About the whole tiredsn0w situation…
I have recently been made aware of this whole situation in which tiredsn0ws essentially getting harassed. As a close friends of hers, I feel obligated to say something, however I won't reveal my identity for my own sanity.
Most of the matter I will be commenting on stems from @sneakysnekbetch ‘s blog.
CW for mentions/discussions of bullying, fetishisation, sexualisation, racism, pedophilia etc.
I didn’t scroll as far on the blog, so the screenshot order will be what is newest.
First of all, sn0w has acknowledged that the drawing may come off as sexual but is not drawn to be. I can see how it’s uncomfortable but at the end of the day, the artist didn’t intend for it to be weird. You can find it weird, but wouldn’t you say the person who made the work knows more about it than you? Rhetorical.
Second of all, to address the third and fourth image added in the first screenshot: it is so incredibly important to note that SCP-049 has BPD in this canon. He is heavily inspired by someone with BPD who Snow knows herself. The fixation/dependency/obsession that comes with having an FP is not weird just because it is platonic or familial-adjacent. Same for the last image. One of the tags was quite literally, ‘don’t tag as ship’, meaning it isn’t romantic:
Saying you ‘need someone’ is not an inherently sexual thing.
(Referring to third image, as its been cut off)
The problem with all your claims is that you leave out a shit ton of context and exaggerate what you do present.
What is depicted in the screenshot is not a tantrum, but a personal opinion that was phrased in a rather long way. Someone being non-sharing or not wanting to interact with ships is perfectly fine. I myself block SCP-049 x OC/SCP-035 shippers because it makes me uncomfortable. Likewise, this is just someone stating a boundary. Oh no! This person doesn’t like to see ships! Because of personal discomfort!
Not to mention that Sn0ws discomfort with SCP-049 x SCP-035 stems from the fact it creates personal distress with her and, in canon, is considered abusive (See: That’s not love, Isabel.)
This isn’t bullying. Unless you provide contextually relevant details, it won’t be bullying.
Obviously, even if it isn’t bullying, it is still perfectly valid to feel upset from getting comments that aren’t 100% supportive of something you create. I’ve been there myself, but to call it bullying is wrong.
Instead, that entire response just seems constructive.
Again, this doesn’t seem butthurt, rather just clarifying? You just love to blow things out of proportion, Snek.
Also, it is SO ironic how you talk about ‘’Multiple canons’, yet you’re the person who complains about SCP-049 acting a certain way in one canon?
We also see SCP-049 being extremely paranoid and obsessive with his ideals in the article. you know what else? We also only see a bit of his character in the article. There are many ways to flesh out SCP-049s character and lore. Not everything has to be article-accurate. Especially because the entire deal with the SCP: Foundation is that there is no true canon. Go figure.
Overall, I agree with anon.
I agree that the first and latter image are odd, but those are incredibly old and also have been deleted for a good reason. The BBC one… yeah, extremely uncomfortable and weird. Again, deleted for a good fucking reason. Do I think an apology would have done better? Yeah. But still, deleted for good reason.
The second drawing, however… is just not sexual at all? Seriously, so many of your arguments boil down to, “I THINK IT IS SEXUAL EVEN THOUGH IT ISN’T!” and it is so embarrassing. So much of SCP-6118s character revolves around mental illness (that the author also has), so why are you so upset that mental illness is depicted realistically and, by proxy, uncomfortably? Get over it.
I will reiterate my point— the artist knows their own work better than yourself. But you don’t seem to understand that concept, as shown here:
(full art for context)
Again, that art is not sexual at all. It is someone in restraints. A soldier, no less. Restraints are so commonly used in non-sexual ways in literally so much media. You’d know if you stepped outside of spaces that portray such things as sexual.. Same with objectification. It is almost like soldiers are seen as living weapons rather than humans. You know, almost like they are being objectified.
It is almost like Sn0ws writing is literal psychological horror and focuses on the consequences of abuse, mental illness and the like.
Seriously, this one in particular is a you problem. It is no one’s fault but your own if the first thing you think of is sexual stuff. Actually embarrassing.
You can so absolutely find a song choice weird, but again, Sn0w said she explained her intent with the drawing SEVERAL times. Not to mention that it is so incredibly common to interpret songs that are romantic or sexual in a completely different/platonic way. Trying to explain to someone what THEY meant when THEY made THEIR work is so cringe.
For context, this is the drawing:
Stressing on the phrasing of ‘lyric(s)’. A lyric. Some lines. Not the entire song.
’Most of the work form her friends is just smut’, yeah, here is tiredsn0ws opinion on said work:
It is almost like a ton changes in a whole year and that there is a reason Sn0w distances herself from her old work and chose to rewrite it. Not to mention that sn0w has said the opposite about infantilisation of SCP-6118:
She has expressed cringe and discomfort for most of her old works.
Key word: teenage. One makes and does things that are incredibly weird and uncomfortable and regrets them later on during teenhood. Sn0w has drastically changed since her old works. Here is a full overview of her thoughts regarding her old works:
Also, pointer: SCP-6118 is asexual and aromantic, not gay. Tiredsn0ws version of SCP-049 is asexual and aromantic. Tiredsn0w herself is asexual and aromantic. Aromanticism is very present in her new work. To add onto my point about SCP-6118 being SCP-049s FP (taken from rev. 10 from the scp sandbox) and their relationship being not-romantic:
Actually, none of her characters dynamics are written to be romantic:
I just had to save this one for last. Do you know how absolutely fucked up it is to compare someone to a literal fucking pedophile? A groomer? Snek, you literally forced Sn0w to reveal extremely personal and traumatic details just for her to prove she isn’t, but you don’t care about that and instead keep persisting, and for what? I will not share screenshots out of respect for sn0w, but you know very well. You should be ashamed of yourself.
In conclusion, most of this boils down to people not understanding aromanticism and personality disorders in writing and making up their own interpretations of what someone meant with their work while also invading their privacy. There is a severe lack in understanding of actual story and thought process. Her work is not intended for a general audience and instead for people with mental illness and those willing to sympathize with the grimmer aspects of it.
And also, to Snek: your arguments are not constructive, they are contextually spotty and so chronically online it makes my head hurt. Your weird usage of condescending titles (i.e. babygirl, bro, etc) aren’t cool or a good ‘got-cha’, it is incredibly uncomfortable and cringe to see. Do some internal insight on why you perceive so many things as fetishistic or sexual, because at this point, it is literally just a you problem. Do better.
Also, a note about something tiredsn0w (and I, minimally) have noticed:
Micro aggressions are not okay, Snek. And neither are ignorance and performative actions.
And lastly— leave tiredsn0w alone. I block people who I think are weird also. The block button is right there, it’s free and it is available for a reason. If I can do it, so can you.
As per my personal opinion, I think that if someone has expressed distaste for their old work and wishes to disconnect themselves from it, then that is okay and should not be held over their head. The artist knows their work better than others. Even when intent is explained, it goes in on one ear and out on the other.
