62
The Seussifixion
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
62 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
10095 readers
271 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You can't celebrate Christmas without Christianity. It's in the name.
If the holiday they celebrate is canonically called Christmas, then Christianity has to exist in the universe. It doesn't matter if Christmas is an amalgamation of pagan holidays.
This is an etymological fallacy. There is no reason to believe that the Whos' etymological history and usage of the word must mirror our own.
I'm an atheist, and I celebrate Christmas. no Jesus involved. same for most everyone I've ever met.
that's like saying "I invented the light bulb! therefore, if it exists anywhere else in the universe, they stole it from me!"
lots of people invent or discover things simultaneously all over the world, and it's not until later that we find out. Here's a whole wiki article about it.
And maybe the story is translated from another language, and the term 'Christmas" was substituted so modern western children would understand the context.
examples:
so, the term 'Christmas' being used could mean many things-- most of all that you shouldn't just jump to safe conclusions.
Their point is given the name Christmas there needs to be a Christ but the Who's Christ doesn't necessarily have to have the same Christ.
just explained - with many examples - of how that's not necessarily true.
also, it's a fictional story about fictional beings in a fictional land. Nothing has to be true here.
You are getting too hung up on the "event" of Christmas. You are ignoring the "name" Those examples don't call it the same name.
Deleted by moderator
What personal attack? Their point is pretty clear to me. They're not talking about the holiday, they're talking about the etymology of the actual word "christmas" which has its root in the word "christ". For the whos to have the word "christmas" implys that they also have the word "christ". Why would the whos have a word for "christ" unless they had their own version of a christ? If the whos didn't have a christ (mythical or otherwise) then they wouldn't have any reason to invent the word "christ". Without the word "christ" the root for the word "christmas" isn't there so the word " christmas" wouldn't have been invented.
You're focusing on the holiday but the actual celebration is irrelevant. It's the use of the word "christmas" that implys who jesus. It's the same as if the whos called the holiday "saturnalia" it would imply that they had a saturn.
Dude wtf? Why are you taking this as a "personal attack". I wasn't attacking, just pointing out that to use the word "Christmas" you have to have a Christ. So the Who's would have to have a "Christ" not THE SAME Christ. Sure Sues could have called it something else like "Wintermas" but he didn't so the Who lore requires a Christ like figure.
I'm talking about the name of the holiday having religious origins. Can't call the holiday Christmas without there being a Christianity.
That's a false equivalency. We're talking about word origins not inventions.
Bro, this is Dr Seuss. What are you on about?
a fictional, Seussian world where anything is possible. such as one where Christmas exists but "christ" does not.
for christ's sake, let it go, lol