I don't understand the point of being so vehemently anti-Stark

[Many-Faced Votary]

I don't understand what I'm reading sometimes, either.

For example:

Spoiler

Her cunt became the world.

The Wayward Bride, A Dance with Dragons

 

[Craving Peaches]

I just don't get why people are happy to go so blatantly against the intention of the Text. Whether you love the Starks or hate them, they are meant to be the protagonists, so why pretend that they're villains? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like them or to criticise them without resorting to demonising them.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Craving Peaches
Awful Grammatical Mistake

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

10 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I just don't get why people are happy to go so blatantly against the intention of the Text. Whether you love the Starks or hate them, they are meant to be the protagonists, so why pretend that their villains? They are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like them or to criticise them without resorting to demonising them.

Even if you hate them, don’t blatantly ignore text and defend the most evil or despicable characters in the series. Slynt was a baby killer. So long as he was paid or got something out of it there is nothing he wouldn’t do. The Boltons are psychotic and are indefensible, possibly led by a vampire.

The Freys are just sleazy as shit, and are so stupid in petty they violated a sacred law of the land that’s been in place for millennia because of a simple broken marriage pact.

I bet if Crastor killed Benjen those same people will say “sleeping with your daughters is ok”

[Many-Faced Votary]

30 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like them or to criticise them without resorting to demonising them.

Every character can be criticized, to be sure -- and they should be able to, because if they couldn't, that is the definition of a Mary Sue. (Which itself is worthy of far more criticism, though as a failed character rather than as a person.)

But you already know why these people don't utilize valid reasons, of course. It's because they aren't nearly enough to paint the Starks as villainous, treacherous, incompetent, and unlikeable. They have to conjure some of their own for this narrative!

[Corvo the Crow]

56 minutes ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

Even if you hate them, don’t blatantly ignore text and defend the most evil or despicable characters in the series. Slynt was a baby killer. So long as he was paid or got something out of it there is nothing he wouldn’t do. The Boltons are psychotic and are indefensible, possibly led by a vampire.

 

 

Janos Slynt is a hero of the realm, preventing much bloodshed in the future by killing all of the fat usurper's bastard children that evil Ned and his Stark ilk would have raised as puppet claimants to destabilize the realm and prepare it for a wildling invasion. He found out that his bastard of a son Jon was also a part of this and tried to kill him before it was too late but Maester Aemon in his great Targaryen mercy and benevolence stopped it, because Targaryens all have warm hearts. We all know what happened because he failed and the watch lacked good men and true like him. Bowen Marsh, another good man, finished what he started but unfortunately he was too late and Jon had already allowed near 5000 wildlings and we all know they breed like cockroaches to the realm will soon have an infestation. They will steal the jobs of good people of Westeros.

 

Quote

The Freys are just sleazy as shit, and are so stupid in petty they violated a sacred law of the land that’s been in place for millennia because of a simple broken marriage pact.

Freys are a family of honor, science and culture. By "violation" of this so called sacred law they wanted to demonstrate to people of Westeros that these are all superstitious bullshit. 

 

Quote

I bet if Crastor killed Benjen those same people will say “sleeping with your daughters is ok”

How dare you demonize people who loves their family so much? Next, you'll be slandering our benevolent overlords the Targaryens. Targaryens were above gods and Craster is a very godly men, it is quite ok to do so.

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[Quoth the raven,]

12 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

There's obviously nothing wrong with disliking them or not caring about them, but I don't understand why such great lengths are gone to in order to paint them as evil/villains etc. when it is fairly obvious we are meant to see them as protagonists. Being ambivalent is one thing, so is disliking the Starks because you think they are overrated or just think people care too much, but when it reaches the point where you need to paint Roose, the Freys, Bowen, Slynt the baby murderer and bloody Ramsay as righteous folk who were unjustly attacked by the evil Starks, well...

I don't understand the point of being so vehemently Anti-Daenerys.  But I understand and am one of those who dislike the Starks.  Not vehemently mind you.  After all, these are fictional characters. 

I suggest you focus your criticism on the Anti-Daenerys faction on the forum.  They not only attack my favorite character but they go so far as to attack the people who dislike the Starks.  It is rather childish and immature. 

[Craving Peaches]

29 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

I don't understand the point of being so vehemently Anti-Daenerys. 

Who here is being anti-Daenerys, let alone vehemently anti-Daenerys?

29 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

I suggest you focus your criticism on the Anti-Daenerys faction on the forum.

What anti-Daenerys faction?

29 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

They not only attack my favorite character but they go so far as to attack the people who dislike the Starks.  It is rather childish and immature. 

If you could enlighten us as to where this 'anti-Daenerys faction' actually is then that would be helpful. No one to my knowledge has been attacked for disliking the Starks. The only 'attacks' going on are attacks on people's bad arguments when they try to vilify the Starks by portraying Ramsay et al. as saints.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[astarkchoice]

12 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yeah, remember when evil Rickard killed his own son and then killed himself and tried to make it look like Good King Aerys did it?

No he lost a trial 'fair and square' 

Stupid dumb wolfman...everyone knows if you choose human then your opp chosing  fire wins ..shoulda picked water! 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Quoth the raven, said:

I don't understand the point of being so vehemently Anti-Daenerys.  But I understand and am one of those who dislike the Starks.  Not vehemently mind you.  After all, these are fictional characters. 

I suggest you focus your criticism on the Anti-Daenerys faction on the forum.  They not only attack my favorite character but they go so far as to attack the people who dislike the Starks.  It is rather childish and immature. 

These are preposterous 'arguments', as usual. Are there readers who dislike Dany and/or Targs in general? Yes, same as there are readers who dislike the Tullys or Baratheons, or Greyjoys. That's not a problem.

And if people who dislike a certain character and/or house start threads meant for discussion of actions and events from the books that are open to interpretation, good on them. Again, not a problem. 

But when you have the one little group who insist on starting threads or posting everywhere with the sole purpose of spewing their hatred/dislike for a certain character or house. and base their opinions not on the text but on their wishful thinking and/or poor understanding of the text, then that is a problem. 

When this little group must resort to defending murderers, traitors and rapists to diss the object of their hatred, then that is a problem. 

And I truly do not understand how one doesn't undertand this, I don't think it's possible not to understand it. Therefore the motives must be different from lack of understanding. 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

These are preposterous 'arguments', as usual. Are there readers who dislike Dany and/or Targs in general? Yes, same as there are readers who dislike the Tullys or Baratheons, or Greyjoys. That's not a problem.

And if people who dislike a certain character and/or house start threads meant for discussion of actions and events from the books that are open to interpretation, good on them. Again, not a problem. 

But when you have the one little group who insist on starting threads or posting everywhere with the sole purpose of spewing their hatred/dislike for a certain character or house. and base their opinions not on the text but on their wishful thinking and/or poor understanding of the text, then that is a problem. 

When this little group must resort to defending murderers, traitors and rapists to diss the object of their hatred, then that is a problem. 

And I truly do not understand how one doesn't undertand this, I don't think it's possible not to understand it. Therefore the motives must be different from lack of understanding. 

 

“Dany is the Great Satan” was popular among a faction on this site up to 2015, and with Crackship Rose from 2019-21, but such claims are rare now.

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

“Dany is the Great Satan” was popular among a faction on this site up to 2015, and with Crackship Rose from 2019-21, but such claims are rare now.

Who is Crackship Rose? I think I was away during that 19-20 period. I do remember that there were a lot of dumb Dany hate threads earlier. And again, for the millionth time, it’s totally fine to dislike characters and houses, and it’s perfectly okay to want to discuss why you dislike the Starks or Targs or Greyjoys or whoever, as long as it’s not blind hate that is based on nothing in the text. As to defending traitors and rapists and murderers to back up their idiotic claims… I suppose it’s “fine” insofar as people are allowed to defend whatever character and actions they want. But defending Slynt and Ramsay and Walder in order to criticise the Starks doesn’t detract from the Starks (or whoever) but rather from those defending such vile scum. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Corvo the Crow]

29 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As to defending traitors and rapists and murderers to back up their idiotic claims… I suppose it’s “fine” insofar as people are allowed to defend whatever character and actions they want. But defending Slynt and Ramsay and Walder in order to criticise the Starks doesn’t detract from the Starks (or whoever) but rather from those defending such vile scum. 

Being a raping, murdering traitor is basically being in your Seven(or Red Rahloo or Weirwood) given rights in Planetos. They are essentialy basic human rights in Westeros.

[Willam Stark]

They are enthusiasts who come here to annoy people, I even suspect them to be one and the same person using several accounts.

Same phrasing, same opinions, same arguments, I find it very odd and it's easy to change our IP adress with a proxy or VPN.

Whatever it is, you shouldn't feed them, that's what they want and they stay on this forum because of that: you're feeding them.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Willam Stark
correction

[Corvo the Crow]

7 minutes ago, Willam Stark said:

They are enthusiasts who come here to annoy people, I even suspect them to be one and the same person using several accounts.

Same phrasing, same opinions, same arguments, I find it very odd and it's easy to change our IP adress with a proxy or VPN.

Whatever it is, you shouldn't feed them, that's what they want and they stay on this forum because of that: you're feeding them.

Yes, they are too enthusiastic about it.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[Willam Stark]

1 minute ago, Corvo the Crow said:

That word gets you banned. 

Really? Well I should edit my post then.

[csuszka1948]

On 2/27/2023 at 5:45 AM, SeanF said:

Tell me about it.  The hair-splitting distinctions about good slavers and bad ones, and how Dany doesn’t bother to attempt to distinguish them;  between tokar -wearers (innocent) and slavers (guilty);  how only a tiny faction are responsible for the savagery of Slavers Bay, but Dany kills them “at random.” Then, the arguments of “I don’t support slavery, but …”. (Ignore everything before the “but”).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but I think these anti-Dany threads (unlike the anti-Stark threads) actually have some finesse and argumentation which is easy to believe, because the decision.making of Dany during a revolutionary/systematic change obviously doesn't fit the norms of justice taught by Ned and rule of law of the XXth century.

 

1) For example, Dany asks the slavers for 163 of their leaders, but because she asked the slavers themselves, it's somehow twisted into "the slavers tricked Dany into crucifying 163 poor innocent slavers" when there is no textual evidence that such a thing happened (the opposite - the Shavepate mentions vengeful widows from the most prestigious noble families, indicating that the leaders were punished) or that any of the crucified leaders were "anti-crucifixion activists" (like Hizdahr's father in the show).

 

2) Another frequently brought up issue is that Dany didn't investigate who is actually responsible for the crucifixion. This again seems convincing on the surface, but if we delve deeper into it, it's just bullshit. How would she even find out who is guilty, what's stopping the slavers from stopping fingers at each other? Why should the people carrying out the crucifixion (probably slaves) or the ones who ordered them to do it (some masters) wield more blame than the people deciding on this course of action (at the higher levels) or the person who came up with the original idea? 

When a vile act ordered by a state, then the leaders of the state should be punished, they hold the biggest responsibility.  Dany's decision to punish 163 slave leaders is fundamentally no different from Churchill's suggestion to shot all Nazi leaders, and this was a common opinion in 1945. We had the trials of Nuremberg instead, but they were far from fair and were only possible because a large amount of evidence (in form of paperwork) could be gathered, something that is absolutely impossible in a medieval society.

On 2/27/2023 at 5:45 AM, SeanF said:

Pity the poor Boltons/Freys/Aerys/Tywin is something else.  The author makes no attempt to hide the fact that these people (like the slavers) are not flawed but somewhat decent people.  They are total monsters.

It is indeed, a while since we had a thread on Catelyn the Monster, the Evil Stepmother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think being an admirer of Tywin and his methods was quite common in the forums 10-15 years ago. He is a good villain exactly because his mindset (when it doesn't come to Tyrion) is 'understandable' in a twisted sort of way, and we see how easy it is to craft intellectual self-justifications for similar acts through the POV of Kevan and Jaime.

Edited July 21, 2023 by csuszka1948

[Craving Peaches]

Another thing I've noticed is that the anti-Daenerys stuff usually 'just' grossly exaggerates the effects of bad/hasty decisions she made, whereas the Stark ones blatantly make stuff up such as Jon murdering Janos, Tully madness gene etc. which rather than twisting the text, outright contradicts it.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Another thing I've noticed is that the anti-Daenerys stuff usually 'just' grossly exaggerates the effects of bad/hasty decisions she made, whereas the Stark ones blatantly make stuff up such as Jon murdering Janos, Tully madness gene etc. which rather than twisting the text, outright contradicts it.

The Anti-Stark stuff would be fine if it was at all based in the text, and not the fever dreams of a bunch of inbred troglodytes in their mother’s basements. 

[Otatop1000]

I hate Dany, I also hate Cat.  Both are vile and I skip their chapters.  Dany cause she is annoying and vapid, “Jorah loves you! He is high born and a great fighter you need nobody else.”  

Cat is f…… awful.  “It should have been you.”

No Cat it should have been you.  As ladystonheart she is about to hang Brienne “the only person, ONLY ONE, who stood by you.”  She is an awful wench who despite the bad things that happened to the Starks, deserves all the woe it brought her.  And she killed Jinglebell, I’m not not not a Frey loyalist but she killed an innocent lackwit, for what, Robb is dead, all her men are dead…WTF did Jinglebell do to deserve to die.  Hurl that dagger at Lord Frey maybe you kill him.  Cat belongs in the 4th level of the Red Keep dungeons.  And the fact that Beric gives his undeath for her…bah!  May she be roasted in the seven Hells, for all the bad she caused.  Ned would be alive if she hadn’t taken the Imp.  Rickon would be safe in Winterfell, if she hadn’t left to “warn” Ned.  Theon would be whole if she had been there to council Robb, not to call the banners.  Cat is the Catalyst, for everything.  The mistreatment of Jon, so what if she thinks he is Ashara’s she was the most beautiful maid in the seven kingdoms. “You are just Brandon’s ‘’widow’ lucky that Ned picked you up.  He could have just let Benjen have you.” And kept his Dornish maid with the purple eyes”.  May she meet Rogre and Bitter in the seven hells.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, but I think these anti-Dany threads (unlike the anti-Stark threads) actually have some finesse and argumentation which is easy to believe, because the decision.making of Dany during a revolutionary/systematic change obviously doesn't fit the norms of justice taught by Ned and rule of law of the XXth century.

 

1) For example, Dany asks the slavers for 163 of their leaders, but because she asked the slavers themselves, it's somehow twisted into "the slavers tricked Dany into crucifying 163 poor innocent slavers" when there is no textual evidence that such a thing happened (the opposite - the Shavepate mentions vengeful widows from the most prestigious noble families, indicating that the leaders were punished) or that any of the crucified leaders were "anti-crucifixion activists" (like Hizdahr's father in the show).

 

2) Another frequently brought up issue is that Dany didn't investigate who is actually responsible for the crucifixion. This again seems convincing on the surface, but if we delve deeper into it, it's just bullshit. How would she even find out who is guilty, what's stopping the slavers from stopping fingers at each other? Why should the people carrying out the crucifixion (probably slaves) or the ones who ordered them to do it (some masters) wield more blame than the people deciding on this course of action (at the higher levels) or the person who came up with the original idea? 

When a vile act ordered by a state, then the leaders of the state should be punished, they hold the biggest responsibility.  Dany's decision to punish 163 slave leaders is fundamentally no different from Churchill's suggestion to shot all Nazi leaders, and this was a common opinion in 1945. We had the trials of Nuremberg instead, but they were far from fair and were only possible because a large amount of evidence (in form of paperwork) could be gathered, something that is absolutely impossible in a medieval society.

I think being an admirer of Tywin and his methods was quite common in the forums 10-15 years ago. He is a good villain exactly because his mindset (when it doesn't come to Tyrion) is 'understandable' in a twisted sort of way, and we see how easy it is to craft intellectual self-justifications for similar acts through the POV of Kevan and Jaime.

Attainder of enemy leaders, in the aftermath of battle, was considered entirely legitimate in English civil wars.    Another issue with the 163 is that the dead slaves were buried, on the way.  Had they not been, they’d have decomposed beyond recognition, by the time Meereen fell.

And if members of the 163 had been innocent, this would have been addressed in ADWD.  The elite of Meereen are not backward in coming forward with complaints.

Edited July 22, 2023 by SeanF