I think the people who said "this why D&D are liberals, because apparently you can't have a revolution if you break a few eggs" are sort of presupposing that a revolution has to be led by a literal madmen who kills millions of the toiling masses out of spite. This isn't what revolutionaries do. Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, Castro weren't crazy, they didn't hold contempt for the common men who used to live under their enemies. Only Pol Pot started mass-killing his own people like Daenerys, and he can not be called a comrade or genuine revolutionary.
D&D are libs, of course, but I feel there is a bit more to it. Daenerys isn't some marginalized people's hero, she comes from the most powerful feudal dynasty that just happened to lose a civil war before, one that is known for inbreeding in madness. Her compassion to the common folk, like to slaves, is completely patronising, if they don't reciprocate it, they have to die. The masses of King's Landing didn't want her "love" so they had to do die. Even if you look at progressive historical figures like Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte, they didn't do shit like that. Jon, on the other hand, is a marginalized bastard son, and even though he ends up turning out to be Aegon's son, he's more genuinely people's oriented than Daeneryses cult.