It's because he's super popular with Sonic.exe fans. If I had to guess why, I'd say it's since he's basically just Sonic possessed by an evil being, which is also what a lot of Sonic.exe iterations are

he was already popular before that big sonic.exe resurgence though so that can't be the full reason i dont think? like i was already seeing the name misconception and stc super sonic showing up in a lot of fan content years before this stuff happened. hes just more well known among people who arent actually sonic fans now

i’ve realised that i find it relatively(?) easy to assign sexualities to my characters, but find it extremely difficult (impossible) to give them romantic orientations. only bc 1): i don’t understand the difference between platonic and romantic attraction/advances/etc…

2): my view on it is very odd. (idk if its odd but i feel like it’d be confusing to people).

Any chance you'd expand on the hank hill trans guy post? (Sorry, best indicator I could come up with.) The concept interests me as I decidedly know my maleness, yet don't feel impeded by for the most part, any male gendered norms/boxes. I am fairly masculine, though I rarely use those kinds terms to describe myself. I have found I often do stray outside of what society pushed for me when I transitioned, yet I again do not feel it has taken from my right to maleness whatsoever. I am just me, who happens to be male. I have had friends try and suggest I am NB adjacent but I do not feel this way whatsoever. I feel more people are outliers to gender expectation than we care to admit and it's disappointing the way cis-people deny that. Hope this wasn't too long winded, I value your writing and perspective, and wanted to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Yeah, well so many things all get conflated by gender labels, and it's all so personal, you know? Masculinity does not have to mean maleness, and a person's gender identity might be a reflection of some innate quality they experience themselves as having, or a general summary of their tendencies, or their desired presentation, or their sense of affinity with other people, or an interpersonal tool, or something they just go along with because it was given to them by society, or any other number of things.

I think my recent substack piece on detransition goes into this pretty well, and I have an upcoming piece of what @pastimperfection calls "bilateral dysphoria" that comes out next week that delves into it too.

I think I mostly saw taking on a male identity as a means to an end more than any kind of innate reflection of who I was, though I did feel an affinity with effeminate men for a lot of reasons. I think I also discounted how much I have in common with my fellow nonbinary people of all stripes, because that identity became so strongly associated with being an annoying type of queer person that everybody else just wrote off as ultimately being their assigned gender at birth anyway no matter how much they protested. it doesn't help that 'nonbinary' is a catchall term for literally thousands if not millions of very distinct experiences and desires.

transitioning gave me control over how i was perceived, finally, but hormones are a throttle that only go in one very specific direction, and you don't really have all that much control over which changes kick in at which times and what people will make of you once you do start registering to them as some identity other than what you were first saddled with. it's an incredible gift to be able to toggle that throttle. but it's limited, not because medical transition isn't incredible and needed for so many, but because there is no escaping the goddamned binary cissexist logic that influences everything about how people treat you, how you navigate institutions, who finds you desirable and what they want out of you, and so much else.

if you're able to cast a lot of the external societal bullshit aside and feel strong in your maleness, maybe you're stronger than me or maybe our orientation to these things is just different, i don't know. i was never all that sensitive to feedback that i was doing the whole being-a-woman-thing all that wrong. i reveled in violating those rules to an extent. succeeding at being a woman despite my best attempts was what felt super dysphoric. and now i guess im succeeding at being a man, insofar as im always read as one, and it feels just as uncomfortable and objectifying and false. i thought that with manhood i could probably just grit my teeth and deal with it, but i'm finding that i can't.

ive always been very open that for me, gender is a thing I Do, and i guess to those who know me well it wouldnt be surprising to hear that i have gotten tired of Doing Being a Man and dont feel like playing that particular gendered game anymore. I tend to get bored of things! and find the flaws in things. and find my comfort in being fault-finding and contrarian and not being a joiner. and thats okay. i learned a lot along the way. not having to try any more is a huge relief. i can just do whatever. and know actively that people will more often than not be wrong in what they make of me.

maybe it was natural feeling for you to decidely 'know' your maleness without a care for masculine standards because that is the right identity for you! and maybe i only feel secure in the "not knowing" realm and in letting go of what people think of me or finding any kind of tidy categorization for it because that's the right spot for me. for now. until i find a new interesting way to be unhappy and striving for more and different again. :) that's just part of being alive, for me.

really sad to say this but i dont think i'll be using the word "posic" to describe my experiences with object sapience anymore. recently found out people who do not experience object consciousness, but "want to" or "think it should be real" are using the label and i refuse to associate my trauma with that. honestly i think it would be better if a new label was made for that but its not my problem. im sad to say this as ive loved the posic community since the beginning and have been a proud member

i also fear that continuously using "posic" to describe my relationship to objects cute-ifies my delusional companion syndrome which is actually a very fucking traumatic illness to live with and i dont want to keep feeling like im romanticizing or discrediting my own experiences, and i especially do not want to accidentally associate myself and my trauma with someone who is ultimately a complete outsider to my experience (or worse yet, desires to live my actual trauma lol but i highly doubt anyone is this insane)

to be clear i dont dislike people who "want" object sapience, i just dont agree with them using a preexisting word that describes the intimate experiences of other people to describe their identity. i dont have to tell you this but doing that really doesnt make sense. i dont like the idea of sharing what is meant to be close-knit spaces with someone like that. it feels to me like my sacred space is being invaded. in reality whether im right or wrong doesnt matter, i just wont be in that space anymore :0)

all DCS related posts will be tagged with DCS specific tags and no longer posic tags

since i’m full of hatred and negativity i will be answering this

(to emphasize Like these are just nuances and inconsistencies i’ve found with myself and the fandom Like genuinely idrgaf i could care less about any of the points i will make in retrospect)

the anthropomorphization of unpleasant from this fandom has genuinely WRECKED its character and made it. not that unique compared to the other npcs. like i dont know it being this like fucking gooner-type character is so awful? and i really hate it? if anything that trope given to unpleasant should have stayed with scag and ended with her, since she’s a genuine npc with more writing and thoughts attached

i saw people bring up this point again and im glad but HELLO!!!!! LETS STOP JUST ASSOCIATING LAMPERT AS WALLTER AND MARK'S SON? EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED /MULTIPLE/ TIMES? like DAMN this fandom only attributes characteristics if it is attached to literally anyone else besides that person. its horrible. people NEED to learn to find the balance between having fun with that headcanon while also acknowledging lampert as his own separate person that is (to be quite frank) not even associated with them that much in canon

(+ people saying that the headcanon of lampert being wallmark's son is canon and fucking REPLYING saying to people who ship wallter & lampert or mark & lampert that they shouldn't. you are fucking embarrassing)

more of a fandom thing but yall ship too much lmfaoo. like guys i promise, you can interpret some of these relationships as genuine friendships i promise you'll live. can we stop with the rhetoric that just because two characters have good dynamics with each other that means that theyre in love (heavily side-eyeing protoscag and lampfected and milby dare i say)

the regretevator fandom is EXACTLY like the phighting fandom with how shipping is handled. i mean this in not a positive way

people gotta stop relying on the wiki for information man. so much lore from yeucc's tumblr has been retconned and at this point, when there's now WRITERS for the game that are actually keeping tabs, all if not the good majority of what is said on the wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. nowadays the lore is unpredictable, and only a select few (by few i mean like. 4 out of the 17 npcs) has had their lore expanded on significantly

general facts i think is fine so long as theres an annotation backing it but my point still stands . moreso with lore generally

also saw this point being brought up in the qrts but the demonization and infantilization of certain characterss (cough spud pilby pest and poob) is like. wild. i dunno i can't say much since i'm very fortunate enough to not have seen that much but my god is it prevalent from what people are saying

with pest especially since he has npd and aspd i do think that. people generally associating him as evil has NOT been the greatest thing, especially since it reduces him to a stigma of people with personality disorders which is horrific and terrifying. idk what goes on in the background but i feel like the fandom + yeucc & the people working on regretevator should have done more research on the disorders and consulted people who do have these issues better instead of using those labels haphazardly

another thing i will and always will be vocal (dog on) about the axosun team is them keeping gnarpy. like there was no reason to keep xem in other than for revenue gain let's be honest and True to ourselves. the philosophy "ohh but you can separate the art from the artist!!!!" i feel does not really apply to this scenario cause xe got a whole ass revamp despite the obvious fact that it STILL is gnarpy, a character created by a bad person regardless of the ownership change and discredited history. its the underlying thought that they were essentially built off a bad origin if this makes any sense. idk i think it wouldve been better for everyone if xe were just removed ENTIRELY from the game but. you do you i guess

lastly in this essay: i think more people should Be Kinder to each other in this fandom <3 peace and love

Thanks for answering my question :)

I think the women wearing dresses, full faces of makeup would be sexist if they started claiming that doing that was inherently tied to being a woman.

What seems sexist to me is also not presentation, but the claim that the difference between men/women is mental, like how is it not sexist to claim that men and women have such differences in the way they think or the way their brain works that the difference between them is that and not just biological sex? How do you find a difference between woman and afab nonbinary without resorting to sexist ideas?

Also there seems to be an assumption that people in general ~feel~ a certain gender, but most people labeled cis dont actually feel/identify as anything unless theyre really into gender roles. I personally dont feel as the gender associated with my sex, i dont have any internal sense of being any gender, so that would remain the same if i was the opposite sex i guess. Which is another reason probably that gender has stopped making sense to me

I don’t want to make assumptions here, only you know your identity, but have you considered the reason you don’t “get”gender and don’t “get” feeling like the gender you were assigned is because you’re agender? Or some other flavour of nonbinary?

Because there are several cis women I know of who will tell you that they very much identify as women and feel like women. There’s even songs from cis women talking about feeling like a woman and what it means to them.

Also: no trans woman I have ever encountered has ever told me she identifies as a woman because she’s feminine. TERFs are lying to you if that is what you’re being told.

I've been making a lot of m/m ships with OCs lately and immediately came across an instagram post about fetishizing and denouncing fujos and now I'm nervous about whether my ships would come across as "fetishizing" (I am afab after all). I try not to make any of my ships creepy or anything but I feel like in any non-asexual relationship, they'd eventually bang and so thinking who'd be top and who'd bottom makes sense (or if they'd switch), and not everyone lives a rainbows and sunshine kinda life (as much as we'd want to)

I also don't know if OP should lump ALL fujos together, like telling a story of one creep asking incredibly invasive questions because you're gay (and they're a fujo) is BAD sure, but like, that's one person. And I agree that a surprising amount of yaoi manga have "problematic" issues (s*xual assault, coercion, etc), but like, there are plenty of m/f romance manga that ALSO contain that. Heck, there might be f/f manga that ALSO do that, I just haven't found one

It feels like there are too many "rules" nowadays. No problematic content, no large age gaps, no boss/subordinate, only squeaky clean wholesome gay ships, don't make female ocs too flat chested or they're "minor coded" but also don't make them too busty because that's male gaze bait (and you're a degenerate)

Like, man, I just wanna have fun

UGH Man the only way you can be happy in fandom lately is just ignore and block people. Seems to me the main people complaining about fujos are OTHER fujos who just dont associate with the word cuz any JP fandom culture has been labeled as CRINGE and god forbid your special imaginary-doll-smash time is labeled CRINGE. Couldnt have that!! Goodness me.

They make it so theres no way you can win... so as I always say... if you cant win the game you may as well make up your own rules. What are they gonna do? Say you lost? You got nothing to lose.

Block bitches. Mash your imaginary dolls together especially if theyre your own dolls. BE FREEEEE NONNY.

someone on the worg made this handy edit of the notable unnamed buildings in the braavos map. (theres a lot of good insight in the thread and i agree with a lot of the conclusions) most, if not all, of these buildings are likely new locations from twow. they’re just not labeled bc it would be too spoilery. all the marked locations are referenced in the text up thru mercy. 

theres 10 major buildings which, honestly, suggests a lot of upcoming action in braavos. jonathan roberts has stated parts of the braavos map have spoilers, are “directly involved” with twow and he received a set of arya chaps from it to get all the details. grrm clearly had this map designed for a reason. the only other city with such a detailed official map is kings landing.

i think most are houses of braavosi nobles/keyholders/courtesans. theres otherys (and otharys? but that might be a spelling error) reyaan, torone, pranelis and fregar. forel may be as well. we have two possibly connected members: syrio and phario. arya passes the houses of the prestayns and antaryons (house the current sealord is from) in affc while living as cat of the canals so those are marked. she notes their “tall square towers” twoiaf says the same, associating towers specifically with “keyholders and noble families” based on that 3,4,9,10 are good guesses for homes of the wealthy and/or influential. also 5 but due to its proximity to the bank i think it could be a government/financial building. 

6 has got to be the black pearl’s personal abode due to its shape and color. 1 seems to have a pinkish toned exterior so that might be another courtesan residence. these women are rich and world renowned they definitely have impressive homes. and we know of several so it makes sense we will find out where a couple live.    

9 is a very grand structure with three towers and in a totally different part of the city. its the only major building in that part of braavos (nothing is labeled in this entire section which is interesting to me) and its also closest to the location im most curious about, 8, a small, quite distinct, isolated little building on an island with no bridges. it has a pathway leading directly to the water. it could be absolutely nothing but it feels like............something. it really stands out as its raised up and a totally different color compared to all the surrounding buildings. i dont see any other structures like it either.

the house of the red hands is a place mentioned in the text but we don’t know the location of it yet. according to twoiaf its a “great” building so im thinking 2. its fairly central relative to the entire northern section of the city which makes sense since its basically a hospital. its also very close to the temples and prayer usually follows sickness/injury. plus, we know the mortally wounded/ill frequently end up in the hob&w. 

so in review:

1: courtesan 2: house of the red hands 3 noble (very wealthy - 3 towers) 4: noble (moderately wealthy - 2 towers) 5: noble (moderately wealthy - 2 towers)? but maybe govn’t related 6: the black pearl 7: not sure. its a large structure but lacks towers. theres a lot of windows.  8: not sure 9: noble (very wealthy - 3 towers) 10: keyholder (moderately wealthy - 1 tower) 

i rly think that ppl who feel a strong need to go "us versus them" in the sso criticism discourse need to just, take a deep breath and look within. there is so much black and white mindset always going on here, and so much bad ppl vs good ppl. its always been lacking in nuance and individuality and its frustrating.

there *are* ppl in the fandom who say really dumb shit, like fatphobic shit, sexist or racist shit, ableist shit.... but not everyone who criticises sso fairly and positively does any of that. not everyone who criticises sso annoyedly does any of that. not everyone who absolutely fucking hates sso does any of that.

there are equally ppl who genuinely are defending the most dumb shit from sse/sso just to be a defender and supporter without reason..... but not everyone who says something positive about the game does that. not everyone who loves the game does that. etc.

its not good and not okay to take out frustrations on people who dont actually do anything wrong or harmful (giving regular criticism, expressing personal opinions, giving fair praise - vs attacking staff, attacking other users for their opinion, posting harmful things, etc).

when you do that, you're blaming an innocent person for a perceived wrong from a "group" (like "haters" or "whiners" or "ppl who ruin my fun") that you have defined, that you associate "anyone who criticises things i disagree with" or whatever instead of "ppl who genuinely and provenly did something harmful". anyone who *seems* like they might be in that group annoys you, even if they arent.

consider why you think its okay to label people as invalid or unfair or unreasonable in their opinions if they have a different opinion than you but arent hurting anyone. (if you feel hurt by commercial media criticism, especially when its not even *your* product/work, there is a problem on your end that you should address.)

consider why you think its okay to say words like "ungrateful" about people who are simply voicing fair criticism or fair opinions about a videogame. i could call ppl ungrateful for not liking all my posts that i put so much work into making, but that would be really rude and ridiculous. its not kind and not nice to say things like that about ppl when they havent actually done anything wrong (criticising a videogame doesnt make someone "ungrateful", and posting harmless opinions on your own blog is not a problem).

the "us vs them" group system in sso fandom is usually along these lines: haters vs non-haters, haters vs defenders/whiteknights, or "any other critics" vs "those who see themselves as the only Good and Fair and Nice critics"... all of these are more or less the same groups just slight variation in the person's point of view. and all of them are bad, because these groups are not actually rigid and applicable in reality. people are individual and people are nuanced.

some of you guys post what i consider kinda unfair comments on sso sometimes. it could be good or bad comments, that i personally consider a bit too subjective or unfair or unrealistic or whatever. but i dont post rude, disrespectful or mean things about that on my blog, and i try to not act as if you belong to some group that youve never claimed to belong to (encouraging the "us vs them" mentality in the community).

if i *am* going to say "sso defenders" or "sso haters", i would be making sure to actually be talking to/about ppl who evidently belong to that label. ppl who defend sse even when it makes no sense, not just ppl who praise good things about the game. ppl who actually *hate* on the game, not just ppl who say something critical about it.

and you end up in those boring repetitive healthy-community-ruining social patterns when you give in to "us vs them" and to black-and-white, polarised, mindsets, when you dont actively see things as nuanced and varied and individual.

i really wish that ppl would step back and think, "this opinion / this criticism about sso made me feel annoyed/upset. why is that? what about it made me feel bad? am i taking something personally that isnt? did this person actually say anything harmful or wrong, or is it fair personal opinion? did they *actually* shove it in my face, or am i visiting a public space that is not curated only for me? am i painting this person as something they might not be in my mind? am i trying to sort them into a group, and if so, why?"

someone from the bullies will have a field day with this post and be like "omg juni is saying that ppl who disagree with him are mentally ill again!" (twisting words is helpful when you really want to make things black-and-white and "us vs them") but i do genuinely want to say that if you feel really hurt and upset by ppl having harmless disagreements or harmless criticisms about a videogame, there is a problem. it might have to do with your emotional boundaries ("criticism feels bad even when its not about me"), it might have to do with your self-worth ("you say sso is bad so you think im bad for liking it"), or various other things, and its not healthy. however, its also okay to feel unfair emotional reactions if you cant help them, but the problem is, you CAN help how you act, how you judge, and how you treat other people.

sorry i also dont want to come at you or anything, but i just wanted to add on as an intersex person to the whole using the phrase “biological female”. Because when you get down to it, you cant really define biological female.

Someone that had a uterus? And a vagina? Who has hormonal balances often assosiated with being afab? The ability to give birth/fertility? So then whats normal? What makes someone who is female, female? its a gradient, its messy. Someone who has the same intersex condition as me can call themselves a cis woman but i can call myself intersex. There is no binary anywhere when you get down to it. No norm of what makes a “biological female” female. Its just humans with different traits and no two people are the same. like when talking about hair growth, people talking about “biological females” are saying it to mean hair patterns on people with higher levels of e often associated with being afab. But “biological females” can have higher levels of T or higher sensetivity to it. (Changing hair patterns) Does that make them less of women? Are they still biologically females? Idk if that makes sense but intersexism as a spectrum, biological men and women on a spectrum. Some traits assosiated with one are found on the other. So just say the trait you mean. and yea it also probably rubs me the wrong way due to its use of valueng biological sex over gender which i know you arent doing but i feel a big part of the queer community to me and finding my place in it was discovering just how unnatural it was to label people as biological females or males. Abolishing binaries everywhere.

so yea no hate to you. Love ur blog btw

Oh yeah, I’m so sorry about the wording for it! I knew when writing it that it wasn’t a good or full explanation but (and here’s the excuses I’m so sorrry) it was the best way to drive the point home.

I think if I had used many other terms they (and others) would have focused on that and not the point being made.

I’m incredibly sorry if I offended you tho anon!

I get that there’s no “real way to tell” (genderqueer here), I was more listing biological female as it’s common for it to be thrown in their faces more. Especially by certain religions.

Thanks for the ask anon, I hope I cleared some stuff up on my part and apologise again! Hopefully no bad blood anywhere here!

on grrm describing his own style as that of heroic fantasy: how do you feel asoiaf is in conversation with the great man theory of history

ok so im not a historian, and it is not a strong subject of mine by any means, so do not expect that rich of an answer here: i just view the great man theory as only true to the degree that people that find themselves in positions of power will have a degree of influence on history by virtue of that position of great power, and the choices they make will be of great significance as a result, but there are too many forces at play, a lot of complexity that makes it so that the idea of “events shape history, great men create events” feels reductionist. i do not think these things can be attributed to the control and the choices of singular great individuals. i especially do not think that the “great men” of history have innate qualities granted to them at birth that in turn makes them great lol. i think the text treats the whole thing like this too for the most part, but it is a fictional fantasy series at the end of the day. when it comes to george, he is also not that interested in historical processes:

this is grrm’s, who noted before that he considers himself a romantic in the classical sense, approach to heroic fantasy. i do think the text takes apart aspects of the “great man theory”, how that label can even be defined, and how “greatness” in general can be defined, and whatever it is, it is more made, rather than something that is completely innate. there is a reason that a lot of our heroes are undergoing arcs that deliberately goes into the nitty gritty of their experiences, and outlines how they are shaped and evolved through it all. i also like feast’s approach to this conversation, as it hones in on tywin being treated as a “great man”, a kind of man that is “born once every thousand years.” it is a rhetoric that is repeated by his family and associates, but feast looks at the damage he’s done through the eyes of our protagonists, and how this “greatness” stems from mostly terror, and the banality of his evil. how singular is he really? + i think we all know that his legacy will not have a very happy ending. anyway, like he says, he does write from the lens of history being shaped by individual men and women and the choices they make, he just treats them as thoroughly human, and argues that they are like us, so i do not think the point that is being made here is: “people in positions of power deserve to lead due to innate characteristics granted to them at birth which shapes them into heroes.” the text goes into this whole discussion of “the heroes of history” pretty overtly through jaime too:

and there is a lot of grey area here. best & the worst on what terms? we know which heroes are remembered by history here, and how they are labelled, and we can look at why critically.

as george says, he does write like history is shaped by individuals and their choices, glorious and terrible, but the point is that they are not so different from “you & me.” every human being is linked by the capacity to make choices, and we have all have the capacity for good or evil, but it is choices that define us, not anything else. he repeats this in interviews constantly, and it is ever present in the text itself:

and i do think it is a major theme in the story that many essentialist ideas are being taken apart. the protagonists and their agency is always emphasized, and they are, again, largely defined by their choices, and their rearing, not their blood and the way they are born. this is actually why i feel more opposed to the tyrion targaryen theory. like for me, it is not just about the nuances of the whole tywin-tyrion dynamic, i just dont think it would be as thematically meaningful if all three “main characters with the biggest page presence” are tied together like that through royal blood. even if it is not the intention, i find it difficult to remove the implication. like i get that our protagonists are all mostly nobles from great families already (but there are clear heroes in the story that are not that), and it is not like classic hero narratives and chosen one narratives are absent from this story, i just believe george will have stuff up his sleeve to deconstruct and be in conversation with these tropes, and i think this whole “everybody very major is a secret targ” thing would take things too far lol. we will see. magic is interesting to me though. it feels like it is more innate. i think grrm writes with nature & nurturer in mind, and places a lot of emphasis on the latter, but there are magical aspects to the story that do not necessarily abide by this, bc magic is treated as something unique and not universal (i also remember him saying stuff about this, but i dont have the interview at hand), but we will see what direction he will take a lot of it, as the story will get more and more magical. it will still be ambiguous and treated as a force that is not fully understood i assume.

kyman’s relationship is unclassifiable

i am forever obsessed with how unclassifiable kyman’s relationship is. like that quote in casa bonita where cartman says “but we've also been through a lot together and maybe that alone doesn't make us friends but it makes us something” lives in my head rent free. the fact that in canon even the two dont know what what to call each other is something so personal to me!!!

most people would argue that they’re just rivals and i’m looking in too deep but i feel like, even though, yes, that label does capture a good portion of their interactions, but it also ignores some of their most bare, important moments with each other.

theres literally so many instances where their relationship looks so confusing and beyond “rivals”. like in smug alert or jewpacabra, where they save each other’s lives. (bonus for smug alert because the fact it literally points out cartman NEEDS kyle). or in cartman finds love where it pretty much confirms cartman is romantically into kyle, and the heiman arc pretty much confirms kyle is romantically into cartman (there’s more evidence that they’re in love but these are some of the biggest examples. i’ll make a post abt it maybe) imagination land scene when cartman has a whole breakdown about kyle dying, ass burgers/ you’re getting old where they abandon stan together, kyle being the first to be sympathetic and believe cartman can change, faith hilling, crack baby athletes association, i can keep on going for days.

and ofc there’s the fact the two, despite seemingly despising each other, will stick by each other’s side, hang out, willingly work together etc. like they could literally just leave each other if they hate each other sm but they don’t. and it’s this willingness to hang out w/ each other that’s so interesting to me. the mutual need for each other to make their lives complete...how can you say they’re JUST rivals.

their relationship is just so specific. they’re stuck as forever “rivals”, as the boys who would argue about something every single day. but then have moments where they care for each other. they’ve been through hell and back with each other, through thick and thin, and the unwillingness to leave each other’s side or to abandon or give up on each other (take a look at any ep they team up or are the main focus) really says a lot about how deep this relationship really goes. how it’s so much deeper than just rivals.

but then again they aren’t just “friends” either. they’ve had so many disagreements, fights and pit against each other so many times that it doesn’t exactly fit into the category of standard friends ripping against each other. it’s clear they’re much more.

kyman just has such a unique dynamic. i don’t even think this post even gave it’s complexity and inner workings justice. idk if any thing in this post even made sense but the fact my brain can’t wrap itself around it kinda just proves how indescribable their relationship truly is. they really are “something”

Sorry if this is like, weird, but on the dsmp rare pair chart you put emduo as romantic? I'm really curious as to your thought process (if you remember) and any tidbits/headcanons about them you have?

this isnt weird at all dw!! UMM i honestly dont remember much. my techza era was in its prime in 2021. i havent really thought about them a bunch since then.

honestly i think a lot of my favorite thoughts about techza falls more into a queerplatonic relationship. like i like the idea that they wouldnt put a label on their relationship it just. there is Certainly a relationship. like they've known eachother for so long that their feelings for eachother are not 100% platonic and not 100% romantic but secret third thing. if i make any sense.

i generally label my shipping as romantic though because stuff associated with romance is the content i liked to see with them. they should kiss on the lips or whatever. stuff that wouldve gotten me cancelled on sight in 2021. (i also enjoy Actual /r techza too but yknow. a lot of my thoughts end up more in qpr territory TBH)

ANYWAYS!

i like to think whatever they have going on started back during the antarctic empire. smpearth so personal to me. the em duo dynamic during the antarctic empire were so good.

umm. may reblog with more when i remember but i am hungry and want to eat THANK YOU FOR ASKING THIS BTW it was so scary to admit to publicly /r shipping them. ppl r so niceys on tumblr though. glad ur curious

Why dont you want people tagging stuff as kidcore and such?

Mostly because I don’t like being constantly reminded my interests are for very young children to the point people use it as an actual aesthetic or associate it entirely with ‘oh this is for literal babies’. Power to people who do and are “kidcore” or whatever but it is such a pain to put effort into something related to Moshi Monstere only for people to use it for their “I’m a lil kid!!” aesthetic, especially considering the majority of my posts aren’t even overly directed towards children (or even at all) and use curses anyways. This blog is not kidcore nor is it even friendly for anyone under the age of like 13 really.

Nostalgiacore is a very similar case. I don’t post out of a feeling of nostalgia, I post because I genuinely enjoy the series. I understand people are very nostalgic about the series but labelling something as nostalgiacore makes it seem like it’s entire purpose is just to envoke nostalgic feelings. Everything that’s considered slightly old media is tagged as ‘nostalgiacore’ at this point.

I don’t mind if you reblog posts from me that I didn’t make with these tags (altho I’ll roll my eyes) but PLEASE not anything I make, as neither are what the posts are really “about”. Hoping I worded any of this in a way that makes remote sense

TL;DR they annoy me

I dont ever pass as allistic, people always clock me as "weird", "annoying", etc etc,, its only when when they say "seriously what the fucks wrong with you" and I tell them I'm autistic, they get defensive "no because you're not like my 5 year old non verbal nephew" etc etc. in my experience them telling me I don't seem autistic is never them saying I pass as "normal", just another power play. they realised they were being ableist, and that CANT be true, so it's easier for them to just completely deny my disability

See, I do get that and I agree it sucks, and I'm sorry it's like that for you, however I know personally that if I were in those situations I don't think those people believing you when you say you're autistic would make the situation feel any better, especially when they do associate autism so strongly with non verbal 5yos, because now not only do they think you're weird and annoying they also see you as disabled and to them being disabled is something they see in a very negative light.

My vent post about not being able to pass as allistic and wishing people would stop clocking me as autistic was also more so made with people who are able to mask enough to the point where they aren't being labelled weird and annoying especially not immediately upon first sight in mind, and it also wasn't to say that those struggles and issues they might have are any less valid but as a vent about how being believed when you say you are autistic isn't necessarily always going to be some positive affirming experience and that it can get really tiring especially when you're repeatedly getting associated with people's 5yo non verbal nephew which would be fine if it werent for the fact those people pity you for being like their nephew and yet also still treat you condescendingly and infantilise you as a result of the association which I understand can still happen even without them recognising you're autistic but it doesn't erase that it does happen when they do recognise you're autistic and that that also sucks and really hurts to experience.

I guess to sort of sum it up, it sucks becing told you're not autistic but it doesn't necessarily feel any better to be believed about it and no one is really winning here. Hopefully that makes sense, Ive just woken up but didn't want to forget about this ask and have it in my inbox till the end of time

🍈🌶️🥭

Questions from here!

🍈[MELON] If they had to be put into a box, what box would it be and why?

Okay. Okay look. Bear with me here. Arsinoe has always had an easier time defining themself in negatives than in actually putting a firm label on anything, and it's easier for them to slap a double negative on something than commit to that something on its own, if that makes sense?? Adding wiggle room to the definition. They're Not a woman. They're not-not a man??? The whole (not)-not dating situation. Ars isn't human, but they're maybe not-not a person?? They're not a hero, they don't actually even really think of themself as a villain. They don't want to be defined, they just want to be comprehended, if that makes sense???? None of this is actually a real answer to the question, though. Whoops! Sorry. They're actively climbing out of the box.

They're very loosely using the labels 'nonbinary' and 'queer' though, both of which contain enough Multitudes it doesn't feel too restrictive.

🌶️ [HOT PEPPER] Who would your OC declare their sworn enemy if they could meet them?

Silly answer first. Arsenaux, they're Coming For Ya. Her name appears One (1) time in text in Retribution and it is NOT a one time that appears on their path through the game, and she appears Slightly More in the Patreon Lore and thus jumpscared both me and Ars several years after I named them/they picked their name by existing and having her name pronounced the same way theirs is. But hers is a fire pun and french, so. Clearly they are the better of the two and they're not afraid to go for the knees or play an underhanded telepathy trick or two. hey how come nobody told them they picked the same name as a supervillain when they first started using it--

Secondary more serious answer they've. Acquired Somewhat Secondhand Vendettas against Hollow Ground (Ortega doesnt like them and they were rude with their telepathy) and Shroud (entirely based on the fact that she hurt the puppet, who their own situation with is... of Dubious Ethical Value on its own......)(Somehow, this antipathy is almost entirely unrelated to their piece of Shared History with her) The enemy of their friend is also their enemy because they're ride or die! They dont know what to tell you!

🥭 [MANGO] What colours best represent them and why? Does this differ from their favourites?

Their current color scheme + preference is. Dark greens and greys, which is a color scheme that's uh. A darkened shade of the Bright Green they associate with Anathema, and Anonymity Genericness. Their favorite color used to be bright teal!! it is now. not. When they're not trying to avoid anyone noticing they exist, though, I tend to associate them with brighter, solid colors. Silver instead of grey, bright green, return of the teal, some red! blue!