So, I see there’s a big post going around with a supposed “confirmation” that McCree is First Nations Cree because of a reply from Michael Chu. This has not happened. Please don’t spread it around like it is gospel canon, because it definitely isn’t and is a joke response that was taken incredibly far out of context.
How do I know this? Because Chu has been making “S” jokes a lot.
Here we can see that McCree is “confirmed” as Chinese:
Here we can see that McCree is “confirmed” as being an elf:
Here we can see that McCree is “confirmed” as being Italian, or possibly just a large frozen dairy food:
Here we can see that McCree is “confirmed” as being a piece of playful music who has transcended all forms of being and is now just sound waves:
I know this is the third post in a row I’ve made about this topic. So, sorry followers. But I don’t want this to be yet another ~thing~ that Tumblr starts spreading around like it’s gospel canon. There is enough bullshit that floats around being called “Canon” when it’s just purely made up from nothing. Please don’t let this be another thing. There’s enough wank in this fandom about “canon” shit that’s just 100% made up fanshit. Don’t add to it.
What do you think Jesus meant by turning away the woman who asked him to heal her daughter by saying; "it is not fair to give the children's food to the dogs" (Matthew 15:21)?
I may get some backlash for this, but I don’t believe that Jesus was inherently perfect. I believe that Jesus was very much a prejudiced individual (just like every human being is conditioned to be) but became Christ over time.
I know for certain that these weren’t the exact words of Jesus (since the canon gospels were written decades after his death), nonetheless, I think that Matthew 15:21-28 illustrates his development quite well.
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
Jesus was being xenophobic. This woman was not dealing with it, and called him out:
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
No, I don’t believe Jesus was testing her; I believe that Jesus was wrong. However, once he realized that this woman’s protests were aligned with God, he corrected his behavior.
This passage contains something we all should consider:
In order for us to become fully Children of Humanity, our behavior must be challenged, we must listen to our “undesirables,” and we must recognize our own ignorance and work towards overcoming partiality.
It is extremely cynical for people to declare the canonical Gospels and the Creeds to be elitist and racist. So incredibly uninformed and ignorant. And also fundamentally anti-Christian. The reason Creeds were written and a scriptural Canon compiled was because people were directly contradicting Christian doctrine and teaching, spreading erroneous and inaccurate theology throughout the world. This is why their function as defining the bounds of Christian faith are affirmed by the Church to this very day.
The doctrine of a literal bodily resurrection is not a modern invention or conceit. It was a central teaching of the followers of Jesus from the beginning. Within 30 years of Christ’s death, Paul was writing about a literal bodily resurrection. Within 50 years, the canonical Gospels were also proclaiming it to be so. Btw, it’s important for modern Western people to understand that ancient cultures were perfectly capable of preserving a story relatively accurately for centuries, much less a few decades. It was so central to the faith, that Paul said that Christianity without the resurrection was “in vain” (1Corinthians 15:1-20).
The actual elitism is the modern, Western “theological” conceit of certain theologically Liberal theologians that Christianity does not require belief in the resurrection. That the theological ideas and perspectives that the majority of Early Christians rejected as heretical are valid and equal if not superior to Creeds and Canon because it fits into their agenda to relativize Christianity to such an extent that the only part of Christian teaching taken as authoritative are those parts dealing with fighting injustice and being kind. Not a bad faith if you have it, but definitely not Christianity.
The idea advanced by some that all and any foundational Christian teaching can be removed from our faith as long as the persons doing the removal call themselves Christians is fallacious and unfaithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church.
Luke is one of the Four Evangelists - the traditionally ascribed authors of the canonical Gospels. The early church fathers ascribed to him authorship of both the Gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts of the Apostles, which would mean Luke contributed over a quarter of the text of the New Testament, more than any other author. The New Testament mentions Luke briefly a few times, and the Pauline epistle to the Colossians refers to him as a doctor; thus he is thought to have been both a Greek physician and a disciple of Paul. The Roman Catholic Church and other major denominations venerate him as Saint Luke the Evangelist and as a patron saint of artists, physicians, and surgeons; his feast day takes place on 18 October. X
Growing up in a Roman Catholic family, I did everything I could post-catechism to push away religious learning. Funnily enough, here I am pouring over the bible to write a comparison analysis.
Today we’re going to take a look into Ashara Dayne, the fair Lady who threw herself from the Palestone Sword tower in Starfall of Dorne. The blessed Ashara Dayne- desirous of sovereign contemplation.
This is going to be looked at pre resurrection, analyzing solely Mary of Magdalene and not her relation to Jesus, but her caricature. While there are many, many, many Ashara Dayne theories out there- and booooy, do I believe in a couple crazy ones- I am writing solely based on what we ‘know’ to be true *which, as I’ll go into, isn’t much!*.
““She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance. “
*jumps in here djjddk* Your ask about kuchel and levi got me curious...would you feel like sharing also some thoughts on kenny and kuchel's possible relationship as siblings? ´ //v`)
Ale, as far as I’m concerned your ackersibling art is 100% gospel canon and Kenny shared a (sometimes) happy childhood in the underground with pesky Kuchel and her pet chicken. Kenny loved and cared for his kid sister as best as he could – with grimaces and love and much eye rolling <3
I think we can allow all of that without betraying the canon story. I do think they were close as children. He looked out for her. They relied on each other. The fact that Kenny’s grandfather showed basically no feeling or reaction to the news of Kuchel makes me believe the adults were not an active part of their life.
At some point Kenny and Kuchel became estranged. She may have distanced herself from him because of his reputation. It’s possible she wanted a traditional life – a family, a child. If so, having a notorious serial killer as a brother would not be ideal.
Despite their estrangement, Kenny spent a significant amount of time looking for her. He still cared about her well-being. He was still protective of her.
He found her in a brothel. Kenny doesn’t seem horrified at the thought. Maybe in the underground being a sex worker, while not ideal, wasn’t such a stigma. As I mentioned in the Kuchel/Levi post, her apartment was clean. She was allowed to keep Levi. She had some autonomy.
After securing safety for the Ackerman clan, Kenny’s first order of business was to find Kuchel to let her know. She was a priority to him. He wanted to personally let her know that she would no longer be troubled for being an Ackerman.
When he finds her dead, his legs give out and he falls to the ground. It’s grief. Plain and simple. Kenny was a sick, dangerous and misguided person but loved Kuchel and wanted to protect her. Since he could no longer protect her, he did the best he could with her child.
In his final moments, as he lay dying, Kuchel was among those he thought about. He specifically recalled her love for Levi.
(And now I’m sad again… I think I’ll go look at you art to help me cheer up)
I’ve always had sketchy feels tbh about maccabees being used partly to uphold the *doctrine* of purgatory because it’s like…. Deutero-canonical/apocryphal literature and not Inspired right . It just seems like this hole nobody’s noticed here. Because you can’t rely on apocryphal literature for doctrine because it’s not God-breathed, not written by the Spirit in the same way.. etc etc. What do you think?
First of all, we have to be careful about using the terms “deuterocanonical” and “apocryphal” interchangeably, because they do mean different things.
“Deuterocanon” means “second canon”, in the sense that the deuterocanonical books were written later than the rest of the Old Testament, the protocanon. But the deuterocanonical scripture is equally as inspired as protocanonical scripture. The sorting of the Old Testament books into these two categories is a modern practice, following the Reformation. The Council of Trent, which affirmed the canon of scripture in use up until then, did not distinguish any parts of the canon as less inspired than others. There is no “cutoff date” after which the Spirit ceased to speak to the people until the Incarnation.
The term “apocrypha” means “hidden”, and is used to designate books that are not part of canon, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Apocryphal literature is indeed uninspired, but the belief that 1 and 2 Maccabees and the other deuterocanonical books are apocryphal is a tenet of Protestantism, not Catholicism.
So in that sense, yes, many Protestants remain unconvinced of the doctrine of purgatory by the appeal to Maccabees, because they do not believe it to be an authoritative source. But we, as Catholics, do.
I have written before about the Gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi Library which were found in Egypt in 1946. Among these ancient texts was a gospel. A different kind of gospel. It was very old perhaps written within 20 years of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The church fathers who made up the “canon” of our Bible rejected it for inclusion.
Why? Because it was not a “Gospel of the Cross”. That is it was not a narrative story that talked about virgin birth, miracles or resurrection. In fact, it never speaks of the messiah or calls Jesus “Lord” but only calls him “teacher”. Unlike the other gospels, it is a collection of the sayings of Jesus. It contains much of what is in the canonical gospels but a lot of new things too. Since this may be the very oldest gospel it has scholars scratching their heads. Is it possible that Jesus never claimed to be God?
Another command to succumb, To sucking you off with a smile, A vanity culture like a congregation, Identity dogmatism, The image is always in style, Stroking the ego with media masturbation, Conditioning to canonize, Gospel of this vox populi.
I reblogged your concluding post about literal bodily resurrection with a comment to the wrong place. So I put it here: if you would make a new post with a bibliography of some of the important Proto-Orthodox documents that comforted women, the poor, and disenfranchised, I would really appreciate being pointed in the right direction! Please and thanks!
Thanks for asking! An absolutely great place to start with this is A New New Testament. It places some (not all) of the other early Christian texts in conversation with our canonical Gospels in this beautiful way, where each makes the other pop, and come to life in a fresh way. And also gives some critical historical context to the assembly and editing of each text, and which set of crises each community was confronting.
lol sorry if the in depth ask came across as pro shimadacest or some garbage, i actually had just read your post about micheal chu never confirming mccree as native, and with the roll out of the beach skin a lot of artists whove been drawing beachcree as fat anyways because why not have been getting flak for it. i think fandom has some great ideas and some bad ones, but i wish we wouldnt to hold up "canon" or "likely to be canon" as gospel when people like you want to make (non problematic) art.
Ooh okay cause I got an ask abt shimadacest lmao so I was just like “..?”
But yeah I think.. the fandom becomes so invested in non-Confirmed stuff they literally forget what’s canon and what’s not and like, I’m all for having fun! But idk there’s so little to go on with personalities and relationships in ow that you kinda have to make your own complete canon
(1/?) I’m starting with the second part of the second verse. “I’m not free, I asked forgiveness three times, Same amount that I denied, I three-time mvp'ed this crime, I’m afraid to tell you who I adore, won’t tell you who I’m singing towards, Metaphorically I’m a whore, and that’s denial number four.” “Denial of Peter (or Peter’s Denial) refers to three acts of denial of Jesus by the Apostle Peter as described in all four Gospels of the New Testament.” St Peter denied knowing Jesus 3 times.
(2/?) Okay now let’s go down to “Metaphorically I’m a whore.” He’s not actually calling himself a slut. He is calling himself a whore like the Whore Of Babylon, which ties in to idolatry. But also, Rome is modern day Babylon. Peter is the Rock of Rome or… The Whore of Babylon.
(3/?) “And that’s denial number four” He’s in denial of what he’s done to himself. Okay, but now let’s go to the chorus, “the darks not taking prisoners tonight” The Whore is also tied in to the antichrist or evil. Aka darkness I don’t think he’s literally talking about dark night time I think he is talking about Satan. And he said “I swear I heard demons yelling, Those crazy words they were spelling”
(4/?) And he said “I will set my soul on fire, what have I become? I’ll tell them.” He’s asking what he has become. He’s telling us he turned himself in to an idol. Now going back to the first verse. “I don’t want to be the one, be the one who has the sun’s blood on my hands,”
(5/?) As for the story goes of St. Peter, “All four Canonical Gospels state that during Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples, he predicted that Peter would deny knowledge of him, stating that Peter would disown him before the rooster crowed the next morning. Following the arrest of Jesus Peter denied knowing him thrice, but after the third denial, heard the rooster crow and recalled the prediction as Jesus turned to look at him. Peter then began to cry bitterly.”
(6/?) He denied Jesus, Jesus was arrested, Jesus was crucified. Peter had the sons blood on his hands. The son/sun of God. Peter repented after this. He begged Jesus and God for forgiveness after he saw what was going to happen. “I’m pleading please, oh please on my knees repeatedly asking, Why it’s got to be like this.”
(7/7) Now as for the name Ode To Sleep. Jesus took them to the Garden Of Gethsemani. While he prayed they fell asleep. “On the eve of a day that is bigger than us, But we open our eyes ‘cause we’re told that we must, And the trees wave their arms and the clouds try to plead” Jesus told them to wake up. They kept falling asleep though he prayed 3 times. The End. Sorry that was so long.
dAMN DUDE THANK U SO MUCH FOR SENDING THIS!!! I’VE BEEN ENLIGHTENED™ THIS IS SO CLEVER
According to the canonical Gospels, Judas Iscariot was the epitome of evil, damned for all time. Yet, this makes little sense. The Gospels point out that it was Jesus’ destiny to be sacrificed. He was to be the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh to wipe out the sins of mankind. So, by this logic, Judas Iscariot was carrying out the will of Yahweh.
Judas was a common name in the ancient world. There were several mentioned in the New Testament. It came from the word Judah which was the ancient name for Palestine. In fact, it is believed that Judas Iscariot was the sole Judean and native of Jerusalem among the apostles. The rest were from Galilee, which in the ancient world was in the sticks. Galileans spoke with a “country” accent different from those in Jerusalem. When Jesus and his retinue came to Jerusalem it was the equivalent of Texans coming to New York City.
When the Gospels of Luke and John were being written Christianity had ceased being a sect of Judaism. Paul had a power struggle with James the brother of Jesus who was Bishop of Jerusalem over whether or not new converts had to be circumcised and follow Mosaic law. Paul moved the power base from Jerusalem to Rome. From this point forward it was the Jews who were blamed for the death of Christ. After all, if you are struggling to start a church in Rome the last thing you want to do is blame the Romans for the death of your savior.
Judas then became the scapegoat or, as some cultures still call it, the “Judas Goat”. His name “Judas” meant “Jew”. Now he could be vilified with all of the sins attributed to Jews. He could be a thief, a traitor and caring only for money. Let us forget that Jesus and all of the apostles were Jews. This one bit of political maneuvering set the stage for 1800 years of persecution of the Jews who came into Northern Europe after their expulsion from Palestine by the Romans when the rebellion of the Jews ended in utter defeat and ruin.
Do you think that the World of Remnant videos are intended to be taken as absolute canon, i.e. the gospel truth about the world, or do you think there's any possibility that they're biased or leave facts out depending on who the narrator is? Salem could certainly have an agenda, and Qrow is certainly pretty opinionated about some of the things he narrates the videos for, but I appreciate that that might be a level too far for a lore series...
I think that for the most part, the World of Remnant videos can be taken at face value. I think the narrator flavor is mostly flavor in them - ex Salem narrates the one about the Grimm and is way more upbeat about them than any normal person would be, but she also doesn’t give us, the audience, any additional information beyond what most of the people of Remnant know, despite the fact that she presumable knows a lot more about their origins and such.
That said, there are still plenty of opinionated statements in them, and I think you can take those with a grain of salt, but for the most part I think it’s just some fun for them and some information for us.
im tired of seeing people acknowledge and excuse anders’ OOC moments while treating sebastian’s lack of characterization as gospel canon when they had the same writer and when she seems to have spent exceptionally less time on sebastian than she did any of her other writing plot points
like at that point just dont use the OOC excuse. just admit you prefer anders. there isn’t anything wrong with that, it’s when you refuse to acknowledge two characters in were treated similarly crappy by their shared writer and pretend you aren’t that it becomes a problem.
Hi, sorry to bug you! I was just curious, as I've been seeing your posts on a blog and couldn't quite understand. You've been saying that the spideypool fandom is toxic? That's completely fair, if that's your opinion, but it's confusing - and somewhat unfair - in that I haven't seen *why* you think that. I've not seen any examples, other than accusations of ableism and homophobia, etc. You don't have to answer, if you don't want to, but why does it feel that way to you? :-S
okay so i left this so i could calm down a bit before i answered so i could actually say something constructive instead of telling you to go fuck a duck.
there’s a lot of stuff here that i’ll probably forget to add, but i’ll give it a shot.
spiderman is ableist towards deadpool:
he regularly calls him insane, for a start
he thinks deadpool is completely and utterly incapable of any morality, any decent strategy, OR changing for the better
he doesn’t have a lot of direct evidence of this, he believed it right form the get go; presumably because wade has a reputation, which is largely clouded by ableism (yes he is a bad person, but ableism exaggerates his misdeeds)
the spideypool fandom is ableist towards deadpool:
they often coddle wade like a poor, innocent child who’s done no wrong – despite the fact that he is a bad person who does kill people and peter dislikes him because he kills people, same as he dislikes wolverine
they excuse peter’s ableism, or erase it, rather than addressing it in fanfics or discussing it within the community
the spideypool fandom also seem to have a habit of completely erasing peter’s personality – as a bossy, sarcastic, opinionated, somewhat selfish, heroic, intelligent arse of a man – which says to me that they’re fetishizing him, objectifying him.
and no, just because that happens to cis women far more often than to men, does not fucking mean you get to do it to men of a minority status, as christy (fuckyesdeadpool) tried to claim. jesus fucking christ, cis white women, you do not have it ‘worse’ than we do, it’s not the fucking oppression olympics.
spideypool is usually one sided, as it is in canon, and a major trope of the ship involves wade harassing peter until he gives up or wade forces himself on him. that’s rape culture. anons have claimed that the AO3 tag is only a small percent of non-con, but need i remind you that “dub-con” and a lot of rape culture gets left untagged because, surprise surprise, rape culture normalises it?
fuckyesdeadpool is probably the most vocal and the most popular spideypool blog on the internet, certainly on tumblr. her opinions, no matter how wildly they diverge from actual canon, are treated as gospel by her followers because mos of them are A) ignorant and B) conformists, as most of the human race are.
spideypoolers also routinely shit on cablepool, taking panels and events out of context for ‘gotcha’ liberal-style rebuttals, instead of making an actual coherent argument. christy is massively guilty of this, in fact she shits on a lot of characters this way not just cable – she does the same to siryn, and conveniently omits the fact that wade was very fucking gross and misogynist towards her, and conveniently omits how ridiculously kind and patient terry actually was, given how he treated her. nathan summers is a disabled, neurodivergent, complex character and christy reduces him to a few fucking pages worth of him fucking up, and calls it abusive despite the fact that context is what separates problematic behaviour from abuse, and despite the fact that he acknowledged he screwed up and stepped the fuck down. cable is by no means perfect, i will never make that argument, but he is one of the best x-men around and he is one of deadpool’s greatest friends/allies/maybe-lovers.
the double standard, of course, is that the same people who call nathan abusive are the same people who don’t even acknowledge parker’s ableism and wade’s stalkerish obsession with him. why? because he’s young and pretty? because he’s abled, unlike cable? it’s interesting to me how abled characters can get away with so fucking much, but the moment a disabled character makes a mistake, he’s demonised.
a lot of my anger over spideypool is because of how spideypoolers treat cable, and because of how christy’s “”funny”” (dismissive, derailing, ignorant, offensive) rebuttals are eaten up by the fandom like some fucking carnival. it’s a conformist neo-liberalist dance and it’s bullshit.
(ps: i also have some personal shit with it, spideypool reminds me of a fling i had that got complicated and i probably rage more than i should over spideypool because i’m venting blind feelings over that bc frankly i was in the wrong in that situation so?? i need?? somewhere else to vent it?? …yeah, okay, i’m an asshole. sue me, i’m only human.)
Reguarding the Jesus question, there is more historical documents of Jesus than of any other person preparing the 1930's. In historians eyes, there is no question that a man named Jesus existed, who did everything that Jesus did. the debate of historians is whether or not he was the son of a being called God. On another note, you don't know what his followers want, or need. Some followers need a form of reassurance. Christianity isn't blind faith. But proof is different for each person.
Just please don’t speak about a group of people when informing someone when you don’t know much about said group of people. That’s misinformation, and causes problems in the long run.
I MEAN, I SAID I’M NOT A CHRISTIAN, NOT THAT I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CHRISTIANS. AT THE VERY LEAST I KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT CATHOLICS, SINCE I WAS ONE UNTIL HIGH SCHOOL, AND I KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THE BIBLE, SINCE I’VE READ IT FROM COVER TO COVER.
ALSO, AS A HISTORIAN, I KNOW THAT HISTORIANS DON’T ACTUALLY HAVE A CONSENSUS ON JUST ABOUT ANYTHING, LET ALONE THE EXISTENCE OF A SINGULAR HISTORICAL JESUS WHOSE LIFE MATCHES THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN IN THE CANONICAL GOSPELS, WHICH IS FAMOUSLY ONE OF THE LONGEST-RUNNING DEBATES IN THE HISTORICAL COMMUNITY AND IT’S UNLIKELY TO EVER BE SETTLED, AND I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT A DEBATE ON THE DIVINITY OF JESUS IS NOT A HISTORICAL DEBATE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND ANY PRIMARY SOURCES, IT’S A THEOLOGICAL ONE.
PLUS, “PROOF IS DIFFERENT FOR EACH PERSON” IS AN INHERENT CONTRADICTION. IF THAT’S THE CASE, THEN IT’S NOT OBJECTIVE PROOF, AND IT COMES DOWN TO A MATTER OF FAITH. BY DEFINITION, YOU CAN’T HAVE PROOF OF SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES FAITH. THE TWO ARE LITERALLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
BUT WHAT REALLY GETS ME IS THE STATEMENT “CHRISTIANITY ISN’T BLIND FAITH.” OF COURSE IT’S NOT. FAITH IS A DECISION A PERSON MAKES THAT IT’S WORTH IT TO OVERCOME THEIR DOUBT. IF THEY’VE FOUND A REASON TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS TRUE, THAT’S GREAT AND I’M REALLY HAPPY FOR THEM, BUT IT’S NOT “PROOF” UNLESS IT’S OBJECTIVE.
ANYWAY, I THINK IT’S TIME WE INSTITUTED A NEW RULE ON HERE: NO QUESTIONS ABOUT RELIGION. I CAN’T GIVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON THEM AND LITERALLY ANY STATEMENT I MAKE WILL CONTRADICT SOMEONE’S BELIEFS SO IT’S KIND OF A WASTE OF EVERYONE’S TIME AND ENERGY TO KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT RELIGION ON HERE
The inner turmoil and strife that reaches all great fandoms is upon us, rolling in like a tidal wave and the only thing we can do is weather the storm with our metas and analyses and fanfics. Draping them around us like a shield as we walk into battle.
We have fought antis, but today this battle is one that has been fought for millenia:
For those of you who are new to fandom, they are always riddled with speculation and theory, whether headcanon or rooted in the signs we read from the story. There is always a honeymoon period, where the grass is green and lush, but at some point - no telling how soon - there comes the dissenters. Heretics.
Those who go against the grain of the current theory, whether in a combative or neutral way - perhaps they have their reasons, perhaps it’s just whimsy - but there will always be a few. And those few will lead factions, splitting the fandom into certain groups.
Each faction will carry a different torch (or theory) - Kylo redeemed (The Redemptionists), Kylo the eternal villain (the Dark Siders), the ‘I just want an interesting story’ - True Neutrals, Lore Hounds (followers of the Gospel of Canon), Dark!Rey (the Vegeances), Imperial Scum, etc.
And they will live in harmony for awhile, but then..the war comes. Because war is inevitable.
No fandom can escape it. It is inevitable, like the tide.
The only question is how you fight it?
Will it be with shade, open aggression, facts, derision, sarcasm, harassment?
Only one of these is an acceptable tactic in any fandom division: facts.
And here is where a few stand above the fray, miraculously unscathed, they are :
And the divergent will remind all of us of our one, united dream:
How will it happen? Will it be done well, poorly, confusingly? Will there be eternal hate, will Kylo have a child? Will he be redeemed or will he pull Rey to the dark, or will they be grey together? What does Finn have to do with all of this? Why is he involved in this trio of characters? Why does Pablo keep answering questions on twitter - why do we keep drooling over them? Why does JJ keep having to remove his foot from his mouth? Will Daisy keep liking Reylo things on instagram? Will Adam ever stop being fucking adorable? Will he ever get social media - should he? What are the other possible SNL skits we could have them do? What will Bloodlines teach us? Trials of Tatooine? Lego Star Wars? How will Reylo unfold into canon on our screen?
These are questions no one can possibly answer right now without violating severe NDAs.
No one has any right to shade, insult, or otherwise put down another Reylo fan for what they choose to believe or see.
There will always be fandom turmoil when there are a great many unknown things - and none more so, perhaps, than in movie fandoms with long stretches in between.
Please, remember one thing about fandom life and it will make you eternally happy:
Focus on what you love, what you enjoy - if that’s civil debate, then debate - if that’s only reading and following people who believe in a certain Reylo-path, then do that. But always focus on what you love, do not engage in petty arguments or shade or derision.
There will be bastions of good in every fandom, find yours.
The great war is upon us, fandom. We must choose now whether we will weather it with grace or leave it in tatters on the floor.
There may come a day when the fandom of Reylo falls