the reason people focus on specific things is because you say so much stuff in your replies that oftentimes you either skip over or misrepresent something important so it needs to be addressed.

for example, saying rose never had a respect for authority in the context of being vulnerable to parental abuse is, i‘m sorry to say, insane? throughout the entire story rose is haunted by her relationship with her mother, by the fact that she misunderstood her love and then her mom died so there was no hope to rekindle their relationship. her mommy issues even come up to this day, in the way the nymphs are as her creations! of course she’d be vulnerable to someone claiming to be her parental figure and saying she’s the only one that understands him.

the reason people aren’t really talking about the davekat thing is because it’s pretty simple to explain? dirk is manipulative and thinks he knows better and that’s been his characterization from his first introduction, the davekat thing is just an extent of that combined with the fact that in the epilogues his worst tendencies are just dialed up to the max. this is even something jade tries to do in candy, she’s just way worse at it. it has nothing to do with anyone’s sexuality?

and as for the misogyny thing, did you just like, read homestuck with rose tinted glasses? again, the whole point of the epilogues is taking the underlying tendencies dirk already had and dialing them up. did you think dirk was indulging caliborn’s requests of drawing “filthy whores” aka his friends in “pornographic“ scenarios just because he fully bought in the fake saw game framing? like at this point i’m just not sure you ever understood dirk’s character beyond being gay in the first place, and now the epilogues are putting all his worst qualities on centre stage and you’re uncomfortable because your comfort gay guy has turned out to be not a very good person.

i’m sorry if any of this comes off as rude or harsh, it’s just a bit frustrating to explain similar points over and over again.

as for hussie being a reactionary author, nobody’s denying that their writing features some downfalls of the edgy internet culture of the time, but hussie’s also undeniably queer. you seem to extrapolating a lot, and seemingly making the argument of “hussie used slurs in early homestuck therefore their writing when it comes to queerness is also reactionary”. this just doesn’t hold up? like, do you think hussie made homestuck good on accident??