[ SECRET POST #4483 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4483 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #642.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"I don't understand why anyone but white people are allowed to have pride in their race, but white people can't. What's wrong with White Pride?"

"I don't understand why anyone but straight people are allowed to have pride in their sexuality, but straight people can't. Where are my straight parades?"

"I don't understand why anyone but men are allowed to have pride in their gender. When's Men's Day?!"

Usually, the answer boils down to the fact that in the current Western circumstances and history that most of these discussions, and this current discussion of Pratt happens in, all the other groups are minorities and had to fight oppressors to get any social status they currently have. Whereas Christianity, straight people, and men were always the default-persons. Generally speaking, the pride isn't really in just being the thing, it's being the thing in spite of the default opposition and having dealt with oppression.

Though I may be giving your comment too much benefit of the doubt.

[(Anonymous)]

And no, before it has to be said, a bunch of people going "man, you in particular, the way you're evangelizing your religion is really annoying" is NOT systemic Christian oppression.

[(Anonymous)]

The key thing you're missing is the belief that only people who evangelize in that way really count as Christians (for those kinds of Christians)

[(Anonymous)]

How is that key? I don't think that changes the point being made very much if at all.

There is not, technically, intrinsically, anything wrong with wearing a White Pride shirt. But context is what matters.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, sorry, I just meant that was the key reason they consider it systemic discrimination, I agree w your broader point, should have been clearer

[(Anonymous)]

Oh you meant that's why they think they have a right to do it. Yeah, I'd agree that they think so.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but OG anon, I think sort of that was my point and maybe it came out a little antagonistic, which I didn't mean. Obviously there's no need for White/Straight/Men/Christian pride days/parades because of that history of 'being on top' that other colours/sexes/religions/etc didn't have to fight their way through to be proud of themselves.

I meant it more in a low-key sort of, "Hey I like being Christian, it's part of who I am," and even the low key religious people do seem to get more... antagonism in my experience than most. (and I say all of this as an agnostic who doesn't care which god/goddess/gods/etcs you do or do not worship, so long as you don't try and bring it into politics or anything else that tries to dictate how someone else should lead their life)

[(Anonymous)]

That probably is a reflection of how the organized religion has oppressed others. People who have had bad experiences with religion are bound to be more antagonistic against the big dominant one that's made them feel bad or hurt people they know. Even more so due to Christianity - at least in the US - being tangled up with all the other issues, being used as a shield for white nationalism, oppression of women, homophobia, etc etc.

I'm not saying people are right to be mean to others or ridicule their religious beliefs, but that's probably the reason it happens. And on a community like this that's more than a bit off the mainstream demographics, there's going to be more people on average that's had bad experiences, probably.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you really comparing white supremacism to Christians saying they're proud of their faith?

[(Anonymous)]

No, I'm comparing people who might say "I'm proud to be white" to people who might say "Godfidence".

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with either of those things.

But context and history matters, and that's why both parties would get more backlash for them than someone going "I'm proud to be gay."

[(Anonymous)]

"No, I'm comparing people who might say "I'm proud to be white" to people who might say "Godfidence"."

And that's an idiotic comparison. 'White pride' is white supremacy.

[(Anonymous)]

The interesting thing is, you are arguing that... because of context and history.

If you use the exact same word, Pride, but say Black Pride, that doesn't mean black supremacy, does it? Gay Pride doesn't mean gay supremacy, does it?

Christians get backlash for showing 'Christian pride' because of context and history. 'Godfidence' has a different contextual meaning, and gets different backlash, from 'Lesbonfidence'... because of context and history.

[(Anonymous)]

And yet normal people don't take 'Godfidence' as being synonymous with white supremacism. Just those looking to be offended.

Whereas someone saying "White pride!" will draw comparisons of white supremacy by everyone.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm... not saying Christian pride = white nationalism. I'm not sure where you got that idea or why you are insisting that's what this discussion is about.

I'm saying the similar-but-not-the-same factors and circumstances apply in how people react and give backlash to them. Because white supremacy has been an oppressive force on minorities for a long time historically in this particular context. Christian dominance has, in a similar-but-not-exactly-the-same-way, been an oppressive force on minorities for a long time historically in this particular context.

They are not the same thing, nor do they have the same goals, but they are similar in the systematic oppression they have put upon people, historically, influencing how statements about pride in the group are received today.

Is that clearer for you?

[(Anonymous)]

Are you really implying that Christianity has not been a major oppressive force in the last 1700 years of Western Civilization?

[(Anonymous)]

If we're really going to be talking about oppressive religions then are you going to call out Islam as well?

Or is that 'out of sight out of mind' because it's a problem elsewhere?

[(Anonymous)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[(Anonymous)]

Out of sight it is.

[(Anonymous)]

you really should read that article, it might open your eyes to the tactic you're using

Fuck you

[(Anonymous)]

Islam has its own problems.

Christians have been forcing their religion on non-Christians in all corners of the world for hundreds of years. If you don’t think Christianity is an oppressive religion then your education failed you.

Re: Fuck you

[(Anonymous)]

We’re really going to pretend that Muslims aren’t oppressing non-Muslims in their countries?

Re: Fuck you

[(Anonymous)]

DA

No, most people are just not going to discuss it because that has literally nothing to do with this discussion.

Islam has historically oppressed and is currently oppressing people. Christianity has historically oppressed and is currently oppressing people. Communist-state-mandated Atheism has historically oppressed and is currently oppressing people.

The difference is we're only talking about Christianity right now, in this particular current, contemporary, Western context. Except for you for some reason.

Re: Fuck you

[(Anonymous)]

Since you asked, YES Muslims are oppressing non-Muslims in their countries. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Christians have historically travelled around the world AND FORCED THEIR RELIGION ON NON-CHRISTIANS. And you ask why the poor Christians are being criticized?

Re: Fuck you

[tabaqui]

Why are you deflecting and changing the subject and saying 'what about....'? That 99 percent of organized religions have oppressed someone at some point is a given. The discussion here is about Western Xianity and what this particular shirt/statement means in context.

And frankly, that shirt makes me say 'fuck you, you smarmy git', so....take that as you will.

Re: Fuck you

[(Anonymous)]

Criticizing intolerant Christians in no way implies an endorsement of intolerant Muslims. You ought to fuck off with this