As the world falls, I sink upwards.

"Likely also why being in this rural area I work in is so exhausting because the guys are so pent-up and perverted and nasty because EVERYTHING outside of their Hanbali norm is "extreme perversion" and this makes them think it's okay to harrass people. They'll mistreat me because I don't veil my face (I'm still wearing a surgical mask most of the time to avoid disease?!) or have... embroidered sleeves. People in my home region used to complain about young guys from Riyadh/the central region in general visiting because they act like deranged horndogs, they'll trash the place, commit vandalism, sexual harrassment, etc., because they're not used to how things are in places that are more educated, have more foreigners, have people ascribing to different schools of Islamic thought in them, etc."

-----

I've lived and worked in societies that are deemed "sooo polite" by westerners. It's got "chastity" laws. Apparently "super safe" (unless you're a woman, but apparently that doesn't count when we're talking crime statistics). Under its strict etiquette and 'saving face' behavior heavily restricting open emotion and "western depravity", the underbelly of these places were rampant with extreme sexual perversion. Because everything was deemed depraved, they truly lost touch with what's actually depraved and what isn't.

In societies where girls and boys grow up together, in households where brothers have sisters, where teenagers grow up dating and learning safe sex, men are likelier to see women as people and are likelier to have a healthier approach to sex as adults. In societies where they keep "chaste" and "appropriate" and "pure" by segregating children by gender and are taught to only abstain, men more often view women as aliens and objects and sex is often loaded with trauma. In a society where fantasies are shamed and kinks are hidden away, people are likelier to have unhealthy relationships with these things, and lose sight of the difference between harmless kinks and real-life harm. In societies where drugs are all demonized, people don't know how to tell the difference between getting high on weed and dying from cocaine overdose. And the lack of healthy education and discussion around these things always results in more real-life victims that don't get help.

Just like how pearl-clutchers clog up FBI phone lines reporting "CSAM" that's literally a cartoon and the FBI have to beg them to stop wasting their time so they can focus on actual CSAM.

As always, puritans be on this post like "kinky porn = sex with children" because the first thing they think about in a kink is children in sexual situations. I swear, the people that are always screaming about protecting children think way more about sexualizing children than normal people do.

éowyn pretended to be dernhelm, a man. to fit in, she must have worn men’s armor. so the armor in the illustrations is normal for rohirrim.

therefore, all the rohirrim rode to war just like that:

male or female

hero or villain

sea or land

even in the snow

“I am definitely an ass man. It blows my mind. Talk about simple shapes. Two very simplistic curves. It’s so dumb, but they are fascinating as hell. It’s more than that. It’s the way the rest of the anatomy ties into that area — incredible beauty”

*goes to his blog to see his pinned post celebrating the mass murder rape and mutilation of jews*

But look at both these seemingly opposite extremes and they've way more in common with each other than either will admit.

I wonder sometimes if they're seeing more of a mirror image than they'd like.

They focus on the race and gender history like shields and bank on the liberal arguments of equality, but these people that believe voice acting should be limited to the demographics that aren't white, somehow get to hide the other half of the argument and exempt it from dissection.

The side of their argument where they put forwards the idea that a double standard is somehow "good, ackshilly." And why is it supposedly good? Under what pretense and belief can being racist or sexist against people in the name of progress?

Why, Critical Race Theory and Critical X. Theory, of course. The beliefs hinging on class consciousness and oppression dynamics, that puts forwards absolutes that whites are oppressors, men are oppressors, that The Oppressor Cannot Be Oppressed By Those They Oppress.

So they argue, without supporting their argument, that in western societies (though they'll allow one to assume they're speaking universally), white people should not be allowed to voice black or Asian people, while Asians and black people should be able to voice whomever they want. That any designated white role in a story or any piece of media should never validate that role is supposed to be a white person specifically, but that any given role should be gatekept to allow people of other ethnicities to take it (see: Switching out any time a redhead appears in movies, television, or any live action depiction) and at absolutely no point is it ever acceptable for black or Asian or Native American characters to be played by white (appearing) people.

They deliberately avoid putting the parts of their arguments, the foundational parts, up for debate, and instead try to keep people distracted and arguing circles Vs. squares on racism.

The racism debate is over; They don't care about REAL racism, they're defining their very ideological take on racism as the only legitimate version and demanding everybody else play along with it. They're fine with racism (real) when it fits their ideas of ideological justice and fairness, and their idea of equality is white people being developmentally retarded in society to the benefit of every other demographic, and above anything else, validation for the idea of defining justice based on Marxist principles that treat collectives and social constructs like legal parties or nations, and conceptual violence or offense as more important than real violence or offense.

Let me explain

So at the very core, we have a movement of people with very specific principles. They argue that society MUST be collective and that classes matter more than individual rights. The rights of the individual are overruled by the rights of the class. How the classes relate depends on how the deciders and formulators arbitrarily rank them at any given time, but it's vague and deliberately so, so a multitude of people with self-interests cooperate to make them and their principles the system by which to determine this.

Class struggle theorists make no distinctions between the state and culture, and see the two as one and the same. Therefore, the state should dictate culture, and the people should follow it like good little robots. They reject notions of empirical truth and replace them with subjective, socially constructed truths by committee. What is right is a popularity contest and what adheres to the foundational principles the hardest. Everything else can shift any which way the wind blows.

These people have a very specific brand and way of doing things, and will make arguments assuming their point of view is already true and the operational logic of reality. If you reject their authority, you see their delusion for what it really is. A power grab. If you make the mistake of assuming they're legitimate, you find their logic leaves no room for even argument. Not because it's good, but because it's circularly self-agrandizing and affrming. Their beginning premise is, "I'm right."

And what they did was they framed their argument in a way that it appropriates the insecurities and tries to champion what they tell minorities are their "struggles," muddling the language of their rights and freedoms with their class-struggle ambitions. So they aren't allowed to champion their own struggles, they have to go to the class struggle theorists in order to be represented at all. It gives the anti-capitalists the clout that their movement is about civil rights or minority rights, and the means to get there is simply an afterthought with consequences they're not responsible for.

In reality, it's just a bunch of Marxists using minorities as shields and speartips to push social theories that conform to their principles and gatekeep aspects of our government, legal system and culture by asinine proclaimations they're POSITIVE are things, because how else could their system be true?

Find any kind of minority, they'll put it on a pedestal and make a big show about how more populous, adjacent minorities are actually oppressors of the little baby minority, and their group is looking out for their best interests. But it was never about helping minorities, it was about latching onto them so they couldn't even have a legal struggle without also representing Marxism, and Marxism gets to use legitimate civil rights struggles for illegitimate riders into the rooms where it's debated how best to remedy and service them.

They push this stupid expectation as a way to indirectly abolish culture from legitimacy as well as privilege certain groups while disadvantaging another (the majority.) Saying it's perfectly acceptable to negatively select against "the majority" (white people) but a crime and tragedy if it positively selects for whites.

They enable the narcissistic ethnocentrism in smaller groups without reprimanding it too much, in order to get them to be complicit with their power and give credibility to their authority, out of self-interest.