BS people believe about urbanists: an extension

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

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

.

.

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

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

False.

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

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

Now, how about you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seventh projection part B: imprisonment

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

False.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and don’t forget the traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

Either that or you are just virtue signaling.

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What are you trying to achieve, conspiracy “theorists”?

Let’s not talk about your inability to provide evidences, your convenient excuses for it and your misuse of the word “theory” (even though I acknowledge that most people misuse it as well).

Let’s talk about how you try to paint yourselves not only as bearers of truth, but also the only beacon of morality. But, no one other than gullible people and your fellow “theorists” fall for it. We know damn well you never care about morality.

I’ll show you some examples.

You talk about chemtrails because you claim to be against the establishments poisoning the masses. But, you never said anything about factories and mines polluting the air, water and soil… and you never said about governments putting a blind eye and loosening environmental regulations.

You are against vaccines because you claim to be against greedy people pushing questionable or unproven medical products. But, you never said anything about the Sackler family – who caused the opioid crisis in America – and the snake oil salesmen.

You are a proud of supporter of Qanon because you claim to be against child sexual abuses, especially ones allegedly perpetrated by the so-called satanic liberal leftists. But, you never said anything about the cases involving clergymen and you ignore the fact that parents or anyone close to the children can also be sexual abusers.

You embrace conspiracy “theories” because you claim to be against the injustice and the establishments’ whitewashed narratives. But, you never said about the discriminations faced by women and minorities and schools feeding young children whitewashed history lessons.

My point is if you truly care about those causes, you would have done so long before you hear about those “theories”. You embrace them because you want everyone to see you standing on the highest pedestal, because you want to feel better than everyone else.

If you truly care about morality, your image, how good you feel about yourselves and winning the moral competition should be the last things on your mind. You should be concerned about how you actually treat your fellow human beings.

You may have successfully fooled gullible people, fellow conspiracy “theorists” and even yourselves.

But, some of us are able to see through your virtue signalling.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“You should ‘go out’ more”… part 2

A while ago, I wrote a blogpost about how people keep suggesting me to “go out” and encounter opposing worldview NOT because they care about me, but because I refuse to appease to their preconceived beliefs; they want to discredit me, but aren’t able to.

I just realised “going out” also means leaving one’s comfort zones. Once again, I see this as a good thing. You won’t know what you love or hate, what you are good or bad at, unless you try something new.

But, just like the previous case, they don’t care about my well-being. They want me to leave my comfort zone NOT because I am too comfortable inside (which is unfortunately true), but because they want to shove their interests and agendas down my throat.

They want me to do sports, automotive hobbies and any “adventurous” activities like indoor climbing because they themselves love those activities and/or they have a shallow and arbitrary idea of masculinity.

They want me to do group activities because they are zealous extroverts who think introverts like me are damaged, poor souls who must be cured from a horrible mental illness that is introversion.

They want me to consume certain music and films because they want to eradicate tastes which they consider as “uncool”.

How can I be certain those are not baseless accusations?

Well, first thing first, the “new” activities they join have always interested them since forever.

They do new sports because they have always loved sports. They do automotive activities because they have always loved any car-related things. They do things like skydiving because they have always been adrenaline junkies.

You never see them doing calm-paced activities like reading books, visiting museums, having a stroll in the park, learning “useless” or niche knowledge like history, religion or urban planning. Definitely not voluntarily.

They join group activities because they have always loved big social settings; they love them so much, they helped spreading COVID-19. You never see them being voluntarily solitary.

Everything they consume is popular and trendy. You never see them interested in discovering new styles of music and films. They are proudly basic.

Overall, their idea of leaving comfort zones is doing things that they know they will enjoy.

They also don’t take no as an answer. If I try their suggestions and I don’t enjoy them in the slightest, they will harass me to try them again. They won’t stop until I enjoy them.

With those information in mind, it is evident that they criticise my lifestyle NOT because I am too comfortable in my comfort zones, but because I am too different for their liking.

Somehow, my ‘peculiarities’ personally offend them.

.

.

It should be pointed out that their interests are far more mainstream than mine, at least in where I am from.

Sports – whether spectatorship or actually playing them – are undeniably popular all over the world. While they are not the popular, automotive hobbies and adrenaline activities have notable presence in many Indonesian cities, including my hometown. And I certainly don’t need to explain about pop culture. No matter how uninterested you are, you would still get involuntarily exposed to them.

Meanwhile, mine are much more niche.

I stood out as a teen because I preferred oldies, some of my favourite films are unorthodox arthouse, bibliophilia is almost unheard of (I used to read a lot more books) and there aren’t any mainstream platforms where one can discuss social science, humanities and the arts beyond the basic facts; I am also interested in urban planning, a topic which is growing in popularity yet still a niche, even online. If you are uninterested or aren’t being forced to study them, you wouldn’t get exposed to any of them.

I can argue they should be the ones who try embracing my interests instead of the other way around. But, I am not that conceited and I am self-aware enough to realise I need a lot to learn in life.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

So, you think the Russians are complicit?

If so, why?

Why do you think the ordinary Russians are guilty of the wars? Do you realise that not only the war has low support among them and the soldiers, they also live under an authoritarian regime and therefore, rendering them politically powerless? Do you realise that speaking out against the government can get you jailed and even killed?

I have to state the obvious because some of you still don’t get it and I don’t know why. Maybe you are a privileged fuck who spent their whole life in a liberal democratic bubble and don’t know how it feels to live under political repression. Or maybe, you are a bigot who will do anything to justify your dehumanising hatred of the Russians, regardless of the facts.

If you are the former, you probably think the Russian people can easily form paramilitary units and topple the government in days. You probably think the Russian people are lazy people whose desire for liberty is as paper thin as your desire to understand fellow human beings.

You probably think The Arab Spring and the fall of the USSR are great examples of how easy it is to defeat authoritarianism, even though the reality shows otherwise.

(I don’t know why I use the word “probably” when you motherfuckers explicitly spew those beliefs)

The Arab world are still packed with tyrannical leaders, Syria and Libya become plagued with instability, Russia in the 90’s was full of political and economic crises and it ends up with a post-Soviet tyrant anyway.

Basically, not only there is no guarantee of better lives, there is also high possibility of even worse ones; those who spend their lives in liberal democracies don’t know the feeling.

As you can see, I believe it is stupid to hold all Russians accountable. But, even if I believe such intellectual retardation, how does that make Americans and their allies?

Americans have way more freedom to oppose the establishment. But, the majority of them chose to support the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, happily consumed pro-war media content and even reelected their president! Even to this day, many Americans still make excuses for the invasions and American media has yet to acknowledge their past sin.

And American allies …

Some actively supported America in the invasions and even committing their own war crimes. Those who were not busy participating could have easily boycotted America and other war participants… and yet, they did none of those.

Despite having the freedom to publicly oppose the wars, to vote every single war-mongering politician out of office, to put every single war-mongering media outlet out of business and having the power to boycott entire countries, they voluntarily choose to support the wars, vote for the war-mongers and keep making them extremely rich and let the war participants unpunished.

I don’t believe all Americans and all citizens of their allies are complicit, just like I don’t believe all Russians are. In this regard, I am consistent. But, some of you clearly aren’t.

If you believe all Russians are complicit, then you should also believe all Americans and their allies are blood-thirsty war-mongers who want their children and children’s children aroused by the sight of white people turning brown people into mutilated corpses.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

So, you think you are anti-bigotry and extremism?

If I ask you what bigotry is, I am sure your answer would be something like, “the demonisation of (an) entire group(s)”. If I ask you what extremism is, I am sure yours would be something like, “the embrace of extreme views and/or actions”. Everyone can get the gist what both words mean.

Well, not really.

If you condemn someone for demonising an entire group of distinct human beings, then you are anti-bigotry. If you condemn someone for justifying the brutalisation of innocent people just for achieving certain goals, then you are anti-extremism.

Well, not quite. You are anti both IF you apply those attitudes to literally every person, including yourself.

If you condemn certain Muslims for being extremists and yet you justify the killing of innocent Muslims by American government OR you condemn American foreign policy and yet you justify the deaths of Americans in 9/11, you are not anti-bigotry and extremism.

Not only you see those groups as nothing but giant monoliths, you believe it is acceptable for anyone to kill the people simply for sharing “membership” with the bad apples. Not only you are anti to neither, you embrace them.

So many people have accused me of complicity to bigotry and extremism. Why? Because I defend not just myself, my fellow Muslims, my fellow Indonesians, but also non-Muslim and non-Indonesian fellow human beings from proudly malicious generalisations.

My accusers believe the only way to fight bigotry and extremism is to stereotype and even incite violence against entire groups. When I call them out, they always deny it. But, they always throw the accusation at me only after I denounce their stereotyping and incitement, not because I explicitly and implicitly justify the evil they supposedly condemn.

Yes, supposedly. It is very apparent they hate the immorality only when it is perpetrated by the wrong crowds; if the perpetrators are the “right” people AKA their allies and themselves, they would paint their immorality as praise-worthy, truth-telling politically incorrectness.

Call me radical. But, you cannot be anti-something when you love embracing that something.

Oh, and I also acknowledge both words are loaded. I do agree they shouldn’t be thrown around easily. But, I am confident I am utilising them appropriately.

I have encountered so many people who insist someone cannot be bigoted if they are not violent. Thankfully, unlike them, my standard isn’t that low.

If you have dehumanising beliefs about the “others”, you are bigoted. If you believe the end justifies even the most violent means, you are extremist.

If you are neither, why are you okay with such thoughts nesting in your thinking organ? Heck, why are they there in the first place?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The Coronavirus pandemic reminds me that…

… Virtue signalling exists.

Opponents of lockdown love to claim that their opposition is based on their concern about people with low income.

What they are doing is virtual signalling.

They love accusing the supporters of disparaging low-income people and dismissing their plights… which is, of course, dishonest because I have yet to encounter fellow lockdown supporters who do exactly that; believe it or not, we are also concerned about the economic crisis, which would definitely happen even without lockdowns (do you seriously fucking believe the economies would stay hunky-dory with people dropping dead?).

Prior the pandemic, those people were not concerned with poverty. If anything, they were the extreme opposites of social justice warriors. They blamed poor people for their hardship, they glorified inequality and they would do anything to keep the incomes of lower-class people low.

They oppose lockdowns NOT because they care about people’s prosperity, but because they are selfish fucktards who believe partying and haircuts are more important than the public health. They virtue signal because they want to mask their ungodly egoistic selves.

They remind me of Americans who care about homeless veterans ONLY when refugee crisis is a hot topic. They virtue signal because they know being racist and xenophobic is no longer cool.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Not being vegan

Even if I agree that every animal-based product stands on animal sufferings (still not convinced about sheep wool), I still don’t buy the belief that veganism makes one moral.

Treating fellow human beings like shits makes you a scumbag, regardless whether you are vegan or not; no need to be a genius to grasp that. If anything, focusing solely on the products you are consuming means you are missing the bigger picture.

Not to mention that many animal-free products are also produced by the means of suffering. Unless you spent your living under a diamond-crusted, golden boulder (and many of you clearly did), you would have heard about human exploitations committed by agribusinesses. Once every vegetable and fruit farm treats its labourers like human beings, I will concede and acknowledge the moral legitimacy of veganism.

But, that’s very utopian. There is an extremely low possibility of me becoming vegan for that reason.

There are two factors that will compel me to consumer fewer animal products: health and emotional attachment. Mind the word fewer; I will not exclude them from my consumptions entirely.

I am open to the possibility that science will declare vegan diet as the healthiest one of all; it makes sense because we get our nutrients from food. But, I don’t see how using leather and wool is detrimental to our health.

I can also see myself stop consuming certain animal products because I get emotionally-attached to the animals they are derived from; I am sure I can get attached to animals like cows and goats. But, I cannot see myself attached to any seafood; I never feel guilty for eating them. I wonder if humans have ever bonded with tunas and shrimps before.

But, despite everything I just said, I am not siding with some fellow non-vegans either.

Some non-vegans like me question veganism for its scientific and moral validity, both of which have been claimed by vegans. But, some are just pure loonies.

They love meat so much, they see meat-eating as a some sort of moral duty. They feel that vegans spit on their faces with their meatless diet. They feel their right to eat meat is trampled by the mere existence of vegans. As a result, some people genuinely wanted to boycott a British bakery chain for selling vegan sausage rolls!

Basically, just like some zealous vegans, those meat eaters are extremists.

A tangent:

If I am in charge of a school or a group of schools, I would provide vegan school lunches. Unless you forget about what I just said paragraphs ago, you know I don’t care about evangelising veganism.

One thing for sure: providing vegan meals means I have to deal with waaaaay less dietary restrictions. While people can be allergic to certain plants and a handful of religious laws prohibit the consumption of certain plants, cutting animal-based ingredients altogether will reduce the hassles by a wide margin.

But, even if it is not true, wouldn’t it be beneficial for the students to familiarise themselves with the tastes of fruits and vegetables? While I doubt many end up as vegans, I am certain they would not end up as adults who can only get culinary pleasures from meat and dairy.

And I am also certain it would boost the creativity of the cooks. Their thinking organs must work harder in order to create healthy but tasty dishes with strict limitations imposed upon them.

When I said ‘cooks’, I meant people who actually cook dishes from scratch. Heating up frozen pizza and tater tots does not count as cooking.

.

.

.

.

.

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.

Different types of Hasan Minhaj haters

Yes, I am going to talk about his haters before I talk about him because of two simple reasons: 1. I am not done analysing him; 2. His haters are annoyingly hilarious to behold.

Now, where do I start?

Well, so far, I can place them into three separate boxes: Pro-Duterte Filipinos, pro-Modi and anti-Modi Indians and anti-Zionists, some of whom may be Muslims.

Those Filipinos accuse him of trying to make their country look bad and India looks good in comparison. They also accuse him of trivialising the deaths caused by drug dealers and gang members.

Those Indians accuse him of being a Pakistani agent and an Islamic extremist apologist. The Modi detractors among them think he makes the BJP even more powerful.

Those anti-Zionists accuse him of not making an episode on Israel simply because he fears the pro-Israel US government.

Some of the anti-Zionists also think he hates his fellow Muslims because he has shat too many times on his fellow Muslims.

If you actually know him, you would know how stupid those accusations sound.

Those particular Filipinos probably think his Indian lineage proves his anti-Filipino and pro-India biases.

Not only it is racist, they also willfully ignore that he has talked more about India in his show than he has about the Philippines.

I also don’t know how they think “tarnishing” their country’s international image instantly makes India’s looks good. Unless you have lived in both countries, you would NEVER instinctively compare the two with each other. They neither share the same roots nor they are physically side by side. And they certainly are not major rivals.

He also has made episodes (plural) about sleazy pharmaceutical companies and the acts of violence committed around the world. He would be the last person to be apathetic about violent drug dealers.

Pro-Modi Indians consider the combination of his anti-Hindutva stances and his Islamic background as a sign of his tolerance of Islamic extremism… even though his very first episode is about Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of Islamic extremism.

Anti-Modi Indians blame him for boosting BJP’s popularity right before the election… instead of actually blaming it on the Indians who are either supportive of the party or silent of the problems it poses. Blame the turds, NOT the ones who want to flush them away.

Some Indians (I don’t know if they are pro or anti-Modi) also accuse him of being a Pakistani agent…. and their only “solid” evidence is his green and white hoodie he wore in the Indian cricket episode.

That evidence is so ridiculous, I pray it is just a joke instead of an expression of sincere idiocy. Knowing humans, there is a high chance of it being sincere.

Anti-Zionists think his silence on Israel is a sign of his cowardly submission to the US government… ignoring that the US government is the government he condemns the most; even his Saudi Arabia episode includes condemnation of the US government.

It has been clear to me some of them are Muslims; they hate how he condemns his fellow Muslims a bit too often. Yes, he does shit on his fellow Muslims.

But, he condemns those who commit religious extremism, which is a fucking good thing to do and you have to be an asshole to believe otherwise. He is unlike those so-called “reformers” who willingly throw their fellow believers under the bus just for the sake of being “palatable” to western reactionaries.

If anything, he is all about empowerment as he often talks about American Muslims (and minorities in general) overcoming societal discriminations; his Netflix special heavily focused on this matter.

—-

Obviously, my categories are grossly simplistic and inadequate. If I even bother to scroll down the comment sections more, I would have more well-thought-out categorisation.

But still, I am surprised about the dearth of American right-wingers and Pro-Bolsonaro Brazilians on his videos’ comment sections.

It is surprising because he often condemns the policies proposed and enacted by the GOP (even though the Dems are not spared from his condemnation) and he has made a video about the Brazilian Amazonian people, who loath Bolsonaro; many anti-Bolsonaro videos on Youtube, including John Oliver’s, suffer from unfavourable like-dislike ratio.

This is not my first time witnessing a public figure’s detractors spewing accusations that are baseless and at odds with each other. But, this is the first time I am mindful of how pronounced the contradictions are.

The fallacies are more frequently used while the prejudice and the ideological zealotry are more shamelessly naked. His haters are followers of the global trend.

Even though I am not done with my “analysis” of him, I can confidently say one thing:

The fact that he has ruffled the feathers of many parties and causing them to react irrationally shows he has done a really great job.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.