Where does all this Stark hate come from?

[LongRider]

Just now, SeanF said:

Bowen & co. are eager to curry favour with the Lannisters, Boltons, and Freys.  They see them as the good guys.  I have no sympathy.

That's true too, and currying favor with those guys is also a form of treason as well as they would use the Watch as their own private army. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon was betrayed, that's undeniable. We can even give some of them names like Bowen Marsh. 

There are protocols however that Lord Snow played pretty loose with, I happen to agree with probably all of them, but some do go against what the NW has done in historical memory. So while he didn't betray his institution like say, Walder, he is going against what many took the NW for as granted.

I can agree with that. I can usually see both sides but when someone is all one sided I have a tendency to argue as if I'm all on the other side. The reality is though, I know there are some issues with some of Jon's decisions, even some that I think were good decisions. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I'd say there are some red flags. Repeating the names of those you want dead instead of like, counting sheep, should imo, in today's world, get her a meeting with a childs therapist. I feel really bad for her, she's such a favorite of mine (for some reason I still like Sansa more, but I really love Arya) and she remains the only character to make me tear up sometimes. I think it may be her struggle with mental health that contributes to that, and her bravery to confront it too.

But I stay worried. Her justification for Daeron, like she saw it as her duty to do it. Like The Punisher. Who's a badass, and certifiably not a psychopath, or even a PTSD victim. But still something sick. (Castle can't get better. Arya's still a kid and I'm rooting for her)

For sure, if it was irl Arya would be in need of some intensive inpatient therapy lol . I feel bad for her too, she breaks my heart. I stay worried too. There is definitely a problem there. What I can't stand is when someone goes on about what a monsterous, psycopathic, killer she is & how she will go on to ravish the realm that I find bothersome. The thing is, she might go on to really mess some folks up, but that isn't all of the story, is it? I just feel like if we are going to make judgements we need to make true ones. She is maybe a little loony but she is also a traumatized little girl. It takes the sting out of what she does a little, IMO. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Innocent of baby killing? I guess not, though Deem and Cersei deserve it more so. Innocent in refusing to spend the rest of his life repairing a ruin in a blizzard? I guess not either. Dude was a jerk, no denying that.

For sure. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Lol word. She stole private property like the Union stole the private property of rich slave owners in the confederacy. It's kinda true, if you dramatically tweak the words stole and private property 

haha right? Well, I suppose it is true if you believe a person can be someone else's property. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Word. I've heard Bloodraven too. Regular Targaryen dreams maybe too. Speaking of which, Quaithe scares the hell out of me. How does she appear like that? Is Dany already past insane? Compounded with the stories of her father, I'm straight terrified for Danys mental sanity.

Maybe it was Bloodraven I heard & in my own head canon changed it to Bran? It's a possibility. 

Right?! If it was Bloodraven or Bran, is Quaithe tasked with making Dany lose her mind? Dany was kind of screwed from the beginning right? Like Arya. She was a child with only her ignorant, asshole brother to teach her things, got sold into a marriage to a Dothraki Horse Lord, managed to survive that & it has just kept coming since. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's so true! No justification, no white washing. He's made some mistakes and didn't act in some other times but here he is still standing, one armed and all. He is a lot of fun. (Also hysterical)

Yes he is! He seriously cracks me up, has some of the best lines in the series, IMO. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think so too. But I think this read is better lol. 

I think they'll meet up again though. Itd be weird for them to become friends only to never later meet.

Yeah, The George definitely knows better than me. I do hope they meet up. 

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Or more pragmatic. Tywin wants to end the war and not see Robb go back north to muster a new army. 

Which I get. And let's say forget morality or honor or the superstition of guest rights, one hour of fighting is preferable for the realm then X years.... But if that were truly the case then why does the RW happen in just the third book? And the middle of it at that? Could it be that the tyranny and disrespect shown at the RW will actually escalate the conflict, far more the ln what Robb could ever have done alive? I say absolutely. Which would make the RW the non pragmatic choice in the end

Right, I can't deny the appeal. Given the choice of marching across the realm to meet other armies in open battle, or watching a bunch of dudes get drunk at a wedding & then mopping them up, I would imagine most wouldn't want to go to battle, at least not initially. But like you said what about the consequences? It very well may escalate things & I think it probably will. Regardless of how much easier it is breaking guest right is a taboo for a reason. The coming books will be interesting if we ever get them lol 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Jon publicly says, during his speech in the shield hall, that dealing with Ramsay is not the business of the Night's Watch. I do not have my books to hand so do not have the exact quote. Something like 'the NW takes no part, it is not our job to defend Stannis's wife and children etc ...' So that's what his men heard: he never even tried to defend his actions as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch

What difference does that make? Perhaps he doesn't try to defend his actions as LC of the NW because there is no need to defend them? 

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

He may not think he's oathbreaking by leading the wildlings to attack Ramsay. Or he may be unsure whether he is. But the if is in his thoughts: he said out loud for all to hear that what he was doing was not NW business.

Indeed, that's why he doesn't ask any of the NW to come with him, though it arguably IS NW's business considering Ramsay threatened the lot of them. Either way though, I still don't understand how this proves Jon betrayed the NW? Because he thinks in his mind that he isn't sure if it is? 

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

And this is the problem here. Many readers are unable to step away from Jon's perspective and ask what it looked like to everyone else. As officers of the Night's Watch Bowen and co were unable to stand by and let the Lord Commander lead their traditional enemies, whom they had spent their lives defending the north against, against the north. Cut and dry. They did the right thing. 

Nope, the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is to lead the NW's members. The members are to follow. Jon made a decision for the greater good. A If Bowen cannot understand that, that is Bowen's issue. Jon isn't running a day care, this is a community of, mostly, hardened criminals. Then he made a speech, at the end of which it was clear Jon was going to take the "enemies" that Bowen & co whined about with him. They should be happy. Doesn't matter how long they have defended themselves against the Wildlings? Why would it? Why is it ok to defend themselves against the freefolk but not against Ramsay? Ramsay called for blood & Jon was answering. Ramsay has married under false pretenses in order to steal a castle that he has no right to & then had the nerver to write threatening the NW if they didn't produce a whole slew of people they don't have & Jon was going to answer Ramsay & he is the bad guy? It was the right decision to commit mutiny & try to murder your Lord Commander? Is that what we do in a military style outfit if we don't like what our commander is doing? 

It doesn't matter one iota how it looks to others. They should probably figure out what is going on before they make a dumb decision like killing their LC. 

 

[LongRider]

Here is the passage from the book.  No need to guess or try to remember, here it is.  

 

A Dance with Dragons - Jon XIII

"I summoned you to make plans for the relief of Hardhome," Jon Snow began. "Thousands of the free folk are gathered there, trapped and starving, and we have had reports of dead things in the wood." To his left he saw Marsh and Yarwyck. Othell was surrounded by his builders, whilst Bowen had Wick Whittlestick, Left Hand Lew, and Alf of Runnymudd beside him. To his right, Soren Shieldbreaker sat with his arms crossed against his chest. Farther back, Jon saw Gavin the Trader and Harle the Handsome whispering together. Ygon Oldfather sat amongst his wives, Howd Wanderer alone. Borroq leaned against a wall in a dark corner. Mercifully, his boar was nowhere in evidence. 

"The ships I sent to take off Mother Mole and her people have been wracked by storms. We must send what help we can by land or let them die." Two of Queen Selyse's knights had come as well, Jon saw. Ser Narbert and Ser Benethon stood near the door at the foot of the hall. But the rest of the queen's men were conspicuous in their absence. "I had hoped to lead the ranging myself and bring back as many of the free folk as could survive the journey." A flash of red in the back of the hall caught Jon's eye. Lady Melisandre had arrived. "But now I find I cannot go to Hardhome. The ranging will be led by Tormund Giantsbane, known to you all. I have promised him as many men as he requires."
"And where will you be, crow?" Borroq thundered. "Hiding here in Castle Black with your white dog?"
"No. I ride south." Then Jon read them the letter Ramsay Snow had written.

The Shieldhall went mad.
Every man began to shout at once. They leapt to their feet, shaking fists. So much for the calming power of comfortable benches. Swords were brandished, axes smashed against shields. Jon Snow looked to Tormund. The Giantsbane sounded his horn once more, twice as long and twice as loud as the first time.

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

"The Night's Watch will make for Hardhome. I ride to Winterfell alone, unless …" Jon paused. "… is there any man here who will come stand with me?"

The roar was all he could have hoped for, the tumult so loud that the two old shields tumbled from the walls. Soren Shieldbreaker was on his feet, the Wanderer as well. Toregg the Tall, Brogg, Harle the Huntsman and Harle the Handsome both, Ygon Oldfather, Blind Doss, even the Great Walrus. I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.

Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. "Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that's how it's done. We'll make a wildling o' you yet, boy. Har!"

[Quoth the raven,]

Past lord commanders must have curried favor with the Lord of Winterfell too.  Wanting good relations with the people you protect is not a violation of neutrality.  Most people in law enforcement will tell you the value of being on good terms with the community.  What is wrong is having and acting on personal preference for one protectee over the other.  Jon, as the Lord Commander, must "love" the Boltons as much as he loves the Baratheons in his actions.  Jon was bad at impartiality.  Don't forget the differential treatment of Mance and Janos.  Mance is the worse offender.  Jon gave him a break and sent him to find Arya.  Jon took Janos' life. 

[Craving Peaches]

I think that in order to betray the Night's Watch, Jon would have to go so far as to abandon the Watch or side with its enemies. I do not find the argument that Jon betrayed the Watch by violating neutrality convincing. Firstly, it is not a part of the vows of the Watch, just an accepted principle, and principles change with time. Jon was twice put in a position where he could either no longer adhere to this principle, or continue to stick to it and see the Watch destroyed. He chose the Watch each time. That seems the opposite of betrayal to me. Secondly, Jon has consistently remained true to the real spirit of the Watch, embracing its purpose to protect all men against the threat of the Others. Thirdly, it is not Jon who broke the neutrality of the Watch, but Stannis. To say that Jon 'betrayed' the Watch is, in my view, to take a very broad meaning of the word 'betrayed' and does not consider the bigger picture.

[Quoth the raven,]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think that in order to betray the Night's Watch, Jon would have to go so far as to abandon the Watch or side with its enemies. I do not find the argument that Jon betrayed the Watch by violating neutrality convincing. Firstly, it is not a part of the vows of the Watch, just an accepted principle, and principles change with time. Jon was twice put in a position where he could either no longer adhere to this principle, or continue to stick to it and see the Watch destroyed. He chose the Watch each time. That seems the opposite of betrayal to me. Secondly, Jon has consistently remained true to the real spirit of the Watch, embracing its purpose to protect all men against the threat of the Others. Thirdly, it is not Jon who broke the neutrality of the Watch, but Stannis. To say that Jon 'betrayed' the Watch is, in my view, to take a very broad meaning of the word 'betrayed' and does not consider the bigger picture.

The decision to command Mance to find Arya was a betrayal.  Jon was going to hide Arya from her husband.  That's a very hostile move against the Boltons.  It was treason. 

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Quoth the raven, said:

The decision to command Mance to find Arya was a betrayal.

Why? It was a violation of neutrality, yes, after said neutrality was already broken by Stannis. And neutrality is not part of the Vows of the Watch. Who or what exactly was Jon 'betraying' when he sent Mance to find Arya?

2 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

It was treason. 

Again, treason against whom? Jon has not sworn vows to the Boltons or any king.

[kissdbyfire]

Premature posting :

 

 

[SeanF]

10 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

The decision to command Mance to find Arya was a betrayal.  Jon was going to hide Arya from her husband.  That's a very hostile move against the Boltons.  It was treason. 

The Boltons are already traitors.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Actually, it does, if you read it with seeing eyes.  

 

He does. Here it is.

ADwD, Jon XIII

     “And where will you be, crow?” Borroq thundered. “Hiding here in Castle Black with your white dog?”
     “No. I ride south.” Then Jon read them the letter Ramsay Snow had written.
     The Shieldhall went mad.
     Every man began to shout at once. They leapt to their feet, shaking fists. So much for the calming power of comfortable benches. Swords were brandished, axes smashed against shields. Jon Snow looked to Tormund. The Giantsbane sounded his horn once more, twice as long and twice as loud as the first time. 
     “The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. “It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.”
<snip>

There are two important things here and they are connected; one I addressed in my previous reply, the other I didn't but will now.

The one I did address is the issue of what constitutes treason really? As I said before, Bowen and others like to throw the word around a lot, but that doesn't mean that what they consider treason actually is treason. 

Here we see Jon say, 'the Watch takes no part' and 

 

 

You address my point by agreeing with it. Jon publicly said marching against Ramsay was not Night's Watch business and that marching against him is oathbreaking. That's his framing of the issue to his own men. He may not quite think of it like that but my point was it was a disastrous thing to say because it left his men no choice but to do what they did.

If he didn't want to get stabbed he needed to make the argument all of his supporters on this site make - that Ramsay was coming to attack them and they had to defend themselves. He made no such argument. 

So not sure why you're disagreeing with me.

[Groo]

21 minutes ago, LongRider said:

"Then Jon read them the letter Ramsay Snow had written.

The Shieldhall went mad.
Every man began to shout at once. They leapt to their feet, shaking fists. So much for the calming power of comfortable benches. Swords were brandished, axes smashed against shields. Jon Snow looked to Tormund. The Giantsbane sounded his horn once more, twice as long and twice as loud as the first time.

 

I read through the letter again to see what would make the wildings react so strongly. Here's the letter again.

"Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.

Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Ramsay Bolton,

Trueborn Lord of Winterfell."

Seems to me it could only be the Mance part. I doubt the wildings would care that much about Stannis or his family. The certainly don't know who "Reek" is. There are a lot of interesting implications if the wildings are really on the warpath to get Mance back.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Groo said:

I read through the letter again to see what would make the wildings react so strongly. Here's the letter again.

"Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.

Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Ramsay Bolton,

Trueborn Lord of Winterfell."

Seems to me it could only be the Mance part. I doubt the wildings would care that much about Stannis or his family. The certainly don't know who "Reek" is. There are a lot of interesting implications if the wildings are really on the warpath to get Mance back.

A very good point although Tormund had the letter read to him earlier and was a bit skeptical. 

[Groo]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

A very good point although Tormund had the letter read to him earlier and was a bit skeptical. 

True but those in the hall were clearly taking it at face value since their reaction was so swift and strong. I'm not making an argument here about the truth of any part of the letter. You've correctly pointed out what Bowen and company's reaction was to what they were hearing. It just made me curios to go back and look at what the wildings were reacting to.

[Jekse]

5 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Jon betrayed the NW - How so? You know what? Never mind, there is thread upon thread hashing out every aspect of this, go check them out. 

Thank you for your integrity, you really seem like a worthwile person to have a discussion with when you reply like this. 

 

5 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Arya is a psycopath - This is a medical diagnosis that Arya has, as of yet, not been diagnosed with. Even if there were someone to diagnosis her if they were worth anything they wouldn't. She clearly isn't a psychopath. If you mean to say she is "Crazy" in the more looser sense of the word, to each their own, you're welcome to your opinion but it remains an opinion, not fact.

''The memory made Arya smile, and after that the darkness held no more terrors for her. The stableboy was dead, she'd killed him, and if he jumped out at her she'd kill him again.''
I don't know, but when someone smiles at the memory of killing someone, that does seem pretty psychopathic to me. Also why are you going into semantics here about whether or not it has been medically diagnosed? It's a medieval fantasy story, of course there won't be any fucking psychologists. Come on. 
 

5 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

Dany committed genocide of the slavers - Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. She had no aim to destroy all the slavers & if her aim was genocide, she didn't do a very good job at it right? There are still tons of slavers out there. She killed some slavers, yes. She didn't commit genocide, they were horrible people doing horrible things to other people. 

What exactly do you mean she had no aim to destroy all the slavers, she literally killed all of the ones she had access to and their children, except for the under twelves. And again with the semantics, the word ''genocide'' has multiple definitions, which you should be aware of, since you apparantly took the effort to google the definition of semantics but not look at the Wikipedia page detailing its controversy, which is highlighted next to it, funnily enough. 

 

[Jekse]

5 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

you're welcome to your opinion but it remains an opinion, not fact. 

And how do you not see the hypocrisy in this sentence?? You're acting as if your perspective on the series is correct and if someone has a different view then that's ''just their opinion and it's not fact''.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

 

I see where you come from, but what I don't see is that assignation, murder, as the right thing to do.  That is where I draw the line.  The NW already went through an assignation of their Lord Commander, Jeor Mormont.  The assassins in that event became known as traitors and turn cloaks, as that is what they were.  Now Bowen Marsh and his coterie are the traitors to the NW, not Jon. 

 

Well it depends on the reason for the assassination. Mormont was killed because his men lost discipline and he tried to prevent them committing crimes. Jon, on the other hand, was killed to prevent him launching an attack it was the sole purpose of the Night's Watch to prevent.

But generally these things are in the eyes of the beholder. Like how opinions of Brutus and the Ides of March have always changed. 

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

A big long post and a lot of likes but it doesn't address my point.

It did, if you read it with seeing eyes! 

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Jon publicly says, during his speech in the shield hall, that dealing with Ramsay is not the business of the Night's Watch. I do not have my books to hand so do not have the exact quote. Something like 'the NW takes no part, it is not our job to defend Stannis's wife and children etc ...' So that's what his men heard: he never even tried to defend his actions as the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch.

He may not think he's oathbreaking by leading the wildlings to attack Ramsay. Or he may be unsure whether he is. But the if is in his thoughts: he said out loud for all to hear that what he was doing was not NW business.

He does, here it is:

ADwD, Jon XIII

     “And where will you be, crow?” Borroq thundered. “Hiding here in Castle Black with your white dog?”
     “No. I ride south.” Then Jon read them the letter Ramsay Snow had written. 
     The Shieldhall went mad.  
     Every man began to shout at once. They leapt to their feet, shaking fists. So much for the calming power of comfortable benches. Swords were brandished, axes smashed against shields. Jon Snow looked to Tormund. The Giantsbane sounded his horn once more, twice as long and twice as loud as the first time. 
     “The Night’s Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms,” Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. “It is no“Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. “Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that’s how it’s done. We’ll make a wildling o’ you yet, boy. Har!”t for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.”

<snip>

     “Yarwyck and Marsh were slipping out, he saw, and all their men behind them. It made no matter. He did not need them now. He did not want them. No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows. If this is oathbreaking, the crime is mine and mine alone. Then Tormund was pounding him on the back, all gap-toothed grin from ear to ear. “Well spoken, crow. Now bring out the mead! Make them yours and get them drunk, that’s how it’s done. We’ll make a wildling o’ you yet, boy. Har!”

There are two issues here, one I addressed in my previous reply, the other I didn't but will now. 

What constitutes treason, really? Is it 'taking part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms'? Because if it is, then Bowen and others have committed it long before we get to this point. After all, Bowen was urging his fellow officers to side with Tywin Lannister back in ASoS. He was plotting with Slynt and Thorne to have Jon murdered. And they weren't doing it for the greater good, for all humankind, nothing like that at all. They were doing it for themselves, because they believed Tywin would win and it would be good for them. That seems much more treasonous to me than allowing the Free Folk through or even marching out to face Ramsay before he arrives at CB.
And this not taking part mantra is something that everyone has heard a million times. It makes perfect sense that he is conflicted about this precisely because he's been hearing it his whole life, while otoh he thinks the right thing to do to fulfill his oath is to rescue and protect as many people as he can, and that means letting the FF through, trying to rescue those at HH, and marching out to meet Ramsay. 
In other words, I think it is to be expected that Jon feels conflicted about all of ths. I'm not so sure we as readers should, though. 

After all, what exactly is the NW's purpose? We've heard a lot about how the NW must remain true, etc. And we also see the deterioration of the Watch as an institution. We could talk for hours about these issues, but let's just stick to this one question: What is the purpose of the NW?
To guard the realms of men. It's that simple. Everything else is a distraction. And IMO Jon is doing exactly that, even if that means going against some that might consider his actions treasonous. 

This is a thread from a few weeks back where we were talking exactly about all of this, in case you're interested.

 

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

And this is the problem here. Many readers are unable to step away from Jon's perspective and ask what it looked like to everyone else. As officers of the Night's Watch Bowen and co were unable to stand by and let the Lord Commander lead their traditional enemies, whom they had spent their lives defending the north against, against the north. Cut and dry. They did the right thing. 

IMO they didn't do the right thing. If they were so against  Jon's decision,  Bowen should have had him arrested. The thing is, he knows he doesn't have much support. He has a few men who'd side with him, but most would side with Jon.

Jon isn't attacking Winterfell or any other castle in the north. He's going to try to meet Ramsay before Ramsay arrives at CB demanding Selyse, Shireen, Val, Mel etc. And even if Jon decided to give him all of their guests, what does he do when Ramsay says, 'Not good enough, where's my bride and my Reek?'

 

[kissdbyfire]

58 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You address my point by agreeing with it. Jon publicly said marching against Ramsay was not Night's Watch business and that marching against him is oathbreaking. That's his framing of the issue to his own men. He may not quite think of it like that but my point was it was a disastrous thing to say because it left his men no choice but to do what they did.

If he didn't want to get stabbed he needed to make the argument all of his supporters on this site make - that Ramsay was coming to attack them and they had to defend themselves. He made no such argument. 

So not sure why you're disagreeing with me.

Not at all agreeing with you. That's an incomplete reply that I accidentaly posted before I was done. Sorry.