#anti team discourse

[black-queen-rising]

New competitor for my list of: Top 3 Weirdest Phenomena in My Absolute Weirdest Fandom Experience of All Time.

Reading something that broadly fits under the #anti-HotD umbrella, that acknowledges the story’s underlying message of the destructive power of systemic misogyny, talks about how the show is incredibly reductive in it’s “feminism” benevolent misogyny, and how none of the characters are done well…and then after all of that flips things back around to say “and that’s why Rhaenyra was always wrong, why her reign would’ve ended in horrible destruction no matter what, why the simple energy or will to try to incrementally change this terrible system via the existing laws and precedents (which I have decided to obfuscate) was doomed to fail, and nothing ever will or can change.”

My brother in fandom do you truly not see a single inconsistency talking about ~toxic misogyny~ to justify a system and position that’s more conservative than Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I? More importantly, are you really going to talk about a narrative in which every. single. character. is eventually put through immense psychological torment ending in tragic death because said destructive misogyny. You can recognize what the show has done is reductive and ultimately harmful, congrats. Can you explain to me why Alicent and Aegon and Rhaenys and Helaena and (yes, no matter how much you hate them) Daemon, and Aemond, and once again every. single. character. were ultimately victimized, traumatized, lost everything, and then died in misery without bringing up the “choice” you believe Rhaenyra made to go to war?

No???

The point is that it does not matter if you work for the system or against it, if you are disadvantaged or privileged by it, if it has given you everything or taken it all away; when that system of toxic misogyny is left to flourish and let loose as a weapon against your enemies it will not spare anyone, when there is no counterweight to it the destruction will not die down it will simply grow worse, and choosing sides is pointless not because they’re “both bad” but because they have all been victimized by that system far worse than they ever could’ve been by each other.

You wanted a tragedy so bad? Congratulations, you’ve found one. Now stop wasting your time being pissy that Rhaenyra isn’t MacBeth no matter how bad you want her to be and start reckoning with the fact they were all forced to be Antigone no matter how desperately you want the ones who externally validate your views to be the only ones justified.

[maybeiwasjustjade]

Genuinely, perhaps 99% of me, believes that the only reason Condal and Hess made HOTD Aegon a r*pist/have adult Aegon’s introduction the aftermath of the SA of a maid, was because they knew that if Aegon was just a drunk and a cheat—like almost all Westerosi men—he would be too tragic of a character not to root for, and they really couldn’t have that. No, Aegon has to be the monster to Rhaenyra’s saint, because if you took away the act that made him monstrous, he’s so easy to root for, and the TB/TG divide would be significantly larger.

Cheating and visiting brothels are quite common in Westeros, with the vast majority of male characters doing one or the other or both. Drinking is even more so. Aegon would still be palatable with either or both traits because it doesn’t make him worse than Rhaenyra. Rhaenyra had three bastards with Harwin because Laenor’s gay, so it makes her affair understandable and valid. Aegon was forced to marry his own sister as a young teen, and clearly despises the whole targ-incest tradition. Why is it a crime that he doesn’t find his little sister sexually or romantically attractive???

Aegon’s basically a Greek tragedy made flesh. The eldest son conceived to be a long-awaited heir, yet simultaneously cheated out of a birthright. Born wanted yet unwanted, the heir who is not an heir. Meant to be loved, yet raised without it, with a mother’s disdain and fear as his only companion. His father stopped wanting him sometime after his second birthday (probably around the time Jacaerys was born), and his mother never wanted him anyway. His mere existence is a threat to a crown he never wanted, yet nobody cared when they placed it on his head. He wants love but no one loves him, and contrary to popular belief, that lack of love didn’t just stem from adulthood. He was a little boy once too, who very much didn’t deserve that level of apathy.

Married to his sister despite his clear disdain for his family’s incestuous tradition. Forced to father children on her at the grand old age of sixteen (and she fourteen). The only thing he ever really loved was his dragon, and the children he had. And even those he loses to tragedy, and someone else’s doing.

It’s not at all a surprise that Aegon’s defining trait is his love for Sunfyre. A ridiculously strong bond, born from years of having only each other. Moreover, a dragon is the symbol of power, which Aegon has little of. He can’t protect himself from his own family’s abuse or machinations, and unless he claims the crown everyone he loves will die. Dragons also represent freedom, and the ability to just fly away. And if there’s one thing Aegon wants more than anything in the world, it’s to run away from his family and the accursed throne.

In that, he’s not so different than a young Rhaenyra (pre-personality change anyway). Young Rhaenyra hated having to conform to societal standards. Hated having no choice but to marry, and to whom. She too wanted to fly away to freedom. There’s too many parallels between the two, even down to their ages pre-timeskip. Rhaenyra was about 18, and Aegon now is only 20. Yet Rhaenyra at 16’s only problem was whether her infant brother would replace her as heir, while Aegon’s was being forced to play house with his sister and newborn twins.

Perhaps misogyny and society would always be Rhaenyra’s greatest opponent, and the same Aegon’s ally when it comes to their claims, but it was not the only issue. Precedent declared that Aegon would be heir ahead of her, yet it was Rhaenyra’s position and honor that Viserys defied law for, even when she committed high treason against the crown thrice. She got everything; Aegon had nothing. He’s the underdog of the story, not her. So had they not made him an on screen r*pist (unlike Daemon who was off-screen one and merely an on-screen pedo and wife-killer), it would’ve been very hard for the writers to push their “Rhaenyra good, TG bad” narrative. Those two would’ve had too many parallels and foils for it to work, and they really couldn’t have that, could they.

No, Aegon has to be the villain; Rhaenyra has to be the hero. It’s a black and white war, good vs evil. That’s the story HOTD is trying to sell, and not at all the complex tragedy of a family tearing itself and its dynasty into pieces over greed and idiocy.

[kataraavatara]

it’s insane how in this fandom ppl will be like “rhaenyra SUCKED because she didn’t care about OTHER women she only wanted to be the EXCEPTION” to immediately follow it up with “which is why I’M rooting for the side that says absolutely no exceptions are allowed for women ever and i’m morally superior for doing so.” like HUH

[marysblo0d]

Fun fact: you can like both Alicent and Rhaenyra. You don’t have to pit them against each other just because the narrative does.

“But alicent did this” “but Rhaenyra” they would not have had to do those things if the men in their lives weren’t constantly pitting them against each other.

It is very much possible to be team women and say fuck you to the men who caused all these problems in the first place.

[dreamfyre-beautiful]

Let me get this straight, when team green uses the book to say making Aegon a rapist was wrong we’re “excusing it” cuz it’s a different source, but when team black does it for Daemon being abusive to women NOW the show is wrong?

[beware-of-pity]

I need people who would die on the hill of "Fire and Blood is completely unreliable, therefore we cannot trust anything that's written in it" to open their eyes and read a book that is similar to the structure that Fire and Blood uses to realize how wrong of a statement that is. I know that this will probably be received as a very hot take but I do not believe that everything needs to be analyzed or has to have a deeper meaning behind it. The curtain can be blue and there doesn't have to be a reason for the curtain to be blue other than the fact that it's just blue (hope someone gets the reference). Ryan Condall obviously disagrees with that, because in his quest to recreate his own 'magnum opus' of a 'Shakespearian tragedy', as he always likes to refer to it as, he has instead created the equivalent of a dumpster on fire next to the other bigger dumpster on fire that was Game of thrones.

Bland, whitewashed characters with little to no turmoil or agency going on are revered as complex and nuantical on Twitter. And if you even dare to disagree, you're immediately sentenced to the stake. Characters like Alicent and Rhaenyra could literally not even be in the episode and nothing would change. Rhaenyra was in episode 4 for not even 5 minutes and with everything going on in it you wouldn't even have noticed that. She should have been there, leading the council as Cole marched on rook's rest, her only available connection to the mainland in the crownlands, apart from Claw Isle, after duskendale fell to the greens and instead her only scene in such climactic episode is her walk of shame returning home and her, rightfully, getting scolded by her son for thinking that she could still sue for peace with Alicent, the mother of her son's murderer. The show makes the decision to have Rhaenys volunteer instead of having Rhaenyra send her there so that later when Rhaenys dies Rhaenyra cannot be blamed for it. The fundamental changes of characters like Alicent don't work because the writers are not able to sustain such changes from the source material they are deriving the story from. Going from leading the council that would place Aegon on the throne, to never even being in on the plan to usurp Rhaenyra, that her father created, is such a letdown for such a political savy character like book Alicent.

Aging her down, to Rhaenyra's age, and making these two childhood best friends, was a mistake.

What is very evident is that the showrunners have no clue, so far, what to do with a character like show Alicent. If she's not going to lead the council when Aegon is bedridden and Aemond is off to fight in the Riverlands, why doesn't she just leave?

Going from an active participant in a usurpation from somebody who needs to miss-hear or misunderstand her dying husband for her to get in on the plan, only so there is an excuse to get her on the war council is bad writing.

Making people believe that Rhaenyra was usurped because of a misunderstanding, and not only because she was a woman, is bad writing. And going to the extremes, of having these two 'betray' each other in order to have a reason to make Rhaenyra look bad in the eyes of her rivals is bad writing. Rhaenyra could have been the perfect heir, and even only because she was a woman, Otto and Alicent would have usurped her either way.

Going back to the point of this post; Timelines, ages, events, who got married to who, how many kids they had, things that you can quantify are not something that can be made up, used as rumors or form of propaganda in a history book. What you make up as a rumor is sexual escapades and a young girl seducing her sworn shield who has watched over her since she was seven. Things that can make a person look bad to glorify or uphold the good of someone else alongside all the other stuff that happens behind closed doors and makes you question where the information is coming from.

I find it so odd that the aggressive marketing team for the second season was all about choosing your side. Lol, what is there to even choose? Choose between the overly sanctified Rhaenyra, who god forbid is still searching for the peace that has already been thrown over the cliff long ago, and is not allowed yet to make a mistake. Or, Alicent, the pathetic hypocrite who made her bed and is not willing to admit it. Anything interesting about these two women is completely being cut so that Ryan Condall and Co. can continue to spread the "men are bad and violent, women are the gentle peacemakers that don't want war." which is leaning a little too heavy for my taste into gender essentialism which would make every choice they have ever made about these two characters more misogynistic than any of the action of the actual misogynistic characters in this story. Taking away the very little agency these characters had and constantly making them the perpetual victims of the patriarchy and completely sidelining any sort of character traits that they may actually develop through their actions had they actually been taking any, doesn't work for me.

This show was a mistake.

[naarlar]

I don’t get akeshu / shuake at all.

Like I get it from a typical “fandom loves the enemies to lovers trope” perspective but in all honesty I don’t get the insane brainrot the persona 5 fandom has for this ship.

Like do I think Joker cares for Akechi? Yes.

Do I think he was genuinely conflicted/tempted by Maruki’s ultimatum? Yes.

Do I think they have a genuine relationship and see a lot of themselves in each other and actually somewhat understand each other? Yes.

That being said, I really don’t see how anyone can look past the fact that Akechi tried to kill Joker. And okie fine enemies to lovers, fandom’s favorite ship aside, I don’t see how Joker can actually want a full on relationship (like romantic) with this dude when Futaba, Sojiro, and Haru are like right there?

This may just be me but I reallllllllly wouldn’t be friends with someone who is friends (hell forget even in a romantic relationship) with someone who horribly hurt me.

And I don’t think Joker loves Akechi more than Futaba, Sojiro, or Haru. Especially Sojiro and Futaba. Those two are like his family, and Akechi is responsible for their suffering.

Like… it’s kind of one or the other. Joker can’t be friends/dating Akechi without horribly betraying Futaba, Sojiro, and Haru. That’s just how I see it (but I’m open to hearing other perspectives!)

[mhsdatgo]

By far, I think the "prophecy" is the greatest bullshit that has been adapted in HBO's House of the Dragon. It really makes no sense whatsoever.

Especially in the way it was used in ep.9. Basically the only reason for Alicent to start defending her children, as if she already didn't have enough reasons to believe that they would be at risk as long as she'd let Rhaenyra do what she pleased for much longer.

Rhaenyra watched Alicent's son in the only eye he had left since her child sliced it out, she watched as he was stitched up, she watched how Alicent forgot the very concept of decorum out of the rage and desperation that gripped her. Yet she demanded that Aemond be tortured for speaking the truth.

"And now you take my son's eye, and to even that, you feel entitled."

This is Alicent tipping over the edge. If it were me, Rhaenyra would've been lucky to walk out of that room alive.

She's not talking crap here. Rhaenyra really does not give a shit. She presses on, she accuses her of hiding beneath a mask that has now "fallen." How can anyone look at this scene, hear this line, and have the point of Alicent's words completely fly over their head? How can anyone think this woman was going for Rhaenyra out of jealousy?

Did she really need a misunderstood prophecy to put Aegon on the throne? Many like to see this from his point of view, which is being forced onto a position he does not want. Which is right in that case. But Alicent should've done it to keep her family alive and not for a dying man's last words. After Driftmark, she really shouldn't have needed any more reasons.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

It might come as quite a shock to those who think that having a woman on the throne would mean anything for women's liberation in Westeros, but trickle down feminism is not a thing. Liberation cannot start at the top, it is a movement that must start from the bottom up, otherwise the privileged class simply creates more vectors for oppression. Power and privilege are inherently self-protecting, and a those in power, yes, including women, will tear down the less privileged before sacrificing even a tiny scrap of their own privilege or power. This is one of the main themes of ASOIAF and yet this fandom has bought into the myth of the liberating queen so wholeheartedly that people actually believe that allowing a tyrant to take the throne, so long as she's a woman tyrant, is praxis. Rhaenyra is not a liberator of women or anyone else, in fact she damages the cause of liberation much more than she helps it. Control over the dragons was bought and paid for with the blood of countless slaves, and Rhaenyra wields the tools of the oppressor expertly, threatening all who challenge her with fire and blood, a threat she delivers on before she ever crowns herself queen. Her very claim comes from the belief that the one person in charge should wield absolute power and ruthlessly defend that power with the might of dragons.

Remember who kills more of the living dragons in Fire and Blood than any one Targaryen. Set aside the silly logistics of the storming of the Dragonpit, and think about the bravery it would take to face down a dragon armed with only a pitchfork and conviction. That is where liberation begins, from the people standing in front of the dragons, not those sitting atop them.

[pterodactylterrace]

HOTD discourse summed up in one post.

Green: Yeah, all the characters are bad people, but I like these characters and I understand their motivations.

Black: Rhaenyra and her children and her uncle husband can do no wrong and they are all perfect angels, and if you say a word against them I will bite your head off.

[top-vi]

“now they see you as you are” what do you mean by that rhaenyra? a sad angry lesbian with big brown eyes? why yes, we do see her as she is

[antispopausandstuff]

while Adora faced the full brunt of Catra's abuse for her entire life, there is a consistent detail that i don't think either the animators or writers noticed when it comes to Catra.

it might not be 100% continuous, but, often, when Catra is demeaning // manipulating // abusing someone, the person will be cornered, whether very literally or almost literally.

now, it's really, really easy to see this with Adora, as she's comparatively the most victimized. in every situation, whether it be in a literal or metaphorical sense, Catra is always putting her in a situation that only she can control. there is no equality involved, no 'takes two to tango', she is taking the lead and forcing Adora to dance along with her, or be damned.

but, wouldn't ya know it, abusers don't only have it out for their main source of power and ego.

when she comes across Entrapta, the scientist is quite literally restrained against a wall and forced to listen to Catra's lies. of course, it turns out Entrapta wasn't restrained at all, but it's not like Catra knew that until she saw it. in her eyes, that was what was happening and she took advantage of it. either way, it worked.

Scorpia ends up being no exception to this rule, despite how much... 'better' Catra is when she's around her. if she was 'pinned', prior to s3, then it was more metaphorical than it was physical, unless i'm misremembering things. this is likely because, strangely, Catra was a lot more honest with Scorpia. of course, it was about her disliking towards her, but more honest nonetheless.

but, during and after s3, most of the worst of Catra's abuse towards Scorpia is when she is against a wall or unable to properly move.

after shocking Entrapta and sending her to death, she pins Scorpia to the wall by threatening to do it to her next, pointing the baton at her.

in s4, when Scorpia tries to talk to Catra about Entrapta the first time, she is then actually pinned by being shoved back and intimidated by Catra's claws.

when trying to talk about Entrapta for a second, while also trying to support and encourage Catra, she's unable to move as Catra is towering over her, and they're on a platform where she is much more likely to fall over if she moves from her spot.

the only time Scorpia isn't held to anything is when she leaves. it's a long hallway, where she's on one side and Catra's on the other. unless a fight ensues, there's no real way for Catra to hurt her at the distance they're at. she can walk away.

and this happens with Lonnie, too.

there's only one time Lonnie is alone ( on-screen ), and when she is, Catra kicks her. because she was angry and Lonnie was someone she could take it out on.

and Lonnie is against a 'wall' in that small room. they're controls, iirc, but it's not like she'd have been able to do anything with those. not against Catra. even if there was an alarm, would anyone have really cared that a superior officer abused their subordinate? in the Horde?

but every other time Lonnie isn't alone? Catra is still degrading, but not nearly as much. or, at least, not without a consequence.

one particular scene is when she shouts at Lonnie that she's pathetic. she's callous, bitchy, just being cruel for the sake of it ( or cuz stress ig, boohoo ), and when Lonnie pushes back, she's about to claw her. but then Kyle steps in and tells her to stop.

the biggest difference is that Lonnie wasn't alone. Kyle and Rogelio were with her. in that instance, Catra was the one 'pinned'. while it's not likely anyone else would've cared about Lonnie, they did, for better or for worse.

Scorpia and Adora had no one else to turn to.

Catra's at her cruelest when her victims are alone.

like an abuser.

[witheredoffherwitch]

Targaryens: Infamous End Inevitable.

This entire discourse on Jaehaera is so laughably absurd. I love my Green characters, but I couldn't care less what the show does with Jaehaera's arc. Team Black loves to remind everyone that Rhaenyra's lineage survived while Team Green's perished. That is true... BUT not only did her sons separate themselves from their mother's legacy to keep the Lords happy, but they did nothing to elevate her name in any way after their supposed 'win'. Their mother's 'usurper' was perceived as the legitimate ruler while she was branded a traitor. Rhaenyra's legacy was so badly tarnished that even after her lineage lived on, no Targaryen descendent carried her name, despite the House's tendency of reusing names.

For me, the Dance tells the story of how House Targaryen ruined itself. They put their most powerful assets (Dragons) all in at once... only to become extinct in just over a century, while the other noble houses had been ruling Westeros for millennia. It doesn't matter whose line survives - if this doesn't make sense to you, then you are not intelligent enough to engage with any form of media. I'm content with the way things ended because ultimately, no one is triumphant.

Even if Jaehaera lives, her line still loses since it was Viserys II's line that eventually took over. No matter who ends up reigning, HOUSE TARGARYEN WILL BE DEAD! The last survivor of the house (barring Jon Snow) will make sure its legacy would be one of infamy. It will linger in Westeros like the Mussolini's monument, forever infamous.

Even if the books attempt to alter Dany's storyline, it would be idiotic to expect a Targaryen restoration. To those who foolishly believe that the books will be rewritten and the Targaryens will once again sit on the Iron Throne, then I've got a bridge in Pyongyang I'm looking to unload.

[greenqueenhightower]

Hey.

I constantly argue back and forth with TB stans that Jace, Luke and Joffrey aren't legitimised just because Laenor, Corlys and Viserys go along with Rhaenyra’s lie about them being "trueborn". As I'm sure you're aware, in Westeros only a king can legitimise the illegitimate by first declaring their bastardy and then legitimising them afterwards. And TB stans. Just. Don't. Get. It. They also seem to think that the King's word is law in Westeros. They don't understand that this a feudal monarchy where the king and his vassals are reliant upon each other and both must respect the social contract in order for the Westerosi social structures e.g. monarchy to be maintained.

IMO, they fall for the narrative trap of the Targaryen characters. Just because Viserys and Rhaenyra say that the King's word is law doesn't actually make it law. It's only law as long as the king has the ability to enforce it. Therefore, if a king did something insane in the eyes of his noble polity, e.g., try to place his bastards in the line of succession, they'd rebel proving accurately that the King's word is in fact not actually law. Aerys's overthrowing is a great example of this. As is the reign of Daeron II: if his word was law and everyone had to obey him, no one would have joined Daemon Blackfyre's rebellion.

Anyway back to TB stans. I think alot of them don't actually realise how the world works. Even GRRM confirmed the bastardy of Rhaenyra’s 3 son's for goodness sake. Every time they try to deny it using the aforementioned argument it only confuses me. Are they insecure about Rhaenyra having illegitimate children? Is that how far they're para-social relationship with her goes?

They also have another stupid argument that Rhaenyra's kids having her blood means that they can inherit her throne. No no no no no no no no no. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS TB. If it was Westerosi lords with bastard relatives, it would allow them to inherit. You have to be trueborn. It's unfair but these unfair laws are what keeps Westeros from constant civil war. That's the point of inheritance law in the Seven Kingdoms.

Anyway, sorry about the rant. It's just that sometimes when I argue with certain TB stans they don't seem to understand the laws of the world they're fans of. They will bend over backwards to excuse their faves, not understanding that you are allowed to criticise a character you like (& in their case love). I think Rhaenyra is an interesting character - moreso in the book TBH - I just don't get why so many TB stans willfully refuse to understand the way in which the laws of the world she inhabits work. Any thoughts?

Hi anon, it took me forever to get to your ask but you're right! 💚

Not all TB stans share the same views, and there are people in here with whom you can converse intelligently, but I have also seen the discourse you're referring to, and it is very annoying when the stans don't get it.

You put the Westerosi legitimization process very well. If we consider the greater Middle Ages-inspired world-building context that Westeros is based on, it makes sense why bastardy is a stigmatized social issue. Blood "purity," lineage, and legitimacy are important because they are the only way land and titles are bequeathed and inherited.

The King is the only one who can legitimize his own illegitimate children as heirs, but he can do so for other illegitimate children, regardless of whether these are related to him by blood. King Louis IV, for example, legitimized John II Duke of Brabant's son, Jan Cordeken, after a petition John wrote to him thus enabling him to inherit his father's fortune and found the House of Glymes. From Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome to Enlightenment Europe, there are examples of Kings legitimizing not only their children but also the children of their officials, courtiers, and friends. It was seen as granting a favor to them, and when it came to personal matters, a King might choose to legitimize his children when he ran out of heirs, or in the case of Louis XIV, because he could and wanted to.

In other words, Viserys, who knew of but chose to ignore Rhaenyra's sons' (his grandsons') bastardy, had ample time and opportunity to legitimize them but chose to blind himself to the truth instead. What was that about Alicent calling Viserys "weak" in one of the deleted scenes of S1? Well, "weak" isn't the only word I would use to describe him... also irresponsible, foolish, and inadequate.

Nevertheless, the legitimization process in history was seldom favored by the court, the King's vassals, and the people, and caused quite a stir. As you say, the King's law didn't hold up that much ground compared to the law of tradition and at times the Church. The people didn't care if a King legitimized a child by naming them heir... the stigma of being born "illegitimate" wasn't washed off that easily, because bastards were seen as devilish, impure, half-breeds, unnatural hybrids, and so forth. So Viserys choosing to ignore the issue face front was bound to be catastrophic, because no matter how he tried to silence the tongues that wagged by threatening to cut them off, the issue of his grandsons' apparent bastardy remained, and THE REALM would not accept any of them on the Iron Throne, for the same reasons.

And Viserys did nothing about it. He could have confronted Rhaenyra when Jace was born and reminded her of the stark reality of the consequences of what she was doing. Not only did he name Rhaenyra (a woman) as his heir, which alone was controversial and unprecedented, but a woman with three illegitimate children, whose existence never even tried to correct or prevent. Viserys alone weakened Rhaenyra's claim with his lack of foresight and counsel.

If TB uphold the "Viserys loved his grandsons and he accepted them as they were" narrative, they are not only deluded but lack media literacy as well, because Viserys DIDN'T CARE if his grandsons were trueborn or not, or if that would plunge the realm to war, the same way he didn't care that he had named Rhaenyra as his successor when the realm, who was so used to having Kings for centuries, knew he had THREE legitimate sons of his own.

So my two cents on the discourse would basically be that those who don't understand the social and political repercussions of Rhaenyra having bastards, not being counseled as to why this is destructive, left on her own to raise them, and having to cope with the consequences of her actions as she realizes that the father she so loved and admired didn't protect or support her at all, are missing out on a much more interesting character in Rhaenyra and a more complex dynamic with her sons, who she now understands are exceptionally vulnerable and potentially threatening to her cause.

This is a far more intriguing reading than anything TB stans are getting at with their "no criticism" ban on Viserys and Rhaenyra.

[dreamfyre-beautiful]

Am I the only one that gets weirded out by Criston Cole hate? Like he called a RICH WHITE lady who was his boss a cunt once and suddenly he’s satan??

[daenerystargaryen06]

Can antis like, keep away from Daenerys please?

I'm so tired of seeing people writing out crap that Daenerys will be the villain, Jon is better, she is mad, calling her Danielle, yada yada. Just say you don't like her (because she is ultimately better than your fave) and go.

I'm also tired of seeing people giving the Starks (especially Sansa) her traits. I've seen edits of people making Sansa a Targ, people talking about how she'll get Daenerys' dragons, that Jon will kill Dany for her, etc.

Just keep Daenerys' name out of your mouth if you hate her and can't stand that she is strong, independent, and has an amazing character arc. A majority of Daenerys fans don't like other asoiaf characters, but you hardly see any of them going on a tangent about how much they hate that character. Usually it's us Dany fans defending anti hate against Dany and also defending antis hate on Dany to prop up their own fave (mainly Sansa).

I heavily have a high disdain for show!Sansa (she's alright in the books, not my fave but she's much better compared to the garbage that is her show character). But I don't go out of my way to hate on her, diss her character, write pointless metas about her going "mad", "evil", or "dark". Nor do I see any other Dany fan doing so. We don't hate on Sansa to prop up Dany. We don't give Dany character traits of other characters/Sansa. We don't speculate about how she'll die or get killed or manipulated by another man. It's disgusting.

It's also disgusting seeing anti hate towards Arya. Arya is my second favorite female character in asoiaf. She isn't ugly, she isn't crazy or some violent murderer, she isn't going to be permanently warged into Nymeria and become Sansa's; nor is she going to become Sansa's assigned assassin to kill all her enemies while Sansa and Jon live in lala land. It's not going to happen.

It is so disgusting how a vast majority of Arya and Dany fans don't do half the things their antis/Sansa stans do, yet they go out of their way to bash these wonderful characters to prop up their own fave or to get them out of the way for Sansa or Jon (mainly Jon fans who bash Daenerys to prop Jon up and cheer Jon for killing her).

We can talk about our faves without bashing another character, making metas about them that don't even follow the text, and just being outright nasty.

Do better. Just keep away from Daenerys and Arya.