how is that not bigoted? so child marriage is islam? beheading jews and other non muslims is islam? women not being able to speak in public is islam? hmmm doubt it.

a. islam is a religion, not a race.

b. islamism and islam are very different things. acting like they are the same thing and therefore somehow above criticism is actually prejudicial. if you somehow believe what the taliban and irgc do to their people and others is just “their culture,” there is something wrong with you and you know nothing about islam or its movements.

islamism does not represent muslims. calling it out shows that and shows what islam actually is: a religion with millions of followers that do not hate anyone and do not support terrorists or oppression.

and to the latter point: not all germans who joined nazi party supported their views but do we really care when it was the radical extreme ones that did the crimes against humanity while others "let them". So does it really matter if "not all muslims support sharia or jihad, hamas, muslim brotherhood etc" when no other group makes so many terrorist attacks globally. the numbers are insane. does it matter what everyday "i never read Quran"-muslims are westernized (="morally normal") to you when what you criticise/deny (=violence from western perspective) is in their actual religious texts?

Firstly, if it weren't for the fact that the conservative government of the United States is literally a Neo Nazi Party, and if it weren't for the fact that the rise of conservative movements around the world is also being tied to the rise of fascism, white supremacy, the weakening of certain rights and the general dehumanization bordering on genociding of certain minorities — i'd be inclined to believe that.

...Except, it also doesn't make any sense to hamper progress that has been shown to genuinely help people.

"…Except, it also doesn't make any sense to hamper progress that has been shown to genuinely help people." but that's why we have democracy so politicians with different views can together think whether something is actually helpful. You would think it's so simple to tell if something is helpful or not but that is very simplistic thinking. It's rarely so nice and easy but of course there are some clever people who think they are always on the good side and know what is good for everyone.

The idea behind conservatism being a "safety brake" is rooted in conservatism having solid unchanging values in oppose to progressivism or liberalism. So if there's for example a conservative western feminist they will hold onto their belief on women's safety on the streets very tightly even when it means not everyone is happy about it all the time. If you have a progressive western feminist they might think it's more important to open borders (equality for all people to inhabit as they please) than assure women's safety even if crimes against (lower economic class) women would increase. the latter feminist of course doesn't want to admit that there are places outside of the west where women can't walk safely on the streets bc that would contradict their value system. they just hold onto the utopian ideas for the future ("rape wouldn’t exist if we destroy western hetero cisnormative patriarchy" or "all cultures are equal, rape is just more common in poor third world countries bc they don't know better) even when that would hurt women right now. The western progressive feminist can technically after time start supporting something that is a polar opposite to the western conservative feminist views like sharia law bc currently it's progressive to support islam uncritically.

The kinds of human rights abuses that mainstream Marxism engaged in are horrific, and not worthy of glorification.

This isn’t to say that children’s media can never tell good or enjoyable stories I think they absolutely can but if you only consume children’s media you will miss out on the full spectrum of ideas story telling can offer. And I think an unwillingness to engage with media you do not have to learn or be patient with has lead to the achetypification of fandom spaces, many people no longer feel deep connections to a particular character but rather a flavour of blorbo which is leading to a stagnation of fandom interpretation of characters also, as rather than taking time to consume and digest media the most basic category of type of character is being applied instead.

This recent emergence in fandom is what I feel is leading to the extremely prevalent treatment of any character as “sad tragic backstory man” “too pure cinnamon roll” and “bitch woman” as the only thing a character in media can ever be foregoing any nuanced themes or morality in a way that actively discourages having any interesting thoughts about a character or story.

Miyazaki’s ‘anti-war’ stance isn’t anti-imperialist. It’s just anti-losing. He expresses zero remorse for Japan’s empire or the fact that his family built those war planes. He was only upset that the war hurt Japanese people. That’s not being anti-imperialist, that's just nationalism with a sad face.

The *entire film* is about the tragedy of art being coopted by the military industrial complex, how it twists beauty to suit its own ends.

As the protagonist says about halfway through "we could get it to fly, if only we took out the guns".

see, the thing is, presenting ppl who Were Key In The Making Of Death Machinery as poor unfortunate souls misused by the Faceless Government IS imperialist propaganda

What was that bit from Why Does He Do That?

In his own words:

“During the war, Japanese forces committed terrible atrocities, killing countless civilians. As Japanese people, we must never forget this. It is something that will remain forever,”

‘Japan Committed Terrible Atrocities’: Hayao Miyazaki Reflects On Country’s War Crimes At Ramon Magsaysay Award Ceremony

“I was born in 1941… and had a strong feeling in my childhood that we had ‘fought a truly stupid war’. Many times… I heard adults speak boastfully of the horrible things they had done on the Chinese continent. At the same time, I also heard about the extent of the horrors of the air raids [on Japan]. I heard many stories and I started to think that I had been born in a country that had done stupid things and I truly started to hate Japan.”

"Miyazaki describes the national culture of wartime as “hysteria”, driven by government and military elites, but remaining an object of responsibility and necessary reflection for civilians as well. During the war, Miyazaki’s father was the manager of a factory that made military airplane parts. His father, he reports, was not a patriot. ... Nevertheless, Miyazaki recalls arguing bitterly with his father as a teenager, “trying to get him to acknowledge his war responsibility.” In the Neppu article, Miyazaki clearly places responsibility on the “militarist government” for leading Japan to violent expansion and then to ruin, but also interrogates the war responsibility of his family and by extension, the wider civilian population. Kaze Tachinu protagonist Horikoshi, an engineer who had no choice but to work for the military if he wanted to continue to design airplanes, is seen by Miyazaki as an important figure for understanding the pressures felt by civilians in wartime and grasping “just how messed-up this country really was.”

@apocalypsegay

i'm also a weeaboo, that's true. there's self deprecation there.

I think that what is seen in Howl's Moving Castle is fairytale like naive optimism fitting the story which is a highly romantic fantasy. We know Miyazaki in his own life is quite pessimistic person so I think maybe his films are wishes he dares to make despite.

The modern "demand" for simple clear answers doesn't often make good art in my opinion. this doesn't mean that war crimes should be excused but op's claims "Miyazaki’s ‘anti-war’ stance isn’t anti-imperialist. It’s just anti-losing. He expresses zero remorse for Japan’s empire or the fact that his family built those war planes." are very heavy accusations (hence I call it cancelling) and has implications as if the films should have some explicit line delivering "i'm so sorry my family was part of this" as a hammered message. Usually in the media made for adults the writers avoid spoon-feeding the audience with moral teachings and instead trust the people to think these questions for themselves. Miyazaki's children's films are also less black and white compared to disney films for example.

Miyazaki’s ‘anti-war’ stance isn’t anti-imperialist. It’s just anti-losing. He expresses zero remorse for Japan’s empire or the fact that his family built those war planes. He was only upset that the war hurt Japanese people. That’s not being anti-imperialist, that's just nationalism with a sad face.

The *entire film* is about the tragedy of art being coopted by the military industrial complex, how it twists beauty to suit its own ends.

As the protagonist says about halfway through "we could get it to fly, if only we took out the guns".

see, the thing is, presenting ppl who Were Key In The Making Of Death Machinery as poor unfortunate souls misused by the Faceless Government IS imperialist propaganda

What was that bit from Why Does He Do That?

In his own words:

“During the war, Japanese forces committed terrible atrocities, killing countless civilians. As Japanese people, we must never forget this. It is something that will remain forever,”

‘Japan Committed Terrible Atrocities’: Hayao Miyazaki Reflects On Country’s War Crimes At Ramon Magsaysay Award Ceremony

“I was born in 1941… and had a strong feeling in my childhood that we had ‘fought a truly stupid war’. Many times… I heard adults speak boastfully of the horrible things they had done on the Chinese continent. At the same time, I also heard about the extent of the horrors of the air raids [on Japan]. I heard many stories and I started to think that I had been born in a country that had done stupid things and I truly started to hate Japan.”

"Miyazaki describes the national culture of wartime as “hysteria”, driven by government and military elites, but remaining an object of responsibility and necessary reflection for civilians as well. During the war, Miyazaki’s father was the manager of a factory that made military airplane parts. His father, he reports, was not a patriot. ... Nevertheless, Miyazaki recalls arguing bitterly with his father as a teenager, “trying to get him to acknowledge his war responsibility.” In the Neppu article, Miyazaki clearly places responsibility on the “militarist government” for leading Japan to violent expansion and then to ruin, but also interrogates the war responsibility of his family and by extension, the wider civilian population. Kaze Tachinu protagonist Horikoshi, an engineer who had no choice but to work for the military if he wanted to continue to design airplanes, is seen by Miyazaki as an important figure for understanding the pressures felt by civilians in wartime and grasping “just how messed-up this country really was.”

unlike judaism, christianity and islam are religions that rely on proselytism (the practice of converting others) to survive. criticism of christianity, and of its ideas that have the potential to be dangerous to free and democratic societies, is never labeled as racism. the idea that critiquing a system of beliefs is somehow racist or xenophobic is preposterous.

so why is it deemed okay to slap an accusation of “islamophobia” onto anyone who dares question the morality of concepts like jihad (‘holy war’ against non-believers)?

criticizing islam is not criticizing the entire arab race—it’s questioning a system of ideas. it’s asking whether free and open societies can afford to accept and promote religious ideals that allow for violent, oppressive, and imperialist interpretations.

and, in case it wasn’t clear, if you read this post and immediately jump to accuse me of being anti-muslim or islamophobic, you’re part of the problem.

“for muslims,” says sam harris, “muhammad is the greatest person who has ever lived. unfortunately, he did not behave like jesus or buddha—at all. it sort of matters that he tortured people and cut their heads off and took sex slaves, because his example is meant to inspire his followers for all time.”

Hey, thanks for your response! I just wanted to add some context here.

The "school attack" has actually been debunked on several levels as regime propaganda. In general, the regime is pulling a stunt of wanting to embed itself among civilians to maximize civilian casualties, which is a violation of international law.

In this case of this school, an account with familiarity this this has posted the following tweet:

This exact hypocrisy is what I have seen from self-declared feminists and leftists. They have been busy posting anything & everything about Evil Israel the last few years. And obviously about the Evil Colonial Country and Evil Colonial System we Must Smash, that they happen to live in. And of course anything bad that happens to a Muslim because "Islamophobia"?

BUT not a peep out of these feminists about Woman Life Freedom. Nor Iranians now. Nothing. Silence.

Islam isn’t the indigenous religion of Iran. Zoroastrianism is. Islam only arrived in the 7th century due to violent conquests. Persians didn’t choose to convert from the faith of their ancestors, they were violently forced to.