Refusing foods for the wrong reason

Pictured here dishes which are NOT Indian

I guess writing about Smosh’s Reddit videos has become a recurring thing for me.

This time, I am thinking of a particular AITA story about a woman who refused Indian foods and got called a racist for it. While many Smosh viewers don’t think she is one, they believe she is the asshole. But, a handful of people (they are more prominent in Smosh’s Facebook comment section) are on her side.

And those people are in the wrong. Let me elaborate.

Yes, the OP does explicitly say she cannot stand spicy foods and her Indian coworker has known that from the very beginning. But, most of her defenders are only focused on those two details and ignoring the rest.

First (and it is a detail even many of her detractors forget about), it was at her Indian coworker’s private dinner party. Unless there is a risk getting fired, why would you willingly attend it, knowing you cannot eat anything there? If networking is really important, why don’t you create your own party, where you have complete control of the feast?

Second, her coworker was actually fine about the rejections; it became a problem when she offered OP one particular dish, which she also refused. When explicitly told it was a dessert, the OP insisted it was spicy because it had reddish colour. She later found out the dessert was called Jalebi and, instead of reading the goddamn recipe, she still focused on its appearance, still convinced the non-spicy food was spicy.

And that’s the reason why she got flamed: shunning an entire cuisine because of a preconceived belief and clinging onto it even after proven wrong, acting like she knows everything about a cuisine she has little or no experiences with. It is not because she refused, it is because of the reason why.

I don’t know why people miss those two details. Maybe they ignore them intentionally, to feel good about their own food pickiness. Maybe they simply have poor listening comprehension (as Smosh always reads the reddit stories out loud and, apart from the reddit posts’ titles, it never shows the texts on the screen).

Some of the OP’s defenders do pay attention to the details. But, they don’t think the details are damning.

Some of them openly admit they are picky eaters themselves. I do agree we should never coerce anyone into eating anything; in fact, it can backfire, causing people to develop food trauma.

But, at the same time, I refuse to pretend pickiness is a good thing. I refuse to pretend having limited tastebuds is a strength and something to be proud of. I refuse to pretend having limited sources of nutrients and homogenous gut microbiome are good for our health in the long run.

A handful of people argue the OP may be autistic herself; I also notice something similar when Smosh read the reddit story about bringing ranch to a mom and pop eastern European restaurant…. and the OP – an American – dismisses the restaurant as not “normal” for not having ranch.

I am not diagnosed with autism (even though a handful believe I am autistic, simply on the basis that I am “too different” (their condescending tone when uttering the word “autistic” is very telling)) and I am certainly not an expert on it. But, using autism to excuse cultural close-mindedness doesn’t sit well with me.

And, of course, there are those stereotype believers, who insist stereotypes are reliable sources of facts and are not products of prejudices and overtly-simplistic thinking. When I reminded them the reddit story involves a dessert, one person said Asians/brown people have no one but ourselves to blame, as we love to brag about how spicy our foods are.

I told him he should had used his common sense, as we clearly referred to our savoury, non-dessert dishes. He doubled down, insisting that many, if not most, of our desserts are indeed spicy. He never provided evidences to back his claim up, he even never claimed about trying the foods himself. He just said it was dishonest to not believe his claim and he stopped making comments afterwards.

Do spicy desserts exist? Definitely. But, are all Asian/brown people desserts spicy? No, definitely not.

Like that person, I am not from India, and I know very little about Indian cuisine. But, also like that person, I also have a goddamn internet access.

Wikipedia has an article listing all the most well-known Indian sweets. Sugar syrup, milk and clarified butter are the recurring ingredients in many of them, not all of them use spices; when they do, they use cardamoms and saffron, ones which do not yield hot flavour in dishes. You can also google search them, read their recipes on other websites and I guarantee the ingredients are similar as the ones stated in Wikipedia.

When I googled “spicy Indian desserts”, the results were similar to ones shown in Wikipedia. When I googled “hot Indian desserts”, the search engine thought the word “hot” referred to the temperature, not flavour. In this case, even Google refused to affirm my hypothetical preconceived belief.

I also wonder if this problem is linguistic.

In the English language, the words spicy and hot are used interchangeably and it may have compelled monolingual English-speakers to mistake all spices as hot. I don’t know if it just another case of stereotyping or the English language being confusing. I believe it is both.

Personally, I believe the redditor is neither a racist nor a xenophobe. But, I do think she is close-minded, a proud bubble dweller who refuses to pop it when given the opportunity to.

And she will remain one, as long as people keep coddling her mindset.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Normalising brutality….. because of war

You have heard all of the comments defending Israeli government.

It is either the nonsensical self-defense argument, even though IDF clearly targets unarmed civilians and aid workers, or the belief that all Palestinians are animals who deserved to be wiped out from the face to earth. Yadda yadda yadda, they are disturbing as they are old and predictable.

On some occasions, people defend the brutality because they believe it is a wartime necessity, something which we won’t understand if we have never endured wars ourselves.

Now, for the sake of the argument, I am going to pretend there is no genocide and what is happening between Israel and Palestine is indeed a war, an armed conflict in which both sides are on an equal plane.

The argument still doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it makes zionists sound even more disturbed.

For mentally sound minds, the violent and dehumanising effects of armed conflicts genuinely terrify us; they compel us to avoid armed conflicts as much as possible, to not escalate already-existing conflicts.

But, not to those particular zionists. They think those tendencies should be justifiable in a wartime, as if they are already normal inside their heads.

They insinuate a wartime is a perfectly acceptable living condition, a living condition equals to peacetime. They insinuate hating on wars is the same as hating people for loving pineapple pizza. For them, it is just a matter of trivial differences.

No, I am not reaching with my observation.

Understanding why people behave the way they do is one thing. Supporting them is another.

If it is truly about understanding them, you would objectively enunciate the explanations, without trying to put a positive spin or argue for the moral necessity. You wouldn’t side with those bloodthirsty warmongers. You wouldn’t take offense when they get themselves rightfully condemned.

I shouldn’t be surprised by this. As a group, zionists – especially the non-Israeli ones – often overlap with neoconservatives. Ones I have interacted with are supportive of America’s violent and warmongering foreign policies.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

A so-so defence of movie reaction videos

Yes, I am aware of the criticisms against reaction channels on Youtube. I cannot blame people for thinking it is a very low-effort and easy-money content.

But, recently, I find myself allured by some of them, particularly ones who “react” to feature films. It started with Bon Joon Ho’s Parasite. Then, it was Everything Everywhere All At Once. Then, other films – ones I have watched myself – followed.

The purpose of arts is to inspire us. The purpose of entertainment is to… well… entertain us. Being thought-provoking is just a bonus, albeit a very nice one. In the end, arts and entertainment are meant to make us feel things, to make us feel like human beings.

And I just love seeing those reactors… being humans.

I love seeing them laughing out loud at Kung Fu Hustle. I love seeing them being unnerved and horrified by Parasite, Hereditary and Psycho. I love seeing them becoming teary-eyed because of Good Will Hunting and any of Pixar’s films. And I definitely love how Everything Everywhere All At Once can give them disgust, confusion, hilarity and sentimentality, sometimes more than one of them at the same time. Seeing their genuine reactions is a delight.

I have no problem about Youtubers embracing exaggerated personas; my Millennial self can find (some of) them entertaining. But, admittedly, they embrace their personas so often, their authentic self expressions feel like rare, special moments. They feel like an oasis in the desert.

And those movie reactors – at least, the ones I watch – never embrace any personas; I am certain because I am not one of those morons who cannot differentiate what is cartoonish and what isn’t, like how they thought Filthy Frank was a real person. Not to mention, some of those reactors are reserved people whose eyes betray their monotonous speaking tones.

Admittedly, I do still have issues with those reaction youtubers.

I wish they cut the parts where they don’t show any reactions at all and I wish they have higher appreciations of cinema; I love James vs Cinema because not only he is a filmmaker, which means he has more cinematic knowledge than the average person, he also dares to choose arthouse fares like Ingmar Bergman’s Persona and Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker, resulting in more substantial reaction content.

But, despite the shortcomings, I still love watching them.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being traditional

Food is something virtually everyone can be easily traditional about. At least, that’s what I observe.

In Indonesia, despite the constant barrage of foreign influences, we still can retain our traditions to some extent. Even though traditional arts are no longer widely embraced, Indonesians – including the modern ones – still love eating fried rice, sambal, soto, tempe and the likes, we still love our chillies and other spices. Despite the modernisation, despite the cultural cringe, traditional foods are still our comfort foods

In the United States, thanks to the genocides, its indigenous people have been reduced to a tiny minority. Ten million people with indigenous lineage aren’t much when they form about three percent of the country’s total population; not to mention only four percent of them still speak their ancestral languages regularly and fluently.

I don’t know how much they eat traditional foods in their daily lives. But, the indigenous influences (along with the west African ones, mind you) are still prevalent among many classic United States dishes. Without them, Americans would not eat cornmeal-based dishes like cornbread and hush puppy and they definitely would not eat ingredients like turkey, blueberries and cranberries.

From all aspects of cultures, foods seem to be the among the most resilient. I attribute them to being one of mankind’s basic needs. Between foods and the arts, the latter is the one which humans can physically survive without.

But, I don’t understand the obsession with “traditional values”.

For one, how do we know they are even “traditional”? How do we know they are not results of our misunderstanding (or dishonest perception) of the past?

In the American context, conservatives love to pretend their country was founded as a Christian one, even though the literal first sentence of the first amendment calls for the separation of church and state; when they cite the first amendment, they always conveniently skip to the second sentence (which itself is about freedom of religion, not about establishing a theocracy).

Even if we accept they are 100% traditional, I still don’t see the purpose.

Here’s something that is isn’t obvious to some of us: some values deserve to be left behind.

If a value demands us to be dismissive of anything simply because they are “foreign”, prevent girls from getting education, filter out any new knowledge because it is deemed “blasphemous” or see people of other ethnicities, races and religions as subhumans, then it deserves to be left behind. Any reasonable minds won’t tolerate such things.

I also notice something interesting about those “traditional value” people: values are the only “traditional” things they embrace.

With some exceptions to certain places, they have very “modern” outward appearances. They no longer wear traditional outfits in their day-to-day lives, they wear tees and denims. Their languages are often full of unnecessary loanwords. They also don’t have any interests about preserving their tangible and intangible ancestral heritages; in fact, they think such endeavour is a waste of time.

While I admittedly don’t have good examples of this, I do believe you can embrace “modern” values while still embracing your ancestral heritage.

I mean, use your common sense.

I am an Indonesian and I am “modern” compared to many Indonesians I know. But, does that mean I vomit every time I eat traditional dishes? Bleed profusely through my ears every time I hear gamelan and angklung? Spontaneously combust every time I put on a batik shirt? Obviously, the answer is no, no and no.

Older aesthetics feels conservative NOT because it inherently is, but because our minds associate it with conservatism. It is a connotation. It is definitely flexible and arbitrary.

I am clearly not a fan of embracing traditional values just for the sake of it and not contemplating about their benefits and drawbacks. If you believe that’s the life path for you, power to you.

But, if values are the only traditional things you embrace, then you are in a massive disadvantage.

No matter how anti-progress you are, if you are still in tune with your ancestral heritage, you still can stick out. You still have genuinely unique cultural things to offer on the global stage.

But, if you are traditional while adorned in modern aesthetics? Not only you are left behind from even the most beneficial changes, you are also very culturally invisible. Why should anyone take interest in you when you are both close-minded and culturally uninteresting?

Ideally (I am sure you could see it coming), I believe the good balance should be having “modern” values and traditional aesthetics at the same time. You can enjoy the progresses….. while staying afloat amidst the increasingly strong waves of cultural globalisation.

If you agree with me and you want to achieve such societal goal, it is not enough to have an educational system that goes beyond rote learning, has well-trained and well-paid teachers and has well-rounded curriculum (having a balance of STEM, social sciences, humanities and practical skills like home economics, first aid and finance AKA both the useful and the so-called “useless” knowledge).

Traditional arts and knowledge (e.g. folktales, myths) should be mandatorily taught; if they are only included in electives or extracurricular activities, it sends a message that getting in touch with one’s heritage is optional, that one’s heritage is just a mere hobby and potentially a waste of time.

You need to expose the masses to their ancestral heritage as much as possible.

Obviously, I am talking about strict categorisations which rarely apply to real life. Humans are full of shades of grey; it is very hard to find people who are 100% this or that.

But, I still rant about it because I have encounbtered so many fellow Indonesians who quickly dismiss new ideas….. simply because they are “un-Indonesian”, forgetting they themselves wear denims and tees, listen to western-style pop songs and watch Hollywood flicks.

I guess, if I have to be fair to them, they have been exposed to western aesthetics all of their lives. It is already a part of their identities, a part of their mundane lives, which means it rarely challenges their existing worldview, if ever.

But, the lack of self-awareness is still infuriating.

.

.

Admittedly, I have my own definition of “modern”. While it is generally synonymous with anything brand new, I prefer to define it as “culturally and socially sustainable”.

When I choose which values to embrace, I don’t give a damn about how old or new they are, how “Islamic”, “Indonesian” or “western” they are. I don’t care about their “identities”.

What I care about is whether they benefit us in the long run and not biting our asses in the future. That’s what the word “modern” means to me.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What does the BDS movement reveal about Muslim-majority countries?

As I am not one of those Muslims who dream of becoming western establishments’ lapdogs, I don’t see it as a manifestation of anti-Semitism. And yes, I am also one of those people who don’t see anti-Zionism as inherently anti-Semitic. It is not whether you hate Israel or not, it is about why you hate Israel.

Of course, it is not to say the boycott movement is problem-free

I am from Indonesia. Even though it is a growing economy, we are still dependent on foreign corporations and it becomes more obvious when the movement started heating up.

Indonesia has definitely lots of foreign products; Wall’s ice cream, Dove and Sunsilk are among the examples. But, I am surprised there are also Indonesian products which are already acquired by foreign companies (Bango sweet soy sauce and Buavita fruit drinks are now owned by Unilever) and products which I mistakenly thought as Indonesian (I didn’t know Blueband margarine was Dutch and I didn’t realise Royco’s graphic design was the exact same as Knorr’s).

I don’t know about the rest of the Muslim world. But, I do know coke, western restaurant chains and luxury western car brands are also popular elsewhere.

As I am not one of those “might is right” weirdos, I don’t see the global dominance of pro-Israel western establishments as a proof of Israel’s moral rightness.

But, it is a sombre reminder of how Muslim-majority countries have some major weaknesses (you know, apart from the elephant in the room that is Islamic extremism): we are not as economically competitive as the west and we don’t take pride in consuming local products.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the solutions.

I don’t know how to make my fellow countrymen take more pride in local products. I don’t know how to make my country more economically competitive.

I certainly don’t how to be economically competitive and environmentally, culturally and socially sustainable* at the same time. Heck, I am not even sure they can go hand in hand.

Okay, I am overthinking it.

My point is the boycott movement should be a wake-up call for all of us.

If we want to be free from other countries’ control, we have to be economically independent** as well. No matter how collectively idealistic we are, no matter how hard it is to buy our minds and hearts, our economic independence means we still give profits to foreign entities, constantly fattening the wallets of pro-Israel western establishments.

.

.

*The more industrial an economy is, the more it emits C02 and consumes natural resources (even though it is not to say poorer countries are green). When I say social and cultural sustainability, I am referring to equality and commercialisation, respectively; is it possible for a highly-developed economy to maintain relatively low income inequality and commodification of cultures?

**When I say economically independent, I am not talking about banning imports and implementing restrictive protectionism. I am talking how our local products are so high quality, affordable and prestigious, we choose to consume them even when foreign options are readily available.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The so-called awfulness of offal

I am from Indonesia. While organs are not eaten as much as meat, they are still common enough to not be considered weird.

Beef lungs and tripe are commonly used for soto. Ox brain gulai is a common feature of Minangkabau restaurants; the mom and pop ones may also sell beef liver tripe, beef lungs and beef intestines. Fried chicken sellers (traditional, not the KFC ones) may also offer fried chicken livers, gizzards and intestines as alternatives. Chicken porridge sellers may offer skewered chicken livers as sides. Crispy chicken intestines and beef lungs are among the most common traditional snacks.

Contrary to many 21st century westerners believe (specifically, ones who are detached from their own ancestral cuisines), people eat offal because we actually love them. Not out of desperation, not out of the desire to be “different” from everyone else.

And they insist eating offal is very contrarian, even though it is still widely eaten all over the world; they cannot comprehend their offal-hating societies are not the centre of the universe.

But, that’s not the only stupidity they embrace.

They think spice-heavy offal recipes are some kind of gotchas. They believe the recipes prove organs are innately gross ingredients; if they aren’t gross, why would you need lots of spices?

That’s stupid for two reasons.

First, not all of the recipes call for lots of spices. Practically the entire Europe still consume offals, despite their traditional cuisines using little or no spices. The aforementioned Indonesian chicken porridge? Its skewered liver is barely spiced, if at all.

Second, imagine if we apply such logic to meat.

If meat taste good, why do we need to season it? Why do you need to drench chicken in spiced batter before deep frying it? Why do you need to cover beef in spice rub before smoking or grilling it and serve it with barbecue sauce? Why do you need mutton in thick curry gravy? Why do you need to turn pork into sausages and bacon? If meat tastes good, boiling it plain – yes, not even with salt and pepper – should be more than enough.

Sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

When I first heard such argument, my mind immediately thought those people were confused by the concept of seasoning. But, I realised I was being too kind.

Unless they grew up and still live in places where salt is the only seasoning (and I doubt such places exist), they know their argument doesn’t make sense. It is clear they will never apply such logic to meat.

But, they still spew it anyway; they know dumbfucks easily fall for intellectual dishonesty.

And they won’t rest until their tastes are seen as the reasonable and objectively good ones.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Two films about trauma (and how the theme heightens my appreciation of them)

Those films are The Babadook and Good Will Hunting.

I already liked them at the first watch. I liked the former for its slow-burn and jumpscare-free horror. I liked the latter for its heart-warming drama. But, I didn’t find them special and I certainly thought the latter was way too overrated.

Recently, I tried rewatching them and I realised I missed something. Both films are about trauma.

Well, technically, The Babadook is still about grief. But. the film also focuses its long-term psychological effects and yes, grief can be traumatising. In the case of Amelia Vanek, the mother in the film, it is doubly traumatic because her husband died in a car accident while driving her to the hospital to give birth.

Good Will Hunting is about how trauma affects the titular character’s personal growth and his relationship with the other characters. His genius brain is just a mere detail to make him more captivating for the audience. If he doesn’t have it, I guarantee the story would not feel much different emotionally.

Now, how does the trauma theme improve my appreciation of the films? Well, it makes me understand the characters on a deeper level.

In The Babadook, while I already recognised her grief, I genuinely thought the film was about her daily stress of being a working single mother. But, it doesn’t explain why she seems distressed all the time – as if the stress is “permanent” – and it certainly doesn’t explain her emotional instability.

Trauma can also explain the behaviours of Samuel, the son. I don’t know if he inherits his mom’s trauma or not (as it can be hereditary). But, it is very possible he can sense something is wrong with her; he can sense there is something sinister brewing inside his mom and she can snap at any time. He is not being annoying, he is being reasonably fearful.

It also explains why the monster still lives in the end. From what I understand, trauma – the more severe one, at least – is not something you can get rid of; it is something you can only put a leash on. You cannot kill the Babadook. But, you can tame it.

And that segues to Good Will Hunting, specifically the therapist character, Sean Maguire. We don’t seem to realise that, like Will, he also suffers from trauma.

Will insulted his wife, which was enough to provoke Sean to throttle and threaten to kill him… and that happened on their very first session, by the way; anger issue is one of the most common symptoms of trauma. Sean was also abused by his father and he is a Vietnam war veteran who saw his best friend dying in front of him.

We can make an intriguing comparison between the two characters. On one hand, they are very similar to each other; not only they are “Southies” AKA from South Boston, they also have traumatic life experiences, which include being abused by their so-called parental figures.

But, at the same time, they are also different from each other. Will – to put it simply – is a mess of a person; he is aimless, he cannot be emotionally vulnerable in front of his lover and he has constant problems with the law. Meanwhile, Sean has sorted his life together; he works as a therapist and a community college professor and, most importantly, he romantically pursued a woman and married her for eighteen years until her death.

Of course, unlike Sean, Will was also an orphan, which means he had less opportunities and – without any intention to minimise Sean’s suffering – was also in a far more vulnerable state; self-improvement is admittedly harder to obtain for him.

But, at the same time, Sean’s life story feels hopeful. It shows we can overcome our pain and not letting it holding us down. We can prevail against the storm.

I still don’t think both films are among the best in the history. But, my acknowledgement of the underlying theme puts light on new perspectives. The films are much deeper than I realised.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Dumb reasons to have kids

Some people have kids because they want to experience the joy of raising fellow human beings, others have kids because they want to have human properties to exploit. A good reason and a vile reason to have kids.

Then, there are also the dumb reasons.

People believe having kids is good for our legacy, our country’s development and, most importantly, mankind’s survival. And yes, I think they are dumb reasons.

Let’s start with legacy. We have children, our children have children, their children have children…. and repeat until our genes outlive our children’s children. Okay, then what?

Does it improve our current quality of life? Does it improve our current physical and mental well-being? Obviously, the answer is to both is NO.

You are so enamored by the idea of legacy, you mistakenly see it as a basic human need; you mistakenly believe it is just as important as eating and breathing.

It also doesn’t make sense. If you are all about leaving legacy, why do you choose genes? Not only they won’t make people remember you, they will also be “diluted” with others’s anyway. Surely, being a historically significant individual leaves more visible and lasting legacy. You are going to be remembered for a long time, regardless whether you have passed your genes or not.

If that’s your goal, you should focus on being extremely highly accomplished. You can be a statesman, a mass murderer… or both.

As an Indonesian, I find the idea of having more people can help developing our society is laughably overtly-simplistic. Indonesia is an extremely populous country. The most populous in Southeast Asia and the Muslim world, the fourth most in the entire world.

But, while it does have progresses, no one thinks it is a highly-developed country; it is still a developing one. In fact, in this regard, Indonesia is defeated by Singapore, a country which population size is about 3% of Indonesia’s (I hope I get my math right), which area size is only slightly bigger than Jakarta’s. Even Malaysia and Brunei, other smaller Southeast Asian countries, are more developed. In fact, there are many other countries on earth which have less people than Indonesia and “somehow” are more developed than it.

That’s because it is a matter of quality, NOT just quantity. Those other countries have higher quality human resources. What’s the point of having lots of people when they are poorly-educated and poorly-skilled? If anything, such arrangement can be burdensome.

And that segues to the topic of humanity’s survival.

Because of our ability to transform and exploit nature to fulfill our needs, many of us forget or refuse to accept that we are a part of nature, NOT above it. If we hurt nature, we hurt ourselves.

Let pollution ravages and the water will be too dangerous to drink, the air will be too dangerous to breathe in. Destroy the biodiversity and we will make our food supply even more vulnerable, which can negatively impact our health.

Nature can exist without us. But, we cannot exist without it.

If we let our fellow human beings to be environmentally destructive apes, our populousness would actually threaten mankind’s survival. Once again, it is not just the quantity of the humans, it is also about their quality.

Unlike the people who procreate because they want to have children as assets, those with aforementioned reasons are not driven by malice.

But, because they think too highly of their overtly-simplistic “thinking”, they are still infuriating to deal with.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, Smosh admin, being a comedy channel is not an excuse

I started writing this about two days after the reddit stories video featuring Samantha Brier was uploaded.

This is the second time a Smosh reddit video receives so many backlashes; in this case, it is because of Brier’s toxic opinions and how Shayne and Angela were too cowardly to counter her. But, unlike in the previous case, the channel’s admin had to wrote down a response….. and that response only pissed some fans off even more.

One of our FAVORITE parts of reading Reddit stories is sparking fun and light hearted conversation with y’all. We love the passion our community brings and while roasting us is encouraged, sometimes comments get taken too far. It seems we’ve forgotten what is okay in our little corner of the internet, so let’s review!

– Friendly reminder that this is a comedy channel, we are in no way qualified to seriously advise or analyze any of the stories we read. we love hanging out with you all every Saturday to discuss our thoughts, but please remember that we’re not offering any advice.

– It’s 100% okay to not agree with our takes or even like our jokes. We encourage thoughtful discussion and valid feedback! What’s not okay? To verbally attack any cast members or guests featured, just because your opinion doesn’t match theirs. There’s enough hate in the world, let’s not bring it here.

– In our most “Principal’s Office” voice: Attacking any of our guests or seeking out their personal socials with the intent of bullying is unacceptable and will result in a permanent block from our channels. Don’t make us do that because it’s not fun!

Let’s remember to be kind, respectful and keep our Smosh space full of the joyful absurdity that we all love! That’s all folks, see you next upload!

Yes, admittedly, internet comment sections can be a cesspool of bullying. But, if you look at the comments about Brier, most of them are not bullying. They are valid criticisms about her and, to a lesser extent, Shayne and Angela. Instead of acknowledging them, the admin chose to dismiss the commenters as bullies.

I don’t know if the admin cherry-picked the comments and pretend the bullies dominate the comment section OR they are one of those people who think criticisms count as bullying. I don’t know which is worse.

The admin also made comments about Smosh being a comedy channel, how its reddit videos always spark fun and light-hearted conversations and how the backlash was just about fans offended by jokes. Those comments rub me the wrong way the most.

First thing first, Smosh has a long history of dark and “inappropriate” jokes. Even after the many turbulent changes it has gone through, Smosh cast members still make them to this day.

Mind you, one of Ian’s most infamous jokes was the time when he jokingly wished the air marshal shoot Kimmy’s grandma for opening a can of durian inside an airplane. In one of the videos where Courtney read her diaries, she showed the cottage cheese stain on one of her books…. and Noah joked the cheese was her crush’s cum stain. Tommy’s Try Not To Laugh jokes include one about a quadriplegic wife and another about “diarrhea Anne Frank”. Shayne’s drowning death as a baby is a recurring joke, so was Keith’s cancer. There are enough 9/11 jokes for a fan compilation video. The funeral roast sessions can get personal at times. Even some fans describe Smosh cast members as walking HR violations.

Not only those jokes barely got any backlashes, if at all, some of them even become fan favourites. It is obvious our hatred of the reddit video has nothing to do with us getting offended by the so-called jokes.

The world of comedy (the American one, specifically) has George Carlin and The Daily Show veterans like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Hasan Minhaj, Samantha Bee (yes, I know she’s Canadian), Trevor Noah (yes, he’s South African) Jordan Klepper and Roy Wood Jr. They are not mere jokers, they are ones who use humour to enunciate their genuine thoughts and feelings; in fact, they are famous because of that exact reason, not despite of. With such knowledge in mind, it is hard to not perceive “it is just a joke” as an expression of one’s ignorance.

The reddit videos involve a wide range of stories. Some of them are indeed hilarious and goofy. But, there’s the keyword: SOME.

The rest of the stories are much serious, some of them involve straight-up abusive behaviours and trauma. Due to the seriousness, it is actually normal for Shayne and his co-hosts to discuss entire stories without cracking a single joke.

And the comment sections are even more serious, even when the videos have lots of jokes; the commenters frequently express their frustration and anger about the stories and a few of them are being reminded of their own personal traumas.

So no, Smosh’s reddit videos are not entirely fun and light-hearted.

Yes, I do agree we shouldn’t obligate anyone to be the moral police. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have basic decency. The backlash is not about us being moralistic, it is about us witnessing something which doesn’t satisfy our moral bare minimum.

To recap the admin’s disappointing response:

Despite managing a comedy Youtube channel, they have a very shallow idea of what comedy is. They think comedy is nothing more than just fun and light-hearted entertainment, despite the many famous examples to the contrary.

Despite managing one of the four active Smosh channels, the admin is oblivious to what kind of content Smosh provides and how fans react to it.

And, to top it all, they think having basic moral standard makes us too moralistic; they think we should give comedians an exemption.

Not only the admin is professionally inept, they are also morally feckless.

Before I end this blogpost, let’s talk about Shayne Topp as well.

The reddit series greatly improved his image. Previously, he was known for being funny (yes, some people may not like his humour), genuinely likeable (when he is not performing characters) and being physically attractive (yes, you still can find thirsty comments about him, albeit not as much).

Thanks to series, people also ended up seeing him as an emotionally insightful person. He refuses to invalidate other people’s experiences, even though he cannot relate to them, and he tries to understand why people behave the way they do, without excusing their horrible behaviours. He has also expressed righteous anger from time to time, something which we barely see in other videos.

And, because of those reasons, we are extremely disappointed by his performance here. We known damn well he can be better. While he has acknowledged his non-confrontational inclination, I never expected him to be a such pushover.

As stated before, this is not the first poorly-received Smosh reddit video; the one with Rachel and Ify was also hated, mostly because of the former (even though the latter was only marginally better).

Shayne’s silence and refusal to pushback was disappointing. But, in this case, it is far worse because he verbally supported Brier’s words.

The thing that improves his reputation is also the one that worsens it.

While he certainly doesn’t need to be “cancelled”, I do think a rotation of hosts is needed. As much as I appreciate his insightfulness, he is not special.

Damien and Arasha’s can easily rival his. Assuming they don’t share his unassertiveness (and they are willing to do the job), they would make great hosts for the series.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You need to be consistent with the so-called “The Great Replacement”

You believe in the conspiracy “theory” in which there is an attempt to replace all white people AKA anyone of full European descents with non-white people, particularly non-white Muslims. You even dub it the white genocide.

No, white people are not on the brink extinction. Not only they are still the majority in Europe, their ancestral homeland, they are still very much present in other parts of the world. Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas, especially North America. In fact, they still dominate the establishments in Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas.

Unless there are evidences of white people all over the world being systematically massacred, displaced from their homelands, having their heritage sites regularly demolished and having their babies taken away from them and given to non-white families, there is no genocide. Your only evidence of the “white genocide” is the fact that non-white people are allowed to live and thrive in the west.

No, you are not concerned about being a victim of genocide. You are concerned about how whiteness is no longer seen as a strength and virtuous by default, how European-rooted cultures are no longer seen as the epitome of civilisations.

And that matters to you because you have spent your entire life believing your white European lineage – something which you have no control over – makes you an inherently superior being, because being white and European is your entire personality, because you are unable to see your non-white and/or non-European fellow human beings as fellow human beings.

It also shows how insecure you are. You love boasting about how mighty your western heritage is, how it is objectively the best in the entire history of mankind…. and yet, you also believe the mere existence of non-western cultures in the west is enough to threaten its existence.

So, which one is it, then? Is western heritage mighty or feeble? If it is mighty, then why can it be easily threatened by other heritages? Where is the mightiness you love hyping about it? I will come back to this later.

I also wonder, what’s wrong with being a minority, anyway? Surely, you don’t fear discrimination and bigotry considering you keep saying they don’t exist.

And that segues to what the title of this blogpost is referring to.

One thing I notice about some of you is your rejection of the racism accusation.

You insist you are not a proponent of white supremacy and your judgements of non-whites are not driven by hatred or any emotions; you believe you are just stating the objective facts.

….which is ridiculous in itself. If you are truly reasonable, you wouldn’t claim your judgment are 100% guaranteed objective, data-driven and not emotionally-driven, you wouldn’t claim you embody the perfect human. Because you try too hard to paint yourself as “rational”, you end up sounding the exact opposite.

And that so-called “rationality” of yours also extends to the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas and Australia, which you consider perfectly acceptable.

You claim it is not because you hate non-whites, but because it is just a matter of “survival of the fittest”. If the indigenous people lost their lands and heritage, then you believe they deserved it. You believe anyone deserve to be annihilated for being weak and what racial categories we belong to are irrelevant.

If that’s the case, then why are you opposed to the so-called white genocide?

Following your so-called “logic”, if the mere presence of non-whites in the west is more than enough to threaten the existence of white people, it proves that they fail they survival of the fittest test and it means they deserve to be “exterminated”.

Following your so-called “logic”, shouldn’t you accept that all genocides – including the ones against people like you – are a good thing? Why can’t you be consistent about this?

Rhetorical questions, obviously. You are just racist cunts.

I feel gross for typing those previous paragraphs because I don’t believe what I typed. I did so because I wanted to make a point.

Meanwhile, if you type the exact same words about certain “others”, you wouldn’t feel grossed out. In fact, I am certain it will excite you.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.