if the ‘subtext’ or ‘implication’ can be interpreted/explained in a platonic way (canon), it was never subtext at all. unless you bring subtext that can’t be interpreted as anything but romantic, your subtext is simply your personal interpretation that holds no value canon-wise.
@Kiyou_9@KrazieeGGtv@stqr_les except people are. why do you think the def of ‘woman’ is constantly being debated? people are changing themselves to fit a definition while simultaneously changing a definition so it fits them. “you can identify with an elephant if you were to fit your definition of an elephant”
@Kiyou_9@KrazieeGGtv@stqr_les it becomes subjective the moment you give a definition based on what you believe it is/should be (based on your personal beliefs). this implies that you choose what to include and omit in your definition. if we all do that, there will be no objective frame of reference.
@Kiyou_9@KrazieeGGtv@stqr_les you can’t claim subjectivity about a factual reality. if multiple definitions exist at once then there can be no consensus on meaning and communicating would be useless. words and definitions exist for a reason lol.
@Zzol_dyck Sukuna is like a grizzlybear loose at town square. His evil is mostly juat whatever fits his whims.
Kenjaku is like the doctor from human centipede. He is more passionate and creative.
@aerichanstrap@cigsaeri no, it’s easy to understand when you stick to canon material and author statements. he never referred to them as anything more than best friends.