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.

LGBT rights AND economic stability

I am certain some of you have seen the video: a conservative content creator asked a random stranger whether he would choose LGBT rights or economic stability…. and not falling for the trap, the stranger answers both, much to the content creator’s frustration. It is so intellectually dishonest that even some fellow conservatives in his Youtube comment section called him out.

And I am certain some of you have encountered this false dilemma before. I certainly have multiple times.

I am also suspicious about virtue signalling. Do some of the people who push this so-called dilemma actually care about the economy? Or do they peddle it simply because they are staunchly opposed to LGBT rights and they want them to “look unimportant” in comparison?

People also have different ideas of what a good economy is. For me, a good economy is one where small businesses and labourers can also economically thrive.

I acknowledge some conservatives do share my idea of a good economy. But, I also know other conservatives (and, let’s face it, some liberals as well; no, I won’t let them off the hook) who measure the strength of an economy solely based on how well big businesses and their wealthy shareholders do.

Some people also believe a good economy is one where it is easy to be rich; they don’t care about some citizens left to rot in poverty, as long as the rest are loaded.

Those who peddle the “dilemma” argue everyone – including LGBT people – must prioritise the economy over equal rights because the former supposedly benefits all of us. But, the fact that inequality and corporate greed are not universal deal breakers, it is clear some people’s idea of a “good economy” is not about benefitting everyone.

It should also be noted that economic prosperity and LGBT rights intertwine with each other.

Let’s just say your country’s economy is booming right now, which also happens to lack legal protections for queer minorities. What happens if you are queer yourself?

Well, unless you are influential, have your own business and/or are self-employed, you are at the mercy of your employers. They can reject your job applications, deprive you of promotions and fire you solely because you are queer…. and because they are legally allowed to, there is nothing you can do about it.

What’s the point of living surrounded by prosperity when you are denied the right to enjoy it?

In fact, even in 2020’s America, queerness is still a contributing factor to one’s chance of being impoverished. While not the only factor, it is definitely still a factor.

It applies to all kinds of marginalised people whose rights are not guaranteed or worse, are intentionally restricted by the laws.

So yes, I am for both good economy and equal rights.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Some notes for my fellow non-Jewish critics of Israel

Let’s start with these questions:

Why do you hate the Israeli government?

Is it because of it commits human rights violations seemingly without repercussions and it just happens to be Jewish?

Is it because you believe it is the worst, if not only, human rights-violating government on earth?

Or is it simply because you hate anything Jewish?

.

.

For me, there is nothing wrong about being emotional attached to certain issues.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, you may be of Palestinian descent or know someone who is, you may be a Jewish person who is horrified by atrocities done under your name…. or you may be someone who is angered by Israel’s impunity on the world stage.

It becomes a problem when you start acting like this is the only issue that matters… or when you believe Israeli government and its allies are the only evil governments in existence…… or, this is unfortunately common among my fellow Muslims, when you believe your fellow believers are free from problems (and the ones that exist were created by Mossad).

Of course, those are bullshits.

Other issues are just as important (no, we cannot quantitatively measure importance), other governments have also committed evil… and yes, the Muslim world has problems, many of which are partially or entirely faults.

You use this opportunity to virtue signal on the world stage AND to avert the global attention from your degenerate fellow Muslims.

And now, about the Jewish people themselves.

We must remember two things: Israel is the only Jewish-majority country on earth and anti-semitism is a disturbingly global phenomenon.

While you can criticise zionist Jews for their uncritical and zealous support of the government, can you really blame them for having emotional attachments to the only country on earth where they are not a marginalised minority, vulnerable to discriminations and pogroms?

Unless your cultural and religious identities are as demonised and marginalised as the Jewish ones, it is so easy for you to dismiss zionist Jews’ emotional attachment to the world’s only Jewish state.

Like you, I am also infuriated by some zionists’ use of the anti-semitism card, who think humanisation of Palestinians is anti-semitic. They are psychotic virtue signalers who will do anything to smear people who dare to not loving their favourite country.

But, I am not going to pretend some of my fellow anti-zionists are any better.

You cannot hide forever. If your anti-Israel sentiment is driven by anti-semitism, you can only hide under the guise of human rights for a while. Sooner or later, your true colours will inevitably escape the facade and you will start spewing remarks like “Hitler was right after all”.

If you are not anti-semitic, you would never think Israel is what Jewishness and Judaism are all about….. and you would never think ALL Jews are responsible for the Israeli government’s action, not even for a second.

You would also acknowledge that many zionists are not Jewish… and many anti-zionists are Jewish.

And no, there is nothing logical about anti-semitism. If you think demonising all Jews helps fighting Israel, does that mean you accept the only way to fight Islamic extremism is to demonise all Muslims?

Considering many of you are my fellow Muslims….. of course not, you fucking dolts!

My point is, I want you to fuck off.

There are people who genuinely care about the Palestinian causes and we are continuously frustrated about getting slandered as terrorism-sympathising anti-semites by those virtue-signaling blood-thirsty cunts.

Because you claim to be one of us, you douse the most incendiary fuel onto their fire of fanaticism. You are making those cretins even more fanatical. You are giving them more excuses to slander us.

Palestinians are already having a hard time getting global support and, thanks to your selfish virtue signaling, you are making it even fucking harder for them.

In fact, I would not be surprised if any of you turn out to be zionists’ plants.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

They want to keep dehumanising us, that’s the point

Every time someone starts spewing anti-queer rhetoric and opposing any laws which guarantee equal rights for sexual and gender minorities, liberals and leftists often react in either two: insulting and berating the bigots OR citing benefits of equality.

The latter refers to studies which purportedly claim equality improves the quality of life for minorities, particularly queer ones. I am not going to argue the merit of such studies. But, depending on your opponents, using those studies as your pro-equality arguments does not make any sense.

If your opponents are fence-sitters or the milder bigots (AKA those do not actively propose discriminatory laws), I can see why you are using those studies. But, why are you using them against the most zealous ones?

They don’t want queer people to have legal protections and they don’t want the media and school curricula to humanise queerness; in fact, they insist on depicting us as sexually perverted monsters who deserve legal discriminations. Making queer people disappear from the face of the earth is literally one of their life goals; some of them don’t care if achieving such goal requires hate crimes and driving us to suicides.

What makes you think they care about our well-being? If anything, hearing about the benefits of acceptance makes them even more opposed to it.

If you want to make them stop being bigoted in general (not just against queer people), they have to realise they were being hateful. How do you make them have that realisation?

They have to acknowledge the people they demonise…. are their own fellow human beings, human beings just like them, with ability to experience all kinds of emotions.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any near-perfect solutions. The ones in my head still have glaring flaws and can backfire (I initially wanted to detail them. But, I scrapped them because they got too tangential).

But, at the same time, I also don’t see why we must believe all of those bigots have humanity’s best interests in their hearts, when it is clear some of them don’t.

It is like believing cancer cells will always heal themselves. It just doesn’t make any sense.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to catch a groomer (and virtue signal)

*puts on a mask*

What is grooming?

It is an act of creating emotional bond with a child in order to sexually exploit them later on. But, we know you don’t care about that.

What you care about is making sure queer people remain discriminated against; you don’t want them to grow up feeling empowered and you don’t want them to have allies.

But, we know anti-queerness has become less and less accepted. You cannot call them slurs and openly endorse anti-LGBT policies, let alone incite violence against them. The only method left is to slander them.

You have to literally frame everything LGBT-related as literal child grooming. Whether adoption of children by same-sex couples, queer representations in children’s media or the teaching of queer history at schools, you have to frame them as not only sexually inappropriate for children, but also symptoms of sexual abuse.

You don’t even need solid evidences of grooming. All you need to share articles about queer topics and like-minded people will eat it up. It does not matter if the articles do not mention grooming or affirm its existence. People will only read the headlines and assume the content affirms their beliefs.

If someone says the sexual abuses committed by queer people are isolated cases and not an epidemic, accuse them of trivialising the victims’s sufferings, even though that is not what the person is doing. You have to frame them as complicit for not exaggerating the issue.

And, there is a bonus: people will hail you as courageous heroes who defend those vulnerable children…

… Despite the fact that you couldn’t give less fuck about them.

You never bat an eye about sexual predatory parents, teachers and clergymen. If anything, you only see children as nothing but exploitable assets, as shown by your fellow anti-LGBT crusaders.

Killing two beloved pet dogs with one bullet…. and blaming it on those dirty Queers.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What non-Harry Potter fans don’t get about Rowling’s transphobia controversy

The transphobes think her detractors are just random haters who always join any hate bandwagons. The pro-trans group think her defenders are either transphobic Harry Potter fans or zealous fanboys and fangirls who always defend their idols even when they are wrong.

Both sides are right; some people love joining hate bandwagons and many Potheads are indeed a bunch of sentient diarrhea (remember how they treated Katie Leung?). But, they are only partially right. In reality, many of her detractors are also her own fans.

Well, more like former fans who hate her while still loving her works. We hate her because she loves preaching about acceptance through Harry Potter and yet she ends up as a well-known hate preacher. We believe she must be held accountable not only for her bigotry, but also for her hypocrisy.

For many fans, Harry Potter inspires them to be more accepting of fellow human beings regardless of the trivial differences; in fact, a “study” (which must be taken with grains of salt) even claimed that reading Harry Potter decreases our chance of becoming bigoted.

Obviously, it is ludicrous to think works of art and entertainment can single-handedly mould our worldview. But, they certainly can be inspire us to think and feel in a certain way. It is remarkable if you actually know how Potheads perceive the series throughout the years.

It is a popular belief that Potheads started criticising Rowling when she mindlessly extended the worldbuilding through her bizarre tweets. But, their criticism against her and her works had been ongoing for much longer.

In the late 2000’s or early 2010’s, I loved browsing the internet for Harry Potter-related blogposts and sites. Not only I gained more facts about the HP universe (as I still haven’t read the first three novels and I might miss certain details), I also gained more perspectives about it.

And that was when they pointed out the problematic aspects of the series. Hogwarts’ disregard of its students’ welfare (e.g. having Snape ‘teaching’ his students), the mocking depiction of Hermione’s elf-right activism and the nonchalant depiction of love potion AKA magical date rape drug, just to name a few. That was one of my first exposure to critical analyses of entertainment.

Either those potheads got inspired by the moral gist of her works despite the complication OR they were already more progressive than Rowling ever was. Both make sense to me.

It is very easy for us to overlook problematic elements when they are small details or are subtextual; we may take heed of them long after we get the overall moral messages. While it is not always the case, it shouldn’t be a suprise that the younger generation is more progressive than its predecessor.

What’s the point of my babbling?

I do acknowledge that Harry Potter fandom has venomous individuals among ourselves; some undoubtedly defend Rowling’s transphobia (and, again, remember how they treated Katie Leung). But, we should also acknowledge the Potheads who are not only more enlightened than she is, but also have been scrutinising her works long before it was cool to do so.

In fact, if it wasn’t for the potheads, the backlash against her wouldn’t be as severe and, if it wasn’t for non-fans chiming in, the support for her wouldn’t be as strong.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Does shaming work?

Of course, it does. I don’t get anyone who think it does not work against bigots and conspiracists.

I mean, if shaming does not work in general, then how can you explain the self-hatred suffered by members of marginalised communities?

How can you explain women who knowingly support policies which take away their rights as human beings?

How about darker-skinned people desperately wanting to bleach their skin?

Parents refusing to pass down their stigmatised ancestral heritages because they don’t want turn their children into outcasts?

Westerners of Jewish and Asian descents who sympathise and collaborate with white supremacists?

LGBT teens who end up either committing suicide or joining anti-LGBT forces as adults?

No, those behaviours are not inborn. If they are, it does not explain why many of them are the exact opposite of what I describe above.

Well, you can claim the feeling of empowerment is a sign of mental illness and self-hatred a sign of mental soundness; I have encountered the so-called claim too many times before. But, you have to provide actual evidences if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than your fellow inbred faeces-eaters.

You may be reluctant to support shaming because -instead of planting self-hatred- it may compel bigots to embellish their words and actions in order to not sound blatantly-hateful. Considering the ones in the west are becoming better in concealing their true selves (and there are too many idiots who cannot read between the lines), it is a concern which I cannot dismiss.

But, some of you are against shaming because of your supposed hatred of malice…. and yet, you defend the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones -who love attacking anyone they despise- under the guise of freedom of speech.

It is either you are too big of an imbecile to understand the purpose of freedom of speech… OR you just want an excuse for your abnormally pitiful inability to cope with even the most inconsequential human differences.

.

.

.

.

.

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.

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.

Feminists and anti-feminists: a common ground

*puts on a mask*

Some people support feminism because they believe it is the most effective way to coerce women into embracing western liberal values.

They shame women who willingly embrace modest fashion, who willingly choose to become stay-at-home moms, who willingly choose to become abstinent and who willingly choose to become/stay religious.

Their reasoning? They want to liberate women from the oppressive and medieval eastern values, especially the Islamic ones.

Some people oppose feminism because they want to protect women from western values and coerce them to keep embracing eastern values, particularly the Islamic ones.

They shame women who willingly show the slightest appearances of their skin, hair and bodily curves, who willingly choose to be unmarried and childless and who willingly choose to have active sex lives.

Their reasoning? They want to liberate women from the oppressive and overtly-sexualised western liberal values.

I have to a suggestion for both feminists and anti-feminists:

Why don’t you just make peace with each other?

I mean, it is quite obvious how you actually have something in common with each other: you are advocating to take women’s right to think and act for themselves under the pretense of liberating them.

Wouldn’t your goals become easier to achieve when you find a common ground with the “others” and form a gigantic and influential alliance?

Together, you can oppress women to the fullest.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.