You can't fire me, I don't work in this van!

Semiprofessional, 30s, fan of many things (primarily various fandoms, fandom-related rants, and cute animal photos). Known elsewhere by other aliases. I do not, in fact, hate this freaking cat. 

[jewishvitya-movingblogs]

"Those people believe x. We know they're wrong because y, but here's how they got to this point."

"So you think x!"

"No, I'm explaining what they think."

"You're making excuses for it and arguments that support it!"

"I'm laying out the arguments they give. I'm not making them, I'm showing them. I broke down why it's wrong and how it became a prevalent view."

"You're an x-apologist!"

Right, sorry, my mistake. Those people don't have a distorted worldview that leads them to cruelty, they're just evil by nature, their essence is darkness and violence, there's no humanity in them, go ahead and fantasize about wiping out whatever population you marked as bad. Didn't mean to interrupt your fantasy. I can see you're quite attached to it. Go on, advocate for whatever useless violence you think should happen in retaliation. I thought violence should be a horrible but sometimes-necessary tool, but it can be a goal, that's fine too. Everyone needs a dream I guess.

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

Seriously. Whatever happened to "reading the literature and understanding the viewpoints of those with whom you disagree, even if you disagree vehemently, is vital to trying to get rid of said viewpoints"? I guess media literacy really DID die on this site years ago. :/

[afurioushawk]

Am I losing my mind????

I guess just like MAGA project whatever they wanted onto Trump, Platner's supporters projected whatever they wanted onto him.

Lesson learned: populism is stupid.

[ulyssessimpsongrant]

The way the American Civil War was remembered and subsequently how it is now written about and interpreted reflects an intense struggle between Victorian romanticism and the fraught birth of the modern world.

Think of the way Robert E. Lee is often described by authors and historians, even those who favor the Union, and how he is often described in terms that would not be out of place in describing a medieval knight (gallant, chivalric, gentlemanly). The way the war in some sense was a struggle between the past (represented by the sharply hierarchical agrarian south with its aristocracies and slave labor) and the future (the industrial, forward-thinking, more friendly toward the concept of egalitarianism north who valued the idea of being self-made, in many ways the birthplace of the “American dream”), and the way the idea of the Confederacy seduces people who don’t know the issues of the war well (or who care more about the aesthetics) through its gauzy visuals and ideas of ideas not unlike the Victorian medieval revival. A lot of Civil War buffs who fanboy over the Confederate generals seem to talk and think of the war almost like a gentleman’s game. Lee himself is a borderline mythological figure as the public knows him nowadays, more idea than man. The Confederate military history focus on sweeping battlefield tactics also reflects on this.

You contrast that with Ulysses S. Grant, considered one of the first modern generals if not the modern general, who saw war as something to quickly and efficiently bring to a close, and how he’s perceived. His prewar stumbling in life, his alcoholism, rough manners, function over form sensibilities. There’s more of a practicality there when one examines Grant and his fellows at the head of the Union army. They were modern men fighting a modern war and struggling to deliver the complicated birth of modernity.

The ultimate visualization of this that I always think about and go back to is April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Court House where Lee surrendered in full ceremonial dress to a Grant wearing a uniform splattered with mud. The proud, impeccably dressed son of an old moneyed Virginia family who holds the distinction of having graduated West Point without a single demerit surrendering to a humble, mud-splattered Ohioan raised by self-made parents who’d been forced out of the military due to his drinking and struggled to make a living until the military took him back.

[aegor-bamfsteel]

I don't get why grrm hates the Brackens that much like bro, YOU wrote them. You are beefing with a fragment of your own imagination.

To be fair, nobody closely associated with horses in this series looks great. The Brackens (especially the women) get the worst of it, but the Ryswells are so ambitious/embittered they’re willing to support war criminal Roose Bolton, House Roote is killed by the Lannisters and their town destroyed, the Dothraki are one dimensional racial stereotypes for Dány to get her manpower from, Sandor Clegane is a child murderer, and the “horse girls”—athletic women fond of horse riding, such as Daena Targaryen, Lyanna Stark, and Alysanne Blackwood—tend to die young/suffer/are slandered for promiscuity/lack of beauty.

@istumpysk speculated that maybe “a guy with a guitar stole George’s girl” because of the disproportionate amount of singers who get tortured and brutally killed; a corollary that @godihatethisfreakingcat came up with is that a horse must’ve stepped on GRRM’s foot as a kid. All the over-the-top blaming and minimizing the trauma of female sexual assault victims, punishing them for having sex, denying them land rights/political power for them or their families, accusing them of bestiality…could’ve been avoided had he just stood off to the side.

[jadwigaspeaks]

I think there's a popular perception that "more radical" automatically equals "better" and "less radical" automatically equals "worse"

And a tendency to base one's viewpoints not on any actual values or material outcomes (these will still be invoked as justification, though not consistently), but on status. Being one of the cool kids

And that combination leads people with that perception to 1. be much more amicable towards people with completely opposite views to their own, than towards people with similar but more moderate views than their own, and 2. always try to be the Most Radical person in the room while accusing everyone else in the room of being Less Radical and therefore More Worse

Which is terrible both as a way of enacting actual political change and as a way of getting a friend group that is not technically a cult

[pharmersonly]

me when i engage with something that i know is gonna piss me off: wow that pissed me off

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

Other anon said that George ending the bloodlines of the "usurpers" is fan headcanon and while I agree with the general idea that the assumption George kills lines as divine punishment for usurpers is not something George said he does — rather it's a fan headcanon that was likely born as a coping mechanism from Rhaenyra's hardcore stans. They're the ones who became obsessed with bloodline continuity and whoever ends up being Dany's ancestor must be morally good, in a way to pretend that Rhaenyra is the hero of the story whose bloodline surviving (unlike her brother) means George thinks Rhaenyra is the hero and Aegon is the villain (though both are morally close to each other in canon). But at the end it doesn't matter if Rhaenyra's blood continued or not because none of her descendants care much about her, and none bothered with recognizing her as queen, including her own sons. So whatever win she has over her brother is a hollow one. However, I find it weird that George assigned the label "usurpers" to the Blackfyres in a public interview by calling them the "usurper branch" of House Targaryen. And IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong) he never called other monarchs (Rhaenyra, Aegon II, Maegor, Robert etc.) usurpers in interviews and I'm confused because that is very biased from him. Daemon being the oldest living child of the undisputed heir of Aegon III gives him more rights over the Iron Throne than most of the monarchs and "usurpers" of the series but he gets called a usurper by George which implies that George thinks Daeron is legitimate. So how is Daemon a usurper but Daeron II — who only came into power after Viserys usurped the entire line of Aegon III — is legitimate?? Did George forget the laws of inheritance he made in his world? By any logic Daemon is a usurper and Viserys/Aegon/Daeron are not? When George was asked if Daena being usurped had anything to do with the Blackfyre Rebellion he answered "Certainly possible" but for some reason he thinks that her bloodline is the usurper branch and not the bloodline of her actual usurper.

Sometimes I wonder why he dislikes Daena this much because what's really the point of introducing that Daemon's mother is a usurped Targaryen queen who was brave, an excellent horsewoman with great potential to be a good queen and was disgraced for her gender and sexual life since none of this will matter at all and nothing of it will be relevant in her son's story or his claim. It's so annoying that even someone like Melissa who isn't a Targaryen princess got to be influential and important in her son's story by 1) BR inheriting his magical abilities from his mother’s First Men blood, 2) her friendship with Daeron allowed BR to be favoured later on by Daeron and granted many privileges. But the fact that Daena can't be important in her son's story by at the very least boosting his claim is so biased from George 😒. It could be that Daena being Daemon's mother is something George came up with after he already wrote TMK since there is no mention of her being his mother anywhere in Dunk and Egg and in the main series and none talks about Daemon Blackfyre being Daena's son. Jaime says that it would have been better for the realm if Baelor slept with Daena but he doesn't mention any connection to the Blackfyres. So all the mentions Daena had in the main books are connected to Baelor and her imprisonment by him but nothing about her and Daemon. And Daemon is connected to Aegon IV since his first mention in one of Catelyn's chapters, so it's possible that George came up with Daemon's father before he came up with his mother. I guess George had a vague idea about Daemon's mother being a noblewoman at that time but didn't decide on her identity until much later. However whatever the case is, what's the point in making her Daemon's mother if that would be totally irrelevant and everything about Daemon will revolve around Aegon IV and him granting Daemon the sword Blackfyre in-and-out of universe and anti-Dornish sentiment in-universe 🙄. No wonder the Blackfyres could not win or achieve anything at all since the author is so biased against them. Mind you cruel rapists like A2 and Maegor are allowed to be kings and recognized as such meanwhile Daemon will not just get called a usurper by the author himself but George will make every character that talks about Daemon reminds us of how much of a usurper and a pretender he is including his mouthpiece Stannis smh🤦‍♀️

I'm going to guess that much of the inconsistencies surrounding the Blackfyres come from him having farmed out a lot of the writing around that era to Elio and Linda. I do think that Daena was intended to be his mother for a while, but the way *he himself* talks about Daemon (apart from saying the word "usurper") doesn't indicate he sees him as a villainous character. So strange.

(This anon and the one before it came in around 11 PM. Thank you for being respectful, guys. <3)

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

Are you from NYC?

No, I'm not. But I've visited and it's a cool city. Lots of museums.

[memecucker]

do people actually read books while in the bathtub

how do you not get everything wet

[karnsway-deactivated20190708]

[rosalui]

why is this making me laugh so fucking hard

[tophatfloof-deactivated20170320]

[girlslutz]

THANK YOU FOR ADDING A VISUAL OMG

[hersurvival]

[fungi-maestro]

Hm. Your interpretation of this character displeases me. Guards! Take them away! Make them read the source material once more, and if that fails, the stocks.

[aegor-bamfsteel]

Don't you think Baelor the Blessed is the strongest alternative candidate for being Daemon's father? There are quite a few textual circumstances that support the idea of Baelor being Daemon's father, just as there are circumstances supporting the idea of Aemon being Daeron's father. We might never get Fire & Blood Vol. 2, but based on what we know of the story, I think Baelor's extreme fasting and death are heavily linked to Daemon. Daena's refusal to name the father of her son makes absolutely zero sense if Aegon IV was the father. What would stop her from naming Aegon as the father when he was king? Bloodraven and Bittersteel were already known to be Aegon's sons, so I don't see a believable reason why she wouldn't name Aegon unless he wasn't Daemon's father. To me, Baelor makes the most sense. Viserys II killed and usurped Baelor shortly after Daena gave birth to Daemon. If Daemon was Baelor's son (bastard or not), he would have been a direct threat to Viserys and his line. Given that Viserys and Aegon proved they were not above kinslaying when it benefited them, it makes sense that Daena didn't name Baelor as the father — as a way to protect both herself and her son.

I talk about the possibility of Baelor being Daemon’s father here, and bring up more of the points you mentioned here. Baelor canonically lusted after his sisters to the point he imprisoned them (so it wouldn’t be out of character to have sex with Daena), and apparently fasted to “tame the lusts within him” (so, it’s definitely possible he would’ve fasted out of guilt had he conceived a child with her). Even unlegitimized children of kings like Gaemon Palehair and Tristan Truefyre were seen as threats to ruling Targs were they acclaimed as kings, hence their counselors getting brutally massacred; plus, you’re right, neither V2 or his son balked at killing innocent people including family. However, it’s pretty obvious to me why Daena wouldn’t name Aegon as the father even if he was: he’s a terrible person, who by 171 had delivered his mistress to the Black Cells to be executed, did nothing to prevent his other mistress who he seems to care for being murdered, kept forcing pregnancies on Naerys to the point of soft exile in Lys (not counting the future atrocious behavior toward the Brackens). It’s also indicated in TWOIAF (and further expanded on in noncanon materials) that Daena and Aegon didn’t love each other, so she had no desire to see them and Daemon be “a family”. She wouldn’t want someone like that to have any influence on her child, even if a king had more resources than an unmarried princess. But it also makes sense why she wouldn’t name the father if it was Baelor, in order to protect her and Daemon (though I could also see it if the father was someone much lower in status, that she wouldn’t name him to protect him and Daemon. Look at the Stinger’s fate, and he didn’t even conceive a child with Saera). There’s a lot of potential political intrigue if Daemon’s father was Baelor, there’s some circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction, but the way GRRM wrote Daemon’s claim so dependent on Aegon IV (even when it shouldn’t) makes it strange.

[mamoru]

sorry to be brave on the internet but I think food labels should list every single ingredient and that there should be harsher penalties for mislabeling and deceptive labeling

[turtlesandfrogs]

Seconded.

[meangirlnurse]

there’s a post on tumblr about like. if you could do something to bring people a little relief, why wouldn’t you do it? which has unironically informed my practice as a nursing student and patient care tech

[meangirlnurse]

i’m glad no one made any unpleasant comments on this post that might distract from the message because that would really suck

[quasi-normalcy]

We Are the Daughters of the Microbes Who Could Survive in an Oxygen-rich Atmosphere

[godihatethisfreakingcat]

Just got my first moron accusing me of being Israeli. Let me be clear: I'm American. I was born in the US and am the descent of people who fled racist violence in Eastern Europe.

Now let me make myself ABUNDANTLY clear: even if my ancestors had gone east instead of west, it wouldn't fucking matter because no one deserves violence or death based on where they were born or where they moved to. Land does not inherently "belong to" anyone and people who harm others are still humans who deserve human rights. National origin is a protected class and xenophobia is next door to racism. Fuck yourself and block me if you think otherwise.

[afurioushawk]

The worst part of a republican dying is seeing all the democrats saying "Oh we disagreed but I'll mourn them" or "their politics may have been horrible but they were still a human being" STOP BEING NICE! When a republican dies you don't have to act like they were a saint. You don't even have to act like they were a decent person. Tell the truth. Their political careers were dedicated to spreading suffering and their death is a good thing for humanity.

The Democrats lose nothing for being professional. I don't think you understand that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is not in a position to go "Burn in hell, you evil queen. Thanks for the support on Ukraine tho."

[alan713ch]

Public figures can't afford to alienate people by being gleeful because someone died. There's a reason why we have "behind closed doors" and "off the record" positions.

Like it or not, politicians have to be unifying figures. Just because Trump upended the norms that doesn't mean others are not bound by them.

Fuck Lady Bug, but don't go after Democrats just because they can't join you at the crab rave. I can assure you they are enjoying it from the sidelines.