People argue about what even is canon in the first place anyway. Even the starting point can't be agreed upon.

Including the 2nd ask bc I'm assuming they're from the same nonny? (pfft like more than one person would send me asks in one day lmao)

Anyway ... I mean, I'm mostly ambivalent on the first point re: people disagreeing over canon, bc ... like, idek where to start on all the shit that I could say about fans' relationship to and interaction with canon or even what canon technically is, like, by definition (and therefore what even qualifies as canon).

But I did want to address the second point bc I think it's a good opportunity to just sort of toss this hot take into the void: "Stating that fiction is subjective will ruffle some people's feathers at the minute" - so what? So. What. Fiction is subjective, all art is subjective, and that's something that is true, has been true, and will be true regardless of some fans' decision to just decide that things don't work that way.

They can get their feathers ruffled as much as they like, but people need to learn that their personal emotions and feelings about A Thing don't mean that they can just decide that That Thing is suddenly something else (or decide something else is suddenly That Thing). It's just like how words like gaslighting and narcissistic and abusive and torture and trigger have become so diluted bc people a) don't actually understand what gaslighting, for example, is, and therefore cannot possibly call it out with any real degree of accuracy, so they just end up throwing a really weighted term at something as basic, human, and everyday as telling a lie. Or an emotional argument becomes abuse, or being squicked by something makes it a trigger.

OR, on the opposite side of the coin, b) maybe they actually do know what gaslighting or abuse is, but then they will categorize anything that remotely falls within the realm of the same definition as being gaslighting or abuse. I, personally, for example, really hate the way that some people claim Mobius tortures and enslaves Loki. It drives me up the wall when I see those takes because - okay, are these terms technically correct? Yeah, technically, which is what they use to justify it - "Well, this source defines "torture" as xyz, and Mobius is clearly doing z, so Mobius is a torturer." But words mean shit, so are you really asking me to accept that Mobius tortured Loki just as Thanos tortured Loki? Yes? Okay, how? No? Okay, why not?

Here's the thing - Mobius never laid a hand on Loki, nor did he sadistically, literally play with Loki's mind. Remember, Loki was being influenced by the mind stone in Avengers and the Other had a constant connection to Loki's consciousness. Thanos (and the Other) tortured Loki. Mobius ... was mean to him during an interrogation and also lied about Loki being responsible for Frigga's death (and I've said it before, Mobius was being an unreliable narrator in this scene and anyone who believes - because of Mobius - that Loki actually killed Frigga is both factually wrong and also an idiot). Like, Mobius is shitty to Loki but Thanos is torturous to Loki. The two are not the same, regardless of how they may technically be defined. By calling the former torture, consistently, bc his behavior meets some arbitrary technical definition, you're actively diluting the word bc you feel like its weight lends credibility to your argument that Mobius sucks.

... I got off-topic for a second there, I'm sorry. But back to my point: fiction is subjective and I don't care whose feathers I ruffle by saying that. It's true, and acting like it's not so that you can feel like you have the "right" interpretation of the character (thus giving you personal validation which, I'm sorry to say, the Emperor thought that he was wearing fabulous new clothes but that didn't change the reality that he was butt ass naked) is just ... *gesticulates wildly bc words fail me* shitty.