Knowing the rebellion needed to happen to stop a corrupt king isn't saying the rebels were perfect? Just because you guys aren't capable of acknowledging flaws in the Targaryens doesn't mean other fans are the same way.
But that isn't quite right, is it? "Targaryen fans" are discussing Targaryen nuance all the time. "Targaryen haters" are talking about their flaws all the time. 50 posts a day. A critical post about, say, Ned Stark, appears every few month, and people get mad.
I answered a post going "Jon Arryn is a nice, neat guy :)" post with his actual messed up actions and got pushed back on just a while back.
This phrasing is also distorting the actual argument brought against Rebellion defenders: which is that the Rebellion being seen as an improvement to some evil regime, and Targaryens being the one flaw in this world that once removed is the biggest of deals. (Also the use of "corrupt" is quite distorting in itself. Robert's regime is more "corrupt" than Aerys'. Aerys was mentally ill, unfit to rule, and there is no safeguard within their government in this kind of situation).
Not only does nothing in the regime/government changes with the Rebellion (hence the problem with the argument that the Rebellion puts an end to any "corruption"), but it gets worse in all significant ways, but people act like it's better because the King does not act in some cartoonish cruel way as Aerys was written to (though, once more, Aerys, yes, should have been made to step down in some way or other, as he was unfit to rule; him making these clearly chaotic, cruel decisions shouldn't have been allowed).
Economically, Robert manages to get a full treasury from a mentally ill Aerys in command, and throughout 15 years of fruity years, turn it into being owned by a foreign bank.
Dynastic-wise, he takes it from the Aerys situation where you (AGAIN) have the main problem being that the guy who causes family/vassal conflicts is literally too ill to act better. That results in a 3-way conflict (if you include Rhaegar vs Aerys). Somehow, the Rebels men with no such excuse whatsoever, have such a catastrophic fragmented legacy that they leave behind a 5-way conflict only to start with, and more claimant Kings keep stacking up.
It's almost embarrassing. We are, again, comparing them to the legacy of a man straight up INEPT.
But the fandom talks of them like Ned patting Robert gently on his dead bed: "It's OK. At least you weren't as bad as Aerys" (coughtheguyliterallytooilltodobettercough). Seriously?
Point remade: the Rebellion "support" in fandom almost always lacks nuance in the interest of the Rebels' defense in particular, all while the idea that the Targaryens were this unique problem is almost always promoted.
This kind of nuance isn't even only applicable to the Rebels. One could also address the faulty "Jaehaerys was a good king but a bad father" given that his decision AS father and grandfather are what created huge dynastic conflicts for their "government" down the line. Or "Aegon V was a good father but a bad King" in spite of the fact that the conflicts with his Lords had to do with gains they couldn't get by marrying into royalty BUT also even more from Aegon trying to take care of the commoners which is actually what a good King should do (but protecting the commoners means he was stepping on his Lords' "rights" to do whatever the Hell to whoever).
But there's nothing as pushed back or diluted as when you remark it about the Rebels.
izzy806
pixelskylines
jacobvanloon
areudirty
andulkaphoto
ellievsbear
dededos
tangentwithtanner
