[Book Spoilers] Daenerys evil moment rushed. Runners look uncomfortable with it.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

There is no point. She doesn't execute everyone for being an "ex-slaver".

exactly. Thats why its no justice. My bloodriders who sold babies to Astapor are forgiven, but the Masters who Im stealing and army from got to die....No justice at all.

But you said it was revenge, not justice. So anyway, its not a topic to adress with you.

[Nictarion]

I was watching the show with some Unsullied, and during the mass-crucifixion, quipped, "Coming soon to a Westeros near you!" It was not well-received.

Oh please, unless her enemies in Westeros start making Unsullied or crucifying children I think she'll fight them no different than Aegon the Conqueror.

[Nictarion]

For all we know Dany might even have crucified Meereen's version of Oscar Schindler.

Lol, I cant, I just can't. ....

[Stormland's Fury]

You should read The Little Train That Could

[Nictarion]

I wonder when she is hanging her bloodriders and Jorah for their past slaver crimes.

Oh wait. The girl is an hyopocrite.

You'd have a point if she executed every slaver she could. But she doesn't. She spared the entire slave owning city of Yunkai, and the majority of Meereen. Those she killed were reactions to the making of the Unsullied, and crucified children. She's married to an ex-slaver ffs, obviously her intention isn't killing anyone who ever owned slaves.

[Nictarion]

You should read The Little Train That Could

I have, good stuff.

[Stormland's Fury]

You'd have a point if she executed every slaver she could. But she doesn't. She spared the entire slave owning city of Yunkai, and the majority of Meereen. Those she killed were reactions to the making of the Unsullied, and crucified children. She's married to an ex-slaver ffs, obviously her intention isn't killing anyone who ever owned slaves.

Making the unsullied was a pretty long tradition. Who is she punishing exactly?

The killings in Meereen were obviously also just lynchings. Of course all that gets lost since all the slavers are depicted as one dimensional villains.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Making the unsullied was a pretty long tradition. Who is she punishing exactly?

The killings in Meereen were obviously also just lynchings. Of course all that gets lost since all the slavers are depicted as one dimensional villains.

the making includes someone selling them the boys....yep...dothraki.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Making the unsullied was a pretty long tradition. Who is she punishing exactly?

The killings in Meereen were obviously also just lynchings. Of course all that gets lost since all the slavers are depicted as one dimensional villains.

Not all of them....Drogo, Rakharo, Jaggo...Illyrio...Daenerys.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

You'd have a point if she executed every slaver she could. But she doesn't. She spared the entire slave owning city of Yunkai, and the majority of Meereen. Those she killed were reactions to the making of the Unsullied, and crucified children. She's married to an ex-slaver ffs, obviously her intention isn't killing anyone who ever owned slaves.

Thats why it is not justice. Its revenge plane and simple, according to her moods.

[Maester Murks]

I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I got nothing new to contribute but I actually thought we were getting a glimpse of Dany's darker side in this episode. Of course the actual Sack of Meereen was rushed as hell, but there was a point made of the cruxification. It was quite graphic (I believe that was the scene that had to be toned down, maybe because of the religious symbolism some viewers might find offensive). And that last shot with Dany on top of the pyramid with the giant Targaryen flag, listening to the screams was definitely a hint to the "mad" part in her. The unsullied friends I watch with were also a little disturbed by that, so i think the actual cruelty of her decision came across.

Let's see if the atrocities during the sack itself are adressed when Dany holds court. I sure hope so. We know we'll get the goatherd and his daughter, but I think it would add to her "greyness" if we hear about more terrible things than just that.

[Widows_Blood]

Thats why it is not justice. Its revenge plane and simple, according to her moods.

You're not making any sense. If it was purely revenge, then she could have had all the masters put to death.

[salmonsnake]

Come on the people's rationality value was "1" instead of "0" and their possibilities value was "1" instead of "0". Guilty as charged, off with their heads. If their config.cfg didn't include the coordinates to Pentos, well, rotten luck.

[Stormland's Fury]

Well no, she takes the eye for an eye approach. It's still revenge.

[Widows_Blood]

Well no, she takes the eye for an eye approach. It's still revenge.

Then nothing would be justice because everyone takes an eye-eye approach in the world of ASOIAF.

[salmonsnake]

Then nothing would be justice because everyone takes an eye-eye approach in the world of ASOIAF.

In broad terms, yeah. It is not consistent though, people are pardoned, crimes ignored, policies enacted, reforms put forth, while not carrying out with the precise +/- ratios

[Stormland's Fury]

Then nothing would be justice because everyone takes an eye-eye approach in the world of ASOIAF.

Well most of those were actualltout of revenge, which is my point. Rounding up random people doesn't make it better or even just.

[Thelastactionhero]

This inside the episode pretty much confirms the fact that the showrunners were attempting to show her in a more nuanced light this episode. I still find the battles unrealistic, seeing as no innocents are killed on screen in any of these brutal revolutions, and think that Dany has been cheapened as a character due to whitewashing, but I am hopeful that we're on the right track towards getting closer to her much more compelling, much more interesting book counterpart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kUejZLuJKM

[salmonsnake]

To me it seems like:

c) Much of the debate is a number of people saying one or more of characters 1, 2, 3, n... have necessarily acted in accordance with justice in scenarios X, Y and Z. Justice regarded, variously, with the lens of a contemporary or historical sense of the notion, or a type of justice that is immanent to the world of GoT and agreeable or consistent in the interpersonal network of characters and scenes.

d) And then a number of people saying one or more of characters 1, 2, 3, n... don't need to be just, and the totality of the story is still great and fascinating with them being variously just or unjust. In this reading, characters are gray, 'complex' and not overdetermined by an overarching Will that pardons, blesses and excuses (or vindicts, curses and condemns) what seem like the varying consequences of their actions.

For heroes and villains, c) allows for them to be absolutely such, while d) allows for the possibility that there are no heroes and no villains, but also the possibility of gray, 'complex' heroes and villains.

For me at least, I don't see much point in identifying with anyone in the books or in the show, or making myself think their apparent good intentions are all that matter. It's very understandable, however, that people spontaneously develop loyalties and have ideas of whose story is going to contribute to greater good or pay off toward the end. This is the domain of heroes, and possibly villains. There may be, after it's all written, such recognizable figures, either archetypal or surprising. We won't know. But the expectations, it seems to me, will continue to underline or affect these debates, until the end is here.

[Zman1863]

Abolition of chattel slavery was accomplished peacefully throughout most of the world. In America, however, emancipation was a bloody nightmare, the incidental outcome of an invasion launched for the enrichment of the conquerors at the expense of the conquered. A century after emancipation, racism still afflicted the country, and in many ways had actually gotten worse. By overthrowing the consent of the governed (the shield of liberty) with force of arms (the sword of tyranny), the Union was preserved in name but destroyed in spirit, and the emancipation of the chattel slaves came at the cost of the political enslavement of all free men. The ends don't justify the means, two wrongs don't make a right, etc. Of course, ceteris paribus, emancipation was a positive outcome of the so-called "Civil War," but the point is that it could have been achieved without any devastating loss of life and liberty. Of all the emancipations in the world, American emancipation came at the greatest cost and with the worst results.

Ironically, secession by the North or South would have hastened slavery's demise. Because the Constitution provided for the rendition of fugitive slaves, and arguably permitted the expansion of slavery into American territory, slavery was safer in the Union than an independent Confederacy. By depriving the South of these constitutional protections, the stability of slavery - particularly concerning runaway slaves - would have been seriously undermined. Abolitionists such as William Garrison supported Northern secession in order to destabilize slavery, as well as disassociate themselves from the institution. Others, such as George Bassett and Lysander Spooner, supported Southern secession on principle: if governments truly are consensual rather than coercive, then the people have the sovereign right to dissolve their union with a government to which they no longer consent, regardless of their reasons.

It's unconvincing to argue that the loss of the protections of slavery in the U.S. Constitution by the seceded states would have hastened the end of slavery.

First, the fugitive slave acts in congress were being actively resisted and in some cases, outright ignored in northern states- in other words, the south wasn't getting anywhere near the benefit of the fugitive slave clause before the south seceded.

With regard to slavery's expansion, being a sovereign nation or nations or whatever the confederacy claimed to be would have given them more freedom to expand slavery than they ever had in the Union. While in the Union, the slave states had to tangle with the resistance of the free states with regard to the status of slavery in acquired territories. Out of the union they no longer had this resistance. The evidence is overwhelming that southern leaders envisioned more territorial acquisitions in Mexico, the Caribbean and even South America and of course such moves would have certainly increased tensions with their northern neighbor and probably would have precipitated a war.

Finally, those territorial acquisitions for more slave territory wouldn't have been exactly peaceful. It would have been like Dany conquering slavers bay... only, you know, for slavery.