Freedom “warriors” and how they unwittingly kick themselves in the nuts

They take freedom of speech to a new level. They believe consequences are tyrannical. Literally all of them, even constructive criticism.

From what I see, these special people are split into two: 1. those who believe humans live in vacuums; 2. those who believe in their innate right to live consequence-free lives. An important similarity to point out: they are extremely fearful of censorship.

I hate myself for taking so long to notice the contradictions.

The former believe so because they want to believe our actions never affect others. In other words, they want an excuse to be irresponsible. But then, their fear of censorship becomes irrational.

If your actions don’t affect others, shouldn’t you be spared from other people’s as well? I mean, if you believe in the vacuums, I don’t see why you should be fearful of any censorship attempts.

The latter are obviously a bunch of people who touch themselves to their mirror reflections. It took me a long time to notice the contradiction:

If you have the right to do literally anything you want, shouldn’t you support other people’ right to be tyrannical? I mean, doing everything they want without facing consequences. That sure sounds like tyranny.

Okay, it is not entirely fair. Tyrants have lawful grasp over their respective societies, unbound by limits. They are certainly incomparable to those Ayn Rand-loving commoners.

But, I still bring this argument anyway. Why? Because I do know some of those freedom “warriors” (emphasise on the word “some”) also believe in Might Is Right.

For them, if other people’s actions hurt you, you are weak and, if you are weak, you deserve to be trampled on. There is no morality, only power.

If that’s how you live life, then embrace your weakling status and bow down to the powerful tyrants. If you believe what you believe, then you should accept it when you are on the receiving end.

Limitless freedom is such a bullshit belief. Besides being the favourite excuse of mindless egomaniacs, it is also paradoxically a slippery slope towards oppression.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Freedom of speech: Is it really that complicated?

No, it is not. People make this seem more complicated than it truly is.

Yes, sometimes hate speeches and incitements are too subtle to warrant any tangible responses. There are still so many humans who are too dumb to see the subtexts. Punishing them for their violence-inciting subtexts is also a slippery slope to punishing anyone for simply having their words misinterpreted.

The keyword here is sometimes.

There are also times when bigots don’t even bother to polish their words. If someone straight up says “No rights for the ****” or even “Kill the ****”, they are definitely committing hate speeches and incitements.

For anyone with enough common sense, the venomous messages couldn’t be any clearer. Unless, of course, common sense is not your thing.

Maybe you think something is not bigoted unless it is violent. You are one of those people whose feelgoodism compels you to take the shiny surface for granted, to take actions only when the problems have caused physical harms.

Maybe you are a believer of absolute freedom of speech who refuses to brave the consequences of your words. You pretend there are no such things hate speeches and incitements, labelling them as mere myths created by libtards and commies.

If you are neither, congrats! You are not one of pricks who feel compelled to needlessly complicate things with intellectually dishonest bogus nuances.

You acknowledge that life is full of grey, black and white patches, that some things in life are unambiguously clear-cut and understanding them is a no-brainer.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to deal with bigots and conspiracists

And anyone similar.

It is simple: shame the fuck out of them.

Once they have proven themselves to be impossible to reason with, then there is nothing we can do but to shame them.

Shame them to the point where they refuse to pass their values down to their children! Shame them to the point where they keep everything to themselves! Shame them to the point where they truly hate their own selves!

Never ever let them feel good about themselves!

No, this does not take away your freedom of speech; it does not mean we are entitled to freedom from consequences. If anything, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, you have to acknowledge that I have the right to shame anyone! It is what we called being consistent!

If you can tolerate incitement and falsehood, then there is no reason for you to not tolerate shaming, which is arguably way less harmful.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to promote freedom of speech?

It is simple: cite its benefits!

Well, duh. Everyone knows that’s how we should sell anything! But, I am writing this because some people don’t seem to have a clue.

If you are truly aware of the benefits, you would have used the slippery slope argument. If one speech is banned, how can we be so sure it won’t happen to the others?

Determining the wrongness of a speech is -believe it or not- prone to subjectivity. For reasonable people, incitement and sectarianism are divisive. For unreasonable people, exposing them is divisive; they believe exposure to societal imperfection weakens unity (dumb, I know).

Yes, an authoritarian government may be filled with reasonable people. But, can we guarantee the status quo stays forever? Can we guarantee it will never be taken over by idiots?

I also argue that banning even the most objectively harmful speeches harm us in the long run. Instead of addressing the issues and investigating the roots of them all, it chooses to sweep them under the rug.

That’s literally the case with Indonesia and Islamic extremism. The New Order regime had zero tolerance towards religious hate speeches. Now, look at us now: Islamic extremism is slowly and dangerously becoming more mainstream. We ignore the cancer for years and we pretend to be surprised by its malignant growth.

If you actually get the gist, defending freedom of speech would not be a rocket science for you. In fact, I am sure many of you can concoct much more sophisticated defences.

The so-called freedom warriors, however, seem to have their own so-called thinking.

For them, the right to spew hatred and lies is what makes freedom of speech beautiful. In fact, they even believe the likes of Alex Jones and Charlie Hebdo staff must be hailed as martyrs.

Are you fucking kidding me, you brainless fucks?

How the fuck is that supposed to convince anyone? How can anyone with functioning brains think that’s the best part of freedom of speech? It is akin to enticing someone to take a drug by proudly boasting its adverse reactions!

Not only you put people off, you actually aid governments in justifying their authoritarianism; they impose restrictions because they don’t want people like Alex Jones to thrive in the first place!

Despite its admittedly unpalatable pitfalls, I support freedom of speech because it won’t prosecute anyone simply for being different. I support it because it (theoretically) benefits every member of the society.

Those so-called freedom warriors support it because they are a flock of infantile, self-serving life forms who refuse to brave any repercussions of their actions. They support it because they only think for themselves and probably will always do.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

An advice to the so-called freedom warriors

Just admit that you are selfish fucktards.

Don’t waste your energy on screaming about how lives-saving rules and listening to experts are tyrannical. It is so obvious that you don’t know how it is like to live under a tyranny.

Don’t waste your energy on screaming about how fulfilling one’s civic duties is virtue signaling. It is so obvious that you are projecting yourselves onto others, unable to comprehend that selflessness is humanly attainable.

Don’t waste your energy on screaming about personal freedom. It is obvious that you only care about your own and you have no problem taking it away from others.

Regardless of whether you want to admit it or not, people already think you are selfish fucktards, anyway. Don’t waste your energy on being a dishonest fuck.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Jiří Trnka’s The Hand: not falling for the other side

If it wasn’t for my Intro to Animation class, I would have never heard of this stop-motion animated masterpiece.

To summarise the plot, it tells the story of a harlequin whose impoverished yet contented life of flower pot-making is disrupted by a literal and seemingly-omnipresent hand who demands him to make hand sculptures instead, compelling him to constantly fight for his freedom. Unfortunately, near the end of the story, he dies when one of his pots accidentally fell on his head (seemingly foreshadowed by the recurring accidental pot-breaking). He is given a lavish funeral by the hand.

One can guess why I love this short film.

It is an allegory of censorship enforced under authoritarianism. It sublimely evokes the terror of living as an artist and entertainer in such condition, amplified by the fantastical elements and the atmospheric percussion-oriented soundtracks. In fact, both Wikipedia and IMDB categorise this film as horror.

Unsurprisingly, I picked The Hand as one of the animated shorts I analysed for the final essay. My writings were even abysmal then. Thankfully, I lost it. But, I remember having a great time analysing every single one of them.

While analysing it, I found two peculiarities.

First thing first, the funeral. Why would the hand hold a state funeral to a rebel? Surely, shouldn’t he be demonised as an enemy of the state in the end?

Well, I found an article (forget which one, cannot find it again) about how the USSR and its satellite states honoured their artists posthumously, regardless of how obedient or disobedient they were; the writer said even Trnka himself was given a state funeral.

As I am too lazy to do more research, I cannot confirm or debunk the article’s factual validity. But, as the hand symbolises an authoritarian government (I cannot think of any other interpretations), what the article is saying makes too much sense for me to dismiss.

This reminds me of the legendary and ideologically-dissenting director Andrei Tarkovsky (can’t stop referencing him). After his death, the Soviet authorities regretted that he died in exile. Yes, linking Trnka, a Czechoslovakian puppeteer and animator with, to Tarkovsky, a live-action Russian director who loved exploring the metaphysical aspect of humanity, is far-fetched. But, I can’t help myself.

Oh, and the hand.

At first, I noticed the hand was a left one. I assumed it represented the far-left government of Czechoslovakia. But, when I took a greater look, the hand was not always left.

Sometimes, it appears as a right one. In fact, the first hand sculpture to appear in the video depicts a right hand.  So, I quickly dumped the interpretation, dismissed it as reading too much into things. But then, I remembered the funeral scene, where the hand can be seen making a salute eerily similar to the Nazi one; I could hear my classmates’ shock.

I was more baffled than shocked, as Czechoslovakia was a communist country, not a fascist one. Due to my slowness, it took me days to realise the film criticises authoritarianism in general, not just the communist Czechoslovakian government.

The film also subtly warns us to not fall for any forms of extremism. Your suffering under a far-left government cannot morally justify your support of a far-right government… and vice versa. One form of  zealotry does not justify the other.

I write as if I grasped the thematic depth immediately. I didn’t. Back then, my mind only thought about the Far-Left vs Far-Right.  It took me years to realise how the message is also applicable to any kinds of extreme dichotomies.

Yes, I know I seem to be reading too much into things again. The nazi salute may not be one after all and I don’t know enough about different types of salutes. I also cannot prove that extreme dichotomies in general were what Trnka had in mind.

But, you have to admit: the film does not target a specific ideology. My interpretation fits really well into the narrative.

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.

My own museum ideas

  • I hate how I grew up in a country where we have an extremely weak museum culture. Most of the museums I have visited are abroad.
  • As an adult, I am no longer into having shopping malls and theme parks as my sources of leisure. If there are no cultural attractions that intrigue in the slightest, I would rather stay at home and watch Youtube videos…
  • ….And browse Wikipedia in where I have spent a significant amount time searching for every article about any museums.

    Being a major time-waster that I am, I now have a few ideas for museums which are not even original. But, if I have the financial means (and the skill and will), I would definitely establish them.

    Museums of hot sauces and fermented seafood.

    That’s my Indonesian tastebud talking.

    I grew up eating dishes which use fermented seafood as ingredients and were often accompanied by chili sauces, or sambal as we call them.

    I have always loved the taste of dried and salted fish. I used to hate hot foods. But now, even though my heat tolerance is still low for Indonesian standard, I am addicted to the hot flavours.

    It would not be a problem if the museums are Indonesia-centric. As the country is gifted with biological and cultural diversity, the museums’ collections would always be huge, assuming they are well-funded and well-managed.

    I am also open to the ideas of making the museums more international either by making a section dedicated to foreign content or making the entire collection international.

    But, my goals for each version differ from one another.

    If the collection is entirely Indonesian, I would want to remind Indonesians about the biological and cultural richness of their country and how the richness should be appreciated and NOT taken for granted.

    If the collection is international, I would want to remind everyone that despite our differences, we still have many things in common and our cuisines are not that different once we take a deeper look.

    I choose foods because every human eats. We can survive without the ability to play music, to dance or to show any forms of craftsmanship. But, we can’t survive without foods. Eating is universal.

    And because I personally love to eat.

    I don’t know where I should locate the museums, though. If they are Indonesia-centric, should I locate them in Jakarta, university cities like Bandung or Jogjakarta, or places with low cultural appreciations like my hometown?

    If they are international, I would definitely locate them in various countries. But, which countries I also don’t know.

    And no, I am not going to think about “maintaining” the perishable collections.

    Museums of Hollywood propaganda

    I think the name explains it and I don’t have to elaborate on why it is needed in the first place and I am focusing on propaganda in American entertainment.

    When it comes to locations, I would definitely establish one in Los Angeles, the headquarters of the industry. Of course, as it is the lions’ den, there will be lots of backlashes. Not to mention that studio executives might have connections in the government.

    Very risky. But, worth the shot.

    But, I am not satisfied about LA is its only location. The question is where else should we locate them?

    Should we choose other major, big cities like NYC, Chicago and Houston? Should we choose the nation’s capital? Should we choose certain university towns where anti-establishment attitude are rampant? Or should we choose urban areas known for unquestioning and zealous patriotism?

    If we want to branch out to other countries, which ones should we choose? Should they be America’s closest allies like Canada and the UK? Do the international locations even matter?

    Museums of human rights violations

    I am not talking about any human rights violations. I am talking about ones that are still controversial due to the persisting historical denialism and whitewashing.

    I am talking about cases like Armenian genocide, the Jewish Holocaust, the expulsion of Palestinians from their own lands, the atrocities committed by Japan in WWII, the 1965 violent anti-Communist purge in Indonesia, history of racism in Australia and the Americas and the coups committed by the US against democratically-elected governments in Iran and Latin America which were replaced with dictatorships.

    You know, topics of light conversations.

    When it comes to locations, I have to make sure they are not in countries where such museums can get shut down by the authorities.

    But, even if censorship is not a problem, I have to make sure at least one case from the host country is included in the exhibition. I want to give the impression to visitors that there is no such thing as angelic countries.

    It is also the reason why I want the museum to be dedicated to many cases instead of just one. It is a lot harder than dedicating to a single case. But, it is worth it.

    I also have to make sure it is located in localities which have lots of foreign tourists and residents. Those localities may include cities like NYC, Sydney, London and even world-famous university towns like Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford and Grenoble.

    I don’t want the learning immersion being mostly exclusive to citizens of one country. Every person, regardless of their national backgrounds, must have the opportunity to experience it.

    Yadda yadda yadda

    It is obvious that my ideas are not only unoriginal, they are also fantastical. I will never create a small museum, let alone a few big ones.

    But, I just can’t help churning my own ideas, even in fields where I don’t have any expertise in. Basically, every field in existence.

    It is fun to write down my fantastical ideas.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

    I support colonialism…..

    *puts on mask*

    … because I am insecure little bitch of a citizen who needs extreme empowerment.

    There is nothing more gratifying than the country I unwillingly was born into invade foreign territories and pretend they are destined by the universe to be ours.

    It is even more gratifying that colonialism can also destroy the cultures and economies of the colonies. That way, they can suffer from extreme cultural and economic dependence on the motherlands, giving them even greater power projection on the world stage.

    And I hate how my beloved country of Indonesia is not harsh enough in its colonisation of the Papuans.

    The problem is Indonesia’s official motto is Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Unity in diversity. It forces us to wear a pluralistic mask, hiding the real face of our country.

    Why can’t we be just like the Americans, the English, the French and the Japanese in the old days? If they keep doing what they were doing, so-called “languages” like Hawaiian, Gaelic, Basque and Ainu would cease to exist and the world would be a better place.

    If it were my call, I would do my best to annihilate those savage Papuan “cultures” by punishing anyone who dare to embrace them and force the embrace of Javanese culture, which is inherently noble, wonderfully anti-egalitarian and is definitely a real, proper culture.

    Not only that, I would also encourage skin bleaching and plastic surgery to the Papuans who have the dignity of not wanting to be monkeys.

    Seriously, if people call you monkeys, it’s your fault for looking like ones.

    I also hate how the Papuan provinces are given political autonomy. Literally the only provinces that deserve it are the ones who embrace Javanese supremacy!

    If anything, not only I oppose the transfer of power, I also believe the Papuans should be stripped of their power to vote!

    As they are subhumans, they are unable to make any good decisions. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote for the presidents and MPs!

    Heck, I even believe they should not choose their own mayors! Everything has to be entirely up to Jakarta!

    Of course, I have to be fair as well.

    Despite my criticism, I also have to praise my country for making Papuans too economically dependent on western Indonesia, to the point they have to survive the high living cost with their pathetically meagre incomes.

    Finally and most importantly, I also love how the government has successfully bred a morally-corrupt, violent and historically-illiterate citizenry.

    When Papuans committed riots after a racist incident, it did not take much time for many Indonesians to condemned them for rioting and not spending a single second on condemning the racists.

    Basically, they thought the Papuans were rioting for no good reasons. Hopefully, many probably still do.

    If I think about it, the pluralistic official motto is a great tool for Indonesia’s colonialism of western Papua.

    Most of us believe the official motto is the reflection of reality instead of a mere guidance. As a result, we see our country as the most tolerant and peaceful in the world despite its glaring bouts of sectarian violence.

    Not only that, we also fool ourselves into believing the falsehood about how Papuans prayed to be rescued by the peaceful and tolerant Indonesians from the colonialist and racist Dutch monsters, even though annexation can be executed without the people’s consent and is a common method used by colonial and imperial powers.

    We greatly mistreat the Papuans and then we gaslight them into believing that the mistreatments are societal well-being. Well-being they supposedly would have never enjoyed if they remain as Dutch subjects.

    While I hate how we are too soft on them, I have to acknowledge that we have been giving them the deserving fingers for decades.

    Now, it is time for us to give even more fingers.

    *takes off the mask*

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

    “Youtube’s not good enough!”

    Disregard of privacy. Hatred of change. Entitled attitude. Immaturity.

    Those are the dark traits that people familiar with Youtube cultures associate with Youtube fandoms. They are common knowledges.

    But, I am surprised most people (seemingly) have yet to notice another frustrating trait about the fandoms: obsession with giant corporate media networks.

    On some occasions, you can see fans wondering why their beloved idols are not signing up to those corporations.

    And that irks me every time.

    One thing for sure is they don’t know how the media works. They probably think those giant entities provide creators with not only big platforms and big funding, but also complete creative freedom.

    You know, a make-believe.

    They don’t know how creators are also responsible to the network executives. If they deem the creations unprofitable or ideologically “deviant”, those creations would not even survive the pre-production stage.

    As bad as Youtube can be, its content creators have freedom that many of theirs counterparts in other platforms can only dream of.

    Your videos can be taken down for violating guidelines (or falsely and/or unfairly accused of doing so). But, they can never be taken down solely for low viewerships or ideological deviance.

    In fact, Youtube is full of creators who espouse controversial opinions regarding humanity and who scathingly condemn the establishments. Not to mention there is an abundance of creators like Filthy Frank whose style described by Nerd City as “post-ironic” (Click and go straight to 16:45).

    But, this is not even the most frustrating about the fandoms’ wish. Their elitist attitude is.

    Why is Youtube not good enough?

    Of course, if a more stable source of income is the argument, then I am all for it. Youtubers have been struggling gaining profits from their videos in recent years.

    But, that’s not what fans want; from all of the ones who have expressed such desire, I only encountered one that mentioned income. One.

    In fact, not only it is the only clearly-elucidated reason that I encountered, fans also know Youtubers can either get direct sponsorships, donations through Patreon, or both. Seemingly, they don’t have any reasons to make such demand.

    While I cannot have make any concrete (and objective) conclusions, I can tell you about the mentality of Youtube fandoms.

    They suffer from inferiority complex.

    I am not talking about how their idols are talentless or something; just like fans of traditional idols, many Youtube fans certainly see theirs as talented. I am talking about how they see Youtube as a career: for them, it is not a real job.

    Admittedly, it is extremely rare for me to see those comments. But, I do have encountered fans who genuinely believe the jobs of their idols are not “real jobs”. In fact, they seem happy if their idols have jobs other than making Youtube videos.

    What are “real jobs”, anyway?

  • If a job gives us complete or near independence, is considered a novelty and disregarded by the establishment, and/or does not offer a stable source of income, then it would not be considered as “real”.
  • I reach to such conclusion because, from what I observe, the jobs labelled as “not real” often possess some or all of those characteristics. I have never heard people calling blue collar jobs and most white ones as “not real”.

    From this observation, I already have a clear imagination of what some Youtube fans are thinking:

    Yes, we know our favourite Youtubers are creators who rise to the top despite the independence from the old-age establishment. And that what makes them unique.

    But, because of that same reason, we fans feel insecure about ourselves because there is no prestige in admiring those who are not parts of the establishment.

    Therefore, it would be selfish of our idols to stay independent and refuse to become corporate slaves.

    Yes, I know my assumption is plagued with meanness and exaggeration… and also dishonesty considering how Youtube also has its own (younger and less powerful) establishments which are divided into different linguistic and/or national categories.

    But, whether those fans are aware of how the media works or not, you have to admit the feeling of inferiority is there.

    If it isn’t, why would they be aroused by the prospect of their favourite Youtubers branching out to the more conventional yet not-always-rewarding realms?

    If it isn’t, why aren’t they content about idolising those who make a living solely out of Youtube?

    I am on the opinion that believes Youtubers need to mature in order to bring their communities forward.

    But, I believe the fandoms’ lack of self-assurance is also a major hindrance to the progress as they refuse to uncover the platform’s fullest potentials.

    It is not far-fetched to say the collective feeling of insecurity is one of Youtube’s biggest enemies.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.