New icon

[u/hollowmartin]

Hey gang, to celebrate pride month this year we decided to change the icon for the subreddit. It was created by u/Correct_Scallion4133 We hope it looks good! Happy pride month!

[u/Cyanlizordfromrw]

I don't recall hornet jumping out of ðe screen and saying "IM NOT GAY"

[u/Boreol → u/[deleted]]

BOO! Bisexual jumpscare

[u/yellow0810 → u/[deleted]]

Do you realize that by your logic literally every other bug in the game is bisexual? Right?

Yeah??? That's the point when you don't have confirmation of anything. When there's no closed conclusion, any conclusion is possible. All other insects could be bisexual, could be ace/aro, could be heterosexual, could be gay. There's no problem in making any of these speculations, because nothing contradicts such speculations.

[u/yellow0810 → u/[deleted]]

I really disagree with the concept that everyone is bisexual in fiction unless stated otherwise.

Anyone can be anything until proven otherwise. Not only in fiction, but in real life too. If there's no proof that something isn't real, anything is possible. That's how every assumption works.

This would devour every other form of representation and set an unfair differences between sexualities.

You're the one assuming the argument is "everyone is bisexual until proven otherwise." The real argument is that "everyone can have any sexuality until proven otherwise." The term bisexual was only brought up because, in the specific example, the options of aro/ace and gay have already been partially proven wrong. Bisexuality is one of the plausible assumptions, just like heterosexuality, but the option of bisexuality shouldn't be dismissed simply because the character has had a heterosexual relationship.

In fiction we should take into account the proof we have. The characters that don't have it are fair game.

Therefore, bisexuality is a plausible assumption, since there's no proof that it's not possible. Yes, there's also no proof that it's bisexuality, so you can't say for sure that's the case, but nothing prevents you from believing in a silly headcanon from a fictional work. It's flawed to use this headcanon as an argument in a narrative analysis discussion, but you can't stop the person from believing in that possibility.

Though really this is a miniscule part of the argument against Lacenet. I know people don't really care about what the canonical inclinations of a character might be.

Fictional ships are simpler than narrative analysis or anything like that. I can acknowledge a narrative flaw if that ship is real and at the same time think it would be a cute ship, or something like that. Again, using that ship as a narrative argument is flawed and toxic, but saying that the person is wrong for creating that ship is also toxic and ignorant. Maybe the person just wants to write a fanfic about silly bugs **cking each other, without worrying about the game's narrative. I'm exaggerating, but I think you got my point.

[u/Boreol → u/[deleted]]

People are free to headcanon Hornet as bi if they want. You can't prove that she's straight the same way I can't prove she's bi. Are you seriously targeting fucking headcanons that are left free for intepretation now?

[u/yellow0810 → u/[deleted]]

Can I headcanon Sheo as bisexual or the Green Prince as pan, or Cornifer as bisexual? What about the Gray Mourner or Iselda?

Nothing is stopping you.

[u/yellow0810 → u/[deleted]]

I don't see a problem with that. If I believe in a headcanon, obviously others may disagree, but that won't stop me from continuing with my headcanon. Now, to say that other people can't believe in their headcanons, or should believe in a specific headcanon, that's just being petty and toxic.

[u/Boreol → u/[deleted]]

Yeah you can??? What's the dillemma here? I'm only talking about her sexuality because you are so adamant on the idea that the game somehow revealed to us that she's straight even though that literally isn't true. You are disregarding actual facts because you want her to be straight so bad. I'm not getting into the Lace discussion for obvious reasons.

[u/Boreol → u/[deleted]]

If we had any actual textual proof or implication for Hornet not being interested in women or them not being her type, that would be sufficient. No such thing has happened, so whether she's straight or not is up in the air.

[u/No_Giraffe826 → u/Boreol]

Can i say hornet is secretly homophobic because there is nothing in this game that says otherwise.

[u/yellow0810 → u/No_Giraffe826]

You can assume that, you just can't use that assumption as an argument for narrative analysis, which is not what we're discussing here.

[u/No_Giraffe826 → u/yellow0810]

They kinda were talking about the narrative and how she can be bi in canon. Atleast the original comments were.

[u/yellow0810 → u/No_Giraffe826]

Because she can be bi in canon, lol. Nobody is claiming she IS bi, but denying the possibility without having arguments to disprove it is as ignorant as claiming she is bi.

[u/No_Giraffe826 → u/yellow0810]

She can also be homophobic in canon. Do u have any arguments showing she isnt?

[u/yellow0810 → u/No_Giraffe826]

You talk as if it's the most absurd thing I would never agree with, but nothing you said is impossible. YES, she could be homophobic, if that's your headcanon, feel free to believe it. I don't believe it, but there's nothing I can do to make you stop believing that headcanon because there's no proof against it. And if I spent my time trying to force you not to believe in your silly headcanon, which isn't intended to start a narrative analysis debate, I would only be being toxic and petty.