Representations

I am a Muslim from Muslim-majority Indonesia and I am of indigenous lineage (while I haven’t done DNA tests, I certainly look “indigenous”). While I already accepted my bisexuality twelve years ago, I just realised only recently that I belong to the sexual minority, combined with the fact I am still closeted offline and a borderline hermit.

Basically, I never feel like I belong to marginalised classes (emphasise on the word “feel”). Growing up, I never felt the need to be represented by the media, not even after I started consuming way more foreign media that depict my fellow Muslims and bisexuals in bad light and ignore the existence of my fellow Indonesians.

I am one of those people who believe we can feel empowered by fictional characters who do not share our identities. But, at the same time, I am also aware of my own privileges. While it is not necessary, I acknowledge that seeing yourselves on the screens feel like a big bonus.

As any media studies majors notice, it is not just about the quantity, it is also about the quality. What’s the point of being regularly represented when the representations are mostly shallow stereotypes? In fact, I would argue no representations is better than bad ones; being ignored means the wider society doesn’t have any preconceived beliefs about people like you.

And yes, positive stereotypes are still stereotypes. They still deprive the characters of their complex humanity, they are still dehumanising.

There is also nothing empowering about non-white actors being given what are essentially leftover white characters. If it is all about empowerment, why aren’t they being given original non-white characters or ones based on non-European mythologies and folklores?

Actually, when I said I never felt the need to be represented, that was not the full story.

I don’t feel the need to have my cultures, sexuality and religion to be represented, not even after consuming the media that depict them poorly. But, there is one aspect of my life which gets me riled up when depicted poorly: my psyche.

I am an introvert AKA someone who gets “energised” through solitude. For Indonesian standard, I am too reserved and stone-faced, to the point where people wrongfully call me cold. I am also socially inept person who regularly makes interactions unnecessarily awkward. I also have emotional traumas that cause mood swings and short temper; while they are not severe enough to the point of “crippling”, they are still burdensome to my life.

And I feel misrepresented by the media.

Love of solitude is different from social ineptitude…. and it is definitely different from anti-social inclination, which is what we refer sociopaths as. While social awkwardness is burdensome, it is definitely not one of mankind’s worst sins.

Reservedness is not the same as coldness. Believe it or not, not only we can feel emotions without expressing them, we don’t owe our emotional expressions to to most people. Don’t forget that we can also fake them. “Don’t judge a book by its cover” also applies here.

Extroverts AKA people who get energised through interactions can also be awkward and even anti-social. Just a reminder, the pandemic was exacerbated by party animals who thought partying was more important than public health.

And yes, people with anger issues can be abusive. But, that does not mean we are. In fact, not only some of us actually try our best to not lash out at innocent people, we become this way because of traumas, which may or may not be results of abuses.

I feel validated as a human being every time I see rare humanising portrayals of such people. So far, my favourites are Pi Patel from Life of Pi movie and Will Hunting and Sean Maguire from Good Will Hunting.

Pi’s introversion is depicted as a sign of contemplativeness and willingness to learn, instead of anti-social inclinations. When he gets shipwrecked, not only he has to quickly learn survival skills, he also deals with intense spiritual crisis… and his introversion helps him with both. Despite being unanimated with his face most of the time, we can feel what he is feeling… and we can tell he has a very sensitive soul.

While Will and Sean do anger issues, they are also gentle souls with traumas. The difference between them is Will needs help in overcoming his anger while Sean clearly has successfully done so. I can relate to Will (minus the constant run-ins with the law) and I desperately want to become Sean.

Strangely, even though I have been mocked and abused for my stuttering all of my life, I never feel insulted by the mocking portrayals of stutterers. Maybe they are not mean-spirited, maybe they are not common. For whatever reasons, even after watching The King’s Speech and celebrating that profanity-laced scene, I never demand films to have more humanising portrayals of stutterers.

Overall, if you are not a part of certain marginalised groups, you should remember that it is not about you. Whether they want representations or not, it is about them in the end. Don’t speak on their behalf as if their life experiences are your own…… and yes, your token minorities only make you look worse. The best you can do is to actually listen and accept all of the anecdotes are valid, even when they contradict each others, even when they do not support your political causes.

And even if you a part of certain marginalised groups, just remember you are still one person. Regardless of what you want, you don’t have the right to speak on the behalf of entire groups and invalidate anecdotes that contradict yours. You can only speak for yourself.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“You should ‘go out’ more”… part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can I be certain those are not baseless accusations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somehow, my ‘peculiarities’ personally offend them.

.

.

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

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

Meanwhile, mine are much more niche.

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being a child of a single mother

Indonesia is like most places on earth. It is considered preferable for children to have both mom and dad. In fact, unlike in America and much of the west, almost every person here is conservative; truly liberal-minded people are a rarity here.

And yet, the vitriol against single mothers in America is extreme, something which I don’t see in Indonesia. Maybe single motherhood isn’t as common or talked about as much. But, I never heard about a huge number of Indonesians demonising single mothers, blaming them for every existing social ill.

Worse, those people even use scientific papers – which supposedly claim that children of single mothers are more likely to be worse off – as their evidences. They feel more empowered and, among the gullible ones, they seem to be an ideologically sound bunch.

I have never read those papers. Knowing how zealous ideologues can be, they may either oversimplify the content or straight up lie about it. But, even if the papers truly make such claim, they are peer-reviewed and their results can be replicated by other peer-reviewed researches, I still don’t see how it proves the dangers of single motherhood.

For misogynists, those studies affirm their preconceived beliefs about women, especially their supposed inherent incompetence in anything. For gullible people, they start thinking that the misogynists are on something.

But, for sceptical people who try their best embracing the complexity of reality, they won’t take the studies for granted and they acknowledge that no one and nothing lives in a vacuum.

They realise we are shaped not just by our homes, but also by our racial and ethnic backgrounds, our schools, work places, the media we consume, the dominant political and religious beliefs in our area, the political and religious beliefs we embrace, any places sociologists refer to as the “third places”, any thoughts we are exposed to, any interactions we immerse ourselves in.

If you are truly open-minded, you would not be too quick to blame something on only one factor, you would consider multiple of them.

You would not blame it entirely on single mothers, you would also hold other aspects of the society accountable for severely failing those fatherless children.

Yes, I know there are bloated elephants in the room: the absent fathers.

Unless the mothers slander the fathers and undeservingly end up with full custody of the children, we can definitely say the absent fathers are also a factor to consider. It is not the mothers’ faults that their partners died or were lost on the way to buy cigarettes.

I initially wanted to omit this, as it was too obvious and easy. But then, I remember the people who love demonising single motherhood never talk about negligent fathers and refuse to hold men accountable to anything. In the end, I have to state the obvious.

Now, for my anecdote as a son of a single mother.

I was very young when my father died, I don’t have a single memory of him. I started to long for a father figure when I was a teenager. Inexplicably, that longing feeling died out after I graduated high school.

Now, as a thirty-year-old man, I am glad I was raised by one parent. It is emotionally burdensome to face the demands from one parent. I cannot imagine facing demands from two!

I don’t know what kind of person he was. He might be able to balance my mom’s burdensome bearing. But, it is also possible he was either equally burdensome or my mom’s biggest apologist. Considering what kind of person my mom is, you have to be either toxic or permissive with toxicity in order to enjoy her presence, let alone marrying her.

Oh, and so-called manliness is not a concern. For one, I don’t give a fuck about conforming to an arbitrary and ever-changing gender role. But, even if I do, my conservative mom loves upholding gender roles anyway. She loves shaming me every time I show lack of interest in anything automotive and outdoor-related… or, more frequently, show my fear of height.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

As an introvert, the pandemic has finally affected me… in a bad way

No, I don’t miss large social situations.

I know some extroverts insist that, deep down, introverts prefer large social situations over solitude. Of course, they are stupid because that’s the exact opposite of what introversion is. They still believe “true introverts” are damaged, even though some extroverts’ willingness to risk public health for the sake of partying shows they are not immune from damage.

In fact, many introverts (who are free from financial problems) use the opportunity to be free from burdensome social “duties”. If it wasn’t for the adversities, I would have used a more celebratory tone.

I don’t miss the crowds. But, I do have to admit: I have developed a new anxiety.

Before the pandemic, I only had one reason to hate social gatherings: just like any introverts, I found them mentally grueling. Speaking for myself specifically, the less I was familiar with the people, the more exhausted I would end up.

And now, not only I still find them hectic, I also perceive them as potential disease incubator; considering a pandemic can last for years and there is always a potentiality for another one, I doubt my fear would dissipate soon.

Never mind encountering actual crowds. Even the sight of one in a goddamn video makes me anxious. They have become doubly stressful.

No, this does not prove extroverts’ inherent superiority. Let me remind you that some of them help spreading the disease. It shows extroversion’s liability in crises like this.

My point is I was a bit too assured about mentally surviving the pandemic, thinking introversion immunised me. Fortunately, like the one I have been having for years, this new anxiety is not crippling; I can live my daily life with ease.

But, it is a problem nonetheless.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to depict violence

There is a spoiler alert for the Amazon show Invincible, assuming you are not exposed to its memes.

I genuinely don’t mind about the presence of violence in arts and entertainment. My problem lies on how it is being depicted.

For one, it is obvious many in the creative industry are either too lazy or too incompetent to depict violence off-screen. I prefer the violence to be insinuated and having a greater focus on the aftermath. I am sure even adequately diligent and skilled filmmakers are able to create such scenes.

But, I won’t dwell too much on the undisguised depiction. As much as I love complaining about it, I am still able to tolerate the lack of subtlety. What I don’t tolerate is the trivialisation.

Here’s the thing about trauma: literally anything can traumatise you. Something does not have to be violent or injurious to be traumatic. It can be so by simply being significantly bad in your life.

And yet, most entertainment works love depicting violence as something which won’t traumatise us, as something we can brush off easily.

Even in superhero stories, I find that problematic. Yes, superheroes have superhuman physical strength. But, immunity from mental disorders is never explicitly mentioned.

I make a big deal out of this because we are accustomed to perceive mental disorders as either weaknesses or things we choose to suffer from. The fact that the media we consume do the same thing means our false perception is constantly being affirmed. It certainly does not help that many characters in our favourite entertainment are relatable, even those who are not (fully) human beings.

Even if they don’t or won’t suffer mentally, at least mention how desensitised they have or will become.

Oh, and there is a reason why I mentioned superheroes and non-human characters.

Recently, I have been watching clips (no, not entire episodes) of Invincible; if it wasn’t for a comic book nerd friend of mine, I would have never heard of the show.

Just by watching the snippets, I cannot help but feeling impressed. The voice acting performance is great, it is emotionally impactful and the inclusion of humour is seamless (love the scene where our protagonist almost catches his parents “doing it”).

And then, there are the scenes the show is infamous for.

Disappointed that Mark is too soft, his father “toughens” him up by using his body to mutilate innocent people. When the method fails, his dad beats him literally almost to death.

Mark ends up hospitalised for two weeks and is obviously saddened by his father’s betrayal. But, there are no indications of impending psychological trauma.

I don’t know why. But, if it wasn’t for the show’s existence, I would have never thought about this.

There are indeed exceptions. But, they are too rare for my liking.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Facing fears can be pointless

Some fears do need to be confronted when they are severe enough to cripple our daily lives. You know, fearing social interactions to the point where one suffers from agoraphobia.

Do I have fear of them? Yes, I do and my stuttering may be either the cause or the exacerbating factor. Sometimes, when I have to communicate with strangers using more than ten sentences, I do get nervous.

But, they are always manageable. You won’t see me sweating and hyperventilating. I can easily go to stores, banks, gas stations and any places where the strangers are.

Considering I – an introverted, socially-awkward and stuttering homebody – am able live my daily social life and fulfil my practical needs with great ease, I see no reasons why I should waste my time and energy getting rid of something which is practically a trivial nuisance.

Out of social pressure, I tried to get rid of it by interacting with more people. Every time I do that, I become more aware of my own stuttering and awkwardness, needlessly amplifying my self-awareness. Essentially, I become an even bigger wreck.

It is the similar with my fear of height.

It is rare for me to be in a situation where fearlessness against height benefits me. I don’t have window-cleaning or the likes as a job.

And yes, just like my fear of social interactions, my fear of height never cripples me. I never have problems looking down from a cliff or a high-rise building and, unless there is bad weather or a recent news of a crash, an airplane ride is doable for me.

And yes, I have also been coerced to get rid of it and the attempts are not only futile, they give me a bad mood for the rest of the day.

My point is we should focus on actually debilitating defects, instead of the ones that people demand us to fix because they let other people’s trivial weaknesses ruin their lives.

It is like spending time and money to remove a tiny mole on one’s skin simply because it does not meet some else’s shallow beauty standard.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The only episode of Criminal Minds that I love

Overall, I despise the show like a plague. Even without the ungodly demonisation of mental illnesses sufferers, it would still make a lame horror or thriller TV show.

I mean, come on! Do you expect me to watch people murdered in unusually grotesque manners and get deeply unnerved? Why should I be fearful of horrible things that are mostly hypothetical and not experienced by most people? Why should I be fearful of things that are not close to home?

Most of the time, the show tries too hard to be terrifying. Most of the time.

Season nine’s 24th episode is an exception. Titled Demons, it features corrupt cops instead of mentally unstable characters as the bad guys.

As the main characters need to travel all over the country, they often get assistance from the local police forces, using their headquarters as makeshift offices. In this episode, they unwittingly enter the lion’s den, thinking it was a safe space.

Once they realise how corrupt the entire police force is, the ominousness starts creeping in. It genuinely feels like they can ambushed at any time… and anywhere.

The fact that the main characters are FBI agents make the situation even more tense. If federal agents are fearful of the local cops despite having self-defence training and more legal power, it would be idiotic for ordinary citizens -especially noobs like me- to not feel fear.

It took a while to realise this: a police force’s headquarter is not just a mere building, it encompasses an entire specific region. Basically, the entire city is the lion’s den! Unless they leave town immediately, they are not safe everywhere they go!

Obviously, this is not the best thriller work out there. In fact, I have watched TV episodes and films far more terrifying than this. But, I make a big deal out of this episode because it is what the entire show could have been.

It could have lived up to its title by focusing on the psychological aspects of crime solving! It could have been a compelling TV series for the masses!

Instead, it chooses to mindlessly give what the masses want: surface-level visual horror and vindication of their dehumanising hatred against mental illness sufferers.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I support monarchism because…

*puts on a mask*

Being a monarch is a hard-earned job!

If you have to compare between a person who gets his/her high-earning and high-ranking job by working all the way from the bottom and a person who gets her/his because of his/her lineage, it is obvious the latter is hardworking one!

It is just common sense that the former is a sign of laziness and the latter is extremely hard to achieve! Most of us have never made any efforts to be born into the right families and monarchs are the only ones who have achieved such high accomplishment!

It is frustrating how this thing needs to be said in the first place!

The monarchs make me feel happy!

Who cares about the education, healthcare, economy and political stability?

The only things that matter are my feelings! The purpose of human existence is to make ME happy!

And the only ones who can make ME happy are the monarchs!

They make ME feel extremely good about the world we live in, making ME forget about how fucking shitty the world we live in!

They are literally Gods!

Nepotism is everywhere!

It has been established that the ethical and moral legitimacy of an action is determined by its popularity among the masses. Appeal to popularity is literally a principal accepted in logic and ethics!

That’s the reason why logicians and ethicists support monarchism: because it is based on nepotism and nepotism is literally everywhere!

I mean, literally every person has settled that murder and rape are ethically and morally-acceptable because of how their societal prevalence!

If we have settled that, why can’t we listen to the experts and settle that monarchism is not only acceptable but also good for our political establishments?

*takes off the mask*

 

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The Swede’s rhetoric

I have made a few articles about Felix Kjellberg AKA Pewdiepie and one contains my arguments about how he is actually a reckless edgelord instead of an actual far-right ideologue.

I mention how he never makes excuses for the bigotry of some of his fans, how he was (and still is) slandered by the media and how he only invited one right-wing pundit just to review memes instead of letting him spill verbal diarrhea.

But, for some reasons, I forgot to talk about his own rhetoric.

Below, I am going to list the common talking points of contemporary western conservatives:

1. Equal rights are the same as special rights for women and the minorities

2. Women are happier when they are treated as the “lesser sex”.

3. The Southern Strategy never happened and American Democratic party is still the racist party.

4. Taking down Confederate statues equals erasure of history.

5. The Bell Curve is scientifically legitimate.

6. Any violence committed by Christians of European descent, including the Holocaust, the Trail of Tears, and the Crusades, were either justified, exaggerated or fictional.

7. All Muslims are sleeper cells.

8. The world is controlled by globalist Jewish elites.

9. Sexual violence is a trivial matter, unless they are committed by brown Muslims.

I am sure there are more recurring talking points than I mentioned above. But, those will do.

Disturbingly, I have seen how they often they are “discussed” by conservatives, especially by those who make Youtube videos,some of whom prefer to call themselves classical liberals.

But, from all online personalities who have been perceived as far-right, Pewdiepie is the only one who has never talked about those things.

Seriously, I have never heard him openly or discreetly espousing any of those lies. In fact, he barely touches politics and he never talks about history; his commentaries mostly revolve around the non-political aspects of Youtube culture.

The thing about our bigotry is it cannot be hidden completely, no matter how hard we try, no matter how hard we deny its existence. Even if we are not prone to Freudian slips, our bigotry will appear subtextually in our messages.

I have encountered so many people online who claim to not be bigoted… and yet, if you read their words between the lines, you will notice how hateful they are.

You cannot say you are not a racist when you believe the mere presence of non-whites is the evidence of white genocide. You cannot say you are not a homophobe or a transphobe when you believe LGBT rights discriminate against cisgender and heterosexual people.

But, with Felix, I haven’t seen any far-right subtexts from his online content.

His commentaries are indeed laced with subtexts… classical liberal subtexts; he is all about freeing humans from any excessive constraints, both in social and legal forms. He disapproved of the “policing” of any kind of activities, as long as they are not violent.

Basically, he is the complete opposite of those far-right individuals who are supposedly all about liberty while advocating for taking it away from those who are different from them.

He, the person who never calls himself a classical liberal, is way more classical liberal than the reactionaries who claim to be ones.

About the Christchurch mosque massacre…

Both his name and Candace Owens’s were implicated because they were mentioned by the shooter. The shooter said “subscribe to Pewdiepie”, a meme created by Felix himself, during the live streamed violence while she was cited as his number one ideological inspiration.

And both public figures reacted differently.

Felix was never cited as an inspiration; the shooter mentioned the name of the most popular Youtuber because he wanted more attention.

But, not only Felix immediately condemned the massacre, he pleaded to his fans to end the meme. After his many controversies, after years of being a reckless edgelord, he has realised he has a responsibility as a public figure for every single one of his public actions… and that includes his inherently harmless meme which he created as a tongue-in-cheek response to his rivalry with T-Series.

Owens, on other hand, responded immediately by laughing it off in her dismissive tweet, despite the fact that she is the shooter’s number one inspiration!

I don’t know about her now. But, at that time, it was obvious she did not have any sense of responsibility as a public figure, even though she was famous in the first place because of her politically charged and definitely-not-trivial messages.

She was not that different from Trump who took days to condemn the Charlottesville Neo-Nazi rally attended by his own supporters.

She was not that different from other right-wing public figures who constantly incite bigotry and yet refusing to acknowledge they might have inspired atrocities like the Christchurch massacre.

But, she and her peers are definitely different from Felix Kjellberg.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

My favourite sarcastic Youtubers

They are Boyoung AKA Bubbly, Chris Broad AKA Abroad in Japan, Felix Kjellberg AKA Pewdiepie, Joey Bizinger AKA The Anime Man, and Terry Song AKA TerryTV.

Unsurprisingly, their sarcasm often go over people’s heads and it leads to some viewers -especially the new ones- to take their words seriously. With Joey, he loves being sarcastic in his QnA video, consequentially frustrating even his long-time viewers who wish their questions are answered properly.

Also unsurprisingly, they also make Youtube commentaries from time to time, but not too often to the point where their channels become commentary ones. Consequentially, their contents have satirical inclination at times.

After watching them for years, I just realise another similarity between them that I didn’t notice before: I don’t find their annoying actions to be annoying.

Let me explain that extremely vague statement.

How they carry themselves on the platform is more or less similar to how their colleagues do it. When other Youtubers -including ones I am fans of- commit those certain actions, I am annoyed. But, when my favourite sarcastic Youtubers are the ones who commit them, I am strangely not.

Yeah, still vague.

Let me start straight away with the clickbaits.

Apart from Chris, all of those Youtubers I mentioned have embraced clickbaits in their video titles and thumbnails, albeit with varying level of intensity.

Boyoung and Terry prefer relatively subdued clickbaits (which suit their subdued sarcasm), Felix prefers to create bizarre ones (which suit his bizarre content) and Joey is the most shameless as he utilises nakedly clickbaity titles (which suit his snarky tendency); they remind me of the ones used by so-called “news” media outlets.

With Chris, I notice he loves re-using the same saccharine stock background music over and over again. But, it is not unlike the one used by many Youtubers.

It is more similar to the one used by American so-called “factual” TV programming; however, it still exude the same sugary, feel-good atmosphere. In his Journey Across Japan series, he used upbeat 80’s sounding theme song that -in my opinion- emits false optimism and pseudo-energy.

I may be wrong. But, I do notice that -unlike the ones of Felix and many other Youtubers- the online personas of Boyoung and Terry are immensely similar to their true personalities.

Their speaking intonations barely change and so do their body languages… apart from their eyes and mouths; as weird as it sounds, it’s the only way for me to determine whether they are in characters or not. Took me a long time to notice those details.

When Youtubers (and humans in general) do those things, I often perceive them as attention-seeking and fake individuals whose purpose in life is to look good instead of embracing their authentic selves, just for the sake of instant fame and fortune.

And yet, I am not annoyed when the Youtubers I am fans of commit those “sins”…. and the reason for that lies on the title.

Sarcasm is something in which everything that is being expressed is the opposite of their literal meanings. Not the most articulate elucidation. But, you get the idea.

Because of the constant stream of sarcasm, I am not predisposed to take those content creators too seriously, unless when morality is involved.

It also helps that they love to sprinkle a dose of self-deprecation here and there; I personally interpret it as their turndown to stand on high pedestals.

As a result, I don’t find their commentaries to be self-righteous and hypocritical whatsoever. The ones who think so are probably those who barely watch their videos.

Even though they don’t make much of them, I believers their commentaries are more superior than the ones spewed by most commentary Youtubers, who mostly appeal to emotions instead of reasons and don’t always practice what they preach.

Of course, I also have to admit I am being biased here. Not only I am a fan of those Youtubers, I am also a big fan of sarcasm; I regard it as one of the best tools to deal with those pesky humans and to express my anger. Way more satisfying than vandalising properties.

Oh, and I initially wanted to include Duncan Pain AKA PDR-San to the list.

Like them, he is also known for his sarcasm which does not always bode well to some people and and being self-deprecating.

But, he is also different from them because not only he has made even more commentaries (making his content more satirical in comparison), I don’t believe he is “guilty” of the “sins” I mentioned above. As I have missed many of his videos recently, I may be wrong.

I still mention him anyway because if he is indeed “guilty” of them, I would also not be annoyed.

And because I am a fan, of course.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.