Are Stannis Fans conservatives?

[E-Ro]

Boo Boo,

This may help: http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_site/basicskills.html

lol Well, at least you didn't call me a floob or call stannis a fucktard. Definite improvement there.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister]

Very fair point. Perhaps the Tyrells deserve their hero status because they actually did help the people of King's Landing somewhat, but the point of my argument is that the royal wedding was a big PR boost for the Joffrey administration. The crowd were so quick to fall in love with their new queen that they were willing to forget their king's atrocities.

That may be true, but regardless of the value (or lack thereof) of the monarchy is doesn't change the fact that Cameron pulled a fast one by getting us all to look away from his fiscal conservatism and feast our eyes on Kate's gorgeous Alexander McQueen wedding gown.

'Panem et circenses'= Bread and circuses.

[Asha Greyjoy:Feminist Icon]

I love Stannis as a character, in no small part due to his rigid adherence to the rule of law. And it isn't just "law" law, either. He is grammatically vigilant and respects even the unwritten codes of cultural conduct (when these codes don't conflict with written legal codes, of course.) Stannis is someone who recognizes the functions of all societal systems and is most comfortable when acting within them.

I love Stannis. I support much of his decisions in regards to legal claims and relevant course of action. But I probably wouldn't vote for him. It would depend on the field of opposition candidates that election cycle. I'd like to know more about his economic policies - if someone's done a deep read on this please point the way!

Ultimately, I don't think Stannis and I would see eye-to-eye on reproductive rights, gender equality or, really, any feminist issues. We see Stannis through the eyes of Davos and then Jon for much of our time with him. But the choice to have Asha link up with Stannis was inspired. I was thrilled to get a woman's perspective on Stannis and her chapters really helped my love for his awkwardly rigid awesomeness be forever cemented. But it also revealed how his legally-focused mentality would direct his behavior and decisions about thr choices of the women in Westeros. He isn't going to start some crusade against moontea or anything, but he wouldn't do much to protect women beyond the established Balls-or-Wall sentence for rape. When any society is structurally designed to keep half its population from contributing to its own advancement, it isn't surprising to see that society stagnate in all fields of learning and production. This legal stubbornness/blind spot would not help Westeros advance beyond its current state. A good king he might make...but for this, not a truly great one.

And before it's brought up: yes, he names Shireen his heir - but only because that's literally the law. Succession to the IT allows her to inherit because he has no male issue, no brothers, no nephews, etc... Should Selyse pop out a boy one day, he'd leapfrog Shireen and Stannis would have no qualms about this because Law.

Demo: I'm a language nerd. I love jurisprudence...like, seriously, I love reading case law and SCOTUS opinions for funsies.

I'm also someone who has ended up channelling my progressive political views into activism within the legislative and legal systems in my state. I align most closely with a Bentham-style utilitarian view of legal philosophy and I approach existing structures of law as a legal positivist. I don't have Stannis's legal philosophy sorted out as of yet...it's one of the focuses of my reread, in fact. That I can play a nerdy game of Guess My Legal Philosophy! with Stannis is why I love his stuff so so much. And why I love the series for making it possible.

"It is not a question of wanting. The throne is mine, as Robert's heir. That is law. After me, it must pass to my daughter, unless Selyse should finally give me a son... I am king. Wants do not enter into it. I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm..."

Lawyered.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I love Stannis as a character, in no small part due to his rigid adherence to the rule of law. And it isn't just "law" law, either. He is grammatically vigilant and respects even the unwritten codes of cultural conduct (when these codes don't conflict with written legal codes, of course.) Stannis is someone who recognizes the functions that all societal systems and is most comfortable when acting within them.

I love Stannis. I support much of his decisions in re legal claims and course of action. But I probably wouldn't vote for him. It would depend on the field of opposition candidates that election cycle. I'd like to know more about his economic policies - if someone's done a deep read on this please point the way!

Ultimately, I don't think Stannis and I would see eye-to-eye on reproductive rights, gender equality or, really, any feminist issues. We see Stannis through the eyes of Davos and then Jon for much of our time with him. But the choice to have Asha link up with Stannis was inspired. I was thrilled to get a woman's perspective on Stannis and her chapters really helped my love for his awkwardly rigid awesomeness be forever cemented. But it also revealed how his legally focused mentality would direct his behavior and choices for the women of Westeros. He isn't going to start some crusade against moontea or anything, but he wouldn't do much to protect women beyond the established Balls-or-Wall sentence for rape. When any society is structurally designed to keep half its population from contributing to its own advancement, it isn't surprising to see that society stagnate in all fields of learning and production.

And yes, he names Shireen his heir - but only because that's literally the law. Succession to the IT allows her to inherit because he has no male issue, no brothers, no nephews, etc... Should Selyse pop out a boy one day, he'd leapfrog Shireen and Stannis would have no qualms about this because Law.

(Demo: I'm a language nerd. I love jurisprudence...like, seriously, I love reading case law and SCOTUS opinions for funsies.

I'm also someone who has ended up channelling my progressive political views into activism within the legislative and legal systems. I align most closely with a Bentham-style utilitarian view of legal philosophy and I approach existing legal structures as a legal positivist. I don't have Stannis's legal philosophy sorted out as of yet...it's one of the focuses of my reread, in fact. That I can play a nerdy game of Guess My Legal Philosophy! with Stannis is why I love his stuff so so much. And why I love the series for making it possible.

Lawyered.

Well if you are looking for a reformer it is still a little ways down the road for the world of ASOIAF. I would still vote for Stan Man.

[Ned Snow]

I love Stannis as a character, in no small part due to his rigid adherence to the rule of law. And it isn't just "law" law, either. He is grammatically vigilant and respects even the unwritten codes of cultural conduct (when these codes don't conflict with written legal codes, of course.) Stannis is someone who recognizes the functions of all societal systems and is most comfortable when acting within them.

I love Stannis. I support much of his decisions in regards to legal claims and relevant course of action. But I probably wouldn't vote for him. It would depend on the field of opposition candidates that election cycle. I'd like to know more about his economic policies - if someone's done a deep read on this please point the way!

Ultimately, I don't think Stannis and I would see eye-to-eye on reproductive rights, gender equality or, really, any feminist issues. We see Stannis through the eyes of Davos and then Jon for much of our time with him. But the choice to have Asha link up with Stannis was inspired. I was thrilled to get a woman's perspective on Stannis and her chapters really helped my love for his awkwardly rigid awesomeness be forever cemented. But it also revealed how his legally-focused mentality would direct his behavior and decisions about thr choices of the women in Westeros. He isn't going to start some crusade against moontea or anything, but he wouldn't do much to protect women beyond the established Balls-or-Wall sentence for rape. When any society is structurally designed to keep half its population from contributing to its own advancement, it isn't surprising to see that society stagnate in all fields of learning and production. This legal stubbornness/blind spot would not help Westeros advance beyond its current state. A good king he might make...but for this, not a truly great one.

And before it's brought up: yes, he names Shireen his heir - but only because that's literally the law. Succession to the IT allows her to inherit because he has no male issue, no brothers, no nephews, etc... Should Selyse pop out a boy one day, he'd leapfrog Shireen and Stannis would have no qualms about this because Law.

Demo: I'm a language nerd. I love jurisprudence...like, seriously, I love reading case law and SCOTUS opinions for funsies.

I'm also someone who has ended up channelling my progressive political views into activism within the legislative and legal systems in my state. I align most closely with a Bentham-style utilitarian view of legal philosophy and I approach existing structures of law as a legal positivist. I don't have Stannis's legal philosophy sorted out as of yet...it's one of the focuses of my reread, in fact. That I can play a nerdy game of Guess My Legal Philosophy! with Stannis is why I love his stuff so so much. And why I love the series for making it possible.

Lawyered.

You're not weird, I like reading cases too! I don't really have a choice, being in law school, but I do enjoy it. Except the cases we read to learn parol evidence. Parol evidence can go fuck itself.

[Asha Greyjoy:Feminist Icon]

Well if you are looking for a reformer it is still a little ways down the road for the world of ASOIAF. I would still vote for Stan Man.

In a monarchical system, yes...I'd want a reformer. But I approached this topic more from the angle of "Stannis for President?" And I don't believe reformist presidential candidates are capable of acting individually in the service of reform. In a democracy/republic with three branches of government like we ( theoretically) have in the US, the executive isn't the sole reformer...the legislature is. So in that model, I look at a presidential candidate based on platform values, adaptability and party leadership/bully pulpit strength. I also highly value someone who is respectful of the rule of law and existing checks and balances. Stannis has many, but not all, of these characteristics.

As a monarch...hard to say. I have a firm belief that no one sits the IT in the end. Because the IT won't exist. What will replace it is hard to say... but it stands to reason that Stannis would not care to see a complete dismantling of the current regal law in Westeros. Love him I may, but Stannis himself would (narratively) stand between me and my desire for a more equitable outcome in the series...

So, no. I probably wouldn't vote for him for "King" either. Not that I would have any choice.

[Antler's Fury]

I'd call myself somewhat conservative. I bleed gold and black.

I love Stannis. I support much of his decisions in regards to legal claims and relevant course of action. But I probably wouldn't vote for him. It would depend on the field of opposition candidates that election cycle. I'd like to know more about his economic policies - if someone's done a deep read on this please point the way!

Stannis would probably be very different if he did not grow up as an elite member of a state run as a monarchy. Stannis strikes me as a fiscal conservative. He doesn't spend much taxpayer money on indulgences like feasts, tourneys, clothing, etc. and is very irritated by Robert's debts in the Theon's TWOW sample chapter.

When any society is structurally designed to keep half its population from contributing to its own advancement, it isn't surprising to see that society stagnate in all fields of learning and production. This legal stubbornness/blind spot would not help Westeros advance beyond its current state. A good king he might make...but for this, not a truly great one.

I get what you're saying here but is Westeros stagnating because it mistreats its women, or does it mistreat its women because inherently stagnant for some reason? Westeros supposedly has at least 8,000 years of human settlement, yet seems to have made virtually no progress in literally anything since the arrival of the First Men. Even Dorne seems to be at the same place everywhere else is technologically, and they have the most gender equality on the continent. I mean, if Bran the Builder came back to Winterfell before the beginning of AGOT, the only differences he'd see are that the Lord of Wintefell no longer wears a crown, the people use iron weapons, and they no longer speak the Old Tongue. Is that all because of a lack of women's rights? The only advancement we see is in Valyria, with the Free Cities having things like Valyrian steel, Myrish lenses, portraits, and other stuff that requires more advanced technical skill to make. It seems that women are a shade more empowered in the Free Cities, considering that they can own property and vote in Volantis' elections for triarch, which indicate a somewhat more advanced political structure. Food for thought, at any rate, glad you brought it up!

This legal stubbornness/blind spot would not help Westeros advance beyond its current state. A good king he might make...but for this, not a truly great one.

But then who would make a great king? Apart from Aegon, who apparantly allowed his sister-wives to do most of the governing, I can't think of anyone outside of Dorne who is willing to give women anything more than indirect influence over politics, least of all any other kings on the Iron Throne.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

I'd call myself somewhat conservative. I bleed gold and black.

Stannis would probably be very different if he did not grow up as an elite member of a state run as a monarchy. Stannis strikes me as a fiscal conservative. He doesn't spend much taxpayer money on indulgences like feasts, tourneys, clothing, etc. and is very irritated by Robert's debts in the Theon's TWOW sample chapter.

I get what you're saying here but is Westeros stagnating because it mistreats its women, or does it mistreat its women because inherently stagnant for some reason? Westeros supposedly has at least 8,000 years of human settlement, yet seems to have made virtually no progress in literally anything since the arrival of the First Men. Even Dorne seems to be at the same place everywhere else is technologically, and they have the most gender equality on the continent. I mean, if Bran the Builder came back to Winterfell before the beginning of AGOT, the only differences he'd see are that the Lord of Wintefell no longer wears a crown, the people use iron weapons, and they no longer speak the Old Tongue. Is that all because of a lack of women's rights? The only advancement we see is in Valyria, with the Free Cities having things like Valyrian steel, Myrish lenses, portraits, and other stuff that requires more advanced technical skill to make. It seems that women are a shade more empowered in the Free Cities, considering that they can own property and vote in Volantis' elections for triarch, which indicate a somewhat more advanced political structure. Food for thought, at any rate, glad you brought it up!

But then who would make a great king? Apart from Aegon, who apparantly allowed his sister-wives to do most of the governing, I can't think of anyone outside of Dorne who is willing to give women anything more than indirect influence over politics, least of all any other kings on the Iron Throne.

Pretty much this.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I am a Stannis fan, and I am very liberal.

And I really can't comment more because statements that suggest that Stannis's "*conservatism" is related to his honor and duty leave annoyed to say the least. So, liberals know nothing of honor or duty? Here's a secret. A lot of liberals (myself included) possess their beliefs because of things like honor and duty.

*Really, trying to define characters set in medieval-type eras on the modern political spectrum is pretty damn silly.

EDIT: To clarify, I am NOT saying the reverse (liberals are the ones who believe in honor and duty). I am saying that sort of thing can be and is meaningful to many people regardless political affiliation (which more affects what people see as their duty and such).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Stannis strikes me as a fiscal conservative.

In the sense that he'd be more interested in minimising deficits than cutting taxes. Stannis strikes me as the sort who'd be entirely happy to raise taxes, then dismiss any grumbling with a "the spending needs to be paid for."

Anyway, taking the term "conservative" in its proper sense, namely support for traditional institutions, and distrust of perceived unnecessary change, I wouldn't call Stannis conservative. His pragmatic religious attitude, and promotion of Davos shows that he's not hidebound by Church and aristocracy.

A proper conservative character would be someone like Bowen Marsh.

[Rhymes with Weak]

Is pro-patriarchal anarchistic neo-Nazism a branch of liberalism?

[TheWizard]

No

[nirolo]

This is how I stereotype American liberals/conservatives:

Democrats/Liberals:

1. Read the New York Times

2. Listen to progressive talk radio

3. Watch CNN/MSNBC

4. Hate George W. Bush

5. Adore Al Gore

6. Revere Barack Obama

7. Pro-Choice

8. Anti-gun

9. Pro gay marriage

10. Adhere to the separation of Church and State

11. Favor universal health care

12. Favor some sort of government sponsored wealth redistribution (i.e. tax the rich to give to the poor)

13. Believe global warming is real/human caused

14. Believe in evolution

Republicans/Conservatives:

1. Read the Wall Street Journal

2. Listen to conservative talk radio

3. Watch FOX news

4. Love George W. Bush

5. Despise Al Gore

6. Abhor Barack Obama

7. Pro-life

8. Anti gun control

9. Anti gay marriage

10. Believe America is a Christian nation and that faith should have a place in public schools

11. Against universal health care

12. Vote against measures to redistribute wealth (i.e. don't tax the rich and redistribute it to the poor)

13. Skeptical of global warming

14. Believe Intelligent Design is greater than or equal to the theory of evolution.

Anyway, my dislike for Stannis has nothing to do with my political affiliation. Instead, it's his willingness to kill his own brother over a petty claim and that he's a hypocrite IMO that cause me to dislike him.

[Antler's Fury]

Anyway, my dislike for Stannis has nothing to do with my political affiliation. Instead, it's his willingness to kill his own brother over a petty claim and that he's a hypocrite IMO that cause me to dislike him.

What was petty about the rulership of a continent?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Anyway, my dislike for Stannis has nothing to do with my political affiliation. Instead, it's his willingness to kill his own brother over a petty claim and that he's a hypocrite IMO that cause me to dislike him.

So he is a hypocrite now. Why don't you Stan haters just call him every bad name in existence to quench your thirst for hatred on him.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

EDIT: Realized my post will likely lead to political bickering which is not what I come here for. I come here for bickering over fictional characters.

[nirolo]

So he is a hypocrite now. Why don't you Stan haters just call him every bad name in existence to quench your thirst for hatred on him.

Yes, how easy it is for Stannis to take offense and how he holds a grudge like no other are two more reasons why I dislike him.

[Florina Laufeyson]

Speaking as a staunch centrist, im actually conflicted on Stannis. Like, i get his angle and hes got a point, but im not totally kosher on his way of going about it. Stannis being so ironclad in his ways is a bit of a turn off and its the main reason why i feel so much conflict about his character. Dude doesnt see the big picture, but some of the stuff he does suggests hes willing to compromise....sometimes. His connection with Mel and R'hllor puts me off because he tends to rely on that a lot. Post-ASoS Stannis is more interesting to me. His relationship with Jon is a pretty cool dynamic, but i see that Stannis still thinks the Iron Throne is his by right and he expects everyone to acknowledge that. (Such as thinking the North will ultimately bend the knee. Not sure about that, Stan-Man...)

Overall, i think hes an interesting character and i totally see why people get behind him. Im just not putting my eggs in his basket. Im saving those for Team Varys and failing that, Team Jon.

[Master Shake]

I'd call myself somewhat conservative. I bleed gold and black.

Stannis would probably be very different if he did not grow up as an elite member of a state run as a monarchy. Stannis strikes me as a fiscal conservative. He doesn't spend much taxpayer money on indulgences like feasts, tourneys, clothing, etc. and is very irritated by Robert's debts in the Theon's TWOW sample chapter.

I get what you're saying here but is Westeros stagnating because it mistreats its women, or does it mistreat its women because inherently stagnant for some reason? Westeros supposedly has at least 8,000 years of human settlement, yet seems to have made virtually no progress in literally anything since the arrival of the First Men. Even Dorne seems to be at the same place everywhere else is technologically, and they have the most gender equality on the continent. I mean, if Bran the Builder came back to Winterfell before the beginning of AGOT, the only differences he'd see are that the Lord of Wintefell no longer wears a crown, the people use iron weapons, and they no longer speak the Old Tongue. Is that all because of a lack of women's rights? The only advancement we see is in Valyria, with the Free Cities having things like Valyrian steel, Myrish lenses, portraits, and other stuff that requires more advanced technical skill to make. It seems that women are a shade more empowered in the Free Cities, considering that they can own property and vote in Volantis' elections for triarch, which indicate a somewhat more advanced political structure. Food for thought, at any rate, glad you brought it up!

But then who would make a great king? Apart from Aegon, who apparantly allowed his sister-wives to do most of the governing, I can't think of anyone outside of Dorne who is willing to give women anything more than indirect influence over politics, least of all any other kings on the Iron Throne.

agreed.

I'm a stannis fan and i consider myself quite liberal, so in answer to the question, no.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Yes, how easy it is for Stannis to take offense and how he holds a grudge like no other are two more reasons why I dislike him.

Well what offense and what grudge, please don't bring renly in this. Renly was a thief and a usurper.