“ the struggle between the Starks and Daenerys – ultimately between traditional “good” nobility (Starks) faithfully protecting their subjects from bad tyrants, and Daenerys as a new type of a strong leader, a kind of progressive bonapartist acting on behalf of the underprivileged
-
-
-
Lmao right on
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
dunno I feel like he's mostly just ripping off sady doyle's more engaged, insightful piece https://dangerouscharacters.substack.com/p/who-wins-who-dies-game-of-thrones …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Placing our hopes for breaking the Wheel in the hands of a medieval fiction was never going to end well, even if the ending was "good". It has been, and forever will be, upon us to be the Good Dany fiction can never hope to adequately invent for us.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But what could she have realistically done? Her descent into madness was psychologically necessary as a means to avoid the approaching realities she had been avoiding her whole life. She sought her own death in order to avoid success, because reality cannot be changed so easily.
-
In fact, the world was saved from a Fukuyamaist liberal-fantasy of peace through free market capitalism, which is what Dany would have instituted with her reforms for freedom, because that's the truth of real freedom: freedom of some to slowly acquire the means to dominate most.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There are some good points here, but nothing that hasn't been better put elsewhere. If the best Zizek piece in a decade is a B+ television recap, we are best focusing our attention elsewhere.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.