The Fandom and Defending Atrocities

[csuszka1948]

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Yes and no. Daenerys is the most common one right now and perhaps even the only one with the forums being dead but it may very well have been another character whose violence that was excused. The only violence that can be excused is when it's done to defend yourself (whether a person, group of people, state etc.) or aiding one. 

 

I disagree. Violence applied to stop violence - and the system of slavery in Essos is a system of continous, excessive violence, where innocent dwarves are devoured by lions for satisfaction of slavers - can be justified.

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Daenerys' genocide at Astapor(because that's exactly what it is) has no excuse

 

Genocide is targeting an ethnic or national group, Dany's actions have targeted slavemasters.

To be honest, even the murder of slavemasters was probably restricted to the plaze of punishment, at least Cleon's actions show that plenty of former slavemaster remained alive:

“Your Worship, those sly rogues betrayed your trust. It was revealed that they were scheming to restore the Good Masters to power and the people to chains. Great Cleon exposed their plots and hacked their heads off with a cleaver, and the grateful folk of Astapor have crowned him for his valor.”

"Cleon the self-styled Great was no better, however. The Butcher King had restored slavery to Astapor, the only change being that the former slaves were now the masters and the former masters were now the slaves."

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

her attacking Yunkai -and killing a host of slave soldiers btw, death is some form of liberation too I guess!- also has none

 

So Dany trying to force the masters of Yunkai to free their slaves is inexcusable?

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

, sack of Meereen also.

 

How? The bulk of the sack of Meereen was carried out by former slaves, who struck their chains down, not by Dany's army. 

10 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Dany, or rather Barristan and co. since she's absent, defending Meereen is right since a peace of sorts has been established and a new way more or less accepted. Tywin's violence has no excuse whereas Robb and Edmure is in the right, Stannis and Renly are both right in raising their armies because of what Lannisters will do to them but Stannis besieging SE is not in defense and unacceptable nor is Renly's "war" to claim the throne for himself, despite Stannis not staking his claim so far.

To go back some more, Jon Arryn is right to declare war against Aerys because he threatened his wards which he was honor bound to protect and even worse he had already murdered Jon's heir Elbert and a subject of his, Kyle Royce. Obviously Robert and Ned too. Hoster too despite acting oppurtunistic to get two marriages to his daughters in return for his help because his allies the Starks had been murdered as well as his subject Jeffory Mallister but there's no excuse for killing Lord Goodbrook's villagers.

 

I don't really understand. Jon Arryn's intention was to defend two people or Robb's actions (after AGOT) to uphold Northern independence, while Dany's intention is to defend much more people from slavery. How is Jon Arryn sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers or Robb 'paying back' the Westerlands in kind is more justified than Dany's actions?

[csuszka1948]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

To be clear then, violence which is unleashed by elites, to pursue their own interests, gain a crown, or to avenge family honour, is legitimate, regardless how many of the smallfolk die in the process. 

But, violence which is unleashed against elites, who are engaged in enslaving, castrating, murdering, and otherwise harming the smallfolk, in order to prevent such actions, is morally wrong.

 

 

 

Because it's upsetting the natural order. Dany should have only aided the slaves if they rebelled on their own and even then only to defend them.

Also, the lives of soldiers that die in the campaigns of high lords do not matter.

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Tywin would of course, claim that he was acting in self-defenc,e to protect the Lannisters from those would kidnap family members.

 

 

 

Tywin has plenty of reasons:

1. first his son is kidnapped

2. Ned Stark attempts to seize the Throne from the legitimate King (as far as Tywin knows)

3. after Ned admits his treason, he is lawfully executed as a traitor, and the North and Riverlands still declare independence despite Ned's claims that Joffrey is the rightful King

4. Stannis and Renly are also unwilling to accept that Joffrey is the rightful King and rebel

Edited July 28, 2023 by csuszka1948

[csuszka1948]

38 minutes ago, SeanF said:

To be clear then, violence which is unleashed by elites, to pursue their own interests, gain a crown, or to avenge family honour, is legitimate, regardless how many of the smallfolk die in the process. 

 

 

 

To be honest, I am not even sure that Dany's order in Astapor applied to the masters outside of the Plaza of Punishment (and this was just a detail GRRM didn't include in the text).

At the very least it seems that a lot of masters (including Good Masters) remained alive, whom Cleon re-enslaved:

“Your Worship, those sly rogues betrayed your trust. It was revealed that they were scheming to restore the Good Masters to power and the people to chains. Great Cleon exposed their plots and hacked their heads off with a cleaver, and the grateful folk of Astapor have crowned him for his valor.”

"Cleon the self-styled Great was no better, however. The Butcher King had restored slavery to Astapor, the only change being that the former slaves were now the masters and the former masters were now the slaves."

I think it's also notable that the slavers - who spread all kinds of propaganda about Dany - never mention the "butchery of Astapor" or "murder of innocent children" amongst her crimes, which indicates that such thing didn't occur.

Edited July 28, 2023 by csuszka1948

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Because it's upsetting the natural order. Dany should have only aided the slaves if they rebelled on their own and even then only to defend them.

Also, the lives of soldiers that die in the campaigns of high lords do not matter.

Tywin has plenty of reasons:

1. first his son is kidnapped

2. Ned Stark attempts to seize the Throne from the legitimate King (as far as Tywin knows)

3. after Ned admits his treason, he is lawfully executed as a traitor, and the North and Riverlands still declare independence despite Ned's claims that Joffrey is the rightful King

4. Stannis and Renly are also unwilling to accept that Joffrey is the rightful King and rebel

Even if one accepts (as one should), that Dany has mixed motives; namely, a desire to gain an army, and a place to rule, as well as a desire to prevent harm to innocents, and to defend thousands of freedmen who look to her for protection, the same is true of the rest, as well.

Robb wants to free his father, and protect the Riverlands.  But he also wants to carve out his own kingdom, and pay back the Lannisters and their smallfolk, for the harm they've caused. 

Renly and Stannis both want the Iron Throne.

Robert, Ned, and the rest sought to defend themselves from a cruel king.  They also sought to overthrow a dynasty, win a crown,  and to benefit themselves.

 

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

On 7/27/2023 at 4:48 AM, Craving Peaches said:

You might already know this, but if you use the 'ignore' function, you don't even have to overlook what they posted, you can't even see it.

Some of them I don't even bother blocking/ignoring because I just can't take them seriously. No matter what the topic of the forum is, they always say the same thing. Their greatest creativity shows whenever they word their wrong opinion"s" differently. ♥ I'm talking about the hardcore anti-Starkers, of course. Conveniently, the only antagonists they defend are the ones who have faced off against a Stark (and Jon).

[Corvo the Crow]

5 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

I disagree. Violence applied to stop violence - and the system of slavery in Essos is a system of continous, excessive violence, where innocent dwarves are devoured by lions for satisfaction of slavers - can be justified.

23 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

A violence that was at such an extent that no slave revolts were carried out in thousands of years despite slaves forming the majority of population and almost the entirety of the armed forces with the exception of some mercenary guards and officers from the master families? On the opposite, we have several rebellions etc. that were started by common people in Westeros, the place where dwarves are thrown not to lions but to wells.

 

9 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Genocide is targeting an ethnic or national group, Dany's actions have targeted slavemasters.

 

I don't know how many times that I must say this because despite numerous repeats some people seem to either lack the capability to understand or purposefully distort the facts. Slavemasters are the elite that deal in slave trade. From what we've seen so far most if not all of the population of these cities should be slave owners simply due to the fact that slaves occupy even the jobs that can be done by a middle class of free people but it's not. Daenerys orders the deaths of everyone wearing a tokar. Men and women both wear tokars and every freeborn is entitled to wear one. 

-oh no you can't do manual labor in tokar!

- oh yeah? Read above, slaves occupy even the jobs that can be, and should be, done by a middle class (that works) of freeborn if such a middle class is to exist.

 So yes, SLAVEMASTERS are NOT an ethnic group but ASTAPORI ARE. The slaver cities even have different dialects, which is part of being an ethnic group, note also that dialects are something Westeros lacks. 

 

20 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

To be honest, even the murder of slavemasters was probably restricted to the plaze of punishment, at least Cleon's actions show that plenty of former slavemaster remained alive:

 

Their children (those below 12 at least) remained alive, yes. Some may also have survived the initial carnage but Daenerys' orders make no distinction of location. She didn't say just kill people in the plaza. But do you know what distinction she made? Goodmasters and those who aren't goodmasters.

Quote

"Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see." She raised the harpy's fingers in the air . . . and then she flung the scourge aside. "Freedom!" she sang out. "Dracarys! Dracarys!"

Fringes of tokars denote the social status of those who wear it, even Dany who's been there for a very short time makes note of it so every single one of the unsullied would know it as well, if Dany just said kill the goodmasters, they would just have killed the slave trading elite whose tokars mark them for what they are but the distinctive fringes of their tokars but Dany orders the death of every tokar wearer, meaning every freeborn. 

30 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

So Dany trying to force the masters of Yunkai to free their slaves is inexcusable?

48 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

So Dany killing slaves in name of liberating them is excusable? Especially considering how said slaves were mostly content as evidenced by how there were no slave revolts with slaves outnumbering the freeborn by far and comprising the most of the armed forces? Even Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire revolted numerous times(though not for freedom) despite having it much better than the free people. Mamluks too( both the Turkic ones and Circassian ones) also revolted and actually replaced the previous elite, despite having it far better than free people. 

35 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

How? The bulk of the sack of Meereen was carried out by former slaves, who struck their chains down,

Emphasis on the bulk. I'm quite ok with that part, but definitely not the part that was done by Dany's troops.

39 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

while Dany's intention is to defend much more people from slavery. How is Jon Arryn sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers or Robb 'paying back' the Westerlands in kind is more justified than Dany's actions?

Because a) Dany is an agressor b) slaves themselves had no problem with slavery as it's obvious by two things, reinstating slavery with themselves as the owners as soon as she leaves and not having rebelled for thousands of years despite being quite able to do it. c) being a hypocrite, she was ready to buy slaves herself and only decided to become a liberator after she saw the tortured/executed slaves but her ultimate intention is to go to Westeros and become it's queen, where many free people also get similar treatment from their feudal lords or even lords themselves from their own overlords.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

A violence that was at such an extent that no slave revolts were carried out in thousands of years despite slaves forming the majority of population and almost the entirety of the armed forces with the exception of some mercenary guards and officers from the master families? On the opposite, we have several rebellions etc. that were started by common people in Westeros, the place where dwarves are thrown not to lions but to wells.

 

I don't know how many times that I must say this because despite numerous repeats some people seem to either lack the capability to understand or purposefully distort the facts. Slavemasters are the elite that deal in slave trade. From what we've seen so far most if not all of the population of these cities should be slave owners simply due to the fact that slaves occupy even the jobs that can be done by a middle class of free people but it's not. Daenerys orders the deaths of everyone wearing a tokar. Men and women both wear tokars and every freeborn is entitled to wear one. 

-oh no you can't do manual labor in tokar!

- oh yeah? Read above, slaves occupy even the jobs that can be, and should be, done by a middle class (that works) of freeborn if such a middle class is to exist.

 So yes, SLAVEMASTERS are NOT an ethnic group but ASTAPORI ARE. The slaver cities even have different dialects, which is part of being an ethnic group, note also that dialects are something Westeros lacks. 

 

Their children (those below 12 at least) remained alive, yes. Some may also have survived the initial carnage but Daenerys' orders make no distinction of location. She didn't say just kill people in the plaza. But do you know what distinction she made? Goodmasters and those who aren't goodmasters.

Fringes of tokars denote the social status of those who wear it, even Dany who's been there for a very short time makes note of it so every single one of the unsullied would know it as well, if Dany just said kill the goodmasters, they would just have killed the slave trading elite whose tokars mark them for what they are but the distinctive fringes of their tokars but Dany orders the death of every tokar wearer, meaning every freeborn. 

So Dany killing slaves in name of liberating them is excusable? Especially considering how said slaves were mostly content as evidenced by how there were no slave revolts with slaves outnumbering the freeborn by far and comprising the most of the armed forces? Even Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire revolted numerous times(though not for freedom) despite having it much better than the free people. Mamluks too( both the Turkic ones and Circassian ones) also revolted and actually replaced the previous elite, despite having it far better than free people. 

Emphasis on the bulk. I'm quite ok with that part, but definitely not the part that was done by Dany's troops.

Because a) Dany is an agressor b) slaves themselves had no problem with slavery as it's obvious by two things, reinstating slavery with themselves as the owners as soon as she leaves and not having rebelled for thousands of years despite being quite able to do it. c) being a hypocrite, she was ready to buy slaves herself and only decided to become a liberator after she saw the tortured/executed slaves but her ultimate intention is to go to Westeros and become it's queen, where many free people also get similar treatment from their feudal lords or even lords themselves from their own overlords.

Astapori slaves and freedmen are people, too.  You don't have to a be a part of the tokar-wearing elite to be a person.    There was no attempt to wipe out the Astapori People, in whole or in part.

Then you go on to argue that Eastern slaves are happy in slavery.  Well, the Braavosi mutinied against their overlords, and founded their city as a home for escaped slaves.  The Faceless Men were created, in part, to avenge slaves who were ill-treated, and may well be responsible for the destruction of Valyria.  The slaves of Meereen and Astapor revolted, as soon as they had the opportunity.  We see slaves being dismembered or mutilated for acts of rebellion against their masters, or for attempting to escape.

So, kindly spare us "The Lost Cause of Slavers Bay."

[sifth]

Just a fun thought. Does Gregor have any defenders around here?

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

2 minutes ago, sifth said:

Just a fun thought. Does Gregor have any defenders around here?

There are some fucked up readers out there. So yeah, I've seen it maybe one or two times. "He was just following orders!" I remember one time specifically because it was someone who hated Elia so much that they tried to justify the murder of her and her children. However, they were "decent" enough to say Gregor was wrong for R'ing her. But the murder? Yeah, that's fine apparently, despite Tywin not actually ordering Gregor to kill them. It's fair to say that Tywin sent Gregor knowing he would probably murder more people than he was commanded to, but it can't be said that he was ordered to murder Elia and her babes.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

There are some fucked up readers out there. So yeah, I've seen it maybe one or two times. "He was just following orders!" I remember one time specifically because it was someone who hated Elia so much that they tried to justify the murder of her and her children. However, they were "decent" enough to say Gregor was wrong for R'ing her. But the murder? Yeah, that's fine apparently, despite Tywin not actually ordering Gregor to kill them. It's fair to say that Tywin sent Gregor knowing he would probably murder more people than he was commanded to, but it can't be said that he was ordered to murder Elia and her babes.

As you can see upthread, you will get people who are willing to justify anything, however atrocious, to take a swipe at a character that they hate.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Which is kind of ironic considering how the war started and all...

I often imagine what would have happened if Frederick V was ultra-competent and 'won' the war. Then I imagine what a completed and undamaged Hortus Palatinus would look like...

[Alester Florent]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I often imagine what would have happened if Frederick V was ultra-competent and 'won' the war. Then I imagine what a completed and undamaged Hortus Palatinus would look like...

Hard to imagine, isn't it. It could conceivably have meant no civil wars in Britain too. 

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Hard to imagine, isn't it. It could conceivably have meant no civil wars in Britain too. 

It would also be nice to see the Palatinate under competent!Frederick and his successors. It had quite a lot going for it before the war, where it got trashed... And was then trashed again due to the outcome of the war... Granted the position near France was not great but...

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It would also be nice to see the Palatinate under competent!Frederick and his successors. It had quite a lot going for it before the war, where it got trashed... And was then trashed again due to the outcome of the war... Granted the position near France was not great but...

The Swedes also devastated Poland/Lithuania between 1648 and 1658.  Perhaps 3 million died in that conflict.  And, as the conflict brought in Russia, the Cossacks, and the Ottoman Empire, and the Tatars, thousands more died in the borderlands.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Renly's "war" to claim the throne for himself

I think Renly's reasoning was that Joffrey with Cersei as regent was just not acceptable to him (and I don't blame him). He was fine with Joffrey being King if Ned was regent, but the Joffrey-Cersei combo is no-go. He strongly dislikes Joffrey and the feeling is mutual, and Cersei (who also doesn't like him and wants him killed) seems unlikely to reign in Joffrey. So after Ned rejects his plan, he is going to rebel against the Lannisters. However, Renly alone only has the Stormlands, which does not appear enough to beat the Lannisters (at this point Robb has won no battles). So he needs some way to get more support. I think the Tyrell marriage probably came about because they could promise a large army (to fight the Lannisters with) but would only agree to the marriage if Renly agreed to be king. Of course, it is possible that Renly was able to marry Margaery anyway (he is an eligible candidate) and then decided on the king plan when he saw the massive army at his command.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

The Swedes also devastated Poland/Lithuania between 1648 and 1658.  Perhaps 3 million died in that conflict.  And, as the conflict brought in Russia, the Cossacks, and the Ottoman Empire, and the Tatars, thousands more died in the borderlands.

Yeah, not good 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

Does Gregor have any defenders around here?

Poor Gregor is an innocent victim of sub-standard and antiquated medical practices in Westeros. It is abundantly clear that Gregor suffers immensely due to issues with his pituitary gland. He has no control over this, and has been forced into opiate addiction in a desperate attempt to control the pain. Were Westeros not controlled by power-hungry and superstitious elites content to stall societal progress in order to maintain their own influence and position, Gregor could have received the help he needed.

[The Bard of Banefort]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

Just a fun thought. Does Gregor have any defenders around here?

There are a prominent number of Maegor defenders. They’re mostly Rhaenyra stans who have convinced themselves that Maegor was some kind of feminist because Aerea was his heir. Never mind that Aerea was also Antichrist Jaehaerys’ heir too until he had children, or the whole, y’know, kidnapping/raping/killing his wives thing.

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

There are a prominent number of Maegor defenders. They’re mostly Rhaenyra stans who have convinced themselves that Maegor was some kind of feminist because Aerea was his heir. Never mind that Aerea was also Antichrist Jaehaerys’ heir too until he had children, or the whole, y’know, kidnapping/raping/killing his wives thing.

Also some people love that Maegor killed a load of members of the Faith...

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

Also some people love that Maegor killed a load of members of the Faith...

Yeah, those monsters who opposed their fire-breathing dragon overlords. . .