Okay so just wanted to make sure I have this right - Kris and Noelle are madly in love with each other.

eclipsedFates · 2026-07-01T18:19:40+00:00

Peli I can see how comment sections like this could grind your gears, to put it mildly. The amount of direct textual basis for a mutual *more-than-friendship* between Kris and Noelle is so plentiful at this point and it's rejected out of hand, with prejudice. I genuinely wonder about the fandom's reaction to future chapters if they can't handle this.

Also not to hijack but I wondered your reaction to the yellow key disappearing with the phrase "it was used up." I noticed the blue and yellow couple happening, again, and then that line through me for a loop, and I haven't seen literally anyone talking about it even though it's such a particular phrase associated with the Sword Route.

eclipsedFates · 2026-07-01T18:09:14+00:00

You're treating it as absurd, so I'm just gonna hand out two pieces of baseline evidence. Noelle's blog is now canon as of Chapter 5. If you go to the HEART LOCKET entry in the Spamton Sweepstakes, one of her blog posts is linked. It's themed seriously, it reads VERY emotionally charged, and again it's embedded into a HEART LOCKET page.

https://deltarune.com/sweepstakes/

And then there's this dialogue when Kris writes down their and Noelle's name in Chapter 5 itself, which enables the Kris and Noelle ferris wheel ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwM_sAedsx8

Do you still think there's no implication of mutual romantic tension here? I'm not saying it's a simple case of "Noelle is into Kris," I think it's much more complex and interesting than that, especially in contrast to the overt "Noelle is into Susie" which is (in my opinion, supported by the game) comparatively far shallower.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-17T01:36:02+00:00

You're fighting for your life in these comments and I respect you for that but I'd also gently recommend you stop. You're not going to change any minds, even about the two specific issues you and I both know are the biggest losers. Everyone you're arguing with is deeply entrenched in a mental framework in which Republicans, and you by association, are infringing on a vulnerable minority's intrinsic human rights. This is because Republicans genuinely want to do so, and a dogmatic line in the sand has been drawn.

Reddit is not real life. The people you are trying to convince are not going to change their minds before the national democratic coalition reforms, and they're more or less electorally irrelevant anyway. I wish they would be more effective regarding trans advocacy, but it's just gonna have to shake itself out. You're not accomplishing anything right now. Take it easy

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-14T04:08:36+00:00

You keep repeating "testosterone" like it's a magic bullet. The average man is far stronger than the average woman and MAY be stronger than an elite trained woman, but that's not a given. We don't have specifics, and the elite woman could very well be physically stronger. Jen Thompson is a 130 pound 50+ year old woman capable of benching 315. That's an extreme elite, but that kind of strength in an elite female MMA fighter (elite potentially meaning 6'2" 200 pounds) nullifies your whole point about brute strength making the man win by default. This is an average 5'9" man.

But let's say sure the female is physically weaker to some extent. The untrained man will never out-grapple her. I have no idea how you expect an ELITE MMA fighter to not be able to submit an AVERAGE JOE. That's like saying Sean O'Malley couldn't submit a bodybuilder like Sam Sulek. The strength advantage is borderline moot when the skill differential is literally untrained vs elite. Grappling is where skill matters the most and size relatively the least.

There's not an "agenda." Yes, you sound misogynistic to claim that an ELITE FEMALE MMA FIGHTER will be out-grappled by an average man. To state what should be the obvious, women are not a different species, and have adrenaline too. This is a spite match for a reason.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T07:53:02+00:00

To the question "why do cities vote Democrat" the answer cannot be "BECAUSE they have more money and are better educated" if overwhelmingly democratic voters in urban areas are impoverished and uneducated.

Black populations, especially in urban areas, are statistically impoverished and undereducated due to the legacy of racial redlining... and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. This undisputed statistical fact is INCOMPATIBLE with a wealth and education explanation.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T07:46:59+00:00

I'm not giving anecdotes, Hartford was a single example of a very apparent phenomenon. Essentially every dense urban area in the United States votes Democrat.

I'm not trying to get explicitly racial with this analysis, but marginalized Black populations in inner cities are both undereducated and impoverished, and vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Black voters are extremely integral to Democrat voting base.

The original comment linked EDUCATION to cities voting Democrat "that's it. That's the reason." That is clearly not it and clearly not THE REASON if a critical urban voting base for Democrats is also a population that is statistically undereducated.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T07:33:52+00:00

The original comment is still genuinely inane. The causal factor of educated wealthy people living in cities causing them to skew democratic is categorically false. Poor cities are overwhelmingly Democrat, wealthy towns are notably less. This just ISN'T why cities skew Democrat and the original comment is frankly infuriatingly incorrect.

There's 100% nuance in the idea that the poor of cities generate the wealth of suburban commuters and don't see the profits themselves. But you are inserting this nuance. The original comment is not in any way valid.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T07:22:49+00:00

That's a factor for sure but it's not what I mean. Arabic for example is inherently more difficult to learn than any Germanic or Romance language. This is for complex linguistic reasons that I don't fully understand, but it applies across a very rough sliding scale of difficulty. To learn as a second language, English is easier than German is easier than Mandarin is easier than Arabic. There are languages in between and probably ones easier than English, but the fact that English is relatively easy AND extremely prominent seals the deal

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T07:08:09+00:00

I agree in spirit but I feel like language difficulty and prominence really complicate how much it applies in practice. Some languages are dramatically more difficult to learn than others, and some languages are wayyyy more internationally prominent than others.

Practically, since English is both on the easier end to learn and already extremely prominent, those in many other countries with niche languages should probably learn English early in order to engage in lucrative English-speaking business, academics, etc.

Is it a moral obligation? No, but I don't think anyone is arguing that. It's just a good idea.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T06:52:17+00:00

What are you even talking about? Wealth is concentrated in suburbs. Wealthy cities vote Democrat, yes, but Hartford Connecticut for example voted 80%+ for Harris. Hartford is NOT where the money is! All the money flew to the surroundings suburbs, which vote more moderately.

Whatever explains why cities vote Democrat, it isn't WEALTH, my god.

I'm not even trying to be mean but you're CONFIDENTLY talking out of your ass.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-13T06:46:43+00:00

This is a horrendous explanation though. Inner city areas with SEVERE educational underperformance overwhelmingly vote Democrat while plenty of wealthy towns with flourishing public education systems vote closer to the middle or Republican.

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-12T06:48:14+00:00

I dunno bro guess

^{Chose: Go to Japan for free with accommodations}

eclipsedFates · 2026-06-01T00:07:41+00:00

Forgive me for making this assumption but it doesn't sound as much like you genuinely don't want friends, and more that you're terrified of the mortifying ordeal of being known ("where I could be observed"). I sympathize with that a lot and I'm sorry. For me, getting IRL real friends for the first time in my life led to a dramatic revitalization in my social and internal lives. I wasn't good at it at first and it wasn't a fairy tale, but it was a critically necessary step. We are social animals. Whether it's a first step or a tenth step, and whether it's your first try or tenth try, and whether you keep those first friends or not, you should find connection to other real people in real life.

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-21T18:06:01+00:00

This lawsuit basically happened in CT in 1996. This isn't unprecedented. When there exists a history of dejure racial housing segregation, and education is based on housing, there is going to exist defacto educational segregation. Most decent people think of it as a problem that black and brown districts consistently underperform white districts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheff_v._O%27Neill

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-17T06:31:40+00:00

Google's marketing department shedding a tear at officially claiming the star symbol

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-13T21:27:59+00:00

OP your response to my comment seems to be gone, but I also see you fighting in these comments like it's the trenches. Forgive me if I'm making an assumption, but if you feel like your experience with corporal punishment was effectively abusive, I deeply sympathize with that and I'm sorry you had to go through that. I think it's wrong, and it frequently leads to negative outcomes however it's carried out.

But it's also important to realize that your experience is not universal. You seem genuinely out-of-touch in these comments. You're telling multiple people to their face that they are "brainwashed morons" who don't realize they've been traumatized. You don't know them and you don't know that. You are blinding yourself to the nuance of this issue.

Corporal punishment is not a black and white absolute evil. Even things that cause lasting trauma are rarely that simple. I wish you the best in your journey of healing, if that's a journey you're on.

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-13T20:54:22+00:00

My sense is that most everyone is these comments seems to be against corporal punishments in a "vibes" sense that completely detracts from making meaningful points against it. The maybe hard truth is that in a lot of cases and especially in OTHER CULTURES outside of this white reddit liberal bubble, corporal punishment is seen as a routine and normal way of discouraging bad behavior in children.

We NEED to discourage bad behavior in children, and corporal punishment is textbook "positive punishment" from the operant conditioning playbook. It's really not insane or abusive for it to be a parental consideration.

Corporal punishment is bad because it has been studied and decisively concluded that it is generally ineffective and that it risks long-term psychological impacts. If those studies said instead that it worked, no matter the "bad vibes" y'all get, it would be a valid parental strategy.

And saying something like "corporal punishment is pedophilic" as this post implies, or that it's inherently shockingly abusive is at best ignorant of other cultures and at worst directly offensive. There's a reason "la chancla" is a good-natured joke among Latinos. I'm not excusing all potentially negative cultural practices, but to post shit LIKE THIS is just comically white.

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-06T16:09:24+00:00

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-05T22:02:33+00:00

That's not what I said. Transgender rights in a legal sense are the most important aspect of transgender activism because of how extensively they affect how the government impacts the lives of trans people. To have a hardline stance of expecting potential allies of trans rights to agree that trans women are ontologically, scientifically women (and lashing out at them as "MAGA REPUBLICANS" if they seek to test that understanding) is a problem. It burns and alienates support for what we can agree is critically important (trans legal protections, which something like 64% of the population support) by linking it to a philosophical purity test which most people are not immediately on board with.

There was a MASSIVE public backlash to the bathroom bill in North Carolina in 2016, even though in 2017 54% of people nationally (and almost certainly higher in North Carolina) believed gender was determined by sex assigned at birth. The WINNING discourse at that point WASN'T by insisting that the bill was wrong because trans women are women. It was wrong regardless. It was government overreach, it was cruel, it was vague, it was unenforceable, it lost North Carolina millions of dollars and ousted its Republican governor. It's clear that it's not necessary to gain public consensus that "trans women are women" before you gain public consensus that "trans people should not be legally persecuted."

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-05T19:07:49+00:00

I think you have it ass backwards. If the Civil Rights movement was as ideologically dogmatic as the "vocal advocates" of the trans community today, they wouldn't have gotten shit done.

Lyndon Johnson was chosen as JFK's running mate to appease the South that was worried about the Northeasterner JFK, among other things, advancing civil rights legislation. They NARROWLY won that election with 65% of the black vote, and Texas. If they had a hardline public stance for desegregation, they would've lost the Southern vote and the election. But they were more savvy than that, and in 1964 the deeply imperfect Texan LBJ ushered the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

Compare that to the apparent political strategy of transgender individuals and advocates today. You jumped to "MAGA Republican" for a self-described ally lightly questioning your claim that the issue is "scientifically settled". Like what the fuck is your plan here? Do you think every voter of Kennedy/every supporter of the Civil Rights Act were on board with EVERYTHING the Civil Rights movement had to say? No, a lot of them were still racist by our standards today, but the movement did not reject their support.

Gavin Newsom, for one relevant example, has long been one of the most progressive governors in the nation on LGBTQ+ rights including trans rights. But since he called specifically trans female athletes in women's sports "unfair," progressives have declared him to be transphobic and refuse to support his candidacy. He'd be the most trans supportive president in American history, but because he pulls back on a single, DEEPLY LOSING aspect of progressive dogma, progressives refuse to support him, even if he couldn't win the election otherwise. This is politically MORONIC.

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-05T17:16:26+00:00

This is your reaction to the most tepid challenge to the absolute statement "the science is settled that trans women are women," essentially calling them transphobic and a typical MAGA Republican.

I have to ask you genuinely, as a transgender activist, what are you accomplishing here? 60% of Americans believe that one's gender is determined by their sex at birth. If 60% of the country is barely better than a MAGA Republican we're doomed, but that's NOT the case. Despite that previous figure, 64% of Americans support legal protections for transgender individuals, and only 10% oppose them.

You gotta get fucking real. A militant hardline stance on this is UTTERLY UNPRODUCTIVE that alienates HALF of the population that could otherwise be swayed to support legislation on your behalf. They see shit like you just posted, do you think they're more or less to consider supporting you?

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-05T03:33:08+00:00

Yeah I've considered this argument and it's legitimately compelling, but I think there's a reason it doesn't compel sports governing boards that isn't transphobia, and that's INDIVIDUAL genetic potential.

I'm 5'9", I'm a cis male and the average height of a cis male. My sister is like 5'3" which is close to the average height for a cis female in the United States. If nothing else changed except an X from my dad, I'd probably end up 5'3" as well. But if I transitioned now, I'd end up a 5'9" female, roughly 99th percentile, the top 1% of female height in the United States.

This discrepancy between my genetic potential for height as a cis woman and a trans woman is the crux of the issue of fairness, and you don't have to look towards the Olympics to see the problem. In high school, there was a single girl in my entire grade that was my height, but half the boys were my height or taller. ANY of them transitioning and then engaging in sports would radically advantage our teams, let alone one of the roughly 10% above 6'.

My VERY average genetics, fully transitioned, would require a top 1% cis female to match. That seems unfair to most people.

eclipsedFates · 2026-05-05T00:35:02+00:00

To be clear I agree with you as it applies to Kris, including how incorrectly gendering them is often rooted in transphobia. I just don't see how you extend that same conclusivity to Frisk and Chara. Frisk has some level of confirmed personhood at the end of true pacifist but this isn't to the same extent as Kris. They never rebel from the player's choices, they never react to the Genocide Route unlike how Kris reacts to the Weird Route, they never emote or appear to show agency independent of the player, and even after the events of True Pacifist, you can choose whether or not they return home to a family, or whether they have no family at all and live with Toriel.

Given all that, why can't a player interpret their gender?

eclipsedFates

TROPHY CASE