Unpopular opinions III

[Ser Tom]

Of course not; they hate it, too. What I'm saying is...what I previously said. They didn't base their culture on rape & murder. You'll never hear of a chief sitting next to a pile of severed heads, in that culture.

Unlike old Ghengis and his pals, they loved all that stuff. I remember reading that scientists had studied the dna of people in the old mongolian empire and found something like 16 million living decendants of Ghengis'.

[lady crackhead]

They seem to have been quite nice and did not run around raping and murdering people.

No any more than most people did. However, some of them did enslave a few people and they did eat dogs.

Unlike old Ghengis and his pals, they loved all that stuff. I remember reading that scientists had studied the dna of people in the old mongolian empire and found something like 16 million living decendants of Ghengis'.

And one in ten europeans have the same dad, so what? Humans stink. But they have notably acted worse in specific periods of time, in specific regions.

Edited: My sarcasm may or may not be justified :)

[Queen Beyond the Wall]

And this is what I don't get about Dany. In ASoS, she makes an interesting remark about Robert doing no justice as a monarch, yet when she finds herself in a difficult situation, she resorts to some pretty grisly methods herself. It's one thing to have high-minded ideals, but the test is whether you can live up to them when the going gets tough. That's where Dany falls down, IMO. It's not saying she can't learn better, but she's already messed up quite a bit.

In response to brashcandy, I'm amazed that you can't feel sympathy for Mirri Maz Duur. What she did was undoubtedly cruel, but Dany was pretty naive in thinking that she was saving MMD. Dany's intentions were good, but she didn't understand the repercussions of her actions. She didn't understand that the slaving and the sack of the Lhazareen village were for the sake of her campaign in Westeros.

Well, I think part of the story is Dany finding out how hard it is to rule, because people in positions of power have to make hard choices all the time. People get hurt, no matter how good your intentions are. You cannot BE a king/president/emperor/prime minister/etc without making decisions that will be unjust in the eyes of some people. I am not saying you *need* to kill or torture people, but even in our modern world, these things happen in the *name* of justice (war, guantanamo bay, death penalties). Even just ruling-making decisions that do not involve death or torture, leads to the unhappiness of some of your people. And yeah, in a society like Westeros/Mereen, a little bloodshed is unavoidable, and a king or queen using such methods is not necessarily considered immoral. It all depends on context. Anyhow, my point is that maybe Dany is going to come to some realizations. Her views are naive, and that is only natural, as she is still a child. As she grows and develops and tries her hand at ruling, she may come to the realization that being a just ruler is not easy-peasy, and find that doing some distasteful things may be necessary for the greater good...maybe she'll come to view Robert's choices a little differently when she finds herself making those same decisions.

[Errant Bard]

And one in ten europeans have the same dad, so what? Humans stink. But they have notably acted worse in specific periods of time, in specific regions.

Stink? It's just about having children. Charlemagne is argued to be the closest common ancestor for everyone in Europe, for example. Being a rape champion or not is totally unrelated.

I have to question the original assertion, though, because those are always speculations. Some questions:

1) How did they know what Genghis' DNA was? Time machine?

2) How did they get the DNA of 16 millions people in mongolia? Automated DNA-sampling drones?

3) What does "having Genghis' DNA" mean? There is no gene with "Copyright Genghis" on it.

Genghis' accomplishments were political and military, he was no more a rapelord than any other conquering warlord.

[voodooqueen126]

Stink? It's just about having children. Charlemagne is argued to be the closest common ancestor for everyone in Europe, for example. Being a rape champion or not is totally unrelated.

I have to question the original assertion, though, because those are always speculations. Some questions:

1) How did they know what Genghis' DNA was? Time machine?

2) How did they get the DNA of 16 millions people in mongolia? Automated DNA-sampling drones?

3) What does "having Genghis' DNA" mean? There is no gene with "Copyright Genghis" on it.

Genghis' accomplishments were political and military, he was no more a rapelord than any other conquering warlord.

I think it's because/perhaps it is because: know who Genghis' legitimate children are (through his wife) and some of them are known to be sticking around still in the male line. So they did tests on those men. and found that Y chromosomes the same as those men where as far afield as Morocco.

I know a Hazara guy (and 1 in 4 Hazaras are direct descendants of Genghis Khan personally) who is a 24th descendant of Genghis Khan.

[Errant Bard]

I think it's because/perhaps it is because: know who Genghis' legitimate children are (through his wife) and some of them are known to be sticking around still in the male line. So they did tests on those men. and found that Y chromosomes the same as those men where as far afield as Morocco.

I know a Hazara guy (and 1 in 4 Hazaras are direct descendants of Genghis Khan personally) who is a 24th descendant of Genghis Khan.

Basically, correlation is causation.

[Alexia]

THE TULLY'S WERE GIVEN RIVERRUN BY AEGON AFTER HE KILLED HARREN THE BLACK. I wrote you a very nice paragraph back on page two, how dare you not read it. The Tyrells were also given great house status after the Gardener kings were killed and Aegon decide more pliable pawns would be useful.

I am pretty sure (and those who know more about the historical aspect of the series are welcome to correct me) that Riverrun already belonged to the Tullys and Harren the Black held Harrenhal. I thought that what Aegon gave the Tullys was the overlordship of the riverlands, not Riverrun itself.

[brashcandy]

You deny that Dany claimed Mirri as a personal slave?

Sure thing! A freedman comes in wanting redress for his wife who had been raped by the master while enslaved. Dany told him that she wasn't really raped, because it isn't rape to rape a slave and masters can do whatever they wish to their slaves.

Well then obviously that was a bad ruling on Dany's part.

And no, I'm not denying that Dany had Mirri as a personal servant. My contention has always been that when Mirri went out of her way to trick and abuse Dany, she crossed the line. Unless I'm mistaken, "masters" don't normally rescue "slaves" they enslave them. Dany did not "enslave" Mirri one bit. Mirri entered into the Khalasar in the only way she could - as a subservient woman - her home had just been conquered afterall, but Dany did not seek to enslave her. She claimed her so that she ensure she was protected.

Mirri then proceeds to basically screw over Dany and Khal Drogo and Dany's unborn baby - there are some people on this thread who think that's fine and like to twiddle with words like foetus and baby, but it's still reprehensible. Dany then took justice for what had been done to her family. It was probably a justice that Mirri very much expected anyways. I'm not denying that Mirri had a right to be angry at the Dothraki people, but what she did still amounts to murder. If you don't feel that Dany should have repaid her in kind for what she did to her family, then you're certainly entitled to feel that way, but trying to claim that somehow this shows that Dany is some "crazy Targ" who does wicked things when it suits her is blatantly untrue and not reflected in the text.

[Marcus Cicero]

I don't object to this perspective. But it has to be consistent. The same posters often claim that the targaryens removal was justifiable and yet the starks and tullys have had winterfell and riverrun unjustly stolen from them and stannis is the "rightful king" (as opposed to Joffrey). Stannis wasn't strong enough to hold on to the seven kingdoms and thus lost, making him not king. The Tullys weren't strong enough to hold riverrun and the riverlands, therefor there is nothing wrong with their removal. If you believe might makes right that's fine, just apply the principle consistently. I don't believe the targaryen's have any inherent right to rule the 7 kingdoms, but I think that a system where one family is the sole dynasty and all rule springs from their blood right is a better one than a system where anyone can claim the right to rule, on the basis of being a popular figure or a strong warrior. I think the former system will lead to fewer civil wars and a more peaceful realm. But again I'm not objecting to what your saying, I think its a perfectly acceptable line of logic to use.

You make some good points. However, I'd argue that without the dragons, the Targaryens were an unstable dynasty. There were several civil wars, including the Blackfyre Rebellions. But I suppose those could be dismissed by pointing out that there could be more civil wars without consistent Targaryen rule. More important, in my opinion, is the insanity aspect. Even though a great ruler came along every know and then, House Targaryen simply became a dangerous presence on the Iron Throne. It's like when the Spanish Hapsburgs got more and more inbred, stupid, and insane to the detriment of their Kingdom. If Cersei hadn't decided to pass off her incest kid as the heir, and if supervillain Littlefinger hadn't existed, then Robert's reign could have marked the start of a more sane and stable dynasty.

No, perhaps I wasn't clear. Saying that the targaryens as the only family who have ever ruled the 7 kingdoms should be the sole source of claim to rule, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want, they still have to obey the law.

A good example is Charles's son James. He is the rightful heir to being the king of England, but he has to obey the law and follow the Anglican faith. He refuses to do so and is thus overthrown (the glorious revolution). But that doesn't mean his whole line loses legitimacy, its means the throne passes to his nearest Anglican relative (his daughter Mary). The same should be the case with Aerys, his failure to obey the law can cause him to be overthrown, but then the throne should pass to his nearest relative.

Both Charles I and parliament (before pride's purge at least) agreed Charles I was the monarch, the divine right or whatever other term you want to use.

It' difficult to make an argument that your family has a right to rule without either bringing 'might' or God into it. By the time William and Mary came along, Parliament had done everything they could to sweep the whole divine right thing under the rug. Their reign was so successful because their gave up much of the Stuart pretensions and were more willing to bend to the will of Parliament.

But Westeros is different. There is no assembly to vote on and create laws. The King's power is limited only by the power of his major Lords. In this kind of arrangement, the King having a right to dominate over others and at the same time be subject to law is much less workable.

[thekissoffire]

I recall that Mirri first actually tries to heal Drogo and he ripped the dressing off because it burned and itched. So really I blame Drogo for dying. Mirri did preserve his life, even if she killed Rhaego. She also warned Dany that what she asked her to do was dark and dangerous and tells her to stay out of the tent. In my opinion if Dany and Drogo had actually listened to Mirri in the first place, this scene would have been avoided.

[Ser Tom]

And one in ten europeans have the same dad, so what? Humans stink. But they have notably acted worse in specific periods of time, in specific regions.

Edited: My sarcasm may or may not be justified :)

Hey who cares, I'm a big fan of sarcasm myself. Aye I wasn't too long out of bed when I posted that, left out that I think the dothraki are clearly based on the mogols not native americans.

your right vodoo queen the research came from Y chromosomes from his surviving male line.

Don't know about that bard, political/military success aye, but I think the 16 million speaks for itself, though I'd be interested to find out about anyone else with a similar effect on us as a species. I doubt there's much chance of that, the Ghengis research must've taken a lot of time and money.

[brashcandy]

In my spirited debate on another thread where I argued that what Catelyn did to Jon was emotional/psychological abuse, and that I consider her a Queen bitch for it, not to mention her other foolish, rash decisions during the war, I really started to see that people really minimize the depth of Tyrion Lannister's suffering and why he may be acting in the way he does now.

Believe me, I'm guilty of this too. Before, I've thought "oh boo hoo, poor Tyrion, having to grow up in all that wealth and privilege, and now he dares to feel sorry for himself. Shut up already." But now, in arguing that what Jon suffered was emotional abuse, I see clearly that this was what Tyrion experienced too, perhaps even worse than Jon, although they experienced different forms of abuse, which could be considered equally bad. That these two are still able to go on to show kindness, understanding and sympathy to others, is perhaps quite remarkable. Look what a monster Ramsay Bolton is now, and Tyrion could just as easily have morphed into his sister Cersei.

I don't think that anyone denies that Tywin was a huge shit to his son Tyrion, but how many of us realise that this may be why Tyrion is acting the way he does, regarding his treatment of women, his sometimes amoral behaviour etc etc.

Now, IMO, Jon suffered from a form of emotional abuse called denying - denying has many features but the two I found most relevant to Jon's situation are listed below:

Denying a person's emotional needs, especially when they feel that need the most, and done with the intent of hurting, punishing or humiliating

Withholding is another form of denying. Withholding includes refusing to listen, refusing to communicate, and emotionally withdrawing as punishment. This is sometimes called the "silent treatment."

More on this can be found at http://eqi.org/eabuse1.htm

Now the first form of denial took place in Bran's bedroom when Jon came to say goodbye, but the second one was the most damaging in my opinion. Cat subjected Jon to a sustained "silent treatment" for 14 yrs that was meant to degrade him and serve to deny his existence. This kind of abusive resentment cannot be justified in my opinion, however, my larger point is on Tyrion so I'll move unto him.

Tyrion is obviously subjected to a more agressive form of abuse, largely emotional in nature, but also sexual as well (the Tysha incident). Throughout his life, Tywin looks down on Tyrion, sees him as deformed, inferior, lacking in some normal human way because of his dwarfism. His sister Cersei also taunts him as inferior and deformed, and he is keenly aware of how people pity him for his condition.

In order to deflect this, Tyrion uses his wit as an armour - it's really the only one he has, and he is also cunning and bright - two defences that he needs to combat a world that he is hypersensitive to. This hypersensitivity can be explained quite easily - when you are accustomed to being mistreated because people see you as subhuman from a little child, you necessarily grow up to believe that this is why ALL people resent you. He thinks that Sansa doesn't want him because he's a dwarf (without paying attention that it's because he's a Lannister more so than anything). Yet, rather than castigate Tyrion for his blindness, I think he deserves some sympathy too.

To draw on the link I provided above, it says that:

No one intends to be in an abusive relationship, but individuals who were verbally abused by a parent or other significant person often find themselves in similar situations as an adult. If a parent tended to define your experiences and emotions, and judge your behaviors, you may not have learned how to set your own standards, develop your own viewpoints and validate your own feeling and perceptions. Consequently, the controlling and defining stance taken by an emotional abuser may feel familiar or even conformable to you, although it is destructive.

Recipients of abuse often struggle with feelings of powerlessness, hurt, fear, and anger. Ironically abusers tend to struggle with these same feelings. Abusers are also likely to have been raised in emotionally abusive environments and they learn to be abusive as a way to cope with their own feelings of powerlessness, hurt , fear, and anger. Consequently, abusers may be attracted to people who see themselves as helpless or who have not learned to value their own feelings, perceptions, or viewpoints. This allows the abuser to feel more secure and in control, and avoid dealing with their own feelings, and self-perceptions.

I think these two paragraphs sum up a lot of what is going on in Tyrion's relationship with people and to women in particular. Tywin has largely "defined" Tyrion's "experiences and emotions" leading him to constantly think that people dislike him because he's a dwarf. And in the second paragraph we see clearly how Tyrion may have become an abuser himself and why he's attracted to prostitutes besides the easy availability of sex. Arguably, prostitutes have "not learnt to value their own feelings, perceptions or viewpoints", I mean the whole point of being a prostitute is subjugating all these things and concentrating on the client's pleasure alone. So Tyrion is necessarily attracted to these women because yes, he can control them, he can tell them what to do and how to act (as we see with Shae) and he can avoid dealing with his own sense of powerlessness and hurt.

So to sum up, when Shae makes that joke against Tyrion's manhood, by telling everyone how he liked to be called the "Giant of Lannister" it was the final straw. It can't be minimized as simply hurt pride or feeling humiliated, it has to be taken into the context of all the emotional abuse Tyrion has suffered throughout his life. That he doesn't realise that Shae is a victim too in this whole mess is doubly tragic and illustrates perfectly the vicious cycle that men like Tywin Lannister can set in motion.

To end with Jon- I think that if he had really continued on his journey to meet up with Robb to help out with the war effort, and Catelyn had shown him the same disdain and cruelty that she did in Bran's room, I strongly think he would have snapped. Maybe not killed her like Tyrion did Shae, but probably slapped her really really hard. It would have been the final insult that he could not take. And it is no great stretch to say that Catelyn would have viewed his presence there as an affront to her and Robb.

I just think that emotional abuse - whether subtle or direct - needs to be recognized as such and not minimized by arguments that someone doesn't owe another person recognition or support. Tywin had a strong feeling that Tyrion was not his, but that doesn't make his treatment of Tyrion any better.

[kephv]

To end with Jon- I think that if he had really continued on his journey to meet up with Robb to help out with the war effort, and Catelyn had shown him the same disdain and cruelty that she did in Bran's room, I strongly think he would have snapped. Maybe not killed her like Tyrion did Shae, but probably slapped her really really hard. It would have been the final insult that he could not take. And it is no great stretch to say that Catelyn would have viewed his presence there as an affront to her and Robb.

I don't know about that. First of all, I don't think Jon would ever have struck her. That's not even in the realm of possibility for him considering Robb was king then and Jon isn't really prone to emotional outbursts. Also, I really don't think she would've seen his presence there as an affront. She probably wouldn't have liked him there, but there probably wouldn't be any outrage. Ned was his father too so he had good reason.

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

:bowdown:

Thanks for bringing sanity back to the ASOIAF fandom, Raksha. I've been saying this forever.

The man was the original Walder Frey - violates the guest right by trying to kill a kid.

As for loving his sister - please please gimme a break. It was sexual obsession - plain and simple. If he loved her his ass would have been back in KL to help her.

He's also a neglectful father - at least Robert's bastards have a memory of him.

And umm, anyone who's not suicidal would have tried to stop Aerys - even Barristan Selmy

Robert never even laid eyes on some of his bastards.

Was Jaime really supposed to raise his/Roberts children will being a kings-guardsman?

[lyvyathan]

Looks like this hasn't been mentioned yet - Catelyn Stark is one of the most gullible characters who makes some of the emotional driven, stupidest, poorly thought plans in ASOIAF world and gets the honor of being the person who lights the fuse that starts the War which leads to the death and slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

Worse, she is so conceited that she does not seem to re-evaluate her past decisions and improve. Her blunders get worse and worse. She doesn't show much positive character development at all.

Here let me give you an example:

When Catelyn's party gets nearly wiped out by mountain clansmen and suffers grave losses - what does she want to do next?

Option 1. make all due haste to flee as fast as possible to the safety of House Arryn's strongholds to achieve her objectives..

Option 2. The most ill-conceived option which exposes them to the highest possible chance of being killed for absolutely zero material gain. i.e. Stay and bury the corpses of the dead men on ground which is practically impossible to dig because its stony.

What would be the most logical, sensible, justifiable thing to do - or the one which would help attain the main objectives?

Guess which one Catelyn wants to choose.

Make a wild guess.

"Lady Stark, I urge you to press on, with all haste," Ser Willis Wode said, his eyes scanning the ridgetops warily... "We drove them off for the moment, but they will not have gone far."

"We must bury the dead, Ser Willis," she said 'These were brave men. I will not leave them to the crows and shadowcats."

(Note: Apparently she did not seem to think that the shadowcats may take a fancy to live flesh.)

"This soil is too stony for digging." Ser Willis said.

"Then we shall gather stones for cairns" (GoT pg 326.)

***

Wow, brilliant thinking there. ROTFL!!!! Catelyn is stubborn alright. You can see why perhaps she chose to be cold and indifferent to a certain boy who was living in her house for 14 years since he was a baby.

Perhaps you may also try and hazard a guess why Catelyn's ideas weren't always taken too seriously by other people?

What do you call someone who takes a highly dangerous decision that places herself and her supporters in grave danger based upon poor evidence or faulty thinking and it would seem everyone from Littlefinger, Yoren, your crazy sister, Ser Willis, Bronn, Ser Rodrik etc.. realize it?

[brashcandy]

I don't know about that. First of all, I don't think Jon would ever have struck her. That's not even in the realm of possibility for him considering Robb was king then and Jon isn't really prone to emotional outbursts. Also, I really don't think she would've seen his presence there as an affront. She probably wouldn't have liked him there, but there probably wouldn't be any outrage. Ned was his father too so he had good reason.

Ah you naive little thing :) no offence, seriously, Cat would have thrown the hissiest of hissy fits. They would have heard her across the narrow seas if Jon had dared to show his face to help fight in that battle. Exaggeration? maybe, but you obviously do not appreciate just how much Cat did not like Jon. If he came anywhere near that army, she would have seen it as his sneaky attempt to place his claim for Winterfell now that Ned is dead.

As for Jon slapping her, yeah I think he would have. A slap isn't the same as beating her down and I think Jon would have just not been able to take it anymore.

[oba]

I don't know about that. First of all, I don't think Jon would ever have struck her. That's not even in the realm of possibility for him considering Robb was king then and Jon isn't really prone to emotional outbursts. Also, I really don't think she would've seen his presence there as an affront. She probably wouldn't have liked him there, but there probably wouldn't be any outrage. Ned was his father too so he had good reason.

I agree with you. Obviously, we'll never know for sure, but I don't think Jon would have hit Catelyn. I think both of them would have done their best to avoid each other.

I've always wondered how Robb would have handled Jon leaving the Wall to begin with. It had been impressed upon Robb from a very early age what the penalty was for desertion from the Night's Watch. Jon was wondering this (how Robb would react) himself before Pyp, Grenn, et al. catch up with him. He tries to picture Robb's smile upon greeting him but the only image that comes to mind is the deserter (Gared) that Ned beheaded.

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

I don't think any of my strongly held opinions about ASOIAF can fairly be considered unpopular.

Or, alternatively: I'll just throw this out there not knowing if it's a view others generally share vel non. Who knows, maybe it's been the consensus view all along and I just didn't realize.

Potentially Unpopular View: Khal Drogo is an asshole, and I'm glad he died so pitifully. Indeed what the entire Dothraki culture needs is a sound thrashing. I wish somebody would come along and just destroy - just totally wreck - a bunch of khalasars. Maybe the Lhazareen could finally say enough is enough and reduce Vaes Dothrak to cinders.

The Ironborn have earned this as well. All that clap trap about reavers and thralls etc. needs to be utterly crushed.

The Targaryens were great Usurpers as well. They used dragons to slay and murder everywhere they went in order to gain power and to rule. The have less claim to Westeros than the First Men who arrived before them. They attacked The Rhoynar after the Doom of Valyria. In essence, Robert dished the Targaryen what their ancestors dished to everyone else.

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

of course, it's easy to praise a dead man, but, as you pointed out, Rhaegar seems more like something in between his two descriptions. He is well-meaning, competent, and kind, but also extremely unstable ("so now I'll just base my life on a prophecy, and start kidnapping to better make secure humanity by trying to engineer perfect children based on vague poetic lines to fight some vague possible menace...why are you guys looking at me so strange?")

Are we certain the he kidnapped Lyanna? No.

[Ororo727 Jon Snow Fangirl]

My personal opinion is that while Aerys committed crimes and they were justified in revolting against him, but that doesn't give the baratheons the right to steal king's landing and dragonstone from the targaryens and murder rhaegar's children (the heir to the throne). The king should be subject to the law, and doesn't have the right kill anybody he wants, but his grandchildren can't be killed and have their birthright stolen from them on that account. Ned and Robert would have been the right to fight aerys and kill him if need be, but they were not in the right to take the throne and condone the murder of children.

The Baratheon's had just as much right to conquer as the Targayen's did when they decided to sack Westeros and the Free Cities.