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.

Calculus for arts students

If someone asks you, why non-STEM university students should learn STEM subjects like math and physics, you would probably answer well-roundedness as a benefit. While I do agree well-roundedness is a good thing, there is a problem with that answer: why in universities?

Before they graduated high schools, students had to endure at least twelve years of formal education. That means they had twelve years – twelve goddamn years – to be academically well-rounded. By the time you enroll in universities, you should have the right to specialise.

If those twelve years of formal education fail to breed academically well-rounded individuals, the problem is obviously on the primary and secondary education. Fix the schools, not the universities.

But, if you insist on having “well-rounded” university curricula, you should be mindful about what kind of STEM classes you want students to take.

One thing you should acknowledge: if they lack any interest in STEM or worse, hate them, they wouldn’t learn anything. They wouldn’t see the classes as learning experiences, they would see them as a waste of time, money and resources. Not to mention a source of unnecessary stress.

Therefore, if you want the STEM courses to have an impact on non-STEM students, they have to be immediately applicable to their majors. Social science students can study statistics, philosophy students study mathematical logic and visual arts students study geometry.

And I also want the same thing in reverse.

Instead of forcing STEM students to study ancient philosophy and art history, why don’t we force them to study applicable non-STEM courses? Engineering and computer science students study the history and ethics of technology and medical students study history of medicine and bioethics.

I prefer this approach because students would have much easier time applying the courses to their chosen disciplines. Once they acknowledge the applicability, they will realise any disciplines, including their majors, can be interdisciplinary.

Once they acknowledge the multifaceted nature, they will realise the horizon is far broader than they thought it was. They will realise our approaches to knowledge-seeking and problem-solving shouldn’t be limited to a handful.

Any angles are useful, if you can acknowledge their usefulness.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

People who love hardship

I am thinking two specific types of people: those who think everyone should suffer as they did and those who romanticise hardship.

Let’s start with the former.

From what I observe on a global context, this kind of people include older people who complain about how the younger ones having easier lives in some aspects. If you are familiar with America’s domestic affairs, these people also include opponents of student debt relief; they argue it is unfair for people who gained their higher education through inhumanely long work hours and military enlistment.

And it is obvious they are driven by malice.

I mean, if you are truly a decent human being, you would never wish the pain upon anyone and, instead of gleefully passing it down to the future generations, you would actually try your best to prevent it from occurring ever again.

‘Interestingly’, their outrage is also very selective. Those particular older people never complain about other older people who are ‘spoiled’ and have never endured hardship in their lives. The debt relief opponents only target student debt and they are deafeningly silent about corporate subsidies and billionaires’ tax breaks. They only punch down, which makes them sound even more malicious.

They are basically a bunch of cunts. Either that or they are just too cowardly to punch up or sideways.

Now, about the second type of people.

They believe hardship is inherently good as it supposedly can gives us valuable life lessons. I agree to an extent.

Yes, hardship can compel us to be more appreciative of the little things in life and more resilient in facing adversity. But, believe it or not, you can also achieve appreciativeness and resilience without it.

You can be more appreciative by remembering how fortunate you are compared to some people. You can be resilient by regularly challenging yourself and not spoiling yourself 24/7.

Even then, we should also be careful with how we perceive both things.

It is one thing to be appreciative of the little things, it is another to be a doormat. Demanding humane and dignified treatment is different from being a whiny little bitch.

There is also a difference between resilience, numbness and repression. Resilience is – to put it very VERY simplistically – our ability to acknowledge our negative emotions without letting them taking over our lives.

Numbness is a condition in which we don’t experience any emotions when faced with adversities; it is a bad thing because those things have become normalised to us, even though they shouldn’t be.

Being emotionally repressed means you bottle your emotions instead of acknowledging their existence; if you keep bottling them, they will explode.

Don’t forget that hardship can also causes trauma. A trauma – again, to put it VERY simplistically – involves abnormal surges of negative emotions when we encounter/remember certain things and/or abnormal aversion to certain things.

But, even if I dismiss what I just said above and unquestioningly believe in the benefits, then what?

Yes, you now have greater sense of appreciation and resilience. But, they won’t improve your access to quality education and healthcare, they won’t improve your working conditions and socioeconomic backgrounds and they certainly won’t erase the discriminations you face. Hard work doesn’t always pay off: you still need luck, which includes being born to privileges and the system being supportive of you.

As important as those two traits are, they won’t improve your quality of life.

Infuriatingly, the people who romanticise hardship are either those who have never experienced it OR those who have and are clouded by survivorship bias. They reject the belief that their successes involve factors beyond their control, that luck is involved; for them, the acknowledgement invalidates their hard work.

While rare, I also notice people who genuinely believe hardship is the meaning of life. They believe humans’ innate goal is to make our lives as uncomfortable and inconvenient as possible. For them, hardship is a value, a personality trait.

Slightly tangential:

In my personal life, I know a few people who romanticise poverty. They genuinely believe impoverished people are always joyful; one person even confidently claimed – with no evidences – that they never experience horrible diseases like cancer.

And I do wonder if they overlap between them and the aforementioned people.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What I regret and don’t regret

I regret I didn’t exercise enough. If I did, I would probably become a more physically attractive person and I would feel less guilty about eating my favourite foods. My regret gets worse when I remember I can enjoy swimming and badminton, assuming I am not being forced to do them.

I regret I didn’t take martial arts lessons. As someone with anger issues, I would be much better in handling them.

I regret I didn’t listen to my mom about the merits of Catholic schools. Yes, I have talked shit about the Catholic church many times. But, I also acknowledge that Catholic schools often provide among the best education for children and teenagers (in Indonesia, Catholic institutions don’t have the same negative reputations as they do in the west).

I regret I was a lazy student, resulting in me failing multiple classes in university, wasting lots of my mom’s money. I regret I didn’t work hard enough for a major which I chose myself.

I regret becoming an internet addict. I used to love reading books. Thanks to my addiction, it would be a miracle if I finish one per year nowadays. The more books I read, the more imaginative and perceptive I would be.

I regret I didn’t pursue activities which interest me because, again, I was lazy. Even if I wasn’t talented or they didn’t end up as my careers, I would be benefitted by having more life experiences and knowledge. Not to mention the improved self-confidence.

I regret not pursuing blogging earlier. Even as a teenager, I already found joy in writing. But, I didn’t try harder to find opportunities that force me to write (I always feel guilty if I churn out less than four blogposts a month).

I regret not expanding my CV either with manual labour works or desk jobs, as it renders me a deadbeat and financially-dependent adult.

I regret that even in my early 20’s, I didn’t try my best to be a socially tactful person. I wish I tried my best to not make people around unnecessarily uncomfortable.

But, they are like coins. While there are sides which I do regret, there are also sides which I don’t.

I don’t regret not becoming a straight A student. Unless I come from a working-class background who needs scholarships, there are no reasons for me to be one. While it does make me appear intelligent and knowledgeable, it doesn’t necessarily make me actually intelligent and knowledgeable.

I don’t regret not taking as many activities as possible. Why should I take ones that didn’t interest me (and still don’t)? Yes, leaving my comfort zone is good for you. But, I still need genuine interest; without it, those activities would make miserable and probably even more temperamental.

I don’t regret not doing activities which were considered “cool” or “manly”. I see no benefits about being seen as “cool” and affirming to arbitrary and ever-changing gender roles.

While I do regret my tactlessness, I don’t regret my low agreeableness. I am proud that I don’t dedicate my life towards getting people’s approval for every single thing. As long as my actions are not negatively consequential, there is nothing wrong about “breaking the rules”. And I certainly don’t regret yelling, insulting and beating people who want to trample on me, figuratively and literally; it is not tactlessness, it is self-defense.

I don’t regret being a homebody introvert. I know I can be tactful without interacting just for the sake of it; if anything, the early days of pandemic show extroverts can also be the world’s biggest assholes.

While I do regret the addiction, I certainly don’t regret consuming internet. It boasts a variety of content which “traditional” media severely lacks; it has a space for niche aesthetics, niche topics and, most importantly, dissenting voices.

I don’t regret not listening to my mom urging me to join the military and study medicine or engineering. I know for certain I would miserable if I do either one, let alone both. The only one who would get benefitted is my mom; she would feel the professional prestige of military and engineering/medicine without doing the hard work.

Realising that her son will never be the “ideal man”, she starts urging me to become a chef because I love to eat. While I do love eating, that still makes her advice stupid.

I love cooking because I love eating the food I make. If you are the chef, you are not supposed to eat your food, you are supposed to sell them. Don’t forget that the chef world is infamous for toxic workplace atmosphere. Hence, why I don’t regret not becoming a chef as well. Even if I do end up taking cooking classes, it is probably because I don’t have any other career options.

I don’t regret being a virgin at thirty. While I can be sexually frustrated on some occasions, it gives a lot of time to understand my sexual desires and to rethink my own sexual ethics, as I didn’t grow up with proper sex education.

I also don’t regret being single all of my life. Admittedly, I feel like I am missing out for not experiencing puppy love as a teenager; I imagine it is one of the best feelings for a teenager to experience. But, I also imagine my love life would be volatile.

Teenagers are already emotionally rocky due to the hormonal changes. Now, imagine if those teenagers already had emotional issues prior puberty; I was one of them. Unfortunately, I could imagine myself adding toxicity to the relationships.

I am also a bisexual, who is still closeted offline, living in an increasingly anti-LGBT country. So, even if I don’t have any emotional issues, I would be probably be fearful about romantically pursuing other boys; if I did pursue them, my self-loathing would probably make me toxic.

.

.

Growing up, people kept reminding me I would regret every single life choices I made.

They were right. As stated before, some of my life choices are detrimental to myself and others. I gave other people unnecessary discomfort and I fail to be a well-rounded person.

But, they were also wrong. The rest of my life choices clearly never harm anyone; the only things they “violate” are social expectations. In fact, some of them are proven to be beneficial, both for me and the people around me.

You have rethink about the ones you have made. Find out whether they shackle you from becoming a better person or simply make you disobey arbitrary social expectations. Then, you can start regretting.

Unless, of course, you believe it is your duty to be an absolute conformist. If that’s your stance, fine by me. You have the freedom to be a doormat.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The only episode of Criminal Minds that I love

Overall, I despise the show like a plague. Even without the ungodly demonisation of mental illnesses sufferers, it would still make a lame horror or thriller TV show.

I mean, come on! Do you expect me to watch people murdered in unusually grotesque manners and get deeply unnerved? Why should I be fearful of horrible things that are mostly hypothetical and not experienced by most people? Why should I be fearful of things that are not close to home?

Most of the time, the show tries too hard to be terrifying. Most of the time.

Season nine’s 24th episode is an exception. Titled Demons, it features corrupt cops instead of mentally unstable characters as the bad guys.

As the main characters need to travel all over the country, they often get assistance from the local police forces, using their headquarters as makeshift offices. In this episode, they unwittingly enter the lion’s den, thinking it was a safe space.

Once they realise how corrupt the entire police force is, the ominousness starts creeping in. It genuinely feels like they can ambushed at any time… and anywhere.

The fact that the main characters are FBI agents make the situation even more tense. If federal agents are fearful of the local cops despite having self-defence training and more legal power, it would be idiotic for ordinary citizens -especially noobs like me- to not feel fear.

It took a while to realise this: a police force’s headquarter is not just a mere building, it encompasses an entire specific region. Basically, the entire city is the lion’s den! Unless they leave town immediately, they are not safe everywhere they go!

Obviously, this is not the best thriller work out there. In fact, I have watched TV episodes and films far more terrifying than this. But, I make a big deal out of this episode because it is what the entire show could have been.

It could have lived up to its title by focusing on the psychological aspects of crime solving! It could have been a compelling TV series for the masses!

Instead, it chooses to mindlessly give what the masses want: surface-level visual horror and vindication of their dehumanising hatred against mental illness sufferers.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Casualties of feel-goodism 2

I am not going to talk about the 2019 Oscars-winning supposedly anti-racism film Green Book specifically. While I have heard about the white warrior trope accusations, I haven’t watched the film. Therefore, I cannot talk about it.

But, I can talk about fans of the film, film ethics in general… and a bit about one of its screenwriters.

The fans believe the film deserves its victory because it is heartwarming. That sentiment alone easily reveals two problems.

First of all, how the hell is feel-goodism a sign of merit? I thought we judge films based on how effective their storytellings are, NOT based on how good they are in making us feel good about ourselves and the world we live in.

Second, the film is supposedly about racism and the title itself is based on a series of books that helped black Americans avoiding racist establishments during road trips.

Describing ‘bigotry’ as atrocious is an understatement. Whether you experience or witness it, its existence reminds you about how monstrous the world we live in. If you become aware of your own bigotry (and assuming you thrive to be a decent person), you would be horrified about how much of a monster you were.

Basically, bigotry is NOT heartwarming. When a film about bigotry makes you all warm and fuzzy in the inside, there is something wrong with either how you interpret the film or how the film depicts bigotry.

Either way,  for some reasons, you haven’t fully grasped what bigotry actually is. Maybe the protective bubbles haven’t bursted yet.

I am not saying a film about the harshness of reality should not make you feeling warm and fuzzy; I think it is self-righteous to believe so. What I am saying is the warmness should NOT be the only thing you feel.

If such film does have some cheerful moments or ends on a glaringly hopeful note, it should NOT be entirely sweet. Instead, it should be an emotional rollercoaster. It should be bittersweet.

Yes, a socially-charged film can indeed be too good to be true. Ideally, when that feeling

It is one thing to enjoy escapism. But, it is another when the escapism commands us to blur the line between reality and fantasy… and we unquestioningly oblige.

Oh, and I should mention that the main white character in the film, AKA the redeemed racist, is based on a real person… and his son is one of the screenwriters, who was in hot water for believing in an anti-Muslim conspiracy.

Even though he did apologise for it, wouldn’t the combination of his (allegedly past) bigotry and conflict of interest be a concern for fans of the film?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I don’t know exactly why they exist. But, they intrigue me

 

I am talking about the opening ceremonies of multi-sports events. Considering I am too lazy to do some research, I will make my own obviously-invalid conjecture about how they came into being.

It seems the elaborateness started on the 1980 Summer Olympics held in Moscow. I assume the USSR tried to compensate for its human rights violations and impoverished populace by bringing out the ‘positivity’ that was the opening ceremony.

I have that assumption because it is no secret countries all over the world, even ones more well-off than the USSR, actively bearing deceptively friendly and warm facades on the international stage. No matter how free and peaceful their countries are, they all need propaganda… and opening ceremonies of multi-sports events make a really good one.

They are the only propaganda I willingly fall for. They are the only reason why I care for some sporting events and they also successfully instil suspension of disbelief into my mind; every time I watch the ceremonies, I am willing to pretend that the host countries are all-perfect, albeit temporarily.

I have made reviews for the opening ceremonies of Asian Games and Para Games 2018 (simply because I am an Indonesian, obviously). Don’t know why it took me a long to review the summer olympics ones.

I will focus on the ones held in Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro, in that order. They are the summer olympics openings I have watched in their entirety.

I know I could have waited for the Tokyo one. But, I want to write this down now.

2000 Sydney

There are three things that I love about this edition: Deep Sea Dreaming segment, Nature segment and James Morrison’s Jazzy fanfare.

I love the two segments because the combination of playful and colourful visuals with soothing orchestral soundtracks result in an ethereal spectatorship. I love the fanfare because of how its energetic sounds compliment the atmosphere of a sporting event.

But, the rest of the ceremony is tacky and problematic.

In contrast to those two specific segments, the others seem to be designed solely to hype up the audience. The segment titled Arrivals even goes so far to exhibit extremely sparse visual and prefers to give spotlight to the kitsch upbeat techno music!

One of my media studies lecturers also pointed out the whitewashing in the Tin Symphony segment. Instead of showcasing the hardship of the British convicts sent to Australia, it only depicts happy early European settlers.

I also pointed to her that throughout the ceremony, one can see the Aboriginal performers observing the performances from afar. It can be interpreted either as a commentary of how Australian Aboriginals are excluded from their country’s festivities OR as a subtle middle finger to them.

It might not be ill-intentioned. But, combined with the historical whitewashing, it can send a wrong message.

2004 Athens

The conclusion unfortunately feels cold and I think the use of trance music during the parade of nations emits an off-putting vibe of self-indulgence. But, at the same time, it is the most artistic and thought-provoking opening ceremony ever… and I said that without any sense of exaggeration.

The Allegory segment really does live up to its name. It is a dream sequence (and I am a sucker for dream-like atmospheres) which features a giant, floating Cycladic head sculpture breathtakingly arising from the body of water with geometric imagery projected onto it. Then, the sculpture breaks into pieces, revealing a more sophisticated sculpture of a human torso inside… which breaks again, revealing another human torso sculpture. A white cube also arises from the water with a man tries to balance himself on it, all while images of human beings and humanity’s achievements projected onto the sculpture’s broken pieces. The segment ends with the pieces land on the water, representing the Greek islands.

Basically, it is an allegory about the evolution of human civilisations and present-day Greece is one of the starting points. I adore this segment for its skilful storytelling with no expositions needed. Anyone with basic knowledge in history will easily get it.

The Clepsydra segment is also a unique segment. It depicts Greek history and mythology. But, how they are depicted struck me. It took me some time to realise the moving things on those carts were not animatronics, they were actual people with painted bodies who deliberately moved like animated sculptures!

It is refreshing from the usual routine of performers wandering all over the venue. It feels less like watching an entertainment show and more like visiting a museum; for someone who loves visiting museums, it is certainly a strength.

I always wonder about the performers: were they dancers, actors or models? I thought about those three professions because they clearly require mastery of our body languages.

The presence of Björk, a musician known for her intense musical exploration, surely bolsters the event’s overall artistry as well.

2008 Beijing

I know people will rip me for this (as if my essay will ever blow up): this edition is too overrated.

The more mature I get, the more I see how tacky it is. In fact, it is as tacky as the Sydney one. No regard for aesthetic, only for the audience’s desire for eye candy.

Okay, it is a bit unfair. The Beijing edition is certainly more grandiose and therefore, requires more discipline from the performers. Disciplined enough to work as a large collective, but still manage to look like humans instead of robots.

2012 London

Aesthetic wise, I am not that impressed. Many of the choreographies (excluding the one in the 7/7 tribute) are either awkward or basic. The one in the children’s literature segment looks like it was created by an amateur.

The event is also another pander express. It chooses to showcase the United Kingdom’s most famous aspect of life: pop culture. Of course, I do understand why the focus is not on British heritage or history; the former may be boring to non-Brits and the latter is associated with colonialism and must be executed with great tact. Pop culture is a safe choice. But, it makes the entire ceremony feels like a commercially-produced British TV show.

Strangely, I also think it has emotional profundity lacking in the other editions. The joy, the grief, the sense of wonder, they don’t feel artificial. They feel sincere.

I wonder if it has something to do with the nature of British entertainment.

From what I observe, American and Indonesian ones (especially when one talks about ‘reality’ TV shows) can be forceful with the emotions; they love to dictate the audience on what to feel. British entertainment, on the other hand, prefers to let them speak for themselves and it is always transparent about their absence.

Obviously, my statement is too simplistic as exceptions does and will always exist. But, from my personal experiences, Indonesian and American entertainment constantly annoy me with their overt-sentimentality which always comes across as insincere; British one barely annoys me like that.

2016 Rio de Janeiro

I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with this edition.

It has eye-catching visuals, it has upbeat music… and yet, it feels anaemic. It reminds me of a person who tries to put a lively and energetic facade when deep down, he/she in favour of calmness and quietness. I have such observation because the calmer segments work rather well.

My God, the environmentalist message. Why does it have to be so on-the-nose? When will people realise that blatant messages in the arts and entertainment are fucking off-putting? How will this make people accept that humans are a a part of nature and not above it?

The only thing I like about the ceremony is the acknowledgement of Brazil’s history of slavery. I love it because such acknowledge is refreshing to any countries… and because it is actually goddamn subtle and not dependent on any fucking bullshit expositions!

Which editions are my favourites?

The Athens and London ones, if you can’t tell.

Instead of completely pandering to the masses as the creative director of the Athens edition, Dimitris Papaioannou maintained his identity as an artist. Creators must be commended for that because, whether we want to admit it or not, the members of the audience were benefited by non-escapist and artistic presentations and having their horizon widened even further. Considering the global significance of the olympics, Papaioannou did millions of people a favour by compelling them to stay ‘switched on’, albeit only for a while.

And yes, I am making a big deal out of the London edition’s emotional sincerity. It is just that I am deeply revolted by the synthetic emotionality which many creatures prefer over the organic one; they prefer the former because they think being obvious equals being sincere. Running into the latter is such a nice, rare treat.

But, do you what is nicer? Fusing both strengths into one.

Can you imagine watching an opening ceremony that makes you think and feel? Right now, I can only yearn for such gratification.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

How to report problem countries

Obviously, every country is a problem country. And yes, including the so-called number one country, the so-called United States of America.

In this context, I am referring to countries like Iran and North Korea which are known for their severe human rights violations and have been extensively and negatively covered by foreign (mostly western) media.

I hate sugar-coating. I believe exposing the factual negative aspects of certain countries is not inherently hateful; there is nothing wrong about sticking to the truth.

But, it can be hateful when we insist the coverage must be entirely negative and are offended by the idea of showcasing genuine positivity because we want to keep affirming any prevailing preconceived notions.

I first noticed this when I watched the North Korean episodes of Departure, a traveling TV show which focuses less on the destinations and more on the journeys; they received backlashes for allegedly spewing pro-North Korea propaganda.

Correct me if I am wrong. But, from my knowledge, a country’s propaganda should brag about its non-existing divine perfection and work as the ruling government’s ideological mouthpiece.

Departure does none of those things.

While the hosts did not mention the human rights violations of the countries they visited, they also never tried to paint them in an entirely positive light.

The show is entirely non-political. The hosts only care about exploring nature and interacting with the locals; the latter is the theme of the North Korean episodes.

If anything, I believe the show does the ordinary and unprivileged ordinary North Koreans a great favour.

Because of the lack of political agenda, the white Anglo-Canadian hosts had no problems interacting with a group of East Asians who grew up isolated from the rest of the world. The resulting interactions were wonderfully wholesome.

The episodes do not depict cultural clashes, they depict people who enjoy each other’s presence despite the linguistic and cultural barriers.

They depict humans who see each other as fellow human beings.

But, some people didn’t like it. They believed the only way to give the North Koreans a favour was to focus entirely on the system that oppressed them.

I disagree with that belief.

North Korea is not just an obscure country that most people haven’t heard of; they have, albeit sometimes mistaking it for its sibling down south. Because of that, negative media coverage is not only common, it is over-saturated.

The over-saturation results in the dehumanisation of the North Korean people. Let’s face it: most of us don’t see North Korea as a country where fellow humans live, they see it as a giant oppressive machine that must be destroyed at all cost.

And, whether you believe or not, this kind of dehumanisation already has a negative effect on the state of humanity.

It is not a secret that many people, especially neoconservative westerners, support invasions of repressive countries like North Korea without any regards of innocent casualties; I mean, if they really care, they would not get aroused by the idea of violent invasions and would not perceive any innocent casualties as mere “collateral damage”.

While I don’t pay as much attention to it, I also notice the same thing with how western media treats Iran.

The humanisation of the Iranian people is way more well-received. But, unfortunately, the demand for dehumanisation prevails among the politically-outspoken degenerates.

Many still refuse to see Iran as a place where humans live… which is why, just like in the case of North Korea, they are not hesitant to support violent military interventions against it.

I do have my own solution to deal with this problem. But, not only it is made by a non-expert, it is also rather tricky to implement.

If a country has been almost entirely negatively reported by foreign media and you want to make a documentary (or something similar) about it instead of a normal news report, there are two things you can do.

The first thing you can do is to cover positive things about said country and tell the world its previously unknown faces.

And when I say “positive”, I mean genuinely so. They should be based on facts instead of the political establishments’ rhetorics. You have to make sure the presentation of positivity does not paint the country in an entirely positive light.

Youtuber Louis Cole AKA FunForLouis made a series of vlogs of him and his friends visiting North Korea. Even though I was never subscriber, I was intrigued…. and was quickly disappointed.

Obviously, I should watch the sequels as well. But, in the end of the first video, he said North Korea was not as bad as people claimed simply because he and his friends were greeted with a touristy welcome; at that moment, he seemed to perceive a choreographed performance as an excellent representation of the reality.

I was already repulsed about those overtly-polished Youtube vlogs. Cole’s ignorant comment only intensified my repulsion.

Departures has proven that, if you use your brain a bit more and don’t easily fall for deceptive veneers, you can shed a positive light on an oppressive country without becoming its government’s propaganda tool.

But, if you are reasonable iffy about making positive coverage and still prefer to do a negative one, I have a second tip: find a fresh angle.

If you keep repeating the same real life horror stories, the only thing you would be good at is affirming simplistic prejudgements about North Korea and discouraging outsiders from humanising the victims due to the lack of nuances.

I think the Youtube channel Asian Boss does a great job in getting the fresh angles. Instead of treating their North Korean interviewees as propaganda tools to exploit, they treat them as individuals with human stories to tell.

As a result, not only it results in ethically-dignified documentaries, it also unearths surprising facts about the country they are defecting from.

For instance, even though the consumption of foreign media is prohibited in general, I did not know that consumption of South Korean media will result in more severe punishments than the consumption of western one. It confirms one of our preconceived notions…. but, in a rather complex way.

I specifically said this tip is only for those who make documentaries and the likes and NOT for journalists who solely make daily and relatively short reports.

Why? Because it is obvious that my tips, especially the second one, require in-depth analyses and cannot be simply done in less than a day or even a week.

Well, they can. But, the results would be sloppy.

Okay, I am aware of how horrible my suggestions are; not only I have zero experiences in the media industry, my words are not precise and technical enough to be practically useful. Heck, even if I am a highly-experienced professional, my suggestions would not be the be-all and end-all.

But, even then, the unreliability of my tips does not mean the media industry is perfect as it is. Every person with functioning brain cells knows mediocrity and lacking integrity are embraced as virtues.

Public discourses about the ethics of depicting authoritarian countries are almost non-existent and, for reasons I have mentioned in this essay, it is something to be reasonably angry about.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Strongman

… Is a stupid synonym for the word “dictator”.

People use that because dictators are credited for their countries developments and/or stability. Let’s assume they have indeed contributed positively to their countries (even though it is highly debatable at times).

But, I don’t believe any of them deserved to be called “strong”.

Why can’t the so-called strongmen efficiently lead without silencing constructive criticism and non-violent opposing views?

Why can’t the so-called strongmen persuade the majority of the citizens and their oppositions to like them and support their policies?

Why can’t the so-called strongmen punish violent extremists without brutally oppressing innocent people?

If they are really strong, wouldn’t they be able to reach goals despite the recurring resistance? Why do they need authoritarianism to fulfill them?

If anything, their inability to handle disagreements show how weak they are.

We call dictators “strongmen” probably because we still associate “strength” with the willingness to brutalise every person who stand on our ways, even when they are barely blocking them.

We rarely associate “strength” with “resilience”.

I am willing admit that dictators (some, at least) have given bountiful positive contributions to their respective countries and their methods are the easiest way out. It is dishonest for me to say otherwise.

But, I still refuse to call them “strong”.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The Swede’s rhetoric

I have made a few articles about Felix Kjellberg AKA Pewdiepie and one contains my arguments about how he is actually a reckless edgelord instead of an actual far-right ideologue.

I mention how he never makes excuses for the bigotry of some of his fans, how he was (and still is) slandered by the media and how he only invited one right-wing pundit just to review memes instead of letting him spill verbal diarrhea.

But, for some reasons, I forgot to talk about his own rhetoric.

Below, I am going to list the common talking points of contemporary western conservatives:

1. Equal rights are the same as special rights for women and the minorities

2. Women are happier when they are treated as the “lesser sex”.

3. The Southern Strategy never happened and American Democratic party is still the racist party.

4. Taking down Confederate statues equals erasure of history.

5. The Bell Curve is scientifically legitimate.

6. Any violence committed by Christians of European descent, including the Holocaust, the Trail of Tears, and the Crusades, were either justified, exaggerated or fictional.

7. All Muslims are sleeper cells.

8. The world is controlled by globalist Jewish elites.

9. Sexual violence is a trivial matter, unless they are committed by brown Muslims.

I am sure there are more recurring talking points than I mentioned above. But, those will do.

Disturbingly, I have seen how they often they are “discussed” by conservatives, especially by those who make Youtube videos,some of whom prefer to call themselves classical liberals.

But, from all online personalities who have been perceived as far-right, Pewdiepie is the only one who has never talked about those things.

Seriously, I have never heard him openly or discreetly espousing any of those lies. In fact, he barely touches politics and he never talks about history; his commentaries mostly revolve around the non-political aspects of Youtube culture.

The thing about our bigotry is it cannot be hidden completely, no matter how hard we try, no matter how hard we deny its existence. Even if we are not prone to Freudian slips, our bigotry will appear subtextually in our messages.

I have encountered so many people online who claim to not be bigoted… and yet, if you read their words between the lines, you will notice how hateful they are.

You cannot say you are not a racist when you believe the mere presence of non-whites is the evidence of white genocide. You cannot say you are not a homophobe or a transphobe when you believe LGBT rights discriminate against cisgender and heterosexual people.

But, with Felix, I haven’t seen any far-right subtexts from his online content.

His commentaries are indeed laced with subtexts… classical liberal subtexts; he is all about freeing humans from any excessive constraints, both in social and legal forms. He disapproved of the “policing” of any kind of activities, as long as they are not violent.

Basically, he is the complete opposite of those far-right individuals who are supposedly all about liberty while advocating for taking it away from those who are different from them.

He, the person who never calls himself a classical liberal, is way more classical liberal than the reactionaries who claim to be ones.

About the Christchurch mosque massacre…

Both his name and Candace Owens’s were implicated because they were mentioned by the shooter. The shooter said “subscribe to Pewdiepie”, a meme created by Felix himself, during the live streamed violence while she was cited as his number one ideological inspiration.

And both public figures reacted differently.

Felix was never cited as an inspiration; the shooter mentioned the name of the most popular Youtuber because he wanted more attention.

But, not only Felix immediately condemned the massacre, he pleaded to his fans to end the meme. After his many controversies, after years of being a reckless edgelord, he has realised he has a responsibility as a public figure for every single one of his public actions… and that includes his inherently harmless meme which he created as a tongue-in-cheek response to his rivalry with T-Series.

Owens, on other hand, responded immediately by laughing it off in her dismissive tweet, despite the fact that she is the shooter’s number one inspiration!

I don’t know about her now. But, at that time, it was obvious she did not have any sense of responsibility as a public figure, even though she was famous in the first place because of her politically charged and definitely-not-trivial messages.

She was not that different from Trump who took days to condemn the Charlottesville Neo-Nazi rally attended by his own supporters.

She was not that different from other right-wing public figures who constantly incite bigotry and yet refusing to acknowledge they might have inspired atrocities like the Christchurch massacre.

But, she and her peers are definitely different from Felix Kjellberg.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.