Will Jon and Sansa be the fulfillment of the coming together of Ice and Fire?

[Ser Gareth]

4 minutes ago, Xemi said:

LMAO.

Aegon I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Aegon III, Viserys II, Daeron II, Maekar I, Aegon V, all evil motherfuckers, clearly.

You've got to up your troling game, buddy.

I'm not talking about the past.  I'm talking about now.

And Aegon I a nice guy?  Really?!

[Xemi]

4 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

I'm not talking about the past.  I'm talking about now.

And Aegon I a nice guy?  Really?!

Of course, the books' history has proven time and time again that your comments are completely wrong so they don't count lol. If you're talking about people who have died you're talking about the past by definition.

Aegon I was not a nice guy but he wasn't evil either. Well, unless you consider people like Alexander the Great or Liu Bang evil, which would require quite a bit of explanations on your part.

[Cas Stark]

15 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

It wouldn't be their choice though.  It would be GRRMs and I think it is safe to say this story is not going to have a happy ending....

Of course.  Dany getting pregnant is also already foreshadowed in Dance.  I just think it would be a bad idea that she loses two children, especially due to some type of magic.  The last two books already have a lot of bad ideas from George, IMO, and given that we're at 8 years and counting for Winds, there is no reason to think that there aren't more bad ideas coming.

[Ser Gareth]

3 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Of course, the books' history has proven time and time again that your comments are completely wrong so they don't count lol. If you're talking about people who have died you're talking about the past by definition.

Aegon I was not a nice guy but he wasn't evil either. Well, unless you consider people like Alexander the Great or Liu Bang evil, which would require quite a bit of explanations on your part.

I would say almost any ruler that is happy to conquer lands, enslave or subjugate their people, happily execute anyone who defies or stands up to them is evil by moral standards (I personally am an existential nihilist so don't really subscribe to good or evil personally).

Nice people aren't going to end up on the throne for very long or their actions will lead to disaster, e.g. Egg.

[Xemi]

6 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

I would say almost any ruler that is happy to conquer lands, enslave or subjugate their people, happily execute anyone who defies or stands up to them is evil by moral standards (I personally am an existential nihilist so don't really subscribe to good or evil personally).

Nice people aren't going to end up on the throne for very long or their actions will lead to disaster, e.g. Egg.

Who did Aegon enslave? The common people basically carried on as they had before he came. The other rulers were doing the exact same thing Aegon did, except on a smaller scale since they didn't have dragons, you think the Starks for example unified the North through sunshine and rainbows? Lol. They have no moral ground to stand against him.

Yeah, Jaehaerys only ended up on the throne for more than 50 years, such a short reign. Aegon V for 16 years, which is pretty average for a reign. So yeah, there goes your theory.

[Rose of Red Lake]

31 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

Why is it so many people are determined to turn the show into a Game of Genders?  It's pathetic.  What the show and books have demonstrated time and time again is that you have to be an evil twat to obtain the throne.  "Nice" people simply don't win it.  If they inherit it, they soon die anyway.

As for the main characters, it's not just about the women is it?

Sansa learned how to play the game of thrones from Cersei and Littlefinger.  She's already demonstrating a high amount of jealousy and scheming.  Her revenge on Ramsay Bolton and the manner in which she orchestrated Littlefinger being dispatched also demonstrates her growing ruthlessness.

Dany has also demonstrated a ruthlessness, especially when angered.  Her wrath is as brutal and as terrifying as anyone else on the show.

Cersei isn't going to turn evil.  She already IS evil.

Arya is already a psychopath.

Brienne is probably the closest thing to a perfect Knight in the whole of Westeros.

So the above doesn't demonstrate women in good light does it?  The show therefore must be sexist right?  Any criticism of the female characters must be sexist right?  Only then take a look at the men.

Jon, dumb as a stump.  

Tyrion, almost certainly going to betray Jon/Dany due to jealousy.  Killed his own father.

Jaime, screws his own sister.  Happy to push a little boy out of a tower window.

The Hound is a psychopath.

Bronn is a selfish killer.

Bran is completely emotionless.

Sam is a coward.

Davos is a nice guy.

The show isn't exactly kind on ANY of the characters.  None of the eligible characters are fit to rule.  Male or female.

I recommend using more nuance when describing characters, you seem quick to assign labels as if they're one "type." That does the female characters a disservice too, even if they are dark.

[Ser Gareth]

4 minutes ago, Xemi said:

Who did Aegon enslave? The common people basically carried on as they had before he came. The other rulers were doing the exact same thing Aegon did, except on a smaller scale since they didn't have dragons, you think the Starks for example unified the North through sunshine and rainbows? Lol. They have no moral ground to stand against him.

Yeah, Jaehaerys only ended up on the throne for more than 50 years, such a short reign. Aegon V for 16 years, which is pretty average for a reign. So yeah, there goes your theory.

Ah, my bad.  I thought thousands died when Aegon initially conquered.  But if it was bloodless I am indeed wrong.

[Xemi]

1 minute ago, Ser Gareth said:

Ah, my bad.  I thought thousands died when Aegon initially conquered.  But if it was bloodless I am indeed wrong.

No shit, people die in war. So, what's your point? Every government in human history is evil? Hmm, you must have a really simplistic view of the world, then.

[Ser Gareth]

2 minutes ago, Xemi said:

No shit, people die in war. So, what's your point? Every government in human history is evil? Hmm, you must have a really simplistic view of the world, then.

So if the USA invaded Mexico tomorrow and put thousands to the sword you wouldn't say that Trump was evil?

[Xemi]

Just now, Ser Gareth said:

So if the USA invaded Mexico tomorrow and put thousands to the sword you wouldn't say that Trump was evil?

It would depend on the reasons. Funny, you start asking questions without answering mine, so why should I answer you? As I've said, you can start by explaining why people like Alexander the Great or Liu Bang are evil. That is, if you're up to it, something I frankly doubt, since every argument you've presented so far is poorly constructed, inconsistent and you seem to lack any historical perspective, judging actions with modern morals and sensibilities instead of in their own context.

[Ser Gareth]

Just now, Xemi said:

It would depend on the reasons. Funny, you start asking questions without answering mine, so why should I answer you? As I've said, you can start by explaining why people like Alexander the Great or Liu Bang are evil. That is, if you're up to it, something I frankly doubt, since every argument you've presented so far is poorly constructed, inconsistent and you seem to lack any historical perspective, judging actions with modern morals and sensibilities instead of in their own context.

1) I've already told you.  I'm an existential nihilist, I don't believe in good or evil on an existential level.

2) By modern day standards any ruler/despot that willingly conquers another country for power or resources would be regarded as evil.

3) Your constant attempts to "bait" by insulting are becoming boring.  You must try harder.

[Xemi]

5 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

1) I've already told you.  I'm an existential nihilist, I don't believe in good or evil on an existential level.

2) By modern day standards any ruler/despot that willingly conquers another country for power or resources would be regarded as evil.

3) Your constant attempts to "bait" by insulting are becoming boring.  You must try harder.

It would have been shorter and more honest if you had simply said you were not up to it. Thanks for proving my suspicions correct.

Well, too bad for you I'll still be here to adress any of your very incorrect posts at my own discretion, such as your asinine assertions that every ruler that gets the IT dies in a short time unless they're evil (lol so much for not believing in good and evil and then calling characters evil BTW, inconsistent much?) . Your knowledge of the book's background is as lacking as your historical one.

[Ser Gareth]

2 minutes ago, Xemi said:

It would have been shorter and more honest if you had simply said you were not up to it. Thanks for proving my suspicions correct. Well, too bad for you I'll still be here to adress any of your very incorrect posts at my own discretion, such as your asinine assertions that every ruler that gets the IT dies in a short time unless they're evil (lol so much for not believing in good and evil and then calling characters evil BTW, inconsistent much?) .

You STILL need to try harder.  Let me put it this way on Alexander for example

He got drunk, killed his friend in a fit of rage.

He had no qualms with killing tens of thousands of civilians to invoke fear and rule.

He wasn't a liberator.  He conquered for glory and gain.

He orchestrated the Thebian "holocaust".

Even today in the middle east his name is invoked to inspire fear in young children, such was his brutal reputation.

Do you believe that Hitler is evil?  Because the only real difference between them is that Hitler lost.  Where as Alexander's "accomplishments" were only dismantled after his death.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Can we please stay on topic to AT LEAST Jon and Sansa.

[Ser Gareth]

Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

Can we please stay on topic to AT LEAST Jon and Sansa.

Sorry, you're right.  Didn't mean to derail the thread.

Anyway, no way that Jon and Sansa are happening.  Sansa is Catelyn's daughter and took after her mother when it came to Jon.  There was a brief moment of relief that she was no longer alone, but now Arya and Bran are back in her dislike of Jon is already rearing its head.  When she finds out that he isn't even her brother?  She'll feel zero loyalty towards him at all.

[Juligen]

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

So the 3 main female characters turn evil or go batshit crazy?

You know, myself and @Juligen are supposed to be the delusional Jonsas on this thread, and here you are, trying to top us 

tell me about it. Daenerys the victim is just insanity. She is the monster of the story.

[Angel Eyes]

11 minutes ago, Juligen said:

tell me about it. Daenerys the victim is just insanity. She is the monster of the story.

Daenerys is a cheese?

[Cas Stark]

So, I didn't see any 'romance' developing between Jon and Sansa this episode.

[Lady Ren]

Yes, Jon and Sansa have a very high likelihood of marrying. This episode does nothing to convince me otherwise, and everything to encourage this line of thinking. The dividing lines are too strong. Jon's feelings are hidden, and his motives clearly on display. He didn't kneel for love, he did it because he had to. And that fact is so vividly clear. 

Note the following:

Jon, Sansa and Dany are framed and treated like a full on love triangle this whole episode. From the scene in the Great Hall, with Jon in the middle and both his women on either side to Sansa and Dany issuing each other threats and glares. It's all in the subtext. His ally and his sister. His convenient lover and his forbidden love. 

Jon rides a dragon and doesn't once smile or whoop with joy, but rather rides Rheagal with great hesitance. Yes, it was played comically, but why not have him slowly like it instead? I mean if he and Dany are supposed to run off and have a baby in the woods somewhere, shouldn't he love all her children? Instead he looks terrified the whole time and lands first.  He then keeps one eye-open on Drogon (who salivates at Jon like he can't wait to torch him and chew him) while making out with Dany. 

Jon and Sansa's scene involved Jon walking in and taking off his gloves - I'm given to believing this type of late night chat happens all the time given the ease with which they slip into it. They are so easy with one another, I can't help but compare this ease with the unease Jon shows around Dany. I can't help but notice how weak his argument is - "She will make a good Queen". And Sansa's face, like "really, bro? Her?" She takes a deep breath to calm herself, because why even respond to that inane bullshit. We're left with a question - which Jon doesn't answer for the audience. Why hide his answer? We know how Dany feels. We don't know how Jon feels. And that is key. They let Kit's face say it all. Jon doesn't feel what he wants to feel. He doesn't believe the things he's saying to Sansa. 

While Davos contemplates a marriage between Jon and Dany, we are told alongside his proposal that they are old men who don't know anything. They do not know. This is key. They don't know that Jon is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, and also "nothing lasts". 

While I hate being told things, we were told expressly that Sansa is smart in this episode. She is smart not to trust Cersei and she is smart to not trust Dany. How? She asked what dragons eat, and later on we get a scene where we're told how the dragons are devouring livestock with winter upon them, and Dany is concerned about the dragons not hardly eating. I contemplated it was because of their grief, but no, it's because they don't like the cold. Like daaamnn. Dragons = trouble. Dany = insane Targ. God flipped a coin. Dany got the bad side, and Jon the good. 50/50. Her values are so so far from Jon's values.

I won't mention Dany's heartless chat with Sam. Sams' chat with Jon however was gold. Jon knelt for his people. Dany would not, if required. Jon is the rightful heir. Dany is not. They are rivals. Lovers now, but not for long. There will be children, and their will be King Jon. But his wife will be a woman who received a long first period scene, not the woman who was told she could  no longer have children. 

Arya chooses Sansa over Jon. She makes her loyalties clear. Why include the first scene when Jon doesn't notice Arya? Because for Arya, Jon is the Jon the Jon she left behind. He's changed, and he is no longer her brother. It's an awkward space they are going to live in emotionally until Jon abandons Dany. Why? Dany is the wrong choice. There are other elements to why Arya chooses the words she choose, but I can't but feel that she senses the tension between Jon and Sansa - the dismissive way Jon spoke about Sansa, like they were still kids. This was Arya's way of telling Jon to snap the f* out of it. This is for real, bro!

All of the above draws battle lines between Sansa and Dany. The triangle is so in your face the entire episode that it's funny how hard people work at explaining it away. Even the promo had Sansa and Dany charging at one another Jon consumed with the war. That is his priority. He did not kneel out of love, not even remotely. Hope, maybe. But not love. and that makes all the difference. 

 

[SansaJonRule]

9 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

The last two books already have a lot of bad ideas from George, IMO, and given that we're at 8 years and counting for Winds, there is no reason to think that there aren't more bad ideas coming.

Wow, you're really optimistic to think he's even going to finish the series. I've lost all  hope.