More like "Some of you may be in my line of fire, as I indiscrimately have my dragon breath fire on surrendering soldiers and defenseless civilians, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."
It's true, mostly, because Wolf is just Rags with a worse temperment and is more than willing to make ad hominin attacks on people and openly harass them in what is supposed to be a debate. It would be easy to bait him into saying something heinous, since he was usually barely two seconds away from saying it of his own volition. Wolf stepping away from the internet was the best thing for him, and I'm thrilled *NEW* wolf *TOTALLY* wouldn't call this guy a *MASSIVE* live on-air. Totally.
House of the dragon is a smashimg wee programme. Suppose its easy to make a tv show when you stay close-ER to the books your copying. Those fellas rushed that show so they could get their star wars chance that fell through
@@abc-oq7dt what weirds me is that SW was already in decline by that point, and people even nowadays believe that they wrote the show when they literally used the books as a script and everytime they deviated from the books it sucked. They had everything, they succesfully gaslit people, they had their kingdom and threw it away to do an harder work.
@@Lampoluke "they had everything" Almost. When they ran out of book material and had to make stuff up for the rest of the series it was clear they had no idea what they were doing. If only JRRM used all those years the show was still popular to finish the books, they might have salvaged what was remaining in the story for the last seasons. But we've all seen how that turned out. Now nobody will care even if by some miracle the books do come out.
@@ChrisDeve Right but they decided to deviate from the books before they ever ran out of book material. They didn't do lady stoneheart & chose to have Arya become an invincible world destroyer which wasn't book material.
I really hate the excuses to really bad writing Total Drama All Stars ends with many contestants still trapped in balloons that flew away letting their fates unknown. The defenders: "Oh, those balloons will pop eventually. So they're fine" The Last Of Us 2 ends with Ellie being completly alone and she culdn't even get her revenge. The defenders: "Oh, she'll reunite with her girlfriend eventually. So she's fine" Game Of Thones season 8 ends with Daenerys exterminating a kingdom. The defenders: "There's still a few suviovors, eventually there'll be more generations in the new kingdom. So it's fine" Moral of the story: "Naah, it will be fine"
It's not just bad writing, it's the cope to justify evil being done. Hell, I just saw Jujutsu Kaisen, season 2's ending, and my god, THAT is what you do to end in a sour note but still hopeful for the future. Literally a "nah, it'll be fine" that makes sense.
Ngl, I wasnt expecting to see a comment mentioning TD 😂 I watched a video of it today after a long time not seeing the show, only saw first season, crazy that suddenly a comment mentions on a non related video 😂
Same thing happened to Twin Perfects too i think. It seems these type of apologist critics get real afraid when someone calls them out on their bullshit.
Wait, so he says his opinion changed on his second watch through the show, but he also says he only watched certain episodes and scenes. So, he didn't actually watch the whole show again; he just watched things that support his view of Dany and ignored all the stuff that doesn't? Convenient. I hadn't seen this before and my brain hurts at minute 9. It's amazing what you can argue when you ignore context. edit: Holy shit it got worse. The last 15 minutes is absolutely insane. Dany did nothing wrong indeed.
“By innocent, I mean not guilty.” Um. Yeah. That’s usually how that works. Edit for the debate in the replies- to quote Blackadder, “IT’S NOT A BRAINTEASER, PERCY!”
Breaking Bad as a whole is remembered fondly. The Sopranos, despite its ending, is remembered fondly. But the last few seasons of Game of Thrones DESTROYED all good faith and any hope for longevity. Barely anyone mentions GOT without dumping on it. There's just no arguing that.
Sopranos had very fitting ending, that's how it ws supposed to go, unless you wanted some 20 extra seasons of Tony's sucessor dealing with usual shit. I wouldn't want Sopranos to share SImpsons fate of melting into flanderisation for the sake of keeping going. Breaking Bad was veeeeery slow burn at the start, a few waited longenough for it to start to be good.. The show would be better without Skyler, that's for sure.
Breaking Bad did have an issue with for its ending, but thankfully El Camino answered it. Namely my issue was that Brock was rendered an orphan in the penultimate episode and nobody references him in the finale.
@@The_Stranger1986 To me E Camino was good because as I said Brock’s fate was too open-ended. It is one of those things where a significant character suddenly disappears from the story and nobody remembers them and we never learn what happened that is a writing problem.
This conversation near the end reminded me of a quote that Stannis had: "a good act can't wash out the bad, nor the bad the good." The idea Dany left the world a better place than what it was is objectively wild to say the carnage she left behind is going to affect several generations
@@arklaw8306Maybe if he flipped it: "What if it's actually just as monstrous to burn a city full of rich people who owned slaves. But you all thought it was bad ass and awesome. That's not a Dany problem; it's a you problem." It's not a great argument, but if this guy had the balls to make it, he wouldn't find it so hard to be consistent.
I remember working with a slacker during a temp job. His two passions were the gym and Game of Thrones. He unironically said we should replace (US) citizenship tests with Game of Thrones quizzes. We worked together around the same time as Season 8 dropped. It was so much fun, as someone who dropped Game of Thrones after episode 1 of season 1, to poke and prod with what knowledge MauLer could provide. “Hey, what happened to Danaerys? She seemed so sweet in Episode 1!” “Hey, what happened with the Night Walkers? They looked so cool, I can’t imagine what apocalypse they brought onto the world!” *whispers* “…Long live King Bran.”
It gets better as time goes on, at one point someone asks him If you kill 10,000 people and free 10,000 slaves do the two acts cancel out? He can't answer because its a weird philosophy question, his words not mine. Total left brain rot syndrome
Yea that got me and it dosent even makes sense because peasants would very much identify with their king and Kingdom But than again he calls monarchy an extortion Business which pick up a book man medieval times are highly complex and fascinating
@@Phaeron123 You joke about that, but there are actual people out there who sincerely think that. People who subscribe to the communist rhetoric about the necessity of revolutions and violently overthrowing the establishment. It's the kind of people who view moderates in more contempt than the far right, and tell you with a straight face that MLK was a pussy and people don't give enough credit to the "heroic black panthers" for scaring the white moderates into supporting the civil rights movement.
It's not like they need kingslanding a central position in westeros and also has been the freaking place where kings and Queen's rule and a position of power and control and influence. 😂😂 but also the fuking ppl that literally lives there. Don't forget the farm lands that those ppl in kingslanding should be fuking working in
HOLY SHIT! This guy doesn't know what morally GRAY actually means. You cannot do a good thing, then do a HORRIFICALLY awful thing for kicks, and be morally gray. If I resuscitate someone who has just had a heart attack, then later I set a baby on fire for entertainment, I am not MORALLY GRAY. I'm a reprehensible MONSTER that is capable of common decency. Dany just deciding on a whim to burn innocent women and children alive with no discrimination when she had NOTHING to gain from that, everything to lose from it, and it IMPEDED her actual goal of killing Cersei to the point she ESCAPED because of this delay, she is not MORALLY GRAY. Morally gray is like Cecil from Invincible. THAT'S moral grayness. Dani's just evil in this moment, her moral grayness has been cast aside, they skipped to black because they were bored of making the show. They wanted to get it over with as soon as possible so they just hand waved away everything that was in the path of them finishing the series.
If I get splashed by scalding hot water and nothing happens, I'll go "Huh. That's.... That's not normal." Then if I get touched by a like, burning rock or something, and nothing happens, I'm gonna go "Now that's very interesting." At that point, if I need to convince people that I'm super badass and worthy of ruling a kingdom, you bet your ass I'm going to walk into fire. If it burns me I'm backing out of it, and I'm going to try and figure out who decided hot STUFF doesn't hurt me, but FIRE does, cause fire and super hot rock is the same fucking thing in a different medium. Heat is heat. In a world where literal magic fire witches that can produce fire on hundreds of weapons at a range at will and cover her hands in flame and not be burned, it's even less crazy. Believing you're fireproof in REAL LIFE is crazy because WE do not have fucking magic. Dany being MAGICALLY immune to fire is possible in this world, and her believing she has this ability is not inherently crazy, especially if she actually does have it, and she does. But he said "feeding a guy to your dragon is crazy, therefore Dany can burn innocent people alive. Also they're not innocent, cause she just doesn't like them cause they're like dicks or something. So nyeh." This guy's retarded.
@@arklaw8306 If I touch scalding water and burning coals and nothing happens, that's a sufficient test. If I walk into a fire and go ow, I would back out and try to figure out what's going on.
@@arklaw8306if I'm walking towards an inferno there'd be some point that pain would start before I'm all the way in it, and I'm not fireproof/fire resistant
I don't understand the argument. She only seems like a tyrant because you don't like her targets just proves she was always a tyrant. How do you have "class consciousness" that tells you to side with the woman who dragons anyone who disagrees with her? Just sounds like tankie logic. Also, that incorrect characterization of feudalism (as if feudalism was just one thing across all space and time) is irrelevant, since the people living in King's Landing are burghers, not serfs. Not that ASOIAF portrays medieval life in any sort of realistic way.
Basically how I word it is this: Her tactics have always been the same. She has threatened violence, done violence, lied to get what she wanted, and has looked at suffering with either a cold stare or feeling of righteousness. The difference was that was all done against those who were slavers, or those who belittled her and her claim so we cheered it on. Now it's happening to people who are simply standing against her claim for the throne, some just soldiers and men who had never enslaved or tormented anyone. But when it comes to King's Landing, that was purely a temper tantrum from her bottled up rage and the need to unleash it, regardless who was beneath her.
Tyrant Definition: a cruel and oppressive ruler Dany is not cruel, and she specifically does NOT want to oppress those she rules. She wants to FREE slaves, and make the world a more peaceful place. Tyrant does not just mean anyone who is in charge. Dany is literally AT WAR, of course she's going to kill people and do meanie pants things. That doesn't make her a tyrant. To people NOT trying to kill her, she's consistently good to, until the show shits the bed, apparently. I haven't watched it btw, I'm going off the fallout of this season, it's very comprehensive. She doesn't do anything any other ruler, including the ones considered to be very good and not tyrants at all, has done to pursue the rule she believes is the best for everyone. If she burned someone alive BEFORE season 8, is what because they were TYRANTS who fucked over the lives of the innocent for their own gain. She executed them for crimes against humanity basically, and the people like her for it. They were tried as criminals, found guilty, and executed. The same thing every other leader does, John Snow included. This is just how life WORKS. Westeros isn't sunshine and rainbows, it's a hard, brutal place, and Dany cannot survive it without being willing to spill blood. She always made sure the blood she spilled was people OPPOSED to her values of freedom, prosperity, and so on. She believes her side is JUST, and the side that's happy to enslave and rape and butcher kids is the bad side, and she needs to rescue the common people from those TYRANTS. Tyranny is NOT just she's in charge and kills her enemies, therefore she is a tyrant. That's not how this works at all. America was not tyrannical when we fought against Britain for our independence.
@@haku8135 Dany put over a hundred men to the cross without blinking, having no idea who they were besides the elite. She had to be told after they died of thirst or blood loss that at least one of them was against the act the city did to the slaves. She fed a man to her dragon with no idea if he was innocent or not. She conquered cities to free slaves but did nothing to prevent it from happening again which only caused more death. She imprisoned her dragons on the action of another dragon. Did she want to free slaves? Yes. But she did it and other actions in cruel ways without hesitation or a thought to the consequences. The episode where she takes Mareen ends on her at the top as she listens to the screams of men on the crosses. No trial nor remorse based on their status instead of knowing their actions.
@@EndThusIAm "Dany put over a hundred men to the cross without blinking" Did she, or is there context you're leaving out? Was there an entire lead up TO crucifying people? Did she have REASONS to do it? Why are you being so incredibly vague in favor of making Dany look like a psychopath? You're being dishonest. " having no idea who they were besides the elite" Who are "the elite"? Did they as a group do things that Dany found reprehensible? Did they commit crimes harsh enough execution was her only recourse? Did they attack her? Why are you being so vague!? You're acting like she can just walk up, crucify 100 people, and nobody can say anything about it! There's OTHER THINGS that happens before this event, surely. Why are you being so VAGUE!? "She had to be told after they died of thirst or blood loss that at least one of them was against the act the city did to the slaves." Ok, so the people who controlled the city were slavers, they did something horrible, and she punished them for it. Why are you pretending she just walked up and crucified 100 totally innocent people for fun? On top of that, out of 100 people, ONE of them maybe wasn't QUITE so bad a guy? Did he do OTHER things that WERE bad? Was it just this one line that he thought was too far, but he did OTHER horrible shit? Was he advocating the slaves should be freed and the other nobles just weren't down for that? Did he not keep his own slaves? Did he have slaves, but he treated them as equals? Is he well known as the super awesome noble that everyone liked? You're not EXPLAINING anything, you're making it MORE confusing. So Dany learned she killed, I'm going to assume this, an innocent man by mistake. Did she have a reaction to that? She believed they were all evil, but this guy wasn't, does she LEARN something from this? Does she grow? Does she strive to do BETTER? You're cherry picking to the extreme. "She fed a man to her dragon with no idea if he was innocent or not." What's the context? John Snow killed a man for back talk, didn't he? Who was this man? What's the CONTEXT? You can't just say "She killed a guy at random" without ANY context. You've already made it clear you're fine with just lying to me about what Dany did. So be DETAILED, what is the CONTEXT here. WHY did she decide this man being killed by her dragon was acceptable in this circumstance? Does she just feed people to her dragons just because? Do her dragons just snatch random people up and Dany goes "Well, they're hungry, it's fine." EXPLAIN this to me. I haven't seen this show, I don't know a lot about it, but you're deliberately divorcing her actions from ANY amount of context in an extremely harsh world that's literally on the brink or literally IN a war for power over the throne. "She conquered cities to free slaves but did nothing to prevent it from happening again which only caused more death." How is that evil? That's naivete, not evil. She conquered a city, freed the slaves, and tried to make it better, then something bad happened LATER? That's not her fault, that isn't her being evil. "She imprisoned her dragons on the action of another dragon." The actions of some random dragon totally unrelated to hers? You're being VERY SUSPICIOUSLY vague here. What dragon? What did it do? Why did she decide she needed to lock her dragons away? Did one of her dragons do something she found morally abhorrent? Like did one of her dragons just lash out and kill a child, so because she was horrified at that, she kept her dragons away from people until she was certain that wouldn't happen again? Did she tell one of them to pull a cart and it took a nap so she locked them all away? Did she hear a STORY of dragons burning down a village, so she locked her dragons up so they wouldn't burn down a village? WHY ARE YOU BEING SO FUCKING VAGUE!? This entire time you've been plucking things so far out of context it's like you want me to believe she's just going around at random doing shitty things to people that have done absolutely nothing wrong, she's just crazy and has obscene amounts of power, so she keeps getting away with it, but she's performing atrocious acts left and right and everyone.... Supports her, for some reason, I guess they're all crazy? That's what you're making me think. You're SHIT at explaining this character. "Did she want to free slaves? Yes. But she did it and other actions in cruel ways without hesitation or a thought to the consequences." DOES SHE!? Or is she just not PERFECT with infinite foresight, and she makes mistakes? Is she being too MEAN to slavers that rape women and beat children? Should she be NICER to the monsters raping little girls? Is THAT your position? Cause it SOUNDS like that's your position. She's killing people she considers to be absolute monsters that treat human beings as their property, and she's being MEAN about, so it's totally understandable that she'd just randomly decide to burn thousands of women and children alive for the crime of existing.
It's almost like her actions happened in completely different context and had different purposes, therefore her killing slave masters because they killed children is different than her committing a genocide for no reason Could it be?
Yeah it’s just that Griffith accomplished his goal, he won, and he had to do the thing to achieve it, also his circumstances at the time were let’s say, dire. Danny on the other hand didn’t have to burn the city, she did it to fuel her rage I suppose? Idk. But she didn’t accomplish anything except for dying. So I’d argue she’s worse than griff, she’s just stupid and cruel.
Those two are well written tho. Griffith I dont have to elaborate on. Magnus was a good man with a great deal of flaws but always seeking to do good with the information at hand. Well, until chaos juice.
He's from the tabletop game Warhammer 40k. He's a big (as in 10+ feet tall) red skinned one eyed psyker (a space wizard) and a demigod son of the god emperor. In the prequel books (set 10k years before the setting) through the machinations of the god of change his ego was exploited and he ended up doing more harm than good and became a daemon prince (with bird wings).
"I think something a lot of people don't fully accept about the story is that a lot of these characters are not *morally, ethically, or logically* consistent" .. Yeah, quite a few people took a bit of an issue with this. For some reason. Hmm.
I think his perspective on morality is just infantile. It's insanely poorly developed. He literally said if you kill 10,000 people for fun, then save 10,000 people, you're morally gray. No.
3 seconds later… “bY whOsE mEtRIc?” The person who you’ve been talking about for the past half hour and who Mauler just quoted verbatim… openly admitting it… it’d be nice if he actually listened to the points being made…
55:00 she doesn't want the throne initially. Her brother does. Her brother had control over her life until she was married off. Before marrying Drogo she simply wanted "to go home" and she isn't talking about Westros
It's almost like throughout the series she started somewhere, then she changed, made mistakes, developed, wanted to fix those mistakes and not make them again, had a journey, became a person people could root for and look up to, maybe advocate for the throne, and then literally in an instant she just slaughters innocent people for literally NO reason, despite that action impeding her actual goals. But I'm sure she just FORGOT about Cersei. I hear she does that a lot.
@@haku8135 idk what you’re talking about Danny was always evil. Yall just hold on to her empty morals that she stated but clearly never actually held up. I was never surprised she decided to burn innocents. I never felt she was justified in doing evil things to evil people. That makes her no better than anyone she claimed was evil. Seemed obvious she was going to be evil the whole time. She was on a mission of Conquest but yall think she was good? 😂😂😂😂😂 definition of gullible.
@@the21stcenturyboy_ Probably a troll but I'll bite. The Iron Throne belonged to the Targaryens initially. Her family lost but she had a claim. That is part of the ambiguity of war. She freed slaves and turned them against their masters, she liberated cities, was against people senseless dying in the fighting pit, locked her dragons away when they killed a little girl when they hunted for food, and when she was angry or frustrated still heeded consul from people like Barrastion and Mormont.
@@the21stcenturyboy_ Yes, it was obvious in the meta sense, MauLer even says that as well. The problem is the writers didn't set it up logically within the story. Yes, she did evil things to evil people. The problem is they didn't provide any reasonable basis for why she changed who she views as evil. That perspective suddenly and immediately changed in S8 with no rationale to explain why.
This is the episode that made me a fan of EFAP. I specifically remembered laughing like a psycho in the middle of 42nd Street when this guy said she freed them. And Gary said from their souls😅. This a classic
They surrendered to her... If I was afraid of someone who had far more power than I did and knew I could do nothing to them I would have surrendered. If she wanted to have the people fear her, she suceeds before committing genocide. If she would have accepted their surrender, only kill those responsible, and showed mercy compassion and sympathy to everyone else that would have garnered her respect and love as well as fear.
I mean watching an entire fleet of super badass navy soldiers getting one shot by this lady's singular dragon is pretty scary. Especially when those ships were all mounted with dragon killing weapons, but they still couldn't stop her. I really don't need 90% of my city to be burned to get the picture this lady holds a LOT of power. Especially considering I'm pretty sure they already hated Cerse, they just couldn't do anything about it because they don't have any power over her. Like revolts fail. A LOT. You need specific circumstances for a revolt to work. Cersei's holed up in a CASTLE. Those things are literally built to be extremely defensible. Not only could she hold up against tens of thousands of ARMED combatants attacking the castle for probably days depending on how many soldiers she has on hand, but like we already know she has escape routes as well. She's unreachable to the average person. MEANWHILE THIS BITCH HAS A DRAGON, AND GOES AFTER EVERYONE EXCEPT HER!
1:03:23 I'm sorry, what. What's going on in that empty head? "The world is better off with her actions." "Do you think freeing slaves is better than killing people?" "I'm not qualified to make these types of moral judgements." but you very confidently just made that moral judgement. You just refuse to give us the numbers for it. This is your hypothetical. You can fudge the numbers. "I believe she killed a hund--... 10 000 people and that she freed a mil-... more than 2 000 000 million people. I believe it's a net positive."
If this guy has ever taken a shower or bath, he is insane by his own definition. He couldn't have known he was immune to water without first touching it.
“Morality is subjective and none of these characters are consistent” isn’t really a good argument in favor of his point… He also constantly cites these vague “people” when in reality he’s just trying to make his own feelings on the matter sound bigger than they are, to give false credence to his argument.
Yeah he never gave any examples of people acting inconsistent. Morality IS subjective, that's correct, but people like Dany and John have THEIR OWN MORAL CODES, they have their own standards. Dany's is that you don't kill children, innocent people should be left out of this shit, slavery is abhorrent and slavers are pieces of shit, and if they don't give that up they are on the chopping block. You need to FROM HER PERSPECTIVE establish "Killing kids is ABHORRENT" to "Well.... Like JUST THIS ONCE it was the correct decision. I didn't like it, but it had to be done." Then you go to "Well THESE children were certain to grow up all hateful and try to rebel, that'd definitely get GOOD children and innocent people killed because their PARENTS were horrible. This was the best decision." Then eventually peaking at something like "These children don't matter. MY people matter, I matter, MY rule matters. What I say matters, is what matters. These children were complacent in evil, it's better to wipe the slate clean." There needs to be an escalation from Dany's own viewpoint, you can't just say "well subjective so nothing matters." THAT is the bullshit theists pedal to say atheists can't say anything matters because subjective. It's a bullshit argument that falls apart with the slightest pressure.
As far as Daenerys walking into fire: my friends and I have made some pretty big bonfires. One as big as Khal Drogo's funeral pyre, standing 5 feet away would feel like you were cooking. If Danny *could* be burned, she would have stopped well before actually touching the fire.
A really embarrassing reason for a driver to stop a bus. "I called 911, thought the passenger was dying, turns out he was just listening to a podcast..."
Trying to rationalize her actions is crazy, because it was very clear that she had gone mad with power, paralleling the Mad King who also had Dragons and was a Targaryen.
Aight, one minute and four seconds in and I already have a problem with this dude. I hate this modern perception that punishing bad people equals being bad yourself, or in this case that enforcing punishment on a group of tyrants it's the same as being a tyrant yourself for "establishing an order of your choice". Daenerys punished an entire society of enslavers and freed EVERYONE else, she even tried to show mercy and gave the slavers a chance to integrate peacefully, then the slavers struck right back the second they had a chance and tried to re-enslave everyone. How TF is Daenerys a tyrant here? She's literally fighting for people's freedom!
Yeah she’s not evil in the books. She is however quickly becoming surrounded by people who are evil. Moqqoro, baelon Greyjoy is on his way, Tyrion, maester whatshisnuts that taught mirri mazdur, dothraki blood riders, strong Belwas and her new lord husband who tried to kill her. So like…shits not going well.
tbf she's a tyrant in that she's a monarch but she's pretty fair if only slightly naiive. If anything her empathy and compassion is a flaw in her rule as she tried to remove slavery from a place literally called slavers bay ha.
@@hadriancaesar2686but she was successful as far as we know. It caused a lot of social unrest, but I would take that everyday over 50% of people being slaves
all being said i just feel bad for this guy. like most of us did in the first few seasons, he loved this show so much. but once it got undeniably bad he couldn't allow himself to accept it. hope he can at least recognize house of the dragon is much better than the last few seasons of GOT
The moment of stunned silence after Mauler quotes Dany admitting to killing innocents in the final episode was the moment they all knew this discussion was over. The next hour is just watching a man go down with his sinking ship.
I was the only person I knew irl who watched season 8 and thought it was god awful. My coworkers loved it. My friend group at the time loved it. Thank god all my online friends were sane and thought it was shit as well.
@@sayLeotardbutsayitChinese nah man they just have terrible taste. Same group loved the Star Wars sequels but shit on Rogue One for being boring. Suffice to say, I haven't talked to any of them in years.
@@MoonlitMarch No, but you're just citing an end. It is not the point you think it to be. It has been pointed out already that their sense could be - or as the commenter put it is - wrong. Moreover, yours is a point that pertains more so to culture than morality per se. If I were to punch you and you were to punch me back, how would we acquire for ourselves the difference between the punches?
@@SacClass650 Morality is subjective. It has to be. Only subjects have OPINIONS on morality. The mere fact there are arguments about what is or is not moral, should be an indication it's not subjective. 2+2=4 is not subjective, nobody argues when you take 2 apples, and put 2 more apples in the pile, you have 5 apples. Because math is objective, where morals are subjective. It can ONLY be subjective, because it is entirely dependent on subjects. That is the literal definition of subjective. If you click a button and erase all humans from the universe, morality changes. It disappears. Nothing is moral OR immoral, everything is Amoral, because morality is dependent on subjects to argue about it. Nick over there said their morality IS WRONG because of how they treat women and gay people. That's HIS opinion. Subjectively from his point of view, they are in the wrong. They believe, they are in the RIGHT. Two subjects disagree over a matter, subjective. Morality is subjective, just because people agree on things like "You shouldn't kill people for fun" doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY immoral, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY immoral, because we say so. And lots of people saying it just means we agree on this thing. 10000 people saying vanilla ice cream is the best flavor does not make it objectively true, it's a subjective opinion, no matter how common the opinion.
@@haku8135 For argument's sake, let's say your non cognitivism is correct. We have then - predominantly through religion - distilled and systematized our ethicality, creating a grounding from which an _objective_ language is spoken. There is no such thing as a private [subjective] language; indeed, that we can dispute it tells us there is, in fact, a contingency that is subject to disputation (demonstrative, or deliberative). And I will ask you the same - if I were to punch you and you were to punch me back, how would we acquire for ourselves the difference between the punches? (Moreover, do you not think there are virtues contained in, for example, a mother birthing a child that speaks to us possessing "a natural proneness toward having the virtues"? I do.)
Even though I’m on the EFAP side of the overall debate, I was really irritated with Rags’ argumentation. I would not have kept my cool at his “yes or no will suffice”, my brother in Christ, you are king of loving your own voice, do not dictate my response to me.
@@shamboholic when someone is waffling thats a useful tactic because it establishes a basis. It forces someone to take a position which can be confronted as opposed to hovering in ambiguity
If she had evidence to believe that she was immune to fire, then proceeded to walk into a fire, then I wouldn't say she isn't crazy. If she had no evidence, and she just believed it and just walked into a pyre, then I'd say she was crazy.
That’s the thing and this dude obviously didn’t rewatch the whole show because if he did he would remember that Danny could hold a dragons egg that’s been steeping in fire without being burned. When her servant tries to take it from her she’s scalded instantly.
Assuming that what we saw is the jist of what Martin will write in the books because I think he told them what he had planned. They failed to convey it properly. They tried to retexturize everything she did to justify her action at Kingslanding. They tried to say "Look, she was always like this." We all know she wasn't. What I think Martin's intent (assuming he goes this route in the books) is to show Dany slowing going mad. We see that before the battle she hasn't been sleeping, she lost, two of her dragons(which are like her kids), she just found out she's been shacking up with her own nephew, and she'd just seen one of her friends get executed right infront of her. She didn't go to Kingslanding to take it over she was looking for a fight, she was looking to be wrathful. Maybe Martain was trying to write in such a way that we see Dany's mind snap. When the bells ring she can stop but she looks disappointed. If they wanted to say Dany snapped fine, if she was angry fine, but don't stand there and try and gaslight us into thinking she was always this unhinged!!!
I can agree with the disappointed guess. I see it like Hughie punching A-Train even after getting an actual apology. Hughie thought that's what he wanted, but what he actually wanted was to hurt the guy. Dany thought she simply wanted victory, but she had such rage built up that she wanted to unleash it. The problem is that they don't explore enough into why she'd do it to the innocents except one old line of hers where she feels the people should act against tyranny, not accept it.
@@EndThusIAm Exactly, I don't think people think Dany is so good natured that she could "never" do what she did, but that there was no explanation for how she got there other then "Oh, all the people from her family are crazy" which is a cheap explanation at best.
This is why I think he's taking so long to finish. He's afraid that people are going to hate it because they didn't like the show's ending. George, as much as I dislike him myself, hasn't considered that compared to him, D&D are toddlers playing with their diaper mud
@@Fauwkes so what? It’s not a big deal. You’re a bit of a prick to make fun of someone just for the way they speak. Comment on WHAT he says not the minor lisp
Idk i think the guy had a point about her showing how you can excuse tyrannical actions towards people you dislike since she was tyranical but towards people even worse people. Of course season 8 ruined that entirely by being major overkill. Everything else was dumb but he was right about Danny being too vicious
We had over 6 seasons of context building danny up to be a shaky, and sometimes wrathful leader but a good men at her core. That is six years of her character. If you want to get her to fall from grace you aren't going up against several individual moments but a combination of six years of character and patterns. And to make it even better the all the moments used to cite her being insane are hardly even significant in the grander scheme of her character. When given the chance her character shows us another fascet of herself being very careful to not harm innocents, to mourn people who are innocent and most importantly to correctly identify what are the innocent. You can't undo that in one episode you can't undo that in four episodes. That's what most season 8 defenders tend to over look not all of them but most of them. You need a reliable pattern established in ones character and you need a reasonable logic behind it. I understand wanting to see value in what you are given in season 8 but i feel like this guy needs to understand he owes this show nothing. He is the consumer. And as such if he doesn't like it its ok he doesn't need to force himself to like or gaslight himself into liking it. S8 was bad plain and simple
THIS. The way 7 seasons of Game of Thrones portrayed, she'd have been the best ruler of Westeros with Jon. The first ruler in a long time who cared about the fate of innocent and common folk. We still could have given the show a bittersweet ending to the characters the show wanted. Dany gets the name the "Queen of the Ashes" not because of nuking King's Landing herself but because of the true Mad Queen, Cersei, using wildfire to deny Deanarys the full victory. The last "F YOU!" if you will. Other people in King's Landing wouldn't know if it was really Cersei setting the wildfire off or it was dragon fire that did. So people would still blame her for this to some degree. So despite the best efforts, Daenarys became someone she tried so much to avoid as she conquered Westeros. Then she'd have spent the rest of her life making up for that tragedy, trying to make sure every death of the innocent was not in vain. In that way, she'd have truly broken the wheel. Daenerys would be known as ruthless but just Queen
@@sab3redg333 Thank You :) I wouldn't be able to write the whole show but I'd be that irritating guy in the writers' room to call their BS ideas out like Mauler would have as well :D Overall, the way Dany was written, the showrunners should have gone for the non-canon but natural conclusion of her character within the show because they had no setup for G.R.R. Martin's fate of that character. I don't know when they even found out how A Song of Ice and Fire ends from Martin's notes. When they did, they realized how much their GoT's characters' face is far from Martin's.
Danni going ape shit does make sense if there had been more seasons. There were signs, but it was a slow burn. The problem is that like most things in season 8 is dnd hit the gas pedal.
Yes and no, Dany was always "bad", the audience only saw her as the good guy because she did (some) things that they agreed with. It did NOT come out of nowhere, it was there from very beginning... She killed a woman for enacting revenge on the man that led her village to be slaughtered and herself being r*ped several times, ONLY because it hurt Dany's goal. She did not "save" the slaves because it was the "right thing", she did it as a means to an end: so that she could "retake" "her" throne. She murdered hundreds of potentially innocent people because they where the benefactors of a system that she could not know if they objected too, only showing remorse after it is pointed out to her that atleast one of them DID object. She burnt a man alive again just to show her future husband what was in store for him if he did not do as she pleased. She burnt Sam's brother and father alive because they did not instantly fall to their knees and accept her rule. She burned Varis alive for (again) not believing that she was the "most good and just person for the throne" (proving his point...) She consistently disregards her advisors when they are trying to make her see reason, and calls herself Justice, she is the literal defenition of Might makes right, but since she looks small and "cute" people refuse to see it. Breaking the wheel is a meaningless statement that people think means something good (like democracy) but it could just be murder everyone opposing HER and keep killing til there is no opposition left. also Mauler AND Rags are wrong when they compare Dany's glee from the mass slaughter of "Masters" to that of Arya and Sansa's, since they punished people they KNEW where responsible for injust acts against themselvs and/or their family. (But that is not YOUR point so I'm not attributing that too you...)
Hearing that guy go "Hmm" and "Ummm" and trying to delay answering questions is so fucking grating... It's wasting time and you feel it and it's that much worse because his answers are complete dogshit
Conquerors, by default, must be brutal, but that does not mean they are necessarily unjust, Case in point: the leadership of the Western Allies AGAINST Adolf Hitler, Imperial Japan, and (later) Stalin and Mao. What Danny did was Hiroshima and Nagasaki without ANY warning against a nation that was not going to fight to the last man, woman, and child and was already subdued in everything but the personhood of their leader. It’d be like the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER already conquering the Japanese mainland and isolating its generals and leaders to Tokyo just because they insulted you and killed a prisoner. It was already unjust and questionable attacking civilian targets (which is why the Western nations established rules against it afterwards with the Geneva Conventions), but that’s just taking things to a whole new level of atrocity. If the US had done that, we absolutely would have become the villains in that moment.
Gotta love it when people try to defend the atrocious fucking writing of Daenarys going mad out of fucking blue. It's been 5 years and that character assassination from writing level of Daenerys Targaryen annoys me to no end. The way she has been portrayed in the show up to season 7 she could have been considered the most liberal ruler of Westeros who cared about the fate of slaves and common folk that none of the lords of Westeros would care about at all. She was given a choice to surrender soldiers, bend the knee and live or die (a standard issue practice in that world and you still couldn't count on being spared) She went through hell back and forth and she remained sane... She lost a LOT in her life when we saw her at the beginning of GoT already. Other characters in this show also went through traumatic experiences and they didn't snap. Also, people forget that other characters we root for did terrible things like Arya making a pie of Frey's boys but that was seen as a triumph. But Dany executed 2 lords that chose their fate was terrible, right? What was even more frustrating was that the show and other people expected her to do the war against Cersei with standards that no other ruler would be expected to do. Meanwhile, they have offered NONE smart solution to the problem. It pissed me off so much when Varys did not tell Dany there was a secret entrance to the Red Keep and taking it by the Unsullied may have ended the war. It looked like Dany was set up to fail wining the war quickly with the least amount of blood spilled by her own advisors. What she did in Season 8 was the assassination of her character. No doubts, no buts. Assassinated as many characters were in that season. She would not have torched the King's Landing to the ground. Red Keep? Yes, that's a fair target but not the city. It is more thematically elegant to have Dany become the Queen of the Ashes but not in the way Season 8 presented. The true Mad Queen, Cersei, would have used wildfire to deny Daenarys the full victory, the last "F YOU" before she burns or is killed by Jaime. So you could still have some people blaming Dany for this catastrophe but for the rest of her rule, she'd be doing her best to make up for the destruction the war over the Iron Throne caused. It'd fit her personality, caring about common folk so I'd have seen her putting lots of effort into rebuilding King's Landing.
She literally says she’s going to rule through fear because she’s worried the people will support Jon instead of her claim. Arriving at winterfell she smiles when her dragons terrify the people she thought would be praising her but were instead suspicious of her. It makes complete sense that when she thinks she’s going to lose everything and has the power to prevent it she’s going to do whatever it takes. Killing ~10% of KL to ensure she rules through fear rather than give up power is a very “mad Targaryen” thing to do and perfectly in line with the development of her character as she feels the walls closing in. Most other S8 criticisms are valid but not this one.
Plenty of people bought that Denyaris turned evil or to the dark side so to say, but like Gary says it was so rushed (like everything else in seasons 6 - 8) that the few hints of it just weren't enough for it to make sense on screen when it happened abruptly at the King's Landing siege when she snapped.
Who is this guy? All I can hear is "ummm.. ummm... maybe... umm... ummm... wellllll... ummm". Sorry, I find it really tough to listen to. I hope you don't hate me. I love EFAP!
1:13:02 says he found it unbelievable, then came around to it after rewatching select clips. Refuses to elaborate which clips and why they make it make sense. wtf is with people being incapable of admitting the writing sucked because the writers were bored and didn't have a plan?
If she had say killed Jon Snow then this 're-contextualizing' argument might work. Killing 100K+ civilians is not something she ever did before and no one would have found it sympathetic if she did that to an Eastern city.
One thing I wish they had mentioned was that the northerners wouldn’t have liked and wouldn’t trust Danny because her father killed Ned’s father (who was their liege lord) and brother.
The show should've just made the burning of Kings landing caused by the numerous wildfire caches stored there, Dany flys to the red keep and lights it up and you realize that Cersei has spread wildfire throughout the city strategically spreading out from the red keep to cause Dany to murder tens of thousands of innocent people as a means to sabotage any future rule she might have had.
Considering one of his first points was about “class consciousness” and his entire argument is built upon the (false) idea that morality is subjective, yeah I think it’s pretty clear what his stances overall are.
Yezen: I got stuffed in lockers in school so I relate to Bran the cripple. Bran becomes Elden Lord so he’s willing to hand waved rushed/ reversed character arcs because he got what he wanted
9:26 its weird, he presents a solid piece of evidence that supports his claim but then forgets what his claim is. Feeding an innocent man to the dragon is an example of killing innocents to rule by fear, which was the initial argument he made for her turn. That would make the kings landing incident in character.
He's a contrarian. He doesn't have thoughts, he just takes a position to be in opposition to the prevailing view to feel superior. Hence why consistency is almost impossible.
I haven't watched a single episode of Game of Thrones, haven't read one word of any of the books, I haven't even read the wiki articles. Everything I know about the show is basically from Mauler actually, and people raging about season 8. So the evidence that Dany would gleefully burn innocent women and children alive for no reason, delaying her arrival at the focus of her troubles and rage, who executed one of her friends 10 minutes ago, is because one time she had one of her dragons eat an innocent man. Who was a slaver. Yeah even I know one of Dany's many names is like the breaker of chains or something like that. She's VERY anti-slavery, so if she knows this man is a slaver, that by default means he's NOT innocent. Whether or not he's part of this evil organization AS WELL that she wants to send a message to, isn't really relevant. She already wants to free all the slaves, and anyone that stands in her way of doing that is automatically her enemy and I'd wager more often than not will earn the death penalty if they insist on keeping the REAL innocent people, in her eyes, the slaves, captive and you know probably beating and raping them as much as they want? Yeah I think she's totally satisfied killing people like that. Those seem to be THE people she wants either removed from power, or dead if they try to persist. Liberate the slaves sounds like it'd be near the top of her commands if she sat the iron throne, and the ONLY person in her way was the ONE fucking person she DIDN'T kill at the end. Cersei ESCAPED for fuck's sake, she only got killed by accident!
If you do read the books it’s so much worse, because “Dani burns Kingslanding” is a plot point straight from George RR Martin who wrote the books, the difference being that the books set up Dani’s character far differently even as early as the first book. Where as the show just tried to turn her into a girl-boss-moment generator, her actions are far more villainous, for example Miri Mazdur’s advice in the first book is consistently ignored by both Dani and Khal Drogo, and Miri isn’t nearly as antagonistic or condescending towards her, which makes Dani’s decision to burn Miri on Drogo’s pyre much more f$&ked up. Later by Book/Season 5 another character was also majorly changed, Tyrion, in the show he’s Dani’s voice of reason from Season 5 onwards, but last we saw him in the books he’s set up to be a devil on Dani’s should, he says that he’ll “bring Fire and Blood to Westeros” and other characters around Dani are also reminding her that her family’s words are “Fire and Blood” because all of her peaceful options are failing, it’s hinted that she’ll burn down at least one city in Essos before she even gets to Westeros.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Daenerys: Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I am willing to make
More like "Some of you may be in my line of fire, as I indiscrimately have my dragon breath fire on surrendering soldiers and defenseless civilians, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."
@@silastipton9982 “We did it, Patrick! We saved the city!”
"Those women and children were guilty" Daenerys, probably.
"Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out"
- Daenerys, probably.
*All of you
*If Wolf was in this debate, there would have been a disclaimer in front of this clip.*
Think he would have mentionned the lisp?
@arklaw8306 you bet he would
Had Wolf been on this, the Lisp would have 'bubbled' himself ( to use some of It's a Gundam's vernacular) 🤣
It's true, mostly, because Wolf is just Rags with a worse temperment and is more than willing to make ad hominin attacks on people and openly harass them in what is supposed to be a debate. It would be easy to bait him into saying something heinous, since he was usually barely two seconds away from saying it of his own volition.
Wolf stepping away from the internet was the best thing for him, and I'm thrilled *NEW* wolf *TOTALLY* wouldn't call this guy a *MASSIVE* live on-air.
Totally.
Perfect comment
I will always feel sorry for the little girls who got named after Dragon Hitler before that episode hit.
Still not as cringe as being named khaleesi
Would genuinely rather be named Dovahkiin or Sephiroth.
lmao
Ever meet one of those thirty year old dudes named Goku?
@@Pink.andahalfpretty chill dudes
*How quickly everyone dropped this entire show from the cultural zeitgeist.*
Everyone talked about it, and no nobody does.
@@williamshelton4318 The cope is strong!
House of the dragon is a smashimg wee programme. Suppose its easy to make a tv show when you stay close-ER to the books your copying.
Those fellas rushed that show so they could get their star wars chance that fell through
@@abc-oq7dt what weirds me is that SW was already in decline by that point, and people even nowadays believe that they wrote the show when they literally used the books as a script and everytime they deviated from the books it sucked. They had everything, they succesfully gaslit people, they had their kingdom and threw it away to do an harder work.
@@Lampoluke "they had everything"
Almost. When they ran out of book material and had to make stuff up for the rest of the series it was clear they had no idea what they were doing. If only JRRM used all those years the show was still popular to finish the books, they might have salvaged what was remaining in the story for the last seasons. But we've all seen how that turned out. Now nobody will care even if by some miracle the books do come out.
@@ChrisDeve Right but they decided to deviate from the books before they ever ran out of book material. They didn't do lady stoneheart & chose to have Arya become an invincible world destroyer which wasn't book material.
I really hate the excuses to really bad writing
Total Drama All Stars ends with many contestants still trapped in balloons that flew away letting their fates unknown. The defenders: "Oh, those balloons will pop eventually. So they're fine"
The Last Of Us 2 ends with Ellie being completly alone and she culdn't even get her revenge. The defenders: "Oh, she'll reunite with her girlfriend eventually. So she's fine"
Game Of Thones season 8 ends with Daenerys exterminating a kingdom. The defenders: "There's still a few suviovors, eventually there'll be more generations in the new kingdom. So it's fine"
Moral of the story: "Naah, it will be fine"
All Stars flanderized so many characters it isn't even funny. And don't remind me of that idiotic Mal plotline...
It's not just bad writing, it's the cope to justify evil being done.
Hell, I just saw Jujutsu Kaisen, season 2's ending, and my god, THAT is what you do to end in a sour note but still hopeful for the future.
Literally a "nah, it'll be fine" that makes sense.
Ngl, I wasnt expecting to see a comment mentioning TD 😂 I watched a video of it today after a long time not seeing the show, only saw first season, crazy that suddenly a comment mentions on a non related video 😂
@@denkerbosu3551 sour is maybe the tamest word I’d choose to describe how that biz played out lol.
@@Arko777777 that season is my personal Vietnam xD
"Reinforcements are reinforcements"
Mauler channelling his inner Tywin
“I don’t understand the question.”
Translation:
“Give me a minute so I can think of a way to dodge the question.”
It's not that deep, even if that is the case.
GoT S8 was my personal Vietnam
SOG Prairie Fire is my personal Vietnam
The people of King's Landing were like an aliens to Daenerys!
t'was our generation s 'NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM BABBY!
"The White walkers are this unknowable alien force."
"You know, just like the Vietnamese"
I mean, if you weren’t getting skeptical at season 6 I don’t know how. People act like this came out of nowhere
Last video: four years ago
I think this conversation broke the guy
GOOD.
Same thing happened to Twin Perfects too i think. It seems these type of apologist critics get real afraid when someone calls them out on their bullshit.
He later called people in the chat antisemitic on reddit
@@TrajGreekFire ... wow, I'm so surprised... really didn't see that coming
@@tereninsecundus6084you are a bully but in real life anyone could break your legs
Wait, so he says his opinion changed on his second watch through the show, but he also says he only watched certain episodes and scenes. So, he didn't actually watch the whole show again; he just watched things that support his view of Dany and ignored all the stuff that doesn't? Convenient.
I hadn't seen this before and my brain hurts at minute 9. It's amazing what you can argue when you ignore context.
edit: Holy shit it got worse. The last 15 minutes is absolutely insane. Dany did nothing wrong indeed.
This guy must have scored a full kilo of pure uncut Copium, before this "debate".
She built the pire to crimate Drogo and end mari mazdul... She didn't do it just to walk into it... She chose to do that later on...
*Still waiting on that Episode 6 Unbridled Rage, MauLer!*
And I might be the only one who is!
There are dozens of us. Dozens!
We are legion!
He made a stream about it with Wolf and a third person, I forget who. That's as close as you're gonna get.
I asked him in a game stream about doing a longer cover of the long night and he said he no and that he probably won’t touch GoT for a while, if ever
i’d like to see it
“By innocent, I mean not guilty.”
Um. Yeah. That’s usually how that works.
Edit for the debate in the replies- to quote Blackadder, “IT’S NOT A BRAINTEASER, PERCY!”
Innocent and not guilty are not synonyms.
"I mean... innocent according to whose metric?"
The metric of the person who is known not to slaughter innocents.
@nassan1599 Yes, they are. It's like saying "clean" and "not dirty" aren't the same.
@@Susan_K Legally speaking, innocence must be proven. “Not guilty” is just the default position of everyone.
@jlev1028 not guilty is default, innocence has to be proven.
Breaking Bad as a whole is remembered fondly. The Sopranos, despite its ending, is remembered fondly. But the last few seasons of Game of Thrones DESTROYED all good faith and any hope for longevity. Barely anyone mentions GOT without dumping on it. There's just no arguing that.
Sopranos had very fitting ending, that's how it ws supposed to go, unless you wanted some 20 extra seasons of Tony's sucessor dealing with usual shit. I wouldn't want Sopranos to share SImpsons fate of melting into flanderisation for the sake of keeping going.
Breaking Bad was veeeeery slow burn at the start, a few waited longenough for it to start to be good.. The show would be better without Skyler, that's for sure.
Breaking Bad did have an issue with for its ending, but thankfully El Camino answered it. Namely my issue was that Brock was rendered an orphan in the penultimate episode and nobody references him in the finale.
@@emberfist8347 Eh The show ended well enough. El Camino as a piece of media was terrible. Sometimes things should just be left open ended.
@@The_Stranger1986 To me E Camino was good because as I said Brock’s fate was too open-ended. It is one of those things where a significant character suddenly disappears from the story and nobody remembers them and we never learn what happened that is a writing problem.
@@emberfist8347how is that a problem exactly?
This conversation near the end reminded me of a quote that Stannis had: "a good act can't wash out the bad, nor the bad the good." The idea Dany left the world a better place than what it was is objectively wild to say the carnage she left behind is going to affect several generations
But she's saving the future generations by not having to experience PTSD!
She freed all those slaves and made them her slaves. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss lmao
@@Kwisatz-Chaderach "Oh I would't say free. More like under new management."
@@cyrilmagi6201 Tighten
Stannis Based not surprised
Maybe she forgot cities are full of innocent civilians.
But they didn't forget about her.
"But they're not innocent in her eyes."
@@arklaw8306Maybe if he flipped it: "What if it's actually just as monstrous to burn a city full of rich people who owned slaves. But you all thought it was bad ass and awesome. That's not a Dany problem; it's a you problem."
It's not a great argument, but if this guy had the balls to make it, he wouldn't find it so hard to be consistent.
I remember working with a slacker during a temp job. His two passions were the gym and Game of Thrones. He unironically said we should replace (US) citizenship tests with Game of Thrones quizzes.
We worked together around the same time as Season 8 dropped. It was so much fun, as someone who dropped Game of Thrones after episode 1 of season 1, to poke and prod with what knowledge MauLer could provide.
“Hey, what happened to Danaerys? She seemed so sweet in Episode 1!”
“Hey, what happened with the Night Walkers? They looked so cool, I can’t imagine what apocalypse they brought onto the world!”
*whispers* “…Long live King Bran.”
The moment he drops "class consciousness" I just can't help but think "oh buddy, I've got your number"
He was actually referring to clath contheosneth. A totally different phenomenon
It gets better as time goes on, at one point someone asks him If you kill 10,000 people and free 10,000 slaves do the two acts cancel out? He can't answer because its a weird philosophy question, his words not mine. Total left brain rot syndrome
@@samwallaceart288 that's funny, thank you.
@@samwallaceart288Man Idk why but how clath contheoneth is typed out just hurts my brain on so many levels.
Yea that got me and it dosent even makes sense because peasants would very much identify with their king and Kingdom
But than again he calls monarchy an extortion Business which pick up a book man medieval times are highly complex and fascinating
So the argument being presented is that it's OK to order your pet dragon to burn 1,000,000 civilians if Danerys is angry with their queen. Got ot
No no, it's okay if you're fighting a system😂
capita... ehem, I meant feodalism bad.
@@Phaeron123 You joke about that, but there are actual people out there who sincerely think that. People who subscribe to the communist rhetoric about the necessity of revolutions and violently overthrowing the establishment. It's the kind of people who view moderates in more contempt than the far right, and tell you with a straight face that MLK was a pussy and people don't give enough credit to the "heroic black panthers" for scaring the white moderates into supporting the civil rights movement.
@Phaeron123 It's okay if you're fighting a system the speaker personally disapproves of.
It's not like they need kingslanding a central position in westeros and also has been the freaking place where kings and Queen's rule and a position of power and control and influence. 😂😂 but also the fuking ppl that literally lives there.
Don't forget the farm lands that those ppl in kingslanding should be fuking working in
Bro is huffing so much copium he could be a guild navigator.
Tell that to King's Landing's snapped neck!
This is a prime example of "I have a talking point," and he won't give it up because doing so would mean he has nothing "interesting" to say.
Some people think it's admirable to debate contrarians who don't even believe their own arguments, but I just find it annoying.
Thank you. I got about 12 minutes in and found it too annoying. Cane down here to enjoy the comments before I go.
For me it's the several minutes of ums and ers. It tends to grate on the nerves after a while. If you're going to debate someone, come prepared.
HOLY SHIT!
This guy doesn't know what morally GRAY actually means.
You cannot do a good thing, then do a HORRIFICALLY awful thing for kicks, and be morally gray.
If I resuscitate someone who has just had a heart attack, then later I set a baby on fire for entertainment, I am not MORALLY GRAY. I'm a reprehensible MONSTER that is capable of common decency.
Dany just deciding on a whim to burn innocent women and children alive with no discrimination when she had NOTHING to gain from that, everything to lose from it, and it IMPEDED her actual goal of killing Cersei to the point she ESCAPED because of this delay, she is not MORALLY GRAY.
Morally gray is like Cecil from Invincible. THAT'S moral grayness.
Dani's just evil in this moment, her moral grayness has been cast aside, they skipped to black because they were bored of making the show. They wanted to get it over with as soon as possible so they just hand waved away everything that was in the path of them finishing the series.
If I had an immunity to scalding hot water you best believe I’m walking into a pyre to establish my godhood.
If I get splashed by scalding hot water and nothing happens, I'll go "Huh. That's.... That's not normal."
Then if I get touched by a like, burning rock or something, and nothing happens, I'm gonna go "Now that's very interesting."
At that point, if I need to convince people that I'm super badass and worthy of ruling a kingdom, you bet your ass I'm going to walk into fire.
If it burns me I'm backing out of it, and I'm going to try and figure out who decided hot STUFF doesn't hurt me, but FIRE does, cause fire and super hot rock is the same fucking thing in a different medium. Heat is heat.
In a world where literal magic fire witches that can produce fire on hundreds of weapons at a range at will and cover her hands in flame and not be burned, it's even less crazy. Believing you're fireproof in REAL LIFE is crazy because WE do not have fucking magic. Dany being MAGICALLY immune to fire is possible in this world, and her believing she has this ability is not inherently crazy, especially if she actually does have it, and she does.
But he said "feeding a guy to your dragon is crazy, therefore Dany can burn innocent people alive. Also they're not innocent, cause she just doesn't like them cause they're like dicks or something. So nyeh."
This guy's retarded.
And you'd test it on a candle first, right?
@@arklaw8306 If I touch scalding water and burning coals and nothing happens, that's a sufficient test.
If I walk into a fire and go ow, I would back out and try to figure out what's going on.
@@arklaw8306if I'm walking towards an inferno there'd be some point that pain would start before I'm all the way in it, and I'm not fireproof/fire resistant
Oh no not him. Arguably the most annoying guest in thr history of the show. Lisping madman
Eyyyyyy
Love your vids Jedibrooks
Who is the guy in the video
Yezen. His channel is in the description. You can always check there to see who's featured :)@@JacobKasza
Hey Brooks! 🙂
@@primesonic4459 respect!
I don't understand the argument. She only seems like a tyrant because you don't like her targets just proves she was always a tyrant. How do you have "class consciousness" that tells you to side with the woman who dragons anyone who disagrees with her? Just sounds like tankie logic.
Also, that incorrect characterization of feudalism (as if feudalism was just one thing across all space and time) is irrelevant, since the people living in King's Landing are burghers, not serfs. Not that ASOIAF portrays medieval life in any sort of realistic way.
Basically how I word it is this:
Her tactics have always been the same. She has threatened violence, done violence, lied to get what she wanted, and has looked at suffering with either a cold stare or feeling of righteousness. The difference was that was all done against those who were slavers, or those who belittled her and her claim so we cheered it on.
Now it's happening to people who are simply standing against her claim for the throne, some just soldiers and men who had never enslaved or tormented anyone.
But when it comes to King's Landing, that was purely a temper tantrum from her bottled up rage and the need to unleash it, regardless who was beneath her.
Tyrant
Definition: a cruel and oppressive ruler
Dany is not cruel, and she specifically does NOT want to oppress those she rules. She wants to FREE slaves, and make the world a more peaceful place.
Tyrant does not just mean anyone who is in charge. Dany is literally AT WAR, of course she's going to kill people and do meanie pants things. That doesn't make her a tyrant. To people NOT trying to kill her, she's consistently good to, until the show shits the bed, apparently. I haven't watched it btw, I'm going off the fallout of this season, it's very comprehensive. She doesn't do anything any other ruler, including the ones considered to be very good and not tyrants at all, has done to pursue the rule she believes is the best for everyone.
If she burned someone alive BEFORE season 8, is what because they were TYRANTS who fucked over the lives of the innocent for their own gain. She executed them for crimes against humanity basically, and the people like her for it. They were tried as criminals, found guilty, and executed. The same thing every other leader does, John Snow included. This is just how life WORKS. Westeros isn't sunshine and rainbows, it's a hard, brutal place, and Dany cannot survive it without being willing to spill blood. She always made sure the blood she spilled was people OPPOSED to her values of freedom, prosperity, and so on. She believes her side is JUST, and the side that's happy to enslave and rape and butcher kids is the bad side, and she needs to rescue the common people from those TYRANTS.
Tyranny is NOT just she's in charge and kills her enemies, therefore she is a tyrant. That's not how this works at all.
America was not tyrannical when we fought against Britain for our independence.
@@haku8135 Dany put over a hundred men to the cross without blinking, having no idea who they were besides the elite. She had to be told after they died of thirst or blood loss that at least one of them was against the act the city did to the slaves. She fed a man to her dragon with no idea if he was innocent or not. She conquered cities to free slaves but did nothing to prevent it from happening again which only caused more death. She imprisoned her dragons on the action of another dragon.
Did she want to free slaves? Yes. But she did it and other actions in cruel ways without hesitation or a thought to the consequences. The episode where she takes Mareen ends on her at the top as she listens to the screams of men on the crosses. No trial nor remorse based on their status instead of knowing their actions.
@@EndThusIAm "Dany put over a hundred men to the cross without blinking" Did she, or is there context you're leaving out? Was there an entire lead up TO crucifying people? Did she have REASONS to do it? Why are you being so incredibly vague in favor of making Dany look like a psychopath? You're being dishonest.
" having no idea who they were besides the elite" Who are "the elite"? Did they as a group do things that Dany found reprehensible? Did they commit crimes harsh enough execution was her only recourse? Did they attack her? Why are you being so vague!? You're acting like she can just walk up, crucify 100 people, and nobody can say anything about it! There's OTHER THINGS that happens before this event, surely. Why are you being so VAGUE!?
"She had to be told after they died of thirst or blood loss that at least one of them was against the act the city did to the slaves." Ok, so the people who controlled the city were slavers, they did something horrible, and she punished them for it. Why are you pretending she just walked up and crucified 100 totally innocent people for fun? On top of that, out of 100 people, ONE of them maybe wasn't QUITE so bad a guy? Did he do OTHER things that WERE bad? Was it just this one line that he thought was too far, but he did OTHER horrible shit? Was he advocating the slaves should be freed and the other nobles just weren't down for that? Did he not keep his own slaves? Did he have slaves, but he treated them as equals? Is he well known as the super awesome noble that everyone liked? You're not EXPLAINING anything, you're making it MORE confusing. So Dany learned she killed, I'm going to assume this, an innocent man by mistake. Did she have a reaction to that? She believed they were all evil, but this guy wasn't, does she LEARN something from this? Does she grow? Does she strive to do BETTER? You're cherry picking to the extreme.
"She fed a man to her dragon with no idea if he was innocent or not." What's the context? John Snow killed a man for back talk, didn't he? Who was this man? What's the CONTEXT? You can't just say "She killed a guy at random" without ANY context. You've already made it clear you're fine with just lying to me about what Dany did. So be DETAILED, what is the CONTEXT here. WHY did she decide this man being killed by her dragon was acceptable in this circumstance? Does she just feed people to her dragons just because? Do her dragons just snatch random people up and Dany goes "Well, they're hungry, it's fine." EXPLAIN this to me. I haven't seen this show, I don't know a lot about it, but you're deliberately divorcing her actions from ANY amount of context in an extremely harsh world that's literally on the brink or literally IN a war for power over the throne.
"She conquered cities to free slaves but did nothing to prevent it from happening again which only caused more death." How is that evil? That's naivete, not evil. She conquered a city, freed the slaves, and tried to make it better, then something bad happened LATER? That's not her fault, that isn't her being evil.
"She imprisoned her dragons on the action of another dragon." The actions of some random dragon totally unrelated to hers? You're being VERY SUSPICIOUSLY vague here. What dragon? What did it do? Why did she decide she needed to lock her dragons away? Did one of her dragons do something she found morally abhorrent? Like did one of her dragons just lash out and kill a child, so because she was horrified at that, she kept her dragons away from people until she was certain that wouldn't happen again? Did she tell one of them to pull a cart and it took a nap so she locked them all away? Did she hear a STORY of dragons burning down a village, so she locked her dragons up so they wouldn't burn down a village?
WHY ARE YOU BEING SO FUCKING VAGUE!? This entire time you've been plucking things so far out of context it's like you want me to believe she's just going around at random doing shitty things to people that have done absolutely nothing wrong, she's just crazy and has obscene amounts of power, so she keeps getting away with it, but she's performing atrocious acts left and right and everyone.... Supports her, for some reason, I guess they're all crazy?
That's what you're making me think. You're SHIT at explaining this character.
"Did she want to free slaves? Yes. But she did it and other actions in cruel ways without hesitation or a thought to the consequences." DOES SHE!? Or is she just not PERFECT with infinite foresight, and she makes mistakes? Is she being too MEAN to slavers that rape women and beat children?
Should she be NICER to the monsters raping little girls? Is THAT your position? Cause it SOUNDS like that's your position. She's killing people she considers to be absolute monsters that treat human beings as their property, and she's being MEAN about, so it's totally understandable that she'd just randomly decide to burn thousands of women and children alive for the crime of existing.
It's almost like her actions happened in completely different context and had different purposes, therefore her killing slave masters because they killed children is different than her committing a genocide for no reason
Could it be?
Daenerys is in the same camp as Griffith and Magnus the red. Yes she did everything wrong.
Yeah it’s just that Griffith accomplished his goal, he won, and he had to do the thing to achieve it, also his circumstances at the time were let’s say, dire.
Danny on the other hand didn’t have to burn the city, she did it to fuel her rage I suppose? Idk. But she didn’t accomplish anything except for dying.
So I’d argue she’s worse than griff, she’s just stupid and cruel.
Also don’t know this Magnus fellow, but sounds like a classy gentleman!
Those two are well written tho. Griffith I dont have to elaborate on. Magnus was a good man with a great deal of flaws but always seeking to do good with the information at hand. Well, until chaos juice.
He's from the tabletop game Warhammer 40k. He's a big (as in 10+ feet tall) red skinned one eyed psyker (a space wizard) and a demigod son of the god emperor. In the prequel books (set 10k years before the setting) through the machinations of the god of change his ego was exploited and he ended up doing more harm than good and became a daemon prince (with bird wings).
Daenerys should be like that, but they failed at it.
"I think something a lot of people don't fully accept about the story is that a lot of these characters are not *morally, ethically, or logically* consistent"
..
Yeah, quite a few people took a bit of an issue with this. For some reason. Hmm.
I think his perspective on morality is just infantile. It's insanely poorly developed. He literally said if you kill 10,000 people for fun, then save 10,000 people, you're morally gray. No.
It's particularly odd that those inconsistencies seem to be backloaded on the latter seasons... strange
22:17 Beautiful portrayal of both Jon and Daenerys from Mauler here.
I cried and came when I heard it.
3 seconds later… “bY whOsE mEtRIc?”
The person who you’ve been talking about for the past half hour and who Mauler just quoted verbatim… openly admitting it…
it’d be nice if he actually listened to the points being made…
🤣🤣
imagine some horrible medical condition where you cry coom and ejac tears...
Thats what your comment made me think of.
55:00 she doesn't want the throne initially. Her brother does. Her brother had control over her life until she was married off. Before marrying Drogo she simply wanted "to go home" and she isn't talking about Westros
It's almost like throughout the series she started somewhere, then she changed, made mistakes, developed, wanted to fix those mistakes and not make them again, had a journey, became a person people could root for and look up to, maybe advocate for the throne, and then literally in an instant she just slaughters innocent people for literally NO reason, despite that action impeding her actual goals.
But I'm sure she just FORGOT about Cersei. I hear she does that a lot.
@@haku8135 idk what you’re talking about Danny was always evil. Yall just hold on to her empty morals that she stated but clearly never actually held up. I was never surprised she decided to burn innocents. I never felt she was justified in doing evil things to evil people. That makes her no better than anyone she claimed was evil. Seemed obvious she was going to be evil the whole time. She was on a mission of Conquest but yall think she was good? 😂😂😂😂😂 definition of gullible.
@@the21stcenturyboy_ Probably a troll but I'll bite.
The Iron Throne belonged to the Targaryens initially. Her family lost but she had a claim. That is part of the ambiguity of war.
She freed slaves and turned them against their masters, she liberated cities, was against people senseless dying in the fighting pit, locked her dragons away when they killed a little girl when they hunted for food, and when she was angry or frustrated still heeded consul from people like Barrastion and Mormont.
@@the21stcenturyboy_ Yes, it was obvious in the meta sense, MauLer even says that as well. The problem is the writers didn't set it up logically within the story. Yes, she did evil things to evil people. The problem is they didn't provide any reasonable basis for why she changed who she views as evil. That perspective suddenly and immediately changed in S8 with no rationale to explain why.
6:48 *YETH*
Love the edits, Wolf. Keep up the good work!
Never watched this one, this is actual pain
Daeneryth
@@Fauwkes yeth
This is the episode that made me a fan of EFAP. I specifically remembered laughing like a psycho in the middle of 42nd Street when this guy said she freed them. And Gary said from their souls😅. This a classic
They surrendered to her... If I was afraid of someone who had far more power than I did and knew I could do nothing to them I would have surrendered. If she wanted to have the people fear her, she suceeds before committing genocide.
If she would have accepted their surrender, only kill those responsible, and showed mercy compassion and sympathy to everyone else that would have garnered her respect and love as well as fear.
I mean watching an entire fleet of super badass navy soldiers getting one shot by this lady's singular dragon is pretty scary. Especially when those ships were all mounted with dragon killing weapons, but they still couldn't stop her. I really don't need 90% of my city to be burned to get the picture this lady holds a LOT of power. Especially considering I'm pretty sure they already hated Cerse, they just couldn't do anything about it because they don't have any power over her.
Like revolts fail. A LOT. You need specific circumstances for a revolt to work. Cersei's holed up in a CASTLE. Those things are literally built to be extremely defensible. Not only could she hold up against tens of thousands of ARMED combatants attacking the castle for probably days depending on how many soldiers she has on hand, but like we already know she has escape routes as well. She's unreachable to the average person.
MEANWHILE THIS BITCH HAS A DRAGON, AND GOES AFTER EVERYONE EXCEPT HER!
" The Greater Good." Shutup!"
1:03:23 I'm sorry, what. What's going on in that empty head?
"The world is better off with her actions."
"Do you think freeing slaves is better than killing people?"
"I'm not qualified to make these types of moral judgements." but you very confidently just made that moral judgement. You just refuse to give us the numbers for it.
This is your hypothetical. You can fudge the numbers. "I believe she killed a hund--... 10 000 people and that she freed a mil-... more than 2 000 000 million people. I believe it's a net positive."
this guy overthinks his process. he sounds like a real-time video essay
I love when you can only hear people talking but you can feel one of them not believing their own argument/horseshit as it’s coming out.
If this guy has ever taken a shower or bath, he is insane by his own definition. He couldn't have known he was immune to water without first touching it.
Like so many things are water soluble, HOW CAN HE KNOW that he's waterPROOF? Water wears away MOUNTAINS, this guy's crazy.
“Morality is subjective and none of these characters are consistent” isn’t really a good argument in favor of his point…
He also constantly cites these vague “people” when in reality he’s just trying to make his own feelings on the matter sound bigger than they are, to give false credence to his argument.
Yeah he never gave any examples of people acting inconsistent.
Morality IS subjective, that's correct, but people like Dany and John have THEIR OWN MORAL CODES, they have their own standards. Dany's is that you don't kill children, innocent people should be left out of this shit, slavery is abhorrent and slavers are pieces of shit, and if they don't give that up they are on the chopping block.
You need to FROM HER PERSPECTIVE establish "Killing kids is ABHORRENT" to "Well.... Like JUST THIS ONCE it was the correct decision. I didn't like it, but it had to be done." Then you go to "Well THESE children were certain to grow up all hateful and try to rebel, that'd definitely get GOOD children and innocent people killed because their PARENTS were horrible. This was the best decision."
Then eventually peaking at something like "These children don't matter. MY people matter, I matter, MY rule matters. What I say matters, is what matters. These children were complacent in evil, it's better to wipe the slate clean."
There needs to be an escalation from Dany's own viewpoint, you can't just say "well subjective so nothing matters."
THAT is the bullshit theists pedal to say atheists can't say anything matters because subjective. It's a bullshit argument that falls apart with the slightest pressure.
As far as Daenerys walking into fire: my friends and I have made some pretty big bonfires. One as big as Khal Drogo's funeral pyre, standing 5 feet away would feel like you were cooking. If Danny *could* be burned, she would have stopped well before actually touching the fire.
I remember riding the bus to get to college while listening to this debate, I was trying so hard to not look like I was having an aneurysm lol
A really embarrassing reason for a driver to stop a bus. "I called 911, thought the passenger was dying, turns out he was just listening to a podcast..."
Trying to rationalize her actions is crazy, because it was very clear that she had gone mad with power, paralleling the Mad King who also had Dragons and was a Targaryen.
Anybody remember how seriously everyone took Game of Thrones? Feels like a different world.
Aight, one minute and four seconds in and I already have a problem with this dude.
I hate this modern perception that punishing bad people equals being bad yourself, or in this case that enforcing punishment on a group of tyrants it's the same as being a tyrant yourself for "establishing an order of your choice".
Daenerys punished an entire society of enslavers and freed EVERYONE else, she even tried to show mercy and gave the slavers a chance to integrate peacefully, then the slavers struck right back the second they had a chance and tried to re-enslave everyone. How TF is Daenerys a tyrant here? She's literally fighting for people's freedom!
Yeah she’s not evil in the books. She is however quickly becoming surrounded by people who are evil. Moqqoro, baelon Greyjoy is on his way, Tyrion, maester whatshisnuts that taught mirri mazdur, dothraki blood riders, strong Belwas and her new lord husband who tried to kill her. So like…shits not going well.
tbf she's a tyrant in that she's a monarch but she's pretty fair if only slightly naiive. If anything her empathy and compassion is a flaw in her rule as she tried to remove slavery from a place literally called slavers bay ha.
@@hadriancaesar2686but she was successful as far as we know. It caused a lot of social unrest, but I would take that everyday over 50% of people being slaves
@@sarwatarannya8786 I agree vbut a ruler can't always look at things in a moral regard, she thought if she banned slavery that was it, it wasn't
“Free the thlaves.”
all being said i just feel bad for this guy. like most of us did in the first few seasons, he loved this show so much. but once it got undeniably bad he couldn't allow himself to accept it. hope he can at least recognize house of the dragon is much better than the last few seasons of GOT
The moment of stunned silence after Mauler quotes Dany admitting to killing innocents in the final episode was the moment they all knew this discussion was over.
The next hour is just watching a man go down with his sinking ship.
5.53 She put an egg in the fire, reached in and picked it up without burning. Her maiden then picked it up and burnt her hand.
I was the only person I knew irl who watched season 8 and thought it was god awful. My coworkers loved it. My friend group at the time loved it. Thank god all my online friends were sane and thought it was shit as well.
Your friend group was lying.
@@sayLeotardbutsayitChinese nah man they just have terrible taste. Same group loved the Star Wars sequels but shit on Rogue One for being boring. Suffice to say, I haven't talked to any of them in years.
The YETH edits killed me everytime😂
Just to be clear, for those at the back-morality is not "subjective."
Morality is obviously subjective. Do you think people in Pakistan have the same sense of morality as those in Switzerland?
@@MoonlitMarchtheir morality is wrong. Have you seen how they treat women or gay people?
@@MoonlitMarch No, but you're just citing an end. It is not the point you think it to be. It has been pointed out already that their sense could be - or as the commenter put it is - wrong.
Moreover, yours is a point that pertains more so to culture than morality per se.
If I were to punch you and you were to punch me back, how would we acquire for ourselves the difference between the punches?
@@SacClass650 Morality is subjective. It has to be.
Only subjects have OPINIONS on morality.
The mere fact there are arguments about what is or is not moral, should be an indication it's not subjective. 2+2=4 is not subjective, nobody argues when you take 2 apples, and put 2 more apples in the pile, you have 5 apples. Because math is objective, where morals are subjective. It can ONLY be subjective, because it is entirely dependent on subjects. That is the literal definition of subjective. If you click a button and erase all humans from the universe, morality changes. It disappears. Nothing is moral OR immoral, everything is Amoral, because morality is dependent on subjects to argue about it.
Nick over there said their morality IS WRONG because of how they treat women and gay people. That's HIS opinion. Subjectively from his point of view, they are in the wrong. They believe, they are in the RIGHT. Two subjects disagree over a matter, subjective.
Morality is subjective, just because people agree on things like "You shouldn't kill people for fun" doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY immoral, it makes it SUBJECTIVELY immoral, because we say so. And lots of people saying it just means we agree on this thing. 10000 people saying vanilla ice cream is the best flavor does not make it objectively true, it's a subjective opinion, no matter how common the opinion.
@@haku8135 For argument's sake, let's say your non cognitivism is correct. We have then - predominantly through religion - distilled and systematized our ethicality, creating a grounding from which an _objective_ language is spoken.
There is no such thing as a private [subjective] language; indeed, that we can dispute it tells us there is, in fact, a contingency that is subject to disputation (demonstrative, or deliberative). And I will ask you the same - if I were to punch you and you were to punch me back, how would we acquire for ourselves the difference between the punches?
(Moreover, do you not think there are virtues contained in, for example, a mother birthing a child that speaks to us possessing "a natural proneness toward having the virtues"? I do.)
Maybe it's the sleep deprivation, but i genuinely couldn't keep up with what the argument even was after a while
Rags saying “I’ve never really watched the show” after being so pissy in his arguments was wild
Rags: "Describe to me the bad things that happened to Dany from E1S1 to E6S8."
Even though I’m on the EFAP side of the overall debate, I was really irritated with Rags’ argumentation. I would not have kept my cool at his “yes or no will suffice”, my brother in Christ, you are king of loving your own voice, do not dictate my response to me.
@@shamboholic when someone is waffling thats a useful tactic because it establishes a basis. It forces someone to take a position which can be confronted as opposed to hovering in ambiguity
Dani is immune to fire because Emilia is insanely hot
If she had evidence to believe that she was immune to fire, then proceeded to walk into a fire, then I wouldn't say she isn't crazy. If she had no evidence, and she just believed it and just walked into a pyre, then I'd say she was crazy.
That’s the thing and this dude obviously didn’t rewatch the whole show because if he did he would remember that Danny could hold a dragons egg that’s been steeping in fire without being burned. When her servant tries to take it from her she’s scalded instantly.
This guy gives Cinema Roberto pep-talks about wiping out humanity.
If I hear the word “rationale” one more time my head is going to explode….lol
Assuming that what we saw is the jist of what Martin will write in the books because I think he told them what he had planned. They failed to convey it properly.
They tried to retexturize everything she did to justify her action at Kingslanding. They tried to say "Look, she was always like this." We all know she wasn't.
What I think Martin's intent (assuming he goes this route in the books) is to show Dany slowing going mad. We see that before the battle she hasn't been sleeping, she lost, two of her dragons(which are like her kids), she just found out she's been shacking up with her own nephew, and she'd just seen one of her friends get executed right infront of her. She didn't go to Kingslanding to take it over she was looking for a fight, she was looking to be wrathful.
Maybe Martain was trying to write in such a way that we see Dany's mind snap. When the bells ring she can stop but she looks disappointed.
If they wanted to say Dany snapped fine, if she was angry fine, but don't stand there and try and gaslight us into thinking she was always this unhinged!!!
I can agree with the disappointed guess. I see it like Hughie punching A-Train even after getting an actual apology. Hughie thought that's what he wanted, but what he actually wanted was to hurt the guy.
Dany thought she simply wanted victory, but she had such rage built up that she wanted to unleash it. The problem is that they don't explore enough into why she'd do it to the innocents except one old line of hers where she feels the people should act against tyranny, not accept it.
@@EndThusIAm Exactly, I don't think people think Dany is so good natured that she could "never" do what she did, but that there was no explanation for how she got there other then "Oh, all the people from her family are crazy" which is a cheap explanation at best.
This is why I think he's taking so long to finish. He's afraid that people are going to hate it because they didn't like the show's ending. George, as much as I dislike him myself, hasn't considered that compared to him, D&D are toddlers playing with their diaper mud
Daenerys was always crazy, its just the show did it horribly.
@@Mord12gp Its not really a cheap explanation, inbreeding causes tons of mental issues. Ever see how fked the hapsburgs were?
The amount of time this dude spent trying to claim Danny believing she was immune to fire was "Crazy"... Was CRAZY!
In thith paticular cathe, not really
Says a lot about you
@@sandcrawlerstudios2013 yeah it says that i dont have a speech impediment
@@Fauwkes so what? It’s not a big deal. You’re a bit of a prick to make fun of someone just for the way they speak. Comment on WHAT he says not the minor lisp
Idk i think the guy had a point about her showing how you can excuse tyrannical actions towards people you dislike since she was tyranical but towards people even worse people. Of course season 8 ruined that entirely by being major overkill.
Everything else was dumb but he was right about Danny being too vicious
I somehow missed this episode. Thanks Wolf
We had over 6 seasons of context building danny up to be a shaky, and sometimes wrathful leader but a good men at her core. That is six years of her character. If you want to get her to fall from grace you aren't going up against several individual moments but a combination of six years of character and patterns. And to make it even better the all the moments used to cite her being insane are hardly even significant in the grander scheme of her character. When given the chance her character shows us another fascet of herself being very careful to not harm innocents, to mourn people who are innocent and most importantly to correctly identify what are the innocent. You can't undo that in one episode you can't undo that in four episodes. That's what most season 8 defenders tend to over look not all of them but most of them. You need a reliable pattern established in ones character and you need a reasonable logic behind it. I understand wanting to see value in what you are given in season 8 but i feel like this guy needs to understand he owes this show nothing. He is the consumer. And as such if he doesn't like it its ok he doesn't need to force himself to like or gaslight himself into liking it. S8 was bad plain and simple
THIS.
The way 7 seasons of Game of Thrones portrayed, she'd have been the best ruler of Westeros with Jon. The first ruler in a long time who cared about the fate of innocent and common folk. We still could have given the show a bittersweet ending to the characters the show wanted. Dany gets the name the "Queen of the Ashes" not because of nuking King's Landing herself but because of the true Mad Queen, Cersei, using wildfire to deny Deanarys the full victory. The last "F YOU!" if you will.
Other people in King's Landing wouldn't know if it was really Cersei setting the wildfire off or it was dragon fire that did. So people would still blame her for this to some degree.
So despite the best efforts, Daenarys became someone she tried so much to avoid as she conquered Westeros. Then she'd have spent the rest of her life making up for that tragedy, trying to make sure every death of the innocent was not in vain. In that way, she'd have truly broken the wheel.
Daenerys would be known as ruthless but just Queen
@@piotrfijoek1095 i wish you were the writer instead
@@sab3redg333 Thank You :) I wouldn't be able to write the whole show but I'd be that irritating guy in the writers' room to call their BS ideas out like Mauler would have as well :D
Overall, the way Dany was written, the showrunners should have gone for the non-canon but natural conclusion of her character within the show because they had no setup for G.R.R. Martin's fate of that character. I don't know when they even found out how A Song of Ice and Fire ends from Martin's notes. When they did, they realized how much their GoT's characters' face is far from Martin's.
Danni going ape shit does make sense if there had been more seasons. There were signs, but it was a slow burn. The problem is that like most things in season 8 is dnd hit the gas pedal.
Yes, thank you. Completely agree.
Yes and no, Dany was always "bad", the audience only saw her as the good guy because she did (some) things that they agreed with.
It did NOT come out of nowhere, it was there from very beginning...
She killed a woman for enacting revenge on the man that led her village to be slaughtered and herself being r*ped several times, ONLY because it hurt Dany's goal.
She did not "save" the slaves because it was the "right thing", she did it as a means to an end: so that she could "retake" "her" throne.
She murdered hundreds of potentially innocent people because they where the benefactors of a system that she could not know if they objected too, only showing remorse after it is pointed out to her that atleast one of them DID object.
She burnt a man alive again just to show her future husband what was in store for him if he did not do as she pleased.
She burnt Sam's brother and father alive because they did not instantly fall to their knees and accept her rule.
She burned Varis alive for (again) not believing that she was the "most good and just person for the throne" (proving his point...)
She consistently disregards her advisors when they are trying to make her see reason, and calls herself Justice, she is the literal defenition of Might makes right, but since she looks small and "cute" people refuse to see it.
Breaking the wheel is a meaningless statement that people think means something good (like democracy) but it could just be murder everyone opposing HER and keep killing til there is no opposition left.
also Mauler AND Rags are wrong when they compare Dany's glee from the mass slaughter of "Masters" to that of Arya and Sansa's, since they punished people they KNEW where responsible for injust acts against themselvs and/or their family.
(But that is not YOUR point so I'm not attributing that too you...)
Danaerys roasting kings landing wasn't the problem. The problem was the show trying to get you to like her the whole rest of the show.
This guy sounds like he was raised by two dads
he sounds like they both went for milk. He has issues, he's in, like, religious levels of denial
He sounds like he was raised by several scientists
No mum, so dad provided the paternal milk.
He sounds like he was educated in modern colleges with no solid moral foundation.
I say two moms. He saw a whamenz do something awful and tries to rationalize it.
Hearing that guy go "Hmm" and "Ummm" and trying to delay answering questions is so fucking grating... It's wasting time and you feel it and it's that much worse because his answers are complete dogshit
You can tell alot avout this person from his voice ...incredible
52:20
Yes Rags, there's the scene where little Hitler smokes weed and then decides to commit atrocities.
"Yo Hitler, you wanna smoke some grass?"
I agree that Dany was brutal from the beginning, but nuking King's Landing was too far for her character.
Conquerors, by default, must be brutal, but that does not mean they are necessarily unjust, Case in point: the leadership of the Western Allies AGAINST Adolf Hitler, Imperial Japan, and (later) Stalin and Mao.
What Danny did was Hiroshima and Nagasaki without ANY warning against a nation that was not going to fight to the last man, woman, and child and was already subdued in everything but the personhood of their leader.
It’d be like the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER already conquering the Japanese mainland and isolating its generals and leaders to Tokyo just because they insulted you and killed a prisoner. It was already unjust and questionable attacking civilian targets (which is why the Western nations established rules against it afterwards with the Geneva Conventions), but that’s just taking things to a whole new level of atrocity.
If the US had done that, we absolutely would have become the villains in that moment.
@@scionofdorn9101 Well said 👍
59:50
“It was justice,” Stannis said. “A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward."
I love to rewatch this EFAP and try to untangle the Christmas tree lights of Yezen's brain. "You mentioned Hitler, all thoughts derailed."
1:16:00 Circular Reasoning? Meet Reasoning BARREL ROLLS!
XD
I could tell by the accent and lisp the worst take ever was incoming
Gotta love it when people try to defend the atrocious fucking writing of Daenarys going mad out of fucking blue. It's been 5 years and that character assassination from writing level of Daenerys Targaryen annoys me to no end.
The way she has been portrayed in the show up to season 7 she could have been considered the most liberal ruler of Westeros who cared about the fate of slaves and common folk that none of the lords of Westeros would care about at all.
She was given a choice to surrender soldiers, bend the knee and live or die (a standard issue practice in that world and you still couldn't count on being spared) She went through hell back and forth and she remained sane... She lost a LOT in her life when we saw her at the beginning of GoT already. Other characters in this show also went through traumatic experiences and they didn't snap. Also, people forget that other characters we root for did terrible things like Arya making a pie of Frey's boys but that was seen as a triumph. But Dany executed 2 lords that chose their fate was terrible, right?
What was even more frustrating was that the show and other people expected her to do the war against Cersei with standards that no other ruler would be expected to do. Meanwhile, they have offered NONE smart solution to the problem. It pissed me off so much when Varys did not tell Dany there was a secret entrance to the Red Keep and taking it by the Unsullied may have ended the war. It looked like Dany was set up to fail wining the war quickly with the least amount of blood spilled by her own advisors.
What she did in Season 8 was the assassination of her character. No doubts, no buts. Assassinated as many characters were in that season.
She would not have torched the King's Landing to the ground. Red Keep? Yes, that's a fair target but not the city.
It is more thematically elegant to have Dany become the Queen of the Ashes but not in the way Season 8 presented. The true Mad Queen, Cersei, would have used wildfire to deny Daenarys the full victory, the last "F YOU" before she burns or is killed by Jaime. So you could still have some people blaming Dany for this catastrophe but for the rest of her rule, she'd be doing her best to make up for the destruction the war over the Iron Throne caused. It'd fit her personality, caring about common folk so I'd have seen her putting lots of effort into rebuilding King's Landing.
She literally says she’s going to rule through fear because she’s worried the people will support Jon instead of her claim. Arriving at winterfell she smiles when her dragons terrify the people she thought would be praising her but were instead suspicious of her. It makes complete sense that when she thinks she’s going to lose everything and has the power to prevent it she’s going to do whatever it takes. Killing ~10% of KL to ensure she rules through fear rather than give up power is a very “mad Targaryen” thing to do and perfectly in line with the development of her character as she feels the walls closing in.
Most other S8 criticisms are valid but not this one.
Imagine if ryan was in this conversation
Bro went from "she done nothing wrong" to "she was always this way, she punches down, hurts the innocent". HOW IS THAT NOT EVIL?
Such lazy argumentation. Do you know how many inconsistent characters you could just sweep under the rug by saying “they’re crazy”? Friggin YAWN.
Clathth conthiouthnethth
-Yeth, the revoluthionary!
On god I am so sick of dumb people defending bad writing to try and make themselves feel smart.
Plenty of people bought that Denyaris turned evil or to the dark side so to say, but like Gary says it was so rushed (like everything else in seasons 6 - 8) that the few hints of it just weren't enough for it to make sense on screen when it happened abruptly at the King's Landing siege when she snapped.
Who is this guy? All I can hear is "ummm.. ummm... maybe... umm... ummm... wellllll... ummm". Sorry, I find it really tough to listen to. I hope you don't hate me. I love EFAP!
Dude does a LOT of talking without saying a GAWD DAMN thing lol
Oh no, I remember this guy.... damn you Wolf *shakes fist* 😂
I kinda feel bad for the guest. He never really went on to produce any more content after this
What a merciful act
good, there is some good in the world
1:13:02
says he found it unbelievable, then came around to it after rewatching select clips. Refuses to elaborate which clips and why they make it make sense. wtf is with people being incapable of admitting the writing sucked because the writers were bored and didn't have a plan?
Daenerys’ villainous turn reduced to a trolley problem 😂
And she did everything to whack people on BOTH tracks.
If she had say killed Jon Snow then this 're-contextualizing' argument might work. Killing 100K+ civilians is not something she ever did before and no one would have found it sympathetic if she did that to an Eastern city.
It's so strange how people with lisps constantly talk about things that have the letter S in them lol
And then this guy disappeared forever
One thing I wish they had mentioned was that the northerners wouldn’t have liked and wouldn’t trust Danny because her father killed Ned’s father (who was their liege lord) and brother.
"She thought she was immune to fire, that's crazy"
Not if you're right though. If what she thought would happen happens it's by definition reality.
The show should've just made the burning of Kings landing caused by the numerous wildfire caches stored there, Dany flys to the red keep and lights it up and you realize that Cersei has spread wildfire throughout the city strategically spreading out from the red keep to cause Dany to murder tens of thousands of innocent people as a means to sabotage any future rule she might have had.
You have to love a show who Highlights are over an hour lol
Unironically you know everything about why this guy is making his arguments just from the lisp in his voice
Considering one of his first points was about “class consciousness” and his entire argument is built upon the (false) idea that morality is subjective, yeah I think it’s pretty clear what his stances overall are.
Yezen: I got stuffed in lockers in school so I relate to Bran the cripple. Bran becomes Elden Lord so he’s willing to hand waved rushed/ reversed character arcs because he got what he wanted
9:26 its weird, he presents a solid piece of evidence that supports his claim but then forgets what his claim is. Feeding an innocent man to the dragon is an example of killing innocents to rule by fear, which was the initial argument he made for her turn. That would make the kings landing incident in character.
He's a contrarian. He doesn't have thoughts, he just takes a position to be in opposition to the prevailing view to feel superior. Hence why consistency is almost impossible.
I haven't watched a single episode of Game of Thrones, haven't read one word of any of the books, I haven't even read the wiki articles. Everything I know about the show is basically from Mauler actually, and people raging about season 8.
So the evidence that Dany would gleefully burn innocent women and children alive for no reason, delaying her arrival at the focus of her troubles and rage, who executed one of her friends 10 minutes ago, is because one time she had one of her dragons eat an innocent man. Who was a slaver.
Yeah even I know one of Dany's many names is like the breaker of chains or something like that. She's VERY anti-slavery, so if she knows this man is a slaver, that by default means he's NOT innocent. Whether or not he's part of this evil organization AS WELL that she wants to send a message to, isn't really relevant. She already wants to free all the slaves, and anyone that stands in her way of doing that is automatically her enemy and I'd wager more often than not will earn the death penalty if they insist on keeping the REAL innocent people, in her eyes, the slaves, captive and you know probably beating and raping them as much as they want? Yeah I think she's totally satisfied killing people like that. Those seem to be THE people she wants either removed from power, or dead if they try to persist. Liberate the slaves sounds like it'd be near the top of her commands if she sat the iron throne, and the ONLY person in her way was the ONE fucking person she DIDN'T kill at the end. Cersei ESCAPED for fuck's sake, she only got killed by accident!
If you do read the books it’s so much worse, because “Dani burns Kingslanding” is a plot point straight from George RR Martin who wrote the books, the difference being that the books set up Dani’s character far differently even as early as the first book. Where as the show just tried to turn her into a girl-boss-moment generator, her actions are far more villainous, for example Miri Mazdur’s advice in the first book is consistently ignored by both Dani and Khal Drogo, and Miri isn’t nearly as antagonistic or condescending towards her, which makes Dani’s decision to burn Miri on Drogo’s pyre much more f$&ked up. Later by Book/Season 5 another character was also majorly changed, Tyrion, in the show he’s Dani’s voice of reason from Season 5 onwards, but last we saw him in the books he’s set up to be a devil on Dani’s should, he says that he’ll “bring Fire and Blood to Westeros” and other characters around Dani are also reminding her that her family’s words are “Fire and Blood” because all of her peaceful options are failing, it’s hinted that she’ll burn down at least one city in Essos before she even gets to Westeros.