isabelle

[k1ru-https]

A place.

[goldcrescent]

Do you think Cersei would have been less or more insulted it Robert had called out Ned’s name on their wedding night instead of Lyanna’s

[sorcerervaati]

[kingofcourtjesters]

Your insistence on rigid morality is stopping you from enjoying media.

'Brief Encounter' is a black-and-white film from 1945. The plot is simple: two happily married strangers meet by chance at a train station and gradually fall in love. Neither is portrayed as evil, nor are their marriages depicted as abusive or loveless. They are simply two people caught between desire and duty. And yes, they have an affair. They don't stay together the film ends with them departing from one another.

Before someone says, "But they cheated ☝️🤢," of course they did. That's the premise of the story. Nobody is arguing that cheating is good. In real life, don't cheat on your partner. Thats common sense i fear no one should actively have to tell you that and they also shouldnt have to tell you that fiction is not a courtroom and characters are not defendants but here we are.

The film is interested in something deeper than whether adultery is morally correct. It explores a very human conflict: desire versus obligation. Attraction is not always rational. Sometimes what we want and what we believe we should do are in direct opposition. Both characters love their spouses, do not wish to hurt them, and recognize that their feelings have placed them in a difficult situation.

If your only response is, "They're both terrible people because they cheated," you've reduced an entire tragedy to a moral scorecard. More importantly, you've missed what the film meant to its original audience.

Released at the end of World War II, 'Brief Encounter' functioned as a monument to collective sacrifice and restraint. Post-war audiences intimately understood the pain of giving up personal desires for a greater duty. The film's ending resonated because it reflected a cultural reality they had just lived through. It was not simply a story about two selfish people betraying their spouses it was a story about choosing responsibility over personal happiness. These days the idea of staying with a partner who you're not truly fulfilled with is outdated, we don't HAVE these feelings anymore.

That meaning becomes difficult to see if every work of fiction is filtered through a rigid lens of moral approval and condemnation.

Tldr: art =/= endorsement just eat the damn soup.

[xalatath]

You misused thou/thee in a joke post and provoked my ire.

[divergenseas]

Queen Rhaella and her darling princess᪥

✎ᝰ.Manonnym117

[greenbloods]

george has bad writing but it's rarely the 'bad' lines that the redditors give him shit for. yes i will defend 'fat pink mast' yes i will defend 'myrish swamp' and 'men call me darkstar and i am of the night' and 'the more she shat the more she drank' i actually dont care about any of them because they're effective for the tone and mood they're trying to convey. if im being honest my problem is that the dothraki dont get to be people

[winterprince601]

the best thing about jon and sam's friendship is that aside from their core shared identity of being alienated within a classist patriarchal society, they have Nothing in common. sam spends the whole first jon chapter of acok nerding out over the sociopolitical signifance of a bunch of old maps and jon's response is "litcherally why does it matter as long as the rivers are in the same place, you sweet fool" they're like the medieval equivalent of nerd who likes lotr and jock who likes evanescence forming a deep affection on the basis of no one else understanding them.

[thetiffanylampklausbroke]

somewhat nsfw courtesy of my fiancé I just thought it was too funny not to post

There’s no way that no Targaryen ever said “dracarys” while they came

[dogpuppy]

[samglyph]

Witch Hat Atelier by Kamome Shirahama // Wisdom to Heal the Earth by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

[andromaex]

i’m gonna say this as plainly as possible because i’m tired of watching people bend themselves into pretzels to sound polite about it:

some of you treat fandom like a moral purity contest and it’s fucking exhausting.

like genuinely when did “i don’t like this” turn into “this is evil and anyone who engages with it is a bad person”? those are not the same thing. they have never been the same thing. they will never be the same thing. you just decided your discomfort is a universal law and now everyone else has to abide by it or get dogpiled.

and the whole “depiction = endorsement” thing is such a bad-faith take i can’t even pretend to respect it. by that logic, no one should ever write conflict, toxicity, violence, obsession, anything messy, because god forbid fiction actually explores something complicated instead of being a sanitized little after-school special.

it’s fiction. people are allowed to poke at weird dynamics, dark themes, unhealthy relationships, whatever, without it being a fucking manifesto for real life behavior. engaging with something does not mean co-signing it. reading it, writing it, analyzing it, none of that means “i think this is good in reality.” it means “i find this interesting to explore.” that’s it.

and what really pisses me off is how this shit kills actual discussion. no one wants to say anything nuanced anymore because the second you do, someone’s ready to twist it into “so you support [insert worst possible interpretation here].” like congratulations, you’ve created an environment where the only safe opinion is the most boring, surface-level one imaginable.

that’s not protecting anyone. that’s just making fandom dull as hell.

also this constant need to moralize everything? it’s performative. i’m sorry, it is. half the time it feels less like people actually care about harm and more like they care about being seen as the most correct person in the room. you don’t have to think, you don’t have to analyze, you just have to say “this is bad” loud enough and suddenly you’re winning.

cool. great. love that for you.

meanwhile everyone else is either shutting up or getting pushed out because they don’t want to deal with the harassment over liking or even just talking about something you’ve decided is off-limits.

idk. block what you hate. curate your space. no one is forcing you to engage with anything. but stop acting like your personal line in the sand is some objective moral boundary the rest of us are obligated to respect.

because it’s not.

[soncee]

Rohanne: You are quite mad. If you were better born, I’d marry you. Duncan: Aye, m'lady. And if pigs had wings and scales and breathed flame, they'd be as good as dragons.[1]—Rohanne and Duncan the Tall

[heartnosekid]

ym.nara_mislin on ig

[hollanderthoughts]

"your life is yours to mold" oh nooooooooo oh no oh my god. oh fuck me. no. oh my god. oh im so fucked dude.

[arandomasoiaffanatic]

my submissions for #snowstormweek2026 - day 5 and day 6! the king who knelt and koryeo dynasty au.

[winterosiee]

Jon Snow eating the heart of Ramsay Bolton.

Comm by the13sav

[asthedeathoflight]

My favorite quirk of American English is that since we're constantly exaggerating, sometimes it's more intense to say something slightly less intense. Because like, it means you actually thought about it.

"you look great!" - normal. Anyone could say this. Could be true or could just be lying to be nice. Very normal expected thing to say to someone

"you look good." - gay as hell thing to say to someone.