And Murphy Anderson drawing you doesn't hurt.

Anyway, someday we will regard this spate of bespoke "what if I changed all the details so the villain was right" headcanons as part of our shared national sociopathy.

Partisan split on aliens vs. bigfoot is wild.

I hope we've all gotten to the point as a nation where we can admit The Last Jedi was pretty bad, just not for the reasons its most awful critics hated it.

I have no issue with Pritzker's list. Revenge of the Sith almost approached a decent Star Wars movie but it was built on a shoddy foundation. Definitely better than the sequels.

Force Awakens could have made a decent sequel right up until the original cast showed up.

Batman is clearly not impressed by Deadpool and the book is all the better for it.

We paid around $12K per year for our son back in 2010-2012 and we were lucky to get it.

It still cost the same as in-state tuition at the flagship university.

That works out to $19K per year in 2010, which would be about $29K in 2025.

The "upper middle class poverty piece" genre is always bullshit, but depending on region, $32K/year for child care is alarmingly plausible.

"has to" is doing a lot of work here, but I'll just point out that destroying a city that's already surrendered does not incentivize anybody to surrender!

In the world where Daenerys didn't burn King's Landing she might never have had to attack Winterfell.

In any case, I won't get pressed about discussing hypotheticals on top of hypotheticals; any world in which she does attack Winterfell is probably one where it's good that she gets shot down.

...what are you even talking about at this point?

She didn't even get the most burnworthy people in King's Landing!

On the other hand, burning the Iron Fleet probably did a lot to reduce domestic violence in Pyke, so

People need to find something better to do than Post. Just think how much good could be done with only 1/2 the time spent on posting went into say Touching Grass or staring at the wall, just imagine!!!

Also, what even is "the next city" at that point? Almost all of Westeros rose against the Lannisters. While there may be some holdouts in Casterly Rock or Pyke, she wouldn't particularly need Drogon to crush them. This was just about establishing herself as a tyrant.

Nope. Losing a favored servant, loved one, or even a whole unit (Rhaegal is all three) isn't an excuse for killing civilians after they have surrendered, and it doesn't speak well of how she'd rule going forward.

You don't have to justify war crimes just because your fav did them.

(I still think there's a better ending to that show where Sansa realizes she is holding all the cards and plays them accordingly.)

But the show's fundamental problem is that the next logical step towards democracy from our history (absolute monarchy) would be viewed as a step backwards by most of the audience. So they systematically removed everybody who might have made a good king until they were left with the worst choice.

The city had already surrendered. Destroying it was an impulsive, irrational decision and a war crime.

I don't really buy Daenerys as Leviathan who can carry Westeros forward... at best she just promises a return to old Targaryen rule, and her liberalizing impulses are long dead by that point.

Is this a bit? It has to be a bit, right?

Right?