Jon Snow, the Coldheart

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

6 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Whereas members of a military type organisation murdering their commander b/c they just don’t get it is super duper honourable and totes cool, gotcha. /cdn-cgi/mirage/6dc3d3eb1a38505cabd90fb7ffd43995f14702a0df4cf40d6136ae67a48e140e/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_rolleyes.gif

These people are either trolling or can’t think critically

[Back in Black-Snow]

21 minutes ago, Prince Rhaegar Targareyen said:

These people are either trolling or can’t think critically

They are on the same wavelength of those who really believe Hot Pie is Azour Ahai (excuse spelling, please).

Edited to correct a ridiculous auto correct.

Edited February 16 by Back in Black-Snow

[The Lord of the Crossing]

21 hours ago, U. B. Cool said:

All the other reasons really do not matter at all.  Bowen Marsh killed Jon in order to stop Jon from leading the wildling posse to Winterfell.  Bowen knows he can't stop Jon's army but he can stop Jon.  It would have been a crime against Westeros and a grave dishonor to the Night Watch for its lord commander to attack the House of Bolton.  At least now it is a band of savages attacking rather than the Night Watch. 

It saves the public face of the Watch and prevents the association of its mad lord commander from destroying their reputation.  It will open the possibility of peace with the Boltons and the other people of the north if Jon is out of the picture.

[Lady Stonehearts Simp]

1 minute ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

It saves the public face of the Watch and prevents the association of its mad lord commander from destroying their reputation.  It will open the possibility of peace with the Boltons and the other people of the north if Jon is out of the picture.

[Kierria]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:40 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

It saves the public face of the Watch and prevents the association of its mad lord commander from destroying their reputation.  It will open the possibility of peace with the Boltons and the other people of the north if Jon is out of the picture.

It would look very badly for the lord commander to raid Lord Roose.  Preventing Jon from raiding a noble family is protecting the honor of the watch.  It is against the laws of the watch to attack the people of Westeros and that was what Jon was going to do. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

7 minutes ago, Kierria said:

It would look very badly for the lord commander to raid Lord Roose.  Preventing Jon from raiding a noble family is protecting the honor of the watch.  It is against the laws of the watch to attack the people of Westeros and that was what Jon was going to do. 

Is it not at least nominally against the law to rape, sexually abuse, torture, kill, set dogs on to rape and kill, and otherwise commit heinous atrocities against innocent people? Is it not presumably illegal to hunt humans for sport and to engage in necrophilia and zoophilia?

And if it is not, do you believe in following unjust laws over doing the right thing?

[SeanF]

51 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Is it not at least nominally against the law to rape, sexually abuse, torture, kill, set dogs on to rape and kill, and otherwise commit heinous atrocities against innocent people? Is it not presumably illegal to hunt humans for sport and to engage in necrophilia and zoophilia?

And if it is not, do you believe in following unjust laws over doing the right thing?

You’re arguing against people who see nothing wrong with murder, rape, torture, hunting humans for sport, forcible bestiality, in-universe, so long as these things are done by characters whom they admire, like the Boltons, Tywin Lannister, Walder Frey, LF. etc.

You see very similar arguments made by people who defend Ghiscari slavers, who simply institutionalise such things.

It’s like reading a history of WWII, and then encountering people who argue that Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger or Ustasha, were the good guys.

So, your final question is perhaps missing the point.  They think that people who perform such actions are breaking unjust laws, in order to do what is right.

Edited February 19 by SeanF

[Many-Faced Votary]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

You’re arguing against people who see nothing wrong with murder, rape, torture, hunting humans for sport, forcible bestiality, in-universe, so long as these things are done by characters whom they admire, like the Boltons, Tywin Lannister, Walder Frey, LF. etc.

It’s like reading a history of WWII, and then arguing that Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger or Ustasha, were the good guys.

It makes me wonder how they reconcile this with their obsession with Targaryens, given that the only representative in the series is Daenerys*, though. Is it just because they hate Jon and the Starks more than anything else?

* Dany is visibly disgusted by her advisors, who are nowhere near as vile as this sort, when they recommend immoral or bloodthirsty acts.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

It makes me wonder how they reconcile this with their obsession with Targaryens, given that the only representative in the series is Daenerys*, though. Is it just because they hate Jon and the Starks more than anything else?

* Dany is visibly disgusted by her advisors, who are nowhere near as vile as this sort, when they recommend immoral or bloodthirsty acts. /cdn-cgi/mirage/d061fbc8a99b74d9127f1b0a19a8d29641ec2a7e3541937299ee1540bc7d0bf1/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_rolleyes.gif

I think some people read this story as an anti-morality tale, in which the rightful winner is the most savage and depraved.

[Many-Faced Votary]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think some people read this story as an anti-morality tale, in which the rightful winner is the most savage and depraved.

They're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

EDIT: To respond to your edit above...

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

So, your final question is perhaps missing the point.  They think that people who perform such actions are breaking unjust laws, in order to do what is right.

Edited February 19 by Many-Faced Votary

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think some people read this story as an anti-morality tale, in which the rightful winner is the most savage and depraved.

I would not be shocked in the slightest to find out if these vehement Stark haters have some Hugo Boss in their closet 

Edited February 19 by Lord Edmure of Riverrun

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Lord Edmure of Riverrun said:

I would not be shocked in the slightest to find out if these vehement Stark haters have some Hugo Boss in their closet 

Quite so.

Just as I’m sure that many slavery apologists fly the Stars and Bars.

[Many-Faced Votary]

Just now, SeanF said:

Just as I’m sure that many slavery apologists fly the Stars and Bars.

I know I probably jinxed it by posting this, but thank goodness I haven't seen them around recently, or at least not posting that content in the main ASoIaF boards.

Would that these people follow suit.

[SeanF]

Just now, Many-Faced Votary said:

I know I probably jinxed it by posting this, but thank goodness I haven't seen them around recently, or at least not posting that content in the main ASoIaF boards.

Would that these people follow suit.

They prefer to hang out on Quora.

[Nevets]

I find it difficult to condemn Bowen Marsh - and I say this as a Jon fan.  He has legitimate concerns.  Jon's friendship with and support for Stannis is going to cause trouble with the Crown.  The Lannisters may be far away, but their representatives in the North aren't, and are the kind of people you don't want to cross.

The influx of wildlings is going to be a serious drain on NW resources.  And they have serious potential to destabilize the North, especially if they start raiding, either out of habit or desperation - or more likely both.

And now he is proposing to attack the Crown's representative. Since Jon is Lord Commander, the Watch will get blamed for it no matter how loudly they shout that Jon is acting on his own.  

I happen to think his concerns are overwrought, and strongly disapprove of his assassinating Jon, but I completely understand why he did it.

As for Jon, there seems to be a tendency to regard him as a hero for going after Ramsay.  Ramsay is a murderer, rapist, torturer, and much else besides.   But that's not why Jon is going after him.  Jon has known about Ramsay's depravity for months and has done ... nothing.  He only sent a mission to rescue his sister after he thought she had already escaped.  He refused to act as long as she was under Bolton control.

He is going after Ramsay because Ramsay had threatened him and the Nights Watch (although I suspect the part about skinning women and wanting his bride back didn't help).  Though I'm not sure what he really had in mind.  Attacking Winterfell with a wildling army has got to be the worst idea I've seen.  The Northerners may hate Roose, Ramsay, and the Freys, but if an army of wildlings shows up, the Boltons and Freys will suddenly become their best friends and most treasured allies.  Enemy of my enemy and all that.

I suspect Jon had something up his sleeve and wasn't being entirely truthful.  Moot point now though.  And thanks to Marsh, the guy who took the Others' threat seriously is out of commission, and there is a big fight amongst the Wall's defenders.

[Ring3r]

The fact that this topic continues to float to the top of this forum is only reinforcing my belief that we live in clown-world.

 

Very useful, actually.  It's like a rogues-list of people that I know I can ignore.

Edited February 19 by Ring3r

[Many-Faced Votary]

42 minutes ago, Nevets said:

He has legitimate concerns.

The thing is, they are always marked by naked xenophobia, at one time so blatant that he suggested what was effectively genocide without batting an eye. Bowen Marsh is not evil per se, but he is a fundamentally bad and uncompassionate person, and his arguments always boil down to three things: self-preservation (contingent on believing without evidence that the Free Folk are a threat to him and to the Watch), disliking change, and the xenophobia that accompanies both.

We see where they are both coming from in every respect, and it is Jon who has the moral high ground each time, Jon who thinks the matter through instead of superficially, Jon who fulfills the spirit of the Night's Watch's oath. At one point, Bowen even suggests not letting new recruits swear their vows to the gods of their choice -- a clear break in the tradition of the Watch, and blatant xenophobia and religious intolerance.

I won't address the other parts of your post now because I fear that might lead to an overlong discussion. However, I will say that it does look like, by the time he reacts to the Pink Letter, on the surface that Jon is abusing his position as Lord Commander for personal gain. We the readers know better, though. He should have done a much better job of explaining himself; I can readily admit that.

Edited February 19 by Many-Faced Votary

[Nevets]

9 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

The thing is, they are always marked by naked xenophobia, at one time so blatant that he suggested what was effectively genocide without batting an eye. Bowen Marsh is not evil per se, but he is a fundamentally bad and uncompassionate person, and his arguments always boil down to three things: self-preservation (contingent on believing without evidence that the Free Folk are a threat to him and to the Watch), disliking change, and the xenophobia that accompanies both.

We see where they are both coming from in every respect, and it is Jon who has the moral high ground each time, Jon who thinks the matter through instead of superficially, Jon who fulfills the spirit of the Night's Watch's oath. At one point, Bowen even suggests not letting new recruits swear their vows to the gods of their choice -- a clear break in the tradition of the Watch, and blatant xenophobia and religious intolerance.

I won't address the other parts of your post now because I fear that might lead to an overlong discussion. However, I will say that it does look like, by the time he reacts to the Pink Letter, on the surface that Jon is abusing his position as Lord Commander for personal gain. We the readers know better, though. He should have done a much better job of explaining himself; I can readily admit that.

Well, I did say I thought his concerns were exaggerated and his actions completely wrong.  I tend to regard him as more of a misguided, backward looking fool than a true villain.  Although the end result is pretty much the same.

[kissdbyfire]

44 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

He should have done a much better job of explaining himself; I can readily admit that.

I agree w/ your whole post but for this last bit here. How many times has Jon tried to explain things to Marsh, Yarwick, and other? How many meetings did they have about all these issues? Plenty. More than enough for someone who isn’t a bigoted xenophobic arsehole to get it; sadly Marsh is a bigoted xenophobic arsehole, and a coward to boot so he doesn’t get it or pretends not to get it. Flint & Norrey got it after one convo… then again, they apparently aren’t bigoted xenophobic cowardly arseholes.  

 

[Many-Faced Votary]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

I agree w/ your whole post but for this last bit here. How many times has Jon tried to explain things to Marsh, Yarwick, and other? How many meetings did they have about all these issues? Plenty. More than enough for someone who isn’t a bigoted xenophobic arsehole to get it; sadly Marsh is a bigoted xenophobic arsehole, and a coward to boot so he doesn’t get it or pretends not to get it. Flint & Norrey got it after one convo… then again, they apparently aren’t bigoted xenophobic cowardly arseholes.  

I agree! I was referring more to the big-picture politics that he didn't bother to explain ("Stannis fights for the realm; the Ironborn for plunder"), and to the breaks in tradition that have a huge impact in the internal politics of the Watch (Satin being the Lord Commander's squire, for millennia a position for highborn boys being groomed for command). Both were obviously good things, but he did not provide the full justification, and in the former case it made him look corrupt from the outside.