Jump to content
Areisius

The character assassination of Daenerys

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ummester said:

Yes, but he no longer wanted to fuck her. He was devoted to her out of duty, not love. The difference is subtle, almost immaterial, to a man (I'll stand by my wife and kids out of duty, because it is the honorable thing to do, regardless of whether I love them or not - but you just try and get my wife to accept that). To most women, in my experience, this is very different - duty and honor is not enough - they need love.

Everyone needs love, Dany too and  she made  clear that her priority was  getting her father's Throne.

 

 

3 hours ago, ummester said:

, perhaps I overstated - but Dany could see that the honor driven society of Westeros would never favor her dragon empowered pussy above Jon's sword empowered cock - I do not know how much more clear I have to make this. HE WHO PASSES THE SENTENCE MUST SWING THE SWORD. Westeros cherished the accountability of those who had the strength to carry out their convictions with their own hands - not via their dragons, or their lover's swords - sure, D&D told the tale badly but the subtext was there. 

The subtext was never there, that's literally false, not even in  the North that's true, do you know who never gets her hands  dirty and  was feared  in  all Westeros?? Tywin. 

Dragons are   the Targ weapon and  that's very much known.

 

 

3 hours ago, ummester said:

Brienne got respect because she could deliver justice (and kill) with her own hand. Arya got the same (though her show character was fucked up). Take Dany's dragons and lovers away and what the fuck could she do with her own hands? Stroke a cock? Seriously. Her mind may have been impressive but she was part of a barbaric world and strength matters, she was just a tad upset to discover this.

Lmao, yet Sansa and  the Broken King are elected as rulers, you're wrong btw.

 

Share this post


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

Everyone needs love

Seeing you mentioned him, did Tywin? Did Stannis? They needed respect - I would argue they were perfectly comfortable living without love, however, as many people are IRL. It is not like oxygen, food or water - it is not needed to survive.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

The subtext was never there, that's literally false, not even in  the North that's true, do you know who never gets her hands  dirty and  was feared  in  all Westeros?? Tywin. 

I'm sure Tywin could also fight if he had to. He rode into battle when he re-took Kings Landing from Stannis.

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Dragons are   the Targ weapon and  that's very much known.

That doesn't mean anyone respects Targs, only their dragons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ummester said:

Seeing you mentioned him, did Tywin? Did Stannis? They needed respect - I would argue they were perfectly comfortable living without love, however, as many people are IRL. It is not like oxygen, food or water - it is not needed to survive.

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Yes, especially those two, everyone needs love,  both in fiction and irl, but given the fact that you chose two of the characters with most issues as your champions...

 

Quote

Tywin: Casterly Rock. Never.
Tyrion: Why?
Tywin: You ask that? You, who killed your mother to come into the world? You are an ill-made, devious, disobedient, spiteful little creature full of envy, lust, and low cunning. Men's laws give you the right to bear my name and display my colors, since I cannot prove that you are not mine. To teach me humility, the gods have condemned me to watch you waddle about wearing that proud lion that was my father's sigil and his father's before him. But neither gods nor men shall ever compel me to let you turn Casterly Rock into your whorehouse.

 

Lord Tywin seldom spoke of his wife, but Tyrion had heard his uncles talk of the love between them. In those days, his father had been Aerys's Hand, and many people said that Lord Tywin Lannister ruled the Seven Kingdoms, but Lady Joanna ruled Lord Tywin.

 

He was not the same man after she died, Imp. The best part of him died with her.[

 

Only Lady Joanna truly knows the man beneath the armor, and all his smiles belong to her and her alone. I do avow that I have even observed her make him laugh, not once, but on three separate occasions!

 

“Why should I avenge Eddard Stark? The man was nothing to me. Oh, Robert loved him, to be sure. Loved him as a brother, how often did I hear that? I was his brother, not Ned Stark, but you would never have known it by the way he treated me. I held Storm’s End for him, watching good men starve while Mace Tyrell and Paxter Redwyne feasted within sight of my walls. Did Robert thank me? No. He thanked Stark , for lifting the siege when we were down to rats and radishes. I built a fleet at Robert’s command, took Dragonstone in his name. Did he take my hand and say, Well done, brother, whatever should I do without you? No, he blamed me for letting Willem Darry steal away Viserys and the babe, as if I could have stopped it. I sat on his council for fifteen years, helping Jon Arryn rule his realm while Robert drank and whored, but when Jon died, did my brother name me his Hand? No, he went galloping off to his dear friend Ned Stark, and offered him the honor. And small good it did either of them.”

To say that Stannis or Tywin don't need love, not in the case of Stannis he literally craves for it...

 

Quote

I'm sure Tywin could also fight if he had to. He rode into battle when he re-took Kings Landing from Stannis.

And I'm sure Dany could fight if she needed to, she killed wights when she and Jorah miracly survived that assault, Tyrion mae a point to Jaime about how long their father was without having lifting a sword.

 

 

Quote

That doesn't mean anyone respects Targs, only their dragons.

It's very hard to have a discussion if you are literally inventing facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding swinging the sword, you really wouldn't want a slight young women taking repeated swings at your neck, until your head came off.  Death by Drogon is far cleaner.

Share this post


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

Yes, especially those two, everyone needs love,  both in fiction and irl, but given the fact that you chose two of the characters with most issues as your champions...

If people need something, they will die without it - I don't see anyone dying because they are not loved.

The best part of Tywin may had died with Joanna - but he didn't, he went on. ergo he did not need love to survive - only to feel better about himself.

Is Stannis craving for love or to be treated fairly by Robert? I would argue he just wants what he thinks he deserves, love or no.

I think you definition of love is more broad than mine - I think you include things that I would just term friendship, respect, shared goals etc. But people can even live without all of these things, if they have to.

3 hours ago, frenin said:

And I'm sure Dany could fight if she needed to, she killed wights when she and Jorah miracly survived that assault, Tyrion mae a point to Jaime about how long their father was without having lifting a sword.

She pushed Jorah into the wights to survive :)

3 hours ago, frenin said:

It's very hard to have a discussion if you are literally inventing facts.

It's a fictional story, so calling things facts is kind of pointless. Would the Targs have conquered Westeros without dragons? Imagine Dany's story without dragons - it would have ended after Drogo died, because she would have joined the dead Khal's wife's club. What would Dany, or any Targ, have been to Westeros without dragons - the answer is simple - nothing.

The single other thing that gave Dany power in the show was her fireproofness, when she cooked the Khal's - again, a magical gift, like dragons and not something that was part of her character or that she earned or achieved via non magical means.

Edited by ummester
another point

Share this post


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

Regarding swinging the sword, you really wouldn't want a slight young women taking repeated swings at your neck, until your head came off.  Death by Drogon is far cleaner.

Like Theon with Roderick :)

It's not a matter of cleaner though, its a matter of what the person can achieve themselves - their unaided power. Sure, there are lots of things that power comes from in the show - money, personality, sexuality etc - but when all the chips are down and all social contracts are void, the application of force and the ability to get others onside are the only powers that matter.

My point re Jon and Dany is that her power (mainly) came from her dragons, just as the Lannister's came from their gold, LFs came from his sneakiness and so on. There were a couple of characters in the show (Jon and Brienne usually spring to my mind) whose power actually came from a combination of their moral code, conviction and physical strength.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


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

If people need something, they will die without it - I don't see anyone dying because they are not loved.

The best part of Tywin may had died with Joanna - but he didn't, he went on. ergo he did not need love to survive - only to feel better about himself.

Is Stannis craving for love or to be treated fairly by Robert? I would argue he just wants what he thinks he deserves, love or no.

I think you definition of love is more broad than mine - I think you include things that I would just term friendship, respect, shared goals etc. But people can even live without all of these things, if they have to.

Lmao, Maslow pyramid look about it, I've never said you would die without love, not you said it either eariler,  that's your own straw man to dodge the obvious, but lack of love can change and sometimes for something far worse but not even monsters like Tywin started burning down cities because they couldn't shove their dick into their love ones pussies, so trying to argue witha straight face that one of the reasons Dany commited Westeros greatest atrocity because women need love otherwise they're psychos reeks.

Tywin can live without love but not Dany...

Stannis is craving for Robert's love and approval, the man literally mentions Robert  in every chapter he's in, the man literally is hurt because Robert loved Ned more than him and you keepdenying the obvious.

 

 

Quote

She pushed Jorah into the wights to survive :)

She saved his life too...

 

5 hours ago, ummester said:

It's a fictional story, so calling things facts is kind of pointless.

Huge straw man, it's a fictional story true, but even in the fictional story, there are things that happenand there things that don't, using the latter as evidence for your argument is inventing facts.

 

 

Quote

Would the Targs have conquered Westeros without dragons? Imagine Dany's story without dragons - it would have ended after Drogo died, because she would have joined the dead Khal's wife's club. What would Dany, or any Targ, have been to Westeros without dragons - the answer is simple - nothing.

... So?? I think you should reread the books. Aegon I reigned in peace but his sons, who also had dragons never could, saying that Westeros only respect dragons is a blatant lie.

 

 

Quote

The single other thing that gave Dany power in the show was her fireproofness, when she cooked the Khal's - again, a magical gift, like dragons and not something that was part of her character or that she earned or achieved via non magical means.

Lmao, so?? is being born noble something you earn?? Did the peasants not earned being, Starks, Baratheon or Lannister. Did the Srarks kids earned being wargs?? 

Share this post


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

Lmao, Maslow pyramid look about it.

I said need - to me a need is something you cannot exist without, and I define living as existence. I always meant anyone can live without love - its not a strawman, you are just not interpreting my words as I intended them to be interpreted.

What do you think need means? Maslow's pyramid is a theory - but looking at it the only thing I would classify are needs are on the bottom tier and some of them such as reproduction are the needs of a species, not an individual and we also do not need clothes and shelter is entirely environment dependent. I agree life cannot sustain without sleep, so along with food, water and breathing, it is s genuine need,

Re the Targ stuff you are missing the point entirely (perhaps misinterpreting, I dunno?) The Targs could not possibly have had any influence on Westeros ever, without dragons. They could never even have gotten there. Perhaps Westeros respected more about the Targs than their dragons but its immaterial in the end, because dragons enabled their conquest.

No, the Stark kids did not earn being Wargs - but their accomplishment in the story (perhaps excluding Bran) were not based entirely on it. Sansa used smarts, Arya resilience and Jon strength and honor - very human and non fantastical attributes. Dany could not have accomplished what she did without her fantastical attributes - Sansa, Arya and Jon could still have done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ummester said:

I said need - to me a need is something you cannot exist without, and I define living as existence. I always meant anyone can live without love - its not a strawman, you are just not interpreting my words as I intended them to be interpreted.

What do you think need means? Maslow's pyramid is a theory - but looking at it the only thing I would classify are needs are on the bottom tier and some of them such as reproduction are the needs of a species, not an individual and we also do not need clothes and shelter is entirely environment dependent. I agree life cannot sustain without sleep, so along with food, water and breathing, it is s genuine need,

 

This is what you said the first time.

Quote

Yes, but he no longer wanted to fuck her. He was devoted to her out of duty, not love. The difference is subtle, almost immaterial, to a man (I'll stand by my wife and kids out of duty, because it is the honorable thing to do, regardless of whether I love them or not - but you just try and get my wife to accept that). To most women, in my experience, this is very different - duty and honor is not enough - they need love.

I won't ever say what  i feel about the assetsment, then you went and say that Tywin and Stannis don't need love... Because they didn't die because of lack of it, when that wasn't the the initial point, neither Dany died because lack of love,  Dany made clear to Jon that she wanted the 7K, yet that's irrelevant for you. Dany doesn't need love more than Tywin Lannister or than any other person.

 

 

Quote

Re the Targ stuff you are missing the point entirely (perhaps misinterpreting, I dunno?) The Targs could not possibly have had any influence on Westeros ever, without dragons. They could never even have gotten there. Perhaps Westeros respected more about the Targs than their dragons but its immaterial in the end, because dragons enabled their conquest.

Yey the Targs reigned 160 more years after the dragons died... 

 

1 hour ago, ummester said:

 No, the Stark kids did not earn being Wargs - but their accomplishment in the story (perhaps excluding Bran) were not based entirely on it. Sansa used smarts, Arya resilience and Jon strength and honor - very human and non fantastical attributes. Dany could not have accomplished what she did without her fantastical attributes - Sansa, Arya and Jon could still have done so.

Arya literally became a magical ninja, Jon was saved several times by his magic wolf and the man literally resurrected, the only one whose path isn't related to magic is Sansa but by your own words, anything that doesn't entail using a sword, it's worthless.

Dany also used her smarts and charisma to get what she wanted but, you won't see it anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was about punishment, just like she delivered to the masters in Essos. It makes sense that Dany would raze KL if she realizes they were never going to follow her willingly. For the first time people were surrendering not out of how Awesome and Amazing she was, but out of fear, and she wanted to punish them for not bowing to greatness. When people follow someone out of fear, the leader knows they're on shaky ground and probably sees everyone as eventual traitors. It's her own idiocy that she can't figure out why she's not loved (hello, it's because people are afraid of monsters). Cersei knew that she wasn't, and didn't care. Dany finally came around to her way of thinking. Character development. Nuking KL on purpose is what a dragon in the story would do, they're just chaotic destroyers. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

It was about punishment, just like she delivered to the masters in Essos. It makes sense that Dany would raze KL if she realizes they were never going to follow her willingly. For the first time people were surrendering not out of how Awesome and Amazing she was, but out of fear, and she wanted to punish them for not bowing to greatness. When people follow someone out of fear, the leader knows they're on shaky ground and probably sees everyone as eventual traitors. It's her own idiocy that she can't figure out why she's not loved (hello, it's because people are afraid of monsters). Cersei knew that she wasn't, and didn't care. Dany finally came around to her way of thinking. Character development. Nuking KL on purpose is what a dragon in the story would do, they're just chaotic destroyers. 

Daenerys never carried out genocide in Essos.  Nor did she ever exterminate people, because they didn't love her.  Nor did she slaughter civilians.

D & D's sympathies lie with slave traders.  There's no reason why we should do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Daenerys never carried out genocide in Essos.  Nor did she ever exterminate people, because they didn't love her.  Nor did she slaughter civilians.

D & D's sympathies lie with slave traders.  There's no reason why we should do so.

I think the idea is that the more people she killed, the more she becomes desensitized to the value of life in general and stopped distinguishing between civilians vs. combatants. Genocide doesn't depend on the social status of the people being exterminated. They were trying to show that Dany doesn't really care about human life anymore after her captivity; this was in the 6x10 script in her Tyrion conversation. "They should know whom to blame when the sky falls down upon them" is earlier Dany dialogue, just without a clearly identifiable cause. 

Because she says "I have no love here" ... "Let it be fear" ... and because she sees civilians as collateral because she's angry about Missandei, she was in punishment mode, for Cersei, and for people following Cersei and not her. You know how Tyrion decided he would become the monster everyone thought he was? Same thing just on a bigger scale. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


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

I think the idea is that the more people she killed, the more she becomes desensitized to the value of life in general and stopped distinguishing between civilians vs. combatants. Genocide doesn't depend on the social status of the people being exterminated. They were trying to show that Dany doesn't really care about human life anymore after her captivity; this was in the 6x10 script in her Tyrion conversation. "They should know whom to blame when the sky falls down upon them" is earlier Dany dialogue, just without a clearly identifiable cause. 

Because she says "I have no love here" ... "Let it be fear" ... and because she sees civilians as collateral because she's angry about Missandei, she was in punishment mode, for Cersei, and for people following Cersei and not her. You know how Tyrion decided he would become the monster everyone thought he was? Same thing just on a bigger scale. 

The distinction between combatants and non-combatants is crucial, in terms of military ethics.

Prior to Episode 5, she never went after non-combatants.  She acted as a decent soldier would, until she went batshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The distinction between combatants and non-combatants is crucial, in terms of military ethics.

Prior to Episode 5, she never went after non-combatants.  She acted as a decent soldier would, until she went batshit.

You didn't see that as an eventuality? If she's burning masses of soldiers alive, what difference does killing civilians make now? They're just smallfolk in armor. She wanted to attack the Red Keep in S7 but had to be talked out of it - you think civilians wouldn't be harmed then? It's a pipe dream that these lines would ever be kept nice and clear. This screams "watered down" version of Dark Dany so I'm expecting even more loopy irrational thoughts in the books. Because she already has a lot of those. 

Share this post


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

You didn't see that as an eventuality? If she's burning masses of soldiers alive, what difference does killing civilians make now? They're just smallfolk in armor. She wanted to attack the Red Keep in S7 but had to be talked out of it - you think civilians wouldn't be harmed then? It's a pipe dream that these lines would ever be kept nice and clear. This screams "watered down" version of Dark Dany so I'm expecting even more loopy irrational thoughts in the books. Because she already has a lot of those. 

If you're making the argument that killing is wrong, regardless of circumstance, then I suppose that there is no distinction to be drawn between between soldier and civilian.

I reject pacifism as a philosophy, but respect your right to think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeanF said:

If you're making the argument that killing is wrong, regardless of circumstance, then I suppose that there is no distinction to be drawn between between soldier and civilian.

I reject pacifism as a philosophy, but respect your right to think otherwise.

I'm saying she was loudly threatening to burn cities since S2, so she was perfectly fine with killing whoever she feels "wronged" her. That's not rejecting pacifism, that's rejecting Dany's warped views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm saying she was loudly threatening to burn cities since S2, so she was perfectly fine with killing whoever she feels "wronged" her. That's not rejecting pacifism, that's rejecting Dany's warped views. 

She has made threats, either when her people are starving or dying of thirst, or when her enemies are lobbing incendiaries into Meereen - actually burning down her own city - which her detractors seem to feel is okay.

If I were hiding in a bomb shelter, i'd probably have some hard words to say about the people who were doing the bombing.  Maybe you would, too.

Share this post


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

She has made threats, either when her people are starving or dying of thirst, or when her enemies are lobbing incendiaries into Meereen - actually burning down her own city - which her detractors seem to feel is okay.

If I were hiding in a bomb shelter, i'd probably have some hard words to say about the people who were doing the bombing.  Maybe you would, too.

If I were in a bomb shelter I would thank Tyrion from holding her back from burning the shit out of Meereen. She wanted to just burn everyone in the city to "fix it." That's when Tyrion said she would be acting like her father. Everyone has to talk her out of the most violent choice. I don't know how people are shocked that a woman with dragons who makes threats about burning cities to the ground actually follows through. 

Share this post


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

If I were in a bomb shelter I would thank Tyrion from holding her back from burning the shit out of Meereen. She wanted to just burn everyone in the city to "fix it." That's when Tyrion said she would be acting like her father. Everyone has to talk her out of the most violent choice. I don't know how people are shocked that a woman with dragons who makes threats about burning cities to the ground actually follows through. 

She was threatening to burn Yunkai, the aggressor, that was burning down her city.  She did not have to be talked out of burning Meereen, because she never wanted to burn the city.

And bear in mind, violence in war is sometimes the correct choice.  Burning down the Red Keep at the start of Season 7 would have ended the war against Cersei in 30 minutes.  Tyrion's and Varys' military advice was terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had some definite strategical screw-ups from the get-go.

I had an idea for another way Daenerys could have done things from the Season 7 premiere: meet up with Ellaria and Sand Snakes at Sunspear, then go to Oldtown and get crowned there; they could pick up Jorah after Sam flays the greyscale off him and Olenna can raise her banners from there and she’d have access to two families that have some loyalty to her, particularly the Redwynes. Spread out from Oldtown, promote law and order in the Stormlands and Riverlands (particularly the former since there are no more Baratheons for all of Season 7) and cut the Lannisters in two with the Westerlands on one side and the Crownlands on the other.

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

×