Admit it, fat shamers: you never care about health

If that’s not the case, then why do you only target fat people?

First, non-fat people also eat junk foods and don’t exercise. While they are not as unhealthy, it is clear they are also far from healthy…. and yet, I don’t see you shaming them.

Second, there are other forms of unhealthiness. Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, recreationally using drugs, those are also very unhealthy and yet, I don’t see you abusing people who do them. In fact, I would argue those things can negatively and more tangibly affect other people, more than fatness does.

I have never heard of fat people directly causing people around them to suffer from obesity-related diseases and I have definitely never heard about fatness makes us abusive towards others.

Speaking of affecting others, there are also other things that can negatively affect public health. Littering can harm public hygiene. Unnecessary driving can be harmful because, not only cars emit exhaust, they also create much of urban noises and they cause asphalt particles to go airborne. Oh, and don’t forget about the people who consciously helped exacerbating the pandemic, in the name of partying and personal freedom.

And yet, you only target fat people.

Maybe your health knowledge is so embarrassingly and laughably poor that you think non-fat people cannot be unhealthy. Or maybe, you hate those people because they do not conform to your aesthetic standards, because you cannot masturbate to their images.

I am more inclined to believe the latter.

Why? You treat those people as if they are worse than pedophiles and Holocaust perpetrators. You treat them as if they have committed genocide against your people.

Instead of trying to persuade them to change their lifestyles, you choose to dehumanise them. You behave as if they have personally wronged you.

You feel entitled to the sight of aesthetically-pleasing and sexually attractive people… and those fat people rob you of that “god-given right”.

Obviously, I don’t have proofs to back this up. I make those claims just to rile you up.

But, it is clear that your never care about objective health assessments. If you do, you would care about health in general instead of being obsessively single-minded on fatness….

And you certainly wouldn’t be this emotionally-charged.

Yes, persuasion requires emotions. But, not only your words should be dense with facts, you should appeal to other people’s emotions instead of being the emotional one.

Just admit that you have an issue.

I don’t know what that is. But, anyone reasonable can see your behaviours as signs of unsound mental health.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Representations

I am a Muslim from Muslim-majority Indonesia and I am of indigenous lineage (while I haven’t done DNA tests, I certainly look “indigenous”). While I already accepted my bisexuality twelve years ago, I just realised only recently that I belong to the sexual minority, combined with the fact I am still closeted offline and a borderline hermit.

Basically, I never feel like I belong to marginalised classes (emphasise on the word “feel”). Growing up, I never felt the need to be represented by the media, not even after I started consuming way more foreign media that depict my fellow Muslims and bisexuals in bad light and ignore the existence of my fellow Indonesians.

I am one of those people who believe we can feel empowered by fictional characters who do not share our identities. But, at the same time, I am also aware of my own privileges. While it is not necessary, I acknowledge that seeing yourselves on the screens feel like a big bonus.

As any media studies majors notice, it is not just about the quantity, it is also about the quality. What’s the point of being regularly represented when the representations are mostly shallow stereotypes? In fact, I would argue no representations is better than bad ones; being ignored means the wider society doesn’t have any preconceived beliefs about people like you.

And yes, positive stereotypes are still stereotypes. They still deprive the characters of their complex humanity, they are still dehumanising.

There is also nothing empowering about non-white actors being given what are essentially leftover white characters. If it is all about empowerment, why aren’t they being given original non-white characters or ones based on non-European mythologies and folklores?

Actually, when I said I never felt the need to be represented, that was not the full story.

I don’t feel the need to have my cultures, sexuality and religion to be represented, not even after consuming the media that depict them poorly. But, there is one aspect of my life which gets me riled up when depicted poorly: my psyche.

I am an introvert AKA someone who gets “energised” through solitude. For Indonesian standard, I am too reserved and stone-faced, to the point where people wrongfully call me cold. I am also socially inept person who regularly makes interactions unnecessarily awkward. I also have emotional traumas that cause mood swings and short temper; while they are not severe enough to the point of “crippling”, they are still burdensome to my life.

And I feel misrepresented by the media.

Love of solitude is different from social ineptitude…. and it is definitely different from anti-social inclination, which is what we refer sociopaths as. While social awkwardness is burdensome, it is definitely not one of mankind’s worst sins.

Reservedness is not the same as coldness. Believe it or not, not only we can feel emotions without expressing them, we don’t owe our emotional expressions to to most people. Don’t forget that we can also fake them. “Don’t judge a book by its cover” also applies here.

Extroverts AKA people who get energised through interactions can also be awkward and even anti-social. Just a reminder, the pandemic was exacerbated by party animals who thought partying was more important than public health.

And yes, people with anger issues can be abusive. But, that does not mean we are. In fact, not only some of us actually try our best to not lash out at innocent people, we become this way because of traumas, which may or may not be results of abuses.

I feel validated as a human being every time I see rare humanising portrayals of such people. So far, my favourites are Pi Patel from Life of Pi movie and Will Hunting and Sean Maguire from Good Will Hunting.

Pi’s introversion is depicted as a sign of contemplativeness and willingness to learn, instead of anti-social inclinations. When he gets shipwrecked, not only he has to quickly learn survival skills, he also deals with intense spiritual crisis… and his introversion helps him with both. Despite being unanimated with his face most of the time, we can feel what he is feeling… and we can tell he has a very sensitive soul.

While Will and Sean do anger issues, they are also gentle souls with traumas. The difference between them is Will needs help in overcoming his anger while Sean clearly has successfully done so. I can relate to Will (minus the constant run-ins with the law) and I desperately want to become Sean.

Strangely, even though I have been mocked and abused for my stuttering all of my life, I never feel insulted by the mocking portrayals of stutterers. Maybe they are not mean-spirited, maybe they are not common. For whatever reasons, even after watching The King’s Speech and celebrating that profanity-laced scene, I never demand films to have more humanising portrayals of stutterers.

Overall, if you are not a part of certain marginalised groups, you should remember that it is not about you. Whether they want representations or not, it is about them in the end. Don’t speak on their behalf as if their life experiences are your own…… and yes, your token minorities only make you look worse. The best you can do is to actually listen and accept all of the anecdotes are valid, even when they contradict each others, even when they do not support your political causes.

And even if you a part of certain marginalised groups, just remember you are still one person. Regardless of what you want, you don’t have the right to speak on the behalf of entire groups and invalidate anecdotes that contradict yours. You can only speak for yourself.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Opposing books’ rewriting for the right reasons

Yes, there is a wrong reason to oppose it.

If you oppose it because you can only be entertained by dehumanising stereotypes and depictions of problematic behaviours, your opposition is definitely for the wrong reason and you need to grow the fuck up.

I do believe there are good reasons to oppose it. Four to be exact.

Obviously, the first reason is free speech. As long as the speeches do not contain explicit incitement, then they shouldn’t be restricted. Banning opinions simply for being offensive can lead to a dangerous slippery slope; it can be used to silence any kinds of dissents, as one can argue they are inherently offensive.

The second reason is related to the first. Another good thing about bigots expressing themselves is they make themselves identifiable; we don’t have to worry about wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The third reason is media literacy. You can use this opportunity to instill imperviousness into the minds of young children. Teach them that they shouldn’t thoughtlessly imitate behaviours simply because their favourite characters do them.

And the fourth reason is…. well…. some people may consider very “woke”: not rewriting books means we still have evidences of bigotry’s existence.

We know those people: the kind who think bigotry no longer exists or never exists in the first place. Nothing can convince them otherwise, not even the Neo-Nazis who openly and proudly expressing themselves on the streets.

Now imagine if all of those books are being re-written. Never mind those aforementioned rose-tinted glasses wearers, even more reasonable people won’t be convinced.

Obviously, we can learn from proper history education. But, not everyone has access to it and you cannot force people to have interest in history. So, for many, the media – including classic novels – is their main and probably only connection with the past.

If the readers are truly open-minded and morally upright, they would consume those books and get scandalised by the fact that bigotry was far more accepted and espoused in the past. If they are cerebral enough, they would realise our present is influenced by the past, acknowledging that we may be surrounded by the “invisible” remnants of its bigotry.

How can we achieve those goals when the re-writing wipes out all of the evidences?

If anything, it actually benefits the “anti-woke” crowd the most. I mean, they hate talking about bigotry and they hate being reminded of its existence. They would be exhilarated by evidence tampering.

Yes, those particular readers do not represent the majority. But, the less we have socially and historically conscious people, the more the”anti-woke brigade” rejoice.

In fact, I have a conspiracy “theory”: the re-writing was never intended to appease to the so-called “woke mob”. It was consciously intended to benefit the “anti-woke” in the long run.

Maybe it is just me. But, its implication on social justice has been obvious from the very beginning. In fact, I would be surprised if I am the only one with this realisation.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to get rid of internet addiction?

Obviously, if you want to deal with it, you need to monitor the duration of your internet usage, set timers to your devices and apps and get new hobbies. Reducing the time you spend online is just common sense.

Personally, I never set timers to my devices and the program who monitor my internet usage duration fails to shame me; the only way for me to reduce the addiction is to deprive me of internet access.

I love having a stroll and I have unfinished books. I would love to turn off my smartphone and cut off my wifi for a while and spend hours strolling and reading.

Unfortunately, I cannot do those.

There is one person in my life who demands I should always quickly respond to their calls and messages. Why? Because they believe the calls and messages may be important, even though many of them aren’t.

Never mind going for a stroll or reading a book. I even cannot take a shit or drive my car without them ringing my phone, telling me information that definitely can wait.

I have to take my phone to the bathroom with me, ensuring I can quickly pick up the phone. Before I drive, I have to message them, saying I am going to drive; sometimes they respect it, sometimes they keep calling me, despite knowing I am on the wheels.

The more I am within close reach of my internet-connected phone, the stronger my desire to browse the web.

It is a reminder that no matter how idealistic, strong-willed and individualistic we are, we will always shaped by our environments, consciously or not. In cases like me, we have to work even harder to get rid of our internet addiction, especially when cutting off the “exacerbators” is not a feasible option.

Maybe I haven’t found it yet. But, I am disappointed how every tip about reducing internet addiction never mention anything about our social surroundings.

I genuinely don’t know how to deal with the “unsupportive” environments. But, surely, if we want to improve ourselves, we have to consider every single factor that hold us back, including things that may or may not be outside of our control.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

AI will destroy the arts… with our help

I am certain you have seen the discourses about AI: one camp believes it will only harm humanity, one camps believes the opposite and one is on the fence. When art AI becomes commercially available, the ensuing discourses still continue the same pattern.

But, days before I started writing this, I noticed a new kind of sentiment.

In a Facebook post that expresses concern about how AI may replace animators, the comment section was quite celebratory. They believe AI will create animated films in significantly more bountiful amounts and they don’t have to wait in order to watch a new one.

The celebratory atmosphere is alarming for two reasons.

First reason, it is consumerism. They don’t care whether they enjoy the films or not. They want to consume them NOT for the sake of being entertained or inspired, but for the sake of consuming.

Personally, I had only seen this behaviour on consumers of physical objects (especially when there are discounts); this is my first time seeing it on consumers of intangible cultural products.

Even the least sophisticated individuals are still picky. While they only consume mainstream and escapist works, they still have preferences. You won’t see them consuming every single film in the market, let alone liking everything they have watched. They certainly don’t consume just for the sake of it; they still want to feel things.

I don’t know if consumerism is an innate desire which technology helps unmasking or it is a desire which technology creates. But, one thing I am certain: technology does not destroy human lives, humans who misuse technology do. Technology destroys because we help.

A second reason why I find the celebration alarming: they seem happy about the prospect of artists losing their livelihoods.

I mean, the post talks about the possibility of art AI replacing artists. If your response to such statement is to gush over the prospect of excessively consuming animated films, it insinuates that you are either unconcerned about artists being jobless or joyful about that; you probably hate artists for being too obsessed with quality over quantity, for not producing enough products.

Maybe, it is less about consumerism and more about fake futurism. You probably believe moving forward is all about embracing new technology, refusing to ponder about their long-term sustainability.

No, you cannot blame me for making such assumptions. When you think a potential problem is something worthy of a celebration, you cannot be angry when someone calls you an idiot, a cunt or both.

Either that or you didn’t pay full attention to. You probably react to the term “art AI” like some feral K-Pop fans react to names of their favourite musicians: once they are mentioned, your brains shut down and the things you worship quickly takeover, replacing your entire personalities.

Not immoral. But, that certainly make idiotic airheads.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Misguidedly criticising others

If you have read Buzzfeed articles or anything by media outlets which are dependent on audience participations, you may have encountered ones about what Americans miss while living abroad.

You will notice some patterns.

One major criticism they have of non-Americans is our weak ambitions. I do think it is a legitimate one.

While simply having strong ambitions won’t instantly improve our lives, it certainly compels us to not get too content with the downsides, which compels us to do something about them. America wouldn’t be this developed if it wasn’t for its people’s ungodly strong drives.

But, the other criticisms are just…. bizarre: they also complain that other countries suffer from “high quality fast food” scarcity and their supermarkets offer little product varieties. For them, those downsides are a big deal.

Let me break them down and explain why they are stupid.

When I think of prosperity, I am thinking of our ability to afford our basic needs and ones of high quality. As long as well-balanced diets are affordable, does it really matter if our stores don’t have Oreos with million different flavours? Those are inessentials. Believe it or not, we can live without them.

And fast food? Seriously?

I understand if you miss the taste. But, how is its scarcity a huge negative point? If anything, considering the health effects, shouldn’t it be the exact opposite? Not to mention you have a chance to widen your tastebuds, especially if you live somewhere outside the west. The culinary world is more than just cheeseburgers, fried chicken and fries.

Oh and that criticism about ambition? Again, in general, it is a valid criticism. But, depending on the individuals who express it, I should add an asterisk: some of them also criticise the lack of hustle culture. Again, it is stupid.

If you are in dire needs of cash, you are in a strict deadline or there is a workplace emergency, working laboriously long hours is certainly warranted. But, if you are in neither situation, why the fuck should you work overtime everyday?

Is the extra cash (assuming you receive it) really worth the death of your personal lives (God forbids if you are married with kids) ? Is it really worth sacrificing your physical and mental health? If you are not one of those brainwashed cretins who believe working is the meaning of life, you would answer no to either one.

What’s my point here?

It seems some Americans have very misguided priorities. In this particular case, their idea of good living entails the ability to consume products excessively – especially fast food – and declaring working as life’s main – if not only – goal. They are parroting what the sordid corporate world has been propagating for many years.

I have to emphasise some Americans.

While some have the intelligence of a rock, there are also many genuinely thoughtful ones; they use their experiences living abroad and/or interacting with foreigners to contemplate about life in their home country, scrutinising it in entirely new light.

Even better, they also believe their country – currently the world’s only superpower – should learn from other countries. Not only they recognise its own weaknesses (some of which stick out like sore thumbs on the world stage), they also condemn their fellow countrymen for romanticising and whitewashing the dark side.

In this particular case, they understand life is more than just about working and consuming.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Humour and pedestals

I can enjoy comedies and I can enjoy dramas. But, I love comedy-dramas even more and that’s one of the many reasons why I love Everything Everywhere All At Once.

While it is not a must, I consider it a big plus point when a work of fiction makes me feel a wide-range of contrasting emotions… and comedy-dramas are certainly great in that regard.

Obviously, simply adding jokes won’t do. In excess, they can be too distracting and stick out like sore, infected thumbs. I mean, they are called comedy-dramas; the name calls for a balance of lightheartedness and seriousness.

I also don’t think crassness is necessarily bad in comedy-dramas. As long as we weren’t promised family-friendliness and the jokes thematically fits the story, I won’t be put-off.

EEAAO fulfills them. Not only the amount of jokes isn’t excessive, the humour style fits the story’s overall absurdity. Not to mention I didn’t expect the film to be family-friendly/

There is also another aspect of humour which I find intriguing: it compels us to not take a story too seriously

I know I am pointing out the obvious here. But, we can easily slip to such territory, especially when the story is thematically and emotionally-loaded; the humour reminds us that we can also have fun.

I don’t know whether some people find EEAAO snooty or not. But, if they exist, they are a minority among the detractors; from what I observe, they hate it mostly for its “woke” content (for having minorities as main and non-stereotypical characters), “incomprehensible” story and “Rick and Morty” humour.

In fact, they believe those reasons – especially the last one – should disqualify the film from getting any nominations.

Wait, shouldn’t it be a bad thing that a film I consider to be of high quality… is not being taken seriously by many?

Well, no.

I don’t see anything wrong about loving a film; if anything, enjoyment of arts and entertainment is innately human. But, there is also such thing as loving something a bit too much.

If you love something way too much, you are going to perceive it as an utter perfection. Your mind refuses to believe it can have any flaws. You are going to end up extremely self-righteous, if not borderline delusional.

As much as I adore EEAAO, I should also be reminded that it may not be as deep as it seems; the humour – the lighthearted aspect of the film – is that great reminder.

And the harsh criticisms, particularly about the humour?

I don’t let differing opinions affect my enjoyment. But, the film’s lack of universal acclaim also benefits me. It reminds me that my tastes are not universal and the world does not revolve around them. It gives me humility.

Two of my favourite film directors are Andrei Tarkovsky and Ingmar Bergman. Without doubt, they are giants of the arthouse world, certainly beyond the league of Scorcese, Coppola, Tarantino and the likes.

But, their works’ humourlessness can be a problem; because of the seriousness, I feel more compelled to put those films on the highest pedestal…. and I also feel more compelled to put myself on it, simply for loving them.

Obviously, I don’t need humour to keep my film appreciation unpretentious and humble. But, in my case, it certainly helps big time.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Feeling persecuted by foreign tongues

Are you someone who can only speak English and nothing else?

Do you always feel uncomfortable when people near you speak in another language to each other?

Why is that? Is it because you believe they are talking crap about you behind your back? Is it because you find it rude because you feel excluded?

There is only one effective method to deal with this: stop making everything about yourself, you conceited fuck!

If those people insist on speaking to you in a language you don’t understand, then you should be mad. But, we know damn well that is not the case.

What happens is they are speaking to each other – minding their fucking businesses – and then, you intrude their conversations, insisting they have to speak in English even when talking to each other. You believe you have to know what they are talking about, even when what they are talking about does not fucking concern your soiled ass.

You are the one being inconsiderate, not them.

I also notice that the likes of you love using this particular justification: those people may be talking about y0u behind your backs. Well, there is the keyword: MAY.

Unless they are talking to each other while staring at you mockingly, how do you – a worthless monolingual who doesn’t know the difference between there and their – know they are talking about you? No, probability is not an evidence.

Le me give you a tangential anecdote.

As you can tell, I am not a pleasant person to interact with. I can be aloof, rude and mean. I would be surprised if people don’t talk shit about me behind my back.

I am also from Indonesia, a culturally-diverse country with lots of languages. Relatives, classmates, teachers, shopkeepers, repairmen, mom’s acquaintances, clergymen, I grew up hearing them speaking Sundanese, Javanese, Batak, Minang, Dutch, Arabic and various Chinese languages like Teochew, Hokkien and Mandarin. I am only fluent in English and the national language, I understand none of the others.

But, despite all of those facts combined, I am never paranoid.

How am I not paranoid? Well, not only because I literally don’t have evidences of their badmouthing, I am also not conceited enough to believe others are thinking about me 24/7.

Basically, if the mere sounds of other languages unnerves you, it is not the speakers’ problem. It is yours.

Either you are narcissist who thinks the world revolves around you… or just a bigot desperate for excuses.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

BS people believe about urbanists: an extension

This is not a continuation of the previous blog. This is an attempt to extend two of my points.

I want to extend one of them because of the recent fifteen minutes city controversy. As I have debunked it in another blogpost, I am not going to detail it here; I will focus on the projection instead.

.

.

Fourth, fifth and sixth projection part B: Propaganda and/or social engineering

You believe urbanists are nothing but victims of either propaganda or social engineering (I have heard people use either term). You genuinely believe we cannot form our urbanist beliefs on our own.

False.

Most, if not all, urbanists grew up in car-centric (sub)urban sprawls and some of us still live in such places. They are the reasons why we become staunch urbanists, because we end up craving places that are the exact opposites.

Yes, those urbanist content creators may not use impartial languages. But, they still provide citations for their arguments; they are not just mere pundits.

Now, how about you?

Most, if not all, of you grew up in car-centric urban sprawls and still live in them. Without ever living in a walkable, bike-friendly and transit-oriented city, you dismiss the possibility that you may enjoy living in one.

In fact, you believe dense urban environments are innately anti-humans and humans are biologically wired to seek lives in those North American-style suburbs…

… Despite the fact that, as a concept, city is as old as civilisations and is an inevitable byproduct of human advancements… while those North American-style suburbs are results of deliberate 21st century policy-making. If your claim has any factual basis, it would have been the other way around.

Don’t forget your reactions towards urban planning in general.

You are dismissive of what urbanist content creators have to say even though, as snarky as they can be, they are equipped with actual data… while you are only equipped with anecdotes and feelings.

It is so blatant who are the victims of propaganda and social engineering here.

Seventh projection part B: imprisonment

You believe fifteen minutes city is a project to turn cities into prison complexes where residents are prohibited from leaving their neighbourhoods without special permits and we urbanists are the complicit idiots.

False.

There are no evidences of any governments proposing such policies, especially in the name of urban planning. Literally none. Even North Korea doesn’t do that.

What places like Oxford are proposing include restriction of car movements and increasing walkability. What’s so prison-like about improving mobility for people who cannot drive?

And no, a policy that only targets car movements won’t lead to totalitarianism; slippery slope fallacy AKA your personal feeling is not an evidence.

But, do you know what is a prison? A car-centric city.

In such a place, it is next to impossible to go anywhere without cars. If you are too young and too old to drive or you have disability, your mobility is at the mercy of other people who drive. If none of them is available, you cannot go anywhere.

Cars are also expensive. If you are too poor to buy one, you are at the mercy of public transit; in a car-centric place, public transit is – more of than not – unreliable because the vehicles get stuck in traffic, the frequency is very infrequent and the routes are very limited and non-sensical.

If you are neither poor nor rich, you can own a car. But, the maintenance cost is still pricy and, considering the instability of oil prices, it may gets even pricier. Unless you genuinely love driving and don’t feel coerced to own one, the expenses would feel smothering.

Oh and don’t forget the traffic.

Believe it or not, cars cause congestions. The more roads have cars, the more congested they become. Building wider roads does not satisfy the demands, it actually induces them, as it compels even more people to drive.

Just take a look at any highways in the world. Virtually every single one of them has regular congestion issues. The 26-lane Katy Freeway is the widest in the world and yet, it still manages to be the most congested in the big ass state of Texas.

Car-centric urban design is also hostile to drivers by trapping them in regular traffic jams congestions. More walkable, transit-oriented and bike-friendly one, which provides alternatives to cars, actually liberates them by having lesser congestions, if at all.

Extremely limited mobility, the lack of options, financial burden, perpetual congestions. While they are not literal prisons, they are still problems that shackle us from living our lives more freely, caused by government-implemented car-centrism, provoked by lobbyists of the automotive industry.

Deep down, you know you are complicit by helping the spread of pro-car propaganda. That’s why you try to avert the negative attention from yourselves to urbanists, by accusing them of the things you are guilty of.

Either that or you are just virtue signaling.

You don’t actually care about any forms of oppressiveness. But, you do care about looking good or feeling good about yourself.

Hence why, instead of condemning actual cases of oppression (no matter how figurative and “mild” they are) with actual people denied of higher living standards….

You choose to speak out on a non-existent one, supported by nothing but probability fallacy, slippery slope fallacy and the words of pundits.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ is not “too woke”

In a previous blogpost, I expressed my frustration regarding people who cannot comprehend the film’s plot line; considering the rising conflict, climax and resolution are clear-cut, there is no excuse to not understand it. While you may not be a fan, I am certain you still have a brain.

I thought that was the most frustrating “criticism” against the film. I was wrong.

I just found out some people find the film too woke. Why? Because many of the characters, especially the main ones, are Asian-Americans and two of them are queer.

That is it. Not because the film is politically brazen, but simply because it features minorities as characters.

From what I observe, such people can be divided into three groups: bigots, self-hating people and edgelords. While they have different motivations, they are all hypocritical.

They love accusing the so-called “postmodern liberal communists” of obsession with identity politics. And yet, their mouths start frothing when the media acknowledge minorities’ existence.

Let me summarise the film: it tells the story of a woman who unwillingly gets involved in an adventure that traverses parallel universes; her fight against a multiverse-destroying entity perfectly echoes her struggles running her small business, dealing with tax audit and maintaining relations with her husband, daughter and father.

While the film does have Asian-American and Queer identities as themes, they are not the only ones. It also deals with mental health, generational trauma and the philosophical meanings of existence.

The film has quite a handful of subject matters, the Asian and Queer themes are almost mere details; regardless of the characters’ identities, the story would still be thematically compelling. The film’s personality is neither Asian nor Queer.

And yet, those people act like Asianness and Queerness are the only things the film has to offer.

Every time they see non-stereotypical and mundane depictions of minorities in the media, their knee-jerk is to scream, “Forced Diversity!”. For them, this is nothing but affirmative actions.

Because they are too busy whimpering about the representations, they end up disregarding the stories in their entireties… and that’s definitely the case here as well.

If that’s not obsession with identity politics, I don’t know what that is.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.