NationStates

Hanafuridake wrote:

Ifreann wrote: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.”

I believe this is Martin, and more specifically, D and D showing an oft-overlook critique of democracy

which is to dismiss out of hand because it essentially advocates that the majority of ignorants and fools run the country

Infected Mushroom wrote:

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

I believe this is Martin, and more specifically, D and D showing an oft-overlook critique of democracy

which is to dismiss out of hand because it essentially advocates that the majority of ignorants and fools run the country

Or more likely, it was to show how Sam was progressive thinking, and the Lords are regressive blowhards.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I believe this is Martin, and more specifically, D and D showing an oft-overlook critique of democracy

which is to dismiss out of hand because it essentially advocates that the majority of ignorants and fools run the country

No it's not, it's a stupid jab at the fact that people have been speculating since Dany said "break the wheel" people have been chattering about the prospect for an iron oval office.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
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.

History has not shown us anything on this topic as wars in the past were not as deadly or expensive as the wars of today. On this topic we are both firmly on the ground of conjecture.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
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.

History has not shown us anything on this topic as wars in the past were not as deadly or expensive as the wars of today. On this topic we are both firmly on the ground of conjecture.

More like informed speculation. History has shown, in every feudalistic society we've seen, that infighting is an inherent aspect of the society. The wars for political gain aren't a flaw to be corrected, they're a feature of the system. Implementing a feudal society in this day and age, would be no different. What makes it especially worse now is the advent of modern weaponry in which single bombs kill millions. There is no evidence to inform the opinion that modern feudalism would be better than its historical implementation in this regard. To suggest other wise is where the pure conjecture is.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

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

I believe this is Martin, and more specifically, D and D showing an oft-overlook critique of democracy

which is to dismiss out of hand because it essentially advocates that the majority of ignorants and fools run the country

Every part of that exists purely in your mind. The show does not say this. Dismissing something out of hand isn't even a critique. A critique has to, you know, criticise. Actually explain what's wrong with whatever is being criticised. "Hahaha, no" isn't any kind of criticism of anything, regardless of whether you agree or not.

Baltenstein wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
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.

The arts were how news was digested and understood, and the play to the masses was disseminating information to them.

That said, Your criticism of the educational levels vis a vee kings landing and bravos is I think, fair

I would then say use the play at Jofferies wedding, but tbf that was designed as a farce not as infotainment.

Oh come on, it was a great story, he got pushed out of a window, dragged beyond the wall, dragged back, then dragged to King's landing.

Des-Bal wrote:Oh come on, it was a great story, he got pushed out of a window, dragged beyond the wall, dragged back, then dragged to King's landing.

It was a good story still season 7, then he just sat around like a creepy bastard telling people they looked great the night a psycho raped them.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:Oh come on, it was a great story, he got pushed out of a window, dragged beyond the wall, dragged back, then dragged to King's landing.

It was a good story still season 7, then he just sat around like a creepy bastard telling people they looked great the night a psycho raped them.

Again, TO BE FAIR, he was talking about her wedding.

Hanafuridake wrote:

(Image)

Also, what kind of jackass name is "Bran the Broken"?

Tyrion: "All hail Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "Actually, just Bran is fine"
Tyrion: "Long live Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "We really don't need that last bit"
Tyrion: "Three cheers for Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "Please stop it, Tyrion"
Tyrion: "Say it with me now: Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "Stop. I mean it."
Tyrion: "Give me a B, give me an R..."
*Bran wargs into Tyrion and gives him brain damage*

Baltenstein wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:

(Image)

Also, what kind of jackass name is "Bran the Broken"?

Tyrion: "All hail Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "Actually, just Bran is fine"
Tyrion: "Long live Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "We really don't need that last bit"
Tyrion: "Three cheers for Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "Please stop it, Tyrion"
Tyrion: "Say it with me now: Bran the Broken!"
Bran: "Stop. I mean it."
Tyrion: "Give me a B, give me an R..."
*Bran wargs into Tyrion and gives him brain damage*

"Wear it like armour, and it can never be used to hurt you."

Tarsonis wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:It was a good story still season 7, then he just sat around like a creepy bastard telling people they looked great the night a psycho raped them.

Again, TO BE FAIR, he was talking about her wedding.

The wedding where she was married to someone she didn't love who then raped her.

Not a good look for Bran either way.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Again, TO BE FAIR, he was talking about her wedding.

The wedding where she was married to someone she didn't love who then raped her.

Not a good look for Bran either way.

Come to think of it, that would have been a way more lulzy way to reveal the truth about his heritage to Jon.

Bran: "Hello Jon. You were beautiful when you were banging your aunt."
Jon: "!?! What do you mean, Bran!?"
Bran: "I mean exactly what I said. And I'm not talking about Ygritte by the way."
Jon:


DAWNING REALIZATION

Hanafuridake wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Again, TO BE FAIR, he was talking about her wedding.

The wedding where she was married to someone she didn't love who then raped her.

Not a good look for Bran either way.

Well, A. Back then lots of people married people they didn't love, and it's probably fair to say that in these unions most wedding consummations were not as we'd say, consensual. It's another inherent aspect of Feudalism.

B. Bran also doesn't see things the way we do, so it was an understandable and fitting way for the writers to demonstrate that Bran is disconnected from much of human empathy, by pointing out the one silver lining in what was surely a night of horrors.

Tarsonis wrote:
Well, A. Back then lots of people married people they didn't love. It's another inherent aspect of Feudalism.

B. Bran also doesn't see things the way we do, so it was an understandable and fitting way for the writers to demonstrate that Bran is disconnected from much of human empathy, by pointing out the one silver lining in what was surely a night of horrors.

Well, A. Was this depicted as a normal aspect of an arranged marriage or Ramsay being Ramsay and doing something so horrible it defined Sansa's character going forward?

B. You're describing how Bran was depicted as a creepy bastard not disputing it.

Des-Bal wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Well, A. Back then lots of people married people they didn't love. It's another inherent aspect of Feudalism.

B. Bran also doesn't see things the way we do, so it was an understandable and fitting way for the writers to demonstrate that Bran is disconnected from much of human empathy, by pointing out the one silver lining in what was surely a night of horrors.

Well, A. Was this depicted as a normal aspect of an arranged marriage or Ramsay being Ramsay and doing something so horrible it defined Sansa's character going forward?

I'm sure the show depicted it as the latter, but to students of history, it's probably a pretty good representation of the former as well.

B. You're describing how Bran was depicted as a creepy bastard not disputing it.

I'm disputing that it's a bad look. Bran isn't like other people now, so to hold him to a similar standard would be undue. We don't blame autistic people for their idiosyncrasies, I see no reason why we should do it to Bran.

Tarsonis wrote:
I'm sure the show depicted it as the latter, but to students of history, it's probably a pretty good representation of the former as well.

I'm disputing that it's a bad look. Bran isn't like other people now, so to hold him to a similar standard would be undue. We don't blame autistic people for their idiosyncrasies, I see no reason why we should do it to Bran.

I'm a student of history and also tv and film production, this wasn't Sansa doing what was expected of her for the period it was Ramsay Bolton carrying out an act of villainy.

Because he's the king. If you're hand picking a ruler to lead you out of a horrible and bloody succession crisis you don't pick a severely autistic person.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
History has not shown us anything on this topic as wars in the past were not as deadly or expensive as the wars of today. On this topic we are both firmly on the ground of conjecture.

More like informed speculation. History has shown, in every feudalistic society we've seen, that infighting is an inherent aspect of the society. The wars for political gain aren't a flaw to be corrected, they're a feature of the system. Implementing a feudal society in this day and age, would be no different. What makes it especially worse now is the advent of modern weaponry in which single bombs kill millions. There is no evidence to inform the opinion that modern feudalism would be better than its historical implementation in this regard. To suggest other wise is where the pure conjecture is.

Dude, It's all conjecture.

I am not arguing that some sort of feudal state would be better or worse now than the current political systems in place. My arguement is we are no more peaceful, and a hell of a lot more destructive under the present systems then humans were in any point in our past.

Tarsonis wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:It was a good story still season 7, then he just sat around like a creepy bastard telling people they looked great the night a psycho raped them.

Again, TO BE FAIR, he was talking about her wedding.

And she looked lovely.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
More like informed speculation. History has shown, in every feudalistic society we've seen, that infighting is an inherent aspect of the society. The wars for political gain aren't a flaw to be corrected, they're a feature of the system. Implementing a feudal society in this day and age, would be no different. What makes it especially worse now is the advent of modern weaponry in which single bombs kill millions. There is no evidence to inform the opinion that modern feudalism would be better than its historical implementation in this regard. To suggest other wise is where the pure conjecture is.

Dude, It's all conjecture.

I am not arguing that some sort of feudal state would be better or worse now than the current political systems in place. My arguement is we are no more peaceful, and a hell of a lot more destructive under the present systems then humans were in any point in our past.

Right, and historically that is not accurate. We are far more peaceful now, but much more destructive.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

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

I believe this is Martin, and more specifically, D and D showing an oft-overlook critique of democracy

which is to dismiss out of hand because it essentially advocates that the majority of ignorants and fools run the country

Martin is a liberal feminist and conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He's not secretly a feudalist looking back on the medieval period with a single melancholic tear in his eye. There is no commentary or higher meaning. D&D probably just read an article about how Ocasio Cortez wanted Westeros to become a democracy and decided to throw that in there. Cleganebowl shows that they were paying attention to memes and fan theories. This shouldn't even need to be said, it was a gag and why you see the need to view it as some deep political commentary by the writers is a mystery.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I believe this is Martin, and more specifically, D and D showing an oft-overlook critique of democracy

which is to dismiss out of hand because it essentially advocates that the majority of ignorants and fools run the country

Martin is a liberal feminist and conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He's not secretly a feudalist looking back on the medieval period with a single melancholic tear in his eye. There is no commentary or higher meaning. D&D probably just read an article about how Ocasio Cortez wanted Westeros to become a democracy and decided to throw that in there. Cleganebowl shows that they were paying attention to memes and fan theories. This shouldn't even need to be said, it was a gag and why you see the need to view it as some deep political commentary by the writers is a mystery.

Did she really write one?

Tarsonis wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Dude, It's all conjecture.

I am not arguing that some sort of feudal state would be better or worse now than the current political systems in place. My arguement is we are no more peaceful, and a hell of a lot more destructive under the present systems then humans were in any point in our past.

Right, and historically that is not accurate. We are far more peaceful now, but much more destructive.

Disagree, we now fight 7 x 24 365 days a year. The 20th century have shown More men are under arms than any other period, with more lethality to non combatants than ever before.


If Cersei had one squadron of f-16's, she would have won