeds to penetrate her it becomes rape. What is so hard to understand about this? I don’t think rape is something that doesn’t count if the victim knew, and had a pre-existing relationship with his or her rapist(most rape survivors do). Or say if they didn’t fight “enough” what had happened to them wasn’t rape. I look at actual consent given. Because that’s the only thing that matters. Your rationale for why it’s not rape is a) they have a complicated relationship and b) she a woman of average physical strength would’ve pushed off the the fairly strong man if she truly didn’t want the sex.
  15. Varysblackfyre321

    GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

    I legitimately don’t get the impression Jon’s and Aegon stories will be concluded as legitimate by most. We get multiple examples of these type of “long-lost prince/ favored bastard” stories, and quite frankly all of them are eventually believed to be false. The only way Jon or Aegon could reasonably be seen as legitimate is if Daenerys elects to acknowledge them as such. To which she may because she needs a successor, and either would do. I do believe Daenerys will become more ruthless in conquering her homeland.The words “Villain” and “mad” get tossed around but I think either label would be too simplistic. I think it’d resemble more Aegon the conqueror(who did in fact deliberately burn thousands of non-combatants) then it would be Mad Aerys, or Maegor the cruel. More amoral, then immoral.
×