Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why is "motte, less demonstrated" that they are poorly researched badly written stereotype? At least when it comes to clothing, the blog author does indeed demonstrate that.

> We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve"

There is no contradiction in two. It is completely absolutely valid to criticize research and clearly comment on the whole "nomad cultures are nothing like this" aspect of GoT as a super popular fiction - whose fans indeed do claim "it was like that".

"Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship just because someone politely criticized something. However, writing 3 part series on something being inaccurate or even completely shitty (which author did not done) is not cancelling.

Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously - notably Jamie military activities. It is not just about Dothraki.

The author is expressing an opinion using cherry-picked details: an excerpt from an offhand LiveJournal comment and 2 sparse descriptions from the book. That plus loads of speculation presented as fact. "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing

Historically inaccurate: sure. Granted. Motte.

Demeaning stereotype: Let's take an offhand comment, load it with unsupported meaning, link it with Historical Inaccuracy, call it demeaning. Boom. Bailey.

Edit: responding to your edits

> * "nomad cultures are nothing like this" *

He cherry-picked ways that the Dothraki are different from horse-riding, raiding cultures and labeled this demeaning. Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad

> * Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship ... *

You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that.

> * Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously ... *

Not sure what that has to do with this article being a motte and bailey. I'm sure his other articles are marvelous.

The author spent significant time explaining why they chose to address that livejournal excerpt, and the context in which they were addressing it. They did not present speculation as fact, they presented facts (historical information, photographs, and quotes from the material) and suggested an interpretation of those facts.

This is the motte. "It's just historical inaccuracy. Surely you cannot object to correcting the record can you?"

Now defend that the historical inaccuracy is a demeaning stereotype.

Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. If you need more evidence, I'll point out that in the specific case of making the defining characteristic being bad-ass warriors, that implies that when the bad-ass warriors get their asses kicked (by modern militaries), you are implying that they no longer have any redeeming qualities worth caring about.

This is not logical. These characters are fictional, and they have been vaguely identified with roughly a third of the premodern cultures I've ever heard of. Emphasizing their prowess in war and also illustrating them facing difficulties in war is just a trope. "The Worf Effect", to be precise. [0] It doesn't say anything about the Huns or the Turks or the Sioux or anyone.

Even telling a story about the actual Huns and how they were great at war but also they lost some wars wouldn't be demeaning. You might not have heard, but war is generally horrible for everyone involved.

[0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect

> Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype.

Let's grant that premise! You are correct!

What does that have to do with the Dothraki, a fictional nation?

Remember, the bailey is "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype"

The motte is "The Dothraki is historically inaccurate." or "The Sioux have endured demeaning stereotypes." These are both true and uncontroversial.

The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would.

The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?

> The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would.

Most historians, and enthusiasts of history like myself, would not take umbrage; instead, they would effuse praise for bucking stereotype and actually doing their research into how these cultures would have dressed. I'll point out that the author actually has a lot of praise for CK3 for getting its history details right.

> The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?

I think your first sentence is unwitting justification of the second sentence. Your understanding of the aforementioned cultures [1] appears to be limited to their raiding effects on "civilized" societies, ignoring other aspects of their society as at best uninteresting and at worst nonexistent. That steppe cultures are reduced in popular history to such a degree is perhaps understandable, but if you're taking a position of trying to assert historical accuracy, perpetuating popular history myths is pretty tasteless.

[1] Although interesting that you chose to qualify only Barbary and Mongol with pirates and raiders, leaving no qualification for the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs. Am I to take away that you believe that the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs consist solely of entities predating on settled societies, and that you believe that the Berbers and Mongols had richer cultures with only a subset of these people consisting of such entities? Or should I infer that you are listing known predatory groups, and know the "Barbary pirates" only by that name and not their culture grouping (admittedly, this makes "Mongol raiders" harder to explain)?

" Am I to take away that you believe ..."

If you project wild surmise and lofty architectures of tenuous illogical connection onto the smallest throwaway detail like the essayist does, then by all means.

I really wish you people would focus. The bailey is GRRM causes harm by creating the Dothraki, a demeaning stereotype. That is the entire point of the thread. All the rest is distraction, intended or not.

I would love to hear how the Dothraki are inaccurate. That with a heaping stinky dollop of "GRRM creates demeaning stereotypes because I say so" is no go.

And with that, my interlocutors, I'm signing off. Feel free to have the last word. I'll read it, but likely won't respond.

> The bailey is GRRM causes harm by creating the Dothraki, a demeaning stereotype.

And asserting that it is historically accurate, or at least more historically accurate than typical fictional portrayals. That is one of the key issues Devereaux has here.

> The author is expressing an opinion using cherry-picked details: an excerpt from an offhand LiveJournal comment and 2 sparse descriptions from the book. That plus loads of speculation presented as fact.

Can you please point to pages where opposite things are stated? If it is cherry picked, surely you can quote.

> "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing

This article is about clothing. Next installment will be about culture.

> Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad

Are there way in which they are similar? It is cherry picking only if you ignore opposing evidence. I am sure you can provide some?

> You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that.

I literally did not. Cancelling is literally used in that context and is supposed to be bad.

> I literally did not.

... and you doubled down. Cancelling is cancelling, a new, vaguely defined phenomena some people even deny exists but is a word the essay itself uses. Censorship is censorship, well-defined, milleniae old and nowhere near what I said. You can continue to argue this peripheral, distracting semantic point if you want but there's nothing more for me to say on this.

> It is cherry picking only if you ignore opposing evidence. I am sure you can provide some?

Given that there is nothing in the essay that acknowledges any similarity, I can point to that per se as demonstration of cherry-picking, since the Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were all horse-riding cultures that lived on extensive, flat land who were known to conduct raids on settled peoples, like the Dothraki. There. Met your ask.

> e Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were all horse-riding cultures that lived on extensive, flat land who were known to conduct raids on settled peoples, like the Dothraki. There. Met your ask.

But ... they did not wore the cloth similar to Dothraki. Their culture had the word for "thank you". Elite used colors and comfortable clothing. Their military tactic was much different, much more smarter and much more organized. They did not charged unorganized on horses in disordered formation either.

The argument is not that horse-riding cultures on flat land who conduct raids don't exist. Argument is that those cultures are nothing like Dothraki, because if they would, they would die quick. Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were not Dothraki at all.

> Cancelling is cancelling, a new, vaguely defined phenomena some people even deny exists but is a word the essay itself uses. Censorship is censorship, well-defined, milleniae old and nowhere near what I said.

Cancelling is just a new word for non state censorhip. That is just how it is used pretty much everywhere.

> But ... they did not wore the cloth similar to Dothraki.

Your ask was how and whether Dothraki and these historical cultures were similar. My response was that they are all horse-riding cultures that live on plains/steppes and raid settled peoples. Further, I submit that this lack of acknowledgement of this fact on the author's part defacto demonstrates cherry-picking. Your response could be that you disagree that this is evidence of cherry-picking, but instead you... recap the article.

All this is beside the point. I acknowledge that the Dothraki are not historically accurate. That is the motte. The bailey is that the Dothraki are demeaning stereotypes. That is my original point against which you argue. I grant the motte. It's the bailey that has yet to be demonstrated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com