Jump to content

Jon and Dany's similarities in ADWD, and why they're some of the few potentially good rulers


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In fact, Jaehaerys burned thousands of Dornish sailors alive from the back of Vermithor, and that was a good thing in the eyes of the subjects he was protecting.

I was not talking about that case. 

In that case, the Crown had to defend itself from Dorne. Dorne was the one who attacked. The two are incomparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

Being a religious figure by only believers of the Red God. I don't know how much will that affect westerosi folk, since the PTWP prophecy is not related to religion (as far as we know). 

Being a religious figure of R'hllor wouldn't even be as good as you might think it would be. We don't know how much it could affect her, we don't know how popular will be the idea her being Azor Ahai reborn. This is nothing more than assumption of the future we know mostly nothing about.

Dragons might be a proof for the believers in Essos. The last religion that was able to conquer in Westeros was the Faith of the Seven, several thousand years ago.

Stannis burned the nem Gods, but it doesn't seem like many people follow the Red God. Only a few, mostly in Selyse's circle.

Also, ressurecting someone is rather seen as witchcraft than the power of any god in Westeros.

My point was related mostly to her followers. But people of Westeros might actually reject her for that very reason.

43 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

After all, Aegon's Conquest and the entire Targaryen reign had a positive effect on Westeros. During the Dance, nowhere near died as many people as it did in the Wot5K. Dragons danced, mostly. The Blackfyre rebellion is a different thing, because a same case could not only happen in Targaryen reign. I think you understand why, if not, I could explain it later. 

Aerys wanted to burn down KL, but with wildfire. If House Baratheon manages to continue its reign, what guarantees you that a descendant would not use it for the samr thing? Nothing, since any future king could do it, not only Targaryens. Why would a future Baratheon (the name is only used for example, I'm not being offensive), not want to claim his father's throne, as Daemon Blackfyre wanted to put away his own brother? I doubt I have to explain this to you. The only thing that makes Targaryens specific are dragons, not Blackfyre claimants or wildfire.

Now: Dragons are weapons. Weapons are not only used for killing, but for deterrence too. People don't want to burn makes then not rebelling. This made the population doubleing, the lesser wars. Because conflicts between the 7 Kingdoms mostly ended. Wether you like it or not, dragons rather had a positive effect on Westeros than negative. 

And! The only megalomaniacal dragonrider I can recall was Aemond, and maybe Aegon the Conqueror. Neither Maegor, nor Daemon were megalomaniacs, tho they had several other mental problems. 

Megalomaniacalism is a mental sickness caused by power. But does not directly causes it.

I am not certain that Targaryen reign had a positive effect on Westeros. It might have had. Or maybe it might have calcified Westeros into feudalism and prevented development of traders and thus cities which could have counterbalanced the power of the nobility. All of that depends on how Westeros will have developed without Targaryens.

Also, war is not necessarily bad. Or rather, it is bad - but there are worse things than war. Unaccountable dictatorship would be one such thing, and that very thing is a consequence of a king being a dragonrider - such a ruler is accountable only to himself and limited elite of other dragonriders. Balance of power between the monarch, nobility and independent cities, which characterized historical monarchies and made them so long-lasting and functional, is completely impossible in face of a flying lizard of mass destruction. But then, Westerosi politics don't make sense anyway, so...

Dragons are weapons, yes, but they are weapons which cannot be mass-produced, and for whose utilization one may need to have basically magical blood. As a result, there is no balance, and system loses ability to self-correct. Again: war is not the worst thing that can happen. Frequent Byzantine civil wars were a good thing, because - until system of themes fell apart - they ensured that the Emperor will not become a tyrant. But if a ruling dynasty had dragons... who would rebel if an Emperor needed to be removed? And if you want Hungarian-type elective monarchy, with dragons you can forget it.

43 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

For this, you can mostly find your answers upwards. But what you're talking about is tyranny, not megalomaniacalism. You can also find answers to this in Westerosi history: Aegon I, Jahaerys I and Viserys I are all considered good/great kings. And they had dragons. Of course, there's still Maegor and Aegon II. 

Robert turned out to be a good king, at least among the folk. Whst about his successors? Joffrey had no dragons.  Dragons did not only destructed, but also deterrenced. And they're not the only way of destruction, you know this, I am sure.

Joffrey had no dragons, and everybody and their aunt rebelled against him or simply ignored him. His evilness thus had very little direct effect on the Westeros as a whole: even if nobody had rebelled, he would not have been able to enforce anything his Lords Paramount disagreed with. Now can you imagine what would have happened if Joffrey had been a dragonrider? Chances are, King's Landing would not have lasted to A Game of Thrones, let alone to the Winds.

43 minutes ago, HerblYY said:

She is a 15 year-old girl,mostly trying to rule without any education of how she has to or anyone decent advisor. I did not read the link you droped, simply because I have no time for it currently, but it does seem like what you're talking about is tyranny, not megalomaniacalism. And, in the case of a dragonlord, I don't know what we can talk about, except for tyranny. 

Remember ho Jahaerys showed Vermithor to Lord Baratheon? It was tyranny, no doubts, but not megalomaniacalism. Jaehaerys used Vermithor to deterrence. And he made sure that the Lord of the Stormlands will not rebel again, with deterrence, not with the destruction he could have caused with his dragon. I don't even know how a dragonlord's words can not be considered tyranny.

What I am saying is leave the girl grow up to her duty, and do not judge because what he might do in the future.

If she is going to be Queen of Westeros, we have to judge her by what she might do in the future.

* * * *

You know, I really don't understand why nearly everybody on the forum assumes that dragonriders will be good people?

EDIT:

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

If she truly is Azhor Ahai then it becomes an objective fact that her opponents are in the wrong, and she’s destined to save the world.  That said, I’m sure there are many temptations that will come her way.

Adam Feldman’s POV is far too master-centric.  A peace which leaves the slavers firmly in charge is good news only for slavers (leaving aside that he ignores that they’re only waiting for the Volantenes to arrive, before re-enslaving the population).

She should have completely dispossessed the Masters, yes. But she did not do it, and I do believe slavers were willing to work with her - precisely because (aside from slaves) they didn't loose too much. But when she started on one road, she should continue down it, not jump between solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

My point was related mostly to her followers. But people of Westeros might actually reject her for that very reason.

And my point was that why would the prophecy of Azor Ahai have any effect on Westerosi society, and trough it, on Daenerys.

 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

I am not certain that Targaryen reign had a positive effect on Westeros.

Well, it definitely had. F&B is the actual proof for it. Read it, if you haven't yet, and if you did, you must know I am right. When you argue against this with the Dance, also don't forget what I've just mentioned earlier: Very few people died at the Dance compared to RR or Wot5K.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

All of that depends on how Westeros will have developed without Targaryens

Peace is what brang development to Westeros. And such kings as Aegon I, Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Viserys II. Mostly during the time dragons still lived.

 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Also, war is not necessarily bad. Or rather, it is bad - but there are worse things than war. Unaccountable dictatorship would be one such thing, and that very thing is a consequence of a king being a dragonrider - such a ruler is accountable only to himself and limited elite of other dragonriders. Balance of power between the monarch, nobility and independent cities, which characterized historical monarchies and made them so long-lasting and functional, is completely impossible in face of a flying lizard of mass destruction. But then, Westerosi politics don't make sense anyway, so...

No, war is not. Inner wars are, however, at least never good.

Dictatorship and absolutism are two different things. Yes you mainly are right. A dragonrider king was able to be countered by the sake of peace. Remember that Westeros only had 5 dragonlord kings. And the two bad ones weren't even reigning for more than 10 years. Of what happened later, can not be compared to what happened before.

As I said (hope you'll se why I wtite it down), dragons were rather tools for deterrence, not destruction. And even when they destructed, mostly themselves.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Dragons are weapons, yes, but they are weapons which cannot be mass-produced, and for whose utilization one may need to have basically magical blood. As a result, there is no balance, and system loses ability to self-correct. Again: war is not the worst thing that can happen. Frequent Byzantine civil wars were a good thing, because - until system of themes fell apart - they ensured that the Emperor will not become a tyrant. But if a ruling dynasty had dragons... who would rebel if an Emperor needed to be removed? And if you want Hungarian-type elective monarchy, with dragons you can forget it.

First of all, Hungary only had elected monarchy because House Árpád died out. Back in the day, when Hungarians still lived in their half-nomadic, and prepared for the conquest of Pannonia, the 7 major tribes made a blood contract. They elected Álmos as Grand Prince, leader of the entire nation, and with the bloodcontract they vowed to follow his son, Árpád in the conquest, and after him all of his descendants. When the last male member of House Árpád died, chaos came up on Hungary, and this led the realm to always overthrow their leaders. 

Now, as long as dragonlord kings ruled, there was no balance. Yet it was good. As you can see, later, dragonlords began to spread. House Velaryon became a dragonlord house. If Laenor had the right to have a dragon, why wouldn't his son had it? Or his grandchildren? Or his great-grandchildren? And the Dance literally was an attempt to overthrow the ruler/each other. The Dance was a balance, sad that it led to the dragon's extinction (or not, we don't know that). If dragons would have been lived when Blackfyres became a thing, I'm sure they would've become a dragonlord house. A dragon can only be balanced by another one. Or two. Or by the sake of peace, as it happened during the dragonlords' reign.

Decentralized power has always been the enemy of every monarch.

And who the hell wants elective-type monarchy in Westeros? Likely noone.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Joffrey had no dragons, and everybody and their aunt rebelled against him or simply ignored him. His evilness thus had very little direct effect on the Westeros as a whole: even if nobody had rebelled, he would not have been able to enforce anything his Lords Paramount disagreed with. Now can you imagine what would have happened if Joffrey had been a dragonrider? Chances are, King's Landing would not have lasted to A Game of Thrones, let alone to the Winds.

Imagine Joffrey growing up. It would been bad, without dragons. If Joffrey had dragons, noone would have been rebelled against him, because the dragon would've been a tool of deterrence. If he had had a dragon, he wouldn't have to take vengeange on anyone, since noone would have harmed him. King's Landing probably would've been standing the same, since the people wouldn't have given him reason to fuck with him.

 

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

If she is going to be Queen of Westeros, we have to judge her by what she might do in the future.

No, you don't, and you can't. You don't know what will happen in the future well enough. That means you can't judge someone by something that probably won't happen. 

Again, a dragonlord ruler is so dreadful that it stops the people from making the dragonlord using its dragon. That's deterrence.

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

You know, I really don't understand why nearly everybody on the forum assumes that dragonriders will be good people?

The question is, why would anyone assumes that they know how dragonriders will work out? I don't know how they will, I'd like to see it. But according to what we've seen, it shouldn't been worse than how it was. Of course, there is always worse. We have only seen a few bad dragonlords (Maegor, Aemond), and now I don't talk about Ulf and Hugh (that was a major mistake).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they both have most of the skills to be a good ruler.  However, what makes Daenerys a compelling choice for me is her discipline and intelligence.  She wants to win back her kingdom of Westeros very badly but she was not willing to abandon the slaves just to get what she wants.  Which makes her an even better choice than Aegon.  I like that and many things about her.  Jon also has skills in leading but his emotional nature cripples him in many ways.  A well-balanced leader would not abandon their posts as he did when he sneaked off in the middle of the night.  A good ruler would not start a war with Ramsay Bolton over his sister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Man, you're the most provocative person here. A single sign have you seen in this thread of any conflict? I doubt it.

WTH do you want me to do, wait till a dozen haters pop in and start posting BS? It has happened in more threads than I can remember. 

5 hours ago, HerblYY said:

I have not seen anyone in the most recent "StarkTarg" (let's say 20) threads being as provocative as you are. Just stop. 

Now that's what is called ignorance. I tried rational reasoning. Ignored. Polite messages. Ignored. Blew up. Ignored. Now iam sarcastic. Being ignored. @CamiloRP started a thread which redeemed me. Forgot it. After that I ignored haters. But they hit crazy insane levels of batshit irrational biased hatred that broke the camel's back (mine lol) of course you don't know all this nor do I expect you to. Happened over a course of half a year. If you are ignorant, pls piss of.

5 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Every single time a mistake made by a character you like comes into discussion you're just coming up with the "Oh, another Stark hate post, It's not even worth following, because it's just a feasting of the worshipers of Fairy Godmother Queen Daenerys" Dude, you're creating the conflict.

Every single time!? More like every gazillionth time. Abd FYI, who's the creator of the conflict, the poster who makes 'mistakes' (understatement of the effing century) first or me tired and sick of their BS responding sarcastically? 

5 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Who the fuck do you think does need this?

Haters. Irrationally biased fascist pro monarchist racist elitist haters. And not only the Stark haters. Stannis ones too. And 94% of them tend to be Dany 'worshippers'

5 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Not that I do not like the Starks. I'm a fan of Targaryens, yet I like the Starks too, in general (Some of them are between my favs too).

Exactly what I was talking about! No one else gets pissed off. And no feeble attempts of how you 'like the Starks too' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

WTH do you want me to do, wait till a dozen haters pop in and start posting BS? It has happened in more threads than I can remember. 

U. B. COOL 's post and Roswell's post are just the first two and the thread hasn't crossed the second page yet. They have few valid points mixed with haters' fantasy BS. Hope you understand what I was talking about when I said that. @HerblYY

And you are way more rational than other common haters in my list (in the making and very very big) pls channel that side of yours. Good day. End of discussion I hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Try telling that to a certain forum faction. 

A lot of Fairy Godmother Queen Dany worshippers disagree with you, but not me. Sadly true. 

Dude, just cut it. You are starting conflict when there isn't any. I agree that some people have gone too far with worshiping Dany, you know that, but right now you seem to be attacking them far more than they even talk about Dany. Don't give them attention, it's not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, U. B. Cool said:

If peace is the goal then Jon Snow messed up.  All he needed to do was stay out of Ramsay Bolton's business.  He is either slow enough to believe he could get away with sending his man, Mance Rayder, to help his sister or he knew the consequences and did it anyway.  @Moiraine Sedai is right on the money about Jon's conflict.  His was laid out in Game of Thrones, the conflict between love and duty.  Love is the death of duty and duty surely died in his case.  He is a capable soldier and swordsman as well as good friend to Samwell and the other boys.  But I am not sold on his leadership abilities.  Yea, peace is not 100% the answer when it will not lead to good, long term results for the most people.  In this case, peace with the Boltons would have been the right direction to take.  Helping Arya would help Arya but cause conflict that would get more people killed, people they need to fight the white walkers.  Jon was not facing self-doubt because he knows where his heart is and it is not on his duties.  He has no issues with violating his vows as we have seen earlier when he left to join Robb and had to be dragged back.  His issues have always been whether to do his job or help his Stark family.  Jon chose conflict because he loved his sister too much.  And when the pink letter arrived his response was to form a wildling army to escalate his conflict with Ramsay.  Between Dany and Jon, it is Jon who breaks peace and took the path of conflict.  Jon would make a good drinking buddy and a friend but he is not who I would pick to rule. 

Jon's arc has been constantly about empathy and making peace. He made peace with Tyrion, then with his brothers, then with the Freefolk. I think the point of the Bolton conflict is that some people are not worth making peace with. 

Quote
"If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"
"Everything," said Davos, softly.

George agrees with this, iMHO, so Jon, if he's truly a good person, shouldn't have let Ramsay continuing to be Ramsay. He should have tried to save his sister. Ignoring the vows too, as per Jaime's character we know that sometimes breaking vows is the correct thing to do, because vows tend to get in the way of doing good.

 

Quote

Dany has the leadership down.  She is a great leader.  That's been proven time and again.  Her struggle is less internal but more practical.  How do you root out the harpy.  She also has to decide how much to compromise for peace.  The difference between Dany and Jon is she chose peace.  She chose to compromise to make peace and save what she could.  It was an uneven deal but her desire to end the conflict took over.  She wanted peace a little too soon even before the war has been won.  She should have won the war first and gotten rid of the harpy before engaging in peace talks.  To get rid of weeds, you have to pull the roots out.  She needs to pull the roots of the harpy and then negotiate a more balanced peace.  Dany has proven herself a very thoughtful and intelligent young woman.  Though she does lack the experience because of her youth and the fact that a revolution of this scale, the liberation of many millions of slaves, has never been tried before.  It is ambitious but also the right thing to do.  Power should be used to help the many, free the slaves in this case.  If I had to pick a ruler, it would be Dany over any other candidate in the story. 

Her struggle in Dance is about choosing war or peace, George has even implied so, as after reading this essay he said something along the lines of "I'm glad someone got it". She ended up choosing war.

And not to say that she's a bad ruler, she's not, but she's got a lot to learn still.

I said this many times before, but Dany and Jon made the same and opposite mistake. Dany had absolute power, given her dragons and worshipers, and she was fighting a truly evil enemy. She could've done anything and she would've been okay, she could've and should've imprisoned all former slavers, taken their wealth and either give it to the freed men or take it for herself. No one would have protested, but she was too compromising and it ended up costing her. Jon's power, on the other hand, came from his men, the same ones who disagreed with him, so he should've been more compromising, considering their gripes and such. He didn't, and he got stabbed. 

Both were trying to do legitimately good things, both did the opposite, and both were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Now that's what is called ignorance. I tried rational reasoning. Ignored. Polite messages. Ignored. Blew up. Ignored. Now iam sarcastic. Being ignored. @CamiloRP started a thread which redeemed me. Forgot it. After that I ignored haters. But they hit crazy insane levels of batshit irrational biased hatred that broke the camel's back (mine lol) of course you don't know all this nor do I expect you to. Happened over a course of half a year. If you are ignorant, pls piss of.

Haden't read this before my other comment. You are going that way again m'dude. Just chill. I do agree with @HerblYY that sometimes you are the one causing the problem in this threads. Remember that's why I started the "Another Stark Hate Post" thread, it wasn't to argue against Stark haters, it was to make anti-Stark haters that they are sometimes worse than them. I think this might be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Martin said that Jon is the truest character. 

Dany is a megalomaniac in making.

So no

Maybe in the making. Certainly not right now. Sure she does have a certain pride, but for now she is a good, albeit very flawed ruler.

7 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

And Alyn, not another Jon Dany thread! This is what, your 8th or so thread about them

This was supposed to be a nice civil thread about themes and GRRM... Also you inflaming it isn't going to help. How about I don't know, actually participating in the OP conversation? Just a thought...

7 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Anyway, @Alyn Oakenfist, while reading ADWD, I've always felt like the two are mostly going trough the same, having issues with their own leadership. From chapter to chapter, I've felt like the same issues came up for both, and this might continue too at the beginning of TWOW, as both will have to deal with their own "comebacks".

I agree, and I'd like to add the comeback will probably be in the form of kicking Bolton and Yunkish ass respectively.

5 hours ago, U. B. Cool said:

If peace is the goal then Jon Snow messed up.  All he needed to do was stay out of Ramsay Bolton's business.  He is either slow enough to believe he could get away with sending his man, Mance Rayder, to help his sister

Never said either was perfect. In fact both mess up quite hard as seen from their respective positions at the end of ADWD, mind trapped inside Ghost and diahreeing all over the Dothraki sea respectively.

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Nobody is born a tyrant. But Daenerys has the makings of one:

1) She is likely Azor Ahai (so possibility of the messianic complex)

2) She has dragons (which confirm the above - and also make her less vulnerable to retribution)

3) She has utterly dedicated followers (so she does not need to restrict herself as much)

I partially agree. I do believe she will go for the full Louis XIV absolutist ruler, but I don't think she'd go evil mad or anything like that. More like a harder, more powerful and less likable version of ACOK Stannis.

However this has been talked a lot about recently, so could we please keep it to the conversation at hand, about the similarities in Jon and Dany' arks in ADWD and especially how they deal with compromising?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I think they might be comparable on is how they are the window dressing for the future leaders, Sam, Sansa, Bran, and Tyrion. They seem to be who the author favors - people who understand history and apply it, people who aren't hot heads with an even keel, people who don't solve personal disputes with war, and who aren't authoritarians gone bonkers. This is why I think Jon is dancing on a knife's edge. He could really go down a dark path but I think he has a better chance of being pulled back from it than Dany because he's not on a power corrupts story arc like she is.  

I'm also going off of GRRM's comments here about nuclear weapons not being sufficient to achieve geo-political goals. That means he does not favor Dany's tactics. Jon's? Eh I dont know I think he's written as an impulsive jock but he's also tied to the free folk who we know are history keepers. Again Jon is more of an either/or situation while Dany who is basically a non-starter who thinks rebuilding societies is a waste of time.

Narratively, Dany and Jon seem like another Robb, who kicked Tywin's ass but was still on a downward arc. They'll have more high points but these will be mostly ephemeral. 

Dany should stay in Meereen but she's convinced she "doesn't belong there" which means she's thinking ME ME ME. I dont see her getting much support in Westeros. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Oh bugger my Phone. Up the usb arse. Some glitches responsible for this flawed post. First of all I want to apologise to the mentioned posters and others too for my dickish posts recently in this thread. Serves me right for combining personal anger with irritation on the forums. I promise to not be provacative and be civil and ignore haters who are already ignoring me as much as possible. I'll make exceptions only in dire cases. Sry again Fellas

@HerblYY @Alyn Oakenfist@CamiloRP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of experience is why mentors like Brynden Rivers, Stannis Baratheon, Barristan Selmy, and Quaithe are important.  It has been said that good intentions are not enough. To that I say, having good intentions is a necessary ingredient and a good first step.  No good can result when good intentions are absent unless it just happens by accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

One thing that I think they might be comparable on is how they are the window dressing for the future leaders, Sam, Sansa, Bran, and Tyrion. They seem to be who the author favors - people who understand history and apply it, people who aren't hot heads with an even keel, people who don't solve personal disputes with war, and who aren't authoritarians gone bonkers. This is why I think Jon is dancing on a knife's edge. He could really go down a dark path but I think he has a better chance of being pulled back from it than Dany because he's not on a power corrupts story arc like she is.  

I'm also going off of GRRM's comments here about nuclear weapons not being sufficient to achieve geo-political goals. That means he does not favor Dany's tactics. Jon's? Eh I dont know I think he's written as an impulsive jock but he's also tied to the free folk who we know are history keepers. Again Jon is more of an either/or situation while Dany who is basically a non-starter who thinks rebuilding societies is a waste of time.

Narratively, Dany and Jon seem like another Robb, who kicked Tywin's ass but was still on a downward arc. They'll have more high points but these will be mostly ephemeral. 

Dany should stay in Meereen but she's convinced she "doesn't belong there" which means she's thinking ME ME ME. I dont see her getting much support in Westeros. 

As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s rare for anyone to be both a great War leader and a great peacetime politician.  It may well be that those who will play the biggest military role in defending Westeros will not be those who are suited to  reconstructing society afterwards (in the same way that Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Churchill, Truman, were much better war leaders than peacetime leaders)..  In terms of the narrative, if Daenerys stays in Meereen, Westeros will be buried in ice forever.

WRT dragons = nuclear weapons, in real life, it's not just the world's dictatorships who possess them.  So do the world's liberal democracies, either directly, or as members of nuclear-armed alliances. That doesn't make their leaderships evil or corrupted.  In universe, neither Aegon I nor Jaehaerys I were evil for using dragons as weapons of war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

WTH do you want me to do, wait till a dozen haters pop in and start posting BS? It has happened in more threads than I can remember. 

Seems like none of those toxic haters had appeared yet. The only toxic comment on this thread is still yours. 

7 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Now that's what is called ignorance. I tried rational reasoning. Ignored. Polite messages. Ignored. Blew up. Ignored. Now iam sarcastic. Being ignored. @CamiloRP started a thread which redeemed me. Forgot it. After that I ignored haters. But they hit crazy insane levels of batshit irrational biased hatred that broke the camel's back (mine lol) of course you don't know all this nor do I expect you to. Happened over a course of half a year. If you are ignorant, pls

You just overreagate. Instead I barely see you replying to these with anything remarkable.

Oh, wait, but you tried it an you've got ignored! It is that what allows you being toxic? Is that what you tell yourself when you write something nothing better?

Bullshit posting allows you to post bullshit, even when there is none? Does it? 

7 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Every single time!? More like every gazillionth time. Abd FYI, who's the creator of the conflict, the poster who makes 'mistakes' (understatement of the effing century) first or me tired and sick of their BS responding sarcastically? 

It is you. You're there to reply with common sense. Even when you receive ignorance. Again, how does anyone's shitpost or mistake absolve you from being the next in line? How? 

If you're tired of sarcastic replies, don't reply yourself tho their topic. If you're sick and tired because of it, quit following the page. Or try growing up.

7 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Haters. Irrationally biased fascist pro monarchist racist elitist haters. And not only the Stark haters. Stannis ones too. And 94% of them tend to be Dany 'worshippers'

The answer is wrong (nonetheless toxic), so I rather ask you once again:

Who do you think does need this? (Noone.)

7 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Exactly what I was talking about! No one else gets pissed off. And no feeble attempts of how you 'like the Starks too' 

(At this point you made me really upset.)

Alright. Then tell me, who the fuck do you think you are for me, so I would lie to you on a forum of a fantasy novel? On the internet, related to a case where it doesn't even matter! Or what makes you believe that you know what I'm actually thinking? Or that how I relate to a character/s?

I hope you'll moderate yourself afterwards and we will not have to face each other in any future discussion ever again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HerblYY said:

You just overreagate. Instead I barely see you replying to these with anything remarkable.

Oh, wait, but you tried it an you've got ignored! It is that what allows you being toxic? Is that what you tell yourself when you write something nothing better?

Bullshit posting allows you to post bullshit, even when there is none? Does it?

Truly a better origin story then Joaquin Phoenix's Joker

Jokes aside, just ignore the inflammatory things. It's okay to be passionate about a subjects and it's even sometimes fun verbally sparring, but then you get to stuff like this, and it's just more of the misery we've come to known in the cursed year of 2020. So best ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truthfully I am unsure of how Jons story ark will go ahead. I’ve read so many possibilities that can happen.

However danys one is quite interesting. If George does go with the fallen hero ark. It would make it a bitter sweet story. It would be kinda similar to one of the arks of the dark knight film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stories ended the same way?  I don't think so.  Their stories have not ended.  And each will be unique as they are quite different.  I would gladly serve in Dany's council.  I think she has a lot of potential to be an effective ruler of a large continent.  She has traveled a lot and speaks many languages.  Jon will be more suitable as a leader of a tribal people like the Free Folk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HerblYY said:

Seems like none of those toxic haters had appeared yet. The only toxic comment on this thread is still yours. 

You just overreagate. Instead I barely see you replying to these with anything remarkable.

Oh, wait, but you tried it an you've got ignored! It is that what allows you being toxic? Is that what you tell yourself when you write something nothing better?

Bullshit posting allows you to post bullshit, even when there is none? Does it? 

It is you. You're there to reply with common sense. Even when you receive ignorance. Again, how does anyone's shitpost or mistake absolve you from being the next in line? How? 

If you're tired of sarcastic replies, don't reply yourself tho their topic. If you're sick and tired because of it, quit following the page. Or try growing up.

The answer is wrong (nonetheless toxic), so I rather ask you once again:

Who do you think does need this? (Noone.)

(At this point you made me really upset.)

Alright. Then tell me, who the fuck do you think you are for me, so I would lie to you on a forum of a fantasy novel? On the internet, related to a case where it doesn't even matter! Or what makes you believe that you know what I'm actually thinking? Or that how I relate to a character/s?

I hope you'll moderate yourself afterwards and we will not have to face each other in any future discussion ever again.

 

 

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Truly a better origin story then Joaquin Phoenix's Joker

Jokes aside, just ignore the inflammatory things. It's okay to be passionate about a subjects and it's even sometimes fun verbally sparring, but then you get to stuff like this, and it's just more of the misery we've come to known in the cursed year of 2020. So best ignore it.

Sorry 

Sorry again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...