Spoilers Game of Thrones: The Final Season
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
And to be too fair than deserved, there really is some kind of outrage going on as "Last of the Starks" has gone from a peak of 7.8 on IMDB to a 6.5 and dropping... Whether that will cause "ripples and reprecussions" whatever the cucf that means remains to be seen.
I guess we'll see if ratings go down for the battle of the Sarah Connors.... I would say they will not.
I guess we'll see if ratings go down for the battle of the Sarah Connors.... I would say they will not.
How appropriate that even while complaining about points being ignored, the complainer does exactly the same, except worse.
Lex talionis is an agreed upon moral principle, one far, far more central to the US justice system than any Christian principles of forgiving seven times seventy. I think it could be argued that the US often operates on the principle that some lives are worth more, which really would be immoral. Nobody should respect the sudden discovery that one fictional character should be held as immoral when a personal decree that lex talionis isn't a moral principle. Nobody dreams of suggesting that Ned Stark killing a man for fleeing supernatural horror was evil, because double standard.
But that's mere inconsistency. The claim that Randyll Tarly had clearly surrendered is clearly false. He was setting an example of defiance despite defeat to his army. Daenerys didn't have any way to take many prisoners (Tyrion was urging special treatment for nobles, not everyone, but then, Tyrion is a shit.) Tarly was so determined not to surrender his troops he even refused Tyrion's suggestion to take the Black, as that would resign his command, and the new commander would be more humane than Tarly. Moving beyond the insolence of this bland misrepresentation of plain facts, the notion that Daenerys Targaryen is worse when she does her own executing than Ned Stark is just the double standard again. It's not even clear to me that her vainly hacking away with a broadsword at Tarly's neck would have been more humane. None of the soldiers burned in the battle had surrendered either. He simply shared their fate, for once in his sorry life.
Really dude, why not just explain how she's like Abraham Lincoln, in truth a terrible tyrant who ruined the country by destroying states' rights? She is the only character in this show who has actually made things better for common people in their daily lives. The only other character whose achievements are remotely comparable is Jon Snow, who was the only one who consistently fought the Night King and brought Daenerys on board. Except of course he had divine intervention helping him, so yeah, less qualification for being king. The only possible way to see things so wrong is to share the producers' hatred of revolution.
Get this racist Lost Cause bullshit out of this thread. I don't give two shits about states' rights to perpetuate the institution of slavery (as enshrined in the constitutions of the Confederate States and declarations for why they were leaving), which is all about denying individual rights to be treated as a human being instead of property. The southern states didn't care one bit about states' rights when they were asking for the Fugitive Slave Acts to be imposed on the other states. And I imagine your perspective on states' rights might be a bit different if you were a slave at the time.
I'm not going to debate you further on the matter since it has no business being in this thread.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm practicing my restraint, too. Sometimes I even succeed!
I'm sure the reply will be SJW or limousine liberal or I'm in a bubble... but, seriously, who is still litigating the Civil War? Like, the South lost... and they should have because THEY WANTED TO OWN PEOPLE.
OWN. PEOPLE.
I don't need a moral lecture from someone who thinks States Rights is the right to own a person.
This is getting very tempting to get into a debate over, but we really really shouldn't in this thread. If someone starts a civil war ethics thread in Misc I will gladly chime in.
I'm not sure it qualifies as moral relativism when slaving child-killers being killed is listed as bad. In a horrific way, yes.
But again....slaving child-killers.
That is a pretty big asterisk.
I'm inclined to state that if not good then it's not evil.
Last edited:
People have said that Dany has always been pitted against people that are blatantly bad. Now she is against people that are... less bad, and it's the biggest test of character so far.
Yes, I *HOPE* they don't go the Mad Queen arc because it will be a kind of shitty twist. Yes, there's always been possibilities but I've always felt she was a better character than a lot of them in the whole of fantasy. It seems like a poor end for a woman held up as a feminist icon and beloved by millions.
Just a different lesson than those people expected. Don't put ANYONE on a pedestal. I hold a very grim worldview, and I like this lesson more than any kind of icon or hero.
What’s there to debate?
It won’t be a twist. She’s been doing terrible things in the name of “good” for seasons, it’s just that you’ve been ok with it.
Not the ethics of the South, but the ethics and necessity of the war itself. I've spoken to southerners that vouch that slavery was no longer economically sound at the time of the Civil War. It would have collapsed on its own within 20 years. If the South was allowed to secede the collapse of slavery would have meant economic catastrophe and they would have been begging to rejoin the union.
This is the last thing that I'm going to say about it, since it's totally off topic.
There isn't a debate. They owned people. They wanted to continue to own people. Regardless if it was "going to collapse" (which isn't true), it's still wrong to own people. Those people who were being owned shouldn't have to wait for an economic collapse of said system to be free. It's a shame that it was enshrined in the first place.
Now, stop listening to those Southerners who doing their best to distract you from the South's desire to own people, fought a war, lost it, and then decided to terrorize Black Americans for the next 100 years under Jim Crow.
I think at the very least either Varys, Tyrion or the show itself is implying Danaerys may have a pathological sense of justice. She does crazy things for the right reasons.
She doesn't want to put people in chains anymore, so she refuses to take prisoners. Instead if they are defiant, she executes them. But she does personally explain herself and her cause and gives them a choice.
Most of the time, when she does things like this her hands are tied or she's some crazy situation anyway, so it's hard not to sympathize with her at times.
But she really needs to know how to talk to people who don't know her or whom she's just met.
She doesn't want to put people in chains anymore, so she refuses to take prisoners. Instead if they are defiant, she executes them. But she does personally explain herself and her cause and gives them a choice.
Most of the time, when she does things like this her hands are tied or she's some crazy situation anyway, so it's hard not to sympathize with her at times.
But she really needs to know how to talk to people who don't know her or whom she's just met.
The South was aware of that but they planned to make it viable by expanding the states where it was allowed and colonizing/conquering Central as well as South America. Even if it wasn't viable, they had founded the Confederacy on the principles of preserving white supremacy and the institution of slavery by all any and all means (enshrined in their Constitution). States Rights meaning anything other than white supremacy and slavery when you can just look up the original documents online.
Re: Daenerys
I think part of the journey of her character was being aware that the culture of rulership in Essos and Westeros depends on violence versus good deeds. How she manages that balance is her journey.
Similar threads
