[ 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

[(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.