First of all: It's actually really funny you say that pointing out your "poorly worded" sentences and "dramatic language" is me being "reactionary." Because "reactionary" isn't at all synonymous with "reactive," it actually means opposing political or social reform. Which is exactly what you're doing here. Of course you're framing it under the guise of "that's just what hussie meant!" when even hussie themselves has gone and said that "it's just as valid to interpret the kids as belonging to any other race, considering their depictions are abstract to the point that sometimes they don't have things like arms." And no one here means to give Hussie points of writing "unintentionally diverse" characters.

The nature of Homestuck NECESSITATES a semiotic based analysis. You can not talk about Homestuck without referring entirely to abstracted symbols, because of the heavily stylized and sprited format. Hussie themselves talks about them AT LENGTH throughout their writer's commentary on the comic, and the importance of analyzing what is Presented versus what is Not. If you want to insert yourself into this discussion, you can NOT be upset when people take issue with "poorly worded" or "dramatic" sentences where you just end up sounding racist. If you want to get into the tricky topic, then you should really think twice about what you're saying, and whether the arguments you make have a very specific, implicit worldview.

You come in with the whole premise that they are "archetypically white." that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than a character being written by a white person in a white area with absolutely no intention of writing race (and multiple times deliberately editing the comic when someone points out something is being interpreted as being confirmation of whiteness). You compare Dave Strider, an exclusively symbolically depicted character, as being the equivalent as a real life white person of Chandler Bing (which also completely ignores the LENGTHY precedence of "race-blind" casting/recasting in live-action adaptations! Off the top of my head the Percy Jackson show, who specified that they wanted to have a more diverse main lineup to deliberately undermine people that focused on characters being "the right race," and you can easily look up more because there are always people complaining about them).

Even from your initial statement of "I think it's a little misguided to assume that the characters themselves would be inherently more black or something if they were voiced by a black VA" is a complete misunderstanding of Spicy's meaning. No one has ever claimed what you said. People wanted Black VAs (or even just more nonwhite VAs) because just like you say about this "not [being] an argument for authorial intent, its just the reality of what these characters are" (as if the character has a platonic True Character that Is White, and nonwhite depictions are fun but can Never be serious canon if they aren't Caucasian - if there is a True Character, then it exists entirely within the semiotic stylization of Homestuck and cannot be translated into any less abstracted formats) - people are used to being in complete comfort about whiteness as default and having "evidence" for it, so why wouldn't people want something that contradicts it?

You are not alone in this, but seeing people say "not to play devil's advocate" or "maybe I shouldn't be saying this" or other qualifiers because they have just a sliiiiight inkling that this is Not the place, and/or they don't know what they're talking about is frustrating because... yeah you should have just kept that to yourself then. Starting with something like that isn't a card that let's you say whatever you want afterwards.

Like, Spicy is picking out points you make (because yes, nonwhite depictions ARE done in spite of writing quality but they are ALSO in spite of a white-centric fandom, that feels the need to enforce the "original meaning" (that THEY are assuming) and white hegemony and cultural default) from the paragraphs of BS as "evidence" you're saying to try to lead back into what he was ACTUALLY talking about and you're not even taking the hint. Like when you say "Hussie's non-commitment to "racial ambiguity" fold[s] in the face of what is necessarily a less ambiguous medium" - yes! This is true! That's what people are disappointed about! But then you keep making statements and arguments that are based in a white hegemonic worldview, are just plain inaccurate/not relevant, and are actually kind of gross.