[ SECRET POST #4676 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4676 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[My Hero Academia]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________




















04. [SPOILERS for El Camino]



__________________________________________________



05. [SPOILERS for Innocence]

[Innocence by Dean Koontz]


__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Hellboy]




__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for El Camino]
[WARNING for discussion of rape]




__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of rape]





__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for non-con]




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #669.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. [SPOILERS for El Camino]
https://i.imgur.com/3kk7bfb.png
[Innocence by Dean Koontz]

[(Anonymous)]

But it's apparently a whole different story to think it's fine if humanity gets wiped out because we're all polluters

[(Anonymous)]

I mean... makes sense to me. Polluting is something we're doing that directly and indirectly harms ourselves on a literal, tangible level. "Sinning" is defined by idk, some mysterious supposedly-superior third party authority who you're supposed to believe knows best for undefined reasons.

I perceive a difference there.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Polluting is actual, real harm. Sinning is just... oh, god doesn't like how you live your life so you deserve to die?

[(Anonymous)]

But polluting could be considered a sin

[(Anonymous)]

Considering the Bible talks about humanity being stewards of the Earth and that we're supposed to take care of it, I'm pretty sure it is.

[(Anonymous)]

Right. So then at that point, where's the distinction between Christian misanthropy and environmental misanthropy?

[(Anonymous)]

Pollution arguably being a sin in Christianity and pollution being genuinely bad doesn't mean that all of what Christianity considers a sin is genuinely bad.

[(Anonymous)]

So your objection to Christian misanthropy isn't that it's misanthropic, it's that it's Christian? You wouldn't have an objection to Christian misanthropy if Christians had a different moral code?

Because, I mean, the whole concept of original sin - which is presumably what's relevant here - isn't necessarily tied to any specific understanding of what is or is not a sin. And I honestly don't see the distinction between that conception of original human sin, and the idea that all human beings simply by virtue of being born bear responsibility for destroying the planet.

(I also want to note that this is really going off at a slant from OP's original secret and I know they weren't saying anything about this)

[ninefox]

Personally, I don't love environmental misanthropy either, but I can certainly understand someone who feels that it would at least be less arbitrary. And I think it's possible to tell a "we all fucked up and as a direct result, we died" climate apocalypse story without the same smug "and that's fine/good/deserved" misanthropy. Pollution can be greek tragedy: we have become capable of great things in the technology age, but also the terrible flaws in the engine of capitalism lead to our doom, and that's sad. And we should try to avoid it.

But the Christian version isn't a tragedy at all. Extermination and eternal suffering for the inadequate is how things are supposed to go.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that it's possible to tell a non-misanthropic climate change extinction story but I'm specifically talking about environmentalist misanthropy here, not environmentalism in general.

[(Anonymous)]

except that in the modern era, western christianity has completely divorced itself from that verse. no one in evangelical circles actually thinks they need to take care of the enviroment, instead they parrot republican talking points.

so overall theoretically, this could be a great debate, but in actuality the debate is nonexistent because christians of the same demographic as Koontz is writing in already don't think being pro-pollution is also sinful. any environmental cause is basically outside the realm of sin unless you have a good way to equate tree-hugging hippies with other sins, in which case pro-environmentalism is actually the sin.

[(Anonymous)]

Most of, but not all of. There are still a lot of Christians who accept climate change, and even some Evangelicals who do.

[(Anonymous)]

You need to find other Christians then, friend. I don’t know of any Christian who believes being a steward of the earth is a bad thing. They’re not prone to worshipping it, that’s the difference.

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely. But is it a significant part of this Christian misanthropy OP is referring to?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know what OP actually had in mind themselves.

My understanding of "Christian misanthropy" is that it's founded on the idea of original sin - the idea of some kind of foundational sin in human nature, a sinfulness or inclination to sin that exists for everyone, even the most new-born baby. The specific details of what a given person does, or what constitutes "sin", are sort of immaterial for the concept - the point is that every person is a sinner.

[(Anonymous)]

This was my first thought, and you see a hell of a lot more of 'we're polluters and need to die' being pushed than so-called Christian misanthropy.

[case]

Oops, the spoiler tag got marked incorrectly here. Fixed it on the post. Sorry!

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh. I have SOURED on Koontz. Back in the early 90s, he was a go-to author for books I was sure to like. I know I've changed a little in what I like to read, but my goodness has he gotten un-subtle in his morality preaching.

And his characters just don't resemble anyone I have ever met in my life. The last book I tried to read of his, his main character was a 20 year-old woman who was a writer who got up, dressed in a BLAZER and skirt to run everyday errands before coming home to write. Just, ugh. I'm 40 and wear sweats/work out clothes if I'm not forced to interact with people I work with in person that day.

I tried with that book, but ultimately had to stop reading because main character's amazing boyfriend was a soldier fighting overseas and I could feel the righteous erection Koontz had while writing his heroism. Double ugh.

[philstar22]

Okay, no, that's just not what people do. At least not what I do. I'm a lawyer, so blazers are a thing I wear for work. Except I only wear them for court, to meet with clients, or anything else like that. I don't wear them in the office. I do business casual. And at home I'm in comfy clothes or pajamas.

[(Anonymous)]

That's kind of hilarious re: the blazer and skirt...but also sad, because clearly the author doesn't actually know any 20 year old women.