Do you think that the fact Jaime, Tyrion and even Tywin (to an extent) are beloved by the fandom while Cersei is hated indicates some sexism?

[Aldarion]

12 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The frey and Ironborn call Reeds frogmen and frogeaters. That's hate speech. Cruel insulting and disparaging words used to generalize and demean. Like, that's hate speech which is why the Reeds get visibly upset when their bigotedly insulted by the Walders.

When do you think was the first official day of hate speech? When can we celebrate it's birthday?

It is not "hate speech", it is just an insult. "Hate speech" is just a stupid name for something that has existed since forever.

[Craving Peaches]

22 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Cruel insulting and disparaging words used to generalize and demean. Like, that's hate speech which is why the Reeds get visibly upset when their bigotedly insulted by the Walders.

Yes but no one perceives it as we now perceive hate speech. They feel insulted and upset but no one is claiming a hate crime has been committed. They don't have these concepts that we now have. People weren't aware. But people have always been aware of gravity.

22 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

When do you think was the first official day of hate speech? When can we celebrate it's birthday?

Presumably when the term was first used or accepted.

[Hugorfonics]

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes but no one perceives it as we now perceive hate speech. They feel insulted and upset but no one is claiming a hate crime has been committed.

Not with the frogs because calling someone a mean name isn't a crime only speech. But the Sheep? The hate speech is definitely real with the Dothraki and their attacks definitely do seem to be directed (you pointed this out to me lol) mainly against the lamb men up to the point that I see no problem labeling it a hate crime. 

Calling a Pagan a savage was hate speech, burning his village was a hate crime. And they most certainly recognized both, even if they didn't have out English term for it 

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Presumably when the term was first used or accepted

So same with abolition. But what about vegetarian?

[Craving Peaches]

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The hate speech is definitely real with the Dothraki and their attacks definitely do seem to be directed (you pointed this out to me lol) mainly against the lamb men up to the point that I see no problem labeling it a hate crime. 

You are free to do that but the people in the story don't view these things like us.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Calling a Pagan a savage was hate speech, burning his village was a hate crime. And they most certainly recognized both, even if they didn't have out English term for it 

No they didn't. Burning the heathens was the acceptable thing to do because they were heathens who spurred the light of the lord. Now some people may have taken the view that you should be merciful, but others believed that was how you dealt with people of other religions. 

[Hugorfonics]

14 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

You are free to do that but the people in the story don't view these things like us.

Yea they do

Quote

Ooooooh, I am the last of the giants,my people are gone from the earth. The last of the great mountain giants, who ruled all the world at my birth. Oh the smallfolk have stolen my forests, they’ve stolen my rivers and hills. And they’ve built a great wall through my valleys, and fished all the fish from my rills. In stone halls they burn their great fires, in stone halls they forge their sharp spears. Whilst I walk alone in the mountains, with no true companion but tears. They hunt me with dogs in the daylight, they hunt me with torches by night. For these men who are small can never stand tall, whilst giants still walk in the light. Oooooooh, I am the LAST of the giants, so learn well the words of my song. For when I am gone the singing will fade, and the silence shall last long and long

It moves spearwives like Ygritte to tears. The hate and ostracization is real. Just not as real as real life

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

No they didn't. Burning the heathens was the acceptable thing to do because they were heathens who spurred the light of the lord. Now some people may have taken the view that you should be merciful, but others believed that was how you dealt with people of other religions. 

What? It wasnt acceptable to the heathens therefore it was unacceptable. And this road is very fucking dangerous, belief in the warlords acceptance leads to genocide and general atrocity. Like, Jim Jones said it was acceptable to drink Kool Aid. Ok, good plan.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

Yea they do

They really don't.

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

What? It wasnt acceptable to the heathens therefore it was unacceptable.

It was acceptable to the people doing the burning. They didn't perceive it as we would.

[Hugorfonics]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

They really don't.

I just gave you an example where they do

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It was acceptable to the people doing the burning. They didn't perceive it as we would

They heard the screaming and smelt the burning, unless they were psychopaths they felt bad. We just don't hear the sad reports or backlash because it was really long ago. But say the heathen villages of women and children in the plains of America was massacred as late as in the 20th century. And from the get to till today we can see plenty of backlash from the victorious Christian community. 

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I just gave you an example where they do

What, the example where the Walders insult the Crannogmen? That's not them viewing things the same way as us at all.

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

They heard the screaming and smelt the burning, unless they were psychopaths they felt bad.

They thought it was divine justice.

[Hugorfonics]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

What, the example where the Walders insult the Crannogmen? That's not them viewing things the same way as us at all.

No the song. And wildlings seeing the world threw giant eyes, knowing their second class people. Hence the term wildlings. (Which they don't call themselves, so that's also kind hate speech tbh lol. Definitely with the vale wildlings, like how are they wildlings?)

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

They thought it was divine justice

So we're back to the Kool aid situation? Perhaps. If it's not evil it may just be ignorance. Either way, clearly wrong and dumb.

Again though, hard to tell. History written by the winners? Nah lol it was written by monks.

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

So we're back to the Kool aid situation? Perhaps. If it's not evil it may just be ignorance. Either way, clearly wrong and dumb.

Yes it is but the whole point is that they didn't see it that way...

And I think claiming the song about giants as being about hate crime/speech is a bit of a stretch.

[the trees have eyes]

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Because it doesnt make sense. Ramsays ancestors flayed, the sigil that theyre as proud of as Lannister and its lion is a flayed man, Ramsays dad told him a flayed man holds no secrets. When Ramsay flays we judge, despite the Bolton moral code

If Westerosi laws and society had flaying as a form of punishment it would be unremarkable for the Boltons to flay people.  Clearly neither laws nor society support flaying and the Boltons themselves do not attempt to publicly flay anyone because they would have been punished for it.  Ramsay's "pursuits" are considered depraved and sadistic and at variance with the culture, mores and values of contemporary society.  Even Roose views it with distaste though he tolerates it provided it remains hidden.  There is no "Bolton moral code" here, just an emblem of heraldry and a sadistic individual.

I have tried all along to say ideas or thought systems are expressed, developed, spread and adopted.  The Boltons have access to the same ideas, education, history, society and culture as their peers so they have the same moral code and can be judged the same way as their contemporaries.  That results in Ramsay, actually Reek, being put to death by Ser Rodrik, and Reek, actually Ramsay, brought as a prisoner to Winterfell to wait trial.

This should not be hard to follow and has no relation to judging a society or civilisation hundreds or thousands of years in the past on values and beliefs they had no exposure to.

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

And theyre really bad lol.

This is your assessment of practically every human civilisation or culture to have existed?  It's a puerile comment.

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

In Amercian history theres loads of senators and such giving passionate speeches on the defense of slavery and its really disgusting. And it may not have been disgusting to some contemporaries, but it most assuredly was to others. Mainly the slaves.

The 19th century was the period when ideas truly shifted as a result of the Enlightenment and political thought developing the concept of rights in the 18th century.  Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, and slavery in the British Empire in 1833, Russia emancipated it's serfs in 1861 and the US abolished slavery in Rebel States in 1863 and entirely in 1865.

There were long campaigns to secure these emancipations or abolitions so in the 18th and 19th century there were indeed many contemporaries who were disgusted.  Pre-enlightenment though?  Not so much.  Christianity forbade Christians to hold other Christians as slaves and Islam prohibited Muslims from holding other Muslims as slaves but the concept of slavery was not universally or morally unacceptable.  Go back to pre-Reformation or pre-Christianity/Islam and the Ancient World would not have understood your objections because they did not have the same moral code or share the same belief systems.

I'm not too conversant with US politicians speeches on slavery so I don't know where you're thinking of contemporary or 19th century.  I know Josh Hawley recently described slavery as "a necessary evil" which to my 21st century mind begs the question "necessary for who?" but I read contemporary speeches as a fudge - both an acknowledgment that is was wrong along with a perhaps understandable desire not to view great-granddaddy and your inherited family wealth as the result of "evil". 

As for 19th century politicians, that was the era when the balance was shifting between uncomfortable but prepared to go along with it (The Constitution) and the gathering momentum of the Abolition Movement globally.

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yea it may be ignorant, Im fine ignoring why nazis say, used a tea spoon when eating their frosted flakes instead of a tablespoon. The rest of their stuff as well. (although I like to think about von Braun. Nazi scientist which means he must have believed in eugenics which is flawed science. So its strange to think that a flawed scientist was still scientifically brilliant enough to you know, get mankind on the moon)
Although Im not really ignorant, the final solution only happened after the germans realized they couldnt feed the pow let alone their own soldiers, so the expendable become extra expendable. Also they wanted to unify the world and such.

Why are we talking about the Nazis? The Nazis had access to every thought, belief system and moral code that their contemporaries in democracies and their opponents in Germany did.  We can judge them with horror because they had access to ideas and moral codes that are largely similar to our own but chose to reject them as weak or decadent and were able to launch a coup in Germany and suppress any thought system that challenged their own. The verdict of contemporaries was just as damning as our own.  It's not that they did not have the intellectual structures or moral framework to assess their own actions, it's that they despised them.

17 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

When examining the cause of evilness evil still comes out, so ill stick to being lazy as well and just judge all of the middle ages and before as well and Ill probably be right 90% of the time.

Jesus Christ.  I mean that both as an imprecation and a point.  All major world religions were founded in the Ancient or Medieval Period.  You can be as lazy and ignorant as you want but it surely won't make you right.

Above all, what I'm trying to get across is what morality is.  It does not exist in a vacuum or as some universal truth that an individual can discover for him or herself just by being "good".  Morality is an attempt made by every human society and culture to create a system of thought to underpin practices and rules to govern human behaviour and interactions.  Every society and culture has come up with it's own ideas and solutions and, particularly if cultures were isolated, their systems of morality appear strange.  This is magnified when we look into the past as every culture is isolated from ideas, practices and experiences we take for granted and the physical isolation of cultures around the world magnifies the strangeness of those to each other and to us as observers.  Ideas spread when cultures come into contact with each other and over time influence each other but it's only in the modern world when travel and communication remove barriers that we can begin to talk of "human" rights or "universal" rights or to try and aspire to a universal standard of morality.  It's work in progress and stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of development so to write off humanity outside a narrow band of the present is breathtakingly narrow-minded.

18 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

So is gravity. They had it back then too

Weird comparison.  They did not understand gravity or have any way of expressing what it was.  Newton had a rather famous moment with an apple that led to him expressing a concept that has gone on to become a fundamental law of physics and underpin our understanding of the world around us and allow theoretical and practical applications of technology.

That is the power of thought, of human development of an idea and the impact of generations building on the thought of those who came before them.  Now apply that development process to morality and just like our space age technology our contemporary morality rests on the thinkers of the past.

They had morality back then too, it was an earlier expression of human thought than it is today.

18 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk, I had to read it for highschool lol. 
But I totally love this stuff anyway. History and these epics are interesting as hell, because theyre human, right? Like I watch African safari shows sometimes, I root for the zebra baby to get away, but also kinda for the lion to catch it. Like I dont really care, cuz I just cant relate to a zebra. But say this is the news and its like some kid, oh my heart goes out massively for this rando because as a human I can empathize with how scary staring down a lion is. 
Thats how I look at this subject. Richard I was not a zebra, I can sort of put my shoes into his place and think this guys a dick, granted it does get much easier as time goes by and ideas of democracy and capitalism and socialism and even communism or anarchy is much easier to relate and comprehended then feudalism. 

I hope your takeaway was not that the Greeks and Trojans were both evil but I think I can guess.

Human nature doesn't change: you're either kind or cruel, generous or mean, friendly or stand-offish, helpful or self-centred, etc...  That part of us is our own.  But our morality and world view is drummed into us through nurture, education, socialisation and media (book/radio/tv) and that depends entirely on the time and place we live in.  "The Past is a foreign country: they do things differently there" is a quote from L.P. Hartley from the 1950s.  It's interesting for two reasons: it captures how different societies and cultures are (or were) either confusing or completely unknown and why history is not just teaching events but explaining them with all the complexity and confusion that brings; and how even after less than a century technological change in the internet age has challenged that simple premise as we have exposure to all cultures adn belief systems if we choose to seek it (and don't live in an authoritarian state behind a great firewall....).

[Hugorfonics]

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

If Westerosi laws and society had flaying as a form of punishment it would be unremarkable for the Boltons to flay people.  Clearly neither laws nor society support flaying and the Boltons themselves do not attempt to publicly flay anyone because they would have been punished for it.  Ramsay's "pursuits" are considered depraved and sadistic and at variance with the culture, mores and values of contemporary society.  Even Roose views it with distaste though he tolerates it provided it remains hidden.  There is no "Bolton moral code" here, just an emblem of heraldry and a sadistic individual.

I have tried all along to say ideas or thought systems are expressed, developed, spread and adopted.  The Boltons have access to the same ideas, education, history, society and culture as their peers so they have the same moral code and can be judged the same way as their contemporaries.  That results in Ramsay, actually Reek, being put to death by Ser Rodrik, and Reek, actually Ramsay, brought as a prisoner to Winterfell to wait trial.

This should not be hard to follow and has no relation to judging a society or civilisation hundreds or thousands of years in the past on values and beliefs they had no exposure to.

So the Ghiscari Dothraki or Wildlings? (besides your acting like all westerosi share one mind when they clearly have different views about all sorts of things. Also tortures and punishments like Karstarks in the gibbet or Cersei on her walk are perceived by some as awful)

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

This is your assessment of practically every human civilisation or culture to have existed?  It's a puerile comment.

Realistic... Like come on, whats your opinion on crucifying puppies?

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

The 19th century was the period when ideas truly shifted as a result of the Enlightenment and political thought developing the concept of rights in the 18th century.  Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, and slavery in the British Empire in 1833, Russia emancipated it's serfs in 1861 and the US abolished slavery in Rebel States in 1863 and entirely in 1865.

There were long campaigns to secure these emancipations or abolitions so in the 18th and 19th century there were indeed many contemporaries who were disgusted

Tbh I dont know much about outside America and slavery, but in the US abolition didnt gain political momentum into well into the civil war, it wasnt like one day they woke up and decided human bondage was unacceptable, it was that the political reality was morality trumped conformity. (Which I think was similar to Russia and Nicky, or was that one Alex?)

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Pre-enlightenment though?  Not so much.  Christianity forbade Christians to hold other Christians as slaves and Islam prohibited Muslims from holding other Muslims as slaves but the concept of slavery was not universally or morally unacceptable.

So its kinda looked down on then like they realized that slavery was wrong, even if they acted like their xenophobia excused them from feeling bad.

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Go back to pre-Reformation or pre-Christianity/Islam and the Ancient World would not have understood your objections because they did not have the same moral code or share the same belief systems.

There are constant slave runaways and revolts, its obvious things were terrible, so if youre doing something terrible, like shackling, branding and owning a human they would at the least understand my objections.

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

I know Josh Hawley recently described slavery as "a necessary evil" which to my 21st century mind begs the question "necessary for who?" but I read contemporary speeches as a fudge - both an acknowledgment that is was wrong along with a perhaps understandable desire not to view great-granddaddy and your inherited family wealth as the result of "evil". 

Josh Halwey lol, what a piece of work that guy is. 
Perhaps its an understandable desire, its reassuring to think your walking in the footprints of heroes, but thats not only a lie its a dangerous one. Ancestor worship is just warlord worship after all. America definitely has two original sins, indians and africans, and im not sure about the worship of like General Custer but there certainly is of General Lee and I concur its understandable, but like humanity history its ignorant and wrong.

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Why are we talking about the Nazis? The Nazis had access to every thought, belief system and moral code that their contemporaries in democracies and their opponents in Germany did.  We can judge them with horror because they had access to ideas and moral codes that are largely similar to our own but chose to reject them as weak or decadent and were able to launch a coup in Germany and suppress any thought system that challenged their own. The verdict of contemporaries was just as damning as our own.  It's not that they did not have the intellectual structures or moral framework to assess their own actions, it's that they despised them.

Whos they? Its a miracle that the US and UK didnt fall to nazism or general fascism, as for the rest of Europe? Tanks pulled up to Vienna into a fucking parade. If the nazis were just a 33% group of nuts who managed to usurp their specific democracy, well, they were a bit more.

The Nazis werent the first Germans (Europeans) to make Jews wear little stars on their shirt nor were they the first Germans (Europeans) to fight over some random stream like Ser Useless and Red Widow. I think its kinda similar to the Salem Trials, its all fine and dandy to hang a witch every few years but after Salem, they looked around and realized when immorality becomes excessive it turns into real tragedy. It wasnt cool anymore to hang witches or throw jews down wells or like, invade Poland. 
And of course, it never was.

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

 to write off humanity outside a narrow band of the present is breathtakingly narrow-minded.

To justify it is breathtakingly foolish

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

They had morality back then too, it was an earlier expression of human thought than it is today.

Of course they did, I never said they didnt. And Im also certainly not rationalizing and throwing like every roman citizen into the same category, but the bad stuff like mass slavery should not get rationalized.

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

I hope your takeaway was not that the Greeks and Trojans were both evil but I think I can guess.

I think I liked the Trojans. Idk, I liked the boys, I dont remember the dad really, sister was kinda annoying but I felt bad how they always told her to shut up. Greeks were undoubtably bad. Less bad probably then the Romans but probably actually not. Achellies was just a rapist, right? And Homers books are really sad and pretty antiwar (and a bit atheist), because as a human thats what we understand and can study for thousands of years. Speaking of humans, you know who was evil? The not humans. Poseidon, Aphrodite, pretty much all of them. Zeus was kinda chill which is weird because Zeus is usually definitely not chill.

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

Human nature doesn't change: you're either kind or cruel, generous or mean, friendly or stand-offish, helpful or self-centred, etc...  That part of us is our own.

Thats not true at all though, people can certainly change as life progresses

On 11/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, the trees have eyes said:

But our morality and world view is drummed into us through nurture, education, socialisation and media (book/radio/tv) and that depends entirely on the time and place we live in.  "The Past is a foreign country: they do things differently there" is a quote from L.P. Hartley from the 1950s.  It's interesting for two reasons: it captures how different societies and cultures are (or were) either confusing or completely unknown and why history is not just teaching events but explaining them with all the complexity and confusion that brings; and how even after less than a century technological change in the internet age has challenged that simple premise as we have exposure to all cultures adn belief systems if we choose to seek it (and don't live in an authoritarian state behind a great firewall....).

Heres another word you probably dont think they could understand (which would be ironically hysterical) empathy, Someones crying, your whipping him. You dont have to turn on the fucking radio

[Ring3r]

Ah, and now I know why I made a point of abandoning this topic.

So many imagined grudges, by people who are communicating, literally, across the planet.

It's almost cute.

[Jaenara Belarys]

3 minutes ago, Ring3r said:

So many imagined grudges, by people who are communicating, literally, across the planet.

 

You just summarized all of social media. 

[Ring3r]

7 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

You just summarized all of social media. 

Not all heroes have capes.  Sometimes, we have carpal tunnel.

[Craving Peaches]

I thought it was obvious that morality changed over time...

If you consider the Aztecs, they thought that if they didn't sacrifice enough people, the gods wouldn't have enough power, and the world would end. So they though child sacrifice was the right, moral thing to do. They didn't believe it was bad and ignore this, they genuinely believed it was the correct course of action.

I don't understand why anyone would expect all past societies on the planet to conform to their modern day morality and label them evil when they don't. They had morality and ethics, just different to ours now. And sometimes they chose to ignore them, as we do now.

[the trees have eyes]

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

To justify it is breathtakingly foolish

No one is here.  Take that up with Josh Hawley.  The point is not to judge the past, and particularly the further back you go, by the standards of the present.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Of course they did, I never said they didnt.

Really?  We're only talking because you said this:

On 10/26/2022 at 4:50 AM, Hugorfonics said:

They're an ignorant bunch though, and the further we go back the stranger they often act. Eventually they're so strange I can't really recognize any type of morality, mainly the middle ages. 

I'm curious as to how, when you were forced to read The Iliad, your teacher invited you to think of and discuss such different cultures so far removed in time and space and whether anyone ever mentioned the word evil.

On 10/29/2022 at 8:14 PM, Hugorfonics said:

I think even the ancient Egyptians found the ancienter Egyptians to be strange.

Indeed.  But did they abhor them as evil because they discarded some of their practices? 

[Hugorfonics]

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

No one is here.

Coulda fooled me

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Take that up with Josh Hawley

I don't wanna talk to him

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

The point is not to judge the past, and particularly the further back you go, by the standards of the present.

Well then how the hell to I judge them? Should I applaud the death of Julius Caesar like some type of Cato? He represented the standard of Rome, although with times changing maybe I should weep like the new kind of Antony. Ask Cicero, he probably has something to say about Antony, the Senate too. Also, are we allowed to talk about the plebs? Oh what about Hermann and the whole slaughter of his new peoples like some kind of Theon. What's the standard on the traitor Arminius, or the standard on the hero Hermann? 

Tiberius wrestled with the delicacy of emperor and the the collapse of the Republic, he probably often wondered whether Augustus did it right but he wasn't there and has no way of knowing and has to deal with the consequences. Like us. Fortunately though we're far removed from this crazy conflict and can look at the events from an outside perspective and not as it's sole recipient. Also fortunately for us Tiberius isn't around because that dude was the fucking worst (excluding like almost every emperor after), despite the standards that Sejanus or whomever set.

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Really?  We're only talking because you said this:

I was being hyperbolic, and then I basically said that. That Im probably wrong, like 5% or whatever number

10 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm curious as to how, when you were forced to read The Iliad, your teacher invited you to think of and discuss such different cultures so far removed in time and space and whether anyone ever mentioned the word evil.

Are you offended by the word evil? Perhaps that's hyperbolic too. How about really really really fucked up?

Every single (Greek) character is a warmonger. Every one. That's why they're there. Not because they respect their king of kings, because they really don't, and certainly not to help his brother chase some tail. They thought they were going on an adventure and created carnage, they will be remembered like they knew but its certainly not because of like their honor.

And then Ulysses sails past hell because he's a really bad navigator or something and they're all rotting there because you know, it's hell, where they belong. 

11 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Indeed.  But did they abhor them as evil because they discarded some of their practices? 

Yes? To my knowledge some Ancient Greek historian came to Cairo, saw the pyramids, asked some rando how they build that, he shrugged, the Greek then thought the amount of slaves to build them must be astronomical. And just like that thousands of years went by and ancient Egyptians were thought of by everyone as whip holding slave masters, until the damn triangles were excavated and the graffiti on the wall insinuated some foreman or something like adding up his paycheck on the wall (multiply by bird, carry the sun) and only know do we realize they weren't actually these gross insestious slave masters we thought of but just regular gross insestious masters

[the trees have eyes]

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Coulda fooled me

It seems you fooled yourself.

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I don't wanna talk to him

Not many people do.

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Well then how the hell to I judge them? Should I applaud the death of Julius Caesar like some type of Cato? He represented the standard of Rome, although with times changing maybe I should weep like the new kind of Antony. Ask Cicero, he probably has something to say about Antony, the Senate too. Also, are we allowed to talk about the plebs? Oh what about Hermann and the whole slaughter of his new peoples like some kind of Theon. What's the standard on the traitor Arminius, or the standard on the hero Hermann? 

Tiberius wrestled with the delicacy of emperor and the the collapse of the Republic, he probably often wondered whether Augustus did it right but he wasn't there and has no way of knowing and has to deal with the consequences. Like us. Fortunately though we're far removed from this crazy conflict and can look at the events from an outside perspective and not as it's sole recipient. Also fortunately for us Tiberius isn't around because that dude was the fucking worst (excluding like almost every emperor after), despite the standards that Sejanus or whomever set.

There's a lot here that suggests you see some complexity, ambiguity and, yes, probably some morality as people in the ancient world wrestled with what to do and how to do it, rather than dismissing them as evil, amoral barbarians.  I quite approve 

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Are you offended by the word evil? Perhaps that's hyperbolic too. How about really really really fucked up?

No, I'm not.  I think it simplifies grossly and is vastly overused when people don't understand or like something - as in discounting most of humanity's existence - so should be used sparingly and deliberately.

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yes? To my knowledge some Ancient Greek historian came to Cairo, saw the pyramids, asked some rando how they build that, he shrugged, the Greek then thought the amount of slaves to build them must be astronomical. And just like that thousands of years went by and ancient Egyptians were thought of by everyone as whip holding slave masters, until the damn triangles were excavated and the graffiti on the wall insinuated some foreman or something like adding up his paycheck on the wall (multiply by bird, carry the sun) and only know do we realize they weren't actually these gross insestious slave masters we thought of but just regular gross insestious masters

No, I don't think they did, actually.  Systems change gradually over time or with short sharp shocks (trend or turning point) but typically people regard change as beneficial without seeing the past or their ancestors as evil.

You remind me a bit of Bill Bryson when it comes to style so you should write a world history.  If nothing else it would be entertaining!

[BoltonBannerMan]

Because she's (to me) written in a way where I can't find a reason to like her and as you can probably guess, I like Roose Bolton. Roose is a horrible human being I would never love to meet, but a very fun character to read about. There is some mysticism about him. Cersei just thinks she's stuff, when she is not. Like an arrogant person that's not really good at anything. I can't say any of this about Tywin, Tyrion or Jamie.