No, ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ is not “too woke”

In a previous blogpost, I expressed my frustration regarding people who cannot comprehend the film’s plot line; considering the rising conflict, climax and resolution are clear-cut, there is no excuse to not understand it. While you may not be a fan, I am certain you still have a brain.

I thought that was the most frustrating “criticism” against the film. I was wrong.

I just found out some people find the film too woke. Why? Because many of the characters, especially the main ones, are Asian-Americans and two of them are queer.

That is it. Not because the film is politically brazen, but simply because it features minorities as characters.

From what I observe, such people can be divided into three groups: bigots, self-hating people and edgelords. While they have different motivations, they are all hypocritical.

They love accusing the so-called “postmodern liberal communists” of obsession with identity politics. And yet, their mouths start frothing when the media acknowledge minorities’ existence.

Let me summarise the film: it tells the story of a woman who unwillingly gets involved in an adventure that traverses parallel universes; her fight against a multiverse-destroying entity perfectly echoes her struggles running her small business, dealing with tax audit and maintaining relations with her husband, daughter and father.

While the film does have Asian-American and Queer identities as themes, they are not the only ones. It also deals with mental health, generational trauma and the philosophical meanings of existence.

The film has quite a handful of subject matters, the Asian and Queer themes are almost mere details; regardless of the characters’ identities, the story would still be thematically compelling. The film’s personality is neither Asian nor Queer.

And yet, those people act like Asianness and Queerness are the only things the film has to offer.

Every time they see non-stereotypical and mundane depictions of minorities in the media, their knee-jerk is to scream, “Forced Diversity!”. For them, this is nothing but affirmative actions.

Because they are too busy whimpering about the representations, they end up disregarding the stories in their entireties… and that’s definitely the case here as well.

If that’s not obsession with identity politics, I don’t know what that is.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Bigots are not that united

I started noticing it when the Trump administration caged refugee children and separated them from their parents. The reactions from his supporters are interesting.

Some refute the claim that the children were caged, with Laura Ingraham calling the detention centre “summer camp” by misquoting an article, and they accused Trump’s detractors of slander. Meanwhile, others straight up relishing the cruelty because they believed illegal immigration (they didn’t differentiate it from asylum seeking) was the worst crime ever committed and even children must be punished; when hearing about a child with Down Syndrome was separated from her mother, Corey Lewandowski said womp womp and refused to apologise for it.

Basically, some didn’t believe the atrocity occurred (even though they still dehumanised the asylum seekers) while others celebrated its occurrence. After that, I cannot stop but noticing the pattern in other cases.

Conservative Christian nationalists in the west either paint themselves and their fellow believers as the marginalised ones OR they think the status quo – in which their religion is the golden child – should remain upheld. I notice the same thing about their Indonesian Muslim counterparts.

And yes, I also notice something similar about the racists, misogynists and anti-LGBT crowds. I am too lazy to detail all of them one by one.

Despite perceiving reality very differently, they are able to work together, in the name of giving women and minorities the finger.

Meanwhile, the progressives – ones in the west, at least- are infamous for disunity.

In general, they are pro-equality for women and minorities and they believe the state of equality is still far from perfect. But, they easily let any differences in opinions – no matter how minor – divide them, despite having similar perceptions of reality. They constantly shoot their own feet.

No conquer and divided needed.

Conquer and divide.

Hmmm.

Why don’t we do that to bigots? Seriously, why?

The crack is there, blatant for anyone to see! How come that there are no efforts to divide and conquer them?

Maybe many progressives don’t see it; they are either too disheartened by the sight of their opponents’ unity to see the crack… or too dumb to read between the lines.

Maybe many do see the crack. But, for some reasons, they refuse to divide and conquer.

The refusal is not the only reason why they keep losing; unity among themselves is still crucial. But, it is certainly a reason; weakening our enemies can certainly help us achieving our goals.

And considering the enemies want to take human rights away from their fellow human beings, I won’t feel guilty for “playing dirty”.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Voting conservative

So, you are a woman and/or a person of minority background who votes conservative. Why?

Is it because you want equal rights?

If equal rights for women and minorities have always been the status quo, then I understand. But, we know damn well that is not the case. Even if inequality was not as bad as or was more complicated than people think it was, you cannot deny it has been existing for a long time.

If women and minorities are given less opportunities, more likely to be horribly represented in the media and, in the worst cases, more likely to suffer from injustice, then I don’t know what to call it other than inequality.

Yes, liberals and leftists have their issues with tokenism and false promises. But, you cannot expect me to believe conservatives have a good track record of supporting pro-equality policies.

If they do, then why do the anti-feminist, anti-LGBT+ and white supremacist crowds form the majority of their voters? Why do those demographics love them so much?

And why don’t those conservative politicians seem to mind?

Is it because you are an actual proud conservative?

Okay, that’s understandable. I cannot blame you for voting candidates who share most, if not all, of your stances. But, if your politics is the one that keeps you as a second-class citizen (including in a social sense), you have to acknowledge there is a problem.

Because of it, you need to rethink about your relationship with conservatism. Maybe you create a new brand of conservatism, maybe you leave conservatism altogether, I don’t know. But, one thing for sure: getting disenfranchised by your own politics is not something to be content with.

Why are you opposed to obligatory representations? If it is because of the infantilisation and tokenism, then I – a left-leaning person – am 100% agree with you. But, you should observe your fellow conservatives’ reactions.

Are they really angered by the forcedness? Or are they angered by representations in general?

If they think it is okay for white actors to portray non-white characters that are based on real people, but it is unacceptable to turn fictional white characters non-white, it is the latter.

If they react by making racist responses (like they did to black Little Mermaid), it is the definitely latter.

Is it because you want to be loved?

Regardless of their politics, if someone “respects” you only after you start affirming their beliefs about “your people” and/or you are willing to do anything they tell you to, then they still don’t see you as a fellow human being.

They see you as a human-shaped tool which they can exploit for their political agendas; for the gullible and hateful ones, nothing affirms prejudices better than the insiders’ so-called “exposés”. Not to mention they have an added bonus of appearing tolerant, with you as their usable token.

I don’t know the exact ways to stop the hate. But surely, your common sense should tell you putting fuel into the fire won’t extinguish it.

Is it because you are against equal rights for “certain others”?

I don’t know how anyone of marginalised backgrounds think they can afford to grab each other’s throat. If your idea of empowerment is depriving “certain others” of equal rights, how are you different from the bigots who keep doing the same to you?

You know what’s funny? Even though you vote for politicians who are also definitely against your equal rights, you will keep blaming those “certain others” for your poor quality of life… and you will keep failing to see the irony.

In this case, I am thinking of feminism-appropriating reactionary transphobes and any LGBT+ people who don’t know what the T stands for.

It also applies to far-right-voting LGBT+ people who think anti-LGBT sentiment in the west mostly comes from Muslims, as if Muslims dominate the western establishments.

Is it because of inferiority complex?

You may hate being a woman. But, you will always be one, regardless of how many anti-women policies you support. And, even if you genuinely end up identifying as a trans man or non-binary, conservatives will always see you as a woman.

You can definitely leave the religions you grew up with. But, it is baffling how a person can bash a religion and its adherents and ensure their images are 100% negative by pandering to bigots’ preconceived beliefs…

… And yet, they claim they still identify with the religion and its community. Why? Why do you still wanting to belong to a community that you help dehumanising?

If you don’t know which group I am talking about, I am talking about so-called Muslim reformers living in the west.

You may hate belonging to certain ethnic or racial groups. You may leave the associated cultures. But, your lineage will stay the same. You can hate being Chinese, stop speaking Chinese and stop embracing anything Chinese. But, you will always be of Chinese-descent.

It is one thing if you genuinely cannot identify with your ancestral heritage. It is another when because you believe every person who can is a lesser human being.

You may hate your Queerness. But, sooner or later, you have to accept it is determined by nature and nurture, two things you have no control over.

If you hate being Queer and think it is a choice, why did you choose to be one in the first place? Why did you choose an identity which you consider optional and repulsive?

Is it because you have actual grievances about your communities?

If yes, then I am on board with you. I believe anyone – regardless of how marginalised they are – deserve to be scrutinised for the problems they are causing.

Obviously, if you want to confront and fix any problems, you need to try your best to be factual, you must have the ability to see the shades of grey and you must consider the different perspectives (without committing false balance, of course).

And yet, instead of forming alliances with fellow members of your communities who know the intricacies of the lives within, you choose to do so with people from outside the communities who believe in stereotypes about “your people” and actively fight against your equal rights.

They don’t care about facts, they only care about their own perspectives, they take oversimplifications to an extreme and, most importantly, their idea of “progress” is wiping the likes of you from existence.

That makes me question the legitimacy of your grievances. Maybe they were never legitimate in the first place and you are just suffering from self-hatred.

Or maybe, you are just a fucking idiot who think aligning with bigots is “tough love”.

Once again, I have the western-based so-called Muslim reformers in mind.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to catch a groomer (and virtue signal)

*puts on a mask*

What is grooming?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Diversity: from pro to anti

I used to be very conservative; it is not unexpected when one grew up as an Indonesian Muslim. I don’t have labels to describe my current social stances; leftists may find me too liberal and liberals may find me too left-wing. But, I can definitely say I am no longer conservative in that department.

Recently, I found myself baffled: why are there conservatives who used to be liberal or left-wing? Specifically, why do some pro-diversity people end up as anti-diversity?

I have my own hypothesis. I base it on observations of white westerners online – especially the so-called “progressives” – and moderate Indonesian Muslims, which include my former self.

Sidenote: Moderate Indonesian Muslims are not liberal or left-wing in the slightest; they are conservatives who fancy themselves as accepting and tolerant, even though they have badmouthed interfaith romance and are racist against Chinese-Indonesians. They appear “progressive” because they are romanticised by wide-eyed foreigners, they are often compared to Islamists and moderate religious tolerance is the tradition here.

Now, for my hypothesis.

Some people are pro-diversity because they want to feel good about themselves. They want to feel it so bad, they miss the point of it all. As a result, they face some snags in their embrace of diversity.

They learn that embracing it requires more than just eating exotic foods, supporting more diverse fictional characters, sleeping with people of different skin colours and not committing pogroms. They realise they also have to learn traversing human differences; never mind the consequential ones, they even don’t know how to deal with the trivial ones.

Not only they don’t understand the values and worldview of the “others”, they also have bad experiences interacting with them. For them, if something is indecipherable, it deserves to be hated. If they have bad experiences with people of certain backgrounds, they think it is acceptable or even a must to demonise the entire groups. They just can’t help themselves from doing those.

They love othering the “others”, whom they perceive as nothing but giant monoliths. They think Asian-Americans are not divided to different subgroups and are the same as Asians in Asia. They think every true queer person was born with rainbow imagery planted in their minds. They stereotype their fellow human beings… just like the bigots do.

They also don’t care about how the “others” think and feel. They only care about pushing their thoughts and feelings onto the narratives. They hate how they are not worshipped for doing the bare minimum. They hate how they cannot make everything about themselves.

Sooner or later, they will have the realisation: not only pro-diversity belief cannot be exploited for their own benefits, it is also against the actual worldview they have been clinging onto and were in denial about. As a result, the “woke” – who was never “woke” in the first place – becomes “anti-woke”.

Hypothesis ends.

Obviously, like any hypotheses, mine must be “tested” before it becomes a theory. I am also too lazy to find out if someone else has thought about it (someone probably has).

But, one thing I am very certain of: I have met people who claim to be progressive and yet, they are guilty of the sins I describe above.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You cultist royalist motherfuckers need to be consistent

You love to claim how the monarch is the reason for the good things that exist in the UK, despite the fact that they are nothing but a mere symbol…

And yet, every time someone condemns the Queen for past colonialism, you fervently and zealously defend her, asserting that she had nothing to do with the atrocities.

Which one is it, then? Does the monarch contribute to the country or not? Unless you proudly declare yourself as a cult member, you cannot pick and choose. You have to acknowledge both sides of her legacy.

No, I don’t believe she was personally responsible for the atrocities. The UK has been a constitutional monarchy for a long time and the monarch is just a symbolic representation of the state; if I want to credit or blame someone, I have to turn my head to the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

But, that does not mean the Queen was never complicit.

Not only she enjoyed the seemingly infinite wealth which would never exist without colonialism, she also willingly became the symbol of it. No, fuck the neutrality bullshit. If you are aware of immorality committed in your name, the least you can do is to publicly speak out against it.

Morality is not a trivial matter, it is a matter of whether you treat your fellow human beings humanely or not. If you feel or act neutral about certain acts of inhumanity, you tolerate them; you are as good as their perpetrators.

She had the power to influence her subjects to reconcile with their country’s dark past. Instead, she chose symbolically represent it.

I bet you that some of you are also the same people who blame entire minority groups for the actions of few, despite the fact that most members have nothing to do with those few and never condone their actions.

Also, if you take offense at my cultist accusation, you have no one but yourselves to blame.

British media outlets spending 24/7 reporting her death, the state spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for her funeral amid an ongoing economic crisis, the country shutting many activities down – including medical appointments and flights – just for her, fellow royalists demanding everyone – including citizens of former colonies- to mourn her, arresting peaceful protestors, Labour party prohibiting members from making any social media posts unless they were about the Queen, royalists condemning businesses for staying open.

You either consider them as trivial non-stories which we shouldn’t make a big deal about OR consider them as wonderful things. Don’t deny it, I have seen your online comments.

Even worse, some of you had the gall to claim that no one forced Brits to mourn her, despite the fact that you didn’t let them to live their daily lives as usual and you also deliberately ruined their goddamn plans.

The gaslighting attempt really adds to the cultist atmosphere.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Monarchism, religion and colonialism

Vox made a video about how the English monarch is still the head of state of different countries. In the comment section, I posted this comment:

As an Indonesian, I find it weird that independent countries still have a foreigner living in faraway land as their symbolic head of state. It is even weirder that the faraway land has an entirely different cultural root.

From all any of English royalty-related comments I have made, I consider that to be the least cynical and disparaging and the most matter-of-fact. I mean, Indonesia does not have a head of state who lives in a faraway land; ours, who is also our head of government, is an Indonesian citizen who grew up in Indonesia and has identified as an Indonesian all of their life. Obviously, for people like me, the idea of having a foreigner as a head of state is weird.

But, that comment still manages to ruffle feathers.

As if almost on cue, people started chastising me because I am from Indonesia, a non-Arabian country dominated by a religion of Arabian origin that is Islam, which they deem as a colonising religion. With that fact in mind, they believe I have no right to criticise.

One thing first: I agree with them that Islam is a colonising religion. In many countries, it is undoubtedly a politically, socially and culturally influential religion with large numbers of adherents. It has the ability to devour smaller and less powerful religions without direct coercions and it has definitely done so, including in Indonesia. As an Indonesian Muslim, it is a fact that I have to acknowledge.

But, that’s the only thing I agree with them. I don’t believe a religion is a cultural colonising power.

In essence, religion is a set of spiritual rituals and worldviews. But, the latter are often expressed using ancient figures of speech which original meanings are unknown by modern audience; this allows anyone to create their own interpretations, which may or may not be influenced by one’s cultural backgrounds.

Sunni Islam – the disproportionately dominant Islamic branch in the world and in Indonesia – is a highly decentralised religion, which gives its adherents even more freedom to interpret… and also the freedom to follow any imams as they desire or to not follow any at all.

In Indonesia, the Javanese and Sundanese people – the biggest and second biggest ethnic groups, respectively – are predominantly-Muslim and yet, their traditional arts are still dominated by South Asian influences; the Santris are the only ones who embrace more Middle Eastern ones.

There are indeed Muslim-majority ethnic groups whose cultures have strong Arabian influences. But, they don’t speak Arabic and they certainly do not identify themselves as Arabs. The actual Arab-Indonesians themselves are uninterested in Arabising their homeland; not even all of them can speak Arabic.

Most Indonesian mosques constructed before the 20th century utilised local architectural styles. Oh, and Indonesia’s national official symbols are taken from Hindu and Buddhist mythologies, as a tribute to the region’s Hindu and Buddhist roots.

And even a centralised religion is not that rigid. Yes, the prospect of having spirituality dictated by someone living in a faraway land unnerves me. But, it is still culturally flexible.

In Indonesia, some Catholic congregations love incorporating traditional cultures into their liturgies. Languages, costumes and music, they have no issues staying in touch with the local traditions.

If I use my detractors’ logic, that means I have to see the entire western world as a Middle-Eastern colony, considering Christianity is also from the Middle East.

Regardless of its place and culture of origin, regardless of how centralised the leadership is, a religion can be moulded to fit to any cultures as one pleases… as it has always been since forever.

Meanwhile, a living monarch does not have such malleability. No matter how non-white and non-English your Commonwealth realm country is, no matter how much you try to twist it, the living white English-born and raised monarch will always be white and English.

Oh, and the bit of info about national symbols? It shows how Indonesians aren’t interested in having their country represented by anything Islamic. On a symbolic official level, many of us prefer to be represented by our Hindu and Buddhist ancestors.

If you see Indonesian tourism ads and take a peek at what Indonesian festivals abroad have to offer, you will see Islam is barely mentioned or depicted, if at all. Islam takes centre stage only when the occasions are specifically religious (e.g. Ramadhan fast breaks or Idul Fitri celebrations).

Every time Islamists champion Sharia-fication of Indonesian law, they get harshly reminded by moderate Muslims that Indonesia is a Muslim-majority country and NOT an Islamic one. Unlike the Islamists, the moderates are actually considerate about the religious minorities.

Basically, if you want to call me a hypocrite for posting that comment, make sure a living monarch is entirely comparable to religion and prove that Islam has been used to symbolically represent Indonesia as a whole.

Those “rebuttals” were not even the worst I received. Someone took it to a next level… by claiming that the legitimacy of the Indonesian president is the exact same as the King of England’s. Just like how the monarch hasn’t lived in every single Commonwealth realm, the Indonesian president hasn’t lived in every single Indonesian province, they say.

Okay, then.

Yes, it is true Indonesian Presidents haven’t lived in every single province. But, those provinces are… you know… provinces. They are not sovereign states, they are territories of a sovereign state. While presidents have always been Muslims and of Javanese descent (which unfortunately is a sign of poor ethnic and religious representations), they are elected by the people (at least after the fall of Soeharto); citizens from all provinces have the right to vote.

Meanwhile, not only the English monarch is the head of state of different independent countries, it is also a hereditary position and the person holding it was never elected by the people. Apples and oranges, but far more idiotic.

Those are just reminders of how monarchists – especially English ones – are borderline cultish.

If they are not borderline cultish, they wouldn’t do whataboutism, they wouldn’t project, they would try their best to argue using facts and commonsense…

And they certainly would not get riled up by one of the least offensive and provocative anti-monarchist comments ever made.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Are stereotypes useful?

No, they are not.

I have had many arguments with bigots. But, one interaction gave me this realisation: stereotype is different from generalisation. I hate myself for being this late.

This person constantly made sweeping statements about Muslims. After receiving pushbacks, he defended himself by saying that if we want to talk about a collective, generalisation is inevitable.

What he said made sense here. How can we talk about human collectives when we are prohibited from generalising? The thing is I would be on his side… if he was being honest with himself.

A generalisation is meant to represent the entirety and it requires as many data as possible; mind you, it has the word “general” in it. If he truly wanted to have an honest discussion, he would have acknowledged that a group embodies different individuals and each of them almost certainly identifies with more than one labels. He would have been mindful of the diversity and the rigidness of pigeonholes.

Instead, he chose to paint a group of one billion believers as a hoard of centrally-controlled androids.

If you still prefer stereotype because it is the easier route, be my guest. But, you clearly don’t care about the truth.

If you do care…

You would try your best to drop all of your preconceived notions, unearth what is beneath the deceptive surface and learn as many intricate details as possible, especially ones that seemingly contradict each other.

You would try your best to embrace the complexities of life instead of settling for fact-distorting oversimplifications.

You would acknowledge that the “others” are your fellow human beings who just happen to be influenced by different life experiences and/or sets of rules.

You would have realised that just because you feel your beliefs are true, that does not mean they are.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“There is no bigotry here!“

Some nationalistically zealous westerners I have encountered love to claim that their countries are bigotry-free.

Their evidences? People of religious and racial minority backgrounds not being hunted down like animals, having high-ranking jobs both in public and private sectors and even becoming celebrities. How can there be bigotry when minorities can achieve high status in their own countries?

I notice that those people often harbour anti-Muslim sentiment as well. With that in mind, I want to do the same thing with my country.

I declare that Indonesia, world’s biggest Muslim-majority country, is free from any bigotry, both religious and racial!

Indonesians Christian thrive in every field imaginable; from national government to corporate business, they can ace everything! There are also Hindus thriving in national governmental institutions; some have also become high-ranking government officials!

Our state broadcaster broadcast not just Islamic sermons, but also Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu and, recently, Confucian ones. From all of those religions, only Confucianism does not have dedicated state-funded universities.

In the 50’s, while western Protestants and Catholics were too busy hating each other, Indonesia already had non-Muslims working as high-ranking government officials. Not to mention that from all historical figures who are appointed as national heroes, at least forty of them are non-Muslims.

Chinese-Indonesians are among the most well-off and educated demographics in the country. They also thrive in almost every field imaginable. In fact, one of the most beloved politicians in the country is of Chinese descent… and also a Christian.

Apart from paragraph four, those are indeed facts. I have used them to rebuke foreigners who think Indonesia is the same as Saudi Arabia and ISIS territory. But, I will never use them to sweep the dark side under the rug.

Indonesia only officially recognises those six aforementioned religions, none are indigenous. Those who identify with none of them have to choose one in official documents. Students cannot opt out of religious classes at schools, including the public ones. While there are non-Muslim high-ranking government officials, Indonesian presidents have always been Muslims.

It is also much easier for non-Muslims to be charged with blasphemy than Muslims are; that Christian Chinese-Indonesian politician was convicted while his detractors – many of whom are Muslim extremists – have yet to be. While rare, violent religious clashes have definitely occurred. Not to mention Islamic extremism is getting more and more common and the government barely do anything about it.

And race relations are even worse.

For more than thirty years, Chinese-Indonesians were banned from publicly expressing their ancestral heritage and running for office. They were disproportionately blamed for supporting communism, even though non-Chinese-Indonesians were just as active as communists. In the late 90’s riots, they were brutalised, raped and had their houses and livelihoods burned down; they have yet to get justice. While the far richer ones were safe, their socioeconomic status made them an even bigger scapegoat.

Don’t forget the Indonesian Papuans. While they don’t suffer from pogroms (that I know of), they are certainly among the most neglected demographics. The national government started building highways in the region only a few years ago. The poorest and second poorest provinces in the country are the Papuan ones and, at the same time, one of the most expensive cities in the country is also Papuan; I doubt the government can afford to pay the subsidies forever.

I should also mention Western New Guinea – now called Indonesian Papua – was annexed from the Dutch. While there were Papuan individuals involved, there are no evidences that the annexation had widespread support among the Papuans.

Their homeland was annexed, they have been neglected from the very beginning, they get called monkeys… and the flag-wavers have the gall to accuse them of acting like thin-skinned and ungrateful brats.

I believe that even if Chinese-Indonesians and Papuan-Indonesians are predominantly-Muslim, they would still get severely discriminated against. Their races and/or non-Austronesian lineage make them easy targets.

Oh and that beloved Christian Chinese-Indonesian politician? He is also one of the most hated public figures.

Now, what’s the point of my rambling?

If an Indonesian of minority backgrounds has criticisms about Indonesia, especially ones based on their personal experiences, and I respond by spewing paragraphs four to seven, you would be justifiably angry at me.

Instead of acknowledging the reality, I choose to whitewash it by claiming the good side is the only existing side. Not only I choose to be intellectually dishonest, I also give my fellow human beings the finger by dismissing their grievances. My mind fails to realise that one can praise and condemn a country at the same time.

Now, what if I am not an Indonesian Muslim of Austronesian descent? What if I am a Christian westerner of white European descent….

… And I screech about how my western homeland is the epitome of multiculturalism because non-whites and non-Christians can achieve high statuses and be free from lynching, even though stereotypes, hate speech, discriminations and history denialism are rampant?

Some of you would still be angry at me. Some.

The rest of you would actually agree with me. You see the west as literally the only beacon of civility and morality in existence, where literally every good thing in life comes from. You cannot comprehend the world outside the west has anything good to offer without western influences.

No, don’t deny it. You know damn well those people exist. In fact, you may be one of them.

If you perceive any criticisms of your beloved western homeland as slanderous and bigoted, you are one of those people.

If you perceive any acknowledgement of the positive aspects of the Muslim and/or non-western world as whitewashing, you are one of those people.

If you condemn the Muslim and/or non-western world for doing something and yet praising the west doing the exact same thing, you are one of those people.

If you believe Muslims and/or non-westerners are obligated to be grateful of westerners for every good thing in life, you are one of those people.

if you have believe minorities not getting mass murdered is enough to make the west the bastion of multiculturalism, you are one of those people.

If you feel personally attacked by this blogpost, you are definitely one of those people.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“You should ‘go out’ more”…

… is what people usually say to me in arguments. When they say ‘go out’, they mean leaving my safe space and exposing myself to different worldview.

Obviously, that’s a sound advice. We should thrive to avoid any echo chambers if we truly have the desire to grow and discern our reality. But, I do know those people don’t care about my well-being; they just hate it that I refuse to appease to them.

People who love exaggerating the flaws of Marvel films think I need to watch anything other than Hollywood blockbusters, not realising that my favourite film directors are Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman and Stanley Kubrick, arguably giants of arthouse cinema, and some of my favourite films are not even American, let alone Hollywood.

Some people think I will grow out of my “extremely woke” politics and suggest leaving my echo chamber. It is interesting because not only there is nothing radical about centre-left politics, I used to be a lot more conservative. I also live in a country where even self-proclaimed moderates are very socially conservative. Not to mention the many conservatives, libertarians, liberals and centrists I constantly run into online.

Pro and anti-multiculturalism and anti-Muslim westerners have something in common: they genuinely believe that the west is the only diverse place on earth. The differences? The pro wants to feel superior about their own countries, thinking simply seeing minorities on the streets and having foreign ancestors boost their multicultural cred. The other camps think other places aren’t being forced to be diverse. When I refute their factually incorrect claims, they condescendingly suggest me to interact with people of differing cultural and religious backgrounds.

What they don’t know is I am from Indonesia, a country with six officially recognised religions and literally hundreds of ethnic groups; my hometown specifically has five dominant ethnic groups, which is unusual even for an Indonesian city, and has visible Christian and Buddhist minorities. I attended a middle school where I was one of the few non-Chinese-Indonesian and non-Buddhist students and I got my degree from an Australian university. Oh, and virtually all of my online friends are foreigners and much of them are non-Muslims.

My exposure to different cultures and religions is so mundane. If it wasn’t for my interactions with dumb westerners, I would have kept taking my diverse upbringing for granted.

“The more you know, the more you don’t know”

The older I get, the more I can relate to the quote. As much as I want to see myself as extremely knowledgeable, I have to acknowledge the horizon’s infinite vastness.

I haven’t tasted every film style of imaginable. I haven’t matured politically. And I have only been exposed to a tiny chunk of the world’s cultures and religions. I need to keep learning.

But, as one can tell, my aforementioned opponents clearly don’t care. They all share something in common: the belief that some or all of their opinions are absolutely correct. My mere disagreement is more than enough for them to make a baseless assumption about my personal life, which they make even before I say anything about it.

One may argue I am a hypocrite because I also make assumptions about others when I disagree with them. But, there is a difference.

My aforementioned opponents make assumptions simply because I disagree, that’s literally the sole reason. Meanwhile, I make assumptions based not only on how (un)reasonable and factually (in)accurate their opinions are, but also the anecdotes which they willingly share.

If you say enjoyment of pop culture is a sign of immaturity, I can assume you are a self-righteous bitch who want to feel undeservingly high and mighty about your tastes.

If you say centre-left politics – which is closer to the centre than it is to the far end – is too “woke”, I can assume you are swinging too far to the right end. I can also assume you are unable to perceive life’s many many shades of grey.

If you say multiculturalism can only be found in the west, I can assume you are jingostic westerners who think your countries are more special than they really are and/or you know nothing about lives beyond your borders.

If you admit that you intentionally avoid interactions with the “others” and avoid visiting other countries because you “know” how bad they are, I can definitely say you don’t care about the truth, you just want to affirm your preconceived beliefs.

Again, I refuse to say I have fully escaped all kinds of bubbles. But, I am confident I have escaped more bubbles than my opponents do.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.