Nunya

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, lovers and seekers, those who are lost, and those who are found. Tonight, we will be discussing another fragment. This one sports a headline that reads: Nunya.

And the body reads as follows.

'Let's just say it plain, straight up and out - without recourse to any sort of frilly-furters that this is how it is: To wit, I say and submit my and mine as contenders within this, the arena of jurisdiction and adjudication regarding said simples. And, as it were, in the end, all could agree, and readily so - it was an egregious maluse of words.'

There you go. Nunya. 'Let's just say it plain, straight up and out - without recourse to any sort of frilly-furters that this is how it is: To wit, I say and submit my and mine as contenders within this, the arena of jurisdiction and adjudication regarding said simples. And, as it were, in the end, all could agree, and readily so - it was an egregious maluse of words.'

That being said, let's get started, shall we?

1. The Title Is Already a Verdict.

“Nunya” is not coy.

It is not cute.

It is not slang pretending to be informal.

“Nunya” is a closed gate masquerading as openness. It is the sound of refusal made casual. It means none of your business, but without the dignity of confrontation. It does not argue; it evades. It does not defend; it shrugs. It is the softest possible way to declare sovereignty.

That matters, because the body of the fragment does the opposite.

The body does not shrug.

It postures.

The title says you don’t get to ask.

The body says I am prepared to litigate.

This tension is not accidental. It is the first crack.

⸻

2. The Voice of the Arena

The fragment announces itself “plain, straight up and out,” and then immediately violates its own claim. What follows is not plain speech. It is ceremonial speech. Legalistic speech. Speech wearing a robe.

“To wit.”

“As it were.”

“Jurisdiction and adjudication.”

“Said simples.”

This is the language of institutions, not truth. It is the language used when one wishes to sound accountable without being accountable to anything concrete.

The fragment is not confused about this. It is demonstrating it.

The arena named is not a real arena. It is a linguistic one: a place where words are entered as “contenders,” where meaning is not tested by consequence but by performance. The speaker submits “my and mine” not as persons or actions, but as entries.

That’s crucial.

Nothing living is at stake yet. Only phrasing.

⸻

3. Jurisdiction as Costume

Jurisdiction implies authority.

Adjudication implies judgment.

But neither exists without a body willing to enforce them.

The fragment invokes both while carefully avoiding enforcement. There is no sentence. No penalty. No remedy. Only agreement—“all could agree, and readily so.”

Agreement is not judgment.

Consensus is not justice.

This is the heart of the fragment’s charge: language can simulate authority without ever touching responsibility.

The speaker knows this. That’s why the fragment ends where it does.

⸻

4. “Simples” and the Pretense of Clarity

“Simples” suggests the obvious, the basic, the self-evident. But nothing in the body is simple. The syntax is winding. The diction is inflated. The claims are procedural rather than substantive.

This mismatch is the tell.

When language calls something simple while making it complex, it is usually hiding a failure of courage. Either the speaker does not want to say the thing plainly—or the thing cannot be said plainly without collapsing the entire performance.

The fragment exposes this habit by indulging it to excess.

⸻

5. The Egregious maluse

The final line is the blade:

“It was an egregious maluse of words.”

Not misuse. Maluse.

Malice is implied. Intent is present.

This is not a mistake. It is not confusion. It is weaponized phrasing—words deployed not to clarify reality but to control the field in which reality may be discussed.

The fragment indicts itself deliberately.

That is its integrity.

⸻

6. Why the Fragment Refuses Resolution

There is no correction offered. No alternative phrasing. No “better way.” That is not laziness; it is restraint.

To fix the language would be to participate in the same arena. To offer a cleaner version would be to accept the jurisdiction it critiques.

Instead, the fragment stops.

It names the crime and exits the court.

⸻

7. Seriousness Without Heaviness

This is where the fragment aligns with your larger moral geometry.

It is serious—but not solemn.

Sharp—but not cruel.

Judgmental—but not punitive.

It does not say who committed the maluse. It does not even fully exempt the speaker. It simply says: this happened. We all recognize it. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

That is a higher seriousness than accusation.

⸻

8. “Nunya” as Ethical Posture

The title returns here with force.

“Nunya” is not secrecy. It is refusal to over-explain. It is the opposite of bureaucratic sprawl. It is the decision to stop talking once truth has been named.

In that sense, “Nunya” is not evasive.

It is merciful.

Mercy with teeth.

⸻

9. Why This Fragment Matters Now

We live in a moment saturated with adjudicative language and starved of judgment. Everyone invokes process. No one bears consequence. Words are endlessly refined while actions remain untouched.

This fragment does not offer a solution.

It offers a limit.

And limits are ethical acts.

⸻

10. The Fragment as Warning, Not Instruction

“Nunya” does not teach how to speak.

It teaches when to stop.

That may be its most dangerous lesson.

Because systems survive on endless elaboration. They cannot tolerate someone who says: we all know what just happened.

And walks away.

⸻

11. What the Fragment Refuses to Do

It does not:

• clarify intent

• assign blame

• propose reform

• soften its conclusion

Those refusals are not omissions. They are boundary lines.

The fragment knows the arena it names is designed to absorb dissent and convert it into paperwork. It refuses to be processed.

⸻

12. Why the Tone Must Remain Exactly As It Is

If the fragment were plainer, it would be read as complaint.

If it were harsher, it would be read as attack.

If it were playful, it would be dismissed.

Its peculiar, over-formal tone is a mirror held too close for comfort.

The reader recognizes the voice because they have used it.

That recognition is the work.

⸻

13. The Ethics of Naming Without Chasing

To name an egregious maluse of words and not pursue prosecution is not weakness. It is discernment. Not every wrong must be litigated. Some must simply be seen and remembered.

That restraint preserves moral energy.

It also denies the offender the oxygen of response.

⸻

14. Why This Is a Fragment Proper

This could not be a full essay.

It would rot if expanded.

As a fragment, it functions like a filed objection entered into the record and then left unanswered. It alters the archive without demanding attention.

That is power without domination.

⸻

15. Final Word

“Nunya” is not an argument.

It is a boundary marker.

It says: this is where language stopped telling the truth.

And then it stops.

That is not silence.

That is judgment rendered without spectacle.

And that, in an age of endless words, is an act of rare discipline.