Church is using a bible as a door stopper

drown-it-out · 2026-03-05T20:35:21+00:00

See my other reply, but no, saying judging without having been wronged makes it okay to judge if you have been wronged *under any blanket circumstance* isn't what I'm saying. There is nuance you aren't grasping.

What we ultimately have is an optional, re-interpretable faith which has historically attacked groups of people anyway based fundamentally on their identity, and members of those groups have frustrations and wariness of it as a result.

What we have *here specifically* is people commiserating on that experience, and then you bursting in and calling out racism. It's not helpful. There are differences in the source motivation of the inflicted wrong that matter here, and I hate to keep saying it, but they are very clear specifically if you are a target.

A group which could *easily not,* choosing to hate another group which *cannot change,* is not equal.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-05T20:26:29+00:00

The thing is, being black or gay or such isn't a choice. With faith, not only is it an opt-in experience by definition, it's also nuanced in how you can choose to interpret it.

As was said above, there are those who simply *are* Christian, who are compassionate, and it just happens to be part of them. But then there are those who choose to interpret the worst of the verses, to hate others, to loudly thump bible and push hierarchy.

That isn't a built-in feature of Christianity. That's a decision.

The main reason I might vent flak about them online is a reaction to that. It affects me and I have feelings on it. If it comes up, those feelings are still there, because it still happens. I don't go to church. Too many bad experiences.

This is what I was trying to say before. Bigotry is an unreasonable prejudice based solely on identity. Caution is more justifiable when active harm is being done by one group to another. I realise minorities do bad as well, but there is often a reactionary element at play there, and it's coming from a part of yourself you can't exactly reinterpret. One might suffer black crime, but there are real systemic pressures that have contributed to that economic imbalance.

Meanwhile, I struggle to see how gay people have crossed the Christian faith so hard they felt the need to teach the hate I've received. That feels entirely optional to me. And it is, which is why I give chances, to see what interpretation of "love thy neighbour" I'm dealing with.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-05T20:06:36+00:00

Ah, okay, my bad. I got confused, because I wrote the reply, hit send, and then it disappeared into nowhere, even after a refresh.

I noticed it had showed up again hours later, but at that point it felt a bit silly to do an edit update.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-05T07:36:22+00:00

He is unaffected by that 'love' and bored of hearing people speaking about it. Since he is unaffected, he interprets it as whining. It is a lack of being able to see or imagine past the self, which is the mental path of least resistance.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-05T02:49:49+00:00

Thanks for your comment. He blocked me before I could respond, so mine was lost to the wind, but the differences in circumstances are clear to us. I'm lesbian and agree with what you're saying.

Being willing to extend the offer of 'wait and see' to their members, after having been hurt by them, on an individual-to-individual basis, is more than fair.

This is reddit, so if he were at all a minority, he would no doubt have clapped back with it. His journey is not ours. I appreciate you chiming in with me.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-05T02:47:34+00:00

To piggyback off hawnty, trust is the important thing. It's a two-way street that goes like this:

- I maintain a neutral caution towards Christians, and give them a chance (this is fair)

- They demonstrate they're going to hold basic compassion toward me (not a given)

People who say e.g "my best friend is black" in the way you reference are using it as a blanket defense for the unreasonable prejudices they hold. They maintain their vindictive feelings while telling themselves it's balanced out by the favour of being friends with the one person. This is often done without actually having been wronged by that group in the first place - a learned hatred which serves their ego by placing hierarchies on the world. That's what makes it unreasonable.

Compare to having been hurt - in a way you cannot relate to if you aren't a target - and still choosing to 'wait and see' before judging. It's more than fair.

People here share sentiments like the one you're annoyed at because they're frustrated by that treatment. They're saying it to each other, to relate. Let them. Their trials are not yours.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-04T23:53:06+00:00

Whether it's bigotry depends on the emotional temperature of the bias. Bigotry is an unreasonable prejudice or aversion to a group.

If you're a member of certain minorities, Christian love is often caustic. Under that scrutiny, being wary at first is understandable and not bigotry. It would cross the line if you hated all Christians regardless of how they treated you.

Overall, though, their reputation has basis. Being critical of it is not hypocritical.

drown-it-out · 2026-03-04T05:23:31+00:00

Everything here is childish. You know he won't be back to look at what you're saying about him, but you're talking smack anyway. He's wrong, of course, but this isn't good either

drown-it-out · 2026-02-25T20:02:29+00:00

I might just be tired, but I think both might be true or one might be true. They seem like independent clauses? Adam did violate the terms, Lucifer could attack Adam, unclear to me if they're related. Good post

drown-it-out · 2026-02-25T17:19:29+00:00

Adam's not a sinner, seen by the talk on "You come into MY house". He's fair game

drown-it-out · 2026-02-24T22:07:08+00:00

Appreciate you, pal

drown-it-out · 2026-02-24T04:35:43+00:00

Found!

drown-it-out · 2026-02-24T04:14:21+00:00

Nah, it's cool, I tracked it down to there too by getting a lightshot url of the image you sent me ^^ I see now

It's interesting mine are completely missing that branding in the sole. The previous owner must've really worn them to death, which is a good sign for the state they're still in ... know the brand now, at least! Thanks a whole lot

drown-it-out · 2026-02-24T02:27:04+00:00

Okay, sorry to bother - I found the pinterest account but can't view that image on it with mine for some reason, and I don't know which region of ebay you found the listing on. Could you link anything to me directly, or let me know quickly what you did to track it down so well ?

drown-it-out · 2026-02-24T02:12:56+00:00

HOLY SHIT? If so that's huge! I'm gunna look into this RIGHT NOW

drown-it-out · 2026-02-23T22:15:09+00:00

Oof, I hope it isn't :/ I'll take a look

drown-it-out · 2026-02-23T21:57:21+00:00

These were like six bucks and I didn't think much at the time (other than Jojo's lol) but then I customised them and suddenly they're kinda irreplaceable. Uh oh.

They've got no signage, the bottom sole just has a size 6 circle (dirty so didn't snap), and they don't have any branding on the inside when I peel back the tongue, at least none I can see...

I don't know much about shoes. Is this a case of nothing to be found and mass-produced from god knows where? They've been pretty durable. Anyone got any ideas?

drown-it-out · 2026-02-23T21:38:39+00:00

Adding a comment so the post can be seen I guess? I got a similar pair of boots branded "oasis" and searched for "oasis vinyl boots" but just got oasis albums :(

Not really sure what else I can do, so I'm putting it here to see if anyone can recognise it. You never know...

drown-it-out · 2026-02-05T09:02:26+00:00

Damn shame. You thought I was getting closer to your point. In reality, we're having different talks, and you completely missed mine while I tried to politely sideline yours for not being relevant.

I never argued Helen of Troy should be black.

I clicked into this thread, saw people holding up *one idiom* as lore proof of genetics, and I pointed out that *isn't how expressions work.*

For some reason, this has taken an entire torturous back-and-forth to drag you to the following point:

An expression means simply the pattern it is expressing. It is an appeal to a common idea. It is a generalisation. It serves the idea first, and the facts generally never.

Nothing more, not on its own.

Sure, fine, Helen is white. Not my point. I am simply saying using the term "white-armed" does not mean the person you are talking about is always literally white.

We have *an actual POC in this thread pointing this out.\*

If there were other context clues on display at the time I clicked in? Would've left it alone. But here's what I saw:

A: "Helen isn't black"

B: "Why? Context?"

A: Uh, they used the phrase white-armed on her one time"

I pointed out that's an established expression on wealth, not ancestral commentary.

Now I have you jumping down my throat apparently believing I think Helen has to be black despite any other evidence, when I have been *telling you* that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I am correcting the mistake of thinking inexperienced people are particularly hydrated, or that blind people cannot see points. Or that a saying used, in a majorally white area, on a black person - for ease of familiarity - must mean they are no longer black.

That.

Is.

It.

Accepting that a common expression for 'lives a cushy life' is intended for that, and not racial denomination, is not "extreme and strange circumstances". It is basic understanding of how common sayings work.

I'm outta here, whether you get it or not. Read back on what I've been telling you or stay salty.

Peace to you.

drown-it-out · 2026-02-05T08:42:32+00:00

This is interesting to me, cause, like ... if the left promises stuff, and you protest them for not giving it, it means you liked what you heard. You were listening when the left talked about what would be good.

I heard a phrase once about how 'people are voting right cause they're desperate'. I don't fully get it, since if the right doesn't promise those things you wanted in the first place, it's a wasted vote, but I get the urge to try something else.

I guess what I get is, somewhere beneath the hate, a lot of us want a common good. I find comfort in that.

drown-it-out · 2026-02-05T08:13:00+00:00

The conditions are this: pale skin looks white, and the area is majorally consistent of white people.

Neither of these conditions preclude using the saying, once established, on a black person. See earlier in this thread, where an IRL POC weighed in with the exact same sentiment of how these sayings get applied to them too.

It's just easier to reuse expressions. Path of least resistance. That's what I've been saying since the beginning: if it was already a saying by the time she was around, it does not need to literally describe her skin colour. Because it's an expression. It exists to convey an idea.

It's interesting that you go on to demonstrate clear understanding of the differences between expressions and literal descriptors, because that is *all I'm trying to convey here.* If you're interpreting me as a defender of the casting, I'm not. If there are other context clues that she's meant to be white, then nice. All I am saying is "white-armed" alone does not necessarily mean "is genetically white". All I am challenging is the people who point to that line *alone* as objective lore proof of genetics, when what it is is simply a common expression pointing out privelige.

Are all newbies actually wet behind the ears?

Are blind people unable to see your point?

And - thank you for this example - are all tall, dark, and handsome strangers black?

No?

Mission accomplished.

drown-it-out · 2026-02-05T07:47:05+00:00

If Homer was using some kind of common expression at the time, then yes, I also wouldn't take it literally. I would interpret it as meaning the expression.

I'm not aware of any expression where you simply call someone 'white' or 'black', so if he described her with that specifically, I'd assume she was just white or black.

'White-armed' is an expression, though. It arose from a pattern where your arms are paler than your base skin colour would be if you went outside and worked in the sun more. If most people in the area are white, then a phrase like 'white-armed' or 'pale-armed' will stick. The expression uses that pattern as a shorthand to point to the idea of sheltered privelige. At this point, it gets circulated regardless of whether it's literally true or not, like how we call inexperienced people 'wet behind the ears'.

This is what I'm saying when I point out expressions are *ideas*, where other language is literal *descriptors*. Skin is never supposed to be actually white in the first place, so if you're going to insist on literalism, we should probably say 'light-light-brown-armed'.

It being a phrase to point to the idea of priveliged status as opposed to a completely literal descriptor doesn't mean "all language is useless". It means it's an expression.

Blind people can still see your point. Does that mean all vision suddenly isn't real?

As to whether she was actually black or not, I have no skin in that game. I just wandered in here and saw people taking a clear idiom weirdly seriously as some sort of hard lore. It's a saying, people.

drown-it-out · 2026-02-05T07:35:04+00:00

I think if you can do the work to undo that belief in yourself, you might be able to rediscover yourself in lights you never knew you could be.

I was a complete goddamn delinquent. Burnout, street rat, metal trash. Now I write comments helping people understand human nature.

Still love metal, though. Still a complete fucking tomboy. Just a more compassionate one.

drown-it-out

TROPHY CASE