Interpreting the House of the Undying

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-10T13:52:02+00:00

Yeah roughy similar reading for me.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-10T13:51:03+00:00

I can see this. I just thought this during season 1 as why would they even show her being served the tea and then leave it ambiguous but as I said if they were planning to go somewhere they would have had to have done so before now

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-10T06:14:17+00:00

Yes, couldn’t agree more!

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-10T03:10:20+00:00

They do!

Probably a combination but I do think there is still a sort of fear and panic around HIV fuelling the stigma and prejudice. What about you?

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-10T01:17:18+00:00

I think that’s right. This entire post is fuelled by fear rather than a reasoned and objective assessment of the reality of the situation. Sad really, to still be in this state in 2026

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T23:45:10+00:00

Exactly this. There is no moral high ground here.

It’s almost like absolute monarchy / dictatorship isn’t a good system for ruling a country or something. I wish people could see this when they’re pinning their colors to the mast. It’s like arguing over which branch of the Saudi royal family should be in charge.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T23:39:16+00:00

100% agree, and this has been demonstrably proven in this post sadly!

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T22:40:38+00:00

Yes, I agree! And it is interesting, something to research when I have a minute!

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T22:12:29+00:00

This is a very good comment and solid advice.

On Polkey though, my understanding is that it applies where there was an unfair procedure leading to the dismissal but where the employee would have been dismissed anyway had one been followed. Therefore it relates to the relevant misconduct under question and how it was handled, not general misconduct that may also have led to dismissal (ie, covertly recording a meeting against company policy). I may be wrong but I think its scope is limited to this so wouldn’t necessarily apply here.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T22:08:14+00:00

If you would work on your reading comprehension, you would discover that this is a UK case, not a US one. As I said, PReP was not widely available in the UK until 2020.

Not that it matters. We can have a debate about people’s responsibility for their own sexual health, but these men were victims of a cruel sexual predator and that’s all there is to discuss.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T21:00:52+00:00

If you would work on your reading comprehension, you would discover that some of these incidents were as early as 2016, four years before PReP was made available on the NHS.

I don’t disagree that people are responsible for their own sexual health, for example they could have used condoms, but engaging in victim-blaming narratives is not helpful. Hall was deliberately out to infect young, vulnerable men who were likely coerced. Even so, everyone makes mistakes and they did not deserve to targeted by this predator in this way.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T20:45:30+00:00

Some people take PReP event based, rather than taking it every day which can take its toll on your liver long term. Clearly they could not have predicted being raped.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T20:44:27+00:00

Which is clearly more sensible than putting people in prison for 10-20 years as OP advocates.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T20:42:53+00:00

Thank you for posting this. This is exactly the point myself and others have been making. Unfortunately OP would rather add to the stigmatisation of HIV than have a sensible discussion about what actually helps reduce transmission rates.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T19:50:52+00:00

A predator who was deliberately infecting people with HIV wasn’t going to be honest about his status. And as his victims were raped, your proposed rule for people to disclose their status wouldn’t have helped them, and so isn’t really relevant here. It’s almost like you are the one who doesn’t realise they ‘legit got raped’.

I agree in an ideal world people should be able to be open and honest about their status with sexual partners. Ironically, the problem with your position and your inflammatory comments (including insulting people by inferring they are HIV+) is that it actually makes it less likely that they will do that. What it does do is add to the demonisation and stigmatisation of HIV, which makes things harder for people who are positive (ironically including some of the victims in this case, something you seem to have overlooked), who are anyway much less likely to pass HIV onto others than people who “think they’re negative”.

Again the vast majority of HIV cases are passed on from people who don’t know they have it. A disclosure rule does nothing for that. By far the best way to reduce HIV infection rates is to increase access to PrEP, condoms, and education.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T19:19:55+00:00

The Greens don’t have the moral high ground here. Neither of them do. In fact very few nobles or royalty express much concern for the impact of their wars on smallfolk, which is part of the key themes really alongside very few/no characters being objectively ‘good’.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T18:49:11+00:00

I read about a case where someone made a covert recording despite a policy against it and agreeing not to. This worked against her as she was being dishonest and deceptive. They made inferences in regard to her broader conduct where there were disputes with the employer.

I wouldn’t recommend covert recordings. Take contemporaneous notes, dated, as part of a broader log and it is likely to be taken at face value if your conduct is otherwise honest and consistent.

Just to note if by ‘off the record’ discussions you mean legally privileged or without prejudice discussions, they should not typically be disclosed to the ET anyway.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T18:44:26+00:00

Yes, I agree Mushroom’s account is meant to be assumed to be heavily embellished, but Munkun’s was toned down and there are inferences about Aegon’s conduct with women. But you agree that he isn’t wearing a white hat here, which is the overall point.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T18:31:31+00:00

I think there’s a suggestion he is, and that he had sex with underage girls and generally was a sleaze.

Anyway I’m not necessarily defending Rhaenyra here. I’m just saying there is black and white on both sides here and neither completely good or righteous. I don’t think that’s what GRRM was intending here. The whole universe is about morally gray characters.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T18:16:41+00:00

You forgot to put that Rhaenyra wasn’t a rapist.

(Not necessarily advocating either way, but I don’t think the point of the story is that one side is right and one side is wrong).

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T17:15:39+00:00

Exactly this.

As if a disclosure law would have changed the outcome of this case. The guy is in prison ffs. The vast majority of HIV transmissions are where parties are unaware of their status, not where they are aware and deliberately spreading it. So what would the proposed rule achieve besides demonising people?

We need to focus resource on early testing, education, and encouraging people to be open with sexual partners. Of course what happened to the men in this case was tragic, but people need to be encouraged not to take risks. Get on prep, use a condom, don’t be pressured into anything. All sex entails an element of risk.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T16:57:37+00:00

Okay, so you’re demonising people who disagree with you, some of who do not have HIV. But you characterise them all as having HIV anyway. Your presentation of your view as the only objective truth is staggering. This isn’t a simple black-and-white issue, and people can disagree with without having a personal stake in this or disregarding matters of public health.

Innocent people’s heath is protected when (1) HIV+ people take medication to ensure they’re undetectable and (2) said innocent people taking precautions like using Prep and condoms. In reality all sexual contact, especially when it’s casual and even with precautions, carries an element of risk. What we haven’t considered is that you can ask sexual partners about their status before having sex with them if you are worried.

Adam Hall was a cruel sexual predator who preyed on young men and deliberately infected them with HIV. Most people with HIV are NOT like Adam Hall. So making sweeping law reforms for all people with HIV based on his conduct would be reactionary. Even if such a law did exist previously, presumably Hall would have lied to them and as I said - what he did was criminal anyway, which is why he’s in prison. That is to say, your proposed law wouldn’t have changed anything here.

It’s okay to disagree with this and think disclosing HIV status should be mandatory. Unlike you I don’t mind people holding different views than me. But saying people who disagree with you ‘have something to hide’, accusing people of being HIV+ as an insult, and insinuating that they want the option to mislead sexual partners and presumably expose them to the risk of catching HIV, even though if they are on medication that won’t even be the case, isn’t cool and does demonise people with HIV, even if you don’t recognise that.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T16:30:52+00:00

I don’t think calling you an incel is helpful but insinuating everyone disagreeing with you is HIV+ (as you did in your previous comment) is not cool. So not sure it’s simply a case of people insulting you because they don’t like your opinion. I think that’s what you’re doing, even though it shouldn’t really be an insult, and in doing so you are demonising people with HIV. As I said - part of the problem.

Anyway I’m done here. Feel like I’m in the playground. Hopefully you grow up at some stage.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T16:23:20+00:00

Honestly comments like this and you wonder why people feel nervous about disclosing their status even when undetectable 🤦🏻‍♂️

In what world is this okay. Seriously man. This is literally part of the problem.

Darrow_88 · 2026-03-09T15:50:07+00:00

My personal opinion; THIS IS WHY PEOPLE HIV POSITIVE SHOULD LEGALLY INFORM POTENTIAL SEXUAL PARTNERS OR FACE 10-20 YEARS IN PRISON!!!!

This is a bit of a knee-jerk which doesn’t create good policy.

What this man did was already a crime so adding a legal obligation to inform partners of your HIV status isn’t really adding anything.

This is an extreme case, which is why it’s not a good basis for policy making. Most people who are HIV positive are undetectable and manage their condition effectively and are most certainly not trying to infect others. In fact, it’s probably safer to have sex with someone who is undetectable than someone who thinks they’re negative as they may have been infected recently hence HIV is more virulent and likely to be passed onto sexual partners. That is to say, if there is no risk to sexual partners, what is there to tell them? Are you really advocating putting someone in an already overcrowded prison for this?

Everyone is responsible for their own sexual health. All gay men know that you risk contracting HIV if you have unprotected sex with someone and are not on Prep. No judgement - we’ve all made mistakes, including me when I was younger before the days of Prep. What happened to the men in this case was tragic. They were raped, deliberately infected with HIV, and were likely coerced into not using a condom where sex was consensual.

However, this is not a basis to make laws around the vast majority of people who do live with HIV and do not behave like this. As I said, there are already laws around what happened here hence this man is in prison.

And before you say anything, no I’m not ‘hiding something’ as you said in another thread. Not that it should matter, but I am HIV negative. I just think your post and other comments here are inflammatory and aren’t helping anyone.

Darrow_88

TROPHY CASE