blah the Prussian

I used to be firmly against removing statues, but my perspective changed in the Czech Republic. There, and indeed in all of the former Warsaw Pact states, you had statues of men like Lenin and Stalin, people who represented foreign domination and Communist oppression to the peoples of these countries, and depending on the country, i.e. Ukraine, genocide. To take down those statues is definitely right and just. People like Lee and Davis(incidentally the idea that Lee treated his slaves well is a myth, especially relative to how they were treated by their former owners, source is here:https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/arlington-bobby-lee-and-the-peculiar-institution/61428/) play a similar role to Black Americans as men like Lenin and Stalin did for Eastern Europe. If you think removing the statues of the latter is good, you should be in favor of removing those of the former, and if you oppose removing the former statues, ask yourself if you would feel the same if the topic concerned the removal of the statues of Communist leaders, or Saddam Hussein.

Well, when Black Supremacists drive a car into a bunch of people we can have another thread condemning that. Until then, its frankly off topic. A bit off topic, but no joke I have a Black friend who literally said "I think the protestors have some good points"(I firmly disagree). He also at one point said he thought the ISS was made of wood, though. RE ostracization, it's difficult. On the one hand, my gut says its a good way to ensure that these people become even more taken in by their ideological brethren, and even more convinced that their beliefs are right and society is keeping them down. On the other hand, I have been lucky enough to not have friends or family turn to support for racist totalitarianism(although one of my friends was a Wehraboo for a week or so). I guess, if you're willing to put up with a Neo Nazi long enough to turn them away from their beliefs, that's great, and I have the utmost respect for you, but on the other if you do want them out of your life there's no shame in that.

Ah, I see you're a man of culture, as well.

Well if this was book Euron he'd get her high on I can't believe it's not LSD, after which she'll have nightmarish visions of Euron dominating the world, setting him up as perhaps a threat even greater than the White Walkers. Unfortunately, this is show Euron, so probably generic torture that doesn't allow for nearly as much awesome imagery. Every human being alive should read the Winds of Winter sample chapter Forsaken

TBH I was inspired more by George R. R. Martin's villains, specifically Littlefinger and Euron Greyjoy, but I do see the comparison. I also am a huge fan of parallels between the hero and villain; in this case the parallel would be that both of them were offered extreme power, and the villain uses it to hurt and control people while the hero uses it to help people. Of course, the caveat is that the villain was born into a life of extreme destitution and never tasted power in his life, while the hero was born as future Empress of a powerful nation and had one of the most privileged childhoods in the world. In the actual story understanding this aspect of the villain would be one of the principle elements of the hero's character arc.

Good god do I have an idea for this. The villain should be extremely charismatic, but also incredibly evil. I want that to be psychologically quite interesting, however; as if they have a NEED for power, they just want more and more of it, somewhat inspired by Alan Bullock's interpretation of the motivations of Joseph Stalin. As a child, they were merely a Peasent in the Kingdom, before they were contacted by the ghost of the hero who defeated the ancient evil in the backstory. He tells the villain that they can gain more power if they only try to reach their full potential, and invite them to train. Throughout the training, the villain slowly becomes more resentful; the nobility spent their entire life shitting all over him, and now he has to devote his life to saving their world? Hell no. He'll use his power to remake their world. So, using his charisma, he leads a revolution and becomes the new King of this Kingdom. But, he wants more. He wants to be a god. So, he sets about trying to gain the power of the evil God, which will be possible through the Fire Emblem. Eventually, he gets it, and manages to take this power for himself, after manipulating a priest of this god into helping him(hey, I like reversals, okay, and the priest btw would be motivated by revenge for the genocide of his people by the protagonist's father) he is a god by the climax. Meanwhile, the ghost will have enlisted the protagonist(preferably female, to break cliches) to help him defeat the monster he's created. And thus, we have a very interesting rivalry, that explores the idea of the "chosen one" being a sociopath.

Again, he was never a brilliant strategist. He has one battle that he sort of helped to win, but only halfway at best. Yes, he made two clever moves in that battle, but he also screwed up in some ways, eg his handling of the Antlermen, and his bringing Joffrey out on the field in the first place. The almost certain occasion of Joffrey being a little bitch has a drawback to morale which far outweighs any benefits. He was always more of a politician than a strategist.

If I were her I would land in the Stormlands. They would hate the Lannisters, and they haven't even had a new LP selected.

@Lushen

Well, I'm studying abroad in the UK next year(hopefully) partially because I live in Orague so have the chance(American), partially because I much prefer the British model of teaching history, but mostly because King's College London, one of the best schools in the UK, costs about 33,000 pounds a year for an American. We don't need to make colleges free but clearly there's a way to make them affordable without becoming a socialist hellhole.

Tyrells in the books at least contributed 50,000 dudes to Blackwater. And yeah, their strength is their banner men, same as the other houses(actually, the Hightowers are their strongest vassal, but eh, Euron isn't attacking the Reach so they won't have a role).

Since when did the Tyrells not have a large army? The forces of the Reach were like 50,000 at Blackwater. The Reach is explicitly the most powerful army. Now, it still makes sense for the Tyrells to fold so easily. Why? Because their banner men turned against them. It's a plot point in the books that the other houses of the Reach resent the Tyrells; they're considered "up jumped stewards" because they were the stewards of the Gardeners who Aegon made Lords Paramounts when other houses, like the Florents and Tarly's, had better claims due to being related to the a Gardeners. So, it makes perfect sense for the vast majority of the Reachlords to support the Lannisters; this is what they've been waiting for literally since the Conquest. Sure, we only see Randyl, but Cersei made the appeal to a bunch of dudes; Randyl was likely only at the front because he was made the new Lord Paramount. I think a similar thing will happen to the Tyrells in the books, though ironically their banner,en will turn in favor of the Targaryens, not the Lannisters. Also, Jaime being Tywin militarily is kind of the point now. He showed great competence when taking Riverrun, and overall was considered a decent commander who was just arrogant; that was what let Robb beat him. Now he isn't as arrogant. The Lannister war plan I can easily see him developing.

Ser Barristan Selmy

The point that atrocities which on the surface appear religiously motivated but are actually more complex is an important one. Take for example the Thirty Years War; on the surface, it was a war between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire. However, what it was ultimately really about was the northern Princes resisting Hapsburg attempts to centralize the HRE; religion was merely a way to identify each other. The same is true of many wars today; Israel vs Palestine is really a conflict between a colonial state and the natives, not Judaism and Islam.

So, with all this in mind, would you identify Reinhard Heydrich's rule over occupied Czechoslovakia to be irrational?

Rationalism is an ideology. That's like saying that just because Marx wouldn't approve of the Holodomor, it wasn't done in the name of Communism, or, for that matter, that because Jesus wouldn't approve of the Crusades they weren't in the name of Christianity. ISIS is not Islamic but do what they do in the name of Islam; the Drownings of Nantes were not rational but we're done in the name of rationalism. Edit: And Hylian does make a good point; plenty of atrocities can be justified with pure rationalism. Reinhard Heydrich's tenure as Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, for example, used brutal atrocities against dissent coupled with benefits for collaborators and was hugely effective at breaking the back of the Caech Resistance. That absolutely can be rationally justified.

I said rationalism, not science. I then cited an example of rationalism causing atrocities. To be fair, rationalism is extremely broad and applies to most post enlightenment ideologies, but it's a useful ideological umbrella for anti clerical ideologies.

It's not that science is rationalism, but that you can commit atrocities in the name of a lack of faith in the same way you can commit atrocities in the name of faith.

Fear is sometimes wisdom in and of itself. Euron had already stormed the entire ship, killed two Sand Snakes at once(doing what we all wanted to do since Season 5) and beaten his sister, who Theon knows is a better warrior than he is. I would be scared. As for Yara, unfortunately Euron in the books does some terrible stuff to his prisoners. There's a chapter called "Forsaken" where he brutally tortures Aeron Greyjoy; I predict that the same will happen to Yara here. As for the episode, it was good except for the Missandei and Grey Worm scene. I also thought the naval battle was phenomenal, and captured Euron from the books better than any of his other scenes; he's completely crazy, but also quite intelligent in terms of using the element of surprise and concentrating his forces where his goal is. He's not the nihilist with a god complex that i love in the books, but eh, he's decent. I also think that what Arya does here puts lie to the idea that she is the Waif; she wouldn't go north if she was. For that matter, she wouldn't kill the Freys if she was, but eh, tinfoil. At this point it's better to pretend a lot of season five didn't happen and be glad the show is pretty good again.

True, but you can commit atrocities in the name of rationalism, which is very much a belief system. See the "Republican marriages" during the French Revolution for a particularly bile inducing example.

I don't think it's clear that he's doing anything for the greater good in the books.

Well, but it wouldn't really be fulfilling the Valonquar prophesy. Cersei would be killed by either Arya Stark or No One, not Jaime, or any other Little Brother. I also actually just realized that the Little Brother was never specified to be Cersei's; still, I want it to be Jaime because it would make for the best conclusion to his story. Arya at this point hardly has any real connection to Cersei; they haven't been in the same room since Season 1/AGOT. Plus I think that the best conclusion to Arya's arc is for her to STOP being a child assasin; killing the Freys was already like something out of Titus Andronicus, and when Titus Andronicus does it it's not like it's a "fuck yeah" moment like it is in the show. Now, I think that in the books it will probably be Lady Stoneheart who kills Walder, and Wyman Manderly already made Frey Pie, but theyre much less"we should be on their side" people than Arya; both kill Frey children.

Her role in the show was certainly expanded relative to the books by Dormer. I don't really know how I feel about her TV portrayal, as she felt both more flawless and less nuanced than in the books. On the one hand, she gives out food to the people of King's Landing, but on the other hand, her family earlier denies the city food, resulting in a famine, and she's absolutely fine with putting an objective usurper on the throne(trust me, don't get me started on the disastrousness of Renly Baratheon on the Iron Throne) and then turns around and is the main lynchpin in supporting Joffrey. Basically, she pays lip service to the idea of helping the small folk, but supports people who will cause them harm in the long run(Renly through setting a precedent that will result in more civil war, Joffrey through being Joffrey) showing that she doesn't really care about them. I'm rusty on the show, but IIRC this element to her and House Tyrell as a whole was downplayed or outright written out(they even changed Joffrey's wedding feast so that the Tyrells give the leftovers to the poor which they don't in the books) which I don't like that much.

I can tell you that I learned about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the sixth grade(or maybe seventh) in the US and then again in the ninth grade at an International School in Prague.

A recent post explaining why Ike doesn't work as a protagonist. Said it better than I ever could.