#anti-dany stans

[kyliafanfiction]

Anyway, the game of thrones ending was cool and good.

[amaltheas-garden]

when u point out Dany having the power of god x3 to destroy any city she doesn't like might be a bad thing and probably won't be rewarded by the narrative

targies: noooo it will be fine because Dany would NEVER do that she's just too fundamentally GOOD to ever be corrupted by unlimited power 🙃 source: trust me bro

apparently the theme of asoiaf is absolute power is good, actually, we just need to make sure the *right* people have it 😇

[rise-my-angel]

I think its funny that technically Jon has "the blood of Old Valyria" in him as well. But if you told him that as if it meant something, you know Jon would dismiss it entierly as unimportant, and that he does not give a single shit about it. Being Valyrian is so integral to someone like Danaerys or really any mainstream Targaryeans identity.

Then you have Jon Snow whose just like "I have things to do, I don't care" literally anytime something tries to convince Jon hes special. He's the opposite of everything Valyrians stand for and it would be so funny if hes the only one with Targaryean blood to survive, so that the last living relic of the ancient Valyrian Freehold is stuck inside the most grouchy, anti prophecy Northerner known to man.

[the-daily-dreamer]

Thinking about how it’s somehow considered anti-Daenerys to think she will go dark at the end of the series. Like I don’t hate the character. I just don’t think she will be the most specialist good girl to ever good.

It should be anti-Daenerys to think that her character arc will be a tragedy of a girl who was traumatized and wanted to do good but could not see the flaws in her own methods and actions until it was too late. And this would make her one of the best written characters of all time because a majority of fans supported her and they fell for the same trap she did.

Like it’s not anti or hate. I just think she will be a tragic character and go dark.

[ogorodami]

To me, there's always been something very demeaning about the public's reaction to D*ny's character arc. The abuse she suffered from Drogo was romanticized from the get-go. Her questionable actions always got downplayed or whitewashed. Three living nukes and a court made up exclusively of sycophants didn't raise any red flags at all. Her very real and very present descent into not really madness but hellish depths of entitlement and narcissism, turns out, went fucking unnoticed by almost everybody because pretty blonde girl, dragon go roar, music go "aahh" very loudly.

I actually wondered at the time whether the whole “Sansa had a point” issue would have even caused such a meltdown had D*ny been a man (sweet summer me, I had yet to encounter the breaking bad twitter).

The way Dænerys has been infantilized by this fandom (and also EC herself which was just... painful to witness) because of her gender is disturbing. Poor little pookie, massacred a city because she's big sad and people are mean to her for no reason. What, she's a vicious warlord conquerer whose only goal in life is to subjugate an entire continent that doesn't want her? Girlboss! But also she's just a girlie. She's just a girlie girl with a dream, you can't seriously be mad at her. How unfair, how tragic that the ungrateful world would twist this innocent baby into a monster and force her to defend herself against a bunch of powerless peasants.

Clowning on targs is one of my passions but these are not my words.

Also, can you actually imagine if Dænerys was male? Imagine, just imagine this absolute horror show of a character. The hypocrisy, the entitlement, the faux feminist allyship of it all. Since, you know, he'd be one of the good ones, like Rhægar or certified malewife Dæmon. Just ask his khalasar.

Do I think boy D*ny (Dan? Dænny?) would have received the same lenient treatment from the fandom? Well, personally, I got my answer now that hotd is out.

He would. Oh, he would. And I genuinely believe that it would have been even worse.

As for characters like Sansa or Cersei, I can only imagine how the abuse constantly hurled at them by pretty much everyone here, save for their own stans, would have quadrupled with Dænny Targarito in the picture. Because there's only one thing women like them can be that's worse than being enemies with a fun special girl. Being enemies with a fun special boy.

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

I saw a tiktok comparing Paul Atreides to Daenerys and it made me want to gouge out my eyes and break my phone.

I just don't understand how Dany and Paul are comparable in any way. For one thing, Dany's ending in GOT only happened because of bad writing. There's no foreshadowing, no buildup, or reason for her fall.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually read the Dune books yet, just watched the movies and read Wikipedia stuff. So anyone who has read Dune, please please please correct me if I'm misunderstanding things.

From what I saw in the movies and read from secondhand sources, Paul was never meant to be a hero. Sure, he was a good kid, but his arc isn't that of a fallen hero. The moment Paul chose to exploit the fremen and the Bene Gesserit's false prophecy, he solidified himself as anything but a hero. He was set on vengeance and survival.

Paul is a fascinating character, but he's not a hero in any way, and wasn't at any point in his story (to my understanding).

Dany is a hero, whether you like it or not. From book/season one, she's been protecting those weaker than her to the best of her ability. She sacrifices her own desires and ambitions for the sake of others.

...this Mother of Dragons, this Breaker of Chains, is above all a rescuer. (ADWD - Tyrion VI)

Dany chooses to prioritize the innocent and the oppressed in her mission. Paul chooses to lead a holy war that will kill billions of innocents.

They're not comparable characters, because they're very different archetypes and communicate very different things from the authors. Dany is an underdog and someone who fights for justice while maintaining her gentleness. Paul is someone who basically embodies "for the greater good", sacrificing billions for the future.

Dany is written to be a hero, Paul is not. Dany is only turned from being a hero because of bad writing and sexism. Paul's descent is well written and clearly foreshadowed. Paul's story is what D&D wanted to gaslight the viewers into believing Dany's was. Unfortunately, that seems to have worked for certain parts of this fandom. Also, the poster had a Sansa pfp, so I think it's easy to tell why they view Dany this way.

Paul and Dany's characters aren't even in the same ballpark as each other. Comparing them is stupid.

[fromtheseventhhell]

Very funny to me how Stansas present her character as being so interesting and complex because of her vulnerabilities, while simultaneously ignoring those same vulnerabilities in other characters. Dany is sold as a bridal slave and lacks agency throughout AGOT and after. Her dragons are either too young/small to utilize effectively or locked away for the majority of the story. They aren't some all-powerful trump card that protects her from harm. Arya is captured as a prisoner of war, forced to watch countless people tortured and murdered, and then essentially enslaved in Harrenhal with no way to fight back. She has an entire arc of feeling powerless, of being a "mouse", during ACOK. She doesn't have "kung-fu" or the ability to magically fight her way out of every situation, she's a young child lacking physical strength with only the most basic sword training.

Sansa isn't the only female character, she isn't the only young character, she isn't the only character who suffered, and no one is obligated to prioritize her. I'm so tired of Dany and Arya being mischaracterized and having their stories erased to prop Sansa up. "Sansa has kept her dignity" In other words, let's praise her for having a level of security that Dany and Arya don't have access to. She hasn't ever been forced to make a hard decision which of course means that she's morally superior to them. They can't even admit to themselves that her lack of action is due to her own passivity. If it doesn't fit their delusion, they erase it from the story and expect the rest of us to play along. Ask one of them what they like about her character without bringing up her being the ultimate victim, and I genuinely don't believe they'd be able to give you an answer. They belittle other characters more than they talk about her and these takes just scream insecurity/jealousy at the content and development other characters have in their POVs.

[crimsonbastard]

That's it. I've had it with these brain-dead takes

Rightful Queen:

Firstly, what the fuck do you mean when you say Rightful? There's no "Rightful" monarch in ASOIAF. There are only the ones who are elected as per the laws in which the Realm Functions. So There's only Lawful Queen or Lawful King.

Daenerys: Wasn't the Rightful Queen by blood, but by conquest (mass murdering an entire city that surrendered), but even then, she had contenders to the Throne in the form of her nephew. Her family was deposed through rebellion and they were in exile.

The throne no longer belonged to her unless she forcefully claimed it back. After Robert's death, the crown goes to Stannis, the next in line, followed by Shireen, considering Robert's children aren't his. But since all the legitimate Baratheons died and Gendry wasn't legitimized yet, the Lannisters covertly took the crown by continuing to pose Cersei's children as true borns (the children atleast took after one of the parents, making the argument for their legitimacy somwhat strong, Unlike Rhaenyra).

Daenerys took Kingslanding by force, decimating the city and it's populace with Dragon Fire and seated herself on the Throne. So yes, she has become the Lawful Queen by right of Conquest, all that's left is to eliminate the equally Lawful Contender to the throne, it being Jon.

Rhaenyra: Despite Viserys i (who was the younger of the two candidates, but got elected over Rhaenys who was older than him) naming her as his heir after Aemma's and Baelon's death he never really prepares her to rule in the future. He doesn't teach her the ways of Politics, nor does he reinforce the line of succession. He instead puts his daughter's claim in jeaprody and remarries, and sires THREE LEGITIMATE SONS. As unfair as it sounds, Westeros follows Male Primogeniture, the very system that made Viserys i heir to the throne over Rhaenys. As long as Aegon ii, Aemond and Daeron lived, Rhaenyra would always have challengers to the Throne.

"Half-Blooded" Murderer named Aegon:

Funny how TB thinks just because someone's Half-Targ (half inbred), It automatically makes them less of a claimant to the throne. Paternity goes a long way in Westeros.

Aegon ii is the first born son of King Viserys ii Targaryen and Queen Alicent Hightower. He's the result of a legitimate marriage between two ancient and powerful houses. He was anointed by a Septon of the Faith, crowned with thousands as a witness. As shitty as his character is in the show, he's a more legitimate claimant to the throne compared to Rhaenyra and her illegitimate children.

Jon Snow (Aegon) being confirmed to be R+L=J in the show doesn't make him a "half-blood" by any chance. He's the Son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. The show states that Rhaengar annulled his marriage with Elia Martell, making Jon a "legitimate" (as per TB) contender to the throne.

There's also the implication of the term "half-blooded" used in the post. Just because Jon and Aegon ii are half Targaruen doesn't make them less of a claimant. It also sheds light on the Targaryen Exceptionalism that TB drinks like kool-aid. Anyone who's non-targ or is half-targ and isn't on the Targaryen side is automatically treated as lesser.

[cl0ud-ninex]

Babes, I need to tell you something...

If you're one of the 'DaNy StAnS' who believe that Dany has to die to fulfill some bittersweet/tragic ending while also wanting the other characters especially the Starks to live happy health lives and become kings and queens you're not a real Dany stan.

You're just a Daenerys anti. The only difference between you and the antis is that the antis are more honest about how they actually feel about her.

[atopvisenyashill]

"Daenerys has done a lot of wrongs" and said are killing slavers

thanks for this one actually because you gave me an excuse to talk about that for a bit.

now first of all - i find it very frustrating that when people say “this was wrong” everyone defaults to “why do you care about slavers” when usually, when i’m talking about things dany has done wrong, i’m talking about mirri maz durr, sacking astapor, sexually abusing irri, and taking a profit off slavery. mirri wasn’t a slaver, she was a slave, and she was blood sacrificed by dany. sacking a city, regardless of who is in that city, is always messy and bad - ask Cleos the Butcher and the people he rules over how they feel about the Sack. Ask the people of King's Landing how they feel about their houses being set on fire every few decades. Ask Missandei how she really feels watching the woman she put all her faith in take a cut off the selling of slaves. Hell, Dany knows that Irri does not want to have sex with her and is doing it because she feels "obligated" because she's a slave and Dany still uses her as a bed warmer and then bars her from expressing an interest in Rakharo because she doesn't believe Irri is ~worthy~ of Rakharo (worthy to fuck but not to love and don't I fucking know about attitudes like that coming from white straight girls lmao).

But let's move past all of that (you certainly seem uninterested in talking about the personhood of slaves like Missandei and Mirri after all, despite ostensibly defending them here) and dig into the crucifying of the Great Masters. In fact, let's turn to Dany's own thoughts over this, bolded part mine:

In the plaza before the Great Pyramid, the Meereenese huddled forlorn. The Great Masters had looked anything but great in the morning light. Stripped of their jewels and their fringed tokars, they were contemptible; a herd of old men with shriveled balls and spotted skin and young men with ridiculous hair. Their women were either soft and fleshy or as dry as old sticks, their face paint streaked by tears. “I want your leaders,” Dany told them. “Give them up, and the rest of you shall be spared.” “How many?” one old woman had asked, sobbing. “How many must you have to spare us?” “One hundred and sixty-three,” she answered. She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood… Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.

Immediately after doing it, Dany regrets it. She recognizes she did it while angry and impassioned and reckless, and that the deaths were agonizing, that she did it not for the children but because she was angry and humiliated. This scene has never been as righteously clean morally than people would believe from the moment it was on page! She recognizes she did a fucked up thing but rationalizes it away because she can't admit she made a mistake. She reflects on it later again as she's ruling Meereen:

She had not forgotten the slave children nailed up along the road from Yunkai. They had numbered one hundred sixty-three, a child every mile, nailed to mileposts with one arm outstretched to point her way. After Meereen had fallen, Dany had nailed up a like number of Great Masters. Swarms of flies had attended their slow dying, and the stench had lingered long in the plaza. Yet some days she feared that she had not gone far enough. These Meereenese were a sly and stubborn people who resisted her at every turn. They had freed their slaves, yes … only to hire them back as servants at wages so meagre that most could scarce afford to eat. Those too old or young to be of use had been cast into the streets, along with the infirm and the crippled. And still the Great Masters gathered atop their lofty pyramids to complain of how the dragon queen had filled their noble city with hordes of unwashed beggars, thieves, and whores. To rule Meereen I must win the Meereenese, however much I may despise them.

She lets the bodies of the people she wants to rule rot, the smell lingering in the plaza for weeks, reminding the people she is trying to make peace with that she can and will viciously murder their families and gloat over their corpses and they cannot stop her. Then doesn't put in any rules about wages, anything to help the sick and disabled. She blames the Great Masters for working within the system they've had for generations despite yelling at them to get a new system and doing nothing to help them move to that new system. She judges them, she hates them, and she wonders why she has the Meereneese version of the KKK springing up afterwards. She is just as ineffective as Andrew Johnson is during Reconstruction, too focused on her own feelings to look objectively at what this destroyed city actually needs from her, instead judging them from her own lofty pyramid with her own slaves and her own superior culture and mopes about how much she wants the Seven Kingdoms.

SHE is the one who decided she was going to rule this place. But instead of focusing on reconciliation, she focuses in on revenge. And that is why she sets herself up to fail.

[amaltheas-garden]

people still shocked that in the year of our lord 2024 some of us don't want to see Dany get her 'happy ending' by becoming the white savior who was promised

[rise-my-angel]

Anytime I see a post about how Rhaenyra won because her bloodline leads to the Prince that was Promised I have the most petty urge to just reblog their post with a single gif of Jon Snow.

[the-daily-dreamer]

Reminder that if your feminism revolves around propping up women that partake in traditionally masculine activities/roles and shitting on or even hating women who embody traditionally feminine roles and enjoy feminine activities you’re not really a feminist.

It sets the precedent that women are only valuable and valid if they have traditionally masculine traits, which feeds a narrative that masculine traits are better simply because they are associated with men who are the ideal. It perpetuates the idea that things that are feminine and traditionally associated with women are in fact inferior to men/masculinity and should be looked down upon and belittled.

And, it alienates so many individuals that feel more comfortable in femininity, regardless of gender identity.

I think people in the ASOIAF fandom really need to learn this because feminine characters are so despised on the basis that they are not “better” women. Simply because they don’t embody traditionally masculine things like conquering or fighting.

Much of the hate comes from stans that love characters like Rhaenyra, Daenerys, and Arya (and do not get me wrong I love Arya), who are women and girls that are in positions that allow for more traditionally masculine behaviors and tomboyishness. And they will say incredibly sexist things about how the other women in media are inferior and directly contrast these women to their faves negatively by pointing out that they’re “too weak” or “subservient”. They reduce femininity to weakness and bowing to patriarchy instead of considering that some people have a different, more feminine nature. And that is OK! Just because a woman isn’t wielding a sword or fighting on the front lines or pursuing leadership roles in masculine ways (because historically women exacted and sought power in different ways than men) doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable and strong characters. Do not use feminine characters as a negative comparison to show how “feminist” and great your fave is. Because it’s just so blatantly sexist.

Don’t fall into the trap of reinforcing patriarchal rhetoric!!! Don’t reinforce narratives that traditional masculinity is superior to femininity!! Don’t belittle feminine activities and act as if they aren’t valuable!!! Girbosses are great but so are gentlewomen.

[thisonetimeinmeridian]

So I have a thought about that prophecy that HotD is using to justify the Targaryen invasion of Westeros. Obviously, this isn't entirely their fault since George R.R. Martin is the one who came up with it and has said a similar thing in different interviews . Yes, the books make Rhaenerya more vengeful and thirsty for blood, but it also does not make the Greens sympathetic at all and views them as one dimensional villians. George also had the Starks and the Blackwoods side with the Blacks, so I think it's clear which side we were "supposed" to root for, if any, but I digress. Anyway, into my theory.

Time and time again, we hear that Targaryens are the closest thing to gods because they have superior blood that "controls" the dragons. That they are dragons. We hear this within the books, within HotD, even in Game of Thrones. But really, they are no better than anyone else, GOT even had Dany say this outright in the last season when she says that without their dragons, they weren't great at all. Your argument might be well they could control them thats what they mean." But really, no, they couldn't. I'm not even just talking about when Aemond accidentally killed Luke. In one of the earlier seasons, Dany's dragon literally burned a child alive, and she didn't even know until much later. Does that sound like control to you? Neither Luke nor Aemond had control in that fight. Their animals, their instincts, took over despite what their riders wanted. You could say that "oh well, Aemond is only HALF Targaryen, that's why we need to keep the blood pure with superior Targaryen blood," in which case, refer to my earlier point about Dany.

Unlike some people, I like this change of Luke's death being an accident. It shows that the Targaryen's aren't gods, or infallible after all. As I said, Game of Thrones even shows this to us.

So that's why I think they are going in a similar direction with the whole "prophecy" BS. We hear multiple times within the original series that prophecies are never direct and often misinterpreted. This is made even clearer when Melisandre misinterprets the "Prince Who Was Promised" multiple times. This, combined with the fact that GRRM is heavily involved with HotD, and the fact that they've already shown that Targaryen's aren't immune or gods after, leads me to believe they are going in a similar direction as the idea that they can "control" the dragons. See my previous point.

It could likely be a criticism of the Targaryen hubris, and the fact that they think they have "superior" or "pure" blood makes them better than everyone else. Or that they are justified on starting multiple wars that lead to immeasurable amounts of death and destruction. As Ser Barristan said about the Mad King, "the mad king gave his enemies what he thought they deserved, and each time it made him feel more powerful and right."

Targaryen's are their own worst enemy, and they will tear each other apart over "who deserves it more" or "who has the purest blood" and is "more Targaryen." The prophecy is just an excuse to hold up their own superiority and god complex, despite the fact that no one wanted them to rule in the first place. Even George R.R. Martin says that holding the realm together with dragons is ficle and bound to break.

[saltywinteradult]

Why didn't Sansa fight during the Battle of Winterfell?

Sansa is indeed a lady, but so were Dany, Lady Mormont, and most of the women who fought-they had never picked up a sword, yet they fought for the North.

Dany wasn't just out there because she had a dragon, but she was out there supporting her people, her army, and Jon's army. She was keeping her promise to Jon to help the North.

Dany should have been on her dragon killing more wights, but dragons get tired too. Drogon needed to rest after battling Viserion and killing wights. She was on the ground trying.

What exactly do you expect Sansa to do, nonny?

Physical combat is not easy. Sansa has never even held a weapon, so how exactly do you think it would go if she tried to pick one up and fight? Realistically, it wouldn't accomplish anything except get her killed. And unlike Dany, she doesn't have a dragon to burn wights with, so what exactly should she have done?

Yes, Dany did pick up a weapon during the battle and somehow managed to use it without getting herself killed. Don't even try to convince me that that wasn't stupid as shit. Dany, like Sansa, has exactly zero experience or training in hand-to-hand combat. Realistically, she absolutely should not have been able to do that without getting herself killed. That was unrealistic and stupid and absolutely should not have been included, so don't even bother trying to tell me that that somehow makes Dany better than Sansa.

Furthermore, I can guarantee that if Sansa did somehow manage to fight physically, you would've been in my inbox complaining how unrealistic it is because you're gonna shit on Sansa no matter what. Jesus Christ, it's been years. How are you still not over your obsessive hatred for a fictional character?

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Ok, I'm going to say this as a 19 y/o, but I think we as a society give wayyyyy to much grace to teenagers. I mean, yeah, our brains aren't fully developed, but we still understand the difference between right and wrong. Like, we understand how the world works to an extent. Excusing ignorance, selfishness, and cruelty because "they're literally a teenager" is very infantilizing and enabling.

Yes, our emotions get the best of us, we have bad coping skills, and we don't have the best critical thinking skills. However, the expectation shouldn't be that we're inept, naive, and frankly stupid things. I think there should be grace and understanding extended to teenagers and teenaged characters, but not the extent I see people give.

For instance, Sansa Stark is given wayyyyy to much grace for her wilfull ignorance regarding Littlefinger's plans. Yes, it's excusable to and extent in AGOT, she was a sheltered girl who saw the world in a very whitewashed way. However, by the point of AFFC, she knows the world is harsh, she knows Littlefinger has no issues killing to get his way. She chooses to ignore this truth.

Now, I'm not saying Sansa is evil and irredeemable. Her wilfull ignorance is a character flaw, one she will develop out of. She's a gray character, just like every other character in ASOIAF. (I also have a lot to say about her bullying of Arya, but I won't talk about that here).

Alicent also receives the same treatment a lot. I think some of her choices in the first few episodes of season 1 do fit with the excuse. However, her choices throughout the show, her very stupid and cruel decisions, are so often excused long after her teenage years. This is a whole ass 30 y/o and her stans are treating her like she's fucking 15.

With Dany, I see the opposite applied. I've seen people say that she's foolish and naive, is too young to understand how the world works. They say she throws temper tantrums and expects the world to fall in line for her. This isn't the case. Rather than excuse her actions and flaws because "she's just a teenager", people create stereotypical flaws of teenage girls in her story.

Dany is known to be extremely wise for her age and she displays amazing self control and emotional regulation that I don't have now, let alone when I was 13. Dany is compassionate, self-sacrificing, and displays great foresight. She's someone who was forced to learn the harsh realities of the world young. She's not a stupid child, she shouldn't be infantilized, especially since it's always done maliciously.

I think (show) Rhaenyra gets the same treatment, but to a lesser extent. Her rightful reactions (ie to Criston asking her to run away) are misconstrued as the choices of a spoiled teenager. And yeah, that does come through sometimes, I guess; however, not nearly to the extent her antis accuse her of.

Rhaenyra wanting to change the cultural misogyny isn't her being spoiled, it's a fair goal. She's going to be the most powerful person in the kingdom, it's more immature, I think, for her to not have any plans or ambitions. Rhaenyra not wanting to run away to a life of poverty isn't being spoiled; it'd be naive of her to do that with a dude she had a drunken one night stand with.

These are just some examples of this teenager excuse being misapplied. Each time this happens, as a teenager, I feel insulted. We are not simply naive idiots; we are not just overemotional or selfish. We have brains, treat us like we do. Expect teenagers to understand at least the basics of morality and the world. This enabling behavior encourages teenagers to act selfish and be unthoughtful.