#i must not discourse

[lemon-wedges]

...

[peachviz]

ok TikTok may not think unification confirmed spirk but I keep seeing old insecure bigoted men on Facebook angrily calling the short brokeback mountain so that right there is solid confirmation of spirk

[mayvette]

“bonnibel bubblegum” plot summary

[yappacadaver]

are u pro-thing or anti-thing. u must be one or the other and NOTHING ELSE also u must declare publicly so me and all my friends can decide whether or not to treat you like dirt/an active threat. if you don't declare adequately i'll take it as you being on the wrong side. if u declare adequately but surreptitious social audits provide contrary evidence, i will take it as you being on the wrong side. also i hate fascism btw

[the-agent-of-blight]

also, i really find it interesting how people can genuinely go about saying "Well this group isn't attacked for their identity so they can't be queer " while then turning around and. attacking said group. for their identity. and exemplifying classic __-phobic tropes. It's really dumb. You are being the thing that you claim does not exist

[hedwig221b]

No but like imagine being the fic writer that came up with the "don't call me dude!" bit. Your writing is so on point that it's accepted as a part of the canon lore by the fandom lmao

[justcallmemrslupin]

🐺💥 Canon vs Fanon: Remadora vs W*lfstar 💥🐺

Someone on TikTok commented under a post about Tonks: “I hated her relationship with Remus. W*lfstar made much more sense.”

Hmmm... More sense? Really??!

How can a fanon ship built entirely on projection make “more sense” than a canon relationship that showed emotional growth, mutual sacrifice, and real consequences?

Ok, let's brake this down:

Canon Sirius never gave much thought to Remus’ well-being.

- In Prisoner of Azkaban, we learn that Sirius literally used Remus as a weapon against Snape. That wasn’t a joke. If Remus had attacked Snape, he wouldn’t just have been expelled. He could have been executed. Sirius didn’t care.

- Sirius openly wished for a full moon when he was bored in Order of the Phoenix. Remus answered him dryly, because Sirius was being inconsiderate again.

- Sirius didn’t even trust Remus during the war.

He advised James to make Peter the Secret Keeper instead, specifically because he didn’t trust Remus. He says so himself in Book 3, and he even apologizes for it later (so no, it's not a headcanon that he didn't trust him, it's canon, it's his own words).

- Sirius left Remus nothing in his will.

Not a thing. Remus was poor, homeless, grieving, and Sirius — supposedly his best friend — didn’t leave him so much as a spare room in Grimmauld Place. That doesn’t scream “deep emotional connection” to me.

And the go-to argument?

"But Sirius became an Animagus to help Remus!"

So did James. So did Peter. They were teenagers, it was exciting, and for Sirius, it was probably more about doing whatever James was doing than any grand act of loyalty. Sure, Remus saw it as a huge act of friendship, but Remus was a lonely kid with no friends. Of course he idealized them. Even JKR says in his official bio that his biggest flaw was cutting his friends far too much slack because he was afraid of losing them.

Meanwhile, Tonks:

- Lost her powers and her Patronus changed because Remus tried to protect her by pushing her away.

- Fought for his love despite prejudice, danger, and family disapproval.

- Was nearly killed multiple times because she chose to be with Remus — Bellatrix targeted her because she married him. Guess what? Yes, Tonks actually DIED because she married Remus!

- Left her newborn baby behind to go fight beside him, because she 'couldn’t bear not knowing" (her words) if he was okay.

JKR’s own canon bio for Remus confirms: he had never fallen in love before Tonks. As for Sirius? He always got the women.

And don’t get me started on fandom reaching:

• “Remus was living with Sirius!” — So were a dozen other Order members. Including Tonks.

• “Remus looked at Sirius for 40 lines!” — Because Sirius was unstable, and Remus was bracing to intervene. Which he did. Like the responsible adult he was.

Remadora is not just canon. It’s about unconditional love in the face of prejudice. About two people who chose each other even when the world said they shouldn’t.

And for the record? I’m not even a hardcore Remadora shipper. I’ve always written Remus with my OC, before Remadora was even a thing. But saying "Wolfstar makes more sense" is not only ignoring canon. It’s ignoring character dynamics, consequences, and context.

Ship whoever you want. Really. But don’t pretend fanon is more "logical" than the canon story about love, sacrifice, and growth.

[fossilizedhysterics]

saw an instagram reel abt someone WISHING they would gain weight on t, and half of the comments were literally just "eeee thats what im scared of >_< what if i gain WEIGHT and get FAT!!!" like maybe i wouldnt hate skinny ppl so much if they ever did anything other than inserting themselves into conversations that are not about them and talking about how terrified they are to ever in a million years be fat, as if thats the worst thing that can happen to someone. its fucking compulsory i swear to god they genuinely cannot help themselves

[edenfenixblogs]

Well Drawfee is officially no longer safe media for me :(

Karina liked multiple tweets conflating a PSA for antisemitism with Israeli propaganda and claiming that Israel planned its assault to coincide with the superbowl…

Julia liked posts claiming that the war isn’t a war. Nobody has liked anything about antisemitism or even acknowledging Jews are in danger right now.

TBH I’m devastated.

I have Drawfee art all over my home. I was actually gonna become a patron this year. I’d literally been saving to make it feasible. This is crushing. I feel sick.

[danothan]

why do some ppl in fandom feel the need to clarify that they’re a multishipper, isn’t that normal? having an OTP has never stopped me from mix-matching dynamics like playing w dolls

[pep-rambles]

While I can't speak for other Alastor ships (but I'll tag you all and you can weigh in). But in the RadioApple/DuckieDeer fandom a lot of those making fanwork, including the smuttier stuff, are acespec/arospec themselves so maybe learn what is actually going on in these fandoms before try to gatekeep in their tags

[prettyboykatsuki-moved]

tw for very very brief mentions of rape and incest and other taboo subject matter - only brought up for discussion.

i feel like it is kind of beating a dead horse when i bring up the relationship between fiction, reality, and the exploration of dark/taboo. given the nature of my blog and the change it's made over time—it's brought up repeatedly many times and in many context in which im forced to defend.

outside of that though, i have never really taken a moment to thoroughly break down the reason (or one of them) i find the it important which is the idea of fictional exploration as a sort of third space of processing and development.

there are many arguments surrounding the exploration of taboo relationships, ideas, and incidents in fiction built on the basis of morals. our greater, societal infrastructure relies on the idea of morality to justify any and all material violence. whether that violence be physical harm, systemic injustice, or psychological / verbal abuse etc.

there's a quote by frank bidart that goes "you can convince human beings to do anything if you convince them it is moral" that i think of often when we debate about what is moral and why. all people are equally capable of committing great material harm to other people if they are under the impression they are in the moral right.

so you examine morality as a mechanism for forming social contracts. it is largely debated whether or not morality is subjective or objective - but regardless of either thing, it is a fundamental part of creating a social circle. big or small.

human beings are also naturally social creatures. we want the approval and attention of our peers and we want community. and it will cause us to act in ways, whether that be conscious or unconscious, that are unsavory. whether that be passivitiy to maintain the status quo or othering another person in order to gain social status or favor.

a lot of the people who are staunchly against any forms of taboo in the exploration of fiction are people engaging with this kind of social behavior. at the core of there reasoning, they are seeking solace with peers over a sense of moral superiority all while not contributing anything materially—except often the verbal abuse and harassment of the opposite party.

none of this is very novel for me to point out. there are also plenty of other things that contribute to why this kind of debate happens online so frequently, particularly a strong taboo towards any all sexual content stemming from old-school religious conservatism and other fascist ideas etc.

but i bring it up because of how it relates to my feelings about the concept of fiction as a sort of third space in the same way the internet is a sort of third space.

engaging in this kind of moral crusading online is done by people who are seeking out social spaces that connect them to other people. this is especially true online as the internet has become a third space for people to interact with others that share similar interest and views. they do this to have a space to reaffirm themselves and their morality.

most importantly, they do this because the internet is an easily accessible space to like-mindedness and self-assurance. it's unreliability is overshadowed by the fact that young people engaging in this kind of critique can get ahold of their peers easily this way. humans are social. they seek companionship and our real life third spaces have become more and more sparse over the years.

so, online spaces have become a place for people to process their social development and their emotions with their peers.

now there's an understanding—that people need a way to process their internal world, concepts and ideas somehow.

but there are social contracts that can't be broken in these online spaces. though they are meant to be an escape from the constraints of real life, you are still subject to scrutiny and at risk of becoming a bad actor that is shunned by their own online community and circle of friends.

on top of that, if human beings are capable of committing horrific acts of violence, they are just as capable and if not more, of experiencing that violence in their lives. this also requires processing similar to the normal, everyday social processing people do online.

this much is obvious, even to many people who oppose the idea that fiction doesn't equal reality. you'll often hear them utter words about seeking counseling / therapy underneath posts involving dark subject matter.

but then, there are social contracts of acceptability and palatability. and more, there is inaccessibility.

all human beings are subject to some form of violence or some other type of struggle. whether that be in their class, race, or sexuality - the average person has material conditions and complex emotions that can't be neatly resolved nor shared comfortably with their peers.

everyone needs space to air these aspects of themselves out healthily. you are automatically going to experience a specific amount of negativity in your life that requires an outlet and there is no real way to find a universal solution to answering those feelings. unresolved, it can lead to substance abuse or suicidal thoughts/

and there is no universal, easy to access place for people to unilaterally express and process their feelings and thoughts.

but there is writing fiction.

this, to me, is the one argument that i think is important to bring it up but rarely does. because there are many angles to approach this discourse and this is just one of them.

writing is also a kind of third space. a place to communicate that isn't home or work. a third space in to connect with and break down these emotions—somewhere that can be shared to find camaraderie. it can also be shielded to hide away from the scrutiny of your peers. it is a place where you can inadvertently process these great, overbearing emotions that is neutral and welcome to all.

and it's not that fiction can't cause harm at all. because it certainly can and has

but the very presence of taboo is not the sole cause of harm in what makes something fictional hurtful. propaganda and insensitive messaging and all the ways fiction can hurt people exist with in a predefined context and social climate. that kind of harm spreads through massive scales of government and print and makes its way onto shelves.

more than that, human beings have a sense of morality. it is agreed upon that rape, incest, violence and murder are materially harmful. in the misplaced desire for censorship, it seems people are attempting to affirm this by monitoring works of fiction that have this subject matter at all.

but in that monitoring, you are taking away what makes these kinds of spaces comfortable - which is a lack of hostility.

if you believe this to be the most optimum solution, i implore you to critically examine whether or not you think it morally correct to take away from someone the means to process their emotions. and if you believe still, that it's the best thing to do for all parties i next ask, how will you then make space for them? what space will replace this one?

what are the other solutions have the same level of access to all? can you implement a space for someone with no other healthy outlets, to vent and untangle and smooth out these feelings, without requiring the hypothetical labor of someone else? can you promise you will be able to provide something that offers a similar catharsis for the often deeply complicated feelings being addressed (whether that be directly or indirectly) through the presence of themes like incest, rape, or abuse? can you provide another alternative to the repetitive behaviors of trauma that insist on recreating / imagining these harms in a controlled environment over and over again?

to be clear, it is unnecessary and against my beliefs that you must have experience those things directly to write about them. in fact my point is the opposite.

the thematic concepts that come along with the taboos are the catharsis themselves. a person with a disconnected trauma about neglect or abandonment finding healing in the themes of incest about forbidden love or love that goes against all. a person with no trauma at all, who longs to be free from the daily life stresses of work may find catharsis in the writing of rape which strips autonomy and choice.

human beings are complicated. these examples may feel extreme to you. you are welcome to view them that way. that is your right.

but for other people it is a good solution, one of the best solutions - to strip down these desires bare and explore them where no one is being hurt. where they do not hurt themselves materially or anyone else. art is one of the few spaces you have for yourself. you can argue that distribution is the problem—but if you are able to identify when it is wrong, does your moral superiority extend so far as to believe that that's something only you can do?

and most importantly - are you prepared to take that space from them and provide other outlets? do you think it fair to prevent people from safely having access to something that you, yourself, depend on heavily for social and emotional affirmation?

are you willing to hold space for them when no one else can or no one else will?

[foreignswaggersession]

alright i'm gonna say this as nicely as i can. if you actually think louis ate his nephew you're an idiot not paying attention. that baby wasn't just a baby, it was his NEPHEW, grace's child. once again, i'm asking you to think seriously - if grace left her baby alone with louis, and came back to a dead baby, do you think grace would not hold louis responsible for her baby's death? do you think grace would tell jonah where to find louis, and not "louis killed my child you should avoid him?"

do you think they would even entertain letting louis come to the house anymore to visit grace's other children, day or night?

do you think grace would invite him to their mother's funeral (or any other events that louis missed - like his not-dead nephew's christening, which takes place AFTER ep 2)?

do you think grace would mark his grave like this???

that whole "did you eat the baby" scene is why episode 2 is my least favorite episode of season 1. it goes on for so long, and then people with no brain cells think they're smart by saying "louis's such a crazy liar he would eat a baby" (ok i've stopped being nice - if you think louis ate that baby you have no right to say anything about this show)

also, we don't see the son at the twins' birthday party because he's still a baby/toddler and probably asleep. he didn't eat his fucking nephew omg be serious.

[qiu-yan]

sensitive topic incoming

not a haterpost i promise.

sect leader yao is not a reliable source

further explanation/hypothesizing:

it happened exactly as sect leader yao said: self-explanatory. the version of events preferred by jiggy antis

he mercy-killed rusong: maybe rusong was already showing signs of a life-altering disorder as a result of the incest. or maybe jiggy just felt that, if the incest information ever came out, rusong would be doomed to a life of suffering in a heavily prejudiced society. jiggy himself had spent his entire life suffering and getting kicked around due to his own proximity to society's pariahs/taboos, so perhaps he felt that he could not subject his son to the same miserable existence. thus, jiggy gave rusong a more peaceful end, before (in jiggy's mind) society could force rusong to suffer.

he allowed rusong to die through inaction: this is really only a "kill" under a utilitarian moral framework. by this explanation, maybe jiggy found out in advance that someone was planning to kill rusong; however, for any of the other reasons listed here, jiggy decided to do nothing and allow the assassination to happen. thus jiggy would consider himself guilty of allowing rusong's death to happen through inaction.

he did it to justify eliminating an opponent of the watchtowers: maybe the advancement of the watchtower project, which jiggy knew would make society a safer place, had hit a deadlock because of a particularly stubborn opponent. so jiggy killed rusong and framed the opponent in order to engineer a situation in which his annihilation of the opponent would be entirely socially sanctioned.

and here is where the utilitarian arguments come in. perhaps jiggy knew that the watchtower project would improve the lives of millions of people and would make society as a whole safer. and he saw that one political opponent as the final major barrier. and jiggy could think of no other way to get rid of this guy. so jiggy weighed the lives of those millions of people against his one son, and concluded those millions of strangers were weightier; his son became his iphigenia.

of course, this is still a rather unhinged plan to just come up with on your own, so perhaps a better explanation of events is this reasoning paired with the "he allowed rusong to die through inaction" series of events.

rusong was killed by political opponents and jiggy blamed himself: now we reach the "he didn't do it" section of the potential explanations. jiggy has a habit of claiming kills he didn't strictly perform himself; so long as the chain of cause and effect can somehow be traced to somewhere near him eventually, jiggy will claim credit for someone's death. this is how jiggy takes credit for the death of jin zixuan: even though [novel canon] no one forced wei wuxian to lose control of wen ning and no one forced wen ning to attack jin zixuan, jiggy still acts as if he can call himself jin zixuan's killer, simply because he sent jin zixuan to wei wuxian's location.

jiggy, in pursuing the watchtower project, aroused a lot of public anger. jiggy made himself, and by extension his wife and his child, the political enemies of many, and thus political targets as well. thus, if an enemy targets the life of jin rusong because they are jiggy's enemy, jiggy is entirely justified in feeling as if rusong's death is his fault. after all, if he hadn't pursued the watchtower project, then maybe rusong would still be alive.

jiggy said "he had to die" as a Cope: losing your son sucks. perhaps jiggy, in the despair following his son's death, tried to cope with the new reality by telling himself that rusong would have had to die anyways, because he was an incest baby. if rusong was always slated to die, then the fact that rusong is now dead can now be survived. thus, "rusong had to die" becomes an emotional coping mechanism for jiggy.

no, jiggy himself is uncertain if he allowed rusong to die through inaction: this one is a a bit fanciful but bear with me here. on one hand, jiggy loves his wife and son. on the other hand, jiggy is horrified by his marriage with his wife and by the existence of his son, because his wife is also his sister and his son is the product of incest. jiggy lives with not only this horror but also the constant fear of exposure, because if this information ever got out, the lives of himself, his wife, and his son would all be over.

rusong's growth thus becomes a source of dread, not hope: every day lived brings the possibility of rusong developing some disorder or condition that eventually proves the incest. is it not possible that jiggy, living every day under such fear, might come to believe that things would be better if rusong stopped growing older? if rusong died--then gone too would be the evidence of the incest, would it not?

now along comes the political opponent who assassinates rusong. jiggy does not see it coming and jiggy is thus unable to stop it. but afterwards, upon beholding the corpse of his son, what does jiggy feel? rage? despair? no--relief! he feels relief! though he also grieves, the constant fear shrouding his entire life has, for once, lifted!

but if jiggy is relieved by the death of his son, what does this imply? can jiggy truly say, with full confidence, that he did not see the assassination coming? can he really say, with heaven and earth as his witnesses, that his failure to stop the assassination was not to some degree a choice? is there truly no small part of him that did in fact see the assassination coming--yet, knowing it would be so relieving for him, simply chose to do nothing?

but if jiggy did not see the assassination coming at all--if rusong's death truly cannot be pinned on jiggy at all--then what does that say about jiggy's power? about jiggy's safety? jiggy being innocent of killing through inaction means that jinlintai really is somewhere assassins can penetrate into. then jiggy's son really was killed by a force jiggy had no way of stopping. then, in this situation, jiggy really was powerless.

you can remove the ambiguity and argue the case either way: jiggy knew about the assassination and let it happen, jiggy legitimately knew nothing and could not have stopped the assassination. but the ambiguity makes this scenario more interesting to me. jiggy lives for the rest of his days uncertain if he chose to allow his son to die through inaction, or if he really was just weak enough to fail to protect his son. maybe jiggy's memories of the incident even manage to start distorting after a while, implying either one or the other depending on jiggy's own mental situation.

thus, when jiggy says "rusong had to die," he's uncertain if he's justifying his actions or delusionally coping with a reality he had no hand in making. when jiggy says "i killed my son," he's uncertain if he's even telling the truth or not.

ah well. this is basically original fiction at this point. it's just a potential scenario.

anyways, these are just a few scenarios based on various meta and fanfics of this subject ive read over the past few months. you can probably come up with all sorts of explanations. whatever you come up with, though, should be better than just blindly taking sect leader yao at his word.

[lmaster37]

accidentally stumbled over an anti-izzy hands blog today while scrolling con o'neill's tag and folks. folks i'm being so brave about it i am not going to respond on anything i'm just going to block and move on i am not going to involve myself in dead fandom drama but ohhh. ohhh the temptation. oh you people are wrong in such obvious and upsetting ways. oh when i fucking Get You

[intothedysphoria]

Have we had “Billy was an active participant in his mother’s abuse when he was yk…..like 9 or 10” as an anti take before? Is this the first one?

The actual somersaults antis will do to implicate Billy as responsible for the abuse he experienced is already wild but as a 9 year old??? Clown behaviour