James Arryn

Rhaegar wasn’t defeated by the mystery knight. Unless you mean his tracking her down and deciding she was The One ended up costing his life, but there are a ton of waystations between the Tourney and the Trident. What defeated Rhaegar was a spider, or namely the spider Varys, whose whispers of treason inspired Aerys to leave the Red Keep for the first time since Duskendake, and attend the Tourney. That threw an unexpected wrench into the works, and imo was the moment where Rhaegar decided to stop worrying about secondary issues and concentrate on the true purpose of his life, Child and Father of prophecy.

Can we keep some perspective and acknowledge that they also have maybe the worst job, see the worst of humanity, and are less trained than hairdressers. It’s as much the culture and shitshow day to day experience that produces the ‘worst people’ as the kind of people who take the job for the wrong reasons.

On Criminal justice, an ongoing problem is that media, particularly tv and movies from the 80’s-90’s served up a tipsy-turvy version of the dynamic of justice in America. All the laconic cop heroes hamstrung by camera-hungry politicians, slimy journalists and corrupt court officials who have to burn the village to save it…that really had an impact. That’s how the average person thinks of the justice system; rigged for the criminals. Even now, at an era-defining low point in the judicial system where “only” 42-48% of Americans think that the laws should be tougher…that’s still over 2-1 to Americans who think it’s too tough. In the most incarcerated country on the planet, with a huge chunk behind bars for laws most Americans don’t even support, yet those who think the system needs changing are overwhelmingly likely to think that change ought to have more people locked up longer. Or killed. Anyone who has ever come up against the CJS, or been close to someone who has knows that unless you happen to be seriously wealthy, the game IS rigged…against the accused. Court appointed council are overworked and frustrated with how little time they get to even go over each case, the pleading negotiations are naturally weighted by the fact that one side is negotiating something that is a small part of their job that day and the other person is negotiating for their life/family/freedom. A surprisingly high percentage of cases that have been overturned on DNA evidence had plea bargains and confessions…because it’s one person betting their life against a machine with relatively unlimited resources and populated by people who are, by the time it gets into court at least, basically assuming guilt as a working hypothesis until something dramatic suggests otherwise. We all have bad days at work…bad days at work in the CJS costs people their lives. And no one really cares. Once you’re convicted, the world views you as a criminal…studies show that’s almost as true once you’re charged…and it’s expected that you’ll complain about getting railroaded. Yeah, every now and then a dramatic discovery will overturn a case and get high profile for a while, but people still generally think the courts are built to help crooks and hinder honest cops, and it’s going to take a long time to change that.

Right, I’m saying we see racist behaviour…but do we ever see it called racism, or even identified as something to be avoided? I’m just not sure how people in the books view racism, or even if they do, and therefore not sure it would be seen as a sign of anyone’s immorality as many are suggesting.

CK3 AGOT with a Total War battle engine.

My 3 year old twins play this game where one shouts “Blue is better!” and the other one acts exasperated and says “No, Pink is better!” And they laugh, and go back and forth, each acting more and more fed up with the other’s refusal to see the obvious. The difference between them, the 3 year old twins, and this Jon vs. Dany stuff is that the 3 year olds actually get how its ridiculousness is what makes it fun and funny. To the point where they sometimes go meta and both protest that blue is better while pretending to tear out their hair when the other emphatically says they’re wrong and then declares their agreement on blue.

Racism might not be as unattractive as we wish. Remember the NW are basically cops/soldiers. And, well, neither group has ever been at the forefront of pushing back against racism, historically. Much more likely to be pushing back a crowd of people protesting against racism. Actually, serious question, does racism even exist as a concept in ASoIaF? Like is the word ever used or applied or discussed? Not talking behaviour that is clearly racist from our perspective, like ‘smells Dornish’ et al, but is addressed as such, and as a moral wrong understood as such by society? I honestly can’t remember.

And the bigglyest! You don’t even know. People were coming to me, so many people, tears in their eyes, saying ‘Ser, we have never seen such troops before. No one has. They were already the best of the best, but following you…ser, they are just so inspired nothing in the history of everything could stand against them. Why just now some of them came to me…tears in their eyes…and said ‘Little Ser, could you tell Big Ser how completely devoted we are to him and his innate greatness, and we will fight to the last man to make sure He is given all that was due him, all that was stolen by those conniving traitors. And it’s not just us, our families…just now, some of our wives and children came to me…tears in their eyes…and said ‘Man Who Knows Big Ser, can you please tell him how much we love him, how we are so willing to die for whatever he wants that a few have been overcome with love and patriotism and offed themselves prematurely. But they were thinking of Big Ser all the time, you tell him. They said to me, with tears in their eyes…

I think possibly a trap you are falling into is assuming that because Dany is not the cliche-driven disaster that Cersei is, she will therefore necessarily be as one-dimensionally competent as Cersei is incompetent. A more realistic depiction of a strong woman is still a flawed human being…just nowhere near as flawed as Cersei. I guess what I’m saying is that within your argument, the problem with Dany is really a problem with Cersei. For all the criticism the show rightfully gets, they obviously felt that Cersei needed to be more well rounded to be credible, and for most of the show they managed that. Book Cersei is formidable before we get inside her head, buffoonery to the point of satire afterwards, and you could rightfully say that’s not one of George’s better moments. edit: unless comedy is the central thrust of her arc, which I’ve heard suggested. It’s kindof how I read her now, light/dark comedy peppered with all kinds of important information she misses or misunderstands.

Balon basically makes the worst decision whenever a choice is offered to him, even when there are glaring historical lessons readily available to him. And he does it all with this air of pearls before swine. It’s not just amazing he’s so revered, it’s amazing he was tolerated as long as he was. But the IB feel half-cooked a lot of the time, so who knows? And being the IB, they replaced the incompetent nincompoop with Jack “Sadomasochist” Sparrow. Who seems to suffer from the same delusion that a plan is basically an idea that will grow its own wings provided you’re committed enough.

Not top of the list or anything, but I think we could cut down on the food descriptions by like 80% and still feel pretty replete.

It’s definitely possible…but I think it’s entirely hypothetical, and I think Tarly knew that even better than we do. It just was never going to come up.

First, horses for courses. There’s not really anything like ‘the best soldiers’ unless everyone is operating within a narrow field of equipment and tactics. Instead you have different types of troops better suited to deal with certain other types but vulnerable to yet other types. And sometimes those strength/vulnerabilities are situational. A phalanx type soldier, in conjunction with others can be virtually invulnerable against cavalry…from the front, if their flanks are protected. But those same cavalry let loose on the wings or rear will make quick work of a phalanx. As for the Dothraki as cavalry, another note is we see virtually no evidence of them operating as part of a mixed force. That is a specific way of fighting that in some ways requires very different skills than does operating in an entirely/predominantly mounted force. Now this is not a deal killer…given time to train in that, master horsemen like the Dothraki would likely prove exceptional in this sphere too. But it would take time and in some ways it would require un-learning certain battlefield habits. Anyways, if they get time to operate as a coordinated force Dany’s army would likely be formidable. There are still weaknesses…if we use the most apt RL model, the Macedonian template, there are still weak spots required to be filled; especially non-phalanx heavy infantry (including the equivalent of hypaspists to serve as hinges) light infantry, siege trains/sappers, and it’s really hard to get a feel for Dothraki archer capabilities…the assumptions are based on the obvious RL models, but the Dothraki don’t fight like those models when we see them fight so it’s all a bit unknown.

True, but a couple caveats: While there is no doubt Randyll Tarly was a brutal, unyielding father, he was also probably the most engaged father we see in the books. Constantly taking Sam on trips he hopes will be improving, hiring and firing a dozen master at arms specifically because they fail with Sam, exposing himself to ridicule by repeated betrothal attempts, having him sit in on important councils,etc. And in Sam’s own words, once he gives up on Sam he seems to devote his entire life to developing Dickon. We don’t see any other parent devote so much care to raising their own child, not even Ned. Secondly, about the death threat…how seriously should we take it? He seems ruthless enough, but upon recent re-reading he imo over-eggs the pudding. He tells Sam he would enjoy it…which seems way over the top, and unlikely. Remember he is considered possibly the greatest commander in Westeros. That means he can read men. Do we think Randyll thought there was ANY chance Sam defies him? Do any of us think that was even possible? And was his over the top warning a monster giving vent or a disappointed narrow-minded control freak making certain his son wouldn’t even think of defiance? Lastly, for his time, and given his house, we can perhaps understand why his sensibilities don’t reflect those of our modern world, but indeed those of a martial feudal culture where your house’s survival can often rely on it’s leader’s abilities at war. Almost every house that went extinct that we hear about did so because of losing at war, regardless of the cause, or Harrenhal. That’s the reality of the world they live in, and not one of Tarly’s choosing. Yes, ideally he would see past Sam’s weaknesses and try and find a way to emphasize his strengths, but that would still leave Sam afraid of the sight of blood, and there’s no way his men could ever be relied on to follow such a leader, and once Randyll dies, Sam would be the man the house has to follow in war as well as in peace. That would probably mean catastrophe. Feudal leaders were expected to personally lead their men in war because personal loyalty/obligation is the only reason they are fighting in the first place. Having a leader too afraid to fight with them will almost certainly mean failure in the field, or even in the muster. Ned tells his sons to never expect someone to risk his life for a stranger…how much worse for a stranger who even won’t risk his life for his own cause but expects others to? This isn’t like picking a career path and Sam not being interested in the family business, though there is an element of that. But it’s more about necessity. Wyman Manderly is dangerous because others think he’s craven and he isn’t. But if he was…if he was so demonstrably to the point of falling down and crying at the idea of sparring, or growing sick at the sight of blood, that would be ridiculed, disrespected and the advantage Wyman gets from people acting like they can walk all over him would be gone with the walking all over still happening. So it’s not like Randyll is just inventing his own rules.

Mine too, actually both of them, my father to a lesser degree.

Just reading the OP, one immediate reaction; Yes, both sides have extremes and both extremes can be destructive/counterproductive and can engage in some similarities in behaviour. But a big difference Left to Right is how they get there: the extreme on one side is much more likely to come from a history of oppression or at least…making up a word here, disprivilege , and the extreme of the other more from one of privilege or being an oppressor. So in a way it’s a difficult discussion partly because to dismiss the extremists on the left is to at least in part dismiss many who have the most first-hand experience with the kinds of dynamics/systems the left as a whole wants to eliminate. Whereas dismissing the extremes of the right is much more likely to dismiss many with the most first-hand experience of privilege and/or partaking in oppression. So like take as an extreme, a POC trans person…they are probably more prone to seeing racism or gender bigotry everywhere, and blame any misdeed by someone as being grounded in the biases they are regularly faced with, including of course times where there may have been rational explanations for someone’s behaviour being motivated by something not related to bigotry AND there are times where bigotry is the most likely explanation, but not the specific bigotry that ‘extremist leftist’ has themselves been subjected to and therefore sees first ~ everywhere. Now, a clarification, I am not saying that anyone who has themselves been at the extreme in experiencing prejudice turns to the extreme in identifying it…indeed some people from the latter tend to be more acute in excluding or at least remaining open-minded about possibly bigoted behaviour being not necessarily reflective of bigotry and/or the kind they themselves have faced. But the problem is how do you address those who do when the majority of those on the left who might see it as inaccurate are speaking from a less personally experienced perspective. Do those people have the right or qualifications to ethically talk down to such extremists? I am not comfortable with any answer I can think of. Whereas on the right, the extremists are much more likely to be much less experienced with bigotry from any side but dishing it out. Meaning rationally and ethically their disqualification from speaking to whether bigotry is present in a given instance or as a whole is beneficial to the discussion’s level of being informed, objective and representative of the kinds of thinking that measure up to the at least professed western values of freedom, equality of opportunity and meritocracy. So while eliminating the extreme voices on the left would silence some of those best placed to speak on the issues at hand, doing so with the extremes of the right just improves the conversation and increases the (admittedly) small areas of potential common ground that might be made in order to bring things forward in American society as is. Caveat: like with bank robbers or pickpockets or w/e, the ‘reformed’ former criminals/bigots can actually provide some of the most productive/important insights on now the system works from the inside, how it starts, how it grows, how they communicate, etc. But they tend to be fairly rare and not easy to reliably identify. Anyways, to talk from my own perspective on the discussions here, there is for example one poster who shall remain nameless who themselves suffer from more than one form of bigotry in their lives but seems to often immediately identify/speak about one in particular as the most likely/destructive to society, even in instances where it seems to clearly be a lesser or even potentially irrelevant factor to most others. Or if the issue is so glaringly obviously not about their prioritized prejudice, they won’t place it front and center but instead tangentially include it in the discussion and at times still forget themselves and talk like it’s the main issue again. To stay away from pointing fingers, I’ll randomize the forms of prejudice in order to give an illustration of what I mean. Suppose this person is a Muslim lesbian…who seems to see homophobia as the most important/relevant explanation for most questionable behaviour, even in instances where say Islamophobia or misogyny seems much more likely/relevant to the vast majority of observers. I struggle with how to address that…because I have personally experienced little to nothing of any of these prejudices. How can I tell this person they are wrong and I am right in such an instance. With the poster in question I just don’t, I never challenge their takes on issues touching on their own experiences even if I find them off or disproportionate or unhelpful to the discussion. Which is not to say I cannot perceive prejudice or at times be more accurate because of my having no skin in the game. And therefore it’s not rational to think I should have no credible voice in the discussion…but there are instances where my voice should be somewhere in the background compared with the poster in question, and I might not always know when that is or isn’t true. So I just duck it, even if I’m sometimes muttering to myself about knee-jerkism or counter-productivity or tunnel-vision or ego-centricity while ducking. Anyways I don’t have any answers on this, just possibly important questions. I don’t envision reconsidering my default to ducking with this poster, because there is such a gap between how much bigotry they have faced and how little I have, I just don’t feel…qualified. And I know that’s a worldview…the idea that only victims whose experience touches most on w/e their prioritized prejudice happens to be should even be speaking, even in instances where they have no more personal experience with same than I have. The worst leftist extremists also often push similar views to the most experienced, but simply out of laziness or strategically or simply to bully views contrary to their own. But how do we effectively parse these? Or if we cannot, how can we adopt a policy that would necessarily silence some of the most important and informed perspectives on the matter in question?

I guess marry Manceghar, bang Daarjen, kill Daarion. Next: geniuses Sam Tarly Rhaegar Targaryen Tyrion Lannister

To me it’s the aftertaste, but really I’m not much of a drinker because I always get hangovers and rarely get drunk, so it’s like buying the ticket but not getting the ride. Also years of tending bar turned me off the smell of beer specifically. Anyways, thankfully I do not have an abnormally high tolerance to weed, so I’m not left handing out pamphlets on street corners or w/e.

I am in my ‘a joke gets funnier the more deep and detailed your rumination on the ridiculous gets’ mood, I get that it’s a very acquired taste.

Yeah, that was my thinking, that it transitioned from traditional/transactional to a kind of judgment made manifest stage…thinking Minoan bull-dancing or trial by combat or ordeal, though I agree the former is disputed and the latter a divergence from sacrifice, but anyways that type of concept, then further into the present.

Yes, statistically speaking Vodka is the drink of choice for CA’s. Better bang for your buck, harder to detect/taste if mixed, etc. It’s been a long time since I tended bar, but by the standards back then I’d have put you down as either a single malt guy or an American whisky guy who thinks single malts are for posers. (Edit, and beer when beer is appropriate.)

It’s possible that it originated as human sacrifice, and along the way…possibly due to sacrifices being too common or perhaps in better times when the need seemed less extreme, either by accident (by the actions of distraught family or similar) or deceit it was discovered that if you acted quickly enough after death, some could be resuscitated. There may have been a transitional period where whether or not the person was brought back to life indicated the god’s favour or approval, either of the sacrificial victim or the group performing the sacrifice. And over time that gave way to ~ the present where deaths are more the exception.

Enjoyed him in many things, but to me he will always be Pullo, as McKidd will always be Vorenus. What the Sopranos represented for the youth of so many others, Rome (and to a lesser degree Deadwood) represented for mine.

Well, if not good, at least Coping.

And the end of the year can get pretty damn cold*, might want to start some bonfires and invert Prometheus. *somewhere…not sure if library season mirrors Julian calendar or academic cycle.