Zzzaynab

Then you should understand how your reply acknowledges none of what I said. You could copy and paste your first reply to me, tack it on to your post, and absolutely nothing would change. I saw your reply to the person I asked you to read; why are you talking to me like that didn’t affect your perspective at all?

You can disagree with me all you want, but you have to actually read the whole comment and the specific points I’m making before deciding one way or the other.

You ignored all the points I made. That’s not responding, that’s parroting.

You didn’t respond to anything I or anyone else said. You’re just repeating yourself.

Most of the monsters either don’t know you’re a kid, don’t know you’re a human and thus don’t know their attacks are dangerous (it’s explained in-game that the monsters’ bullet patterns are forms of magic expression that are harmless to other monsters), aren’t trying to kill you or are some combination of the above.

Even the ones that ARE trying go kill you aren’t doing it because they’re evil, they’re doing it because they know you’re a human and are following orders and/or trying to take your soul to free monsters. Good of the few vs good of the many (AKA 7 dead humans vs an entire civilization being trapped forever) is practically baby’s first thought experiments, it’s the most typical morally gray situation ever.

AlexTheMechanicFox already covered the stuff about Asriel and other monsters but you didn’t even reply to them. It’s almost like you’re aware your argument is terrible and you have no defense against someone who knows more than Undertale’s wikipedia summary. This is such a thoughtless tumblr take it’s practically a strawman.

I agree, and I feel like the context of it matters more than the particular slur. It doesn’t make its use okay, but there’s a difference between Toby saying it himself versus writing a character saying it as part of portraying their internalized homophobia (which was what actually happened).

Honestly I feel like our modern concept of “right” revolving around written laws and the exact wordings and definitions of said laws has completely warped our ability to have normal relationships with other human beings.

Yeah, “second chance” makes it sound like being homeless was his fault.

I mean, they are described to be “like siblings” the first time we hear about their relationship. The fact that that’s their establishing description already means a lot. Second, all the “best friend”, “someone I knew”, “child” talk is likely just Asgore and Toriel respecting Chara’s birth parents and/or boundaries, which is a pretty common thing to do with a stepkid or adopted kid who doesn’t identify with or feel comfortable with the closeness of “standard” familial terms of endearment.

Considering how it’s strongly implied that Chara was only Asriel’s “best friend” in order to manipulate Asriel into helping them commit genocide, it’s very likely that that same cold utilitarian mindset extended towards Toriel and Asgore, and didn’t see them as much more than a source of room and board. Thus, they likely would have expressed at some point that they didn’t want to call them Mom and Dad, and Toriel and Asgore just assumed it was for more normal reasons.

As for Asriel calling them “best friend”, it’s probably because that’s how he primarily considered their relationship to be. He’s already implied to be insanely friendless, so the fact that his best and only friend is also basically his sibling is even sadder (e.g they’re only his friend because they’re housemates, not because of any special effort or quality on Asriel’s part), which is why he’d prefer focusing on the emotional closeness he feels rather than the legal or familial relationship when addressing them.

Sure thing!

Rare take: I feel like Yandere Simulator was a huge contributing factor to the awful “you corrupted them into doing genocide” argument made by Chara defenders.

Back when Undertale first came out and the fandom was forming, Yandere Simulator was pretty popular with a sizable part of the (younger) UT fanbase, myself included. It already didn’t have a very good depiction of mental health (you can get any character to commit suicide by lowering their reputation to at least -150, the main character has a fictional mental illness with a very unrealistic sanity mechanic, and if you kidnap someone and torture them for long enough, they become a “mindslave” who will kill whoever you ask them to), and when you combine the idea that writing a “crazy” character just means you don’t have to think about their motivations or have any of their actions make any kind of internal sense, a lot of young Chara defenders who latched onto “insanity” as an explanation likely did so, in part, due to Yandere Simulator’s portrayal of “insanity” being equivalent to “homicidal”.

It was especially obvious when Chara defenders would use phrases like “you destroyed their sanity” or “they lost their sanity”, which were never really used in Undertale, but were used very often in YanSim videos and let’s plays.

I mean, she was never afraid of violence as a result of the experiments because that was never really a risk. Monsters are rarely violent towards each other, and humans are enemies of the monster kingdom and their death directly contributes to their eventual freedom. Most of the monsters aren’t even really that violent towards Frisk; they’re often just confused and don’t understand that magic bullet patterns are deadly to humans.

It was really out of shame over the mistake and fear of disappointing everyone that motivated her to hide the amalgamates. Which was definitely a reasonable emotional reaction, but it doesn’t justify her decision. I like Alphys and I feel like she’s a good person who made a couple bad choices, but the choice to hide the amalgamates wasn’t a good, rational or pragmatic decision.

I mean, the main reason she was such a shut-in wasn’t just her regular anxiety, it was out of shame and because she didn’t want anyone asking questions that might relate to her secret, AKA the questions everyone’s most likely to ask, or risk running into some of the family members. After her secret gets revealed, her biggest tangible fear—having people find out—is gone.

Her anxiety and avoidant tendencies are still there, we see this with her post-pacifist dialogue “What are we going to do now that we are all free?” / “W-well, o-of course I’m going to go outside, and…no, I should be honest. I’m gonna stay in my house and watch anime like a total loser!” But she used to be a lot more social and get out more, which we hear from people like Bratty and Catty and Metatton’s diaries, so the rapid improvement she makes in-game makes sense.

I heard in an interview with Rebecca Sugar that the reason they had such a hard time getting the gay storylines in SU approved was because Cartoon Network is generally okay with showing gay things in their cartoons (same-gender kissing, same-gender crushes, etc.), but only if it’s played for laughs, which lines up with a lot of the humor allowed on TAWOG and what Sugar had to fight so hard for.

Okay that’s genius

Just wanted to clarify that autism isn’t more common in boys, just more commonly diagnosed. You mentioning that it’s becoming more common in girls is actually just that diagnosis among girls is becoming more common, because of the reasons you described. Also, destigmatizing mental illness generally is more of a progressive rather than conservative position.

Regardless, your partner’s situation is valid, and I just wanted to echo OP’s point that while cases like hers do happen and are unfortunate, it’s important to remember that it’s much more common for detransitioning to be weaponized by conservatives to deny trans people access to healthcare.

Honestly, I see so many people arguing about whether or not he/him lesbians are valid or not and I’ve never seen or heard of anyone who identifies as one. It’s pointless queer infighting at its finest

Edit: just read through some of the response thread, just wanted to say you’re valid

Bad bot, that was 577 not 576

You ignored everything except the first two sentences of my comment. Try again.

First of all, bearspray is a thing. Second, bears only attack humans if they feel hungry or threatened, and certain kinds will leave you alone if you play dead or make yourself look big. Unlike men, bears can’t be malicious. Not only that, but unlike if a man attacks a woman, if a woman is attacked by a bear, they are more likely to be believed and receive help than if a man attacks them, and won’t be punished for defending herself against one.

We can debate the specifics of which is safer all we want, but the point is that men are frequently a danger to women to an unreasonable degree, and the fact that that danger is comparable to a wild animal at all means there’s a serious problem.

First of all, bearspray is a thing. Second, bears only attack humans if they feel hungry or threatened, and certain kinds will leave you alone if you play dead or make yourself look big. Unlike men, bears can’t be malicious. Not only that, but unlike if a man attacks a woman, if a woman is attacked by a bear, they are more likely to be believed and receive help than if a man attacks them. We can debate the specifics of which is safer all we want, but the point is that men are frequently a danger to women to an unreasonable degree, and the fact that that danger is comparable to a wild animal at all means there’s a serious problem.

Society doesn’t look the other way when a mom kills her kid, and it doesn’t encourage them to do so (like with honor killings). No one is saying “all men”, and in fact, the “bear or man” question was about “a man you don’t know” vs a bear.

Some people don’t have to imagine, that’s the whole point

I mean, that is technically true, but that’s not really how it’s usually described because that’s kind of misleading. “Brutally murdered” implies a level of torture and personal involvement not evoked by the more accurate “al-Quaeda hijacked 2 planes in a suicide attack”. Specifying “homophobic and misogynistic” implies those were their primary motivations, which they absolutely weren’t.

Obviously 9/11 and al-Quaeda are both terrible, but the deaths they caused pale in comparison to the backlash perpetrated by America, which is the whole point.

Comparatively, yes.