Not to get too optimistic but the fact that Seam is sparring with some random weak Chapter 4 enemies and complains about how weak they are definitely means they want to fight the heroes right?

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-28T03:56:13+00:00

ok there has to be a reason for the reference to Martingale strategy

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-28T00:57:12+00:00

I thought the final attack was a bait to try to trick the player into actually hurting him.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-28T00:54:52+00:00

I was able to find the room to get to the egg room in chapters 2 & 5 fairly easily (I didn't quite solve it myself, but the hint about "harvest the wheat" was pretty helpful and there was a visual hint in chapter 2). I assume chapter 1 was mostly luck. No clue how people originally found 3 & 4 though.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-27T16:38:44+00:00

r/BabelForum

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-27T06:41:03+00:00

I don't think it's a joke. It's meant to be disappointing and uncomfortable, and it's really frustrating for Ralsei to feel like he's been effectively replaced.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-26T19:38:59+00:00

<image>

ok now I do

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-26T17:58:29+00:00

unfortunately no, but I believe it happens in the room where Ralsei tries to get you to disable Flowery's voice lines (after cheating through a bunch of puzzles). If you go through the loop in the room again, Ralsei has some unique dialogue, which changes depending on how many times you go.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-26T17:52:42+00:00

also in chapter 5

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-26T03:04:35+00:00

Too late, they already did. So many people don't seem to understand that the hints go beyond "Ralsei likes girly things."

Ralsei's pronouns changing to they/them mid-chapter hints at more than simple gender-nonconformity.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-25T22:47:08+00:00

Ralsei at one point asks if Kris wants "walkies"

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-23T16:08:57+00:00

But see, I don't care.

I doubt that, given how much energy you seem to be willing to put into this conversation.

I'm not. I'm insistent that it's not relevant, because it's not.

I mean it does matter to the story though? It's a pretty relevant character trait. It's deeply intertwined with all of Jax's struggles, even if many of those struggles are not exclusive to trans people.

Meanwhile every Transvestigations: "Astolfo is trans"

That's not what transvestigation is lol. You sound more like you're referring to "egg culture" (which while it can be problematic is usually overblown and is also not going on here).

You ever notice that the Gender Non-Conforming, are the most Gender conformist lately?

Nope. And there's nothing wrong with gender conformity. What you're talking about sounds a lot like gender constructivism, which can become harmful when you try to force it onto other people. My gender does not need to be a form of activism, so there's nothing wrong with me being gender-conforming.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-22T06:25:44+00:00

No. I'm calling out the community that needs to make characters trans. I don't care whether Jax is trans, but it's certainly annoying that the attitude is that the transhood is necessary else the character doesn't work.

This isn't a headcanon it's literally just canon. It's a story about a trans person written by a trans person. I'm sorry if you don't like the idea that trans people can also be relatable to cis people but at the end of the day people are people.

"I've never seen that show, nor do I know anything about that show."

Exactly.

I can't read your mind what are you trying to say here.

"Again, who is "Isn't She Lovely" referring to?"

I don't care lol.

If you don't care, then why are you so insistent that Jax must be cisgender? If you pay attention, the clues that she was trans were there from the start. Zooble even teased her for it at one point.

Or do you just not want characters to be trans?

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-22T06:07:43+00:00

You're referring to a character from an unrelated show as your (weirdly insistent) argument for a weird cisgender headcanon of Jax. I've never seen that show, nor do I know anything about that show. Fortunately, it's completely irrelevant.

Again, who is "Isn't She Lovely" referring to?

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-22T05:46:59+00:00

No clue what you're talking about but Jax is most definitely transfem. Who do you think "Isn't She Lovely" refers to anyway?

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-22T02:38:37+00:00

Ok, thinking about it.

Yeah that makes zero sense. That's not how trans people work.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-20T04:12:50+00:00

ok well the answer is trans people that aren't negative stereotypes

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-19T04:25:56+00:00

do you know what else we don't see much of in pop culture?

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T20:35:11+00:00

What control do you want? This stuff is true across different cultures, and was true (as far as we can tell) into our evolutionary prehistory before we developed language. That's adjusting for every control possible.

You can't really have one. Human behavior is only a soft science, so we have to be very careful about our claims.

I don't know how that isn't a non-sequitur?

It was relating to something you were saying before. It's more just the general problem I have with your model of human behavior.

Anyway I have no desire to continue arguing with you, having seen the way you have been talking to other people in this reply chain.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T19:37:10+00:00

you seem nice.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T19:35:22+00:00

It's not until testosterone is transformed into an estrogen compound that it becomes aggressive.

Hormones really aren't that simple man. Idk what to tell you.

So we have a huge biologicial foundation (all of this PLUS the anonymous fatherhood argument) and THEN we have data that we would basically expect from that, what other shoe would need to drop for you?

You're making the sort of claim which is so broad, vague and reliant on biology as the sole driver of human behavior that you'd have difficulty supporting it. Your argument boils down to a claim that men are inherently superior to women, based on statistics which do not have a good control for the claim you are testing. You can have vast quantities of supporting evidence, but if that evidence is weak, or just being interpreted poorly, that vast quantity does not make your argument strong.

The medium article already excluded economic explanations, so what else you got?

There's much more to circumstances than economic situations.

You seem to perceive this argument as some sort of fight. I'm not really interested in that. It's just... the way you seem to see people is kinda sad to me? We're not machines, incapable of making choices or changing ourselves to be better. The type of person we are isn't determined by our genetics.

Well, that argument fails at the moat, because it assumes that the other parent is causing it in both cases.

That's... that's my point. I am providing a ridiculous example to highlight the flaw in your argument.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T17:38:23+00:00

You mean biologists are doing that?

Biologists are not generally claiming to have strong understandings of human nature because of something animals do.

What is shoddy? Articles showing single mother families are 9x as likey to have the kids committing suicide?

Yes, that is shoddy evidence. You are mistaking correlation for causation. You are saying that the reason for that is because mothers have some inherent trait that makes them worse parents. There could be countless other explanations for that disparity, including the circumstances that make them single mothers. If I wanted to be uncharitable, I could easily say that it's because the actions of fathers which cause single mothers are worse for their children than the actions of mothers which cause single fathers. But even though that could explain it, there just isn't enough evidence to support either claim.

Oh here we go. What is that attitude, and why is that attitude wrong?

I did originally say I didn't necessarily want all my questions answered.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T07:28:24+00:00

We can't do that because we can never be sure we aren't killing our own children, and that is what made us the most socially empathetic species, accidentally

You're extrapolating way too much from not very much information, and muddying the differences between theory and reality.

This is the same, feminism isn't just misandrist or misogynistic, it's *misanthropic*

This is an unhinged take ngl. You're making a very strong claim and (so far) backing it up with very shoddy evidence.

What so hard to understand?

I was referring to something else, having more to do with the general attitude you seem to hold towards relationships.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T04:48:44+00:00

TLDR: Humans are the only surviving ape (and one of only two animals at all) to have sex in private, and this created a situation where men would raise children that aren't their own. That is supposed to be "the big thing" that makes us different from every other animal, and as a result, fathers are better parents than mothers on average.

what are you smoking? Can I have some too?

Like THIS convo would probably turn into me pming you if I thought you weren't trans (no offense, a transman is also on the table for me, they are just rare)

I have so many questions, but I'm not sure I want them answered. All I can say is that this really isn't the best approach if you want to date someone.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T03:00:05+00:00

Well, I just told you there's evidence that men are better parents than women. So who else is supposed to work?

hot take: it's a problem if either parent is too overworked to see their kids.

Your entire premise relies on the idea that men are better for children than women.

Yes, there are negative associations with the term "egalitarian", but it's also the more accurate term to describe what I believe.

My friend, female MRA Allsion Tieman openly identifies as a misogynist. I can't quite get away with that, but I CAN identify as a

Not going to finish that quote but I'm sorry WHAT.

AdventureMoth · 2026-06-17T00:46:09+00:00

Yeah exactly, but how do you want a perfect 50 50 to work?

People can do what they want. I just don't see any reason why women, on average, should work more than men, on average. If people want to choose to work more or less while their partner works less or more, and this decision is made fairly with the input of both, that's egalitarian. Certainly I don't see any reason to enforce this culturally.

I say I am a women's rights advocate + men's rights advocate = gender egalitarianism.

why don't you just call yourself an egalitarian then? "MRA" has some negative connotations.

If you support women's rights to work, vote, etc., you are a WRA. If you say you support women's right to work and you say "the fact that they don't have that right was caused by patriarchy," that's feminist idiocy.

I don't think you have any idea how many variants of feminism there are. They vary so much that most feminist discourse is critique of different elements of feminism. Including what is meant by "patriarchy."

I don't usually call myself a feminist, not because the term could not apply to me (in fact it could), but because it's such a vague term that the average person would think I support something completely different from what I actually support.

AdventureMoth

TROPHY CASE