No, Smosh admin, being a comedy channel is not an excuse

I started writing this about two days after the reddit stories video featuring Samantha Brier was uploaded.

This is the second time a Smosh reddit video receives so many backlashes; in this case, it is because of Brier’s toxic opinions and how Shayne and Angela were too cowardly to counter her. But, unlike in the previous case, the channel’s admin had to wrote down a response….. and that response only pissed some fans off even more.

One of our FAVORITE parts of reading Reddit stories is sparking fun and light hearted conversation with y’all. We love the passion our community brings and while roasting us is encouraged, sometimes comments get taken too far. It seems we’ve forgotten what is okay in our little corner of the internet, so let’s review!

– Friendly reminder that this is a comedy channel, we are in no way qualified to seriously advise or analyze any of the stories we read. we love hanging out with you all every Saturday to discuss our thoughts, but please remember that we’re not offering any advice.

– It’s 100% okay to not agree with our takes or even like our jokes. We encourage thoughtful discussion and valid feedback! What’s not okay? To verbally attack any cast members or guests featured, just because your opinion doesn’t match theirs. There’s enough hate in the world, let’s not bring it here.

– In our most “Principal’s Office” voice: Attacking any of our guests or seeking out their personal socials with the intent of bullying is unacceptable and will result in a permanent block from our channels. Don’t make us do that because it’s not fun!

Let’s remember to be kind, respectful and keep our Smosh space full of the joyful absurdity that we all love! That’s all folks, see you next upload!

Yes, admittedly, internet comment sections can be a cesspool of bullying. But, if you look at the comments about Brier, most of them are not bullying. They are valid criticisms about her and, to a lesser extent, Shayne and Angela. Instead of acknowledging them, the admin chose to dismiss the commenters as bullies.

I don’t know if the admin cherry-picked the comments and pretend the bullies dominate the comment section OR they are one of those people who think criticisms count as bullying. I don’t know which is worse.

The admin also made comments about Smosh being a comedy channel, how its reddit videos always spark fun and light-hearted conversations and how the backlash was just about fans offended by jokes. Those comments rub me the wrong way the most.

First thing first, Smosh has a long history of dark and “inappropriate” jokes. Even after the many turbulent changes it has gone through, Smosh cast members still make them to this day.

Mind you, one of Ian’s most infamous jokes was the time when he jokingly wished the air marshal shoot Kimmy’s grandma for opening a can of durian inside an airplane. In one of the videos where Courtney read her diaries, she showed the cottage cheese stain on one of her books…. and Noah joked the cheese was her crush’s cum stain. Tommy’s Try Not To Laugh jokes include one about a quadriplegic wife and another about “diarrhea Anne Frank”. Shayne’s drowning death as a baby is a recurring joke, so was Keith’s cancer. There are enough 9/11 jokes for a fan compilation video. The funeral roast sessions can get personal at times. Even some fans describe Smosh cast members as walking HR violations.

Not only those jokes barely got any backlashes, if at all, some of them even become fan favourites. It is obvious our hatred of the reddit video has nothing to do with us getting offended by the so-called jokes.

The world of comedy (the American one, specifically) has George Carlin and The Daily Show veterans like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Hasan Minhaj, Samantha Bee (yes, I know she’s Canadian), Trevor Noah (yes, he’s South African) Jordan Klepper and Roy Wood Jr. They are not mere jokers, they are ones who use humour to enunciate their genuine thoughts and feelings; in fact, they are famous because of that exact reason, not despite of. With such knowledge in mind, it is hard to not perceive “it is just a joke” as an expression of one’s ignorance.

The reddit videos involve a wide range of stories. Some of them are indeed hilarious and goofy. But, there’s the keyword: SOME.

The rest of the stories are much serious, some of them involve straight-up abusive behaviours and trauma. Due to the seriousness, it is actually normal for Shayne and his co-hosts to discuss entire stories without cracking a single joke.

And the comment sections are even more serious, even when the videos have lots of jokes; the commenters frequently express their frustration and anger about the stories and a few of them are being reminded of their own personal traumas.

So no, Smosh’s reddit videos are not entirely fun and light-hearted.

Yes, I do agree we shouldn’t obligate anyone to be the moral police. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have basic decency. The backlash is not about us being moralistic, it is about us witnessing something which doesn’t satisfy our moral bare minimum.

To recap the admin’s disappointing response:

Despite managing a comedy Youtube channel, they have a very shallow idea of what comedy is. They think comedy is nothing more than just fun and light-hearted entertainment, despite the many famous examples to the contrary.

Despite managing one of the four active Smosh channels, the admin is oblivious to what kind of content Smosh provides and how fans react to it.

And, to top it all, they think having basic moral standard makes us too moralistic; they think we should give comedians an exemption.

Not only the admin is professionally inept, they are also morally feckless.

Before I end this blogpost, let’s talk about Shayne Topp as well.

The reddit series greatly improved his image. Previously, he was known for being funny (yes, some people may not like his humour), genuinely likeable (when he is not performing characters) and being physically attractive (yes, you still can find thirsty comments about him, albeit not as much).

Thanks to series, people also ended up seeing him as an emotionally insightful person. He refuses to invalidate other people’s experiences, even though he cannot relate to them, and he tries to understand why people behave the way they do, without excusing their horrible behaviours. He has also expressed righteous anger from time to time, something which we barely see in other videos.

And, because of those reasons, we are extremely disappointed by his performance here. We known damn well he can be better. While he has acknowledged his non-confrontational inclination, I never expected him to be a such pushover.

As stated before, this is not the first poorly-received Smosh reddit video; the one with Rachel and Ify was also hated, mostly because of the former (even though the latter was only marginally better).

Shayne’s silence and refusal to pushback was disappointing. But, in this case, it is far worse because he verbally supported Brier’s words.

The thing that improves his reputation is also the one that worsens it.

While he certainly doesn’t need to be “cancelled”, I do think a rotation of hosts is needed. As much as I appreciate his insightfulness, he is not special.

Damien and Arasha’s can easily rival his. Assuming they don’t share his unassertiveness (and they are willing to do the job), they would make great hosts for the series.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Zionists’ virtue signalling

I acknowledge there are anti-zionists who love to blame all Jews for the actions of Israeli government and who think Hitler was right. Their anti-semitism is very blatant, they never bother to be subtle about it.

And yet, zionists love to ignore them.

Every time they throw anti-semitism accusations, they never target those people. They prefer to target anti-zionists who chant things like ”Free Palestine”.

Now, I do believe we must be able to read between the lines. Sometimes, words do have extra or opposite meanings, depending on the contexts. But, those zionists have no ground to stand on.

If there is something to read between the lines, then you have to prove it exists; you have to prove those pro-Palestine chanters have also insinuated that all Jews are evil.

Obviously, that’s not the case here. They are called anti-semitic….. simply because they have the gall to condemn Israel and humanise Palestinians. In fact, the zionists even attack anti-zionist Jews, including Holocaust survivors and their children, for supposedly being self-hating Jews.

Those zionists can be infuriating with their slanders. But, the fact that they ignore actual bigots and choose to attack people who may or may not be bigoted…. it is bewildering.

Actually, no. I take my words back. There is nothing bewildering about it.

Those zionists never care about anti-semitism. They are virtue-signaling.

Those non-Jewish zionists don’t care about the well-being of their Jewish brothers and sisters, they only care about simping for their favourite foreign country. They are comparable to weeaboos and koreaboos who think Japan and Korea are the perfect countries that can do no wrong, respectively; the main difference is they are more blood-thirsty, more genocidal, than the other two.

As someone who is not Jewish, I understand why a Jewish person would have an emotional attachment Israel, the only country where they would not endure anti-semitic discrimination and violence.

But, at the same time, there is difference between empowerment and identity politics. The former does not require you to put others beneath you. The latter does require you to do that; you need to perceive your identities as the only ones worthy of protection, worthy fighting for.

Some of those zionists Jews embrace the latter. They don’t care about creating a safe haven for fellow Jews and even themselves, they want the power to be discriminatory and even violent against certain “others” (e.g. Arabs and/or Muslims)… and the existence of Israeli government gives them the catharsis.

Those particular zionists were also silent about the anti-semitism of the alt-right and Qanon movements….. and they also love Donald Trump, a pro-Israel political figure who literally got open endorsements from the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

With all of those facts combined, it is hard for me to not see them as psychotic virtue signalers who hide under the guise of Jewish empowerment and acceptance.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, you don’t need those shock videos

I am certain some of you are familiar with the concept of lost media, in which works and records have no existing copies. They may be lost because of deliberate destruction of every known existing copy or through pure negligence.

There are lost media which may not be technically lost, but more accurately hidden; they record the audio and/or visuals of actual violent deaths, some of which were unusually brutal murders. They may be kept as evidences by the authorities 0r they may get banned from being uploaded to websites.

And I am one of the people who are glad such media is “lost”. Yes, “one of the people”. That means there are people who are sad about it.

They believe watching such content grounds us in reality. And I can bullshit on that.

No, you love watching those videos because they entertain you. Not even the most violent films can satisfy you. You can only be entertained by actual gore. Don’t act like gore is what reality all about.

You claim those videos do not shock you. Okay, so what? If gore doesn’t shock you, it doesn’t mean you are mentally stronger than everyone else, it means you are an edgelord who is more mentally fucked than everyone else.

But, what if those videos do make you snap out of your lala land? Well, it is not a testament of the benefits of such content, it is a testament of how sheltered your upbringing was, so sheltered you need gore for your awakening.

Now, I am going talk a bit about “LOL Superman” as a specific example.

In case you didn’t know, it is the title of an alleged online video of 9/11 “jumpers”; it is infamous because not only it shows them falling/jumping to their deaths, it also shows their bodies impacting the solid grounds, turning into unrecognisable mess of flesh and blood. As you expect, if that video did exist and was not just a false collective memory, I certainly would not mourn its lost status.

Unsurprisingly, you gore lovers have made those aforementioned arguments regarding this video. But, you also accuse people like me of wanting to erase history. Of course, it is just virtue signaling on your part.

If we truly want to erase history, we would have targeted every single documentation of 9/11, including every news reel, amateur footage and even memorial. But nope, we only target videos like that one..

And how can you erase 9/11, anyway?

It happened twenty-two years ago, it is still relatively recent. Some people directly affected by the attacks are still alive today; the survivors, those who lost loved ones, the American and American allies’ soldiers who got severely injured and the innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians whose unstable homelands became even more unstable, in the name of avenging the death of innocent Americans.

Even if they are not directly affected, many people also grew up hearing about the 9/11 and the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many around the world – including myself – watched the second plane crash on live TV broadcast (I watched it on Indonesia’a Metro TV, relaying the CNN broadcast).

There are also countless footage of the attacks available online; someone even made a ten-hour compilation on Youtube. You can also easily find non-gory footage and photos of the “jumpers”… which include The Falling Man, arguably one of the most memorably haunting photos of the decade.

With the abundance of living memories, photos and other videos, why the hell do you need “LOL Superman” to preserve this specific history? You know, other than to justify your sick entertainment preferences.

That video is also disrespectful. Not only it has a mocking title*, it is also insulting to the victims’ families. Do you seriously believe they are okay with the possible gory footage of their loved ones’ deaths becoming a source of morbid amusement of the masses?

If you truly care about the truth, you would be mindful of the prevailing pain.

Let me tell you four anecdotes.

I am from Indonesia. The late 90’s is a dark period of this country’s history, with May 98 as darkest month. Economic crisis, political discontent and bigotry accumulated into days of nationwide riots; ethnic Chinese-Indonesians – the country’s most visible ethnic and racial minority and often mistakenly perceived as 100% affluent – were targeted by rioters.

Many of the women were victims of sexual violence; that meant nothing to my young self because I didn’t know what rape was. But, hearing about the violence and my country’s seeming descend into lawlessness was already horrifying enough.

When I was eight or nine, there was gas station where my mom regularly bought fuel from. Typical of her, she loved striking conversations with anyone and she ended being friendly with the staff.

One day, the staff revealed a horrifying news: an employee died in a tragic traffic accident…… his head was squashed by a tire. While I already knew traffic accidents exist, this one felt close to home.

And, of course, 9/11**. It happened a month after my ninth birthday.

I mentioned about how I watched the second plane on live broadcast. Weeks or months later, I watched a documentary about the attacks and, for the first time, I learned about the “jumpers”. Two footages sticked with me the most.

One showed a “jumper” moments before they hit the ground; while I didn’t see the impact (I think firetrucks blocked the view), I could hear the sound. Another footage showed a person holding onto some kind of cloth, probably wanting to move to a lower floor; unfortunately, their hands slipped.

Those events (is it an appropriate word?) taught me that life isn’t always pretty. Enjoyment of the sunshine and rainbows does not mean I should ignore the existence of its darker side. They are teachable moments because I am compelled to offset my positivity with healthy dose of negativity. I don’t end up suffering from forced positivity.

And I certainly didn’t need gory imagery.

Meanwhile, my fourth anecdote is far from a teachable moment. It was the 2004 earthquake and tsunami.

For some time, Indonesian TV and newspapers kept plastering the media landscape with images of rotting corpses, strewn all over the hit areas. Yes, they were uncensored.

The tragedy should had taught me about the unpredictability of nature and how lack of preparedness could lead to suffering for many human lives. But, I didn’t learn any of those.

While I didn’t suffer from nightmares, I certainly couldn’t get the gruesome imagery out of my head for a long time. Thanks to the media, I associated the tragedy with rotting corpses… and nothing else.

.

.

*The title is supposedly based on the words uttered by the cameraman. I understand people can react inappropriately when witnessing something horrible. But, sooner or later, you have to take heed of the inappropriateness of your reactions…. and broadcasting them to everyone adds another level of your inappropriateness.

.

.

**Even though I am a Muslim myself, 9/11 didn’t affect my religious identity. I am from the world’s biggest Muslim-majority country; I am not a religious minority in my own homeland and I didn’t have to grow up experiencing anti-Muslim sentiment. My spiritual crises also occurred in small bouts throughout many years, none of which was triggered by 9/11.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to gaslight people about freedom (and virtue signal)

*puts on a mask*

First thing first, what is tyranny?

In general, tyranny is what happens when the so-called leaders abuse their powers. But, some people think it can also means deliberately taking the freedom to choose from others, even though having more options is harmless or even beneficial. Of course, that doesn’t bother you.

We know that your main goal in life to force your ideals upon everyone and making sure yours are the only legally acceptable ones. Of course, you cannot be open with your tyrannical tendency. In fact, you want to be seen as the exact opposite: a lover of freedom.

It is simple.

First, you need good framing. You need to frame the tyrannies you support as “reasonable” restrictions and the freedom you oppose as “tyrannical”, even though they are anything but.

Second, you need to give an illusion of freedom. You need to persuade people that the restrictions you impose still allow for more options, even though the other options are so unfeasible, you feel discouraged from taking them.

I have four examples:

You support car-centrism and euclidian zoning in urban design because you claim everyone deserves the right to drive and own spacious single-family detached house with spacious lawns.

You oppose secularism and religious neutrality because you claim they restrict religious freedom.

You are anti-abortion because you claim the unborn deserve the freedom to live.

You oppose queer-inclusive education because you claim students deserve to not have sexualities shoved down their throats.

Of course, those aren’t true. Deep down, despite what you claim, you never care about freedoms. What you care about is having special rights, being on top of the caste systems.

You support car-centrism and euclidian zoning because you are a car nut and you want your cars to hog all of the spaces; it is much easier to do so when public transits and pedestrians barely exist. You also love it when your neighbourhood is free from diversity; you feel it is beneath you to share one with people who don’t share your backgrounds.

You oppose secularism and religious neutrality because they hinder your ability to shove religions down people’s throats. Every time you scream “religious liberty”, it is always on the context of people condemning your discriminations against minorities.

You are anti-abortion because you love controlling women’s bodies; if you actually value life, you would take care of those born children, you would never force women with health complications to give birth and you certainly would never force rape victims -especially the underage ones- to keep their rapists’ babies.

You oppose queer-inclusion because you don’t want incoming generations to humanise minorities. You want to beat the queerness out of people, figuratively and literally. And who do you think you are kidding? You support conversion therapies.

Gullible people will definitely fall for your deceitful rhetoric. But, just in case, you need to take yours even further: you also have to convince them to perceive reality through a dishonest perspective.

You can assert that a car-centric and euclidian city still has mass transit, pedestrian infrastructures, bike lanes and other housing options, a theocratic and anti-queer state may allow minorities to exist and you are free to abort your pregnancy elsewhere.

Those assertions are dishonest because they leave out crucial details.

A car-centric city has inefficient and unreliable mass transit who is only used by desperate people and not only walking and cycling are uncomfortable, they can be deadly because speeding cars rule the landscape.

A very euclidian city mostly has two housing options: big detached houses with big lawns AND high-rise apartments. The other options – low-rise apartments, townhouses – barely exist, if at all.

A truly theocratic and anti-queer state will give minorities less rights; to say they will suffer even more disadvantages is an understatement. Converting to the official and majority religion and staying in the closet sound like the only paths to better, easier lives.

You may be allowed to go elsewhere for an abortion. But, it still doesn’t hide the fact that your place still criminalises it. Not to mention poor people are at a bigger disadvantage as traveling requires them to spend extra cash.

And you have to omit those details. You should never acknowledge them.

When others point out those details, you have to silence them by any means. You can accuse them of spreading fake news. You can accuse them of being delusional and seeing non-existing patterns.

You can also project yourself onto them; accuse them of advocating extreme or unreasonable things, even though you are the ones advocating for them and your opponents are doing the exact opposite.

Omitting certain details does not count as lying when the things you explicitly say are technically true.

If you follow my advices, not only you can repress anyone whom you refuse to humanise, gullible people (and we have enough of them) to hail you as a defender of liberty, even though your actions clearly scream the exact opposite.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

When meat and alcohol are your entire personalities

If you are a fervent Reddit user or you are a currently devoted Smosh viewer, you would have heard a story of a woman who disrespected her daughter’s wish of a vegan and sober wedding by creating an alternative party, where meat and alcohol are served; she argued the extended family felt the meat and alcohol-free wedding would not just be boring, it also wouldn’t be a “true representation of who they are”.

The majority of redditors agreed she was an asshole. As someone who found this story from a Smosh video, I also noticed the majority of viewers shared the same sentiment. The majority.

Of course, there are the tiny minority that sticks out like an infected, pus-ridden thumb which I stumbled upon.

They made arguments that are definitely and certainly not predictable: they need alcohol to have fun and calm their nerves and they feel not having their meat craving catered to is discriminatory.

Yeah, bunch of bullshits.

If you need alcohol to have fun, you are boring. I mean, if you need to be stimulated by a literal addictive substance in order to be fun, you admit that you inherently have nothing interesting to offer.

And how can you be certain you have more fun when you barely have any recollections of it?

While I have never met drunkards, I have heard anecdotes about them: drunkards are only charming and funny to other drunkards; for the sober ones, they are just unappealing or even downright repulsive.

If you need alcohol to calm your nerves, you have an issue. You suffer from some kind of emotional disorder… and yet, instead of asking for a professional help, you are self-medicating; don’t act like your doctor prescribes you alcohol.

And here’s the thing about us, meat eaters: Nobody forces us to eat meat at every single goddamn meal.

We don’t have any medical, religious and moral reasons to do so. If we skip meat for one or a few meals, we wouldn’t put our health in danger and break any of our principles. We would be just fine, both figuratively and literally.

We eat meat not because of any obligations, we eat meat because we feel entitled to.

If you think forcing vegans to serve non-vegan foods is morally justified, then how do you feel about forcing practicing Muslims and Jews to serve pork or forcing Hindus to serve beef?

If you think that is also morally justified, then you are a hopeless cunt. But, if you think it isn’t, then why?

Why do you think one is okay while the other isn’t? Why do you think religious dietary restrictions are something to be respected while non-religious ones aren’t? What’s with the selectiveness?

.

.

Yeah, I know. The vegan and abstinent crowds have their share of combative and holier-than-thou pricks. But, it gets to the point where not only we stereotype every single vegan and sober person as such, we get offended by their mere existence….

… And we end up embracing alcohol and meat as our entire personalities, embracing combativeness and self-righteousness which we accuse vegans and sober people of.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Remember the Mr Beast blind controversy?

Yeah, can you motherfuckers just be intellectually honest for once? No one and I mean no one are hating on him simply for helping blind people.

They hate him because they believe he is not being sincere and he exploited those people just for clout. They believe that if he is actual sincere, he wouldn’t feel the need to advertise his philanthropy and he certainly wouldn’t use that visually jarring thumbnail.

Personally, I am one of the people who believe he was being sincere. But, I also cannot blame people for being cynical about it. I mean, the thumbnail and the bragging? They remind people of exploitative, poverty-porn content which also exists in the media, including Youtube.

Oh and virtue signaling and exploitation exist. Believe it or not, some humans can be entirely driven by self-interest and have zero regards about others’ well-being. And those humans exploit your craving for feelgoodism.

Some of you argue Mr. Beast wouldn’t be able to donate if it wasn’t for such videos. But, that is not true, is it?

I mean, where do you think he gets his money from? It is clear that before he started giving money away and covered people’s medical expenses, he was already rich from his youtube endeavour. He is more than capable to be charitable without capitalising on it.

And I still haven’t talked about the second reason why people are angry.

They are angry at the system. They are angry that the government and/or the society fail to take care of the most vulnerable; in this case, the most vulnerable ones have to become a rich influencer’s content in order to get the care they need.

They are angry at him for perpetuating the status quo. But, they also believe the problem is very much macro and he is just a mere detail. And yes, politics is everybody’s problem; no matter how apathetic you are, it still affects your life and will always do. You better care about fixing the system because there is no guarantee you won’t end up on the bottom rung of society.

Maybe I am just being a woke radical postmodern marxist communist feminist libtard here. But, I believe humans have the right to be taken care of and not getting ourselves exploited for it, humans should help each other without expecting anything in return…

… And I also believe just because something feels good, that does not mean it actually is.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to not be judgemental

*puts on a mask*

One may assume the way to not be judgemental is to judge others accordingly. Do not exaggerate their flaws and failures, do not diminish their strengths and achievements and do not claim that you are on a higher pedestal than you really are.

But, because there is still room for judgement, I vehemently disagree.

The only reasonable way to not be judgemental….. is to not judge people at all, not even when they have committed horrible sins. How can we achieve that?

Well, you have to embrace absolute forgiveness.

You have to be absolutely forgiving towards any wrongdoers… even when you are not their victims, they have yet to fully suffer the consequences and they have no remorse.

Yes, many bullies will never suffer consequences for their actions and will never feel any remorse. Yes, Chris Brown is still thriving professionally even after cases of violence against multiple women and a probation was his only punishment.

But, forgiveness is not negotiable; you have to commit to it at all cost… and that includes putting a blind eye and disregarding the victims’ feelings.

If that isn’t your style, you can do this method: before you judge someone, pretend that you have committed equally heinous acts, even though that’ s far from the truth.

Before you judge a cruel and remorseless bully, pretend that you have also remorselessly bullied people to the point where they are traumatised for life.

Before you judge Chris Brown, pretend that you have also committed domestic violence.

Before you judge Nazis, pretend that you have also committed genocide.

Before you judge a pilot whose recklessness caused a deadly accident, pretend that you are also a reckless pilot who caused a deadly accident.

Before you judge that one fascist Capitol insurrectionist who killed a person in drunk driving, pretend that you are also a fascist insurrectionist who have killed someone in drunk driving

I can do this all day.

It is obvious why those methods are effective: they give zero room for judgements.

If you feel obligated to forgive every single sin you encounter without any hesitation or you pretend that everyone is equally sinful, you would feel hypocritical about giving anyone the slightest criticisms, let alone moral condemnations, consequentially refraining yourself from judging others.

Literally zero judgements is the only way to be non-judgemental.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

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.

(Badly) Defending Netflix’s Dahmer

When I first heard about the show and the controversies surrounding its disregard of the victims’ families, I thought there would be people who defend the show, saying they have the right to enjoy even the most exploitative entertainment.

But, it seems there are people who defend the show for moral reasons.

Disclosure: I haven’t watched the show and I have no interest to. I am more interested in breaking down the opinions which argue not only for its moral justifiability, but also moral necessity.

First thing first, they argue this show is an exposé of police ineptitude and bigotry, which can be an eye-opener to many people.

Second, they argue the show showcases the dark side of humanity, how humans can do the most despicable things to each other, how life isn’t all flowers and rainbows. In fact, they believe the dark content can be a cautionary tale for all of us to be more vigilant, especially in the presence of strangers.

Now, let me break them down.

We are in 2022. At this point, you should have heard many discourses regarding police incompetence and bigotry. If the show opens your eyes to their existence, it is not a testament of its quality. It is a testament of how out-of-touch you are.

Also, there has been so many works about serial killers… and about Dahmer specifically. If something is depicted once or a few times, it would be emotionally impactful. But, once it becomes a recurring and overused theme, people will be desensitised to it.

Oh, and if their abundance fails to make us vigilant against serial killers, what makes you think this one show is any different?

So no, the so-called “benefits” are not worth retraumatising the victims’ still living families. What’s the point of reopening old wounds when you have no intention to heal them permanently?

I don’t know exactly why people make those defenses.

It may be naivety.

They may naively believe the show’s creators care about educating the masses, despite the fact that media people are infamous for their greed, and every person who watches the show only cares about learning, despite the fact that some are entertained by exploitations and others love glorifying serial killers. They contradict themselves: they want to learn about the dark side of mankind and yet, they assume others have nothing but the purest intentions.

They may naively believe entertainment is the best tool to enlighten the masses, despite the fact that entertainers often oversimplify, exaggerate and dramatise the facts and aren’t obligated to be unbiased, despite the fact that people won’t learn anything unless they have the desire to.

It may not be naivety.

It may be their attempts to mask their love of exploitative entertainment, fearing they will be judged harshly for their inability to enjoy anything which isn’t remotely edgy.

I tend to believe it is mostly a naivety issue. But, knowing humans, the latter is a high possibility.

Does that mean people need to stop making Dahmer content until all of his victims’ families die?

Yes, the answer is yes.

I believe that we are allowed to make any content as we desire; banning can be a dangerous slippery slope. But, we should always remember that heartlessness is an option.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What I, a Sunni Muslim, think of the seemingly endless Catholic Church atrocities

Obviously, to say they are an affront to mankind is an understatement. Unless you are a special kind of human being, you don’t need me to realise that. But, there is something which many people don’t seem to notice: it is also a case of giant missed opportunity with horrendous consequences.

Let me go on a tangent first.

The Catholic Church is not just a religious establishment, it is also a highly centralised organisation of clergymen, complete with ranks and uniform admittance processes. Meanwhile, Sunni Islam – the disproportionately dominant denomination – is a highly decentralised religion; we don’t have our own equivalent of the pope and bishops and – in some countries, at least – becoming clerics do not require formal certifications and we are allowed to choose imams and/or Islamic institutions that suit us.

To sum it up, Roman Catholic church is packed with global and official interconnectivity. It is comparable to a unitary country with strong central government. The Sunni one……. well….. I don’t know how to describe it eloquently.

If I have to describe the Sunni world, it is like a country with barely functioning central government, allowing millions of regional authorities to reign over. Each of those regional authority has a varying level of authoritativeness and varying size of jurisdictions…… and many, if not all, of those jurisdictions overlap with each other. Not to mention the citizens are of diverse cultural, racial and political backgrounds – which may or may not greatly influence their religious identities – and they have varying level of experiences with diversity.

As a Sunni myself, I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, it feels nice there is no stranger in a faraway land formally dictating my Muslimness. But, on the other hand, it makes tackling religious extremism extremely difficult.

Obviously, that’s not an excuse to do nothing. If you see something, the least you can do is to say something. But, people should realise that the unrelenting convolutedness means tackling Sunni extremism is not as easy as flipping a table.

Now, about this blogpost’s title…

It has always been crystal clear the church is powerful. It has the ability to micromanage the characters and behaviours of every single person within its ranks. While nothing can be 100% effective, it could have easily reduced the abuses to a handful of rare and isolated cases.

Instead, it chooses the complete opposite path.

It consciously protects the many sexual predators within its ranks by not reporting them to the local authorities, consequentially turning Roman Catholic clergyman into a dream profession for sexual predators.

It consciously let the Magdalene laundries to freely abused the “fallen women” for many years and, to this day, the Catholic orders involved still refuse to take responsibility, unrepentantly painting themselves as heroes.

It consciously let some members of its ranks to support Canada’s cultural genocide against the indigenous people by participating in some of the residential schools.

Don’t even forget about the goddamn inquisition.

I am not going to pretend overseeing one of the world’s biggest organisations is easy peasy. I am also not going to pretend the church never does anything noble; I mean, Catholic schools – in some countries, at least – are known for their high quality, a fact which even many Muslims wholeheartedly acknowledge.

But, it is infuriating how an institution chose to not inoculate itself against evil despite having the enormous power to do so, consequentially letting itself becoming a global and historical super spreader of human depravities.

.

.

I also have to exclude the Shia Islam – the second biggest denomination – from this conversation because not only Shia extremism is far less globally consequential, I also know almost nothing about Shia islam. I have heard that Shia leadership is more centralised. But, I don’t know to what extent and I don’t know if it differs from one sub-denomination to another.

Don’t even get started on the even smaller denominations. I don’t know if extremism is even prevalent in any of them.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.