How to protect your identities from tyranny and extinction

*puts on a mask*

First thing first, you must be a supremacist.

You cannot simply see your identity as the only correct one. You must aggrandise it as the only one blessed either by divine power, nature or both. Every person who thinks otherwise is inherently immoral and you must severely punish them once you are in power! You must also demonise anyone simply for not sharing your identity…… with some exceptions.

If they acknowledge your supremacy and are content with their arbitrarily second-class status, then they are worth keeping. You can utilise those tools as tools to advance your agenda.

The self-veneration isn’t enough. You must also start declaring that the mere existence of other identities threatens yours! Other religions exist? Accuse them of trying to impose theocracies! Other ethnicities exist? Accuse them of trying to impose their cultures upon you! Other sexualities and gender identities exist? Accuse them of sexual perversion! Other races exist? Accuse them of racial genocide; God forbids if your women want to breed with their more attractive men!

It does not matter that you are guilty of what you are accusing your victims of. What it matters is you must fool the masses into believing that those numerically-small and politically-powerless people are their biggest enemies.

After the demonisation, you must actively make efforts to discriminate them. You also must believe that discrimination is not discrimination if committed by people like you.

But, you CANNOT explicitly express that. What you should do is advocating for discriminatory or even genocidal laws instead. Combine that with your demonisation of the others, the message will wordlessly conveyed. That way, morons would not dare to call you bigoted.

If those things are too complex for you (they probably are), just remember this mantra:

My identities good, their identities bad.

Take those words to the heart and chant them repeatedly.

Don’t stop until those words violently replace single cell in your body.

My identities good, their identities bad.

My identities good, their identities bad.

My identities good, their identities bad.

My identities good, their identities bad.

My identities good, their identities bad.

My identities good, their identities bad.

Repeat until they have completely taken over your entire life.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to make arguments

*Puts on a mask*

It is simple: all you need is your feelings.

You don’t need sound logic and evidences to back your arguments. As long as they feel right for you, that’s more than enough. In fact, they should be based on your feelings.

If you argue using reason and evidences, you have already lost. You have succumbed to the demands of reality. If you want to showcase strength, your arguments must defy those demands!

You can argue that we should never cut off our biological family and our adopted family isn’t our true family because “blood is thicker than water”. You can argue that sex for pleasure is sinful because it hinders procreation. You can also argue that religious neutrality is harmful because it discriminates against your religion.

Do any of them make sense? No, they don’t. The first uses nothing but a medieval proverb to justifies itself. Each of the other two simply connects two irrelevant things and expects us to see the connections. They are based on nothing but feelings.

And, for that reason, we should praise people who make such arguments. They are so strong, they refuse to let reality dictates their worldviews. They only answer to their feelings. Their feelings are their authority figures.

But, if you don’t want to be honest with yourselves and acknowledge you are slaves to your own feelings, you can choose any authorities you desire. All you need is to say “because BLANK says so!”.

It can be a clergyman, a religion, a politician, a media outlet, a fictional character and even your own parents, anyone and anything which you grew up and still obsessively attached to all the way to your adulthood.

Yes, this is also fallacious and using your parents and favourite characters as references is childish. But, again, this is also the way to show reality that it is not your boss.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Punching sideways

In general, I despise jokes and satires which punch down.

Punching down can give the impression that marginalised groups create the most number of problems in their societies, despite their lack of political power and smaller population sizes.

I have made a blog post about it. But, it seems I forgot to talk about punching sideways.

Another issue with punching down is the punchers are often ignorant about the problems within marginalised communities. The punches are either full of oversimplifications or inaccurate stereotypes. Do you know who can provide nuanced and accurate information about said communities? Their own members!

Admittedly, I don’t believe you understand a community just because you grew up in it. Fanaticism and cultural cringe can cloud your judgement, compelling you to whitewash and exaggerate the problems among your people, respectively.

But still, if you want to truly understand a community, wouldn’t it make sense to listen people who have lived the life?

I wouldn’t think about this if it wasn’t for a video titled The Darkness by Youtuber Natalie Wynn AKA Contrapoints, in which she asserted that telling funny trans jokes requires knowledge to actual trans experiences. And yes, she has made lots of funny trans jokes.

Disclaimer: I am cis. I certainly don’t know what kind of trans jokes trans people like. But, I have yet to see her any significant backlashes from the trans community regarding her trans jokes.

This also reminds me of Muslim American webcomic artist Huda Fahmy, known for her work Yes, I am hot in this. While she does not create crude content, she constantly makes fun of her fellow American Muslims and, to a lesser extent, the entire Muslim world.

And the fact that she is a hijabi reveals a previously-hidden complexity about Muslims.

When you think of a hijabi, you think of someone who supports shaming of non-hijabis and takes hijab too seriously. That’s what anti-Muslim bigots, liberal Muslims, ex-Muslims and even some moderate Muslims (the old school Indonesian ones, at least) believe.

Huda Fahmy isn’t like that.

For one, she believes in giving women the freedom to wear anything they desire. She despises the idea of shaming them for dressing “immodestly”. In a satirical tone, she offers new dehumanising pro-hijab metaphors which do not involve ants and candies. She even acknowledges that modesty does not prevent sexual harassment.

She also makes jokes about hijabs, including one which she jokes how women become hijabis after bitten by hijampire, who has snaggle pins as fangs.

Never mind non-Muslims. As someone who grew up Muslim in the biggest Muslim-majority country and attended two Islamic schools, I have yet to met a hijabi who makes such jokes. She showcases an aspect of the Muslim world which is hidden even from many Muslims.

Basically, unless your intention is to dehumanise them even further and make them even more prone to discrimination, you have to learn about intricacies of the lives of marginalised peoples before you make fun of the them.

And no, stereotypes are not good enough. They are beliefs about our fellow human beings which are never 100% accurate, but shamelessly waiting to be affirmed.

Apart from the power imbalance, the absence of nuanced perspectives is another reason why punching down is problematic.

Yes, black and white thinking is problematic. It is just a few steps away from misinformation.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Why can’t people dress like decent human beings?

*puts on a mask*

I keep seeing people dressing like degenerates everywhere! On TV, on the streets! Seriously, when will stop wearing suits and ties?

Do you know who love wearing suits and ties? Politicians, corporate businessmen, pundits who pretend to be journalists, the mobs, conservatives. You know, morally corrupt people!

Seriously, how can you witness them destroying our societies on the daily basis and yet, not only you want to dress like them, you want the whole world to dress like them?

Surely, if you are a truly dignified person, the last thing you would do is to look like them. If you are a truly dignified person, why don’t you wear only jeans and T-shirts?

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, jeans and T-shirts wearers are not the ones who rule societies and shape them for their own self-interests. They are not the villains here.

If you truly want to look like normal and dignified human beings, you should burn all of your suits and ties and fill your wardrobe with nothing but jeans and tees.

In fact, if you truly care about the state of mankind, you should take it even further by ransacking other people’s wardrobes, burn their entire supply of suits and ties and force them to wear jeans and tees!

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

‘Cisgender’ is offensive!

*puts on a mask*

Why? Because it puts non-trans people like me in a category… and being put into a category means we have to see trans people as equals…. and, if we see them as our equals, it means they are just as normal… and, if they are just as normal, it means we won’t have any reasons to dehumanise them…

And, if we can’t dehumanise them, how the fuck can we feel good about ourselves? How the fuck can we do that if we don’t have anyone to trample on?

This is a reason why we deliberately frame “cis” as a slur made by trans people. Not because it is actually one, but because many people (especially imbeciles) will fall for it.

That way, there will be more reasons to hate trans people; not only they are perceived as perverts, they will be perceived as bigots as well!

Once the hatred increases, it will be harder for trans people to be seen as human beings… and the harder it is for them to be seen as ones, the longer they will stay marginalised… and the more they stay marginalised, the more we can trample on them…

… And the more we can trample on them, the easier it is for us to stay feeling powerful, to stay feeling like we are the only normal ones.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Jiří Trnka’s The Hand: not falling for the other side

If it wasn’t for my Intro to Animation class, I would have never heard of this stop-motion animated masterpiece.

To summarise the plot, it tells the story of a harlequin whose impoverished yet contented life of flower pot-making is disrupted by a literal and seemingly-omnipresent hand who demands him to make hand sculptures instead, compelling him to constantly fight for his freedom. Unfortunately, near the end of the story, he dies when one of his pots accidentally fell on his head (seemingly foreshadowed by the recurring accidental pot-breaking). He is given a lavish funeral by the hand.

One can guess why I love this short film.

It is an allegory of censorship enforced under authoritarianism. It sublimely evokes the terror of living as an artist and entertainer in such condition, amplified by the fantastical elements and the atmospheric percussion-oriented soundtracks. In fact, both Wikipedia and IMDB categorise this film as horror.

Unsurprisingly, I picked The Hand as one of the animated shorts I analysed for the final essay. My writings were even abysmal then. Thankfully, I lost it. But, I remember having a great time analysing every single one of them.

While analysing it, I found two peculiarities.

First thing first, the funeral. Why would the hand hold a state funeral to a rebel? Surely, shouldn’t he be demonised as an enemy of the state in the end?

Well, I found an article (forget which one, cannot find it again) about how the USSR and its satellite states honoured their artists posthumously, regardless of how obedient or disobedient they were; the writer said even Trnka himself was given a state funeral.

As I am too lazy to do more research, I cannot confirm or debunk the article’s factual validity. But, as the hand symbolises an authoritarian government (I cannot think of any other interpretations), what the article is saying makes too much sense for me to dismiss.

This reminds me of the legendary and ideologically-dissenting director Andrei Tarkovsky (can’t stop referencing him). After his death, the Soviet authorities regretted that he died in exile. Yes, linking Trnka, a Czechoslovakian puppeteer and animator with, to Tarkovsky, a live-action Russian director who loved exploring the metaphysical aspect of humanity, is far-fetched. But, I can’t help myself.

Oh, and the hand.

At first, I noticed the hand was a left one. I assumed it represented the far-left government of Czechoslovakia. But, when I took a greater look, the hand was not always left.

Sometimes, it appears as a right one. In fact, the first hand sculpture to appear in the video depicts a right hand.  So, I quickly dumped the interpretation, dismissed it as reading too much into things. But then, I remembered the funeral scene, where the hand can be seen making a salute eerily similar to the Nazi one; I could hear my classmates’ shock.

I was more baffled than shocked, as Czechoslovakia was a communist country, not a fascist one. Due to my slowness, it took me days to realise the film criticises authoritarianism in general, not just the communist Czechoslovakian government.

The film also subtly warns us to not fall for any forms of extremism. Your suffering under a far-left government cannot morally justify your support of a far-right government… and vice versa. One form of  zealotry does not justify the other.

I write as if I grasped the thematic depth immediately. I didn’t. Back then, my mind only thought about the Far-Left vs Far-Right.  It took me years to realise how the message is also applicable to any kinds of extreme dichotomies.

Yes, I know I seem to be reading too much into things again. The nazi salute may not be one after all and I don’t know enough about different types of salutes. I also cannot prove that extreme dichotomies in general were what Trnka had in mind.

But, you have to admit: the film does not target a specific ideology. My interpretation fits really well into the narrative.

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.

I prefer dubbing over subtitles…

*puts on a mask*

… Because I am proudly illiterate and bigoted. Simple as that.

Seriously, I hate subtitles because not only they force me to fucking read, they force me to listen to a foreign language!

Reading. Tolerance. Those are what libtards are good at! I am a proud conservative! I don’t do libtard shits, okay!

Heck, I am so proud, I am not even the one who wrote this! A literate and tolerant libtard did it for me!

*takes off the mask*

 

How to condemn the Hong Kong protesters?

*puts on a mask*

Instead of condemning them for violence and vandalism, condemn them for the followings:

Condemn them for hating prosperity

Hong Kongers would never know how it feels to be wealthy if it wasn’t for their generous and clearly-more civilised cousins from the mainland. I mean, literally every person in the world knows Hong Kong transformed into a rich city literally after the handover. Literally!

Literally the morning after the handover, money started literally raining on Hong Kong, high-rises literally started appearing out of nowhere and foreign investors started flocking in, seemingly for no reasons.

LOL! Seemingly! We all know China told them to!

The footage that supposedly shows olden days Hong Kong is literally fake. The cars and high-rises were not real, they were CGI created by the CIA!

How do I know? Uncle Xi and the internet said so!

Condemn them for disrespecting China’s sovereignty

Contrary to popular belief, sovereignty is not arbitrary. It is something that has been decided by the universe since long before earth’s creation!

It has been decided that the People’s Republic of China will always be the highest ruler of the people of Macau, Taiwan and yes, even Hong Kong! Hong Kongers don’t have the right to make decisions for themselves!

Condemn them for pissing on humanity

Seriously, do I even fucking need to explain this?

Do I really need to explain that only monsters love liberty? Do I really need to explain that real humans love it when any or all of their freedoms? Do I really need to explain that literally every human is destined to be slaves of the emotionally-fragile establishments?

If you really are a human being, you would love being abused 24/7.

Trust me. My methods are waaaay more effective!

*takes off the mask*

Feminists and anti-feminists: a common ground

*puts on a mask*

Some people support feminism because they believe it is the most effective way to coerce women into embracing western liberal values.

They shame women who willingly embrace modest fashion, who willingly choose to become stay-at-home moms, who willingly choose to become abstinent and who willingly choose to become/stay religious.

Their reasoning? They want to liberate women from the oppressive and medieval eastern values, especially the Islamic ones.

Some people oppose feminism because they want to protect women from western values and coerce them to keep embracing eastern values, particularly the Islamic ones.

They shame women who willingly show the slightest appearances of their skin, hair and bodily curves, who willingly choose to be unmarried and childless and who willingly choose to have active sex lives.

Their reasoning? They want to liberate women from the oppressive and overtly-sexualised western liberal values.

I have to a suggestion for both feminists and anti-feminists:

Why don’t you just make peace with each other?

I mean, it is quite obvious how you actually have something in common with each other: you are advocating to take women’s right to think and act for themselves under the pretense of liberating them.

Wouldn’t your goals become easier to achieve when you find a common ground with the “others” and form a gigantic and influential alliance?

Together, you can oppress women to the fullest.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.