Jump to content
Daemos

This is all Jon’s fault

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

I fail to see the direct causality here.

 

Comparing BotB to the Somme, or to Ypres?  Yikes.

The Starks won the BotB, which is what counts.  Haig didn't win his big battles.  Proportion or not, 400,000 casualties is quite bad.

Had it not been for the Knights of the Vale and Sansa the entire Northern army would have been destroyed. All because Jon ran out to try and save Rickon when he knew he couldn’t save him. That’s him being selfish. How many more men died because of that decision? But the plot intervened to save him as it always does. 

These are the actions of an incompetent rather than a wise and thoughtful King. The boy never died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

His choice in siding with the Watch killed Ygritte.

Thats a Blackadder reference to Field Marshall Haig. “His resignation and suicide ought to cheer up the men”. I mean looking at the Battle of the Bastards I don’t think Haig lost that great a proportion of his men due to incompetent generalship. Jon gets a pass on this just like he always does with his plot armour.

Jon is a much worse commander than  Haig was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Had it not been for the Knights of the Vale and Sansa the entire Northern army would have been destroyed. All because Jon ran out to try and save Rickon when he knew he couldn’t save him. That’s him being selfish. How many more men died because of that decision? But the plot intervened to save him as it always does. 

These are the actions of an incompetent rather than a wise and thoughtful King. The boy never died.

Thats the quick-hearted, slow-witted Stark mentality.  ;)  That does not make him an incompetent commander.  He and Davos had a plan that sounded like a pretty decent plan considering the situation.  And he and Davos and Sansa, et al had gotten the army there in a condition ready to fight.  That's a good sign of a decent commander/general.  But a good general does not equate to a good King.  Nor does an incompetent field general relate to a bad King.  As a counterpoint, Randyl Tarley was purportedly an excellent commander.  Would he have made an excellent King?

 

I think that 'the Boy' finally died (or began to die) when Jon became King in the North.  I'd say that 'the Boy' was finally gone after Jon found out (and processed through) that he was or could be King Aegon VI.  He kept to The Plan during the Long Night, being willing to sacrifice even Sam for a shot a the NK.  He also brought the Dothraki, Unsullied, and northern troops from Winterfell to KL in short but good order (from what we see).  He even countermands Dany's wish (relayed by Tyrion) for an immediate attack so that the rear guard can be brought up.

 

Jon has made military mistakes for sure.  But he seems to be learning from them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2019 at 12:26 PM, Daemos said:

Disregarding the bad writing and execution, but what unfolded in this episode and last is all Jon’s fault. If he was there for Dany emotionally in her darkest hour, she would’ve never gone over the edge. She needed ice to keep her cool, but he betrayed her on so many levels. 

She even gave love one last chance when she tried to kiss him and he failed her then again. It was fear from then on, for good most likely.

 

This massacre is on that dumbass as much as it is on Dany. 

 

 

The absurdity of this argument is astounding. It's Jon fault that Dany massacred hundreds of thousands for no reason because he wouldn't spread her legs ?

Do you even understand what you're saying ? Jon doesn't have some obligation to love her and fuck her in order to keep her sane.

Jon has not betrayed Dany. His parentage is his secret. His life, his birthright. He's the true heir, and as the true heir, he's at perfect liberty to share the information with whomever he wants. It's his prerogative.

He does not owe his aunt loyalty.

Despite this, he has in fact given her absolute loyalty. He only told Sansa and Arya because he foolishly believed they'd keep quiet. He wasn't trying to betray Dany.

No, on the contrary, he has stood by Dany and been a loyal pet, repeating that she will always be his queen approximately 36 times per episode. He doesn't seem to question anything she does until she begins slaughtering innocents for no reason.

He's been more loyal than anyone deserves, and he bears no responsibility for her decision to become a monster.

Your argument can't even be taken seriously, it's laughable.

Edited by NickStark2494

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, NickStark2494 said:

Jon has not betrayed Dany. His parentage is his secret. His life, his birthright. He's the true heir, and as the true heir, he's at perfect liberty to share the information with whomever he wants. It's his prerogative.

He does not owe his aunt loyalty.

He owes his Queen and savior loyalty forever.

She asked him something simple and explained her LOGICAL reasoning for it, and he betrays her 2 minutes later, and everything she said comes true. It doesn't matter if Jon wants to fuck her, but he shouldn't fuck her over like that.

Edited by Daemos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 6:54 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

Apparently, it is commonly accepted that people who lose their temper and go tf off after months of humiliation, painful setbacks, shocking disappointments and devastating losses that were all completely avoidable are mentally unstable and "mad."

Are kids who blow up at bullies and attack the bullies after no one does anything to stop the bully mentally unstable? Have people who finally lash out at and break up with their abusive, manipulative significant others gone mad? Are people who have their backs up against the wall expected to ask nicely to get some breathing room?

This is why we can't really get anywhere as a society any more.

We continually and purposefully confuse people getting carried away by strong emotions in the face of stressful situations with mental illness and immorality...and vice versa. And then we wonder why the mentally ill don't get the help that the physically ill get.

It doesn't make sense.

Is Daenerys wrong for overreacting and forgetting herself? Yes. But it doesn't make her evil or insane.

No one calls the person who flew into a rage evil because he/she broke furniture and put a hole in the wall.

The fact that you just compared breaking furniture to slaughtering thousands of innocents is disgusting, pathetic, and laughable.

Killing thousands of innocents is "forgetting oneself" ? Jesus fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 6:07 AM, Tywin Tytosson said:

This is not true.

In S7, Dany brings up Viserys, and asks if he would have already attacked KL.  Which indicates that she has already thought of this.  And has been talked out of doing by Tyrion.

Later, after suffering several reversals, she declares that she will fly to the Red Keep and burn it down.  Jon talks her out of doing so this time.

After the Long Night, Dany wants to root Cersei out "root and stem".  Doing so means going directly after Cersei, who is in the Red Keep in KL.  Jon and Tyrion convince her otherwise.

After Rheagal and Missandei are killed, she absolutely does want to attack KL.  Tyrion uses the time needed for her army to reach KL to try one last time for a peaceful solution.

It is all there to be seen.  Nothing made up.

Why are you conflating attacking KL and burning the Red Keep with destroying the entire city ?

Yes, in S7 Dany spoke of attacking the city. Attacking and capturing a city is not the same as destroying it and murdering thousands of innocents.

Burning a castle isn't the same thing as destroying a city and murdering thousands of innocents.

As we saw, she was perfectly capable of attacking the city and taking it without destroying it or killing civilians. She destroyed the fleet, the GC, the scorpions, the gates, and had won. They surrendered. With almost no loss of civilian life.

So it's clearly possible. She just decided to kill people when it was totally unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 9:54 PM, Sheiraseastar23 said:

I can't believe there are 15 whole pages of discussion on a topic that suggests it's the  fault of someone else that a character intentionally burned half a million people alive. Smh.

People are disgusting.

"Dany is sane and would have totally been a great ruler, she only burned KL and killed thousands of innocents because Jon didn't give her that dick. But she's totally sane. Not mad at all. Just cock hungry".

Jesus Christ, are these people even capable of understanding the drivel they write ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Daemos said:

He owes his Queen and savior loyalty forever.

She asked him something simple and explained her LOGICAL reasoning for it, and he betrays her 2 minutes later, and everything she said comes true. It doesn't matter if Jon wants to fuck her, but he shouldn't fuck her over like that.

He didn't betray her. He told her he was going to tell his sisters. She told him not to but he said he was going to. It's hardly a betrayal when he told her he was going to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NickStark2494 said:

People are disgusting.

 

The only people here who are truly disgusting are those who can't have a debate about a work a fiction without calling people they disagree with disgusting. Self excluded because it's Jon's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame Jon, blame Sansa, blame Tyrion, blame anyone else except the person who actually did it. Can't recall the last time I saw so much buck passing. 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pass+the+buck

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm

Quote

On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Jon should be willing to take one for the team.  It's not as if they were raised together.

You could say the same thing about Jon "taking one for team" by becoming the Lady of Storm's End: after all, even though he and Gendry are cousins, they weren't raised together. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Jon should be willing to take one for the team.  It's not as if they were raised together.

Or give one for the team, as the case may be :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 7:00 AM, Daemos said:

Both Jon and Dany come from families with an incestuous history. The idea that he could not reciprocate because they are related by blood is illogical and weak. 

True.  And the people involved knew of the uncle/niece relation from the beginning. 

Yet, some would have Jon marry Sansa or Arya.  To me that's disgusting.  I know they're cousins, but the brother/sister feelings are still there.   At least with Dany he fell in love with her before he knew the truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NickStark2494 said:

Why are you conflating attacking KL and burning the Red Keep with destroying the entire city ?

Yes, in S7 Dany spoke of attacking the city. Attacking and capturing a city is not the same as destroying it and murdering thousands of innocents.

Burning a castle isn't the same thing as destroying a city and murdering thousands of innocents.

As we saw, she was perfectly capable of attacking the city and taking it without destroying it or killing civilians. She destroyed the fleet, the GC, the scorpions, the gates, and had won. They surrendered. With almost no loss of civilian life.

So it's clearly possible. She just decided to kill people when it was totally unnecessary.

She was a bit OTT, but Jon could have put her in a better frame of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Sorry, but no, she was not.

I take Varys observation at his word - Dany was not willing to share power with anyone.  At best, Jon would be Prince Consort, like Phillip today. 

Dany became to used to being the last Targaryen and also ruling (eg: Merreen, the Dothraki) as a single all-powerful autocrat.

 

On the first point the husband of a reigning queen would usually have more power in medieval times than the reverse, because he was expected to lead the royal army, so even without a formal dual monarchy he would still have had far more power than the prince consorts of modern times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet next episode Dany blames Jon for the lives she took, just like she said she would blame Cersei and already blamed Sansa for Varys' death. A pretty gross move, if she does. Maybe we shouldn't agree with her? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NickStark2494 said:

People are disgusting.

"Dany is sane and would have totally been a great ruler, she only burned KL and killed thousands of innocents because Jon didn't give her that dick. But she's totally sane. Not mad at all. Just cock hungry".

Jesus Christ, are these people even capable of understanding the drivel they write ?

What the hell is wrong with people?

They actually think Jon being nothing but Mr. Dick of Redemption is good writing? And that it actually working is good writing too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I bet next episode Dany blames Jon for the lives she took, just like she said she would blame Cersei and already blamed Sansa for Varys' death. A pretty gross move, if she does. Maybe we shouldn't agree with her? 

I'm hoping to see a calm rational Dany next episode and yes if she did say that she would be mostly right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The reason I liked Dany was because she was treated as her own character rather than in say, the Wheel of Time where they’re pottering on with finding the weather flute

I think this is rather unfair. I imagine one reason that the WOT is being picked up for as a TV show is half the characters are female, most with very distinctive personalities, set in a world where the original sin was that of man not of woman.

Most of the female characters are not concerned with political power because they have none. Where a female character (Elayne) does have such a claim she fights for her throne. 

The only criticism I would have from that perspective is that the bitching dial often gets turned up to 11. 

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

×