#you shouldn't hate the label of fanon just because it is distinct

[21st-century-minutiae]

"Canon" is the official truth of fictional or religious corpi, usually used to discriminate between works which are considered authoritative vs those that are considered supplementary or outright irrelevant. In the religion of Christianity, for example, the works of the Gospels are considered "canonical" while the Book of Enoch is not (except within the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches).

"Fanon" is the collective understanding of a work as determined by common themes in the fan works of said work. This generally shapes how people perceive Canon even if it lacks an official basis. Dante's Inferno is an example of 'fanon' for the Christian religion, depicting an image of the afterlife that is not defined in biblical sources. People often confuse Canon and Fanon.

"Cannon" is a large piece of artillery which uses gunpowder to launch heavy metallic balls out of an enclosed cylinder. In the age of exploration it was a common armament in naval battles, to destroy ships such as schooners. It is pronounced identically with "Canon," and they are commonly misspelled for the other.

In the early twenty-first century there were (especially among fans), debates between the validity of Canon and Fanon. Concepts such as Death of the Author, textual clarity, gate keeping, cliquey fandoms, etc. often led to some preference of one or the other in invested individuals. The above post seems to be taking a stance on said issue, but they are instead making a pun between "Cannon" and "Canon" claiming they have a grudge against the former.

This would be understood as a joke.

I think fanon is way better than canon. one wrote some interesting philosophical stuff and the other blew up me schooner. clear choice imo