Down with the Free Folk

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The whole series is during wartime but we do have a few examples off the top of my head Roose raping Ramsay's mom & the rape of Tysha - both go unpunished. 

We know Tywin has either been convering or straight up ignoring Gregor' shit for almost 2 decades now. While i agree that Westeros is better than freefolk, this is a weird take. In Westeros your justice entirely depends of an asshole whims. Even in a place as firmly under the grip of a noble, in the moral sense, and  just man like Ned, Roose and  Ramsay get to get loose as long as they do it quietly and  Ned never hears  of it.

[Lollygag]

3 hours ago, The Jingo said:

I feel it should be pointed out that in Arya's case she wasn't wandering around randomly. She was traveling in the company of criminals, some of which we know have already been convicted of rape and sentenced to the Wall.

Even in modern society, if I had the misfortune of traveling on a bus with a violent murderer on his way to prison I'd be wary. That doesn't mean that the general condition of today's society is one that tolerates rape. Caution is not necessarily social commentary.

I don't disagree with the bold. She was travelling with criminals, but it wasn't the only reason for Yoren's warning. 

ASOIAF's world is harsh and violent even on a good day. That includes rape. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=rape. Social tolerance of rape (which varies drastically from character to character in Westeros) isn't to be confused with its rate of occurrence, its rate of reporting or rates of persecution and conviction. In the US, 1 in 6 women is subject to rape, attempted or completed. As a modern woman, I know first hand how unsafe we are even in this society, even when we think we're safe. The implication that Westeros, north of the Wall or south of the Wall, is somehow safe travelling for the lone girl or woman is absurdist, and either willful ignorance on the part of the reader or phenomenally stupid writing on the part of the author. 

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

 

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those involve both abuse of power - I'm talking about average people

Alright, sure. If we exclude arranged marriages, don't count crimes done during war times, don't count crimes done by nobility, don't count rapes when done by someone the victim knows & only count crimes done by the common people then presume every case of marriage within the wildlings is rape, presume there is no method to report it in anyway, & presume the crimes are committed often - because we don't hear of many (things we just don't know for sure) then yes, the Wildlings are much worse than the 7k. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

5 hours ago, frenin said:

We know Tywin has either been convering or straight up ignoring Gregor' shit for almost 2 decades now. While i agree that Westeros is better than freefolk, this is a weird take. In Westeros your justice entirely depends of an asshole whims. Even in a place as firmly under the grip of a noble, in the moral sense, and  just man like Ned, Roose and  Ramsay get to get loose as long as they do it quietly and  Ned never hears  of it.

Right, yeah that's my ultimate point is that getting justice for an illegal act done against you is very dependent on the circumstances & by no means guaranteed. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because I doubt that family-internal sexual abuse is considered a crime in Westeros. Rape is something strangers do to 'your women'

But there in lies an issue doesn't it? Stealing a wildling woman isn't considered a crime among the wildlings either. I'm judging both societies by our standards, not by their own. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Roose claims that this is so. Do you take Roose at his word? He had to murder people and cut out tongues to ensure he did not get punished. Beyond the Wall there are no Rickard Starks who might come to your rescue if you get word to them.

No I don't think his word makes it true but it is stated & worth noting. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And who the hell said that the Seven Kingdoms were a perfect society. Yet they still much better than the shit show the wildlings call culture.

No one said they were perfect, I'm saying they are no better. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You will get some form of justice ... never said you would like what you get.

You might not get any justice. In a case where it's the small folk persons word against someone of nobility I would imagine you would almost never get justice of any kind. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, Mance isn't a king. He is just some sort of warlord. He cannot interfere with the internal matters of the clan chiefs. They are free folk, and do as they please. This isn't a hierarchal society.

No, it isn't a hierarchal society but Mance holds some power else why would they call him King beyond the wall? He has been the only one to unite the wildling clans hasn't he? His word & law must hold some power. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

People with connections might be able to avenge themselves with the help of others. But that then blood feud and mafia kind of justice ... i.e. the shit show primitive savages call justice.

I just don't see it that much different than what happens in westeros. If small folk are going up against nobility they likely have very little chance at getting justice. If nobility is going up against other nobility it is typically going to be the house with the biggest army, most allies, most money etc that comes out on top. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And LOL again. You do know that the wildlings both wage wars of conquest against their neighbors as well as civil wars amongst themselves ... which again makes the people of the Seven Kingdoms better and the wildlings worse because the Seven Kingdoms do not do the former. They, very rarely, do have civil wars.

& so do the 7k. Aegon's Conquest, A couple of conquest wars for Dorne, Blackfyre Rebellions, Robert's Rebellion, The Dance, War of the 9 penny Kings, Greyjoys Rebellion, Wot5K - these are all civil wars of succession or conquest wars. I'm sure there are more. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

'm not sure where you are getting this kind of fantasies, but the case of Nettles actually does indicate that a dragon does not make you a wildling queen. The girl may have been revered by the Burned Men, but she did not lead them nor any other clan in the Mountains of the Moon.

Just because Nettles didn't lead the burned men does not mean a dragon rider couldn't lead the FF. If they cannot oppose him, he will lead. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is more to being a leader of people than just riding a dragon.

Yeah, I agree but ultimately might is right. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

f you aren't strong yourself you don't get any allies in the wildling world. That's the issue. Mance is what he is because he is a fucking superman. He has great skills at arms, he had great charisma, he is attractive, he can sing, he is everything a man in the culture in which he lives wants in a leader. That's why they follow him. Men not fitting that bill don't become wildling kings.

Fair enough. I'm aware there is more to a true leader than just strength. It was you that first said the wildlings follow strength above all else. I agree that's it, in a nut shell but I'm not trying to argue that there is nothing more to it. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In a feudal society people do what the big guy says regardless of his personal qualities because his father was the big guy before him, and they have been trained and brought up to accept that this is the order of things. But the order of things beyond the Wall is fundamentally different. The people there are brought up to not give a shit about the fathers and grandfathers of the people they meet.

They do what the big guy says because he is the big guy, with big allies. They have been trained & brought up to accept this is the order of things but when it comes do to the bare bones of it the King could not be King without anyway to enforce his rule. He enforces it by being the big guy with the big allies. 

Yes the order of things between the two are different, there are plenty of differences in the way they think, the customs they hold etc. There are also similarities & the similarities are such that I don't see much difference in the savageness or goodness in either one. 

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Beyond the Wall a dragonrider would get stabbed to death in his sleep and his dragon would be slain if he wasn't the kind of leadership material the wildlings respect and admire.

Yeah, maybe. If they could slay the dragon & get past any guards or whatever. It doesn't really make a difference to what I'm saying though because my point is & has been that if they cannot oppose the ruler, he rules. If they can oppose the ruler then that isn't what I'm talking about. 

[Corvo the Crow]

wow, srsly! Wildlings are just people north of the North. Raiders are really a very small minority. They hunt and fish and farm and go whaling... and they trade, with the watch and with ships. Thenns even mine and smith. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Alright, sure. If we exclude arranged marriages, don't count crimes done during war times, don't count crimes done by nobility, don't count rapes when done by someone the victim knows & only count crimes done by the common people then presume every case of marriage within the wildlings is rape, presume there is no method to report it in anyway, & presume the crimes are committed often - because we don't hear of many (things we just don't know for sure) then yes, the Wildlings are much worse than the 7k. 

You basically repeat the same thing over and over again and close your eyes to the structural differences. I'll try one time again - Ygritte is, compared to the Weeper and Gregor Clegane a good person, she is not a known brutal sadist with a long history of brutally killing people. Yet she is still a cold-blooded murderer, deserving to be put death for killing that poor, innocent man (and, of course, for her participation in an insidious and unprovoked attack on Castle Black).

Now point out to me where Davos, Brienne, or Ned (who we all call among the best POV characters) ever did something as shitty as that? Even the best wildlings are shitheads on a certain level. Just as 'good Ironborn' like Asha and the Reader definitely would have been part of some ugly raiding/pirating at one point in their lives (Asha definitely when she attacked and took Deepwood).

And this is because their culture as such sucks. Period. There is no way around that. Of course the feudalism also sucks. But compared to wildling culture they are immensely better.

All you do is point out individual cases which don't really matter if you think about the culture as a whole.

We do know that raiding and wife-stealing is a common occurrence among the wildlings. First, we do know that the constant wildling raids drove most of the smallfolk out of the Gifts. That's a serious issue, affecting thousands or tens of thousands of people. Also, we do know there are many raiders among Mance's wildlings - men who would not only raid south of the Wall but also north of the Wall. Since Mance took over and got his people to unite there may have been less raiding among the wildlings and more south of the Wall, but a wildling king isn't the normal state of affairs.

There is just no basis to doubt that wildlings don't raid each other - normally they behave like the clans of the Mountains of the Moon - who are fighting each other as much as the Vale.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But there in lies an issue doesn't it? Stealing a wildling woman isn't considered a crime among the wildlings either. I'm judging both societies by our standards, not by their own. 

Sure, I do that, too. I just wanted to point out that marital rape doesn't exist as a crime in Westeros or the Seven Kingdoms.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No one said they were perfect, I'm saying they are no better. 

And that's where you are wrong. You haven't given a single argument why the wildlings are on the same level as the Seven Kingdom aside from trying to make the discussion about individual cases rather than the structural difference between the societies.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You might not get any justice. In a case where it's the small folk persons word against someone of nobility I would imagine you would almost never get justice of any kind.

Just look at the books. That's not the case. Sure, if it is some peasant against a prince or the son of the lord who judges the issue this happens, but not every lord is allowing some lordling off the hook, especially not when he is clearly guilty and there are a lot of witnesses, etc. I mean, you do know that there are trials in those books, right?

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, it isn't a hierarchal society but Mance holds some power else why would they call him King beyond the wall? He has been the only one to unite the wildling clans hasn't he? His word & law must hold some power.

Mance had a big tent and two goons that guard his tent. That's it. He is a warlord, meaning he leads the combined forces of the wildlings, but he isn't a king. Mance also didn't make any laws - the very thought he would do that is preposterous. He is not trying to institutionalize power.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I just don't see it that much different than what happens in westeros. If small folk are going up against nobility they likely have very little chance at getting justice. If nobility is going up against other nobility it is typically going to be the house with the biggest army, most allies, most money etc that comes out on top.

Most legal issues or criminal cases in the Seven Kingdoms would not involve peasants going against nobles. And nobles who have issues with other nobles go to their liege lord or the king, they do not start private wars. That kind of thing ended with the Conquest. People who start private wars are seen as rebels and are treated as such.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

& so do the 7k. Aegon's Conquest, A couple of conquest wars for Dorne, Blackfyre Rebellions, Robert's Rebellion, The Dance, War of the 9 penny Kings, Greyjoys Rebellion, Wot5K - these are all civil wars of succession or conquest wars. I'm sure there are more. 

There were some, but they were all short and didn't involve much fighting. Beyond the Wall there is constant warfare while there are no kings up there.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Fair enough. I'm aware there is more to a true leader than just strength. It was you that first said the wildlings follow strength above all else. I agree that's it, in a nut shell but I'm not trying to argue that there is nothing more to it. 

Strength in a political leader like Mance doesn't only mean physical strength/strength at arms. It also means strengths of will, strength of character, strength of mind, charisma, etc. Mance isn't the wildling king merely because he was so strong phyiscally (although he is a hell of fighter).

In the Seven Kingdoms the personal traits of a lord who took over as the heir of a millennia-old noble house don't matter much unless they are completely unsuited to rule - and in the North the Starks do have to project strength constantly, else they are eaten alive or ignored by their bannermen. Elsewhere you can suck as much as a lord as Tytos Lannister and still inherit a great lordship and become a lord.

Beyond the Wall the wildlings would not take shit like that. They would kill or push aside unsuited rulers. That is why only really great people larger than life can unite them - most wildlings don't have Mance's abilities, explaining why they had as few kings as they had.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

They do what the big guy says because he is the big guy, with big allies. They have been trained & brought up to accept this is the order of things but when it comes do to the bare bones of it the King could not be King without anyway to enforce his rule. He enforces it by being the big guy with the big allies.

But he only has allies because the people around him believe he is the heir of his father. Such things don't happen beyond the Wall.

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

wow, srsly! Wildlings are just people north of the North. Raiders are really a very small minority. They hunt and fish and farm and go whaling... and they trade, with the watch and with ships. Thenns even mine and smith. 

There are structural differences. Being a raider isn't a job for most people. Of course most raiders also know how you tend your flocks, fish the rivers and bays, grow some grain if you do that, etc. It is very much like Ironborn culture (and viking culture). You do your normal peasant/fisher stuff ... and then you also go and do some raiding. And it is this raider lifestyle that the wildlings idealize and that's seen as a role model lifestyle by their people.

The Thenns (and possibly some other, less 'free' folk) do things differently. They seem to have been content in their land, protecting what they have, not going out and raid other villages and steal property and women from other folk, until they decided to join Mance and leave their homes.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You basically repeat the same thing over and over again and close your eyes to the structural differences. I'll try one time again - Ygritte is, compared to the Weeper and Gregor Clegane a good person, she is not a known brutal sadist with a long history of brutally killing people. Yet she is still a cold-blooded murderer, deserving to be put death for killing that poor, innocent man (and, of course, for her participation in an insidious and unprovoked attack on Castle Black).

Those are individual differences not structural differences. 

If I'm repeating my counter-arguments it's because you are repeating your arguments. You have literally tried to exclude all of the people I stated, plus the Ironborn. They were excluded from the beginning of the convo so I stand by what I said. 

The post you quoted hasn't been stated once, in any fashion so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Now point out to me where Davos, Brienne, or Ned (who we all call among the best POV characters) ever did something as shitty as that? Even the best wildlings are shitheads on a certain level. Just as 'good Ironborn' like Asha and the Reader definitely would have been part of some ugly raiding/pirating at one point in their lives (Asha definitely when she attacked and took Deepwood

Again individual differences. Something you argued vehemently against when I wasn't even talking about individuals. Why would we compare Ygritte to Ned, Davos, & Brienne? Why not to Ramsay, Joffrey, The Hound, or any other horrendous person among the 7k? Or better yet why don't we compare Val or Dalla to them. Or any of the unnamed Wildlings that we have no cause to believe they have hurt or killed anyone? 

We hear on Ygritte killing one person but you say she is comparable to Gregor Clegane? Not even close. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And this is because their culture as such sucks. Period. There is no way around that. Of course the feudalism also sucks. But compared to wildling culture they are immensely better

I've given plenty of examples of why I think one is no worse than the other. We will just have to agree to disagree about one sucking more than the other. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All you do is point out individual cases which don't really matter if you think about the culture as a whole

This is literally what you just did. I haven't pointed out individual cases except to give examples of something that happens among the 7k.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We do know that raiding and wife-stealing is a common occurrence among the wildlings. First, we do know that the constant wildling raids drove most of the smallfolk out of the Gifts. That's a serious issue, affecting thousands or tens of thousands of people. Also, we do know there are many raiders among Mance's wildlings - men who would not only raid south of the Wall but also north of the Wall. Since Mance took over and got his people to unite there may have been less raiding among the wildlings and more south of the Wall, but a wildling king isn't the normal state of affairs

I don't recall too much being said about wife stealing other than from Ygritte & Tormund but I'm not denying it's likely a common occurrence, I'm saying first & foremost we don't know a whole lot about it & Tormund's non-chalance about the whole situation indicates, at least some of the time, this is more of a game than an actual stealing. Secondly, it is no worse than the arranged marriages & rapes that occur in the rest of the kingdom.

Sure, the raids we know happen & they are bad. I'm not arguing they aren't. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is just no basis to doubt that wildlings don't raid each other - normally they behave like the clans of the Mountains of the Moon - who are fighting each other as much as the Vale

Unless there is some proof that they do then that's irrelevant. But either way that doesn't make them worse than the rest of the realm.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, I do that, too. I just wanted to point out that marital rape doesn't exist as a crime in Westeros or the Seven Kingdoms

Ok but I'm not sure what the point of that is. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And that's where you are wrong. You haven't given a single argument why the wildlings are on the same level as the Seven Kingdom aside from trying to make the discussion about individual cases rather than the structural difference between the societies

Sure I have, you just ignore them. Wildling women get raped, women in the 7k get raped. Wildlings raid, the armies in the 7k raid. There are murderers that go unpunished within the Wildlings, there are murderers who go unpunished in the 7k. The entire structure of the wildlings is set up so that the Strong rule & take from the weak, the entire structure of the 7k is set up so that the Strong rule & take from the weak. The weak cannot or have a hard time seeking justice within the Wildlings, the weak cannot or have a hard time seeking justice among the 7k. 

There are differences also, of course. Rape, in some situations, is illegal in the 7k - we don't really know about the Wildlings. Murder, in some instances, is illegal in the 7k - again we don't really know about the Wildlings. Sometimes, particularly if the crime is committed by small folk, the crime is punished, we don't know for certain that any crime is punished among the Wildlings & certainly it is not in a judicial sense but there are likely people who are punished for certain things done to certain people. The women among the Wildlings are taught to fight & defend themselves & are encouraged to do so, the women in the 7k are not permitted to defend themselves except when their perpetrator is not their husband, father, male guardian of some sort. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just look at the books. That's not the case. Sure, if it is some peasant against a prince or the son of the lord who judges the issue this happens, but not every lord is allowing some lordling off the hook, especially not when he is clearly guilty and there are a lot of witnesses, etc. I mean, you do know that there are trials in those books, right

No, not every Lord. Not Ned probably. I can't think of many others that wouldn't though. How many trials do we have in the book? Not many & of the ones we do have, most of them expose the judicial system in Westeros for the travesty it is. The only fair trial or hearing of a complaint I can think of rn is Ned hearing about Gregor & Co raping & pillaging. Had it been Joffrey or Tywin or probably even Robert not a thing would have been done about it. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance had a big tent and two goons that guard his tent. That's it. He is a warlord, meaning he leads the combined forces of the wildlings, but he isn't a king. Mance also didn't make any laws - the very thought he would do that is preposterous. He is not trying to institutionalize power

I'm not suggesting he made any laws, I'm saying in his words lie some power & law else why call him the leader of the FF? I understand the difference between Mance & a King of Westeros, I understand the difference in being a part of a free society with almost no structure vs being in a structured society. That doesn't mean we cannot draw parallels between the two or that they don't have similarities. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Most legal issues or criminal cases in the Seven Kingdoms would not involve peasants going against nobles. And nobles who have issues with other nobles go to their liege lord or the king, they do not start private wars. That kind of thing ended with the Conquest. People who start private wars are seen as rebels and are treated as such

I'm not saying they would start a private war ? I'm saying they go to their liege Lord - what are the chances that Liege Lord is going to order in favor of the party that doesn't have the most money, most military strength, biggest allies, etc? In most cases he is not, he would risk losing everything. 

Rebels are only treated as rebels if they lose. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There were some, but they were all short and didn't involve much fighting. Beyond the Wall there is constant warfare while there are no kings up there

Some clans may be in a constant state of conflict but they cannot all be in some constant state of warfare or they wouldn't have survived this long. 

I think saying "there were some (wars) but they were short & didn't involve much fighting" is a gross understatement. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Strength in a political leader like Mance doesn't only mean physical strength/strength at arms. It also means strengths of will, strength of character, strength of mind, charisma, etc. Mance isn't the wildling king merely because he was so strong phyiscally (although he is a hell of fighter)

I know that but you stated the Wildlings only follow brute strength or something to that effect. While that isn't technically true, it is true in a broad sense. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In the Seven Kingdoms the personal traits of a lord who took over as the heir of a millennia-old noble house don't matter much unless they are completely unsuited to rule - and in the North the Starks do have to project strength constantly, else they are eaten alive or ignored by their bannermen. Elsewhere you can suck as much as a lord as Tytos Lannister and still inherit a great lordship and become a lord

Absolutely & the reason is because bad, weak, strong or good it all boils down to who can enforce their rule. In the 7k the rule isn't enforced the same way it is with the Wildlings but ultimately, in either place, if they cannot enforce their rule, they will not rule long, if at all. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Beyond the Wall the wildlings would not take shit like that. They would kill or push aside unsuited rulers. That is why only really great people larger than life can unite them - most wildlings don't have Mance's abilities, explaining why they had as few kings as they had

Yep, Mance gets where he is at because he can back it up. No, the Wildlings would not accept a ruler like some of the ones in the rest of the realm unless they could enforce their rule. It's done by different means among the Wildlings vs in Westeros but it still has to be enforced to remain intact. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But he only has allies because the people around him believe he is the heir of his father. Such things don't happen beyond the Wall

Right that's a difference. The similarity being that regardless as to why he has the allies he cannot be leader without them. 

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Again individual differences. Something you argued vehemently against when I wasn't even talking about individuals. Why would we compare Ygritte to Ned, Davos, & Brienne? Why not to Ramsay, Joffrey, The Hound, or any other horrendous person among the 7k? Or better yet why don't we compare Val or Dalla to them. Or any of the unnamed Wildlings that we have no cause to believe they have hurt or killed anyone? 

Because it is rather obvious that the proper comparisons for the really shitty people would be, you know, the Weeper or Rattleshirt or Alfyn Crowkiller?

We don't know enough about Val or Dalla to compare them to anyone.

And I tried to break it down for you to individual differences because you failed to graps the structural differences. When I point out, in accordance with the facts of the books, that the wildling culture is measurably worse than that of the Seven Kingdoms in a number of cases you try to counter this by saying that similar atrocities are committed in both regions. Yet this was never in doubt.

The point is how people deal with such things, what values they espouse, what role models they follow, what their culture encourages them to do and for what reason. And here the wildlings just suck, just as the Ironborn suck.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We hear on Ygritte killing one person but you say she is comparable to Gregor Clegane? Not even close.

LOL, no, can't you read? I said she comparable to Ned and Davos and Brienne, not to Clegane, because she isn't as bad as he is. But she is still pretty bad.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I've given plenty of examples of why I think one is no worse than the other. We will just have to agree to disagree about one sucking more than the other. 

We can agree that you don't seem to understand the differences and that you ignore obvious differences between the cultures given in the text that indicate that the wildlings as a culture are worse than the people of the Seven Kingdoms.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is literally what you just did. I haven't pointed out individual cases except to give examples of something that happens among the 7k.

Which is the very definition of an individual case. You don't have to attach a name and a date to something to make it individual in this sense - especially when it is meant to try to make something equal which simply isn't equal.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't recall too much being said about wife stealing other than from Ygritte & Tormund but I'm not denying it's likely a common occurrence, I'm saying first & foremost we don't know a whole lot about it & Tormund's non-chalance about the whole situation indicates, at least some of the time, this is more of a game than an actual stealing. Secondly, it is no worse than the arranged marriages & rapes that occur in the rest of the kingdom.

The nonchalance there can just as well mean that Tormund being a wildling and espousing wildling values has no issues with wife-stealing, even if it involves his own daughter. I mean, you likely have issue with female genital mutilation (and I actually also have severe issues with male genital mutilation) but the people from cultures who do it can do things like that to their own children. Such is the power of cultural indoctrination.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, the raids we know happen & they are bad. I'm not arguing they aren't. 

But you don't acknowledge that the people of the Seven Kingdoms don't do such raids, do you? You try to compare them to civil wars which are a separate category.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Unless there is some proof that they do then that's irrelevant. But either way that doesn't make them worse than the rest of the realm.

We know that those clans fight each other. And we see how the wildlings kill each other after Stannis crushed them.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure I have, you just ignore them. Wildling women get raped, women in the 7k get raped. Wildlings raid, the armies in the 7k raid. There are murderers that go unpunished within the Wildlings, there are murderers who go unpunished in the 7k. The entire structure of the wildlings is set up so that the Strong rule & take from the weak, the entire structure of the 7k is set up so that the Strong rule & take from the weak. The weak cannot or have a hard time seeking justice within the Wildlings, the weak cannot or have a hard time seeking justice among the 7k. 

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I talk about. You ignore the cultural differences and pretend everything/everyone there is equal. But they are not. You are like a person saying that there are murderers in North Korea and in Switzerland, proving thus that life is equal in both those places. It is not.

There are specific things only the wildlings do and some of those things are bad. The people of the Seven Kingdoms who don't do those things are thus objectively better in those cases.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, not every Lord. Not Ned probably. I can't think of many others that wouldn't though. How many trials do we have in the book? Not many & of the ones we do have, most of them expose the judicial system in Westeros for the travesty it is. The only fair trial or hearing of a complaint I can think of rn is Ned hearing about Gregor & Co raping & pillaging. Had it been Joffrey or Tywin or probably even Robert not a thing would have been done about it. 

Randyll Tarly conducts a trial in Maidenpool we actually witness. It is quite clear that sitting in judgment over criminals and hearing petitions of people who complain is a vital part of every lord's life. It is what they and the kings do. And their societies would have long crumbled if they didn't create the appearance of doing proper justice. The raiding of the Riverlands is a covert operation conducted with the backing of Lord Tywin. This is not a proper issue for trials.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not suggesting he made any laws, I'm saying in his words lie some power & law else why call him the leader of the FF? I understand the difference between Mance & a King of Westeros, I understand the difference in being a part of a free society with almost no structure vs being in a structured society. That doesn't mean we cannot draw parallels between the two or that they don't have similarities. 

Mance is just a king by name. He is no real king, and he himself knows and says that. He doesn't rule them, he leads them in war because they all agreed with his assessment that they had to run away from the Others.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not saying they would start a private war ? I'm saying they go to their liege Lord - what are the chances that Liege Lord is going to order in favor of the party that doesn't have the most money, most military strength, biggest allies, etc? In most cases he is not, he would risk losing everything.

Usually, a liege lord has more men sworn to him than one of his bannermen. Gyldayn makes it clear that the Tullys are unique in the sense that they have bannermen who are more powerful than they are.

Noble quarrels about lands and other issues might be difficult to settle - just look at the Brackens and Blackwoods - but clear issues like this guy murdered/stole from that guy, or this lord raped the daughter of that lord, etc. should be settled pretty easily. Especially since noblemen always have the loop hole of a trial-by-combat should evidence and testimonies make a conviction very likely. They can fight their way out or use a great fighter among their retainers to do it for them.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Rebels are only treated as rebels if they lose. 

No, it is made clear that anyone who breaks the King's Peace (i.e. attacks another party without the leave of the Iron Throne) is seen as a rebel and an outlaw. Of course, those rebels/outlaws have to be defeated in battle if they fight back, but if they went to war for silly reasons - like Lady Rohanne and Ser Eustace nearly did in TSS - the lords and knights of the Seven Kingdoms won't side with them against the Iron Throne...

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Some clans may be in a constant state of conflict but they cannot all be in some constant state of warfare or they wouldn't have survived this long.

Nobody said they have to kill each other in those never-ending feuds and conflicts. The idea that peace without any institutionalized authorities is possible in a land where winter can last for years and life even in summer is pretty hard and the people have constantly expect to die when the snow comes is not very likely. This is not an environment where we can expect to live together peacefully - especially not people who see themselves being free to do whatever they like.

Which is the overall free folk attitude. Ygritte shows no particular loyalty to her kin and family or clan. Ryk is from her village, but he is no close friend of hers, and she changes loyalty to bands as leaders as she sees fit, switching from Rattleshirt to Tormund.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think saying "there were some (wars) but they were short & didn't involve much fighting" is a gross understatement.

No, it isn't, because many of those wars weren't even felt at many places of the Seven Kingdoms. Even during the Dance most of the Realm saw no fighting - only the Riverlands, parts of the Reach, the Westerlands and the Crownlands.

The Dornish Wars only involved Dorne and some of them also the Dornish Marches and other sections of the Reach and the Stormlands. Those are in essence regional conflicts if you look at all the Seven Kingdoms.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I know that but you stated the Wildlings only follow brute strength or something to that effect. While that isn't technically true, it is true in a broad sense. 

Oh, brute strength certainly is the key. It is what makes you chieftain or wildling lord who isn't a king. If you want to lead a band of raiders or be the guy to command a couple of dozen other people being strong is a necessary prerequisite. But to become a king you do have what it takes to convince other strong people - perhaps some who are stronger than you - to follow you. And for that you need people like Mance.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Absolutely & the reason is because bad, weak, strong or good it all boils down to who can enforce their rule. In the 7k the rule isn't enforced the same way it is with the Wildlings but ultimately, in either place, if they cannot enforce their rule, they will not rule long, if at all.

Well, no. Tytos Lannister never enforced his rule. He inherited the Rock and that was it. He never ruled, never did justice, never did anything a ruler or lord would do. Yet he remained the Lord of Casterly Rock ... and the West descended into anarchy because this man was, in fact, a lord who didn't rule.

Beyond the Wall that kind of thing would never fly ... but in the Seven Kingdoms it does because those people actually do have legal institutions (however underdeveloped and defective they might be).

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yep, Mance gets where he is at because he can back it up. No, the Wildlings would not accept a ruler like some of the ones in the rest of the realm unless they could enforce their rule. It's done by different means among the Wildlings vs in Westeros but it still has to be enforced to remain intact. 

Mance doesn't enforce his rule. He is the ruler because his people want him to rule. He isn't the kind of king Robb was - little cabal war council proclamation and then you do as you please as king (which Robb did). Mance is only 'king' as long as his people follow him, and they are under no cultural obligation to be loyal to him once they disagree with him or unhappy with him for any reason. They can leave at any time.

A bannermen or retainer of a lord in the Seven Kingdom cannot say 'Well, I don't follow you anymore' for some reason. If tried to do that, there would be severe consequences.

11 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right that's a difference. The similarity being that regardless as to why he has the allies he cannot be leader without them. 

We don't have any indication that Mance convinced any of the other chiefs and clan leaders of the wildlings by means of threatening them into submission. It seems he went to each of the important people who joined him individually and convinced them one way or another. He slew a couple of other would-be kings but it is not said that he did that in battle. Looks those were individual duels.

The kind of position Mance has is very fragile. It is not based on power as such but on a natural authority that comes with charisma. It is very consensual and based on the fact that the people deciding to follow him believe he can lead them where they want to go and help them accomplish what they want.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And I tried to break it down for you to individual differences because you failed to graps the structural differences

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no, can't you read?

 

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We can agree that you don't seem to understand the differences

 

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I talk about

I'm not impaired, stupid, incapable of understanding, or illiterate. I think it's shameful for you to take something I clearly misread & ask me if I can't read. I don't like being talked down to or spoken to as if I were only capable of grasping your meaning I would agree. 

You make some good points but clearly I disagree with you when it comes to the goodness or badness of the FF vs the realm. That doesn't mean I don't understand, that means I disagree. 

I think we've said enough, I'm not going to change your mind & you are not going to change mine. 

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not impaired, stupid, incapable of understanding, or illiterate. I think it's shameful for you to take something I clearly misread & ask me if I can't read. I don't like being talked down to or spoken to as if I were only capable of grasping your meaning I would agree. 

Sorry for those remarks. I got somewhat strained by your unwillingness/inability to allow you to get yourself convinced ;-). No insult was intended.

I really think the obvious differences between those two groups are very, well, obvious.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry for those remarks. I got somewhat strained by your unwillingness/inability to allow you to get yourself convinced ;-). No insult was intended.

I really think the obvious differences between those two groups are very, well, obvious.

No worries, sometimes it gets heated when we are passionate about something. 

Thanks for the chat. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

On 1/19/2020 at 9:23 PM, Lord Varys said:

Evidence, please. Rape (defined as unconsensual sex between a married or unmarried woman and some stranger) is a crime in the Seven Kingdoms, meaning rapist actually are punished. In war times, a lot things go unpunished, of course, but not in peace times. So again: Tell us on what you base the idea that rape is a crime not punished in peace times.

Layna, the thirteen year old who was raped by Gregor Clegane, then passed around to his men. That was right after the tourney of the Hand. The only reason Chiswyck died was because Arya heard him tell the story. The man thought it was the funniest thing in the world what happened to that poor girl. 

How many women do you think Gregor Clegane and his men raped in peace time? With everything that we know Clegane has done, Tywin protected him because he was terrifying. He protected him the same way Roose protected Ramsay and protected himself from the miller's brother. It's not like the northmen don't know that Ramsay was born of rape. "A quiet people, a quiet land." Who knows how many women those two raped between them.

Lollys Stokeworth. As far as we know, no one even looked for her rapists. I read them say plenty of times that they could not find Tyrek Lannister and not once say that they found one of her rapists. But you know, she comes from a small House, and she has the mental age of a 5 year old.

Tysha. Raped over and over. But I guess that's fine since the great Tywin Lannister said it was all good, so I guess she doesn't count.

It seems rape in the 7Ks doesn't hold the same sort of vitriol as it does when it's the wildlings that commit it. Rape is rape. It shouldn't matter who commits it.

ETA - I would also include Elia Martell in this. But her rape happened at the Sack of King's Landing, so she doesn't matter as much, I guess, even though everyone knows who raped and murdered her. Murdering an infant by dashing his head against a wall must be rewarded with rape afterward.

[Mystical]

The Wildlings call it 'stealing'. Westeros calls it 'marriage alliance'. Both is rape culture. Is the latter better than the former just because Westerosi think it's more civilized? You could actually argue that the former only has one victim, the stolen party. Whereas in a marriage alliance both parties are the victims because neither gets a choice in the matter.

Of course you could then say, well that's only for the Westerosi nobility, the smallfolk can choose to marry who they want and whom to have sex with. But the smallfolk (and even Lords or Ladies) also get raped at random by armies, during riots, on the orders of a Lord or just some person with an itch to scratch and no one gives a damn despite rape being a crime in the 7K. And a woman, especially a Lady, is seen as damaged goods after being raped through no fault of her own. Abhorrent as it is, the Wildlings don't seem to rape at random (at least I don't think) like that, they do it for the expressed purpose of choosing a partner to 'marry' and procreate with.

To me, neither is better than the other. Both are rape cultures, they just go about it in different ways.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

The Wildlings call it 'stealing'. Westeros calls it 'marriage alliance'. Both is rape culture. Is the latter better than the former just because Westerosi think it's more civilized?

Yes. A thousand times yes. Violently dragging someone away, possibly hurting maybe even killing their family as a consequence is far, far worse than the Westerosi equivalent of two families agreeing to a marriage alliance.

For one, the Westerosi nobles can actually put their foot down and say no. The noble men may be forced to leave and seek employment elsewhere, such as the Blackfish, and the women may face the possibility of being sent to the Faith, but they do have a choice in the matter.

Not to be rude, but the practices are night and day.

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

You could actually argue that the former only has one victim, the stolen party. Whereas in a marriage alliance both parties are the victims because neither gets a choice in the matter.

But, 99% of the time both parties do have a choice in the matter.

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

Of course you could then say, well that's only for the Westerosi nobility, the smallfolk can choose to marry who they want and whom to have sex with. But the smallfolk (and even Lords or Ladies) also get raped at random by armies, during riots, on the orders of a Lord or just some person with an itch to scratch and no one gives a damn despite rape being a crime in the 7K.

Do you not think this is a different matter at all? Or does the fact that in Wildling culture there is so little difference between marriage and war kind of prove Lord Varys point?

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

 

And a woman, especially a Lady, is seen as damaged goods after being raped through no fault of her own.

True. Unfortunately that is still true even in our society. Do you think out society is just as bad as Wildling society?

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

 

Abhorrent as it is, the Wildlings don't seem to rape at random (at least I don't think) like that, they do it for the expressed purpose of choosing a partner to 'marry' and procreate with.

No, they seem do it like the Ironborn and the Wildlings in the Vale do. Rape and kidnap people.

1 hour ago, Mystical said:

To me, neither is better than the other. Both are rape cultures, they just go about it in different ways.

I am fairly sure that most women would pick the Westerosi option over the Wildling one.

[Mystical]

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes. A thousand times yes. Violently dragging someone away, possibly hurting maybe even killing their family as a consequence is far, far worse than the Westerosi equivalent of two families agreeing to a marriage alliance.

For one, the Westerosi nobles can actually put their foot down and say no. The noble men may be forced to leave and seek employment elsewhere, such as the Blackfish, and the women may face the possibility of being sent to the Faith, but they do have a choice in the matter.

Not to be rude, but the practices are night and day.

The discussion in the thread had turned to definitions of rape and what is considered rape. That's what my response is in regards to. It's about the victims. And both cultures are rape cultures whether you see that or not. Because rape is about consent. In Westeros (among nobility) your parents choose your partner for you, especially if you are a woman where you are first the property of your father and then your husband. A noble son might have the option of saying no unless the marriage is needed for an alliance or expansion of power but women almost never get this choice. Either way 'arranged marriage' is a rape culture where the victims are concerned. I wasn't talking about anything else surrounding the proceedings (like family getting killed during stealing) because the topic is 'rape' and the victims of it.

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But, 99% of the time both parties do have a choice in the matter.

List me the 99% of women (and men) in the books that had a choice when it came to arranged marriages or stealing.

15 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Do you not think this is a different matter at all? Or does the fact that in Wildling culture there is so little difference between marriage and war kind of prove Lord Varys point?

Not all people are the same. Just like there are differences among the Wildlings there are differences among the Westerosi. All 7K are culturally different just like the Wildling clans can be different. Your point about war makes little sense because the same thing happens among Westerosi. An army will raid a farm and rape women just like a raiding party going south of the wall might do or clans fighting each other. So there is no difference between the 2 cultures in that regard. The practice of stealing seems to happen all the time, war or not. Just like arranged marriages happen even if there isn't a war.

25 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

True. Unfortunately that is still true even in our society. Do you think out society is just as bad as Wildling society?

Have you looked around in our entire world? Not just in your hemisphere? Then the answer to your question is a resounding 'DUH'. I don't even get the comparison of our society to the Wildlings. Is our society Westerosi now? Because by the 'standard' of our society we are neither.

32 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, they seem do it like the Ironborn and the Wildlings in the Vale do. Rape and kidnap people.

As do people in Westeros, including nobility. Westeros just has a higher population number so it's more diluted. And the Wildlings in the Vale count on the side of Westeros, since they are IN Westeros (what with being born and living there), and not on the side of the Wildlings from north of the wall.

37 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I am fairly sure that most women would pick the Westerosi option over the Wildling one.

And I'm fairly sure that most women would pick NEITHER.

[Bernie Mac]

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

The discussion in the thread had turned to definitions of rape and what is considered rape. That's what my response is in regards to. It's about the victims. And both cultures are rape cultures whether you see that or not.

No, that is not really the case. Most noble women we have seen in the series have not been raped in their marriage. Some certainly have, but they don't seem to be the norm.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

 

Because rape is about consent.

Yes. And most nobles have consented to their marriage, even if they did not want to marry that person. Consent was still given. Saying no was still an option.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

 

In Westeros (among nobility) your parents choose your partner for you, especially if you are a woman where you are first the property of your father and then your husband.

The bride still has to give her consent, they can still refuse to marry.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

 

A noble son might have the option of saying no unless the marriage is needed for an alliance or expansion of power but women almost never get this choice.

Who is your source on this?

The amount of women in the series who did not give their consent to marry and married anyway is very, very small.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

 

Either way 'arranged marriage' is a rape culture where the victims are concerned. I wasn't talking about anything else surrounding the proceedings (like family getting killed during stealing) because the topic is 'rape' and the victims of it.

No, not entirely true. Most arranged marriages still need agreement from both sides. I work in an area with a very large Afghanistan community, the majority of whom are in an arranged marriage. It is rare for their not to be a choice. Arranged marriages still have to be agreed upon.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

List me the 99% of women (and men) in the books that had a choice when it came to arranged marriages or stealing.

eh? You are the one making claims. Maybe you should give the list of all the women who did not give their consent?

Cat gave her consent, Cersei gave her consent, Maegary gave her consent, Jeyne gave her consent. Brienne was able to refuse, not once but three times.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Not all people are the same. Just like there are differences among the Wildlings there are differences among the Westerosi. All 7K are culturally different just like the Wildling clans can be different. Your point about war makes little sense because the same thing happens among Westerosi. An army will raid a farm and rape women just like a raiding party going south of the wall might do or clans fighting each other. So there is no difference between the 2 cultures in that regard. The practice of stealing seems to happen all the time, war or not. Just like arranged marriages happen even if there isn't a war.

Arranged marriages still have a choice. Abduction does not.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

Have you looked around in our entire world?

All of it? No, but I've lived and worked in multiple countries, work in an industry that requires travel. I can, unashamedly say that our society is 99% better than that of the Wilding society we have seen in the series.  That is not to say that everywhere is equal, that some places have their issues and could improve, but few places are as as bad as what we have seen North of the Wall.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

 

Not just in your hemisphere? Then the answer to your question is a resounding 'DUH'.

Which hemisphere do you think I am in right now?

 

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

 

I don't even get the comparison of our society to the Wildlings. Is our society Westerosi now? Because by the 'standard' of our society we are neither.

Sorry, you have lost me on this one.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

As do people in Westeros, including nobility. Westeros just has a higher population number so it's more diluted. And the Wildlings in the Vale count on the side of Westeros, since they are IN Westeros (what with being born and living there), and not on the side of the Wildlings from north of the wall.

This discussion is about society. I am pretty certain that @LordVarys was not referring to them as part of the general Weserosi culture, given they have more in common with the Wildling than the nobles.

9 minutes ago, Mystical said:

And I'm fairly sure that most women would pick NEITHER.

If it was one or the other, which do you think the majority of women (or men) would pick?

 

[kissdbyfire]

It seems to me that there’s a massive fail in understanding that if you’re a woman who is married off to someone you don’t want to marry, and is expected to have sex with even if you don’t want to, you’re being raped whenever your hubby decides he wants sex. With blessings from the 7, of course.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It seems to me that there’s a massive fail in understanding that if you’re a woman who is married off to someone you don’t want to marry, and is expected to have sex with even if you don’t want to, you’re being raped whenever your hubby decides he wants sex. With blessings from the 7, of course.

Yes, & that because the woman has stood up & said "I do" she has provided consent not only to marry but to be slept with whenever the man feels like it. 

Hell, even Jeyne stood up & said the words, doesn't mean she provided consent. She was forced. 

[kissdbyfire]

5 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes, & that because the woman has stood up & said "I do" she has provided consent not only to marry but to be slept with whenever the man feels like it. 

Hell, even Jeyne stood up & said the words, doesn't mean she provided consent. She was forced. 

Exactly. Coerced consent is no consent at all, is it?