Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yikes.  Again, it's you echoing his slut-shaming propaganda and acting as if it has any merit when everything we know from the text confirms it doesn't.  And "we don't know" isn't an argument, it's a classic rhetorical device to slander people you disagree with/don't like.  South Park did a whole episode on this and "I'm just asking questions!" ("Dances with Smurfs"). 
 

But I’m already accounting for any of Cole’s exaggerations by assuming her rule won’t constitute KL being turned into a brothel.  
 

But even sexual relationships outside of marriage would constitute as bad.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it's not.  This is a brazen double standard.  Nobody applies a male's sexual activities to their abilities as rulers, at least not if it's as muted as Rhaenyra's, and we shouldn't for her either.

Because the double standard exists doesn’t mean you get to ignore it. I judge her for knowing how her decisions have consequences and making those decisions anyways (assuming of course that she would).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With some hindsight now, I’d say that both HOTD and ROP had okay premieres, struggled through the middle, and finished with strong finales. HOTD had better writing overall, but both shows were mainly carried by talented performers. The most important thing is that they both left us with a hook: what will Rhaenyra do now that Luke is dead, and what will Sauron do now that he’s returned?

Despite the Daemon-mania, Viserys seems to have been the heart of the first season for most people, and now we’ll have to see who can take that role going forward. In retrospect, they probably should have done more to build Corlys up, since he’s the one main character we’ll see through to the end. Also probably Baela and Rhaena, who have mostly just stood around looking pretty so far. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Progressive ideas usually begin in academic circles, which wealthier people have more access to.

But nobility is not the same as wealthy class. The first group depends on matters not changing much.

But in any case, I'm not saying that in some times and places it can't be the case. I'm saying that it's not always the case. And there's no reason to assume it's the case in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I don’t buy this whole: the showrunners are shocked by the reaction to Daemon. 

Maybe Sarah as an individual, but the show deliberately treats Daemon with kid gloves. While people like Otto are made to bully, manipulate, and undermine characters we love Daemon only assaults none-characters and faces zero repercussions.

It allows people to laugh at his villainy while cheering his heroics when he aids the people we love (Rhaenyra, Laenor, Viserys) and smacking down those we don’t (Otto, Cole, Vaemond).

He killed his wife and no one cared. The show could have given her family’s grief a spotlight to put shame upon the murder, but instead they bring out a fat guy who is full of bluster and then push him away, never to be recalled again.

His choking of Rhaenyra is the first exception (since Rhaenyra is the hero) but really, the affect is undermined by having her spew a bunch of out-of-character nonsense in the middle of a critical moment.

Stand down to Alicent and get ourselves killed because the song of ice and fire?? The fuck is she talking about.

I think you should reevaluate your position that perhaps it is not the showrunners you are upset about who constantly cut away Daemon's humanizing moments, have him kill his wife, ignore his daughters, and have him choke his wife but instead the audience who love him regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Monarchies with real power like the shah of Iran, the house of Saud (Saudi Arabia) or the Tsars were (are) all more progressive than the population because they were (are) unaffected by traditional customs the rest had to uphold.

Wow is this wildly inaccurate and ignorant of how modern monarchies repress grassroots progressive movements and buy off their constituencies.  Apparently you've never heard of the Arab Spring.  See here:

Quote

Most Arab monarchs attempted to contain the 2011 uprisings in a broadly similar manner: They granted monetary incentives and limited political concessions, which they combined with repressive tactics that constrained persistent protesters and deterred further contestation. Of course, depending on regime wealth and type, some offered more concessions or repressed protesters more harshly than others. [...]

Their political systems range from absolute monarchy to soft dictatorships. Morocco and Jordan fit the latter description; they have both a minimum component of democracy and mechanisms that ensure the ruler remains the most powerful actor. Although Kuwait and Bahrain have minor openings and developing civil society groups, Gulf monarchies overall have more restrictive political systems compared to Morocco and Jordan.

These categorizations help explain how regimes interact with populations and opposition movements. Wealthier monarchies can provide citizens with material perks in a way that poorer monarchies cannot. During the uprisings, while poorer monarchies like Morocco and Jordan offered modest monetary concessions like delayed austerity measures and increased subsidies, super-rentier states such as the United Arab Emirates could afford multi-billion-dollar development projects. Furthermore, monarchies with strong civil society and political groups face greater or more frequent opposition than absolute monarchies and are less likely to harshly repress them. This partly explains why security forces in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia killed a massive number of protesters compared to in Morocco and Jordan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The Daemon stuff would be the same as my reply to the gladiator. As for Aemond, in the show he absolutely wants to usurp his brother.

If TV-Aemond wanted to usurp his brother, then why didn't he help him onto the next ship to Essos when Aegon was begging to leave; or help him disappear in a more sinister and permanent way?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

But nobility is not the same as wealthy class. The first group depends on matters not changing much.

But in any case, I'm not saying that in some times and places it can't be the case. I'm saying that it's not always the case. And there's no reason to assume it's the case in Westeros.

It is when they have power because their authority is derived from religious iconography and they are the one’s with the power to ignore it. 

The reason you don’t see liberal countries with an absolute monarchy is because liberals rely less on divine right and more on constitutional authority. 

Where monarchies exist(ed) with power they had internally more progressive politics. The Tsars (Russia), the Shah (Iran), the Saudis, the Hapsburgs (during their reign), despite relying on on religion for authority. That was for the people to accept their rule why they didn’t have to follow as closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New interview from Condal. He mentions a scene between Baela and Rhaenys that was cut from the final episode, but says that any other cut scenes from the finale didn’t need to be included. I see this as further confirmation that the showrunners see Daemon as a villain. In a way, I’m glad they’re committing to it. Once they decided to have him murder his wife with his own two hands, there was no coming back from that.

https://www.vulture.com/article/house-of-the-dragon-finale-ending-explained-director-interview.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Wow is this wildly inaccurate and ignorant of how modern monarchies repress grassroots progressive movements and buy off their constituencies.  Apparently you've never heard of the Arab Spring.  See here:

 

No offense, but this topic is outside your field of comprehension. You see progressive politics as anything in opposition to authoritarian rule when many so called ‘democratic’ movements are more socially conservative. 

Like Savonarola, John Knox, Morsi (the president of Egypt after the revolution). Compare Morsi who had support with the Muslim brotherhood to Mubarak. 

Secular dictators are different from royalty due to how they claim authority, but Royalty like the Saudis literally arrested many of the Imams who preached against MBS. Kashogi (the man who died) was a supporter of the MB and against the social reforms. 

The problem is when social reforms lead to political ones, but that is a different discussion. As for the Shah (from my country) , I don’t think that story needs telling due to current events. Suffice to say the Shah isolated the religious majority. He tried to counter that with agrarian reform among peasants to appeal to their economic interests, but that didn’t work.

Either way assuming you don’t know about the Middle East I suggest you refrain from such commentary. 
 

Edit: Also, about Westeros: trying reading about the reign of Maegor the Cruel.

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I think you should reevaluate your position that perhaps it is not the showrunners you are upset about who constantly cut away Daemon's humanizing moments, have him kill his wife, ignore his daughters, and have him choke his wife but instead the audience who love him regardless.

Ehh, they cut some heart warming scenes but not all. When he chooses Laena over the baby that was a sign of his love. When he helped Viserys onto the throne, that was a sign of his love. 

His evil scenes are all written off as badass or “lol toxic” because that is how they are framed. And he is (minus the choking scene) dedicated to harming the bad guys in the narrative (Cole, Otto, Vaemond) and protect the good (Rhaenyra, Laenor, and Viserys). 

If this wasn’t intended by the showrunners, okay. But that would be a sign of major incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Yikes.  Again, it's you echoing his slut-shaming propaganda and acting as if it has any merit when everything we know from the text confirms it doesn't.  And "we don't know" isn't an argument, it's a classic rhetorical device to slander people you disagree with/don't like.  South Park did a whole episode on this and "I'm just asking questions!" ("Dances with Smurfs").

No, it's not.  This is a brazen double standard.  Nobody applies a male's sexual activities to their abilities as rulers, at least not if it's as muted as Rhaenyra's, and we shouldn't for her either.

I don't know. I'm with @butterweedstrover on this one.

Habitual sexual misconduct of any kind does, in fact, and can disqualify someone from positions of power and influence. Male or female, it doesn't matter. It weakens your standing (as it is a moral failing) and makes you look awful. Believe it or not, sex and sexuality are still taboo subjects BECAUSE most human beings are prudish and squeamish as it is. To have deviant sexual proclivities, to overindulge in sexual behavior and/or to present a sexual danger horrifies and terrifies people.

To force those same people to keep silent and look the other way under the threat of violence, exile or incarceration is tyranny.

Aegon IV had this problem. As did Aegon II, Maegor and (to a lesser extent) Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

New interview from Condal. He mentions a scene between Baela and Rhaenys that was cut from the final episode, but says that any other cut scenes from the finale didn’t need to be included. I see this as further confirmation that the showrunners see Daemon as a villain. In a way, I’m glad they’re committing to it. Once they decided to have him murder his wife with his own two hands, there was no coming back from that.

https://www.vulture.com/article/house-of-the-dragon-finale-ending-explained-director-interview.html

I still don't understand why they had to have made it so that Daemon killed his first wife.

I feel like it was a completely unnecessary change. I guess the purpose of making Daemon "evil" was to make it seem more like an even struggle instead of allowing the Greens to be mustache-twirling supervillains

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Ehh, they cut some heart warming scenes but not all. When he chooses Laena over the baby that was a sign of his love. When he helped Viserys onto the throne, that was a sign of his love. 

His evil scenes are all written off as badass or “lol toxic” because that is how they are framed. And he is (minus the choking scene) dedicated to harming the bad guys in the narrative (Cole, Otto, Vaemond) and protect the good (Rhaenyra, Laenor, and Viserys). 

If this wasn’t intended by the showrunners, okay. But that would be a sign of major incompetence.

For me, they have done Daemon dirty and I wish they'd re-release the episodes with the nicer elements restored.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

But nobility is not the same as wealthy class. The first group depends on matters not changing much.

Yes. And historically (and even today) the wealthy class in the sense of a proper Marxist analysis of 'the guys who control the means of production' usually were never particularly progressive in the sense that they wanted to change things.

You only have a split among the ruling/wealthy class if there is, say, still a lot of wealth and political power concentrated in the hands of the landed gentry and a hereditary aristocracy ... and industrial barons and the like have to figure out and come up with ways to take power from them and/or at least get a place at the table of the ruling class.

Feudal societies are not particularly complex, though. A child can figure out how to make them better in the sense of 'more progressive'. Kill all the gentlemen, for instance. Abolish privileges. Institute land reforms. After all, nearly all the wealth in a feudal society hinges on land ownership - and most people are poor because they do not land of their own that they can make a living on their own.

Insofar as modern societies are concerned there one would say that academic circles, i.e. (upper) middle-class people come up with stuff in academia and such ... but those things rarely gain popular among the wealthy if they threaten the societal status quo (i.e. their wealth/power).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes. And historically (and even today) the wealthy class in the sense of a proper Marxist analysis of 'the guys who control the means of production' usually were never particularly progressive in the sense that they wanted to change things.

You only have a split among the ruling/wealthy class if there is, say, still a lot of wealth and political power concentrated in the hands of the landed gentry and a hereditary aristocracy ... and industrial barons and the like have to figure out and come up with ways to take power from them and/or at least get a place at the table of the ruling class.

Feudal societies are not particularly complex, though. A child can figure out how to make them better in the sense of 'more progressive'. Kill all the gentlemen, for instance. Abolish privileges. Institute land reforms. After all, nearly all the wealth in a feudal society hinges on land ownership - and most people are poor because they do not land of their own that they can make a living on their own.

Insofar as modern societies are concerned there one would say that academic circles, i.e. (upper) middle-class people come up with stuff in academia and such ... but those things rarely gain popular among the wealthy if they threaten the societal status quo (i.e. their wealth/power).

Historically, there's increasing attention that the majority of Pre-Industrial improvements to the lives of the working class was due to "New Monarchs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Monarchs as well as a larger cultural trend that populist dictators often turn to the public as a whole to increase their power against a hereditary ruling class: Caesar, Napoleon, and other examples in history.

Which is interesting because very likely the show Daenerys would have been one of these. She would have improved the life of the Smallfolk and relied on their centralized loyalty to her to weaken the power of the ruling class.

Thanks Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

No offense, but this topic is outside your field of comprehension.

:lmao:I have three advanced degrees in political science, as well as teach and research politics for a living.  So, yeah, it's literally my "field of comprehension."  You made an assertion about modern monarchies that is empirically - and flagrantly - wrong.  Particularly considering the only contemporary monarchy you mentioned (Pahlavi was deposed 43 years ago) was the House of Saud, which is intrinsically linked to Wahhabism - an abject and extremely conservative ideology.

Anyway, this is completely irrelevant to HotD, asoiaf, or Westeros.  Which is the point - you're trying to make assertions that not only are wildly inaccurate, but have nothing to do with the world Martin has set up.  But in terms of the real world, any contention that progressivism/liberalization is top-down among monarchs or authoritarian regimes is thoroughly laughable.

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Aegon IV had this problem. As did Aegon II, Maegor and (to a lesser extent) Robert

The point is nothing in the text on Rhaenyra's sexual history suggests anything resembling the behaviors and actions of Aegon IV, Maegor, or Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

For me, they have done Daemon dirty and I wish they'd re-release the episodes with the nicer elements restored.

 

If they do that I want to see Otto have a loving moment with Alicent and not just the condescending “you look so much like your mother”.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes. And historically (and even today) the wealthy class in the sense of a proper Marxist analysis of 'the guys who control the means of production' usually were never particularly progressive in the sense that they wanted to change things.

You only have a split among the ruling/wealthy class if there is, say, still a lot of wealth and political power concentrated in the hands of the landed gentry and a hereditary aristocracy ... and industrial barons and the like have to figure out and come up with ways to take power from them and/or at least get a place at the table of the ruling class.

Feudal societies are not particularly complex, though. A child can figure out how to make them better in the sense of 'more progressive'. Kill all the gentlemen, for instance. Abolish privileges. Institute land reforms. After all, nearly all the wealth in a feudal society hinges on land ownership - and most people are poor because they do not land of their own that they can make a living on their own.

Insofar as modern societies are concerned there one would say that academic circles, i.e. (upper) middle-class people come up with stuff in academia and such ... but those things rarely gain popular among the wealthy if they threaten the societal status quo (i.e. their wealth/power).

It’s fascinating how people can confuse social issues like sexuality and tie those into economic populism as if they are fundamentally tied together. We are talking about perceptions of gender and sex amongst the ruling class, not their dedication to economic reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

:lmao:I have three advanced degrees in political science, as well as teach and research politics for a living.  So, yeah, it's literally my "field of comprehension."  You made an assertion about modern monarchies that is empirically - and flagrantly - wrong.  Particularly considering the only contemporary monarchy you mentioned (Pahlavi was deposed 43 years ago) was the House of Saud, which is intrinsically linked to Wahhabism - an abject and extremely conservative ideology.

Anyway, this is completely irrelevant to HotD, asoiaf, or Westeros.  Which is the point - you're trying to make assertions that not only are wildly inaccurate, but have nothing to do with the world Martin has set up.  But in terms of the real world, any contention that progressivism/liberalization is top-down among monarchs or authoritarian regimes is thoroughly laughable.

This is a garbage response and you know it, you accused me being wrong while being ignorant to the extreme. 

All I said was the ruling class were less socially conservative (and referenced Maegor) to which you jumped the hook and started spewing none sense about ‘progressive’ politics as if political freedoms, economic reform, and social progressivism are on the same side all the time. 

You don’t know anything about Saudi Arabia or Wahhabism, if you did you’d understand how much the family’s position relied on giving into their demands and how eager they’ve been to cut ties since 2018. Removing conservative influences does not always coincide with more political freedoms, in fact it can and does come alongside increased oppression (like in the case of Saudi Arabia). You can add the UAE if you want another example.  
 

But, what’s even dumber, is that the Targaryens literally have a concept of exceptionalism above the rules or religion and literally use their dragons to force through social reforms. 
 

Like in our discussion about Cole, you turn the conversation into a subject line about how she would never be that extreme when it was about Cole’s perception (influenced by the tragic events that befall her lovers and how she instantly benefits). 
 

FYI: I support the government reimbursing you for any college expenses, it is obvious you deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

This is a garbage response and you know it, you accused me being wrong while being ignorant to the extreme. 

All I said was the ruling class were less socially conservative (and referenced Maegor) to which you jumped the hook and started spewing none sense about ‘progressive’ politics as if political freedoms, economic reform, and social progressivism are on the same side all the time. 

You don’t know anything about Saudi Arabia or Wahhabism

:rofl:  You made up some horseshit about real-world, contemporary monarchies to try to support your bullshit claims that the ruling class of these regimes is less socially conservative than the constituencies they repress, and I called you on it.  You are wrong, pure and simple, and it has nothing to do with this thread or the discussion you were trying to bootstrap it into.  And you've never met me and know nothing about me.  Assuming I know "nothing" about Saudi Arabia is as presumptively ignorant as your incessant willful misunderstandings concerning Martin's text and the show.

24 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

FYI: I support the government reimbursing you for any college expenses, it is obvious you deserve it.

I haven't had any college expenses since the aughts during undergrad, and during my post-graduate career universities paid me to research politics.

24 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

But, what’s even dumber, is that the Targaryens literally have a concept of exceptionalism above the rules or religion and literally use their dragons to force through social reforms. 

Exactly!  Which is why all your arguments about Rhaenyra "violating social norms" are incredibly dumb.  The only reason this is a thing is because the faction trying to usurp her throne is within her own family and has dragons.  Otherwise her "sins" would be dispensed with in a similar vein to, at worst, Jaehaerys getting the faith and the nobility to accept his marriage to Alysanne.

Edited by DMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

:rofl:  You made up some horseshit about real-world, contemporary monarchies to try to support your bullshit claims that the ruling class of these regimes is less socially conservative than the constituencies they repress, and I called you on it.  
 

You didn’t call me out on anything, you are severely undereducated in this respect, to the point where you can’t keep a consistent argument, shifting the subject from economic reform, to political repression, and back to some vague concept of ‘progress’ whenever it suites your needs.  

But like I said before, if Rhaenyra were to have open sexual relationships, especially with a threat looming about her throne, she’d either be incredibly stupid or incredibly tyrannical.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

You are wrong, pure and simple, and it has nothing to do with this thread or the discussion you were trying to bootstrap it into.
 

That conversation had nothing to do with you, instead you tried to insert yourself, and due to a severe lack in knowledge failed. That is something you need to deal with (especially since you think 43 years is beyond the reach of contemporary history).

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

  And you've never met me and know nothing about me.  Assuming I know "nothing" about Saudi Arabia is as presumptively ignorant as your incessant willful misunderstandings concerning Martin's text and the show. 
 

I can read Martin just fine. In fact I don’t feel the need to assume intentions onto characters given none by their own source material. This all started because I criticized the show for whitewashing Rhaenyra and you have a vested interest in denying reality.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I haven't had any college expenses since the aughts during undergrad, and during my post-graduate career universities paid me to research politics. 
 

I think maybe you should look at your own research and see if it has anything to do with the subject at hand. If not maybe bow out gracefully.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Exactly!  Which is why all your arguments about Rhaenyra "violating social norms" is incredibly dumb.  The only reason this is a thing is a thing is because the faction trying to usurp her throne is within her own family and has dragons.  Otherwise her "sins" would be dispensed with in a similar vein to, at worst, Jaehaerys getting the faith and the nobility to accept his marriage to Alysanne.

Again, dispensing with critique using dragon fire is tyrannical. Especially when the act is not to the benefit of the realm. A good leader would acknowledge their opposition and chart a course in reaction to their existence, not slam headfirst into a war with them because sexual standards were “unfair”. 
 

The funny thing is, I think you’re smarter than this, but we all have to twist our beliefs into believing things that are impossible when we begin with a supposition and try to force everything within that framework.

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...