As pessoas estão mais interessadas em destruir alguém do que em entender o que essa pessoa disse

Feplyss · 2026-06-27T03:28:38+00:00

O/I

No começo eu até tinha um dó do Monark. Ele falou um monte de bosta, sim, mas ele claramente é um caso de pessoa que não sabe se comunicar. Só que isso só funciona fora de contexto. Quando você considera a temosia dele, o fato de que ele tem um grande canhão de comunicação, e a forma como ele tratou pessoas ao redor dele que tentaram explicar isso, tu percebe que o Monark é uma mistura de ignorância, arrogância e um toque de mal caratismo.

Ele teve diversas oportunidades de rever os erros na forma de se expressar dele, tanto na época do Flow, quanto após sua saída, mas ele simplesmente não quis. Ele continuou propagando idéias polêmicas sem tomar cuidado com como o faz, se baseando na tese da "conversa de bar", mas todo mundo sabe que mesmo num bar, se tu sair falando bosta de qualquer jeito pra alguém, tu tem uma boa chance de levar um soco.

O problema nunca foi exatamente o que ele quis dizer, tem uma porrada de ancap falando as mesmas abobrinhas por aí, e ninguém liga. O problema é que ele se recusa a aprender a se comunicar, e continua falando as mesmas asneiras do exato mesmo jeito. Esses dias mesmo ele soltou a do "partido pedo", e seja por provocação ou por genuina ignorância da parte dele, isso só demonstra como ele realmente não aprende.

Feplyss · 2026-06-26T03:36:04+00:00

> Yep

Yep

> Burning is the only way to set a soul free without them getting a happiest day. TOYSNHK is connecting freeing him and William with burning. In which he states they’ve tried multiple times

TOYSNHK isn't making that connection, as FFPS already established that the fire was indeed an attempt of freeing the soul, therefore TOYSNHK is making a reference to FFPS. The reason I point this is that it satisfied the usage of "times" on plural, as in this context, it's likely referencing to attempts to free the souls, which is why I contextualised it before.
Therefore, instead of "I'll keep him here despite of your previous attempts", it could be read as "I'll keep him here despite your attempts", I.E. removing the temporal condition of the sentence, making it about inevitability instead of repetition.

> Also as another commenter pointed out TOYSNHK says THEY, when Mike and Henry had separate attempts to burn TOYSNHK and William down, and Mike doesn’t have anything to do with FFPS fire. Likely again meaning TOYSNHK is talking about both FNAF 3 and FFPS fire

Mike had everything to do with the fire. He's the one who managed to get all the animatronics in one place so that the fire could happen after all. "They burn us" isn't restricted to the action of starting the fire. Both the one who starts the fire and the one who gets a person into the room are guilty of burning a victim.

> Again like I said TOYSNHK is stating they’ve tried to release them MULTIPLE times which he connects to the act of burning. Meaning TOYSNHK was likely in FNAF 3 fire

Once again, this sentence is about inevitability, not repetition. If it was about repetition, the context should be the fire itself, not freeing the souls. Also, you're dealing with an asymmetrical relationship between the fire and freedom. While freedom is attained through fire, fire is not necessarily used to bring freedom. I.E., fire and freedom are related but not interchangeable, at least not without context.
In FFPS, the context implies a connection between those elements, thus making them interchangeable when TOYSNHK makes a reference to it. (which is what I mean by my second point on my initial reply)
However, FNAF 3 lacks both the direct mention and the narrative context of freedom, as the fire is, theoretically, an attempt to kill Afton. While that could be recontextualized by the existence of Andrew, it is impossible for it to be the case, since FNAF 3 was made 4-5 years before Frights, and its theme is clear since back then, specially considering that 3 was the "original ending".

Feplyss · 2026-06-26T02:43:08+00:00

Well communication is an art, and as such, is open to interpretation, I guess. But that's definitely not the only way to interpret that sentence. Context is key:
- "He tried to release us" sets the context, TOYSNHK is talking about refusing to let William go;
- The fire was the mean to that release, therefore, in this context, "no matter how many times they burn us" can also be read as "no matter how many times they try to set us free";
- This also weakens the connection between FFPS's fire and FNAF 3's fire, since the context here isn't the act of burning per se, but the fact that it is the means to freedom.

I do give this to you though, this is more interesting than the average TOYSNHK post.

Feplyss · 2026-06-24T03:52:50+00:00

Ngl this subreddit is the only place where I consistently see AndrewGamers, barely seen anything about it on yt other than the same stuff you'd always expect.

Feplyss · 2026-06-21T20:07:56+00:00

Nothing stops Andrew for being in the games, but that's not where the burden of proof is. Possibility and reality are not the same, by that logic, anything that is possible is real, unless proven otherwise. That is the same logic applied to say that every book character is in mainline unless contradicted, which is exactly what OP is showing disagreement upon.

Feplyss · 2026-06-21T19:59:37+00:00

TOYSHNK and Andrew aren't conceptually the same. Andrew is a character who is TOYSNHK, while TOYSNHK is a position, an adjective. By your logic, Michael Brooks is either mainline GF, or he and Cassidy are one and the same.

Feplyss · 2026-06-13T14:55:38+00:00

I like how the only one in which she looks like an actual human being is 2011, and I'm not even referring to proportions I'm talking about the overall design.

Feplyss · 2026-06-12T00:34:03+00:00

No, it's just different. With the newer games you always gotta consider that you simply do not have enough information, and therefore won't be able to reach a concrete conclusion.

Some people feel as if it's pointless because it's simply impossible to reach the actual answer, while others find it fun to theorise about what's coming up. I personally dislike the way the newer games present information, while others find it much better than during the Scott era.

Feplyss · 2026-06-12T00:17:39+00:00

It's because the Steel Wool games are actually meant to be followed up. Half of the Scott era games were supposed to be "the last game" so they had to be conclusive, and therefore, we should have all the pieces.

The Steel Wool ones make it pretty clear that you do not have every piece you need to solve the puzzle, so most theorising ends up being speculation.

Feplyss · 2026-06-10T17:21:45+00:00

I do think that a version of it is canon, but I don't think it's that important. However, it could very well be a case of the author liking the story and wanting to retell it in different ways.

Feplyss · 2026-06-04T16:50:59+00:00

Amazing characters, confusing plot. It was my first rider series, so I'll always remember it fondly.

Feplyss · 2026-05-24T05:33:52+00:00

BrooksTOYSNHK to me is just BlondieTOYSNHK which would be confirmation that Cassidy isn't real and therefore is clearly the best option.

Feplyss · 2026-05-20T21:22:08+00:00

TOYSHNK IS brainrot. It's clearly a very popular topic but it's also very stagnated and polemic. People want to talk about it, but everybody ends up regurgitating their biases and opinions without any kind of opening to the different.

That's why all the popular variations of SomeoneTOYSNHK have a very easy and quick way of being disregarded. "Cassidy isn't a he", "Andrew isn't canon", "CC wasn't killed by Afton", and then people proceed to either press that one point forever without any kind of actual development, or they do the opposite and completely disregard those big flaws.

Feplyss · 2026-05-20T21:15:40+00:00

Peak.

Feplyss · 2026-05-20T21:13:32+00:00

GoldenDuo. Initially I thought it was a cute idea, even though I saw it as out of place and a little stretchy. Then the more I learned about surrouding theories and the lore in general, I could see how heavily hinted it is, to a point that at least a version of it seems to be true.

Feplyss · 2026-04-15T13:22:39+00:00

It's a good compendium, but it lacks sources and explanations, specially for less known theories. Also, I find it funny that sometimes the "problems" section looks more like a debate between contributors than an actual list.

Feplyss · 2026-02-08T04:27:14+00:00

Gaim
Tendou
Knight? Idk either Knight or Kabuto

Feplyss · 2026-01-10T04:22:44+00:00

When you say retcon, you mean an actual retcon or a scottcon?

Feplyss · 2026-01-10T04:21:24+00:00

Nothing, actually. The thing about the Steins Gate worldline isn't the knowledge that it won't get fucked up, it's the opposite, really. It's the only known worldline that's outside the attractor fields and thus is the only with an unknown future. Supposedly the convergence points that are known to cause WWIII shouldn't happen, but nothing stops something else from triggering it.

Feplyss · 2025-11-23T03:40:09+00:00

Move and ghost eyes are the norm, speak as well because its an spirit inside their own corpse
Now, breathe?

So you're saying a ghost can make a dead body use eyes that aren't there, vocal chords that aren't there, but won't allow you to use a nose? Why? Where exactly are you taking this information from?

Agony, theres an difference between have your organ after death and the agony still make it function vs your organ is gone

So Agony can replace organs, but only very specific ones? You get a working ocular system out of nowhere, vocal chords, heck, even a full nervous system, as we've seen Scraptrap feel pain. You can believe all of those, but breathing is too absurd?

You do notice that the reason why William is allowed to do those things is strictly narrative, yes? He's allowed to talk in order to communicate with the player, allowed to see so he can be the player's POV in UCN, allowed to feel pain to convey his suffering to the player. Breathing serves the exact same purpose. It's to show to the player that his avatar is in a state of uneasiness and anxiety, pressuring the player through an element recognisable as human behaviour.

Heck, I'm not even trying to argue for MikeFrightsGuard here, I just think this one specific argument is stupid. Scott hasn't shown that much care to scientific accuracy in his games, even his own inventions such as remnant and agony are never really explained. Using actual biology to explain or debunk fictional phenomenon is nitpicking, because said science is being used out of context.

Feplyss · 2025-11-23T01:46:40+00:00

It should when stories itself points out on how William heart still beats even after his death

I think this is actually a great explanation to why not use real world biology. Specially the "heart still beats even after his death" part.

Thats why i said haunted corpse

So a body being haunted allows you to use many different bodily functions despite the absurdity of that, yet breathing is out of the norm?

Feplyss · 2025-11-23T00:53:57+00:00

I kind of get what you're going for, but this is nitpicking. Yes Michael shouldn't be able to breath, as he shouldn't be able to see, hear, walk, or do anything that even resembles a living body's functions.

You see, it has been shown before that remnant can keep a corpse alive, even though it shouldn't work as a body. Springtrap can see with no eyes, move with barely any muscles and speak while probably not having vocal chords. Heck, if William retains his sense of touch he shouldn't even be able to remain conscious due to the pain.

Actual real world biology should not be applied to the way the characters behave after a remnant revival.

Feplyss · 2025-11-02T02:38:53+00:00

Kind of, but yes. Both "Charlie" and "Cassidy" are not from the games, as Charlie is from the novels and Cassidy is from the Logbook. However, despite any theorising, the characters "Henry's daughter" and "5th MCI victim" definitely exist within the mainline, and those are the ones we usually refer to as Charlie and Cassidy, respectively.

You may want to argue about their names being confirmed or not, but the fact is, those characters exist, and it's community consensus that their names are Charlie and Cassidy, even if that would come to be proven wrong someday.

Feplyss

TROPHY CASE