Jump to content
Petitephlox

Great analysis on why this feels like such a betrayal of Dany’s character

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Fox Mulder said:

If you just watch the show Dany and Jon not getting married and sharing power is such contrived BS

It really is.

I recently made a post regarding Varys, who's currently the only one in the show who's openly opposed to the idea of them marrying, and how it makes sense from his perspective to be against the idea, but how that necessarily doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to begin with:
 

Quote

This episode made me certain that Varys has actively been looking for a way out of Team-Daenerys for quite some time, and that all his talk about "serving the realm" is pure bullshit. He's in it for himself, he wants power which requires a ruler he can influence and manipulate, and Daenerys is evidently not that ruler.
He also continuously tries to manipulate Tyrion, who's essentially being the 2nd-in-command,  but when he notices that Tyrion hesitates and won't move against his queen in the manner Varys wants, he essentially goes "I've said all I can" and leaves to start plotting Daenerys' downfall on his own.
He basically admitted to being addicted to power when he spoke with Melisandre last season, and he knows he will gain more power at this stage by "advising" Jon than Daenerys. And being a turn-cloak is basically his thing.

And Varys' reply to a potential Jon/Daenerys marriage fits his agenda:
Remember that Varys is the one who continuously shoots down the idea of a marriage between Jon and Daenerys: 
He did back in E1 when Davos brought it up, and he did now when Tyrion brought it up. 

He claims that Jon would be, if not repulsed, then at least reluctant to the idea of marrying his aunt - we know from this very episode that this isn't true. (It's not the notion of "incest" that caused the breakup. They where seemingly fine with that.)

He then claims that Daenerys would be "too strong for Jon" (which woman isn't at this point, really?) and bend him to her will - we know in hindsight that again, this isn't true. Jon has shown no qualms about defying Daenerys in the past, and has yet to show any signs of fear in her presence. Jon might be slightly pussy-whipped and honorbound to Daenerys (and has actually seen who she can be when she's at her best), but he has yet to follow her out of fear. 

And him talking about treason and having Daenerys assassinated a) before Cersei is even dealt with and b) before seeing Daenerys actually commit any atrocities, makes no god damn sense. 

Edited by MinscS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I can't quote right on my phone so my apologies for quoting it all at once. 

Yes, most people's situations are sympathetic. Maybe I am missing your point because that Dany's situation is sympathetic is exactly what I'm saying. Not that she is perfect, not that she has not made mistakes, not that she hasn't done anything morally wrong, but that her situation is sympathetic. 

Who am I to judge? I'm just a person with an opinion, just like you. I have no solution which is kind of the point. None of the proposed situations are optimal, none are what I would choose. If I had no choice but to make a choice I would choose to not be a sadistic fuck, regardless if I was slaver or slave.

To the bolded - you are not serious?

How does rebelling against people enslaving you = trying to bend them to their superior sense of morality?! It is Not ok to own people. It is absolutely ok to want to not be owned. That does not mean you are trying to bend anyone to your sense of morality. Every human being has the right to be their own person. 

I would rather not be a slaver or a slave as I stated. Since, according to you, these people had no choice if they were slaver or slave why do you keep presenting me with this choice as some evidence that your argument is on par while if I cannot admit I would choose to be a slaver?? I would never, ever, ever, choose to be a slaver or a slave. 

I'm not assuming all of the slavers were slavers because they enjoyed hurting people. Are you assuming all the slavers were morally righteous people who just couldn't avoid their fate? No. I'm telling you there are times when it isn't as black & white as: there's an animal & a human, the human life is more valuable period. There is evidence that not all the slavers enjoyed hurting people, there is also evidence of slavers who enjoyed every minute of it. 

No I didn't avoid the dilemma or make it easier for myself. Again, I'm telling you the life of the human is not always valuable. I furthered that by giving you a situation where I would say the life of the animal is more valuable. 

How am I missing the point that everyone's situation is sympathetic when I have, for pages, been arguing with you that Dany's situation is sympathetic?

I fear we will just continue to go in circles & will be more than happy to read your reply, should you have one, but I may not reply if I don't have anything more to add. Just in case, thanks for chatting with me. 

 

I don't know how to make the situation any clearer than this.

1. People do not get to choose the circumstances of their birth. I assume we can agree on that.

2. Of all the people in the world who are born, some portion of them are born in a slave society. I assume we can agree on that.

3. Of all the people who are born in a slave society, 100% of them will be either a slave or a slaver. I assume we can agree on that.

4. Since you're defending Dany's slaughter of slavers, you must believe one of two things: Either those slavers deserved to die, or, killing them was a necessary evil.

5. People aren't born evil. I assume we can agree on that.

6. In order for the slavers to be deserving of death, they must have CHOSEN to do something evil. I assume we can agree on that.

7. In order for something to be defined as a CHOICE, there has to be greater than one reasonable option.

8. What was the other reasonable option? What ALTERNATIVE course of action would you suggest for the slaver who doesn't want to be deserving of death?

I gave you most if not all of the possible alternatives that I can think of. You rejected them. So it would seem that you don't actually have an alternative course of action for these slavers you feel justified in killing. In other words, there was no path that you could have reasonably expected them to take that did not involve being a slaver. In other words, if you were born into a slaver family then you have no reasonable explanation for why you wouldn't be a slaver yourself.

So, to simplify your equation of "justice", as defined by you: "If you are born into a slaver family, then you deserve to die."

Do you not see an ethical problem with that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

We had Varys, Tyrion, Missy extolling her virtues for years.  And Jon has been doing the same for 2 seasons.  That is in addition to the countless Dany burns the bad guys #badass moments of the show.

So, her suddenly being viewed as unstable by all these people who have been her supporters is poor storytelling.  

More the fact that Varys pretty much decides on this straight after 'The Long Night.' If Varys hadn't' found out Jon was actually Aegon Targaryen would he have taken the same approach? He is very fickle and demonstrating that by using the Dany is mad argument is what I find poor.

Is Jon a saint or are we going to come with the lesser of two evils argument? Can't pick and choose when something is wrong.

For me none of the characters are exempt from criticism. The inconsistencies arise when people go in search of morality in a fantasy, taking that logic would mean that none are fit for the Iron Throne.

Unless you can suggest an alternative in the series, a rebellion that is caused by peaceful protestors in an attempt to change the way of rule in Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rustythesmith said:

I don't know how to make the situation any clearer than this.

1. People do not get to choose the circumstances of their birth. I assume we can agree on that.

2. Of all the people in the world who are born, some portion of them are born in a slave society. I assume we can agree on that.

3. Of all the people who are born in a slave society, 100% of them will be either a slave or a slaver. I assume we can agree on that.

4. Since you're defending Dany's slaughter of slavers, you must believe one of two things: Either those slavers deserved to die, or, killing them was a necessary evil.

5. People aren't born evil. I assume we can agree on that.

6. In order for the slavers to be deserving of death, they must have CHOSEN to do something evil. I assume we can agree on that.

7. In order for something to be defined as a CHOICE, there has to be greater than one reasonable option.

8. What was the other reasonable option? What ALTERNATIVE course of action would you suggest for the slaver who doesn't want to be deserving of death?

I gave you most if not all of the possible alternatives that I can think of. You rejected them. So it would seem that you don't actually have an alternative course of action for these slavers you feel justified in killing. In other words, there was no path that you could have reasonably expected them to take that did not involve being a slaver. In other words, if you were born into a slaver family then you have no reasonable explanation for why you wouldn't be a slaver yourself.

So, to simplify your equation of "justice", as defined by you: "If you are born into a slaver family, then you deserve to die."

Do you not see an ethical problem with that?

 

I feel like you don't read my post. I have said repeatedly that while I may have been forced to be a slave or a slaver I still wouldn't have tortured & maimed people & those are the people that deserved what they got. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 9:29 PM, Petitephlox said:

Yes! Let her break the wheel somehow - let her whole story be something more than just “oh haha, sorry, even though she did all these meaningful things and sacrificed so much, she’s just a POWER HUNGRY WOMAN”. 

Ah, of course you have to put some leftist nonsense in there. "NOT FEMINIST ENOUGH!!!" This for a show that goes out of its way to cater to the idea that women can fight in battle, for one thing. They turned Robb Stark's wife from a nice and normal lady in the novels to a GO GRRRL character who can't wait to tell off the fancy nobleman. Dany defeats the Dothraki leaders, Sansa becomes stronger after the men have been mean to her, on and on.

Hmm, let's forget the Mad King, Joffrey, child-crippling Jaime, the Night King, Tywin Lannister, Littlefinger, Varys sending assassins against Dany, rapist soldiers at every turn in the novels, the Bastard, the Frey lord, Dothraki bandits, rampaging monks, on and on. If a WOMAN is a schemer, it's SEXISM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah this idea that any negative trait a woman has = sexism has a lot of holes. For one, a "negative trait" is subjective. Secondly, women can be assholes just like men. Thirdly, accusations of sexism seems only to be applied to Dany's story. Fourthly, some people who cry about the writing for Dany being sexist also say vile things about other female characters (primarily Sansa). So who is the sexist now?

That said, male authors and writers really do have some blindspots in their writing choices - like the women having no female friendships while men can have all the bromances in the world - but these aren't make or break. It's male bias, but that doesn't invalidate the story. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 7:42 PM, Petitephlox said:

I thought this article was right on! 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/opinions/daenerys-targaryen-leads-jon-snow-credit-opinion-mantoan/index.html

Is it possible that the show will surprise us yet again and NOT go the “oh she’s horrible and ambitious mad queen” route?

LOL! " Lindsey Mantoan is an assistant professor of theatre at Linfield College. She is the co-editor with Sara Brady of "Vying for the Iron Throne: Essays on Power, Gender, Death, and Performance in HBO's Game of Thrones" "

Hilarious! This goes to the collection of propaganda funded by the universities. And people wonder why tuition is so high.

"The wildly popular show has started covering its frontrunner female candidate in much the same way that Hillary Clinton was treated during the 2016 election, relitigating her worst mistakes, overlooking her accomplishments"

Wow. And you think this is "right on", Phlox. Let me correct you: The media worshipped Hillary. They were DANCING AT THE DNC when she got the candidate title. Meanwhile, the major media all had decided beforehand to use the propaganda word "dark" about Trump's acceptance speech, which they all cabled out in their headlines as if they had just thought of it independently of one another.

They mocked Barron, a boy nine years old, for falling asleep during the evening-long ceremony, while they hid Bill Clinton falling asleep during Hillary's speech. They praised Hillary for wearing white at her inauguration - but when Melania Trump wore white, they said it was a racist message, similar to wearing a white KKK outfit.

The media hid how Hillary could barely stay upright. She had to be practically lifted up stairs, and down stairs. They had to remove stairs to the stage and install a ramp. When she visited Biden's childhood home, they had to install a railing from the street to the front door, so she could lean against it while waving to reporters. They were going to hide how she collapsed at the WTC 9/11 ceremony, but an ordinary guy captured it on his cellphone. Curiously the Secret Service - who Hillary hates - captured her immediately and helped her stay upright, obviously having practiced for precisely that, but that's something we never heard of. The inside of her van looked like a hospital. All of which the media ignored.

This, aside from her immense corruption: HALF of all foreign governments that got to see her when she was Sec. of State first paid bribes to her "foundation". Which is why she set up an illegal server to handle correspondence from home. Upon which James Comey, whose career comes from exonerating Bill Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for campaign money from his wife, handed out immunity to everyone around Hillary, and destroyed evidence. All of which the media said was "sexist" to mention.

Hilly got debate questions beforehand, which was revealed afterward and ignored by most of the media. She was given special positive treatment during the debates with Trump, while during the first debates Trump got a microphone that was tampered with so the sound went off and on in the room to distract him.

During the DNC acceptance speech, most of the media ignored the masses of Sanders supporters who were kept away from the building by a tall steel fence. Imagine if thousands of Republicans had been kept away from Trump's inauguration that way - the media would never stop showing the footage. They also ignored the DNC erecting a blue wall around the entire stage so Sanders supporters couldn't get up there when Hillary was speaking, and they didn't mention the "white noise" aimed at Sanders sections in the audience, and banners rolled out to cover Sanders banners. If those measures had been at the RNC it would have been repeated endlessly.

The media talking heads could barely keep themselves from crying when Hillary lost. They had started to believe the fake polls they peddled, which vastly overrepresented the number of likely Democrat voters taking part in the election, using that to "weight" the ACTUAL result when calling people for the polls in order to turn it into a Hillary victory instead. With the exception of the LA Times, who showed real polls with a Trump victory, instead of "weighting" them.

Then the media switched to Hillary "really" winning because of the total number of votes, even though both parties have always understood why it's a state count, not a head count. The media didn't mention that Hillary got a higher total number only by California being filled up with millions of Latino immigrants giving her the millions of extra votes. If CA had even just voted in Hillary's favor with the average percentage for a "blue" state, Hillary would have lost the popular vote - only with a massive filling of the state was this changed. The media didn't mention that Hillary's campaign manager Podesta and the other yes-men were sure she'd win the electoral vote, but were afraid Trump might win the popular vote, so in the last weeks they sent her on a get-out-the-vote tour of already blue states, ignoring the swing states. Instead, the media just repeated the campaign propaganda about this.

Just like the media repeated that "the DNC was hacked!" Conveniently ignoring that this statement came from a DNC-paid firm, and that Bill Clinton-favored James Comey refused to examine the "hacked" computers. Which couldn't possibly have transferred information at the speed the documents had been transferred - but it was a speed at which you could download the information to a USB. The media ignored this. And then Seth Rich, a pro-Sanders IT techie at the DNC, got murdered, shot twice in the back outside his home with nothing stolen. Media ignored this too.

And they ignored that the revealed documents showed that Hillary's campaign had worked together with - the media, against both Bernard Sanders and against Trump. With reporters even giving the Hillary campaign veto power.

 

But this professor's piece is "right on," Phlox? Dany has bad moments in the episodes! SEXISM! Just like against HILLARY IN THE ELECTION!!!

Ah, sorry, Phlox. I ruined your feminist moment there. Let's go on with the feminist CNN piece: The show is actually "A TRAP" to make people believe a woman can't be a ruler. Right?

But: " lthough the camera angles suggest that perhaps the show acknowledged the sexism of its characters, the lack of dialogue makes this move so subtle that it's possible only viewers already predisposed to call out misogyny will notice. " :D

This feminist's misandry is incredible.

"a woman leads and a man gets the credit" And still Lindsey Mantoan talks about SEXIST PROPAGANDA AGAINST WOMEN in the show? When it actually shows MEN in a bad light?

And of course, she goes on about how mean the media are toward ... Kamala Harris. And Elizabeth Warren.

Oh, and: "it's worth examining how Elizabeth Warren views Daenerys Targaryen" Yeah, dead on, Phlox! :D

"Warren's not the only fan calling out the misogyny in condemning Daenerys as power-hungry" Oh, this is hilarious. What about the show and the novels including countless men who are power hungry, and murderers and rapists? Nope, let's ignore that! Lindsey Mantoan knows how to push propaganda. Serves her well in her job.

"Some fans clearly possess the ability to see through the soft bigotry of focusing on her ambition." Yes, if only the show included power hungry men cast in a negative light! If only the show had cast the Bastard as a negative character! Or Euron! Or the slavers! Or the Dothraki leaders! Or members of the Night's Watch, the ones who aren't rapists! Or the Night King! Why is it only women who are portrayed as power hungry in this show?

 

"Lindsey Mantoan is an assistant professor of theatre at Linfield College." Of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jarl Halstein said:

LOL! " Lindsey Mantoan is an assistant professor of theatre at Linfield College. She is the co-editor with Sara Brady of "Vying for the Iron Throne: Essays on Power, Gender, Death, and Performance in HBO's Game of Thrones" "

Hilarious! This goes to the collection of propaganda funded by the universities. And people wonder why tuition is so high.

"The wildly popular show has started covering its frontrunner female candidate in much the same way that Hillary Clinton was treated during the 2016 election, relitigating her worst mistakes, overlooking her accomplishments"

Wow. And you think this is "right on", Phlox. Let me correct you: The media worshipped Hillary. They were DANCING AT THE DNC when she got the candidate title. Meanwhile, the major media all had decided beforehand to use the propaganda word "dark" about Trump's acceptance speech, which they all cabled out in their headlines as if they had just thought of it independently of one another.

They mocked Barron, a boy nine years old, for falling asleep during the evening-long ceremony, while they hid Bill Clinton falling asleep during Hillary's speech. They praised Hillary for wearing white at her inauguration - but when Melania Trump wore white, they said it was a racist message, similar to wearing a white KKK outfit.

The media hid how Hillary could barely stay upright. She had to be practically lifted up stairs, and down stairs. They had to remove stairs to the stage and install a ramp. When she visited Biden's childhood home, they had to install a railing from the street to the front door, so she could lean against it while waving to reporters. They were going to hide how she collapsed at the WTC 9/11 ceremony, but an ordinary guy captured it on his cellphone. Curiously the Secret Service - who Hillary hates - captured her immediately and helped her stay upright, obviously having practiced for precisely that, but that's something we never heard of. The inside of her van looked like a hospital. All of which the media ignored.

This, aside from her immense corruption: HALF of all foreign governments that got to see her when she was Sec. of State first paid bribes to her "foundation". Which is why she set up an illegal server to handle correspondence from home. Upon which James Comey, whose career comes from exonerating Bill Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for campaign money from his wife, handed out immunity to everyone around Hillary, and destroyed evidence. All of which the media said was "sexist" to mention.

Hilly got debate questions beforehand, which was revealed afterward and ignored by most of the media. She was given special positive treatment during the debates with Trump, while during the first debates Trump got a microphone that was tampered with so the sound went off and on in the room to distract him.

During the DNC acceptance speech, most of the media ignored the masses of Sanders supporters who were kept away from the building by a tall steel fence. Imagine if thousands of Republicans had been kept away from Trump's inauguration that way - the media would never stop showing the footage. They also ignored the DNC erecting a blue wall around the entire stage so Sanders supporters couldn't get up there when Hillary was speaking, and they didn't mention the "white noise" aimed at Sanders sections in the audience, and banners rolled out to cover Sanders banners. If those measures had been at the RNC it would have been repeated endlessly.

The media talking heads could barely keep themselves from crying when Hillary lost. They had started to believe the fake polls they peddled, which vastly overrepresented the number of likely Democrat voters taking part in the election, using that to "weight" the ACTUAL result when calling people for the polls in order to turn it into a Hillary victory instead. With the exception of the LA Times, who showed real polls with a Trump victory, instead of "weighting" them.

Then the media switched to Hillary "really" winning because of the total number of votes, even though both parties have always understood why it's a state count, not a head count. The media didn't mention that Hillary got a higher total number only by California being filled up with millions of Latino immigrants giving her the millions of extra votes. If CA had even just voted in Hillary's favor with the average percentage for a "blue" state, Hillary would have lost the popular vote - only with a massive filling of the state was this changed. The media didn't mention that Hillary's campaign manager Podesta and the other yes-men were sure she'd win the electoral vote, but were afraid Trump might win the popular vote, so in the last weeks they sent her on a get-out-the-vote tour of already blue states, ignoring the swing states. Instead, the media just repeated the campaign propaganda about this.

Just like the media repeated that "the DNC was hacked!" Conveniently ignoring that this statement came from a DNC-paid firm, and that Bill Clinton-favored James Comey refused to examine the "hacked" computers. Which couldn't possibly have transferred information at the speed the documents had been transferred - but it was a speed at which you could download the information to a USB. The media ignored this. And then Seth Rich, a pro-Sanders IT techie at the DNC, got murdered, shot twice in the back outside his home with nothing stolen. Media ignored this too.

And they ignored that the revealed documents showed that Hillary's campaign had worked together with - the media, against both Bernard Sanders and against Trump. With reporters even giving the Hillary campaign veto power.

 

But this professor's piece is "right on," Phlox? Dany has bad moments in the episodes! SEXISM! Just like against HILLARY IN THE ELECTION!!!

Ah, sorry, Phlox. I ruined your feminist moment there. Let's go on with the feminist CNN piece: The show is actually "A TRAP" to make people believe a woman can't be a ruler. Right?

But: " lthough the camera angles suggest that perhaps the show acknowledged the sexism of its characters, the lack of dialogue makes this move so subtle that it's possible only viewers already predisposed to call out misogyny will notice. " :D

This feminist's misandry is incredible.

"a woman leads and a man gets the credit" And still Lindsey Mantoan talks about SEXIST PROPAGANDA AGAINST WOMEN in the show? When it actually shows MEN in a bad light?

And of course, she goes on about how mean the media are toward ... Kamala Harris. And Elizabeth Warren.

Oh, and: "it's worth examining how Elizabeth Warren views Daenerys Targaryen" Yeah, dead on, Phlox! :D

"Warren's not the only fan calling out the misogyny in condemning Daenerys as power-hungry" Oh, this is hilarious. What about the show and the novels including countless men who are power hungry, and murderers and rapists? Nope, let's ignore that! Lindsey Mantoan knows how to push propaganda. Serves her well in her job.

"Some fans clearly possess the ability to see through the soft bigotry of focusing on her ambition." Yes, if only the show included power hungry men cast in a negative light! If only the show had cast the Bastard as a negative character! Or Euron! Or the slavers! Or the Dothraki leaders! Or members of the Night's Watch, the ones who aren't rapists! Or the Night King! Why is it only women who are portrayed as power hungry in this show?

 

"Lindsey Mantoan is an assistant professor of theatre at Linfield College." Of course.

Is this kind of political hogwash allowed here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 1:42 PM, Petitephlox said:

I thought this article was right on! 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/opinions/daenerys-targaryen-leads-jon-snow-credit-opinion-mantoan/index.html

Is it possible that the show will surprise us yet again and NOT go the “oh she’s horrible and ambitious mad queen” route?

I stopped reading this article the moment the writer compared Daenerys' character treatment to Hillary Clinton's "treatment" during the 2016 election. Which was in the 2nd paragraph lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×