multiplyingtome

1. What “kinning” even means in this context

In an anamorphic object world, an object usually has:

a physical category (coin, CD, sponge, etc)*

a social role attached to that category

an implied function or expectation, or at the very least what certain objects should NOT be doing.

When an object “kins” another object type, it usually fits without one or more of these categories:

identity resonance

aspirational selfhood

coping or misidentification

symbolic self-translation

literally feeling like another object.

So a key who kins a lock might not be a lock, but feels more aligned with:

being opened by others rather than opening things

being stationary, waited on, depended on

existing as a threshold rather than a tool

literally feeling like a lock

honestly it would probably be more.. transgender kinda in nature? in my mind i don't think objects being different types of object is the same as people here wanting to be different type of species but the nuance is still there. more arbitrary, built around personality/actions/looks rather than objecthood itself.

2. Why this would naturally happen in object societies

A. Functional dysphoria

Some objects are deeply uncomfortable with their “intended” use.

A knife kins a spoon → hates sharpness, violence, expectations of harm.

A battery kins a charger/outlet → resents being drained, wants constant connection instead

A receipt kins a diary → wants permanence, not disposability

B. Social mirroring and proximity

Objects surrounded by one type may internalize it.

A plastic cup raised among glassware may kin fragile, “classy” objects despite being durable.

A nail raised in a family of screws might kin screws due to perceived competence and respect.

C. Survival and narrative coping

Sometimes, a way to survive a something you can’t escape.

A medal kins trash → emotionally prepares for being discarded

A remote kins a button → simplifies identity to avoid responsibility

A mannequin kins a mirror → reframes being looked at as reflection rather than objectification.

3. How society reacts to kinning

Different cultures would respond differently, I'd imagine. Two examples below, but the possibilities really go on forever.

A. Acceptance

Even in “accepting” societies, kinning is rarely treated as fully real

“That’s just how they express themselves!”

“It’s a phase.”

“They’re just being metaphorical.”

This frames kinning as aesthetic, emotional, and harmless as long as it doesn’t interfere with productivity. Once kinning does affect how an object behaves, works, or refuses certain roles, tolerance collapses. For example, A USB who kins a power adapter is allowed to talk about it; but the moment they refuse to do something or complain because “that’s not what adapters do,” it becomes a problem.

B. Utility-first

In many object worlds, usefulness isn’t just economic, it’s moral.

Believes objects are born with an inherent role, and function = identity. Deviating from function is wasteful. Here, kinning is framed as malfunction, miscalibration, inefficiency, entitlement. (“You think you’re better than what you are?”)