#discourse in the linked post

[chiisana-sukima]

Oh when you used to sing it to sleep

@jinkieswouldyoulookatthis and @blue-chimera - thank you both for your kind and thoughtful replies to my reblog of this post. The og post is getting quite long and also I don't want to put too much writing effort into a reblog that's susceptible to disappearance, so I'm continuing here instead.

I agree with you both that Dean's parentification and Sam's continued acceptance of vs rebellion against it as an adult are an important part of their dynamic. Dean's dying words in the finale attest to this beautifully (as well as many other things throughout the course of the show); I love you so much, my baby brother. To a certain extent Sam is Dean's baby and always will be.

I think though to a large extent, the framing by both Sam and Dean of Dean as Sam's parentified elder sibling is a mutually employed, mostly cooperative sanitization of the central and most damaging aspect of the roles they internalized through their upbringing: Sam is a monster and Dean is the tool to "take care of" it (double reading of "take care of" 100% intentional on my part). Because of this, while readings of spn through the lens of Dean's parentification are definitely valid, I do think they sometimes risk distorting or leaving out important aspects of the characters' personalities, motivations, and relationship.

Jinkies, in my fruitless quest to process without reblogging a take I knew the OP wouldn't appreciate, I had listened to the interview before posting, and I think while Jensen is being flip, he's also getting at what he sees as a truth in the brothers' relationship. I think he's right from a Doylist/co-creator/actor's perspective--Sam is the protagonist who we see through Dean, the deuteragonist's, eyes. Dean, as a piece of the narrative artifact, Supernatural, is there to save Sammy in a way that Sam (up to that point anyway) is not a piece of the narrative artifact whose purpose is to save Dean. From a Watsonian/in-universe perspective though, I think he's mistaken, and that his mistake is the reason his take sounds uncharitable, even aside from the flippant part.

It's just not a very convincing analysis imo to frame a character who spends the first few seasons rejecting immoral power, the next few in an arc that ends with him willingly subjected himself to eternal torture for the good of the world, and the one after that intending to sacrifice himself dramatically to rid the world of one particular species of monster but doesn't because Dean asks him not to, as self-absorbed or not particularly concerned with his effect on others, including on his brother. Likewise, Dean holds up well as a parentified older sibling with no sense of internal self and abysmal self-esteem in some ways, but in others not so much. He does have interests and priorities and a sense of purpose outside Sam. They're all over spn every day, much more so in fact than Sam's are. They're just not enough to override his Sam prioritization.

The main place I think this analysis fails on Dean's side though is that he, as an adult, is just not a very good parent. Obviously as a child he couldn't be expected to be a good parent (or a parent at all) and as an adult he's already damaged and so it's understandable that if big brother-ing Sam is how he chooses to spend the rest of his life, he may still not be equipped to do it. But he fails on such a fundamental, obvious level at the the most basic aspects of parenting--providing safety, unconditional love, and preparing your child to go out into the world as an independent adult--in ways that once he's a grown up are absolutely within his power to at least attempt (for example: if he wants Sam to be safer, it would ultimately have failed because of Fate, but the logical thing to do first would be not hunt. Dean could've followed Sam to Palo Alto. He could've told him to go to Harvard Law if he can't tolerate Stanford after Jess dies. Could've refused to support him throwing his life away of a mission of revenge. Bought him his own car, encouraged him to have his own tastes. Told him convincingly that trusting Ruby was a bad decision but Lucifer is still not his fault).

None of that is meant to be insulting to Dean though, because I don't think that parenting Sam is Dean's real job--even from Dean's perspective--and I don't think his real job is palatable enough that it would be better for either of them if he admitted what it is head on. What his and Sam's real jobs both are imo is being a container for Sam. On Dean's side, this means holding Sam in his arms with love or if that's not enough, holding him in the panic room, which, from this perspective, is also an act of love. Substituting his judgement for Sam's is an act of love. Not encouraging Sam to hold his own interests first or to grow towards independence are acts of love. Given the nature of (what I believe to be) Dean's actual job, they are effective and competent acts of love undertaken under impossible circumstances, even if the results are sometimes pretty horrific. Because they're still better than the alternative.

Likewise on Sam's side, doing his job well means being a model monster--go to an Ivy, exercise, eat healthy, cultivate empathy, don't have desires of your own, hold yourself to an impossible standard, suppress your anger, kill other monsters when they get out of line. And in the moments he can't manage all that--because who can?-- submit to Dean. When he does those things, he's succeeding at his job, and while it would be nice if "let your brother hit you" or "jump in the Cage with Lucifer" wasn't his job, in the world of spn, it is. He is right to be contained by Dean and wrong to have opinions or priorities of his own unless Dean approves them first.

I do think this sometimes ends up looking like Sam has better self-regard, because Dean's job is to "take care of" Sam, and Sam's job is also to "take care of" Sam. But actually they both have absolutely abysmal shit self-esteem. "I should submit to eternal torture because it's my fault someone else is going to do terrible things he could choose not to do if he wanted" is not the thinking of a person with healthy self-regard. The reason neither of them could fill a thimble with their self-esteem or healthy boundaries imo is because neither "monster" nor "blunt instrument" is a person. Neither of these roles is better or more healthy than the other. Fundamentally, if you don't see yourself first and foremost as a human person, then your life is going to suck horribly. And neither of them see themselves that way.

[thejolteonmastertj]

I really need ppl to understand 99% of the reason why Rulie's portrayed the way he is in fanfics is a combination of two factors:

1.) Jojo actively encouraged the fandom to write fanfic long before she even decided to make an actual long-form comic of her own.

2.) During this time period, & for quite a while after that, the majority of what the fandom had to work off of for Rulie's personality is from this doodle page, & this description for his personality literally straight frm Jojo herself.

... 2.5.) It should also be noted Jojo hadn't played Adventure Of Link until about halfway through the Sunset arc, as evidenced by this post (we know this is Jojo's sister b/c the official LU tumblr credited her for one of the goofy Sky panels).

Now, since then the way Jojo portrays Rulie didn't change drastically overnight, the Magic Sword comic did happen beforehand for instance... but I do think the level to which Jojo plans to focus on particular traits from Rulie's original design has evolved over the course of development for the comic.

More recent (and, uh, mostly discord-exclusive, so I can't give too many details here) commentary from Jojo indeed emphasizes plans to highlight Rulie's determination above all else, quite contrary to how she used to describe his character (it hasn't changed, probably, it's just a matter of plot-driven emphasis).

Fanfic writers aren't stupid, we're literally just working with what we have-AND, Rulie himself, as a very nuanced & layered character, is going to be portrayed in wildly different manners depending on context & genre.

If you want to see more of Rulie's sassy side,

1.) Read more recent fics (Alas you will likely have to search by recently updated, as the first wave of popular fanfic tends to get enshrined forever at the top of the list when searching by kudos & comments.)

2.) Don't read angst (Sorry not sorry but angst & vent fics are going to make up the majority of works in any fandom, & in these fics a character's vulnerable side tends to get spotlighted. Don’t like don’t read.)

3.) Respectfully Ask for recs instead of barging in & just straight up telling fanfic authors what to do. That's rude.

[bludgeon-alt]

hey, so, i've been a wilbur fan for ages, and i want to see the evidence against him. this isn't sarcasm or anything, i just genuinely want all the evidence so i can make a decision

Sure! I got you covered, anon. No shame in deliberating on the evidence yourself. I'll link you a few posts.

This is a good master post, but I will provide a few additional sources:

Shelby's Stream

A Follow-Up Tweet by Shelby

Additional Corroberating Statements From Former Lovejoy Trumpeter, Zoe

Statements From Admin of Wilbur's (unofficial) Discord

Statement From Julie Verlintox (Wilbur head mod/admin)

Clip of Shelby Talking More About Her Story on Lexie's Stream

Addition Piece of Potential Evidence Submitted by an Anon: Wayback Machine Archive of a Reddit Post Likely Made by Shubble in November; Mirrors Her Stream Statements

Additionally, both Smajor and Ranboo have unfollowed Wilbur. Make of all that what you will!

EDIT (3/27/24): Wilbur responded.

Shelby's Response to Wilbur's Response

Aimsey's Response to Wilbur's Response

Ranboo's Response to Wilbur's Response

Lexie's Response to Wilbur's Response

Punz's Response to Wilbur's Response

Tubbo's Response to Wilbur's Response

And many, many more.

[dilfza-discourse]

Can I just say really informally how frustrated I am with the the alleged Dream calling Ludwigs friend a whore thing?

Dream, in the stream where he brought it up mentioned it as an example where him not having the full context keeps him from being able to "resolve the situation," while Ludwig had said he wanted to keep her anonymous for her protection, and what I don't understand here is how Dream can complain about not being given the full picture on stream live to his thousands of viewers and millions of fans without realizing the irony of that statement??

Assuming the allegations are true that means Dream, in response to being told he made a sexist remark about someone, went live and out of NOWHERE with absolutely zero reason to bring it up other than "as an example" and ranted to millions of rabid fans- who have been KNOWN to viciously attack anyone Dream gestures to- and then gets super surprised that no one wants to come forward to talk about allegations with him?

The response from dreams fans, by the way have absolutely been mocking her, making jokes about the situation, and are generally acting a mix of dismissive and scornful. I cannot imagine how much worse it would have been if Ludwig had named dropped her and Dream HAD said her on stream. Can you imagine how that might feel from that friend's point of view?

Dream has a massive platform and his failure to recognize the responsibility that comes with it has been a rampant problem: such as him using the r-slur and inviting that kind of behavior into a largely neurodivergent community, throwing Aimsey and Hannah into the conversation when they generally don't need that kind of attention, him quote-retweeting Harry when he was 14 during peak 2020, and thats just things discussed within 3 hours ALONE.

Dream complains that no one will communicate with him about issues they have and then prove, time and time again, he is an unsafe person to talk to.

The only call to action I can think to wrap this up with is Dream needs to stop and truly think about why Ludwig believes Dream is someone he needs to protect his friend from. Dream I'm begging you to ask yourself, what about my actions makes me an unsafe person to come to with problems.

[okjii]

i think the statements of “most of thea muldanis hate stems from the fact that she is a complex black women and people generally cant handle that” and “people are allowed to be uncomfortable about her as a character right now as she is still developing and has done/said Weird Things” can and SHOULD coexist actually

[yingdu-lover]

"这一辈子 能和值得信任的伙伴在一起 是多么难能可贵的事"

"In this life, it is so precious to be with a trustworthy partner."

[veggiecorner]

Food for thought but what if the house in Hateno was just Zeldas at first? Link wanted to give Zelda a place to stay where she can rest without being reminded of her duty every 5 seconds (which was why staying in Kakariko didn't work) and he knew he's not the type to sit around and rest. He does want to stay by Zelda's side however, but also felt awkward about living with her. So he does this thing where he just checks in with her every few weeks/months but travels around doing tasks for the people. Whenever Zelda wants to travel he's immediately by her side, but once she's back in Hateno he's just "...okay see you later......" and leaves. Zelda wants to tell him to stay a bit longer, but is too uncertain to break that boundary between them. Also she doesn't really want him to feel like he has to stay by her side. She wants him to have his freedom.

But suddenly him being gone for 2 months becomes 6 weeks...then it becomes 1 month...then 2 weeks....then a week...and one day he walks up to Zelda and just says "...can I stay over for the night?"

And so the house in Hateno starts to feel a little less lonely from then on.

[breannasfluff]

As in, a reader left you a comment on a fic. Do you look for anything in particular for it to be a ‘good’ comment?

Related post about comments on fics

[vagueeyes]

very unfiltered first reactions/thoughts on STAGE/FRIGHT.

‼️ spoilers ahead‼️

first off, i wanna say that before writing this, i'd only read @somuchwatersoclosetohome's post (for purely selfish reasons bc she mentioned me & i wanted to know why), so i'm sure none of this will be original 😅

second, i'm not someone who's good with jumpscares so i will be mentioning my reactions to those a few times here 😅😅

-before seeing this, what i was vaguely aware of was: bcdr being performed, something involving a medical chair & jars, the rotating guests & the post with the pictures from the closing musical number. other than that, i'm happy i was able to avoid most major spoilers & was VERY happy to be wrong about the latter (more on that later).

-before it started, i eavesdropped on a man & a woman sat behind me - i think they were talking about steve, bc the man said, "was he in that show about that woman? alma?"

-so. many. jumpscares. which i was prepared for but the first one got me. i loved the entire theatre's reaction though!! 😂

opening story

-initial reaction was "ofc they would start with something meta!" i thumbed through the little programme while waiting for the show to start but only scanned a bit over the big programme & didn't look at A HOUSE DIVIDED, so my main impression here was...is this partially what r wishes he could do to people who annoy him in the theatre/cinema??

-v clever use of special effects to show the audience the text messages!

-i hadn't thought of it at the time but after when lying awake at 3am (lol), i realised they "seeded" toby being the understudy when he got up and left & r came on wearing similar clothes (i think??) and sat in the same seat

-the blood splatter on r's face in the end!!

addressing the audience

-man, people must've been fighting to get the F9 seat, eh?

-the second jumpscare got me as well 🤦‍♀️

bcdr

-in hindsight, knowing this story was a part of the show was fine bc it was fun to try to see if they would do anything different with it, eg tommy stopping len from doing the spit take 😅

-rubik's clube!! did not get that was a bit at all

-not to knock on r&s's ages but i think it's interesting they still aged themselves up a bit, despite them being closer to tommy & len's ages at this point? hope that makes sense??

-spotting a cheese & crackers/merch tshirt as one of the things tommy takes out of len's bag was !!

-in general i thought s was fantastic here! idk if this makes sense but he's even more lively as len on stage than he is in the ep?

-and r's voice breaking at "you nearly died, len!" and opening & reading the card at the end 🥺🥺

the kidnappers

-initial reaction was "ah they're doing A QUIET NIGHT IN! ...oh wait, they're speaking"

-the guest for this one was su pollard! and i'm happy that i have heard of her 😂 i did laugh out loud when she listed HOUSE OF GAMES as something she'd been on, bc that's literally where i know her from (and wilty subsequently too!)

-REALLY enjoyed how much s and esp r were breaking during this story - so adorable whenever r had his back to us or adjusting his mustache 😭

-so i later gathered su/whichever guest saying "you could just let me go, you know" (something like that) and r replying with "i know how to use a phone, thank you" is a part of it. but then r said "...that's not the right line either" and puts the phone down in front of her - is this something that's different every time? feel free to let me know!

-the SARDINES reference! the theatre loved that one. and i did spot the single black shoe when the wardrobe was opened again. DDD my beloveddd 🥹🥹

-iT wAs JuSt A sTiCk Of CeLeRy!! lmao r's reaction

-su wasn't able to play the trumpet! the theatre also loved her final tirade at r&s before she ascends the stairs 😂 and everybody's reaction when "she" falls back down after the gun goes off 😂😂 su was lovely and a great sport!

-it was driving me nuts why the voice & performance s was doing here was so familiar. ty @silverview for mentioning that it was barry baggs!!

the ending of bcdr just before the interval was so well done!! and here i was prepared for the jumpscare 😬

terror at (of?) the asylum

-me just before it started: there's gonna be another jumpscare isn't there. jumpscare: *happens* me: 💁‍♀️

-even though this turned out to be a "stage production", i'd like to think they did manage to do a 4th period piece

-r as hugo omg insanity!! here it felt like i got a taste of what it must've been like to watch him live on the tlog shows, if that makes sense? the physical comedy!!

-really enjoyed the effect of the head in the painting being chopped off

-during the hypnosis part, when goudron cuts hugo's forehead, a guy somewhere behind me audibly yelled out/gasped lol

-the foot sawing!! i was surprised but weirdly delighted they fit in a MOTHER'S RUIN reference?? does what r do/say here change every night as well? here iirc he says "almost done now" (or "almost there/through" aiya can't fully recall, but it got a good reaction from the theatre!). and ofc his immediate reaction post-hypnosis 😂😂😂

-s as goudron!! man it's crazy how good he is at playing authority figures who turn out to be bastards

-towards the end, just before gaby french's character comes on stage, i did briefly think "this seems a bit OTT/panto-ish, i hope it's deliberate?"

the "stage production" & self-taping

-really cool use of the camera! i tried my best to focus on what was happening on the stage but did flick up to look at the projector screen a lot

-the fakeout of miranda hennessy's character not really being dead from the drilling 😂 that was great!

-man. the entire self-taping scene. my palms were sweating throughout! i loved how it was like they brought DEAD LINE to life and we the audience get to experience it for real!

-r as marcus being a creep at the end!! that was a surprise bc the only time he's supposed to have played a character with similar traits is in PRIVATE VIEW, and even then i did NOT know that char was supposed to be a creep until i read the script. so seeing r act this out here was super interesting??

-they (r??) can't help but namedrop sheridan smith again 😬

-i think you could see the possession/death coming but the way this segment ends was fantastic. when gaby turns the camera to the audience, the first two rows of people were visibly cowering 😂😂

finale/musical number

-when they came out for the first curtain call i was like "ok..." at toby appearing. at this point i'd forgotten he appeared in the opening (hence the 3am epiphany). some people near me also stood up to clap as well 😏

-the reveal of r being dead the whole time was sooo 🤦‍♀️ (affectionate). like ofc. it's so on brand!! i did laugh out loud at s's "when i looked over i didn't see toby, i saw reece" 🤣

-then s dying too! this is where i was like, thank god my thought on those pictures is about to be proven wrong! when i saw that post, i knew it would be the ending and that it was them performing "tears of laughter". but my initial thought was: they've added to bcdr's ending by having tommy die and join len in heaven! i've never been more glad to be wrong tbh!!

-"...toby?" "no it's not fucking toby" 🤣🤣🤣

-and tying it into their irl game of whoever gets to the office first has to set something up for the other one!!!

-i loved how they changed the song as well!

-overall the other cast members were great!!! esp anna francolini!

quick addendums to last night's post:

-seeing s in his (north face?) puffer jacket & r with his messenger bag was actually v !!! irl! idk why but i like seeing r with the bag? esp seeing him use similar ones (i assume it's not the same one but wouldn't be surprised if it was tbh) in the doc & those tlog(?) stage door pics!! 😊

-@silverview took me to a wetherspoons after and we had diet pepsis. i've never been to a pub before so it was a fun experience! side note - i don't like fizzy drinks but diet pepsi is weirdly good??

final note: not proofreading tbh bc i feel like i should've been able to express this last night!! my mind was just completely blank after stage door 🙃

[statementlou]

i feel like i can talk to you about this because you have rational opinions. so louis bought a starbucks coffee at the airport and the fandom on twitter are eating him alive, calling him evil and wishing he goes to hell. i’m disappointed since starbucks is on the list of brands to boycott but i feel like this reaction is too much? someone even said jay would be disappointed in him, but people said that was taking it too far. i don’t know, i love louis and i’ll keep supporting him and his music but the fact he can be a careless millionaire is disappointing

1. thank you sweetie I would boop if I could 2. oh my god it's a fucking cup of coffee and if people think that's the worst thing Louis, a multi millionaire, has ever done financially they need a reality check! His money will be handled by bankers who are putting it into all kinds of evil fucking shit that he won't even know about, it's actually very hard to know or control that and there is no way trying is even on his radar. That's a passive thing and not on purpose; but the fact that people don't bother to know about that or care really speaks to how performative this kind of online approach to activism is, that they only care about image rather than effect (the effect of his investments would be easily thousands of times more than any number of coffees or even of the promotion Starbucks might get from him holding it.) But furthermore buckle in cause you hit a nerve: Starbucks isn't even an actual organized boycott target as concerns Palestine because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT financially! The official BDS movement calls for boycott of very specific and pointed targets of which Starbucks IS NOT ONE it's literally just an online trend which is not the same as an actual boycott to materially impact a target! Losing them money is always great, they are a crappy union busting small business killing corporation, but it has zero direct effect to help Palestinians unlike supporting the meaningful boycotts called for by BDS. I don't think Louis has decided to buy starbucks because he has this analysis, but to me it's a pretty important point. Him crossing an actual picket line (playing Israel, playing Eurovision [lmaoooo that thought tho], waving an Israeli flag god forbid) would be a very different situation and something that would trouble me so the distinction matters to me. But I get that to people on twitter, that's what they feel like he has done. To which I would say...

There are so many fewer ways to help Palestine than we would wish, and it's SO hard to deal with feeling so powerless right now in the face of such horror, so I love that people feel so strongly about doing whatever they possibly can. But worrying about consumer spending, even on BDS targets, is perhaps the least effective of the things a person can do. Note that BDS boycotts do not mostly focus on asking people not to buy things; they list the products that are especially complicit, but the main work of the movement is to get large investors (corporations, public institutions, whole governments) to divest from the companies targeted because that actually hurts them enough that it becomes less profitable to continue to collude with Israel than to drop them as clients. Consumer spending is not enough to do this. It's easy and doesn't require doing actual work but it's basically virtue signaling, not organizing. Just NOT doing something (yes including voting) is not enough! I personally choose not to give my money to certain corporations because it feels bad to me and I can't stomach doing it, even if they never notice me doing it. But if I was running out of fuel and the only nearby station was a Chevron, I would spend a few bucks there and not beat myself up about it because it will have zero impact on their overall profit reports but a LOT of impact on my life. And if I was in the airport for the second time in mere days after circumnavigating the globe and playing a massive show and doing press and fan service before even having time to adjust time zones and about to get on another flight to another country I might buy a fucking coffee from whatever coffee shop was in there too! But Louis isn't me and I'm gonna be real honest I would be real surprised if he KNEW there was a boycott or gave a shit- he is not a political activist! It's reasonable to be disappointed if someone behaves not how you want them to, but just in general responding to being disappointed in people by lashing out at them is... not it. Not useful, not rational, and not actually an okay way to act to other people. Louis is an awesome sweet caring person who I believe tries hard not to have a negative impact on anyone directly and who cares very much about others; if that's not enough for someone to be a fan of him, okay then they should not be a fan of him! But warning: they're not going to be able to be a fan of anyone else either. No one is pure and perfect... maybe that energy would be better spent trying to make a meaningful difference in the world, and a great first step in that IMO is to recognize and challenge your inner cop. The better world I want to live in doesn't include policing other people, not on twitter and not anywhere.

[brodinsons]

might've spent sunday night cobbling together a megop/opmeg server because i'm going to explode if i can't yap about these fucks

18+ only!!!!!! not to be darkwing-core here but this is not a space for minors thank you

adults-only, no drama, yap or lurk, no judgment...moots got first dibs but opening it up slightly in the hopes of luring more like-minded chill robofuckers into the multi-million year yaoi divorce saga

comment here or dm me directly for the invite link!

[concorp]

anyways i think this is as good a time as ever to remind everyone that the r slur isn’t for autistic people to reclaim. it very specifically was the diagnosis given to those with intellectual disability before being turned into a slur. not autism.

yes, it’s been used against autistic people. by comparing us to those with intellectual disability. therefore turning their entire existence into an insult.

only those with intellectual disability, those who the word was their diagnosis and community, before it was stolen from them and turned into a slur, have the right to reclaim it.

[charcubed]

I NEEEED people—especially those with unfathomably large platforms???—to start doing just a tiny bit of internal evaluation before they log onto a blue website and say “I don’t want these queer characters to fuck in canon” or “I’d be fine if these characters never kissed again” or whatever.

This is a post about Good Omens and the prospect of Aziraphale and Crowley potentially having sex in season 3. It's a response to a tweet that I'm crossposting, but let it be known the above statement and this topic applies broadly across multiple fandoms too.

But anyway, in regards to Good Omens specifically:

I am seeing this take that essentially boils down to "Canon has now made it clear that these characters want to have sex with each other through subtext (i.e. Aziraphale and the ox), but I don’t want that to reach narrative completion because the idea of them having sex makes me uncomfortable or isn’t my personal preference” and it is, to put it mildly and delicately, A Very Bad Take.

This is rhetorical (and I do not expect or particularly want an answer), but: explain to me how and why queer characters who are unavoidably visibly queer (aka 2 "man-shaped beings") fucking on screen wouldn’t be a net positive, especially when you can indicate how canon has set it up.

Presumably, some people say things like this because ~they want to see them as visibly ace.~ Okay. But by some of these people’s own admission, there IS more evidence in canon now to indicate these characters crave sex with each other (vs arguing otherwise)... yet people would rather that be ignored/erased all for the sake of them feeling comfortable or feeling better about what canon shows or doesn’t show explicitly??

I’m sorry, but—speaking as an ace person, to be clear—your personal preferences for the story shouldn’t / don’t affect anything here. There’s too much in this.

Yeah, I understand on a personal level not having “representation.” I almost never see myself or my unique experiences and identity reflected in stories. And yet, I also understand that that doesn’t change any story or the world in which we live. Things like this are not said in a vacuum.

Any queer characters having sex on screen IS a net positive. It is rare and impactful, and openly calling for or hoping for otherwise when canon points to its potential is a detrimental alliance with purity culture, whether intentionally or accidentally. Because we live in a Goddamn society!

Who knows (other than Neil Gaiman) whether Aziraphale and Crowley ARE going to fuck on international TV. None of us do! But the subtext right now blatantly says they’re starving for it. And you don’t have to like the prospect of that, but honestly? We SHOULD get to see it play out. There’s no truly legitimate reason we shouldn’t ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Whether you "prefer" it or not.

And my ultimate hot take is… if someone balks at the idea of that or doesn’t understand the importance of it, despite even seeing the subtext… then they should perhaps unpack that? Just a thought.

Truly the way fandoms are managing to hit either “subtext doesn’t count :/ ” or “let’s keep it to subtext so it’s ‘open to interpretation’ :) ” nowadays depending on what corner one visits is MADDENING. Whiplash-inducing. Surreal. And so much nonsense you can’t pick where to start.

So! I do genuinely hope I'm not kicking off discourse but I felt this Needed To Be Said (and on more than one site). Because posts like “even if they never kiss again, we’ve won <3 “ make me want to be like…

These characters are YEARNING. Do not doom them and us to it. For once, we can reach for the stars and maybe–against all odds–pull them down. Embrace it!

---

[Update: after more discourse has occurred, I have somewhat elaborated on this further, from the POV of the significance of the queer themes in Good Omens and more specifically how they center illicit pleasure/desire]

[yingdu-lover]

bro whoever runs the link click fandom wiki page, should update Shiguang from fanon to canon ship. do you need two guys to fuck or kiss before you realise what level of 'partner in life and death' they are?!

I remember a person who had her Tumblr bio : I am not a shipper, one does not ship husbands. true. very true.

[twilightarc-gm]

Not that this hasn't been asked a gajillion times already, but what is with this certain kind of fan that grandstand about their obsessive insistence on moral purity in fiction anyway? The 17th century just DM'd me to warn about a rip in time-space and now Puritans have access to the internet I guess??? --which is kinda hypocritical ngl, pretty sure the internet would be a sin to use.

And sometimes I see what characters get stamped with "morally pure" and I just have to sit for like 5min or more with the Princess Bride meme echolalia of:

"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"

I'm so tired. I'd say it's an education problem but the world has shown us time and again that archives and libraries are there for the curious. Maybe these specific kinds of fans should... read other "problematic" works and maybe they'll chill out.

[incohearent]

Charlie Kirk Puts Vegan On The Spot! by Danny Ishay on Youtube