ASoIAF/Game of Thrones general Discussion Thread

[Ifreann]

The lords and ladies of noble houses scoffing at the idea of letting the people choose their leaders is not a critique of democracy, and it sure as shit isn't avant-garde.

its revolutionary, highly progressive thinking

It's regressive thinking straight out of the era of feudalism. Like, you understand that the system of government in this show is not a novel invention of George RR Martin, right? You wanting to go back to that old political structure is regress, not progress.

[Hanafuridake]

its revolutionary, highly progressive thinking

It's regressive thinking straight out of the era of feudalism. Like, you understand that the system of government in this show is not a novel invention of George RR Martin, right? You wanting to go back to that old political structure is regress, not progress.

Let's not return to the War of the Roses, please and thank you.

[Andsed]

its revolutionary, highly progressive thinking

It's regressive thinking straight out of the era of feudalism. Like, you understand that the system of government in this show is not a novel invention of George RR Martin, right? You wanting to go back to that old political structure is regress, not progress.

What you don't want to go back to the era of civil war like every decade because a monarch died without an heir or some jackass tried to seize the throne with some random claim? Hah coward.

[Infected Mushroom]

It's regressive thinking straight out of the era of feudalism. Like, you understand that the system of government in this show is not a novel invention of George RR Martin, right? You wanting to go back to that old political structure is regress, not progress.

Let's not return to the War of the Roses, please and thank you.

I would rather live in a time when people believed in their leaders and when leaders could, and were expected to inspire loyalty

[Andsed]

Let's not return to the War of the Roses, please and thank you.

I would rather live in a time when people believed in their leaders and when leaders could, and were expected to inspire loyalty

You have a very romanticized view of the middle ages my god. You do understand how monarchy functioned and it's relationships with it''s people right? Also do you really want to return to the middle ages a time that saw countless wars that killed tens of thousands?

[Hanafuridake]

Let's not return to the War of the Roses, please and thank you.

I would rather live in a time when people believed in their leaders and when leaders could, and were expected to inspire loyalty

Sansa's idealized view of knights and kings from Season 1 was shattered for a reason.

[Ethel mermania]

I would rather live in a time when people believed in their leaders and when leaders could, and were expected to inspire loyalty

You have a very romanticized view of the middle ages my god. You do understand how monarchy functioned and it's relationships with it''s people right? Also do you really want to return to the middle ages a time that saw countless wars that killed tens of thousands?

And today we kill 10's of millions... so .... progress?

[Ifreann]

Let's not return to the War of the Roses, please and thank you.

I would rather live in a time when people believed in their leaders and when leaders could, and were expected to inspire loyalty

So you say, regularly. But you liking the idea doesn't mean that a depiction of feudal lords laughing at the suggestion of giving power to the people is a critique of democracy.

[Andsed]

You have a very romanticized view of the middle ages my god. You do understand how monarchy functioned and it's relationships with it''s people right? Also do you really want to return to the middle ages a time that saw countless wars that killed tens of thousands?

And today we kill 10's of millions... so .... progress?

Yes wars today are in many ways a lot more destructive due to technological advancement. But today major wars are far less common and in general it is peaceful for large parts of the world. If we look at the number of major wars today compared to major wars in the middle ages it is clear as day that major wars are a lot less common and for much of the first world it is pretty peaceful.

And also the death count of modern wars come from modern day technology not frequency of wars. And if we were going to go back to middle age monarchy then we would very likely see a increase in wars which would means tens if not hundreds of millions people killed..

And also the death count of modern wars come from modern day technology not frequency of wars. And if we were going to go back to middle age monarchy then we would very likely see a increase in wars which would means tens if not hundreds of millions people killed.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would rather live in a time when people believed in their leaders and when leaders could, and were expected to inspire loyalty

So you say, regularly. But you liking the idea doesn't mean that a depiction of feudal lords laughing at the suggestion of giving power to the people is a critique of democracy.

it illustrates how it was so very obviously a fundamentally flawed idea (I mean, basically, democracy is giving a ton of powers to the ignorant and fools, that much ought to be obvious... instead we glorify a "free" system instead of looking at the flaws in their face)

[Tarsonis]

So you say, regularly. But you liking the idea doesn't mean that a depiction of feudal lords laughing at the suggestion of giving power to the people is a critique of democracy.

it illustrates how it was so very obviously a fundamentally flawed idea (I mean, basically, democracy is giving a ton of powers to the ignorant and fools, that much ought to be obvious... instead we glorify a "free" system instead of looking at the flaws in their face)

Democracy isn't perfect, that much is true, but the real question when asking if it's good or not, is compared to what? Compared to all the governmental systems we've tried it is by far the least abusive and problematic.

[Ifreann]

So you say, regularly. But you liking the idea doesn't mean that a depiction of feudal lords laughing at the suggestion of giving power to the people is a critique of democracy.

it illustrates how it was so very obviously a fundamentally flawed idea (I mean, basically, democracy is giving a ton of powers to the ignorant and fools, that much ought to be obvious... instead we glorify a "free" system instead of looking at the flaws in their face)

It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort. The scene doesn't say anything about democracy. You're projecting your own opinion about democracy.

[Ethel mermania]

And today we kill 10's of millions... so .... progress?

Yes wars today are in many ways a lot more destructive due to technological advancement. But today major wars are far less common and in general it is peaceful for large parts of the world. If we look at the number of major wars today compared to major wars in the middle ages it is clear as day that major wars are a lot less common and for much of the first world it is pretty peaceful.

And also the death count of modern wars come from modern day technology not frequency of wars. And if we were going to go back to middle age monarchy then we would very likely see a increase in wars which would means tens if not hundreds of millions people killed..

And also the death count of modern wars come from modern day technology not frequency of wars. And if we were going to go back to middle age monarchy then we would very likely see a increase in wars which would means tens if not hundreds of millions people killed.

Even though you say it twice, I disagree.

A low ball estimate of war deaths in the 20th century is 187 million according to the British war museum. And another site would like to have a word.

https://www.thoughtco.com/major-wars-an ... ry-1779967

[Hanafuridake]

I just realized something.

Euron killed a dragon.

Euron killed a prehistoric flying lizard that hadn't been seen for hundreds of years, a mythical beast who was laid low by superhuman ballistic skills, and Jaime is who he's proud of killing (not that he actually did).

Why is it every time I come back to this episode, I find something even dumber than before that I missed.

[Infected Mushroom]

it illustrates how it was so very obviously a fundamentally flawed idea (I mean, basically, democracy is giving a ton of powers to the ignorant and fools, that much ought to be obvious... instead we glorify a "free" system instead of looking at the flaws in their face)

It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort. The scene doesn't say anything about democracy. You're projecting your own opinion about democracy.

it dismisses democracy out of hand because of the at-its-face ridiculousness of the system (and that rings true with me)

[Ifreann]

it illustrates how it was so very obviously a fundamentally flawed idea (I mean, basically, democracy is giving a ton of powers to the ignorant and fools, that much ought to be obvious... instead we glorify a "free" system instead of looking at the flaws in their face)

Democracy isn't perfect, that much is true, but the real question when asking if it's good or not, is compared to what? Compared to all the governmental systems we've tried it is by far the least abusive and problematic.

We have NSG over that way if we want to argue about democracy itself. The point I want to make is that the scene in question does not contain any criticism of democracy. In fact, I don't think that there's any way to read a criticism of democracy from any part of the show, so far as I recall.

[Infected Mushroom]

Democracy isn't perfect, that much is true, but the real question when asking if it's good or not, is compared to what? Compared to all the governmental systems we've tried it is by far the least abusive and problematic.

We have NSG over that way if we want to argue about democracy itself. The point I want to make is that the scene in question does not contain any criticism of democracy. In fact, I don't think that there's any way to read a criticism of democracy from any part of the show, so far as I recall.

its been consistently shown that the common people cannot handle democracy

they've been misused/misled by the High Sparrow, they show an ignorant knee-jerk reaction towards Ned Stark, and never at any point in the show did they have informed opinion about the bigger picture or what was going on

[Tarsonis]

Yes wars today are in many ways a lot more destructive due to technological advancement. But today major wars are far less common and in general it is peaceful for large parts of the world. If we look at the number of major wars today compared to major wars in the middle ages it is clear as day that major wars are a lot less common and for much of the first world it is pretty peaceful.

And also the death count of modern wars come from modern day technology not frequency of wars. And if we were going to go back to middle age monarchy then we would very likely see a increase in wars which would means tens if not hundreds of millions people killed..

And also the death count of modern wars come from modern day technology not frequency of wars. And if we were going to go back to middle age monarchy then we would very likely see a increase in wars which would means tens if not hundreds of millions people killed.

Even though you say it twice, I disagree.

A low ball estimate of war deaths in the 20th century is 187 million according to the British war museum. And another site would like to have a word.

https://www.thoughtco.com/major-wars-an ... ry-1779967

Cool now compare that to the wars of the middle period, which are by far more numerous. The point is agreed upon that modern wars are more destructive in terms of loss of life. With the advent of modern weaponry that's to be expected, along with a massively larger population, (For example population in Europe was about a 1/10th what it is today, and this doesn't even consider the effects of colonization and setting the western continent.) So the 1 to 1 body count comparison isn't exactly fair. The real issue is frequency. In the modern age, Major conflicts are far less frequent. This is owed to a number of things (Globalism, Capitalism, Free Trade, Democracy, to name a few). Were we to revert to a feudalistic society a la the Medieval period, the number of conflicts would skyrocket, and the whole world would see unparalleled devastation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499

[Ethel mermania]

We have NSG over that way if we want to argue about democracy itself. The point I want to make is that the scene in question does not contain any criticism of democracy. In fact, I don't think that there's any way to read a criticism of democracy from any part of the show, so far as I recall.

its been consistently shown that the common people cannot handle democracy

they've been misused/misled by the High Sparrow, they show an ignorant knee-jerk reaction towards Ned Stark, and never at any point in the show did they have informed opinion about the bigger picture or what was going on

They were never given a view of the bigger picture. Look at the play lady cranes players were putting on in before arya was to off her. It was all filled with Lannister lies, and the people bought it, mainly because they were told no better. If the was a kings landing post, or daily news maybe things would have been different.

[Ethel mermania]

Even though you say it twice, I disagree.

A low ball estimate of war deaths in the 20th century is 187 million according to the British war museum. And another site would like to have a word.

https://www.thoughtco.com/major-wars-an ... ry-1779967

Cool now compare that to the wars of the middle period, which are by far more numerous. The point is agreed upon that modern wars are more destructive in terms of loss of life. With the advent of modern weaponry that's to be expected, along with a massively larger population, (For example population in Europe was about a 1/10th what it is today, and this doesn't even consider the effects of colonization and setting the western continent.) So the 1 to 1 body count comparison isn't exactly fair. The real issue is frequency. In the modern age, Major conflicts are far less frequent. This is owed to a number of things (Globalism, Capitalism, Free Trade, Democracy, to name a few). Were we to revert to a feudalistic society a la the Medieval period, the number of conflicts would skyrocket, and the whole world would see unparalleled devastation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499

Dont know that, assuming wars then would be S destructive as now you cant assume that the frequency would be the same. Back then war was a sport, which had seasons and specific time out periods for either cold or planting or gathering crops. Kingship back then could not afford a full time standing army or one that fights 7 x 24. There most likely would have been less war, not more.

[Baltenstein]

its been consistently shown that the common people cannot handle democracy

they've been misused/misled by the High Sparrow, they show an ignorant knee-jerk reaction towards Ned Stark, and never at any point in the show did they have informed opinion about the bigger picture or what was going on

They were never given a view of the bigger picture. Look at the play lady cranes players were putting on in before arya was to off her. It was all filled with Lannister lies, and the people bought it, mainly because they were told no better.

That's arguably not a good example though, as said play was about a succession war in a foreign country that most people in the audience had no reason to care about anyway.

In fact, seeing how Braavos is heavily based on the Italian Renaissance era city-states and the Dutch Republic, I'd say the education of the Braavosi population is probably really good compared to you average Westerosi.

[Tarsonis]

Cool now compare that to the wars of the middle period, which are by far more numerous. The point is agreed upon that modern wars are more destructive in terms of loss of life. With the advent of modern weaponry that's to be expected, along with a massively larger population, (For example population in Europe was about a 1/10th what it is today, and this doesn't even consider the effects of colonization and setting the western continent.) So the 1 to 1 body count comparison isn't exactly fair. The real issue is frequency. In the modern age, Major conflicts are far less frequent. This is owed to a number of things (Globalism, Capitalism, Free Trade, Democracy, to name a few). Were we to revert to a feudalistic society a la the Medieval period, the number of conflicts would skyrocket, and the whole world would see unparalleled devastation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499

Dont know that, assuming wars then would be S destructive as now you cant assume that the frequency would be the same. Back then war was a sport, which had seasons and specific time out periods for either cold or planting or gathering crops. Kingship back then could not afford a full time standing army or one that fights 7 x 24. There most likely would have been less war, not more.

Yet as history has shown us , that isn't true. Major war conflicts have decreased in frequency. There were wars for sport sure, where the rules of chivalry dictated, (Good for Knights, not so much the common folk), but there were also political wars where the rules of Chivalry were suspended, a la the Scottish wars of independence.

Now combine that element with modern weaponry, and you have a recipe for basically turning the whole world into Somalia.

[Ifreann]

It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort. The scene doesn't say anything about democracy. You're projecting your own opinion about democracy.

it dismisses democracy out of hand because of the at-its-face ridiculousness of the system (and that rings true with me)

Characters in the show, all but three of whom inherited their power and position under the current feudal system, laugh at the suggestion of a different system. That's not a criticism of democracy, that's obviously biased characters being obviously biased. And the narrative moves right on. No one says what they think is wrong with the idea. There's nothing in the text of the show to give us any hint at why these various characters might think that.

In fact, it doesn't even make sense for some of them to dismiss the idea. Why was Robb Stark King in the North? Why was Jon Snow? Not by right of birth. Not by right of conquest. They got the title by popular acclaim. Not exactly a formal election, but not so far off for the idea of people choosing their own leader to be inherently ridiculous to the Starks.

Yara was nearly crowned queen of the Iron Islands in their kingsmoot, and she wasn't up there arguing that she should be queen by right of birth.

Davos was lowborn. Gendry is a legitimised bastard. It's a bit of a stretch to say that they share your belief that everyone in Westeros is a mindless animal.

[Hanafuridake]

it dismisses democracy out of hand because of the at-its-face ridiculousness of the system (and that rings true with me)

Characters in the show, all but three of whom inherited their power and position under the current feudal system, laugh at the suggestion of a different system. That's not a criticism of democracy, that's obviously biased characters being obviously biased. And the narrative moves right on. No one says what they think is wrong with the idea. There's nothing in the text of the show to give us any hint at why these various characters might think that.

It doesn't even make sense to be included. The only reason it was is most likely because of the “subverting expectations gimmick.”

[Ifreann]

We have NSG over that way if we want to argue about democracy itself. The point I want to make is that the scene in question does not contain any criticism of democracy. In fact, I don't think that there's any way to read a criticism of democracy from any part of the show, so far as I recall.

its been consistently shown that the common people cannot handle democracy

they've been misused/misled by the High Sparrow,

The High Sparrow was empowered by the crown to use violence to enforce the tenets of the Faith of the Seven. They weren't really shown to have popular support.

they show an ignorant knee-jerk reaction towards Ned Stark,

It was literally impossible for them to know what the viewers knew about Ned Stark.

and never at any point in the show did they have informed opinion about the bigger picture or what was going on

They weren't characterised in the show. That doesn't mean that they don't have any opinions about the state of their country. This take of yours is absurd.

The unnamed Prince of Dorne didn't say a fucking thing, he just sat there. Do you think that he has no opinions?

---

Characters in the show, all but three of whom inherited their power and position under the current feudal system, laugh at the suggestion of a different system. That's not a criticism of democracy, that's obviously biased characters being obviously biased. And the narrative moves right on. No one says what they think is wrong with the idea. There's nothing in the text of the show to give us any hint at why these various characters might think that.

It doesn't even make sense to be included. The only reason it was is most likely because of the “subverting expectations gimmick.”

Exactly. The writers, probably being aware of internet discourse around the end of the show, put it in as a joke.