Jump to content

Crixus

Members
  • Posts

    1,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crixus

  1. There seems to be a great deal of posturing from Wade on this thread and others; guess it's cool these days in many circles to be an unapologetic capitalist/warmongering soldier/unfeeling unempathetic person hiding under the shallow cover of 'rationality'/insert other epithet of your choice? I can also sense quite a lot of self-satisfied amusement at displaying such a... ruggedly individualistic stance , especially when others try to engage earnestly (I wouldn't bother, you're just reinforcing). How undeniably cool! For my part, I was especially impressed with the list of countries of engagement during their 'military' career, since it included my own country, Pakistan! I'd love to know the specifics of their actions there, but of course it's all classified and heroic etc. Remember, when the US does it, it's 'defending democracy'. As for the topic at hand, as many have expressed far more eloquently than I: you can say what you want but so can others in response - freedom of speech isn't a magical silver bullet that somehow vanquishes consequences. And as @Zorral said, if you can simply step back and look at people as people, rather than boxing them into one dimensional categories, I'd wager empathy and understanding would be far easier to come by. I mean, I tried doing that in this very post, with my layered description of another poster
  2. I agree with that entirely and yes, those make for far more relevant examples. Thanks for clarifying it.
  3. I think comparing salaries across professions relative to their importance and impact in real terms is actually quite relevant, in fact. But ymmv and that's fine. ETA: I see what you mean now (see below). And I agree.
  4. The fact that essential, life-saving professions like those in healthcare get paid so little, whilst people who kick around a ball get millions, is a pretty perfect encapsulation of the shitty world we live in. During the pandemic it became increasingly clear that we couldn't do without frontline workers in professions like retail, delivery, healthcare etc. You would've thought we would learn something from that terrible time. But here we are. I just cannot stomach the thought that specimens like the Kardashians earn millions, if not billions, from broadcasting every detail of their ludicrous lives, and people who literally save lives have to fight to get a decent living wage. Fuck this broken, capitalist-worshipping system. Rant over!
  5. Yeah, England defo the favourites. Didn't know about the shit weather - hope it clears up!
  6. Fucking insane Pakistan, as usual. We were resigned to being kicked out and lo! We somehow got to the semis and are now in the final? Seriously WTF lol. Too bad India's out, or it would've been another heart-stopping (literally for some!) final. Oh well. Some Pakis are obsessively drawing comparisons to the 1992 final where we somehow snuck in against all odds and then won the damned thing against England. I wouldn't get my hopes up though - England was on fire today.
  7. Yeah, defo me too, as I don't want him to be one-note either, as you say. I thought it did indeed refer to the coup, as it gels with the entire plot of the episode (and indeed, the season). I would prefer Aemond caring for Helaena because she's his sibling and clearly a unique individual, especially vs. his brother. I felt Aemond may have a degree of tenderness for her. For me, this was about contrasting Aegon's rejection of every aspect of the future that his mother wanted for him, with Aemond's eagerness to take up that role with all that it meant - marriage to Heleana is more about ensuring continuity and heirs especially if Aegon sat the throne. It could definitely add a dimension to their relationships and also to Aemond's behaviour post B&C. For me though, I think they've really emphasised the 'duty' aspect of Aemond's personality in line with his mother's wishes, and committing adultery with Aegon's wife - however much he loathes him - may not fit that portrayal. The fact that he was sorely tempted by Aegon's plea to let him escape but didn't give in sealed this for me, especially given his earlier conversation with Criston. But speculation is the fun part!
  8. That's pretty much how my workplace does it: standard public holidays as per the countries we operate in (we operate in over a 100, for context), and a number of flexi holidays that people can take for Diwali, Eid, Chinese New Year etc. Of course, there is an overlap between 'country public' and 'religious/cultural' depending on where you are but in the main, it's fair and works well.
  9. Support her claim above his own??? When did he have a claim, past the moment Viserys named his heir? Obviously he would support Rhae's claim now, who happens to be his wife. Or did you expect him to support Aegon?? The fight is between Rhae and Aegon, wtf does Daemon's claim come in? You're making it sound like this was a real option when in fact it obviously is not. Honestly, this is beyond bizarre. 'You could see how'. In other words, conjecture, hypothesis, your supposition. Not in-show. Hell. one could as easily argue Helaena and Alicent would welcome this because Aegon is a little shit whom they both seem to dislike. Sorry, I must have missed that tiny positive detail amidst the many lengthy posts you've been making deriding the show. Aemond kills Lucerys deliberately in the show. Are you suggesting the show throw book canon out entirely, especially something as significant as this that starts the real war? That sounds like you don't like the story as written by Martin, in which case perhaps you should go to the F&B book thread and rant there. Because Luke was portrayed as an innocent young kid there too and readers are clearly meant to sympathise, as any sane person would at the death of a child. As for your entire assertion about 'morally sympathetic' Daemon, once again, this is you projecting your bias on a character that has been shown to do vile stuff. It's the exact same point I have already made: you dismiss Daemon's bad actions as being irrelevant, which is objectively wrong and verging on hilarious. They might be irrelevant to you, but not a lot of other viewers, and you don't get to pretend otherwise. Your opinion isn't magically fact. I think I said this to you earlier; you seem to be overly upset about the fact that a lot of fans like the character, and are conflating people's admiration for Matt Smith with writers' imaginary sinister motives to lionise Daemon. When in fact they've cut several 'good' scenes for the character, such as him comforting his daughters after Laena's death. He is an asshole in the book, dude. Much more than in the show, which indicates the writers are essentially trying to lessen the 'good/bad' dichotomy, otherwise wtf wouldn't they just use book stuff as is? But I guess this doesn't go well with your head canon that the show has made the Blacks saints and the Greens satan. Utter bollocks. Daemon does good and bad shit in the books, and in show. All this stuff around 'stylistic vs substantive' is mostly you grasping for rational reasons to back up your views, and sorry, but it lacks evidence and coherence. So the show communicates his evil, but it's 'stylistic'??? That is genuinely laughable. Just like in the book, where he destroys the RIverlands and does other abhorrent shit! Who would've thought that an asshole in book would be portrayed as an asshole in show? If you're finding it so difficult now, wait till he crowns himself Regent. You should stop watching, is my advice. You don't ignore it, you just put your own spin on it. Which is cool, as long as you acknowledge it your own spin and not fact. I probably sound like a broken record, but read Daemon's characterisation in the book and the author's own view that he was reviled and loved in equal measure. But what does the creator of the entire universe know, amirite? He needs you to tell him. Except she never abstained from ruling in the show. At all, not once. What actually happens, instead, is that when faced by the prospect of a bloody war, she balks and hesitates. Which is, in fact, great characterisation because it adds layers to her, and is also realistic because not everyone is eager to rush into war. But I guess you wanted her to shriek like a banshee and start burning people? She isn't 'forgiving the Greens as Jesus' - lol, this is so fucking ridiculous a statement it genuinely made me laugh, so thanks. She is scared and uncertain. Have you ever been in a high stakes, dangerous situation and hesitated? Guess not. The potential deaths of her sons is the exact reason she hesitates. This is so obvious and logical that it doesn't bear discussion, imo. And I've already made this point but yet again, you are stretching beyond reason to 'make a point'. The only way to push her claim is war. Like, are you seriously pretending the two are not related? Lol, ok. And please stop with the constant references to the bible and Jesus - it's verging on offensive. And it's bizarre. Utter crap. The Rhae we have seen throughout is not some bloodthirsty aggressive one-note power hungry person. So her character hasn't changed. In fact, as per your logic she has been portrayed as Jesus since episode 6, so why are you now talking about the previous nine episodes?? You said she has been depicted as a saint since episode 6, so if that is the case how has her characterisation been changed in episode 10? Make up your mind, won't you? Supports his brother, like he did in the book!!!! Shocking. I won't bother responding to the rest, because it is largely incoherent. You admit he isn't a saint, you admit he's done bad shit, but somehow in your world, all that doesn't matter and should be ignored. No point arguing about this incoherent stance. WTF would he ever have been in a position to oppose Viserys, the rightful acknowledged and accepted king??? This is utterly ludicrous. And once Rhae is heir, how exactly would he oppose her? Who would support him? And as for episode 10, he has no claim whatsoever. Even in book, the Greens are the villains because they try to usurp the throne from the lawful heir. You cannot change that no matter how hard you try, sorry. We've been through variations of this and it is now beyond tedious. I love a good debate, but there has to be a semblance of fact and rationality involved. So I'm done, but you carry on.
  10. This is, again, conjecture based on your personal interpretation. Your framing is not consistent. For instance, you equate Daemon caring about his family with him being presented as above reproach and perfect, yet when people mention in-show evidence of Aemond caring about his mother and sister, you dismiss this as him having nefarious ulterior motives that are completely absent from the show, to support your overall assertion that the show has 'whitewashed' the Blacks and horribly maligned and caricatured the Greens. Except all this does is highlight your own bias, which makes you amplify anything 'good' Daemon might do, and ignore anything 'bad' he has clearly done, whilst applying the exact opposite filter to Aemond. Where, for instance, the vast majority of the audience might see Aemond's lack of murderous intent toward Lucerys as humanising him, you would probably dismiss that as being 'stupid'. If that is not bias, I don't know what is. In summary, you ignore Daemon's bad deeds to fixate on his good ones, and do the opposite with the Greens, whilst categorising their good qualities as evidence of deceit, poor writing or mental illness. See above. Also, the prophecy has been mentioned several times in show, and more specifically by Viserys to Rhaenyra, which shows that she does indeed think it crucial. She isn't just using it as an excuse to give up her claim, lol. Such an assertion is, once again, your interpretation and not supported by the show at all. Nor is Rhaenrya considering Otto's/Alicent's terms an indication that she is 'throwing' their lives away. In fact, the show took great pains to highlight that her reluctance to go to war is because she doesn't want needless death, whereas you seem to be claiming the opposite i.e. avoiding war means death for her and her family. How do you know this? If she accepted terms and bent the knee in book and show, how can you claim Aegon would still murder them all? This is entirely unsupported in canon and once again, needs a lot of reaching and theorising to claim. You can definitely do that, but you cannot assert you are 100% right because it is literally just your opinion. I was referring to his conversations with Laena before the birth scene, as I made perfectly clear. Two conversations, both ending in a not-positive manner, because she kept saying she wanted to go back to Driftmark and have her baby there. It did a pretty straightforward job of showing Daemon didn't consider or give in to his wife's wishes. So this point is entirely irrelevant. And? He didn't outright murder Laenor, which means he's a... saint?? Lol. According to you - unsupported by the actual show. Again, purely your interpretation. I saw his exile to Pentos as being driven by the fact that Viserys basically kicked him out of KL, and didn't engage with him at Rhae's wedding. He didn't give up any claim to power - Viserys effectively stripped him off it, and his remaining choice was to leave. There was an element of anger and sulking - imo - to his stubborn insistence to Laena that they remain in Pentos. Exactly the same trait which was highlighted at the funeral during his interaction with Viserys where he stubbornly declared that Pentos was his home. It is abundantly obvious by Visery's tone of voice when he says 'Daemon' in response that he knows this too, that Daemon is being stubborn. And as I've said, if Daemon cared for Laena's happiness, he would've agreed to go back to Driftmark when she wanted to. This is kind of how stuff works, btw: open to subjective individual interpretation to an extent, which is fine. It certainly doesn't follow that one labels differing subjective views as 'wrong'. Sure, you have every right to your opinion. It is just that, your opinion, not objective fact, is my point. I could turn this right around on you - your anger about one side being whitewashed and the other blackened is also based off the book, yes? If not, it seems it is merely your personal preference that both sides be somehow portrayed equally good or bad, and also your personal opinion that this is the only way to create 'nuance'. For instance, a lot of watchers might think showing Aemond as not being a completely evil murderous monster is showing 'nuance' - showing Aegon as shunning power out of a sense of shitty self worth because of his dad's attitude toward him is 'nuance'. Yet to you, these examples don't seem to cut it and you dismiss them as something along the lines of 'Aegon is evil so who cares why he is that way' whereas a lot of excellent drama in the last couple of decades has done exactly this: showed why people are flawed. Yeah, I read it and found it bemusing, to say the least. It seemed to be founded on a shit-ton of assumptions, inferences and reaching. Thing is, various people have engaged with you throughout the thread and you have not conceded a single, tiny point to any one of a variety of posters. You won't change your mind no matter what, it seems to me. So it's rather pointless. But then, did anyone ever change anyone's mind online?
  11. Rhaenyra, whom he takes to a brothel and abandons when she's just a teenager, knowing she could get into all sorts of trouble in a setting that isn't just unfamiliar, but outright dangerous. Also Rhaenyra whom he chokes last episode. Laena, whom they show him arguing with, and whose wishes (to go back to Driftmark for the birth) he ignores callously and casually. Laena whose funeral he laughs at, and ends up in a second marriage days after. Laenor: not straight up murdering someone =/= 'caring about' them. Lol. What a fucking reach this is; you must've had a great stretch right here. His children with Laena: he outright ignores one of the twins and it's heavily implied it's because she is dragonless, which showcases his selfish and demanding nature, and we don't see him offering any comfort after their mum's death - please don't bring up a 'cut scene' in response, as it is pretty damned obvious we should base our discourse on what is present on page and screen, not what's been edited out. Rhaenyra's children: the tension between him and Jace is abundantly clear last episode, and he also mocks him - stellar example of 'caring'. Aemond cares about Helaena: onscreen evidence has him defend her. Anything like 'I think he wants her because Aegon has her' is pure conjecture. Aemond cares about his mother, as evidenced by his interaction with her, not least when he hugs her in Driftmark after losing his eye, and comforts her by telling her he's fine and it was worth the exchange. Also evidenced by comparing his interaction with Alicent, to Aegon's interaction with her. In summary, your points are so clearly inaccurate and unsupported by the show's actual content, it's verging on bizarre. And to top it, you keep claiming everyone else who disagrees with you is somehow delusional or 'with their head in the sand'. It's either disingenuous in the extreme, or frankly a very strange POV devoid of logic or plain facts. And I won't even get into your inexplicable fondness for diagnosing fictional characters with mental illness, lol.
  12. I would actually be more than happy to get F&B2 - loads of detail on Aegon 3 right up till Jahaerys 2 would be fantastic. Also DnE of course. But in any case, things seem to be looking up for WoW, which is good news.
  13. Man, I feel for him honestly. It's clear he is working on it, it's mammoth, he is a perfectionist - I mean, still rewriting chapters?! The irony is most of us would be more than happy with such chapters, but if he isn't, and he is the creator, then I guess we can't expect him to put out content that isn't up to his own exacting standards. It must be exhausting to get asked this endlessly, when he is working to finish it as best he can. Also couldn't help but laugh at his comment about someone tweeting him demanding ADOS the day after WoW being released - funny but also sad, and true.
  14. Also, the show has quite a few versions of the 'sealed in fire and blood' song, both with a chorus and on its own (I always somehow thought of this as Rhaenyra's theme as it mostly played when she was around) but the OST doesn't seem to have these. I especially liked the soft version that plays in 'Driftmark' when Rhaenyra watches Daemon, and then Viserys goes to speak with him. Wish they'd included it.
  15. Great analysis of Lucerys' actions, completely agree. He showed courage and presence of mind in a perilous situation where he was out of his depth, and conducted himself admirably. His death in the books hit me hard, harder still in the show even though I knew it was coming, and that's a testament to the actor who did a fantastic job with the handful of scenes he was given.
  16. Except that wasn't his intent at all, nor did he have the faintest idea of what Bran would become. He wanted him dead. I don't think this works as proof of Jaime's goodness. Caveat: Jaime is one of my favourite characters in the books, because he is nuanced and complex and also evolves through the series. My original post where I clubbed him in with Walt White et al was more to make the point of audiences liking 'cool badass' guys even if they do shitty stuff, where I think Bran's defenestration definitely fits in.
  17. Yeah, I agree. Also in the show, which I was referring to, they seemed to throw seasons worth of character development out the window when he basically told Tyrion he didn't give a single shit about small folk.
  18. @butterweedstrover You keep conflating Daemon's popularity on social media with the show somehow whitewashing him - just check out the longstanding popularity of straight up asshole characters like Walter White from Breaking Bad, the Roy family - especially the men - from succession, Don Draper from Mad Men, Jaime Lannister and on and on. There are plenty of people who watch shows casually and appreciate characters because of the actor's charisma. There are also plenty of people who interpret a character's shitty actions as being badass and cool. This is evident with the sheer hatred many fans had for Skyler White and their corresponding sympathy for Walt while he was gaslighting her, bullying her, killing people and putting the entire family at risk. The creator of the show himself admitted to being taken aback because his intention was to portray Walt as a monster by the end. Yet, online reactions were largely the opposite. So no, you can't just claim the writers are trying to absolve Daemon of all his crimes - they cannot control how viewers will react, is the point. Also, Aemond seemed to gain a massive following on social media after the last episode; how does this fit into your theory of the writers portraying him as an evil, murderous bully? You say writers' intent and portrayal = fandom popularity. In this case, shouldn't Aemond be hated by most fans rather than the opposite? Instead, every other post on Reddit since last week is about how cool he is. It's also interesting comparing your views about Daemon with another poster who claims white straight men never get any cool scenes or dialogue anymore because TPTB are apparently weighed down by an oppressive woke agenda. And yet the list of characters I mentioned above are ALL straight white men, lol. It's like people are watching entirely different shows.
  19. I think they've only included characters who've been shown or alluded to, which explains Maelor. Would be odd if Daeron were to suddenly show up though, unless they mention him in the next 2.
  20. Exactly. He doesn't lift a finger to comfort R&B in the hall during the entire altercation, but seems more concerned about making sure Criston doesn't intervene when Alicent pulls out the knife. This coupled with Rhaena's comment to Laena in the last episode where she says he ignores her (I assume because Morning hasn't hatched?) makes him a shitty father.
  21. Agree with your last: no one is whitewashed and this constant fixation is tedious. I was actually thinking exactly this re Corlys and Rhaenys - that whole thing about a secret not remaining secret the more people it's shared with, and Rhaenys' grief so raw and genuine, made me think they didn't know. I also thought about the VO from Rhaenyra about how many would suspect her having a hand in Laenor's 'death', and wondered whether Corlys/Rhaenys would suspect her too given her subsequent marriage to Daemon. If so, why would they join the Blacks? OTOH if they were in on it, it still seems a lot to swallow re having their heir abandon his birth-right. So I don't know. Let's see. Thoroughly enjoyed the episode either way.
  22. I know how you feel (Pakistani here, though not a practising Muslim by any means). I live in Dubai and have loads of Indian colleagues; my 2 sisters are in London and have many Indian friends and colleagues too. So far we've never experienced any tension personally, thankfully. But the situation is sad and worrying. I happened onto an Indian sub on reddit recently (India Speaks?) and was utterly horrified at the content of hugely upvoted topics on there that almost uniformly seem to be influenced by RSS/Hindutva bs. I hope that isn't a barometer of what's actually going on in India right now, but I suspect it might be to an extent.
  23. Pakistan is also demanding they get it 'back', lol. Ah, the continued fallout of a fundamentally flawed concept (partition). I'm from Pakistan fyi, and nowadays there seem to be more and more people finally questioning the whole damned thing.
×
×
  • Create New...