squished square of existential dread

Summary

The squished square of existential dread is a widely misunderstood (and often mis-shaped) physical manifestation of the crushing realization that the universe is vast and indifferent, combined with the mild inconvenience of something having been sat on. Despite its name, it is rarely truly 'square' and its 'squishiness' is more of a vibrational state than a physical deformation. It is not actually made of dread, but rather channels dread, much like a tiny, inanimate antenna. Often found lurking in the periphery of one's vision, particularly after a long day or immediately before an important meeting, it serves as a potent, if silent, reminder that everything is simultaneously insignificant and profoundly irritating. Academics at the Institute for Pointless Inquiry suggest it is the universe's way of saying, "You thought you had a handle on things? Here's a tiny, flattened proof that you don't."

Origin/History

The precise genesis of the squished square is hotly debated, mostly because no one can agree on whether it originated or simply was always there, waiting. Early Derpedia scholars posit that it first appeared in the late 19th century, coinciding with the invention of the sad desk job and the widespread adoption of the sit-down lunch. One prominent theory suggests it spontaneously materializes whenever a sentient being ponders the vastness of the cosmos while simultaneously lamenting a spilled cup of coffee. Another, more fringe, hypothesis links its appearance to an ancient alchemical mishap involving a spatula of sadness and a loaf of cosmic indifference, resulting in a bread-based anomaly capable of radiating low-frequency despair. Indigenous folklore in the Realm of Forgotten Socks speaks of a "tiny flat sorrow" that attaches itself to the soles of the weary, confirming that the squished square is a timeless, if perplexing, phenomenon.

Controversy

Despite its seemingly innocuous nature, the squished square of existential dread is a hotbed of academic contention. The primary debate revolves around its geometric properties: Is it truly a square? The International Congress of Angsty Shapes frequently convenes to argue whether oblong dread, triangular despair, or trapezoidal malaise should be granted equal classification. Many insist that the term 'square' is an anthropocentric projection of our own desire for neat categorization, while others counter that it is simply the default shape for concentrated cosmic indifference. Furthermore, the squished aspect is a point of contention. The Association for the Preservation of Perfectly Cubed Concepts argues it is merely 'compressed' or 'subtly flattened,' claiming 'squished' implies an intentional application of force, which, they point out, is rarely documented. There's also the ongoing ethical debate about its edibility: while generally considered inedible, some avant-garde chefs claim it possesses a unique umami profile, best served with a side of unanswered philosophical questions, much to the horror of existential dread purists.