GoT and Feminism: What Happens Now?

[Demetri]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Mabye more than one person fails to understand the workings of your superior mind.

Unless....What are you doing right now? (Swear to god, if he says posting on A Forum of Ice and Fire I'm gonna lose my mind!)

[Demetri]

@Ghost+Nymeria4Eva

I'll make a good faith effort to mention a male author who I think qualifies: Pierce Brown in "Red Rising" does a great job with female characters who are essential to the plot, oftentimes guiding the male lead by his nose. They often act independently of their gender and fill roles independently of gender (besides love interests, but those female love interests tend to be the dominant forces in the relationships.)

As lesser nominees: Rothfuss writes women wonderfully but will likely be dismissed because the male narrator is essentially a horny teenager who looks at the boobs of all the unnaturally beautiful women. This is explained in text (he's telling a story from the past and mentions that the flawless beauty he speaks of probably became more beautiful in the retelling) I imagine you'll take issue, but Diva is pretty much stereotype free (besides disliking men to a degree, but I imagine you're okay with that) as are other characters like Auri (who hardly counts). I think he writes female characters really well, but again your standard is so amazingly unrealistic that you respond to "Shakespeare" with "Taming of the Shrew. Uh, hello...".

Scalzi in "Collapsing Empire" is really interesting because oftentimes characters of authority are mentioned sans genre and pronouns are attached later. Women are consistently positioned as motivated by the same/similar things as men, are portrayed in positions of power with their gender being a nonissue, the main character (this is arguable, but I'll stand by it) is a female emperox (empress, essentially). 

[ummester]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Shouldn’t you think the author should do what he or she feels is right regardless of what offense it may cause who are offended at the level of depiction of certain groups? 

If he or she wants to write a character having the trait of being gay without it’d being majorly important why should they care if jives with the reader?

So on this, you have come full circle and back to my original point? Yes, the author should write what they feel is right, regardless of offence to certain groups. Some authors may wish to write about the gay warrior, that demands their troops embrace gaiety, prefers gay men in his ranks and leads them victory based on freedom and cheer. Some may wish to write about the hyper masculine warrior, that does not allow gaiety, or gay men, in his ranks and leads them to victory based on discipline and honor. Both are valid and no-one really has a right to be offended at either. The audience can decide which warrior they prefer to read about.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No, Jews aren’t naturally greedy, atheists aren’t naturally evil, and not all gay men are feminine. 

16 hours ago, ummester said:

I am not going to debate all of your points, because  I fear we will end up going round in circles. It is OK for us to disagree on many things, as variety is the spice of life. On the above, however, there is a lot to unpack.

Not all gay men are feminine - yep, agree though I would argue that, on average across a large group of gay men and a large group of hyper masculine (what are they called now, cis or something?) men you would find a greater percentage of feminine traits in the group of gay men.

Atheist aren't naturally evil - never said they were? The issue is that most people are kind of simple, when it comes down to it. It's taken me a lot of life to recognize that my fellow man is a lot less intelligent than I originally thought they were. Most need something to believe and cannot cohere socially without shared values. Religions, like modern progressive politics and even ideals like honor and justice - they are all just something to believe, keep us in line, and stop us turning animal on each other. Atheism is, at its core, a rejection of spiritual belief. True atheism does not doubt the existence of a god or gods, it denies them. True Atheism is belief in itself, a faith of spiritual denial - and it is just as hard to prove the spiritual exists as to prove it does not. And, many other beliefs, such as love and hope, have a spiritual edge, so an honest atheist would also have to deny these types of belief. Think about it, you cannot deny the existence of the divine and still claim human life is tangibly more important than a bugs or that human feelings are more valid than a slugs, in any logical way.  Chose agnosticism, its safer and does not make you a hypocrite when you want to be nice to your fellow man 

Individual Jews are not naturally greedy, no. They are just people, the same as everyone else. The Semetic tribes and Jewish culture, however, has a long history of coexisting with other more Imperial cultures - from at least Egyptian through to now - on mostly their wits and usage of finances. So, though it is wrong to assert the cliche on the individual, it is natural to see how that cliche applies to the culture. And I guess that is the thing with cliches, right? They apply to the group - which individuals within that group may differ from but which generally hold true for the group.

[Hodor the Articulate]

52 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I'll make a good faith effort to mention a male author who I think qualifies: Pierce Brown in "Red Rising" does a great job with female characters who are essential to the plot, oftentimes guiding the male lead by his nose. They often act independently of their gender and fill roles independently of gender (besides love interests, but those female love interests tend to be the dominant forces in the relationships.)

You're kidding right? The RR series was like playing sexist tropes bingo. Women In Refrigerators - check. Not Like Other Girls - check... It's a good example of why simply having "representation" isn't enough. You actually have to write them as proper characters or it's just tokenism.

Though in fairness, Brown's writing was just trope-y in general. I think he made a genuine effort to have a diverse cast to address the criticisms he received for his first book - he just obviously did not fully understand the problem, nor did he have the talent to fix it.

[Demetri]

5 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You're kidding right? The RR series was like playing sexist tropes bingo. Women In Refrigerators - check. Not Like Other Girls - check... It's a good example of why simply having "representation" isn't enough. You actually have to write them as proper characters or it's just tokenism.

Though in fairness, Brown's writing was just trope-y in general. I think he made a genuine effort to have a diverse cast to address the criticisms he received for his first book - he just obviously did not fully understand the problem, nor did he have the talent to fix it.

Yea, I kinda view those tropes as largely plot tropes not character tropes. And where are the Women in Refrigerators? Surely not Eo as she literally plotted out the entire thing. Meanwhile, Darrow undergoes the exact same physical abuse and in fact much more than anyone else in the series (after being tortured by an admittedly Oedipal Jackal) Can a woman character be a martyr without being a woman in a fridge? Men can certainly be martyr figures, why not women? Let me circle back to this point in a moment because I genuinely mean it in good faith.

The plot is super-trope, for sure. And it is difficult to untangle the plot v. character elements of that. We also have a problem here because anything that has been done before can be termed a trope. As a result, you can construct a concept that could either be everything in literature or nothing. I think people construct it very widely when viewing female characters (finding tropes everywhere) and very narrowly when looking at male characters (See poster above who refuses to countenance "little brother syndrome" as a thing). All characters are inherently derivative. I mention Brown because gender seems to define his characters less than I usually see. I can't guess out their story or imagine their impact based on genitals. I think that is, ultimately, the reasonable way to go about it.

I actually really like the series. It isn't as heady or thoughtful as the stuff I usually read, but I think he is a pretty good author as long as you know what you're getting into. It is also noteworthy that he is capable of actually releasing new material, which naturally endears me to him given *the trauma*

[JagLover]

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I am no Dany fan, but the slaver apologetics can fuck off.

Which makes it a rather masterful plot arc if you want to show how ruthless and brutal Dany can be while having the audience cheer her on.

This was a society that practised slavery, in the same way as revolutionary era USA did, do you think there were no good people in the USA back then?, in the same way there would have no doubt been thousands of decent ordinary citizens of Astapor who were killed because Dany came to town. 

[JagLover]

9 hours ago, Tianzi said:

So, Joffrey on a dragon.

We had a 'non-perfect' female ruler in Cersei for several seasons and this was fine, as she was portrayed in this semi-consistently. Dany's turn is portrayed as a tantrum of a junior high girl over a hunky quarterback not going with her to the prom and another girl having more social influence.

Want to make her a villain? Fine, but do your homework, give her real reasons, show her decline gradually. About 5 ppl total in Westeros knew about Jon's claim, not many of them cared (no Targaryen supporters in the show), and he didn't want the throne himself. Who is she teaching a lesson? The KL's citizens who were 'supporting' Cersei, another queen with an inferior claim? Now people who were willing to support her whink she's a psycho. She shot her own feet, thrown herself form a position of one of the world saviours to a crazy mass-murderer.

 

No because Joffrey was a weak, spoiled, brat who liked hurting people for fun, whilst Dany is a conqueror. 

What do you think Genghis Khan would have done if a city refused to surrender and executed his best friend in front of him?.

Most fantasy is a product of its time, and its target audience of fairly nerdy teens and young adults. Its heroes reflect that and a common trope as well is that they think anachronistically.  Those who made real history, even the relatively "good" ones, were usually far more brutal and ruthless than your average fantasy hero. 

A number of reviews have touched on why this could very well be a rational decision on Dany's part, albeit one shaped by the strong emotions she was feeling. If a city resisted, as Kings landing did, then it would at the very least be subject to being sacked and often mass killings would take place as well. Calling a surrender after most of the defenders had been wiped out, and the attackers had fought their way into the city, wouldn't change that. 

The warning comes to anyone else who might challenge her rule. Dany is saying not only will I kill you, I will kill your family and those you rule over. As she put it if she cannot have love she will have fear. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, JagLover said:

No because Joffrey was a weak, spoiled, brat who liked hurting people for fun, whilst Dany is a conqueror. 

What do you think Genghis Khan would have done if a city refused to surrender and executed his best friend in front of him?.

Most fantasy is a product of its time, and its target audience of fairly nerdy teens and young adults. Its heroes reflect that and a common trope as well is that they think anachronistically.  Those who made real history, even the relatively "good" ones, were usually far more brutal and ruthless than your average fantasy hero. 

A number of reviews have touched on why this could very well be a rational decision on Dany's part, albeit one shaped by the strong emotions she was feeling. If a city resisted, as Kings landing did, then it would at the very least be subject to being sacked and often mass killings would take place as well. Calling a surrender after most of the defenders had been wiped out, and the attackers had fought their way into the city, wouldn't change that. 

The warning comes to anyone else who might challenge her rule. Dany is saying not only will I kill you, I will kill your family and those you rule over. As she put it if she cannot have love she will have fear. 

This (other than the bit about nerdy teenagers).

Danerys did not go mad (unless you're using "mad" to mean "furious") nor did she "go over to the dark side" as the dark side has always been a part of her (as is the good side). 

 

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. You're probably right. I don't think Merle Haggard had a  beautiful, charismatic, and rich 21 year old in mind.

Forget what I've said about Daenerys in the modern world getting a life sentence.  In reality, the modern media would treat her like a rock star, millions of people would sign online petitions demanding she be released, and she'd end up with some absurdly lenient sentence.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

8 hours ago, ummester said:

Atheist aren't naturally evil - never said they were?

My pointing to it was merely a demonstration of bigoted cliches not just being because of some biological basis. But you do go on to to call every atheists who does good hypocrites. So not that much better a stance in regards to them since you clearly think atheism demands immortality or amorality.

8 hours ago, ummester said:

The issue is that most people are kind of simple, when it comes down to it. It's taken me a lot of life to recognize that my fellow man is a lot less intelligent than I originally thought they were. Most need something to believe and cannot cohere socially without shared values. Religions, like modern progressive politics and even ideals like honor and justice - they are all just something to believe, keep us in line, and stop us turning animal on each other. Atheism is, at its core, a rejection of spiritual belief. True atheism does not doubt the existence of a god or gods, it denies them. True Atheism is belief in itself, a faith of spiritual denial - and it is just as hard to prove the spiritual exists as to prove it does not. And, many other beliefs, such as love and hope, have a spiritual edge, so an honest atheist would also have to deny these types of belief. Think about it, you cannot deny the existence of the divine and still claim human life is tangibly more important than a bugs or that human feelings are more valid than a slugs, in any logical way.  Chose agnosticism, its safer and does not make you a hypocrite when you want to be nice to your fellow man 

 

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism and really religion in general. Atheism has no belief in divinity by definition and most atheists will tell you that they simply don’t believe in whatever divinity you think has set up some form of rules.  Most  do not actively deny god(I assume that’s what you had in mind) exists anymore than you actively deny leprechauns exists. They don’t have to try to prove a god does not exist  to anyone anymore than you have to prove leprechauns do not exist. The people making the claim do. It’s a patently absurd thing to demand someone prove a negative and being smug they can’t and pretending as if that in it of itself makes them on equal footing.  You’ve also seem to have adopted this idea that religion in itself  justifying  this idea of human superiority. This is false. Plenty of religions throughout history have placed humans as a part of the world-but not an exceptionally important part. 

Your case for why it’s impossible to reasonably to do good act without religion must something “divine” is also  simplistic but sadly not exactly new or rarely used.It relies on wanting humans to be special. “We want these things true right? So it’s only logical  we should believe them” It’s not rational, it merely supposes that it must be true. There are a whole heap of philosophical and theorists who’ve given compelling arguments for human superiority-a lot of the time pursuant  to our sentience. This idea of “you cannot differentiate yourself between a bug and human baby if you don’t believe in a god”  really isn’t one of them. 

Also “love” and “hope” aren’t beliefs. This is idea is quite frankly too ridiculous to even pretend to have the chance at being remotely true.  They’re emotions. No one literally believes in “love” anymore they believe in “tiredness” or “hate” they feel it regardless of what they believe. 

Atheists do not have to deny the existence  love, or hope or whateverbecause they do not believe in some form of a god. Because these emotions don’t showcase that there is someone. They could(and probably are), a totally natural by product that emerged due to the species evolution. Or you could say magic leprechauns infected us in our sleep. You’d have a strong case for why it’s stupid for “leprechaun skeptics” to deny the things that make they’re oh so clear lol.The existence of those those don’t prove god. Actual displays of affection between members of the same  are by no means rare  in the animal kingdom. A monkey could help out another monkey. 

Fuck your idea of Atheists being hypocrites if they act like humans and theighn to feel emotions, and have the audacity to show care for another. 

 

8 hours ago, ummester said:

Individual Jews are not naturally greedy, no. They are just people, the same as everyone else. The Semetic tribes and Jewish culture, however, has a long history of coexisting with other more Imperial cultures - from at least Egyptian through to now - on mostly their wits and usage of finances. So, though it is wrong to assert the cliche on the individual, it is natural to see how that cliche applies to the culture. And I guess that is the thing with cliches, right? They apply to the group - which individuals within that group may differ from but which generally hold true for the group.

Again more excuses/justifications for racism.  responsible with their rescources and smart(because they were often ostracized and persecuted) =/ Jews in general  “biologically more greedy than any other demographic. 

There is and never has been rational reason Jews for perceived as more greedy. Prejudice doesn’t work off of only real attributes like you seem to want to frame it doing.

8 hours ago, ummester said:

So on this, you have come full circle and back to my original point? Yes, the author should write what they feel is right, regardless of offence to certain groups. Some authors may wish to write about the gay warrior, that demands their troops embrace gaiety, prefers gay men in his ranks and leads them victory based on freedom and cheer. Some may wish to write about the hyper masculine warrior, that does not allow gaiety, or gay men, in his ranks and leads them to victory based on discipline and honor. Both are valid and no-one really has a right to be offended at either. The audience can decide which warrior they prefer to read about.

I’m holding to your actual words because they’re flat-out contradictory. 

 You’ve touted you love getting offended at things for entertainment, you actively try to, and can’t enjoy something unless it does-now you’re you’re saying people shouldn’t be offended. . 

Pick one argument and stick to it.

 

8 hours ago, ummester said:

I am not going to debate all of your points, because  I fear we will end up going round in circles. It is OK for us to disagree on many things, as variety is the spice of life. On the above, however, there is a lot to unpack.

Yeah no. A lot of things you’ve disagreed with have hideous implications.  Like touting out I should be wary of condemning  white supremachists as bad people because I haven’t “lived in their shoes”.  Or some such none sense. And I don’t respect/accept your sentiments on this for the sake of “variety”. I don’t respectfully disagree. You’re wrong if you don’t see people who advocate genocide and ethnic cleansing as bad people for doing just and my thinking white supremachist are bad for being white supremachists is just due to my “limited” experience.

You’ve argued you shouldn’t be offended by any ideas-actually give a defense why someone should not be offended at ideas like genocide or ethnic cleansing cleansing  being espoused or concede you were mistaken.

[Varysblackfyre321]

I think the show’s depiction of Daenerys occupation of In Essos isn’t entirely better or worse than in the books.

Like for instance her deciding to burn one of former slavers in response to the sons of the harpy’s terrorism. 

It was was much more nuanced in the books. She did the 7 kingdom custom of taking in children to be wards/hostages from the noble houses. The situation kinda demanded Daenerys to kill one of the children in response to the children much as the way Jon would be pressured to kill some/all his wildling hostages should they’re parents start to rebel. 

I have to say I’m alway flummoxed no one’s mentioned the fact Daenerys had the Unsullied butcher all noble sons in Astaphor who were over 12. 

Her kicking out of Jorah was framed way more in favorably  in the book. Given she did initially plan on pardoning him for his valiant service and only changed your mind once Jorah acted like an entitled possessive ass.

In terms of the crucification of the GM meh. I honestly thought it could’ve deterred  other slave-masters from committing similar acts of depravity just to spite her should Daenerys choose to invade other slave cities.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

This (other than the bit about nerdy teenagers).

Danerys did not go mad (unless you're using "mad" to mean "furious") nor did she "go over to the dark side" as the dark side has always been a part of her (as is the good side). 

 

No to part of this. I have no problem story-wise  with the concept of Daenerys destroying a city in pursuit of conquest-it would be in alignment with acting to the likes of a typical conqueror. But KL was too important to destroy at whim. 

[ummester]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also “love” and “hope” aren’t beliefs. This is idea is quite frankly too ridiculous to even pretend to have the chance at being remotely true.  They’re emotions. No one literally believes in “love” anymore they believe in “tiredness” or “hate” they feel it regardless of what they believe. 

They are emotions that one must believe in to feel. Emotions are human responses to stimuli, affected by whatever memories and beliefs the individual mind that is responding hold, correct? Feeling pain when a needle is put in your arm is not the same as feeling love (though some would argue it is ) One is a direct sensory response to a tangible event to other is a more mental response made up mostly in the head of the person that feels it. I would argue that love is far more a belief (on behalf of the individual(s) experiencing it) than a direct feeling - you can argue the opposite, that is fine - but i can guarantee that you can not prove to me (or anyone else) that love and hope tangibly exist in the physical world, much the same as any god does or does not exist.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism and really religion in general. Atheism has no belief in divinity by definition and most atheists will tell you that they simply don’t believe in whatever divinity you think has set up some form of rules. 

No, you are displaying the fundamental misunderstanding.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Most  do not actively deny god(I assume that’s what you had in mind) exists anymore than you actively deny leprechauns exists. They don’t have to try to prove a god does not exist  to anyone anymore than you have to prove leprechauns do not exist.

Then they are agnostics, not true Atheists. Atheism is the denial of god - it is the disbelief in the existence of god or gods. One of its synonyms is nihilism. Look it up.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Actual displays of affection between members of the same  are by no means rare  in the animal kingdom. A monkey could help out another monkey. 

That doesn't make it love. It is instinctual to feel empathetic connection to an organism with large eyes because of the biological imperative to protect young. Biological life requires reproduction and protection of offspring to maintain. By your definition, a crocodile nesting baby crocs in its mouth loves them - and that is fine, if that is how you define love, which is very broadly. I don't want to take that away from you. But it proves, beyond a doubt, that your understanding of love is more based on what you think and believe than any innate biological response to stimuli.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Fuck your idea of Atheists being hypocrites if they act like humans and theighn to feel emotions, and have the audacity to show care for another. 

No need to get upset. I think you just have an incorrect understanding of atheism - you are probably actually an agnostic that has been calling yourself an atheist and just found out you were mislabeling your own self.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m holding to your actual words because they’re flat-out contradictory. 

 You’ve touted you love getting offended at things for entertainment, you actively try to, and can’t enjoy something unless it does-now you’re you’re saying people shouldn’t be offended. . 

Pick one argument and stick to it.

You are splitting hairs over my word usage pointlessly here. Which is a bit rich coming from someone who mislabels atheism.

Yes, I like being offended by deliberately offensive characters, or even ideas that expand my mind. No, I do not think I have a right to assert that offence onto others as a way of limiting what they can experience. I do not think I have a right to say that stories should contain more or less diverse characters or whatever, and that platforms or publishers, or whatever should ban anything I find offensive - creators should create of their own free will and audiences embrace of theirs.

I am using offence interchangeably - sorry if that has confused you. I will try and define it more accurately. All art and ideas have a right to exist, none should ever be censored or labelled inappropriate by some cultural offence police or anything like that. The only censorship that should occur is for explicit material with minors. We should trust each others choices and just let everyone enjoy what they like - so long as no actual persons, animals whatever were harmed (in a tangible or physical way, not emotional) to make the art. Let the ideas rain down, no matter how offensive some may be and enjoy those that stick. Do not take offence at offence  Do not police based on emotion.

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah no. A lot of things you’ve disagreed with have hideous implications.  Like touting out I should be wary of condemning  white supremachists as bad people because I haven’t “lived in their shoes”.  Or some such none sense. And I don’t respect/accept your sentiments on this for the sake of “variety”. I don’t respectfully disagree. You’re wrong if you don’t see people who advocate genocide and ethnic cleansing as bad people for doing just and my thinking white supremachist are bad for being white supremachists is just due to my “limited” experience.

You’ve argued you shouldn’t be offended by any ideas-actually give a defense why someone should not be offended at ideas like genocide or ethnic cleansing cleansing  being espoused or concede you were mistaken.

You sound like a bit of a fundamentalist here. Paraphrasing - You are wrong and I am right! Seems a lot more like religious zealotry, or supremacy than what I am touting, to me.

[NickStark2494]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is all nonsense. If you read the books, then Theon being turned into Reek and Arya becoming a professional assassin is not exactly character growth. It is part of a dehumanizing process where crucial aspects of their personalities are destroyed by their traumas. Reek-Theon is considerably less than he was before he fell into Ramsay's hands. Just as Arya was so much more when she didn't think murdering people was the normal way to deal with your own and everybody else's problems.

The loss of Jaime's hand wasn't a crucial part in his arc - it was what losing the hand did to him, how it affected him. But even that is less important than other experiences he made.

"The loss of Jaime's hand wasn't a crucial part in his arc - it was what losing the hand did to him". Yeah, no kidding. That's exactly what I'm saying. You act like you're contradicting me but you're making the exact same point I did.

The loss of his hand had an effect on him and was the catalyst for certain character changes. Obviously it's not the simple fact of being maimed. It's what the hand represented, what it was to him. How losing it affected him. That's my point. Trauma is used as a catalyst for change in fiction. And this is true to real life.

Then you speak about Reek and Arya and how they were dehumanized. I know that. That's exactly my point. What happened to them changed them. That's character development. I don't understand why you seem to think the term "character development" only refers to a positive evolution. It doesn't.

A character becoming lesser is also development.

You say people like Arya and Theon had crucial aspects of their personality destroyed by their trauma. I know that. Is that not exactly what happened to Sansa ? Does Season 6 through 8 Sansa seem like the same person to you as Season 1 through 5 Sansa ?

Did you see how Sansa smirked when Ramsay was devoured by dogs ? There she is smiling like all is right with the world, when her little brother just died. But the sound and sight of her abuser being eaten alive made her smile. Do you think we'd have seen Sansa behave that way in earlier seasons ? We wouldn't.

Sansa also had a part of her personality destroyed, or at the very least damaged. She has become far less trusting, more callous, more jaded, more cynical, harsher (remember when she vehemently suggested awarding Last Hearth and Karhold to other families ?), less empathetic, and much colder in every way.

She's not the girl she once was. Is this not character development ? I don't really know what you expect.

"People survive ordeals, but they don't 'grow' because of that. The very concept is just silly. I mean, do you think all the vets suffering from PTSD did 'grow' because of their experience in war? That 80+-year-old people suffering from nightmares and pissing their bed because they think they are back in the trenches of World War I is character growth? "

No, the concept is not silly. How exactly do you think people grow/change ? How do you think people learn and mature ? By everything going their way ? By happily frolicking in fields ? No, most of the time, people learn and gain experience through hardship. As someone who went through traumatic events as a kid, I can assure you, it did have an impact on me, in some ways for the worse, but in some ways for the better. I don't get why you seem unable to understand this idea. You really think no one comes out of horrific ordeals stronger than they were before ? You think there's nothing but PTSD and damage and dehumanization ?

That's absurd, and I'd advise you to never say that to someone who has been through traumatic experiences. People do more than just survive ordeals, they also learn from them.

As for vets, no, I never said that all of them grow because of their experiences. But why do you think that none of them do ? Some do and some don't. People are individuals, there aren't hard and fast rules. I don't get why you seem to believe it's impossible.

As for 80+ year old people who have PTSD, why don't you look at Holocaust survivors. Take a look at what they say today, when they talk about their experiences. Of course they're incredibly damaged. But some of them are also incredibly strong. Your desire to deny the strength of victims is pretty disturbing.

Trauma damages people, no one is denying that. You just seem hellbent on denying that anyone might become stronger after trauma, and that's just patently absurd. There are no absolute rules when it comes to human beings. Some will become stronger after traumatic experiences, others won't. It depends on the circumstances and the individual.

Characters like Arya and Sansa are definitely damaged and dehumanized in some ways. But they're also stronger. Trauma can damage you and teach you at the same time. These two things aren't mutually exclusive. It's not an either/or proposition.

[ummester]

8 minutes ago, NickStark2494 said:

Trauma can damage you and teach you at the same time.

Just have to say, I generally agree with your POV in this argument and especially the part I have quoted.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

Also, not wanting to lessen any of your personal life experiences, or any who suffer genuine trauma - but all humans, ultimately, learn trough pain.

[Wildling Queen]

On 5/17/2019 at 5:41 AM, Panos Targaryen said:

And I would agree with you, if those on the other side of the argument were allowed to make their points on this forum with the same vigour as you guys do. If, say, for every thread calling GRRM a racist and a sexist, ASOIAF a fantasy series "made for white men" (as if that is a bad thing by default), "problematic" when it comes to its depiction of women, etc., there was a thread harshly calling out people for trying to inject their radical leftist identity politics into a discourse about a freaking fantasy series which was never meant to have anything to do with their neo-Marxist worldview, nor is it morally supposed to. I don't want to break any forum rules and talk about things I shouldn't talk about, but let's just say this isn't the case. 

I have to say, I disagree with you. I'm very much a feminist but I've argued here the entire time that the show isn't misogynistic. Problematic at times, for sure, but inherently feminist in its larger themes. A lot of folks here have disagree with me, but no one has been obnoxious to me with the exception of the trolls who just tell everybody to shut up and we're ruining everything. I think there's a way to debate this respectfully, and that's all I ever ask of anyone.

[Tianzi]

14 hours ago, JagLover said:

No because Joffrey was a weak, spoiled, brat who liked hurting people for fun, whilst Dany is a conqueror. 

What do you think Genghis Khan would have done if a city refused to surrender and executed his best friend in front of him?.

Most fantasy is a product of its time, and its target audience of fairly nerdy teens and young adults. Its heroes reflect that and a common trope as well is that they think anachronistically.  Those who made real history, even the relatively "good" ones, were usually far more brutal and ruthless than your average fantasy hero. 

A number of reviews have touched on why this could very well be a rational decision on Dany's part, albeit one shaped by the strong emotions she was feeling. If a city resisted, as Kings landing did, then it would at the very least be subject to being sacked and often mass killings would take place as well. Calling a surrender after most of the defenders had been wiped out, and the attackers had fought their way into the city, wouldn't change that. 

The warning comes to anyone else who might challenge her rule. Dany is saying not only will I kill you, I will kill your family and those you rule over. As she put it if she cannot have love she will have fear. 

I'm judging Dany by GoT standards. She lost a loved one and the boy didn't want her? Boo-hoo, get in a line, almost literally every named character had it worse, most of them not going into a murdering spree out of 'fury' (and not only because the lack of a dragon).

As for the 'lesson' part, I can take her burning of the Tarlys as that. I can arguably take her initial carnage of the KL, although it was clear that Cersei doesn't really have support there and Dany is proving BS on her wannabe saviour image. But after the city's surrender she's only showing that she's an omnicidal maniac who needs to be removed. Stronger than Joffrey? Well, obviously. But let's remember that Joffrey was taken down without suffering a military defeat and the reason was his reputation as a psycho.

Edit:

And btw, my problem with Dany (and feminism in GoT) isn't her turning into a villain. It's turning her into a bad quality villain, for banal reasons, with inconsistent portrayal and a psycho temper tantrum, similar to several previous bad quality female villains (the Waif, the Sand Snakes). Granted, most of the characters at this point are being badly written, but this manner is recurring in females.

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 hours ago, ummester said:

They are emotions that one must believe in to feel.

No. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

Emotions are human responses to stimuli, affected by whatever memories and beliefs the individual mind that is responding hold, correct?

Not really. You don’t need to “ believe” in being scared shitless if you think you’re about to die. It’s a totally natural reaction. Seriously, when a Deer sees a hunter about to shoot it there’s no “belief” it should be scared about you dying. It gets scared and runs away. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

Feeling pain when a needle is put in your arm is not the same as feeling love (though some would argue it is ) One is a direct sensory response to a tangible event to other is a more mental response made up mostly in the head of the person that feels it. I would argue that love is far more a belief (on behalf of the individual(s) experiencing it) than a direct feeling - you can argue the opposite, that is fine - but i can guarantee that you can not prove to me (or anyone else) that love and hope tangibly exist in the physical world, much the same as any god does or does not exist.

Again no to all of this. 

Dogs love, fear, and hate, can feel anger at those around them if treated harshly, or positively enough or because they some neurological defect. There’s no “belief” in it.  And please by virtue of you erroneously having decided that “emotions are beliefs” does not mean everyone else will adhere to your logic. You take a too high view of yourself quite frankly. And literally a precursor of basic research Psychology shows  in regards to some the neurological  basis for emotions. Like it’s not exceptionally hard to find dozens of cases of someone suffering some form of physical and biologically not being process certain emotions or emotions in general. 

But then again this seems merely a distraction because you’ve posited “Emotions prove the divine” or some such nonesense. Emotions by themselves show nothing of god or gods. Literally not believing them to be creations  of such is no more unreasonable than not believing they’re a byproduct of Leprechauns. The assertion  could be true. But it’s on the person making the claim to prove it.

14 hours ago, ummester said:

Then they are agnostics, not true Atheists. Atheism is the denial of god - it is the disbelief in the existence of god or gods. One of its synonyms is nihilism. Look it up.

 You’ve seem to have a limited understanding of  the philosophy of “nihilism” if you think it could be used  interchangeably with atheism in general.  Nihilism rejects morality along with god. Atheism says nothing in regards to the subject and simply does not believe in god.. Even most Dictionary definitions(which are by no means perfect ) of Atheism holds no of mention of a stance of “Morality” in it’s description. 

Nihilists are atheists. Not all Atheists are nihilists. All Lutherans  are Christian, not all Christians are Lutherans. 

And I find you’re argument for Nihilism being listed as a synonym for atheism as indicative on a lack of research on your part. I imagine you’ve only heard Nihilism is listed as a synonym for atheism and never bothered to see if it was true because you would probably have seen Agnosticism being listed as a synonym for Nihilism as well. Along(laughably) with non-theism. I imagine you’d tell the Dali Lama that he is Nihilist too because it’s listed as a synonym for nihilism lol?  

Seriously, if you’re going to argue for your interpretation of “true atheism” reference  the views of actual scholars, philosophers,  secular activists, or poll of those who actually self-identify and have built they’re likeness on discussing atheism and are prominent figures in discussion of it. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

That doesn't make it love. It is instinctual to feel empathetic connection to an organism with large eyes because of the biological imperative to protect young.

My main point here was merely acting within accordance to nature-that is to help your kind-doesn’t make atheists hypocrites for doing so. They’d mostly be following the ingrained nature that allows most mammals to survive. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

Biological life requires reproduction and protection of offspring to maintain. By your definition, a crocodile nesting baby crocs in its mouth loves them - and that is fine, if that is how you define love, which is very broadly.

And emotions like love or the physical stimulation we label “love” could help facilitate that avenue. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

ly. I don't want to take that away from you. But it proves, beyond a doubt, that your understanding of love is more based on what you think and believe than any innate biological response to stimuli.

“I don’t want you to feel you’re wrong to think that but I must tell you you’re absolutely wrong” lol. For much of your objections of me being so close-minded you’ve taken a hardline stance that without a shadow of doubt emotions are beliefs. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

No need to get upset. I think you just have an incorrect understanding of atheism - you are probably actually an agnostic that has been calling yourself an atheist and just found out you were mislabeling your own self

I think you probably have as a profound misunderstanding of agnosticism as you do atheism.  I think you’ve refused  to actually do a nominal amount of research on theology  philosophy,  evolutionary psychology, and have instead have decided to take your own basic prejudices as factually grounded.

You demonstrated you don’t know what atheism is. You’ve conflated religion with justifying human superiority and  further seem to have taken religion as sysnomous with theism-as if religions like Buddhism don’t exist. And have taken a denial of a god with denying spirituality-which again is absurd given there are non-theistic religions.

14 hours ago, ummester said:

You sound like a bit of a fundamentalist here. Paraphrasing - You are wrong and I am right! Seems a lot more like religious zealotry, or supremacy than what I am touting, to me.

“White-supremachist are not bad people, just because they want to genocide and to ethnically cleanse their land of non-whites and such ideas are not offensive stop being so quick to judge them” paraphrasing here. but even my tolerance has its limits when it comes to people who would see me and my loved ones dead.  Yeah I’m not going to respectfully disagree on their ideas that I deserve to be treated as subhuman or killed because I’m black. Sorry if you see my intolerance towards racist so closed minded. I will not pretend I’ll see you anything but vile if you agree with them or think the ideas they espouse are not offensive.

And please “Atheists are hypocrites if they act nice to other people” is not worse than saying White supremachists are bad people for being white supremachists.

Actually make an argument the ideas they’re espousing shouldn’t offend people. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

You are splitting hairs over my word usage pointlessly here. Which is a bit rich coming from someone who mislabels atheism.

Not really. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

Yes, I like being offended by deliberately offensive characters, or even ideas that expand my mind. No, I do not think I have a right to assert that offence onto others as a way of limiting what they can experience. I do not think I have a right to say that stories should contain more or less diverse characters or whatever, and that platforms or publishers, or whatever should ban anything I find offensive - creators should create of their own free will and audiences embrace of theirs.

You have a juvenile view of free-will. No, advocating for a creator to not do something, or do something is not violating his or her free will. Free-will does not equal people not being tell you should do or not something. It merely means you could choose to ignore them. You are not entitled to whatever platform you’d want. A

14 hours ago, ummester said:

I am using offence interchangeably - sorry if that has confused you. I will try and define it more accurately. All art and ideas have a right to exist, none should ever be censored or labelled inappropriate by some cultural offence police or anything like that. The only censorship that should occur is for explicit material with minors. 

Yeah you seem to be conflating critiquing something as offensive with being as bad as literal censorship. An artist in not entitled to never be criticized or derided for his or her work being offensive in sort of way. 

14 hours ago, ummester said:

We should trust each others choices and just let everyone enjoy what they like - so long as no actual persons, animals whatever were harmed (in a tangible or physical way, not emotional) to make the art. Let the ideas rain down, no matter how offensive some may be and enjoy those that stick. Do not take offence at offence  Do not police based on emotion.

Or instead of passively taking racist propaganda being spewed one should deride it as such. And not care that it *may* make those who feel comfortable with the art uncomfortable. Ideas could be put forward. That doesn’t necessitate I not negatively comment on some of them or criticize the author for seemingly to push the ideas as bigoted and offensive. A man could make a movie about how evil Jews are behind every bad thing that’s happened in the world and I will however call him an idiot for spewing such nonsense. If that hurts his feelings and he’ll feel more self-couscous about spewing such drivel-good. If it makes movie-producers more hesitant to fund this anti-semite’s project-also good.  I’m also not going to act as if I’m violating his or anyone’s rights by criticizing his movie as racist drivel.As as you tout out the importance of allowing ideas in media you don’t seem want them to actually be challenged. 

[ummester]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Seriously, if you’re going to argue for your interpretation of “true atheism” reference  the views of actual scholars, philosophers,  secular activists, or poll of those who actually self-identify and have built they’re likeness on discussing atheism and are prominent figures in discussion of it. 

All I need to reference is the definition, which I have. If you do not agree with the definition then you are not using the word correctly.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Seriously, if you’re going to argue for your interpretation of “true atheism” reference  the views of actual scholars, philosophers,  secular activists, or poll of those who actually self-identify and have built they’re likeness on discussing atheism and are prominent figures in discussion of it. 

So where does agnosticism end and atheism begins? You cannot deny the following definitions are true.

theism = belief in a god or gods (some divine higher power)

agnosticism = neither belief or disbelief  in a god or gods (basically an open mindedness)

atheism = it is literally the opposite to theism, that is what the 'a' at the front denotes. It is the disbelief in a god or gods (some divine higher power).

This is what the words mean, you cannot change that with anything you write.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And please by virtue of you erroneously having decided that “emotions are beliefs” does not mean everyone else will adhere to your logic.

I never said emotions are beliefs. I said love and hope are beliefs. You said love and hope are emotions. You are confusing my statements with whatever is in your own head.

Sure, emotions and belief can cross over. Perhaps you are confusing some instances where I use belief with the way you use feel - you can both believe in and feel some emotions, such as love and hope, but neither belief nor emotional feeling makes something tangibly real in an undeniable physical sense.

I am sure you are not so stupid as to know there is a difference between feeling pain, hunger, thirst, tiredness and those types of responses to physical stimulus and feeling love, hope, fear and similar that manifest more because of the cognition of those that feel them. You just do not want the conversation to lead to a place where you may have to change your POV - that is known as delusion.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

“I don’t want to feel you’re wrong but I must tell you you’re absolutely wrong” lol. For much of your calls for being so close-minded you’ve taken a hardline stance that without a shadow of doubt emotions are beliefs. 

So why bother responding to me? After this, I am done with responding to you. It is not worth my time.

[JagLover]

10 hours ago, Tianzi said:

I'm judging Dany by GoT standards. She lost a loved one and the boy didn't want her? Boo-hoo, get in a line, almost literally every named character had it worse, most of them not going into a murdering spree out of 'fury' (and not only because the lack of a dragon).

As for the 'lesson' part, I can take her burning of the Tarlys as that. I can arguably take her initial carnage of the KL, although it was clear that Cersei doesn't really have support there and Dany is proving BS on her wannabe saviour image. But after the city's surrender she's only showing that she's an omnicidal maniac who needs to be removed. Stronger than Joffrey? Well, obviously. But let's remember that Joffrey was taken down without suffering a military defeat and the reason was his reputation as a psycho.

Edit:

And btw, my problem with Dany (and feminism in GoT) isn't her turning into a villain. It's turning her into a bad quality villain, for banal reasons, with inconsistent portrayal and a psycho temper tantrum, similar to several previous bad quality female villains (the Waif, the Sand Snakes). Granted, most of the characters at this point are being badly written, but this manner is recurring in females.

I think next episode will tell us more. I hope to see a coldly rational Dany who did what she did as a warning to anyone else who might challenge her. She will most probably be killed off by one of the Starks, but it being a rational decision (shaped by strong emotion) makes a far more satisfying conclusion to her arc than suddenly going insane because Jon didn't want to get it on. 

Just as at the end of ADWD she is embracing who she was all along. 

[Jon Snow is a loser]

8 hours ago, JagLover said:

I think next episode will tell us more. I hope to see a coldly rational Dany who did what she did as a warning to anyone else who might challenge her. She will most probably be killed off by one of the Starks, but it being a rational decision (shaped by strong emotion) makes a far more satisfying conclusion to her arc than suddenly going insane because Jon didn't want to get it on. 

Just as at the end of ADWD she is embracing who she was all along. 

Not going to happen in the show. The showrunners already said in usual after the episode interview that what Dany did was not premeditated but in a fit of rage. She snapped. End of story. Not part of any tactic or strategic thinking. She was just throwing tantrum. 

However, I do think that the books will take the direction that you suggest here. Mad Queen Dany will happen in the book, but unlike the show "mad" here will not mean clinically insane.  In the book most likely Dany will commit the same atrocities under a sane & sound mind as part of her calculated strategy after coming to the conclusion at the end of ADWD that being soft doesn't work & she must go full Fire and Blood. The end result is probably the same that she will end up dying and failing in both cases, but unlike in the show, which seems not to have any message behind this & just happen because the plot demand it, in the books the message would be very clear: The world doesn't work this way.  GRRM's narrative seems to have the goal of debunking the notion that being ruthless is a necessary trait of a leader.  

In the world of ASOIAF it seems that being good or being terrible will not save you from horrible death, as can be seen in the cases of Ned & Tywin. However, it is often said by fans that that while being good might cause you to die, it is better for your people and the world in the long term. See how while Ned Stark is dead, people are still fighting for his legacy & his children are setting up to be among some of the major power players. On the other hand Tywin Lannister got his family destroyed & his family's legacy implode.

I think GRRM is hammering the same message with Dany that he is doing with Tywin. Both are people who come into conclusion that being nice isn't worth it after some bad experience in their formative years, therefore choosing to play hard ball.The difference between the two is that Tywin's turn happened in the backstory & he is already ruthless when the story started. With Dany we follow her growth & journey & how she turns into the ruthless Mad Queen at the end.  GRRM through his writing is trying to show us why this thinking is wrong, therefore he chooses to give bad ending to characters who think that way.

This is probably hard to accept for some portion of ASOIAF & GoT fandom, as the books & the show seems to attract people who idolize Machiavellian thinking &  like to watch cutthroat power play & think being good or being honorable is being dumb. Just look at the people in this forum who will argue to their last breath to defend Tywin or defending Dany's action in the last episode as something that is out of necessity.  Unfortunately for them, ASOIAF is not the series that they think  it is. GRRM is a 1970s "make love not war" hippy. If he ever come to end the series, he will not end it with an ending that proves that this kind of thinking is right.