The Crimes of Grindewald… a crime against Harry Potter

I hope you can survive my cringeworthy title, dear readers.

I am sure some of you immediately disagree with me. How about the Cursed Child, some of you may ask. Well, I haven’t read the script nor have I watched the live stage performance. My thoughts about it are purely formed out of other people’s synopses. So, apart from it being an official fan fiction, I cannot say much about it.

Besides, just like its predecessor, The Crimes of Grindewald was written by Rowling herself and deserves a space in the Harry Potter canon more than the other motion pictures in the franchise… and its high status is also the reason why it is one of the most disappointing among them. Before going to that, let me tell you one of the many reasons why I love the series: its revelations.

Obviously, I am not the only one who do for that reason. But, the mysteries and foreshadowing are often overlooked by anyone outside the fandom. I love how masterly Rowling places subtle clues all over; they make really good answers to the mysteries and good tip-offs to incoming events. Every revelation feels natural; they feel both surprising and foreseeable the same time, if that makes sense.

Devoted readers will definitely re-read the books and they will notice how the clues were sneakily implanted chapters or even books prior; devoted and observant ones will easily recall the clues without the need to turn the previous pages again. The fact that we, the readers, are allowed to play detectives even after encountering the revelations gives us an intense sense of joy! Despite the series’ many flaws, it still makes a compelling reading!

And The Crimes of Grindewald does the exact opposite.

Instead of dropping hints for future episodes, it prefers to dump a fuckload of information in a relatively short time slot! The audience is being denied the excitement and has to endure something comparable to a university lecture… if a university lecture is more than two hours long and the lecturer condenses most of the important bits near the end. Basically, it is worse than a university lecture! There is no captivating mystery and foreshadowing that makes Harry Potter fun in the first place!

I don’t know why this happens. Maybe she is forced to speed up the plot, maybe she no longer has the passion to write and she now sees her job as a mere job…

Or maybe, if we bring Occam’s Razor into this, she is an inexperienced screenwriter.

Prior to the first Fantastic Beasts film, she had never written a single script for a motion picture; her resume was all prose-writing. She does not know how to audiovisually convey the Harry Potter-esque detective role-playing. So, she ends up making an avalanche of information.

Of course, she could have hired an experienced professional as a co-screenwriter. She could also have delegated the job altogether. But nooooo! Despite having let screenwriters adapting her novels into films, despite having a fan fiction included in the Harry Potter canon, she now thinks it is her turn as an inexperienced person to write the scripts solo! It just does not make any sense!

Actually, after I think about it, that flaw is the least of the film’s problems (and, because I am already too emotionally invested in the flaw I just talked about, I need to write about it). In the end, we should be concerned about its focus.

When I first heard about the series, I actually expected it to be all about Newt Scamander’s (mis)adventures. After watching the first instalment, I really didn’t mind how it involves Grindewald. There is no doubt Newt will encounter humans who impede his quests. Not to mention Grindewald is a character that Dumbledore used to associate himself with and is often mentioned in The Deathly Hallows; his appearance signals to devoted potheads that this is indeed a Harry Potter story.

And the sequel happens. Its title needs no explanation. Even before watching it, it is obvious how he’ll be the lead protagonist whom our lead protagonist must defeat.

WHY???

The series is called Fantastic Beasts, for fuck’s sake! It should be about Newt Scamander’s journey as a magizoologist, NOT a fucking action hero! If they want the main character to have such cliche characterisation, why can’t they be honest from the very beginning? Why do they have to double-cross us with that deceptive title? That’s like naming a series as Harry Potter and it turns out to be mainly about the fucking Dursleys!

I should also point out that the betrayal exposes how repetitive the franchise has become. The seven novels are already about ‘good versus evil’, which itself was already a cliche even before Philosopher’s Stone was first published! Why do they have to repeat the already-conventional theme?

The first film has been hailed by reasonable people for its main male protagonist who refuses to be stereotypically aggressive, insensitive and cocky. Such defiance of a tradition is a novelty in pop culture!

Just imagine: an entire series that tells the story of an unassuming young man discovering, protecting and learning about magical beasts, where combating fellow human beings is a mere part of the arbitrary subplots! Not only the series would be a pleasing anomaly in Hollywood, it would also be a trend-setter, altering the cultural norms for the better in which tenderness are not perceived as incompatible with masculinity and heroism.

But, nope. For whatever the reasons (to play safe, perhaps), someone decides they should continue upholding the status quo because progress is something that everyone should thrive to avoid.

If you think I am being judgmental cynic… well, can you blame me? Even if you hate or are unfamiliar with Harry Potter, you still can easily determine how Fantastic Beasts deliberately fracture its own backbone by chapter two. The flaw is just too great to ignore and, more importantly too sinful to turn a blind eye to. I deeply hate the adaptation of Order of the Phoenix and yet it is still far less insufferable than The Crimes of Grindewald.

If you pay attention, you would notice how the film perfectly symbolises this act of treachery:

In the beginning, our (supposed) hero Newt is being offered to have his international travel permit reinstated in exchange for assisting the ministry in fighting the dark side. Being a relative pacifist who seems uninterested in joining the establishment, he refuses the offer. His brother Theseus is disappointed with him, wishing he was the kind of person who is willing to take a bold moral stance. Near the end of the story, after experiencing a massive emotional toll of what he and others have just experienced, Newt decides to take the offer and finally taking a side.

In the eyes of his brother, Newt has decided to grow up and take a strong stance against evil. If you take the character development for granted, you would easily share Theseus’ perspective. But, this is Harry Potter franchise we are talking about here.

Anyone familiar with it knows how corrupt the Ministry of Magic is! I cannot talk for other potheads. But, in my eyes, Newt sells himself out to the brother he does not always get along with and the sleazy political establishment he works for, sacrificing his own ideals he had been holding on since the very beginning.

Symbolically, it exposes how a male lead character that defies long-held conventions regarding masculinity is being transformed into another stock character that pleases the cultural establishment who seems allergic to any signs of slight changes.

I am trying to be optimistic, forcing myself to believe that Rowling may have a delightful surprise for all of us. But, The Crimes of Crindewald has clearly revealed the true purpose of the series and I cannot ignore that! In the end, unless someone has a sudden change of heart, my optimism is and will always be a wishful thinking.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to report Youtube culture as a ‘journalist’?

*puts on a mask*

The first thing you do is to embrace a reactionary mindset. Youtube culture is very young and new; therefore, anything that possess at least one of those adjectives must be dealt with utmost disrespect and dishonesty. Obviously, those two sentences should be enough to be your starting points. But, I need to be more detailed with this.

If you are being entirely truthful, you would make Youtubers in a very good light. Why? Because, unlike most traditional media people, they have to work harder. When they started doing Youtube, their careers didn’t immediately take off; on average, it takes five years for them to finally make a living out of the website. Not to mention they also had to learn how to be the host, director, cinematographer, editor, scriptwriter and graphic designer all at the same time and they can delegate those roles only after they can afford to do so!

So, you have to ignore all of those aspects and focus entirely on their supposedly ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘nonsensical’ popularity. That way, those Youtubers will appear like kids who achieve easy fame and fortune by simply making pointless videos from their bedrooms.

When talking about their videos, emphasise on the ones that showcase nothing but simple and escapist fun. Never mention the more heartfelt videos that even many mainstream Youtubers have made. Never mention that some Youtubers solely make educational videos! In the end, ‘traditional’ entertainment will look like the one with high quality when everyone knows it is far from the truth.

Oh, and don’t forget to take everything out of context. You have to portray every joke, including the dark ones (especially the dark ones) as expressions of seriousness. When they make serious statements that are laced with reason and morality, you should chop some of their words to make them sound like the villains and their actually villainous opponents look like the victims!

But, you are a journalist. In the end, you should be objective. What should you do if you don’t want to appear entirely antagonistic? Well, you have to remember what your parents told you: money is everything!

Focus on how much money they make. Even if you don’t know the exact number as Youtubers aren’t allowed to disclose their earnings, act like you know the exact number! Every time you don’t have anything good to say about them, just be obsessive about their wealth to the point where you act like you deserve the money more than those Youtubers do!

Oh, and never ever talk about the amount of money they have raised for charity. Your audience is mostly a bunch of selfish, money-obsessed individuals. They will never be interested in wealthy and charitable public figures. They are only interested in the ones who wear greed and selfishness as their badges of pride!

I hope you understand the basics of Youtube culture journalism. If you want to see great examples of it, you can watch and read media outlets’ reportage of Pewdiepie.

I know people have said this before: I believe Wall Street Journal is the best when it comes to reporting the biggest name on Youtube.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to survive Facebook as a hateful monster?

*puts on the mask*

Obviously, don’t use slurs. Facebook will immediately block your account for that. Heck, even users who use them in the context of vehemently opposing hatred will have their accounts blocked. Why? Because Facebook does not hire humans to be its watchdogs.

The company believes the human mind is not black-and-white enough as it is still able to the nuances of words and detect the subtexts. They prefer to employ androids which are not only encased in actual human flesh stolen from war casualties, but also adorned with extremely unsophisticated artificial intelligence that only detect words individually and literally. This is why it feels like Facebook is managed by retarded human beings who don’t know what is right or wrong, just like what the Winklevoss twi… I meant, Mark Zuckerberg intended!

So, if you want to express your dehumanising hatred against your fellow human beings, be as vague and mundane-sounding as possible to the point where your opponents who criticise your prejudiced remarks will look like crazy libtards who see non-existing bigotry in everything.

But, at the same time, don’t be too vague. Make sure the messages are still comprehensible to yourself; I mean, they are yours after all. Of course, it would be better if you up your game by elevating their comprehensibility to your ideological allies. So, not only your remarks allow you to express your thoughts and feelings, they will also empower others who share yours and hence making your ideology even more politically powerful. I believe it is called a dog-whistling.

Follow my tips and I can guarantee the utopia where the people we rightly vilify are legally prescribed as subhumans will be more and more true to life.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to have political integrity?

*puts on a mask*

First thing first: never ever take the words of politicians seriously, not even when they threaten to destroy the nature, destroy our education, destroy our collective intellect and discriminate the minorities even further! In the end, literally every single one of them won’t take their own words seriously!

Don’t worry about their supporters taking their words seriously either! A racist will never feel empowered by the racist rhetoric of an influential public figure. If you don’t take politicians’ words seriously, others won’t as well! That’s literally how life works: you are the centre of the universe!

Oh, and having integrity does not mean you cannot have fun.

You can just vote for the sake of participating! If you have firm stances on certain issues, you can vote as if your stances are entirely the opposite! Then, when the stances you oppose win the most votes, why not whine about how disappointed you are with the results? British EU remainers who voted for Brexit are the best examples of this.

You also can vote for the sake of angering the other side! You hate them so much that you can vote for a politician you probably disagree with almost entirely just for the sake of taking piss at your political opponents! Experiencing schadenfreude is worth making light of the election of people who rule us. The people who voted for Trump just to own the libtards are great examples of this.

You also don’t have to own up to the politicians you voted for! You can vote for one who was famous in the first place for his/her sexism, racism, homophobia and incitement of violence. Then, you deny he/she was ever sexist, racist, homophobic and violent and you also accuse people who pay attention to his/her rhetoric of slander! Americans who voted for Trump and Brazilians who voted for Bolsonaro are great examples of this.

If I make it sound like politics is not something to be taken seriously, that’s because it is! Politics is literally just a game where one participates for the sake of winning and messing around! Taking it seriously as if one’s life depends on it, as if it is an urgent matter of humanity, means one has a weak grasp of reality.

I don’t know about you. But, that does not sound like a person with integrity to me!

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Exploring cultures, Anthony Bourdain style

I will only discuss three of his TV shows and none of the books as I haven’t read a single one. So, it takes a lot of cockiness to write about a person without full immersion in his works. Anyway…

I have been loving him since his A Cook’s Tour years. When I was younger, I watched him simply because of the food. A show was good enough if it involved lots of food, I believed.

Then, many years later, after watching his subsequent shows, this one seems juvenile and sterile in comparison. For me, it feels like it is less about the cultural experience and more about Tony being a cynical and cocky douche. It certainly did not and does not make me feel intrigued by other cultures. But, younger me said, ‘hey, food!’.

No Reservations is not an immediate stylistic departure. The earlier episodes are not that different from ones from A Cook’s Tour. But, they are indeed less rushed, more mature and more compelling. As the show progresses, it has become more profound.

He becomes more keen to point out the darker side of reality. Politics, discrimination, natural disasters, you name it. The Hokkaido episode, which mentions discrimination of the Ainus, is the first time I pay attention to the show’s depth. Before No Reservations, I had never encountered a single travelling show like this (that I know of)!

Not only it increases its thematic profundity, it also amplifies the visual artistry which, again, is a novelty to a show of such genre (again, that I know of). Watching the later seasons feels like watching a beautifully crafted yet underappreciated TV show. It also helps some episodes are tributes to certain films which Tony and/or the crew was/were (a) big fan(s) of. And then, came The Layover…

…Which I skipped over and, to this day, I haven’t watched a single episode. I wasn’t aware of its existence until his fourth and unfortunately last show was announced. To this day, I am still uninterested about the premise. But, I will probably change my mind. Probably.

Parts Unknown exceeded my expectation. It seems unsatisfied with its predecessor’s artistry and believes radical enhancement is needed for itself. And radical it is.

In No Reservations, the audio and visuals are utilised to emphasise and accompany what is being portrayed on the screen. Some episodes of Parts Unknown were also crafted in a similar manner. Some.

In other episodes, they are utilised to encourage the audience to start seeing the world through a philosophical lens instead of just focusing on its physicality; combined with the lyrical narration, the show’s audiovisual ethereality really reminds me of magical realism, something that I never expected from unscripted motion picture works!

I know, I know. I sound like a pretentious prick who reads too much into things. But, I am a sucker for magical realism and any similar styles of arts. Considering how metaphysical some episodes feel, you cannot blame me for having such feeling. They do feel magical.

Oh, yeah. The cultures…

I used to depend on media personalities for cultural knowledge. I still do, but not entirely. Nowadays, I try to accept the possibility of them unintentionally spewing stereotypes and misinformation. Even Anthony Bourdain could not escape such criticisms.

I seriously cannot blame him and his peers for making that mistake. They cannot fully escape the cultural outlooks they grew up with and they are dependent on their local contacts who probably possess very narrow frames of mind regarding their homelands. This is what I still can tolerate to some extent.

What I cannot tolerate is phoniness. I hate it when TV hosts pretend to be curious about the ‘exotic’. Sometimes, you can see their oily faces sticking to the masks, revealing their true appearances. As flawed as he could be, Anthony Bourdain was still very honest with what he liked and disliked. Oh, and the way he approached cultural exploration also made him stand out from his contemporaries.

Besides local cultures experts, who may or may not have academic backgrounds, he also had chefs, sailors, farmers and hunters as guests. Of course, having guests of relevant expertise is not unusual. Andrew Zimmern also has people of similar occupations as guests. Rick Steves often has fellow travel guides as guests. But, Tony wanted more than just interacting with ‘food’ and ‘culture’ people.

He also had fellow media personalities, writers (especially crime fiction ones), musicians (especially Rock ones), politicians and members of (relatively) fringe groups in his shows. I don’t think I need to explain why it made sense to invite media personalities, considering he was one.

I am not surprised about him inviting writers as he was a one who also had published both non-fiction and crime fiction books; he would not have a hard time bonding with them and scooping their perspectives on the local cultures.

I am also not surprised he invited politicians. Like it or not, politics can affect every single aspect of our lives, whether directly or not, and that includes foods. Of course, this is purely my thought. Tony invited politicians probably because he was interested in politics in general (he really, really hated Henry Kissinger, by the way).

I am not sure about the musicians, though. While he did have high appreciation of music, particularly Rock, I am still unsure of why he invited them. He probably wanted to know more about the local cultures. Or he probably just wanted to hang out with them. Even though I can’t say for sure, the former is something that I would do if I were him.

I am also not sure about the culturally fringe individuals (again, relatively fringe), like the residents of Christiania in Copenhagen and Molokai in Hawaii state. Maybe, as a former dweller of Provincetown, he felt he would not have much trouble bonding with them. Maybe he believed understanding a mainstream society would feel inadequate and too sugary without the alternative perspectives, a sentiment that I happen to possess.

Whatever the reasons, whether he did it on purpose or not, I have to give Anthony Bourdain credit for giving me new perspectives on how to explore cultures, whether they are ‘foreign’ or my own. Our understanding of a society will be more well-rounded once we utilise different and distinct paradigms.

Of course, as an Indonesian, I have to talk about his Indonesian episodes.

I hate the one from No Reservations. It uses the same ‘Indonesia-is-all-about-Jakarta-and-Bali’ cliche. It does cover West Java, a territory that many foreigners haven’t heard and don’t care about. But, it has to compete for attention with the more internationally-known ones. That’s like making a US episode in which lesser known places like Savannah or Austin have to compete for attention with New York City and Los Angeles.

The only thing I love about the episode is the scene where cameraman Todd Liebler accidentally crashed the piling plates of foods in a Padang restaurant (there is a reason why those areas are off-limit to customers, for God’s sake). The farce is the only reason why I still keep re-watching it.

Even though I think Andrew Zimmern is an inferior host in comparison with his sometimes cringeworthy behaviours and conventional style of communication, his short-lived and little-known show Bizarre World does a better job in portraying Indonesia.

It dedicates two episodes on my country, each focusing on one specific region: Bali and Sulawesi. While No Reservations gives the impression that Jakarta, West Java and Bali are all the country about, Bizarre World sternly communicates the audience how everything depicted on the screen, including the elaborate Torajan funeral ceremony (which I always want to attend once in my life), is confined to certain localities and does not fully represent the entire country! For me, that’s how one should do a foreign travelling piece!

The Indonesian episode of Parts Unknown exceeds my expectation… in spite of the Jakarta-Bali cliche!

The beginning of the episode features having a sumptuous Minangkabau lunch with Desi Anwar, a CNN Indonesia host, and a Dalang (wayang puppeteer). Desi asserted that tasting every Indonesian dish will take us forty years to achieve!

Obviously, such claim is conjectural. But, I cannot blame every individual who knows Indonesia really well for believing that. The country is indeed really diverse and it is often something I bring up when discussing multiculturalism and Indonesian stereotypes with foreigners. The acknowledgement of its diversity really kicks the No Reservations episode in the nut!

Desi also claimed that Indonesians enjoy dishes from other ethnicities, even ones they have grudges against. I am so fucking happy she said that! For years, I have been noticing how we love eating foods of the people we constantly demonise! In the US, it is mostly the Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans. In Indonesia, it is mostly the Chinese-Indonesians.

Not only it exposes more about the insufferableness of humanity, it also exposes human prejudice’s inability to dictate what our taste buds should like or dislike. It sheds light on the deep-rooted universality of food! It probably has something to do with food being one of our basic human needs and our survival instinct compels us to have a taste palate as wide-ranging as possible. But, that’s just my conjecture as someone who never attended a single proper science in his lifetime. Anyway, back to the show.

I am also happy the episode features a historian with whom Anthony briefly talks the 1960’s anti-communist massacre. It is treated by nationalistic Indonesians just like how the crusades being treated by Christian fundamentalists: glorifyingly!

I am not a communist and the idea of living under the rule of communism is as terrifying as living under fascism. But, even if the Indonesian communist party (or PKI as popularly known) was indeed involved in the September 30 movement (or G30S as popularly known), I still cannot find any moral justification for the mass killings!

For one, how do you know every single human casualty involves actual communists? How do you know they were not targeted simply for their Chinese ancestry, their religious beliefs or lack thereof? How do you know the murderers were not purely motivated by bloodlust or the desire to play fucking ‘superheroes’?

Even if every single victim was indeed a commie, how do you know the entire PKI was involved in G30S? In 1965, the party had over three million members. :iterally millions of them! You cannot expect reasonable minds to believe every single one was directly responsible for the violence! But, most importantly, what makes you think you are the ones with higher moral grounds? What makes you believe you, the apologists of the murders, are the good guys here?

Why do I act like I can reason with those people? Years after the fall of the Order Baru regime, Indonesians are still willingly getting deep-throated by its propaganda and we love wearing intellectual dishonesty as a fucking badge of honour! Okay, I need to stop with the historical revisionism tangent.

This is the second reason why I am so happy with the episode. Even though the historical ‘event’ was only being alluded to, the sense of inhumanity is strongly conveyed. I hope this has an effect on the viewers.

A handful of foreigners among them will probably be intrigued by and start researching about it; they will probably realise how supportive western governments and how apathetic most of the eastern bloc ones about the massacre. The Indonesian viewers, the ones with bloodlust at least, will realise how their beloved foreign idol viewed the historical ‘event’ as an example of humanity at one of its worst , NOT one of its best.

I never expected that I would discuss such topic in an article about a TV chef. The fact that I can do so emphasises what I said earlier about his political consciousness. But still, I haven’t got to the best part of the episode: the conversations about death.

Since I was young, I have been told by some fellow Indonesians that ‘death is just the beginning’, which is also how the narrator (who speaks with a ‘sophisticated’ Indonesian accent) puts it. I really doubt it is an exclusively Indonesian belief. But, I like the off-centre approach to cultural exploration.

Instead of focusing on earthly entities, this episode prefer to zoom in on a metaphysical realm which existence is not believed by every earthly being (this goes back to what I said earlier). The theme is fitting as there are scenes depicting Ngaben, the elaborate Balinese funeral ceremony (which I also have the desire to attend). Typically, documentaries include the thematic conversation to compliment the rituals being depicted. But, in this episode, the roles are reversed!

The death conversations take around half of the episode’s duration and the Ngaben scenes appear later on. The thematics is the main dish and its tangible representation is the optional condiment. This role reversal strongly argues how cultural heritage goes beyond its tangibility. We strive to protect it for the sake of its souls, NOT merely for its physicality.

In the light of Anthony’s death, which happened before the post-production process was finalised, this episode may feel eerie for some people. For others like me, it feels deeply poignant. This makes me wonder if he had been thinking about his own death for some times and the conversations was meant to help him contemplating about it.

Okay, I know I am crossing the boundary here. But, I have to be frank about it: that’s what I am feeling and I am confident some people are feeling the same! The fact that the last season of Parts Unknown is considered ‘unfinished’ intensifies the poignancy.

After his death, the Indonesian episode is the only ‘unfinished’ one that I have currently watched. As an Indonesian who has been interacting with foreigners regularly for years, I felt obligated to watch and critique every piece about Indonesia that foreigners assemble. Emotionally, I don’t have the gut to watch the other episodes.

The Indonesian episode is already hard to watch. Never mind the emotionally-fitting theme. The absence of his witty and poetic voice-over asserts there will be no more Anthony Bourdain to tell us stories.

Watching the other ‘unfinished’ pieces means I will have to listen to the harrowing truth over and over again.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What I think about the Shane Dawson and Bobby Burns ‘drama’

Yes, I know. This essay is many months too late and this is my fourth Shane Dawson writing. But, I need to write it as the toxic section of Shane’s fandom still spew venom to Bobby. Now, I also have venom to deliver.

It is quite obvious the problem is on Shane’s fandom. They cannot accept the fact that their idol is not being universally and unconditionally loved by the world! For them, their idol is an all-perfect deity who cannot do anything wrong. And someone dared to pop their bubble of delusion.

Bobby made a critical video of Shane being a conspiracy theorist. Even though he can be self-righteous mean and hypocritical with his Youtube commentaries, you have to admit he has made great points.

As much as I love Shane, his conspiracy videos are indeed full of shit and, even though he still possess some level of skepticism in him, he does a shitty job on emphasising it. Considering how impressionable many media consumers can be, Shane is being irresponsible. You cannot claim to be a reasonable person and claim there is nothing problematic about some of his content.

The only thing I hate about the so-called ‘hate’ video is the mentioning of Shane’s past black face controversy. While it is not a trivial matter, it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed and he is being petty about it.

Of course, I have to mention polygraph. While its accuracy is doubted by some scientists, watching Shane and Ryland getting tested by the device is still very entertaining. But, when it is Bobby’s turn, the enjoyment slips away.

It is obvious how much he suffers from anxiety and the thing about lie detector is it only detects how anxious we are, NOT whether we tell the truth or not! With the intense nervousness, Bobby easily fails the test. In that situation, some people will react by making jokey confessions; in Bobby’s case, he jokingly confesses about using Shane for fame. Unsurprisingly, the brainless fans use these as their smoking guns.

No matter how much you try to instill scientific literacy to their brains, it seems theirs have become a lost cause; pop culture has made them believe in the imaginary effectiveness of polygraphs. They also cite its usage by the law enforcement as an evidence of its usefulness… because we all know the authorities are all-knowing entities who never do anything wrong. I mean, just ask the bootlickers.

Their inability to understand subtexts coerces them to take every word uttered by other human beings for granted and, as Youtube is a platform where jokes, sarcasm and deception flourish, that makes them a bunch of obnoxious media consumers. We have to pity the reasonable individuals who have to put up with them offline.

You would think the hatred would die down after many months. But, one cannot never expect much from snakes. Days before I started writing this essay, Bobby had an accident while driving a car gifted to him by Shane. While Shane seems relieved he is okay, the fandom is not.

In his instagram account, Bobby is being condemned by Shane’s fans for being ungrateful about the car, accusing him of causing the accident without any solid evidences of his guilt. Some simply state their worry about the car and ignoring the human life inside it, subtly hinting his lack of human worthiness.

Others aren’t subtle at all. They are openly disappointed that he wasn’t killed in the accident… because it is morally acceptable to behave like Muslim fundamentalists who wish death upon every person who insults the prophet, because incitement is literally the only way to discredit the person you hate, because you will definitely look like the good guy here.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot…

Shane fucked up by giving away the expensive car and the Sunday slot on his channel. Besides for reasons I will explain later*, these acts of goodwill intensify the unreasonable hatred against Bobby, no matter how well-intentioned Shane is. This incites fans to believe the bigger Youtuber has been successfully manipulated by the smaller ones.

Many believe Destery Smith, another Youtuber who also has been given a slot in Shane’s channel for years, deserves the gift more than Bobby does. Of course, they expressed their support of him spewing toxicity in the comment sections of his subsequent videos. Because there is no better way of loving someone than dragging him/her along to the poison cloud you willingly breathe in.

Also, why do they have to bring Jordanne, Bobby’s girlfriend, to this? Why do they have to hate her as well? He is the one who made the so-called ‘hate’ video, NOT her! Heck, she even does not make much appearances in Bobby and Shane’s videos! Some people use her so-called ‘vibe’ as a solid evidence of her allegedly ugly personality.

Actually, they also use that argument to discredit Bobby because he also supposedly emits a bad ‘vibe’! How fucking desperate are you that, in order to defame someone, you are using an ‘evidence’ so intangible, even metaphysics cannot support it?

Just admit it, Bobby Burns-hating Shane Dawson fans. You don’t hate him because he is using Shane for fame and fortune. You don’t hate him because he has an ugly personality as supposedly shown by his fucking aura.

No, you hate him because he refuses to deify your idol, he dares to portray your fucking beloved idol as a fucking flawed human being! Just own up to that!

As much as I loathe idolatry for undermining human dignity, I still hate dishonesty even more.

Dishonesty and hypocrisy. If you really love Shane for being a kind and gentle soul, shouldn’t you honour him by being kind and gentle yourself instead of being a demonic retard?

.
.

*Even if Bobby is not a target of intense hatred, I still think it is a bad idea to gift him a car and the Sunday slot. For one, at that point, they still barely knew each other!

Also, both make entirely different content! At that time, Bobby made Youtube commentaries and Shane… well, I still find it hard to put him in any boxes. I mean, Shane may as well gave the Sunday slot to Pewdiepie! In this decision-making, he used feeling instead of his head.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Why do zero tolerance drug policy supporters cross the road?

*puts on the mask*

Why, to destroy the haters with logic, of course!

They want to cross the road, go through the alley of suffering addicts, pass the prison where its inhabitants will be dehumanisingly stigmatised after their release, arrive at the mountainous pile of overdose victims’ corpses and ‘collateral damages’, climb it and scream “ZERO TOLERANCE WORKS!” once they reach the peak!

Because, when it comes to substantiating the superiority of your approach, no method is more compelling than loudly and forcefully bragging about its success amidst the mounting evidence that speak otherwise.

*takes off the mask*

There is no joke here. But, those people sure love to see the lives of their fellow human beings as ones.   

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Old people must be the only leaders around

*puts on a mask*

Why? Why, because they are old, of course!

More often than not, leaders make bad decisions. Whether they are motivated by ignorance, greed or prejudice, their bad decisions affect everyone. Even the ones initially benefited by the decisions would get to taste the poisonous fruits eventually.

From all leaders that have existed, I only admire the ones who intentionally bring suffering onto others. Selfishness and sadism, the only things that indicate a person’s strength. The more selfish and sadistic, the stronger they are.

And I hate it when such strong people get the taste of their medicine. They do not deserve to suffer the suffering they inflict onto others! They are too strong to deserve any karmas!

This is why I prefer to vote for old people. Unlike young leaders, the old ones would not live long enough to suffer the consequences of their actions. Not to mention young people are more likely to be in tune with the contemporary world, making them less likely to be out-of-touch, selfish and sadistic, more likely to be weak!

Now, get off your butts and vote for dying old farts!

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The easiest way to achieve a peaceful world…

*puts on a mask*

… is to only talk about the good and act like the bad don’t exist. Pretend that the world we live in has already possessed a flawless state of humanity.

Some of you may say, while (probably) beneficial in the short-term, this practice would definitely be harmful in the long run and we would probably worse off than we were before. Well, yeah. I already knew that.

Contrary to popular belief, ‘peace’ has nothing to do with sincerity. In fact, it is simply all about maintaining sugarcoated semblance that masks the truthfulness of our shared life. ‘Peace’ literally means free from the discomfort of confronting worldly harshness. Regrettably, some people denounce those definitions.

Instead of focusing on the present by thoroughly dousing it in sickly sweet syrup, they prefer to be engrossed in retardedly future-oriented goals which shrug off others’ desire to live restfully free from any disturbances of open and honest conversations about how we treat our fellow human beings and deny others’ right to experience feel-goodism concerning their non-existent ‘goodness’.

Basically, they are selfish assholes who are willing to sacrifice others’ feelings for the sake of fulfilling their childish make-believe!

Yes, make-believe! We live in the now. Therefore, our lives inherently revolve around it! The future, on the other hand, is something that only exists in our heads. Therefore, every person who spends even a sliver of their time on thinking about the future is delusional and the more time they spend doing so means the more hopelessly detached they are from the reality and even the best psychiatrists in history won’t be able to relieve them from their pitiful mental state!

Don’t do future-thinking, kids! If you really care about a bright future, whether for yourself or everyone else, you should avoid thinking about the future at all cost!

*takes off the mask*

 

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Confidence and arrogance, what are the differences?

*puts on a mask*

To define the two, let me tell my life stories:

As obligated by law, Indonesian students had to pass the government-issued national exams if they want to obtain middle and high school diplomas. Fail just one test and you would enjoy the privilege of graduating a year later. It did not matter if you pass the other government-issued tests or the ones made by your school (which were also compulsory). Fail one and you repeat.

Unsurprisingly, my classmates in middle and high school planned to cheat, encouraged by their teachers and possibly parents. I was academically poor and I was also one of those who chose the honest path. As a result, I was accused of being sanctimonious and arrogant. I successfully passed them without cheating. While the insults stopped, there were no praises for me.

Because of a glitch in the matrix, I was successfully accepted to one of the top universities in the country. To my disappointment, the seniors seemed insecure about their own intelligence. Instead of actually showcasing it, they chose to boast about how smart they were by irrelevantly invoking the high status of their destined alma mater. I complained about it to my family and they said those seniors were being confident, not arrogant. Eventually, I dropped out and the glitch was fixed.

Initially, I was opposed to such mentality because I thought it mistook confidence and arrogance for each other. Then, years later, I experienced something we call ‘growing up’.

I realised I was indeed arrogant for thinking I could pass the tests honestly. My mistake was using logical probability to determine my chance of succeeding. I should had listened to the populist consensus: no students, especially the low-achieving ones, will never able to pass the exams honestly!

I was also wrong to say those seniors were not confident. If one actually thinks about it, them seeing themselves as high and mighty despite the lack of evidences requires confidence! It is no longer a secret that our intelligence is not defined by the universities we attend. Yet, those seniors had their sense of self-worth easily spiked up by their mere attendance! There is something special about people who take pride in a figment of their imagination!

Arrogance is not defined by how unrealistic one’s expectation of oneself is; it is defined by the shared opinion of the collective one is a part of. One’s actual capability will always be irrelevant in the discourse. The collectively-held dogma is and will always be more important the truths!

Me passing the exams was a major faux pas because I successfully shattered the high standing of a collective conviction and therefore violating the delicate collective ego! Humans are social animals. It is literally our destiny to strip ourselves of individuality, it is literally our destiny to embrace the bandwagon fallacy in our everyday lives! I was arrogant to think I could escape such fate.

Arrogance is also defined by one’s acknowledgement of one’s own strengths. Even the most implicit acknowledgement is of poor taste. It strongly insinuates how one sees oneself as higher than the rest of humanity! It is literally a misguided form of elitism!

Confidence is not about saluting one’s existing strengths; it is all about doing so for the ones that never exist! Besides being arrogant, celebration of the tangibles is also redundant; why would anyone make a big deal out of things we have been surrounded by throughout our entire lives?

The celebration of the imaginary, on the other hand, is goddamn impressive! It cannot be fulfilled without the presence of our own delusions and delusions are hard to obtain! Just imagine the efforts we need in order to sincerely believe things that contradict reality! Reach that state and we are literally on a mental level unachievable by most of mankind! So, my desire to destroy my seniors’ self-worth was mean-spirited.

So, please! Don’t mix up arrogance and confidence with each other! You will cause a lot of harm by doing so!

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.