Yep, yep. Sanae Kochiya from Touhou Project as a snoo. I really want a snoo Sanae pfp so I draw one on Microsoft Paint.

Anyway, it is free to use too.

SNOO, THE MOST EVIL BEING IN ALL OF FICTION: A COMPREHENSIVE PHILOSOPHICAL, LOGICAL, METAPHYSICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, AND CIVILIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUPREME ANTAGONIST OF EXISTENCE. It is a matter of considerable intellectual embarrassment that humanity has spent centuries debating the moral status of characters such as Satan, Sauron, AM, Judge Holden, the Joker, and various other fictional entities whose respective crimes include mass murder, metaphysical tyranny, psychological torture, and the systematic destruction of civilizations, while simultaneously failing to recognize that the true apex of fictional malevolence may have been staring at us from a small orange-red conversation bubble the entire time. This oversight is not merely a failure of literary criticism; it is an indictment of the epistemological infrastructure through which contemporary audiences determine what constitutes evil. Consider, for instance, the conventional criteria by which a fictional character is classified as morally reprehensible: the character must possess malicious intent, inflict suffering, violate the autonomy of others, destabilize social order, or otherwise demonstrate an objectionable relationship with the moral universe. These criteria, although superficially reasonable, suffer from a catastrophic methodological limitation: they privilege observable acts over structural implications, spectacular violence over symbolic power, and explicit declarations of hostility over the potentially more sophisticated phenomenon of being an apparently harmless mascot whose cultural significance can be interpreted, reinterpreted, customized, and reproduced by an effectively unbounded population of internet users. Snoo, the official mascot of Reddit, therefore presents a philosophical challenge of extraordinary magnitude, not because there exists reliable evidence that the character has committed any conventional atrocity, but because the very simplicity of its design invites an almost unreasonable number of projections concerning identity, community, anonymity, belonging, irony, collective intelligence, and the increasingly unstable distinction between an individual and the digital environment through which that individual expresses themselves. Naturally, a less intellectually ambitious observer would object that Snoo is merely a fictional alien mascot, originally conceived as a doodle by Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, and that interpreting this character as the most evil entity in all of fiction is an exercise in absurdity. This objection is entirely correct, which makes it particularly unfortunate for the objector that correctness, when applied without sufficient consideration of rhetorical context, is not necessarily equivalent to intellectual adequacy. Indeed, the proposition that Snoo is the most evil being in fiction must not be understood as a conventional empirical claim, because such an interpretation would require evidence of fictional atrocities that the character's established history does not provide. Rather, the proposition should be approached as a deliberately exaggerated thought experiment concerning the mechanisms by which contemporary internet culture produces, distributes, and legitimizes moral judgments. In other words, the argument is not that Snoo has demonstrably destroyed the universe, but that the internet has developed an environment in which a claim of universal evil can be generated, circulated, defended, and potentially rewarded through the same mechanisms that facilitate the exchange of information, the formation of communities, and the discussion of subjects of genuine importance. This distinction is essential, because any serious philosophical argument must preserve the difference between an assertion, the evidence supporting that assertion, and the social incentives that encourage people to repeat it. Unfortunately, preserving distinctions is precisely the sort of intellectual labor that becomes increasingly inconvenient when an audience has already decided that the conclusion is funny. Let us therefore examine the matter through the lens of classical ethics. Under a broadly Aristotelian framework, moral character is ordinarily assessed through dispositions, actions, practical judgment, and the relationship between habitual conduct and human flourishing. If Snoo were a human moral agent, one might reasonably inquire into its intentions, habits, and contribution to the flourishing of a community. Yet Snoo is not ordinarily represented as a fully articulated moral agent possessing a detailed biography, a consistent psychological profile, or an established record of autonomous decisions. It is an adaptable mascot whose meaning depends substantially upon the contexts in which it appears. Consequently, declaring Snoo categorically more evil than every fictional tyrant would require us to attribute moral properties to an entity for which the necessary evidence has not been established. This would constitute an elementary failure of inference. However, the observation becomes considerably more interesting when we redirect our attention from the character itself toward the audience making the declaration. Why does an internet user find it entertaining to elevate an innocuous mascot above the most destructive villains ever conceived? What social function is performed by the exaggeration? Does the declaration communicate a genuine moral assessment, or does it function as an ironic performance through which the speaker demonstrates familiarity with a particular internet culture? Could the apparent absurdity itself be the primary source of its appeal? These questions reveal that the real object of analysis may not be Snoo's fictional morality but the collective processes through which moral categories become instruments of entertainment, identity formation, and social participation. From a Kantian perspective, the matter becomes even more inconvenient. A moral judgment cannot simply be justified by the intensity with which it is asserted, the number of people who endorse it, or the quantity of approval attached to its public expression. The categorical imperative requires a form of rational consistency that cannot be replaced by collective enthusiasm. If one claims that Snoo is the most evil character in fiction, one must clarify the principle by which evil is measured and determine whether that principle can be applied consistently to other fictional beings. If evil is measured by the number of victims, where is the evidence? If it is measured by the magnitude of suffering, what comparative scale is being employed? If it is measured by the corruption of moral institutions, what causal relationship has been demonstrated? If it is measured by the capacity to generate online discourse, then the argument has quietly abandoned conventional moral philosophy and substituted a theory of cultural visibility. This substitution may be amusing, but it must not be mistaken for a valid deduction. Nevertheless, one could argue that the entire exercise exposes a characteristic contradiction of online discourse: individuals frequently demand rigorous evidence when evaluating claims they dislike while accepting increasingly extravagant conclusions when those conclusions serve their preferred narrative, community, or sense of humor. The point is not that every participant behaves irrationally, but that the incentives of a digital environment can reward the appearance of certainty independently of the quality of the reasoning that produces it. We may now proceed to the sociological implications. Reddit is organized around communities, submissions, comments, voting mechanisms, and forms of participation that can make collective attention visible through numerical indicators. Snoo, as the platform's mascot, is a symbolic representation associated with this environment. It would be an unjustified leap to conclude that the mascot itself is responsible for every social consequence of the platform. Such a conclusion would confuse a symbol with the institution it represents, and the institution with the behavior of every individual participating within it. However, the mascot provides a useful fictional instrument for examining the relationship between symbols and collective identity. A sufficiently adaptable symbol can become a container for conflicting meanings. One community may interpret it as an emblem of belonging, another may use it for parody, and another may transform it into a representation of an entirely different fictional or cultural identity. The symbol remains recognizable while its local significance changes. In this sense, Snoo illustrates an important characteristic of digital culture: the capacity of a relatively simple visual object to acquire social meanings far beyond the complexity of its original design. Now imagine, for the purposes of this argument, that every community projecting its grievances, prejudices, ideological commitments, and private fantasies onto Snoo contributes another interpretation to an endlessly expanding fictional dossier. Would Snoo thereby become responsible for every interpretation attached to it? Certainly not. Such reasoning would constitute an egregious violation of the distinction between representation and agency. Yet the absurdity of the question reveals an uncomfortable truth about contemporary symbolic conflict: people frequently treat the symbols associated with a group as if those symbols possessed the intentions, responsibilities, and moral defects of every person who has ever used them. The mascot consequently becomes a convenient target for accusations that are, at a deeper level, directed toward the communities, institutions, or cultural practices surrounding it. This is not evidence of Snoo's evil. It is evidence that the concept of evil can be rhetorically displaced from an accountable agent onto a convenient symbolic object. One might now invoke Friedrich Nietzsche and his critique of moral valuation, although doing so carelessly would merely replace one form of intellectual posturing with another. A Nietzschean analysis would not automatically establish that conventional morality is meaningless, nor would it demonstrate that the most outrageous accusation is necessarily the most insightful. Instead, it might encourage us to investigate the origin, function, and psychological incentives underlying the judgment itself. What does the speaker gain by proclaiming that a smiling fictional alien is more evil than the embodiment of cosmic destruction? Perhaps the speaker gains amusement, social recognition, or the satisfaction of violating an established hierarchy of seriousness. Perhaps the claim functions as a parody of ranking culture, in which every fictional character must be assigned a position on an imaginary scale of power, intelligence, morality, or destructive capacity. Perhaps it exposes the absurdity of treating fictional comparisons as if they were objective scientific measurements. In any case, the claim deserves examination as a cultural act rather than automatic acceptance as a proposition about reality. If a community repeatedly rewards exaggerated declarations, participants may learn that the most effective contribution is not necessarily the most accurate one, but the one most capable of producing a recognizable reaction. The resulting incentive structure can make intellectual restraint appear less valuable than theatrical certainty. A person who says that a character is complicated may receive limited attention; a person who announces that the character is literally the greatest evil ever conceived may receive a far more enthusiastic response. The conclusion is not that online humor is inherently destructive, but that systems of attention can reward forms of expression whose social effectiveness is independent of their truth conditions. At this point, a defender of the Snoo supremacy thesis may object that the entire purpose of the argument is to be ridiculous, and that demanding empirical verification from a copypasta constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. This objection is also correct. Copypasta frequently derives its effect from repetition, exaggerated seriousness, deliberate disproportion, and the collision between an absurd conclusion and an excessively elaborate justification. Its academic vocabulary functions as part of the joke. The writer adopts the posture of a researcher who has discovered a civilization-ending truth, then applies an unreasonable quantity of intellectual machinery to a premise that was never intended to withstand ordinary scrutiny. The humor emerges from the gap between the seriousness of the presentation and the triviality or absurdity of the claim. Nevertheless, recognizing the conventions of satire does not require abandoning all standards of reasoning. On the contrary, the satire becomes more effective when it understands precisely which standards it is violating, why those standards matter, and how the violation reveals a recognizable habit of thought. An argument that merely announces an absurd conclusion is a joke; an argument that demonstrates how a person might rationalize that conclusion through increasingly elaborate but progressively less relevant considerations becomes a parody of intellectual self-justification. Snoo is therefore ideally suited to this fictional exercise, not because the character possesses an established history of universal malevolence, but because the contrast between its harmless official presentation and its hypothetical designation as the supreme villain of all fiction creates an unusually large rhetorical distance. The greater the distance between the evidence and the conclusion, the more conspicuous the reasoning required to conceal that distance becomes. We must now address the metaphysical dimension, because no document of this magnitude would be complete without asking whether the word 'evil' can meaningfully be applied to an entity whose fictional identity is deliberately flexible. A character's moral status is ordinarily evaluated through some combination of intention, action, consequence, knowledge, and capacity for choice. But a mascot that functions primarily as a visual representation does not necessarily possess the narrative infrastructure required for such an assessment. Snoo can appear in numerous forms without those appearances automatically constituting a single continuous biography. A customized depiction may be associated with a community, an artistic interpretation, or a parody, but the existence of that depiction does not establish that every other version of Snoo shares its characteristics. To infer otherwise would be to commit a form of equivocation: the name remains constant while the relevant properties change. One cannot simply combine the most objectionable actions attributed to every imaginable adaptation of a character, assign the resulting total to the original mascot, and then declare the original mascot responsible for an infinite catalogue of fictional crimes. That procedure would be equivalent to arguing that an actor is simultaneously every villain the actor has ever portrayed, every criminal imagined by every audience member, and every hypothetical antagonist that might conceivably be designed in the future. Such a conclusion would be impressive only to someone who had confused the logical possibility of an interpretation with evidence for its truth. Yet this is precisely why the thought experiment is useful. It exposes the ease with which an entity can acquire an apparently limitless collection of properties when the distinction between the original object, its adaptations, its audience, and its surrounding cultural environment is ignored. If the argument requires every conceivable interpretation of Snoo to be treated as part of Snoo's essential nature, then the conclusion becomes less a discovery about the character than a demonstration of the consequences of an uncontrolled definition. We may therefore formulate the central proposition as follows: Snoo is the most evil being in all of fiction, provided that 'evil' is redefined as the capacity to inspire an excessive quantity of speculative discourse, 'being' is redefined to include a flexible visual symbol, 'all of fiction' is interpreted as an unrestricted collection of fictional works, and 'most' is permitted to operate without a stable comparative metric. Under these carefully engineered conditions, the proposition may be rendered rhetorically defensible, although it becomes correspondingly less informative about the ordinary meaning of its own terms. This is a remarkable achievement in the same way that proving oneself the fastest runner in the universe would be remarkable after redefining running as the act of remaining seated while another person moves a chair. The conclusion follows only because the definitions have been manipulated to guarantee it. In formal logic, the existence of a valid inference does not independently establish the truth of its premises. A deductively valid argument may preserve truth from premises to conclusion, but it cannot transform unsupported premises into established facts merely by arranging them into a formally impressive structure. The distinction between validity and soundness is therefore fatal to any literal interpretation of the Snoo supremacy thesis. An argument can be structured impeccably and remain unsound because one or more of its premises are false, unsupported, or insufficiently defined. This is especially relevant to internet discourse, where the appearance of intellectual sophistication can be produced through technical vocabulary, elaborate classifications, pseudo-quantitative rankings, and references to philosophical traditions that are only tangentially related to the claim under examination. The result is a peculiar form of rhetorical camouflage: the reader encounters a sentence containing enough academic terminology to suggest methodological rigor and may consequently overlook the absence of a defensible measurement procedure. If the author invokes ontology, epistemology, deontology, phenomenology, and systems theory in a single paragraph, the reader may reasonably assume that something intellectually substantial has occurred. Yet the number of disciplines mentioned is not a measure of explanatory power. Five unrelated frameworks do not become a unified theory simply because they appear in the same sentence. A conceptual vocabulary is useful only insofar as it clarifies the object under investigation, distinguishes competing explanations, or generates conclusions that can be defended. Otherwise, interdisciplinary analysis degenerates into an ornamental accumulation of prestigious words, a practice that is especially amusing when used to defend a claim about an alien mascot. We must also consider the problem of comparative evil. Fiction contains antagonists whose narratives explore genocide, domination, torture, existential despair, moral corruption, and the deliberate destruction of worlds. These characters are not interchangeable, and their actions cannot be ranked responsibly without identifying the relevant dimensions of comparison. A character who destroys a planet may cause more immediate physical devastation than a character who manipulates a small community over several decades. A character who inflicts psychological suffering may produce consequences that are less visually spectacular but more personally intimate. Another may represent a philosophical principle rather than an ordinary individual agent. There is no universally accepted numerical scale that converts these different narrative functions into a single objective quantity called evil. Any ranking must therefore establish its criteria, acknowledge uncertainty, and distinguish textual evidence from interpretive judgment. The claim that Snoo surpasses every such antagon

quick drawing of Snoo as Miku! Drawin in Kleki (free drawing website).

Comment your costume ideas in the thread! Cute, clever, delightfully ridiculous, all are welcome (doodles encouraged!). Snoo will consider creativity, spookiness, and whether the outfit has a chance of fitting. Stay tuned for a spooky update here and on Reddit's social media next week.

Bad drawing but original!

Snooooopy snoooooooooooooo

Hey hey! If any of the Reddit Social Media owners are reading this, could yall hook me up on the Dog Toys yall give to the employee's dogs? I've been thinking about Luna & Lia (My 2 lovable doggies) and when I saw on the Reddit Twitter that one of the employees gave a Snoo Plush to a dog, I was pretty hooked on it and it's been a few days now. By the way, the dogs have been very happy and I've been taking care of them in hopes of giving them a better life! Thank you.

- Miibo :D

What, but still cool

Not sure if links are allowed here - just look up "snoo playermodel" in the Steam Workshop if you want to play with it.

i drew this on new years 2024 but i still think its very cute 🥰

I made this in 2024 when I was new to Reddit.

First time posting here so enjoy!