Jump to content

cyberdirectorfreedom

Members
  • Content count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cyberdirectorfreedom

  1. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Yes. Not sure why you're bringing up Stannis, though.
  2. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Because those who crucify children are more deserving of crucifixion themselves than those who don't? She wouldn't, that's my point. When people say "random people", they don't tend to mean completely random, chosen from the entire population of the world. "Random people" is to mean people randomly chosen from among a select group. If they don't know about the crucifixion of the children, yes, they wouldn't know why Daenerys crucified those men. I know you believe that they all know, but it's a simple hypothetical: if they didn't all know about the crucifixion of the children, would they know why Daenerys had 163 Great Masters crucified. The answer is no. Alester Florent, I think, was burned for treason. The point is, people take issue with her method of execution. You can't know that. Daenerys couldn't know that. No, I don't. Why would I? That sounds awfully unreasonable. It's not like I benefit from Daenerys being a bad person. I just think she kind of is one. I could put it back on you. You just want to believe that Daenerys is the good guy, no matter what. Except, you know what, I don't think that. I don't think you're being unreasonable, I just think we've interpreted things differently. I understand her reasoning for it, I just think she didn't really think it through. She wanted to give those slavers a taste of their own medicine, but didn't stop to think who actually deserved it, nor how it would affect her ability to rule over the rest of them. She wanted bad people to suffer a bad fate, which is not necessarily bad, but damn did she go about it the wrong way. Right, she's covering herself. Because if there was no trial, the Lannisters could easily, and truthfully, proclaim it murder. I'm sure commoners get trials, if one is needed. For instance, if a commoner is accused of killing a nobleman, they'd want to be sure that the right person is punished, and so wouldn't just have the commoner executed immediately. Admittedly, there are probably no trials for "trivial things", such as a commoner murdering another commoner. Regardless, the Great Masters aren't commoners. Yeah, exactly. If Tyrion had evidence that exonerated him of the crime, somehow, and there was no trial by combat, Lysa still would have had to let Tyrion go. It would have defied tradition in that case, too, to murder him. The tradition of not murdering those who are obviously innocent. I've never said that they necessarily had any qualms about killing children, just that they had no part in the crime. Still, enslaving someone is different from crucifying them. You can treat your slaves well, for instance, but you can't... crucify someone nicely. Yes, and there's nothing in the books to indicate that all of the Great Masters partook in it. All that's confirmed in the books is that at least some of the Great Masters partook in it. I just don't see any reason why it'd take all of them to plot this. No. If the Great Masters were all one person, there'd be no doubt about that persons guilt in this matter. She would definitely have crucified the correct person. That's not the case with the 163. Well, they were propped up on the way to Meereen. Most of the Great Masters were in Meereen. I think it'd be easy for them not to know. Right. That's their punishment for slavery. But she doesn't punish them for the crucifixion of the children. Why not? Because she only wanted 163? If they were all a part of it, why should she stop at 163? It definitely sounds to me as if she wasn't interested in justice, but in vengeance. No, she's not avenging anything she lost. It's because she had to witness it. Mind you, in her own words, she felt like an avenging dragon. Not to mention, she's taken on all of the slaves as "her children", for reasons that elude me. So, in her mind, they were her children. It's rare for a murderer to be offered a deal. It's usually the more petty criminals that are offered deals to turn on the murderers. Because they aren't obviously guilty. It's obvious that at least some of them are guilty, no more than that. Yeah, I agree. But people can conspire separately, even if they're part of the same group. Sure. But did they conspire together on this? Maybe. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not an obvious conclusion. It's entirely possible that it wasn't a collective decision. Also, side note, what would a "collective decision" entail? It'd just be a majority, right? So, if 51% of the Great Masters were for it, it'd still happen. Sure, the 49% would be complicit, they didn't try to stop it, but it'd be possible that the 163 Daenerys crucified were entirely from that 49%. Which would mean that, of the left over former Great Masters, there would now be a larger percentage of people who are for crucifying children. I don't think that's what happened, though, I think it was the actions of a few of them, acting independently, entirely within their power. Yes, well aware. Let me rephrase my question, then. What's the proof they were complicit in the crucifixion of those children? "Being a Great Master" isn't proof of that. Seriously, I do want some proof, if there is some. Yes. What my coworkers do has nothing to do with the organization as a whole, and doesn't say anything about me. The actions of my coworkers are the actions of my coworkers, nothing more. I don't have to approve of their actions to keep my job. I have no problem with my coworkers getting punished for their actions. That's not how a confession works. I admit that it leaves no doubt that it was done by some among the Great Masters. I've never denied that. But that doesn't mean that they're all guilty. Okay, so if the Great Masters punished those among them who crucified those children, then you'd think that they weren't all complicit? It's not like they had time to do that, though, even if they wanted to (it's not like they committed any crimes, by Meereenese law), considering immediately after the crucifixions of those children, Meereen was sacked and they lost their power. So, did they need to actually take action to distance themselves from the guilt of the others? They could have been in a position to take action (by which I mean, not complicit in the crime), but didn't take action. Does that somehow make them complicit, in the sense that they plotted the crime? That makes no sense. Yeah, good. We're on the same page. I couldn't agree more, that wouldn't be justice. No? How can you be certain? They easily have the power to do what was done. There are a lot of slaves in Meereen, and they only needed 163. Could easily be acquired by a few Great Masters. It's not as if the crucifixion itself would require more Great Masters. They'd just use their soldiers or their other slaves. There's no compelling reason that they all had to be complicit in the crime, for the crime to happen. So, the fact that the crime happened doesn't mean that they're all guilty. Yes. One or two very powerful people, with hundreds of slaves and soldiers at their beck and call. All that passage "proves" is that Daenerys believes that the Great Masters are all guilty. It's entirely possible that she's wrong, of course. Ned went through all of A Game of Thrones believing the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn, with nothing to say otherwise, but that wasn't true. Yes. How often do you think the Great Masters were travelling that road, after the children were crucified? I'm thinking not at all. You're kidding. The closest crucifixion was a mile out from the city! The next closest two miles, the furthest 164 miles. One mile is a long enough way. It's hard to make out things that are a mile away. Of course not. That's what you do when you're being besieged. You make it difficult for your besieger. Crucifying children is a first, I think. After all, this is the first anti-slaver crusade that's come to the walls of Meereen, if I'm not mistaken. If the Good Masters of Astapor were besieging Meereen, they wouldn't have crucified any children. Yeah, I really don't think there's a "crucify slave children when under siege" policy. All they know of Daenerys is that she's killing slavers. Why would they defect to her? To make it easier for her to kill them? She set their envoy on fire, after all. Wait... that may have been a Yunkish envoy. Definitely Yunkish, I checked. Regardless, they don't know much about Daenerys other than she kills slavers. You think they're obliged to house them? Why? This'll sound crass, but that would be as if your fridge got repossessed, but you had to store it at your house, without using it. Indefinitely. Absolutely not. Unless they didn't know about it. Her later actions don't change what she did here. Her first act as Queen of Meereen, the crucifixion, was the act of an absolute tyrant. Her later action are not those of a tyrant, but of a benevolent dictator. This is not a good thing. Her back and forth about her leadership style is the root cause of her inability to rule over the Meereenese. If she had chosen one from the beginning, absolute tyrant or benevolent dictator, she'd have been able to rule peacefully. She didn't, and she made a right mess of things. Well, there's no doubt there. She wouldn't have had to deal with the Sons of the Harpy if she simply had all of the Great Masters killed. I don't disagree. This is what she did with Astapor, which didn't work out, of course. But if she stayed, it would've been alright. She took the lesson from Astapor. Don't leave. But for some reason, she took a different approach with the Meereenese, before staying. Which didn't work at all.
  3. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm referring to them as crimes because Daenerys considers them crimes, and she was Queen of Meereen when she was punishing those people. I agree they didn't commit any crimes. Atrocities might be a better word. Things can be atrocious without being illegal.
  4. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Yeah, but she chose randomly from the group. It's not as if she judged each of the Great Masters and chose the 163 most distasteful to crucify. It was a random selection from within a group. That's how all random selections work, really. It's not as if she could randomly choose someone from Westeros or Asshai to crucify, could she? Yes, I agree, but I'm not sure what your point is. In what you quoted, I'm only saying that the Great Masters might not know the reason Daenerys crucified the 163. If they think it was just for being slavers, a crime for which they are responsible without a doubt, none of them would bring it up to her. That's called vengeance. Vengeance is not justice. No. You won't see Ramsay getting flayed alive, for instance, if he's being lawfully punished. People don't have things stolen from them for being thieves, they don't get raped for being rapers, they don't get stabbed if they stab someone. The punishments might be harsher than modern punishments, but they're not "eye for an eye". I disagree. Take Melisandre's "executions". They're not like for like, but they were cruel, and many took issue with her burning people alive. Yeah, she didn't execute them for murdering children. She crucified them because they could be the people who murdered children. Without any kind of proof. That's what makes someone a mad tyrant. If she just executed the right people, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sure, they're all shams, but why would they need to go through the farce, if they're not supposed to? Yes, the Eyrie trial was a sham, she just wanted Tyrion dead, but she let him go, because he was "proven" innocent. Should he have come up with some actual evidence, instead of the trial by combat, I'm sure Lysa wouldn't have been able to kill him (not with Catelyn there, at least). If Daenerys actually had a trial, even if she had already decided upon their guilt, she might've found proof that some weren't guilty. Or she might've found proof that they all were. Either way would be better than what she did. She didn't even allow for evidence to be presented. I completely disagree. There's no doubt that someone (or someones) within the Great Masters was responsible. Who actually was responsible is entirely in doubt. If the Great Masters were one person, that'd be fine. Ned did speak to him, actually. "He was the fourth this year," Ned said grimly. "The poor man was half-mad. Something had put a fear in him so deep that my words could not reach him." It's entirely possible that Ned did learn about the Others. If someone spoke to me about mythical creatures truly existing (especially if these were their last moments), I'd think they were mad, too. Perhaps it's hard for me to understand because it's not true. There are quite a few Great Masters (considering Daenerys found 163 to crucify, there must be more), spread all across Meereen (and presumably there are some outside of the city walls, lording over farms and such). I've never seen a compelling argument for why all of these Great Masters would have had to come together to plot the crucifixion of those children. If they didn't come together to plot the deaths of the children, some wouldn't have known about the plot. If they didn't know, how can they be guilty? If they were all guilty, Daenerys should have had them all punished. Why didn't she? Could it be that she didn't actually have any proof that any of them were guilty, and simply wanted vengeance? The number that she had crucified, and the fact that she had them crucified, speaks loudly to her desire for vengeance, not to a desire for justice. Members of a group are often offered deals to testify against others, so that those who committed the most heinous crimes can be punished more fully by the law. If they were being punished collectively, they'd all get the same punishment, and nobody would turn. So, that's not true. The RICO Act allows, among other things, for leaders to be punished for giving orders to commit crimes. So if someone says "Go kill this guy", they're guilty of the murder. That doesn't mean that the equal of the guy giving the order, who was sitting in a bar across town at the time of the order, is also guilty. Yes, they're all guilty of slavery, no matter their direct involvement. They're not guilty of the other crimes that the other participants are guilty of. They're not all cannibals if one of them is, for instance. Yes. No. The fact that they are slavers is proof that they've made the decision to be slavers. What's the proof they were complicit in the crucifixion of those children? "Being a slaver" isn't proof of that. Fine, let's go with the Nazi analogy. Being a slaver is akin to being a Nazi. Sure. The crucifixion of the children, however (you know, the crime these people were crucified for), can be more likened to the atrocities committed by Josef Mengele and his ilk. Atrocities that were never placed at the feet of the individual Nazis, despite being Nazi atrocities. Why would they defect? That's ridiculous. If one of your coworkers does something you don't like, not quitting doesn't mean you accept and approve of their actions. Not to mention, you might not even know what they're doing. So you've had 200 years to get used to it. Why not apply it to this situation? Why do you think that is? It's because, for those cases, there's no doubt. The only reason there'd be no doubt is when there's a confession, or when the defendant was caught red-handed. Neither of those apply to those Daenerys had crucified. Yeah, except the war ended. You used the Nazi analogy, so I'll go with it. The Nazis had trials, as you're well aware. Right, so collective punishment is only okay when you want it to be? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't? Yeah, that, uh, doesn't make sense. But how do you know? How can you possibly be so damnably certain? I must have missed the passage when the Great Masters were all sitting together, saying "Muahaha, let's crucify these children. She won't know what hit her", at which point they raised a toast, to pure evil. Seriously, what is it that makes you so certain? You keep bringing up the Nuremberg trials. It's worth noting, I think, that they were the trials of 22 Nazis, and only 12 of them were sentenced to death. So... they weren't even punished collectively. Nonsense. The group could be two people, and one could still hide things from the other. Did they? I daresay that the vast majority of the Great Masters were within the walls of Meereen when those children were being crucified. Daenerys was on her way, after all. I still don't see why they'd want to defect, but there really wasn't that much time, even if they did. The crucifixions started when Daenerys was 164 miles out from Meereen. A few days.
  5. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Yes. People that she randomly chose from among the Great Masters. Or, in other words, random people. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The fact that there's no proof is cause enough. Innocent until proven guilty is hardly a novel concept. 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.
  6. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. You should lose the condescending attitude. It doesn't help your position, it just makes you come across as an asshole. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". Not a problem. Real life has to take precedence.
  7. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Oh, I don't think Daario would've lied about it (as you say, why would he?), just that he might have been incorrect, or only seen a select number of them, or that it was the well born among them who was asking (if these disheveled Meereenese had banded together, the well born would be their leaders and spokespeople). You're right though, there's no mention of it. I really did think that it was explicitly stated, though. It's bizarre. Yeah, fair enough. I can easily see some people thinking "Oh, they'd never dare do x to me", despite the fact that they have seen or have heard of atrocities committed against slaves, or even committed such atrocities themselves. It's really odd, I'll say that. One point in favour of the Great Masters being the name for the nobility is that Daenerys found 163 of them to crucify. Take King's Landing, you'd never find 163 leaders laying about. You've got the King, the Small Council, perhaps you could count the commander of the Gold Cloaks (military leader, if not high nobility). I doubt you'd have too much trouble finding 163 nobles about the city, though. It doesn't really matter, I suppose, but it's a lot easier to believe that the Small Council might've each had some part in some conspiracy that it is to believe that all of the nobility in the city had some part in it. Well, fair enough. If he's genuine, he's likely made enemies of the Sons, but it's true enough that he hasn't taken some moral stance against what they're doing, just that his machinations are more important to him. Although, Reznak and Skahaz are former Great Masters, and they're definitely opposed to the actions of the Harpy's Sons (well, if they're genuine, and their words can be believed). Of course, considering they've aligned themselves with Daenerys's rule, they'd be bound to take her side, on this. 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. 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. What's to stop Tyrek Lannister from vetoing an idea made by Littlefinger? Even if they are all Great Masters, that doesn't necessarily mean they're on equal ground. 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. Of course, I don't think any of the slavers would've dirtied their own hands. Why would they? Even if not other slaves, they'd have used their soldiers. The only reason there was "no need" for a trial is that there was no evidence that any of them were actually guilty of this crime (any individual, of course. Someone had those children crucified), and Daenerys wanted vengeance, regardless of whether or not the actual guilty party was punished. I was being hyperbolic. But I stand by the fact that very few things one hears could bias someone, so long as they actually thought about it. 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. 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. Opinions formed by what we grew up with? Absolutely. But once you actually think about those opinions, you might find yourself disagreeing with what you once thought. You said it yourself, opinions change with new experiences. Why then, do these unconscious biases remain with people for their entire life, as you assert? Many people might well have been a sexist little shit when they were a child, but once they get a bit older, a lot of people will realise that they were awful, and won't be that way. 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. I'm not sure if this is really directed at me, or is just a generalisation, but I've never claimed to be a great guy. Or even that I can't be sexist. But I do know that the reason I hate Daenerys isn't because she's a woman. 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... 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. 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. Going back to the studies, there have been studies that directly contradict that unconscious bias has an effect on behaviour. Here's a link from which you can download a 2016 study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Change_in_Implicit_Bias The study found that, essentially, unconscious bias had little to no effect on behaviour, so much so that changing said biases didn't result in any change in behaviour. Hm. I agree. 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.
  8. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Heh. Maybe I'd be more inclined to think she was sending a message if she didn't undermine the message almost immediately afterwards, by making concessions to the slavers, not executing her hostages, etc. She's just so... inconsistent, so it's a little hard to tell what her intentions are, sometimes, even if we are in her head.
  9. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Yeah, Decimatio. One in ten men were beaten to death by the other nine, chosen by lots. Precisely random. There's a difference between Decimatio and what Daenerys did, however. Murdering 1/10 of whichever military unit was being punished is feasible. It'd make the others fight harder, so as not to be punished again, at least theoretically. Murdering 10/10 of said military unit is unfeasible. Daenerys had no such reason to stay her hand. She could've killed them all, so why not? Not to mention, it's not really a deterrent for being a slaver. Because it's not the punishment for slavery. Definitely a deterrent for crucifying children, though, as it was the punishment for that. I see it as simple vengeance. Eye for an eye, crucifixion for a crucifixion, as they say. It's just differing interpretations, I suppose. The classic "agree to disagree" situation. Fingers crossed. If she wants to be the hero she thinks she is, she should learn from her past mistakes, but I don't think she will. "If I look back I am lost" is one of my big issues with her.
  10. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Yeah, fair enough. I consider that her entire crusade in Essos is her punishing people for being slavers, and that the crucifixion is specifically her punishing people for the 163 children. I could be wrong, though. It's the fact that she crucifies only 163 of them, whereas if it were for just being slavers, she should've given the punishment to all of them. I just don't really see it. Sure, I think she probably could go either way. She rather quickly pushes down the fact that she feels bad afterwards, though, whereas she relished punishing them. Dwelt on the high, ignored the low. Then we have her final chapter, in which she makes some decisions on who she is, which I consider to be a darker Daenerys. Mad Queen definitely seems to be on the cards, though of course I could be surprised. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Astapor was a failing of the Astapori, not of Daenerys. Meereen is all Daenerys's failure. I think one of the worst things is that she has good intentions. It's a little sad that that's meaningless.
  11. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    One of the many, many great things about the books, really. That people can read the same thing, and without missing any information directly relayed, can have completely differing opinions, with neither truly being incorrect. The reason we have high standards for her is that she portrays herself as the hero. She thinks of herself as the hero. When she crucifies people based on the crimes of their peers, it's particularly egregious because it's a direct contradiction. Sure, and if they were punished for being slavers, that'd be a different issue. They were punished, cruelly, for a specific crime, that most of them likely had no part in. It's nonsensical. It's unjust. I'm scarcely grieving for them. It's not their deaths that I take issue with, it's how they were killed, and why they were killed. There's a difference between just killing someone and crucifying them. The only reason I brought it up was because someone asked what "Mad Queen" sorts of things Daenerys had done. This one act, in particular, reminds me of Aerys. Cruel. Misplaced. Idiotic. Very evocative of Aerys. If she just had them all killed, fine. Even if she had them all crucified, fine. I wouldn't approve, but I wouldn't disapprove quite so much. It'd be a strong opening move, that would solidify her rule over the Meereenese (because the vast majority of her detractors would be dead). Daenerys's problem is that she opened as an absolute tyrant, but then danced between tyrant and benevolent dictator. Foolish. It really is no wonder that so many of the Meereenese wanted her gone. I dislike Daenerys for a great many reasons, but this is her cruelest act, that's all I'm saying.
  12. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Yep, I think I was mistaken. I think I may have been conflating a few different scenarios together. Tyrion's musings about how easy it is to become accustomed to the chains, the Pit Fighters wanting to fight for themselves, and the fact that people wanted to sell themselves into slavery. I'd thought that there were freedmen trying to sell themselves into slavery, on page, but it does seem I'm wrong about that. My bad. That said, I don't think it necessarily undermines my argument. The fact remains that people still wanted to sell themselves into slavery. Of course, maybe they thought that they'd get better treatment than the other slaves, but that seems a foolish hope. A slave is a slave, and of course while the owner decides the treatment, the fact remains that any slave, no matter how well born, has at least the potential to be treated as cruelly as any other. There would also, surely, have been former slaves who knew how to read and write, and those were the types of people Daario was describing (he says that they'll be, among other things, scribes and tutors), though he also describes them as gently born (though how would he know, for certain?). Also, after Daenerys concedes that any man or woman is allowed to sell themselves into slavery, it doesn't need to come up again (no freedman would come to Daenerys asking to sell themselves, they could just do so), so we cannot say for certain that no freedman sold themselves back into slavery, though of course we cannot say the opposite, that they did. The impression I got was that all of the nobility were the Great Masters; that it was just their fancy, self-aggrandizing way of saying noble. Which is to say, Reznak and Skahaz, for example, were former Great Masters, along with everyone who lived, freely, in the pyramids, and many more besides. Though I've been looking, and I cannot really say for certain that this is so, but it was my impression. Sure, but if he supported their actions (once again, this is assuming he's genuine) he wouldn't want them to stop. Perhaps it's not a direct condemnation, but it certainly implies disapproval. If Hizdahr thinks he needs to stop the Harpy's Sons in order to protect his own people, it obviously follows that he thinks that they're endangering his own people, which he thinks is bad. That's certainly not approval of their actions. Though I find it much more likely that he's simply using the situation, whether or not he is one of the Harpy's Sons, in order to become King. In which case, he certainly doesn't care that they're killing freedmen. But once again, it's possible that Hizdahr is genuine. Oh. Right. I only ever really argue anything from an in-story perspective. There is a story, after all, and it needs to be cohesive. If there's no plausible reason for something to happen in-story, I feel that it shouldn't be in the story. From an out of universe perspective, however, it may simply be that GRRM felt that Daenerys would be swayed by their pleading, their reasonable arguments that they're innocent, and that he wanted Daenerys to crucify them. We all know how much trouble GRRM had with writing Meereen, and without this scene, a lot of what happens wouldn't make much sense. Much of the reason that Daenerys's diplomacy fails in Meereen is that her first act was that of a tyrant. She immediately, permanently, turned a great deal of the noble class against her by her rash action. It needed to happen, and it's possible that she'd have been swayed if she'd listened. That makes a certain amount of sense in-story, too. She had wanted to feel like an "avenging dragon" (the way she phrases it), and she didn't want to be swayed away from what she felt was "just", so she didn't choose to listen. She feels a bit bad, afterwards (though she quickly puts the thought out of her mind), when she hears and smells them dying, which lends credence to the idea that she thinks she could've been swayed. I don't really think it would've fit, honestly. Trying to force things just so that they're there, despite perhaps not really fitting is the way you get "creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen." Sometimes, if it doesn't fit, or you can't make it fit, it's fine to drop it. Don't get me wrong, GRRM is a fantastic author, and I'm certain that, if he really wanted it, he could've somehow worked it in, and it would've been good. But considering the trouble he had writing a lot of the Meereenese stuff, and the fact that it doesn't need to be said outright (well, I don't think it does, at least), it didn't need to be put in. Also, side note, GRRM had intended for some of the Winds chapters to be in Dance, no? Perhaps what you're looking for would've been in one of those chapters. The formerly Great Masters appealing not to Daenerys, but to Barristan. There, I think it could fit. I'll counter that with the fact that there's no textual evidence that all of the Great Masters came together and plotted to crucify those children, as far as I can see. Just so. But that's in the same paragraph as this: In the plaza before the Great Pyramid, the Meereenese huddled forlorn. The Great Masters had looked anything but great in the morning light. Stripped of their jewels and their fringed tokars, they were contemptible... So the people she's speaking to are identified as Great Masters. Though of course it's worth noting that it may simply be that Daenerys considers all of the Meereenese nobility to be Great Masters, not distinguishing between potential class levels within the nobility. That's possible. But I think it's simply that all of the nobility are Great Masters. I wasn't being disingenuous, your comment was on the same page as mine. I wasn't trying to trick anyone. I'd have said the same thing, regardless. I also didn't pretend you didn't write anything, I just didn't wish to comment on it. If you insist, however, I will: I disagree. I feel the whole "bias" argument really falls flat. Our early interactions with people, primarily parents and teachers, go a long way to shape a person, but saying that people are biased by everything they hear completely undermines the idea that anyone can think critically. An example not related to sexism: I don't like pears. No matter how many people tell me pears are great, that I must like pears, the fact that I dislike pears isn't going to change. The media can say it, advertisements can be tailored to present pears as fantastically delicious, it's still not going to change anything. I. Don't. Like. Pears. End of story. No matter how much people try to push the idea that pears are great. On that same note, some people aren't sexist, and when they hear sexist things, they don't start to believe them. Another, more sexist example. If someone says "all women are sluts", or "men are all horny pigs", or even something as light as "men always leave the toilet seat up", my first reaction is the same. Some women are sluts, sure. Some men are horny pigs, sure. Some men leave the toilet seat up, sure. I've heard all of those claims before, sometimes said outright, sometimes implied by poorly written shows or books, whatever. I could hear it once, I could hear it a million times, the fact remains that I disagree, and I'm not going to start believing it just because it's said. Now, I think that most people feel the same way. I could be wrong. I'm quite certain that most people aren't unapologetic sexists. But it could be that most people are more like you. You said you "catch yourself" having sexist thoughts, which obviously implies shame at the fact that you have them. I don't "catch myself" enjoying Taylor Swift's music. I just like her music. So with that said, if we return to the original point, that people are unconsciously biased towards female characters, I think it's ridiculous. If most people think the way I've portrayed in the example, there's no bias. If most people think the way you do, their unconscious bias would be destroyed if they thought critically about why they don't like x character. So all you're saying, when you say someone is just being sexist, is that they haven't bothered to think. Which you can't know to be true, it's just a baseless accusation. Of course, there are some who won't have thought it through, and there are some who are just unapologetically sexist, but I seriously doubt that they're the majority, or even that they're a large minority, on these forums. Now, with all that said, I stand by what I said earlier. Just because you have sexist thoughts that you don't want, that doesn't mean that everyone else does, and you must have some ego to believe it's so. This is why I didn't comment on what you said. All I had to say was, by necessity, long winded and significantly off topic, and it didn't really have any influence over what I did choose to say. You're saying that you have knowledge of how all people think. I'm saying that not all people think that way, though obviously some do. Compared to you, at least, I think my ego is well in check.
  13. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Not so. The example I'm thinking of is of a man who had a job digging ditches, who wanted to return to being a slave. I believe he was working for Daenerys, too, so he was surely being paid. Else, he'd be a slave, no? Fair enough. I can't speak for everyone, but it's a relatively common saying that there are worse things than death. I'd be happy (well, happy might be a stretch) with pretty much anything, if I were getting away from someone who crucified people on a whim. That's completely irrelevant. They wanted to, regardless of whether or not they could. I'm pretty sure he is. Unless I'm mistaken, the Great Masters are just the ruling class of the city. The nobles. I mean, after Daenerys took the city, they stopped being Masters, great or otherwise, but before she came along, I'm quite sure he was one of the Great Masters. Wasn't the marriage to solidify the peace? The implication was that unless she married someone from the Meereenese nobility, she could never hope to have peace, and she had Hizdahr stop the killings first, to prove it'd be possible. It wasn't that it was Hizdahr's offer, so much as it was Daenerys's price. As I've said, I'm not really sure that Hizdahr is genuine (I don't really think he is), but if he is, then it's true he wanted peace. If not, he's one of the Harpy's Sons. But it's not impossible that he is genuine. Clearly. Except for the fact that we don't hear from all of them, so it's impossible to say for certain that "none of them x". The fact is that we are presented with the opinions of some of the former slaves, who want to go back to being current slaves. They evidently don't think they'll be tortured, or they wouldn't want to go back. That'd be like going into your local police station and telling them, unprompted, that you had no part in some recent murders. All that's likely to accomplish is to draw attention. If the police had recently crucified some people, you don't want their attention. Or perhaps we were supposed to use common sense, and realise that with the amount of slaves in the city, it doesn't take 163 slave owners to come up with 163 child slaves. Next, any who weren't supplying slaves to the 163 didn't need to be in on it. It stands to reason, therefore, that not all 163 people Daenerys had crucified were part of the plot to crucify the children, and therefore that they are innocent of the crime they're being crucified for. They don't need to be benevolent paragons of goodness to not be a part of someone else's crimes. Hell, they don't even have to disapprove to not be a part of it. Punishing people for the way they think is proper tyrant sort of stuff. He had their former slaves tell the story. That they wanted to be enslaved. Nobody wants to be crucified. I don't want to keep coming back to this same point, but I really do think it speaks volumes. She didn't really give them an opportunity to defend themselves. One line she's saying that she wants 163 people to crucify, the next she's thinking about how good she felt, how righteous she felt crucifying them. It feels like a quick change, from one part to the next, and I think it's supposed to feel that way, to portray the way she had it done. No trial, no defense, only crucifixion. Wow. Right, so because you're a sexist, that means everyone else must be sexist too? That's some ego.
  14. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Did you just accuse literally everybody in the world of being sexist? Well, I never said "benevolent", but does one have to be a particularly good person to object to the crucifixion of 163 children? They weren't "harmed", they were murdered in an unreasonably horrific manner. There's a bit of a difference between disciplining a disobedient slave and crucifying someone. What makes me think that some of the slavers weren't so bad is the fact that many of the slaves wanted to be their slaves again. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to work for someone who crucifies people on a whim. It seems unlikely that the 163 children were all going to be crucified anyway, so they were used to taunt Daenerys. Therefore, they must have been randomly chosen. If you were freed from someone who'd do that, you wouldn't want to go back. As for condemning the murder of the freedmen, there's Hizdahr. Now, I'm not so sure that he's such a good guy, or that he doesn't have direct influence over the Harpy's Sons, but he did stop the murders. Should he be genuine, that's a direct condemnation of their actions, no? Admittedly, I don't really think he is genuine, but I've been wrong before. It's a lot easier to paint Daenerys's actions as morally grey as we see her thoughts, her reasoning, her motives. We don't have that for any of the slavers. I'm quite certain, however, that a proclamation of innocence would fall only on deaf ears, and I really don't think the 163 people she had crucified were given a trial and allowed to defend themselves. I am absolutely not an advocate for the collective punishment of the Freys.
  15. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Sure, it was symbolic, but that doesn't mean it wasn't cruel, stupid and misplaced. She sorted the people into two groups, slavers and slaves, and took all of the crimes of the individuals and placed the punishment on the group. That's simply not justice, no matter how you look at it. Punish the guilty party, not their peers. Imagine if there was a murderer who worked where you work, and because the police didn't know who the murderer was, you and a bunch of other random people were arrested for their crimes. That'd be mad, wouldn't it? So... because they could have chosen to crucify those children, they should be punished because someone else did? There's no proof that the ones she had crucified were the ones who crucified the children, and there's no reason to think that the Great Masters were all of one mind about doing so. It'd be like Ned Stark being crucified for Roose Bolton's crimes. It doesn't make sense, it's not just, and it's needlessly cruel. I could not agree with you more. There are many, many reasons to both like and dislike most of the characters in these novels. "Being a woman" is surely a reason for some people to dislike a character, but I'd venture to say that for the vast majority of this forum, that isn't the primary reason (or any reason at all) for disliking someone. So I'm not really sure why it keeps coming up. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing anyone saying that people don't like x male character because they just hate men. I wonder what that's about.
  16. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    Well, sure, but you can look at some of Aerys's individual acts of cruelty and say "that doesn't prove that he's mad". It's how they all come together, and Daenerys seems to be heading down that path.
  17. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    I take it you disagree. There's almost no chance that those 163 people were the ones who conspired to crucify the children. That was the basis for their crucifixion. Others who may well have been the guilty party in the crucifixion of the children were not punished for their part. She crucified 163 people because she decided they were guilty by association. That's hardly debatable. Unless I'm quite mistaken, they were crucified solely as "justice" for the crucifixion of those 163 children, hence the number she chose. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were good people or anything, and they were certainly guilty of owning slaves and taking part in the slave trade. But that's simply not what they were punished for. Oh, fuck me, it's a saying. I don't feel any kinship with those who share my opinion, I don't feel that I'm really in a little camp, it's just a saying. Not an uncommon one, either. I could as easily have said "I'm of the position that I hate Daenerys and dislike Arya..." or "I hate Daenerys and dislike Arya..." and it would've meant the same thing.
  18. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Why people hate Dany, but love Arya?

    That one time she crucified 163 people for crimes they didn't commit springs to mind. Anyway, I'm in the camp that hates Daenerys and doesn't particularly like Arya, so I can't really answer the OP.
  19. cyberdirectorfreedom

    [Poll] How would you rate episode 605?

    I give it a 1; I don't appreciate being called a psychopathic troll, but I'll just ignore that. There are reasons I gave it a one. I've always had a problem with this kind of time travel; in order for Hodor to have become the way he is, Bran needed to be in the Cave to Warg Hodor through time. But in order for Bran to get to the Cave, Hodor needed to be Hodor in order to take Bran there. But I have an issue with that whole situation in the courtyard; so many people were there, hearing Willas (what was wrong with 'Walder', by the way?) shouting "hold the door", eventually degrading it into 'Hodor'. Old Nan was there too. So, why doesn't anyone know the story of the whole 'Hodor' thing? All I could think during that was this moment from the books: No one knew where "Hodor" had come from, she said, but when he started saying it, they started calling him by it. It was the only word he had. I know, the show is not the books, but that's just such a little thing that didn't need to be changed. No one knew, except for Old Nan herself and a courtyard full of people. Sure. The creation of the White Walkers was interesting enough, but I have a few questions; was that Obsidian that they shoved in him to turn him into a White Walker? If so, why would they be weak to it? But the other question, why is Leaf so strong? The rib cage of a human is very, very strong; but Leaf can just push that dagger through him like he's made of butter. Everything about the attack at the Cave struck me as strange; I always disliked the Skeleton Wights, for one thing. The fireball rocks looked absurd, the Wights were the least physically powerful things I've ever seen, Meera cutting that one down like it was nothing, for instance. Yet, the can push their way through the rock and into the cave? I don't see why Summer had to stay back; that brought them like half a second extra time. I also don't see why Leaf had to sacrifice herself; if she'd just thrown the fireball stone thing she would've had the same effect. But the biggest issue is that Bran and not-Bloodraven were asleep during it. Why? In the books, Bran hears Jojen calling him back when he's in Summer; he heard Meera calling him eventually in this episode, but why-oh-why did he decide that Warging Hodor in the past and present would be a good idea? He could've just woken up, surely. Unless it was all the Three Eyed 'Raven's' idea; he certainly knew that he was about to die, so he obviously knew what was happening outside the tree dream. I thought the play was quite amusing; but then there's "no-one" standing there with a completely disapproving look on her face. She doesn't even try to hide her emotions. Why she thinks that the Faceless Men will ever buy her act is beyond me. I agree with the consensus about the Kingsmoot. Euron didn't strike me as particularly charismatic; but not only that, he also admitted to killing the man who was not only the King of all of the people standing there, but his own brother. I guess the whole Kinslaying thing being a horrible, horrible crime and sin in all cultures and religions has simply gone out the window. "No man is so accursed" and all that. Yara would've been completely within her rights to call for his execution before being Queen. The man murdered their King, his own brother, and nobody cares. Completely absurd. The Sansa and Jon parts were nice, I suppose; though Littlefinger's appearance was rather unnecessary, if you ask me. But they weren't nice enough to offset any of the rest of the episode, which I simply didn't like. So, there you are. 1 out of 10.
×