Being traditional

Food is something virtually everyone can be easily traditional about. At least, that’s what I observe.

In Indonesia, despite the constant barrage of foreign influences, we still can retain our traditions to some extent. Even though traditional arts are no longer widely embraced, Indonesians – including the modern ones – still love eating fried rice, sambal, soto, tempe and the likes, we still love our chillies and other spices. Despite the modernisation, despite the cultural cringe, traditional foods are still our comfort foods

In the United States, thanks to the genocides, its indigenous people have been reduced to a tiny minority. Ten million people with indigenous lineage aren’t much when they form about three percent of the country’s total population; not to mention only four percent of them still speak their ancestral languages regularly and fluently.

I don’t know how much they eat traditional foods in their daily lives. But, the indigenous influences (along with the west African ones, mind you) are still prevalent among many classic United States dishes. Without them, Americans would not eat cornmeal-based dishes like cornbread and hush puppy and they definitely would not eat ingredients like turkey, blueberries and cranberries.

From all aspects of cultures, foods seem to be the among the most resilient. I attribute them to being one of mankind’s basic needs. Between foods and the arts, the latter is the one which humans can physically survive without.

But, I don’t understand the obsession with “traditional values”.

For one, how do we know they are even “traditional”? How do we know they are not results of our misunderstanding (or dishonest perception) of the past?

In the American context, conservatives love to pretend their country was founded as a Christian one, even though the literal first sentence of the first amendment calls for the separation of church and state; when they cite the first amendment, they always conveniently skip to the second sentence (which itself is about freedom of religion, not about establishing a theocracy).

Even if we accept they are 100% traditional, I still don’t see the purpose.

Here’s something that is isn’t obvious to some of us: some values deserve to be left behind.

If a value demands us to be dismissive of anything simply because they are “foreign”, prevent girls from getting education, filter out any new knowledge because it is deemed “blasphemous” or see people of other ethnicities, races and religions as subhumans, then it deserves to be left behind. Any reasonable minds won’t tolerate such things.

I also notice something interesting about those “traditional value” people: values are the only “traditional” things they embrace.

With some exceptions to certain places, they have very “modern” outward appearances. They no longer wear traditional outfits in their day-to-day lives, they wear tees and denims. Their languages are often full of unnecessary loanwords. They also don’t have any interests about preserving their tangible and intangible ancestral heritages; in fact, they think such endeavour is a waste of time.

While I admittedly don’t have good examples of this, I do believe you can embrace “modern” values while still embracing your ancestral heritage.

I mean, use your common sense.

I am an Indonesian and I am “modern” compared to many Indonesians I know. But, does that mean I vomit every time I eat traditional dishes? Bleed profusely through my ears every time I hear gamelan and angklung? Spontaneously combust every time I put on a batik shirt? Obviously, the answer is no, no and no.

Older aesthetics feels conservative NOT because it inherently is, but because our minds associate it with conservatism. It is a connotation. It is definitely flexible and arbitrary.

I am clearly not a fan of embracing traditional values just for the sake of it and not contemplating about their benefits and drawbacks. If you believe that’s the life path for you, power to you.

But, if values are the only traditional things you embrace, then you are in a massive disadvantage.

No matter how anti-progress you are, if you are still in tune with your ancestral heritage, you still can stick out. You still have genuinely unique cultural things to offer on the global stage.

But, if you are traditional while adorned in modern aesthetics? Not only you are left behind from even the most beneficial changes, you are also very culturally invisible. Why should anyone take interest in you when you are both close-minded and culturally uninteresting?

Ideally (I am sure you could see it coming), I believe the good balance should be having “modern” values and traditional aesthetics at the same time. You can enjoy the progresses….. while staying afloat amidst the increasingly strong waves of cultural globalisation.

If you agree with me and you want to achieve such societal goal, it is not enough to have an educational system that goes beyond rote learning, has well-trained and well-paid teachers and has well-rounded curriculum (having a balance of STEM, social sciences, humanities and practical skills like home economics, first aid and finance AKA both the useful and the so-called “useless” knowledge).

Traditional arts and knowledge (e.g. folktales, myths) should be mandatorily taught; if they are only included in electives or extracurricular activities, it sends a message that getting in touch with one’s heritage is optional, that one’s heritage is just a mere hobby and potentially a waste of time.

You need to expose the masses to their ancestral heritage as much as possible.

Obviously, I am talking about strict categorisations which rarely apply to real life. Humans are full of shades of grey; it is very hard to find people who are 100% this or that.

But, I still rant about it because I have encounbtered so many fellow Indonesians who quickly dismiss new ideas….. simply because they are “un-Indonesian”, forgetting they themselves wear denims and tees, listen to western-style pop songs and watch Hollywood flicks.

I guess, if I have to be fair to them, they have been exposed to western aesthetics all of their lives. It is already a part of their identities, a part of their mundane lives, which means it rarely challenges their existing worldview, if ever.

But, the lack of self-awareness is still infuriating.

.

.

Admittedly, I have my own definition of “modern”. While it is generally synonymous with anything brand new, I prefer to define it as “culturally and socially sustainable”.

When I choose which values to embrace, I don’t give a damn about how old or new they are, how “Islamic”, “Indonesian” or “western” they are. I don’t care about their “identities”.

What I care about is whether they benefit us in the long run and not biting our asses in the future. That’s what the word “modern” means to me.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The so-called awfulness of offal

I am from Indonesia. While organs are not eaten as much as meat, they are still common enough to not be considered weird.

Beef lungs and tripe are commonly used for soto. Ox brain gulai is a common feature of Minangkabau restaurants; the mom and pop ones may also sell beef liver tripe, beef lungs and beef intestines. Fried chicken sellers (traditional, not the KFC ones) may also offer fried chicken livers, gizzards and intestines as alternatives. Chicken porridge sellers may offer skewered chicken livers as sides. Crispy chicken intestines and beef lungs are among the most common traditional snacks.

Contrary to many 21st century westerners believe (specifically, ones who are detached from their own ancestral cuisines), people eat offal because we actually love them. Not out of desperation, not out of the desire to be “different” from everyone else.

And they insist eating offal is very contrarian, even though it is still widely eaten all over the world; they cannot comprehend their offal-hating societies are not the centre of the universe.

But, that’s not the only stupidity they embrace.

They think spice-heavy offal recipes are some kind of gotchas. They believe the recipes prove organs are innately gross ingredients; if they aren’t gross, why would you need lots of spices?

That’s stupid for two reasons.

First, not all of the recipes call for lots of spices. Practically the entire Europe still consume offals, despite their traditional cuisines using little or no spices. The aforementioned Indonesian chicken porridge? Its skewered liver is barely spiced, if at all.

Second, imagine if we apply such logic to meat.

If meat taste good, why do we need to season it? Why do you need to drench chicken in spiced batter before deep frying it? Why do you need to cover beef in spice rub before smoking or grilling it and serve it with barbecue sauce? Why do you need mutton in thick curry gravy? Why do you need to turn pork into sausages and bacon? If meat tastes good, boiling it plain – yes, not even with salt and pepper – should be more than enough.

Sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

When I first heard such argument, my mind immediately thought those people were confused by the concept of seasoning. But, I realised I was being too kind.

Unless they grew up and still live in places where salt is the only seasoning (and I doubt such places exist), they know their argument doesn’t make sense. It is clear they will never apply such logic to meat.

But, they still spew it anyway; they know dumbfucks easily fall for intellectual dishonesty.

And they won’t rest until their tastes are seen as the reasonable and objectively good ones.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Dumb reasons to have kids

Some people have kids because they want to experience the joy of raising fellow human beings, others have kids because they want to have human properties to exploit. A good reason and a vile reason to have kids.

Then, there are also the dumb reasons.

People believe having kids is good for our legacy, our country’s development and, most importantly, mankind’s survival. And yes, I think they are dumb reasons.

Let’s start with legacy. We have children, our children have children, their children have children…. and repeat until our genes outlive our children’s children. Okay, then what?

Does it improve our current quality of life? Does it improve our current physical and mental well-being? Obviously, the answer is to both is NO.

You are so enamored by the idea of legacy, you mistakenly see it as a basic human need; you mistakenly believe it is just as important as eating and breathing.

It also doesn’t make sense. If you are all about leaving legacy, why do you choose genes? Not only they won’t make people remember you, they will also be “diluted” with others’s anyway. Surely, being a historically significant individual leaves more visible and lasting legacy. You are going to be remembered for a long time, regardless whether you have passed your genes or not.

If that’s your goal, you should focus on being extremely highly accomplished. You can be a statesman, a mass murderer… or both.

As an Indonesian, I find the idea of having more people can help developing our society is laughably overtly-simplistic. Indonesia is an extremely populous country. The most populous in Southeast Asia and the Muslim world, the fourth most in the entire world.

But, while it does have progresses, no one thinks it is a highly-developed country; it is still a developing one. In fact, in this regard, Indonesia is defeated by Singapore, a country which population size is about 3% of Indonesia’s (I hope I get my math right), which area size is only slightly bigger than Jakarta’s. Even Malaysia and Brunei, other smaller Southeast Asian countries, are more developed. In fact, there are many other countries on earth which have less people than Indonesia and “somehow” are more developed than it.

That’s because it is a matter of quality, NOT just quantity. Those other countries have higher quality human resources. What’s the point of having lots of people when they are poorly-educated and poorly-skilled? If anything, such arrangement can be burdensome.

And that segues to the topic of humanity’s survival.

Because of our ability to transform and exploit nature to fulfill our needs, many of us forget or refuse to accept that we are a part of nature, NOT above it. If we hurt nature, we hurt ourselves.

Let pollution ravages and the water will be too dangerous to drink, the air will be too dangerous to breathe in. Destroy the biodiversity and we will make our food supply even more vulnerable, which can negatively impact our health.

Nature can exist without us. But, we cannot exist without it.

If we let our fellow human beings to be environmentally destructive apes, our populousness would actually threaten mankind’s survival. Once again, it is not just the quantity of the humans, it is also about their quality.

Unlike the people who procreate because they want to have children as assets, those with aforementioned reasons are not driven by malice.

But, because they think too highly of their overtly-simplistic “thinking”, they are still infuriating to deal with.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To recap the admin’s disappointing response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You need to be consistent with the so-called “The Great Replacement”

You believe in the conspiracy “theory” in which there is an attempt to replace all white people AKA anyone of full European descents with non-white people, particularly non-white Muslims. You even dub it the white genocide.

No, white people are not on the brink extinction. Not only they are still the majority in Europe, their ancestral homeland, they are still very much present in other parts of the world. Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas, especially North America. In fact, they still dominate the establishments in Australia, New Zealand and much of the Americas.

Unless there are evidences of white people all over the world being systematically massacred, displaced from their homelands, having their heritage sites regularly demolished and having their babies taken away from them and given to non-white families, there is no genocide. Your only evidence of the “white genocide” is the fact that non-white people are allowed to live and thrive in the west.

No, you are not concerned about being a victim of genocide. You are concerned about how whiteness is no longer seen as a strength and virtuous by default, how European-rooted cultures are no longer seen as the epitome of civilisations.

And that matters to you because you have spent your entire life believing your white European lineage – something which you have no control over – makes you an inherently superior being, because being white and European is your entire personality, because you are unable to see your non-white and/or non-European fellow human beings as fellow human beings.

It also shows how insecure you are. You love boasting about how mighty your western heritage is, how it is objectively the best in the entire history of mankind…. and yet, you also believe the mere existence of non-western cultures in the west is enough to threaten its existence.

So, which one is it, then? Is western heritage mighty or feeble? If it is mighty, then why can it be easily threatened by other heritages? Where is the mightiness you love hyping about it? I will come back to this later.

I also wonder, what’s wrong with being a minority, anyway? Surely, you don’t fear discrimination and bigotry considering you keep saying they don’t exist.

And that segues to what the title of this blogpost is referring to.

One thing I notice about some of you is your rejection of the racism accusation.

You insist you are not a proponent of white supremacy and your judgements of non-whites are not driven by hatred or any emotions; you believe you are just stating the objective facts.

….which is ridiculous in itself. If you are truly reasonable, you wouldn’t claim your judgment are 100% guaranteed objective, data-driven and not emotionally-driven, you wouldn’t claim you embody the perfect human. Because you try too hard to paint yourself as “rational”, you end up sounding the exact opposite.

And that so-called “rationality” of yours also extends to the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas and Australia, which you consider perfectly acceptable.

You claim it is not because you hate non-whites, but because it is just a matter of “survival of the fittest”. If the indigenous people lost their lands and heritage, then you believe they deserved it. You believe anyone deserve to be annihilated for being weak and what racial categories we belong to are irrelevant.

If that’s the case, then why are you opposed to the so-called white genocide?

Following your so-called “logic”, if the mere presence of non-whites in the west is more than enough to threaten the existence of white people, it proves that they fail they survival of the fittest test and it means they deserve to be “exterminated”.

Following your so-called “logic”, shouldn’t you accept that all genocides – including the ones against people like you – are a good thing? Why can’t you be consistent about this?

Rhetorical questions, obviously. You are just racist cunts.

I feel gross for typing those previous paragraphs because I don’t believe what I typed. I did so because I wanted to make a point.

Meanwhile, if you type the exact same words about certain “others”, you wouldn’t feel grossed out. In fact, I am certain it will excite you.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

LGBT rights AND economic stability

I am certain some of you have seen the video: a conservative content creator asked a random stranger whether he would choose LGBT rights or economic stability…. and not falling for the trap, the stranger answers both, much to the content creator’s frustration. It is so intellectually dishonest that even some fellow conservatives in his Youtube comment section called him out.

And I am certain some of you have encountered this false dilemma before. I certainly have multiple times.

I am also suspicious about virtue signalling. Do some of the people who push this so-called dilemma actually care about the economy? Or do they peddle it simply because they are staunchly opposed to LGBT rights and they want them to “look unimportant” in comparison?

People also have different ideas of what a good economy is. For me, a good economy is one where small businesses and labourers can also economically thrive.

I acknowledge some conservatives do share my idea of a good economy. But, I also know other conservatives (and, let’s face it, some liberals as well; no, I won’t let them off the hook) who measure the strength of an economy solely based on how well big businesses and their wealthy shareholders do.

Some people also believe a good economy is one where it is easy to be rich; they don’t care about some citizens left to rot in poverty, as long as the rest are loaded.

Those who peddle the “dilemma” argue everyone – including LGBT people – must prioritise the economy over equal rights because the former supposedly benefits all of us. But, the fact that inequality and corporate greed are not universal deal breakers, it is clear some people’s idea of a “good economy” is not about benefitting everyone.

It should also be noted that economic prosperity and LGBT rights intertwine with each other.

Let’s just say your country’s economy is booming right now, which also happens to lack legal protections for queer minorities. What happens if you are queer yourself?

Well, unless you are influential, have your own business and/or are self-employed, you are at the mercy of your employers. They can reject your job applications, deprive you of promotions and fire you solely because you are queer…. and because they are legally allowed to, there is nothing you can do about it.

What’s the point of living surrounded by prosperity when you are denied the right to enjoy it?

In fact, even in 2020’s America, queerness is still a contributing factor to one’s chance of being impoverished. While not the only factor, it is definitely still a factor.

It applies to all kinds of marginalised people whose rights are not guaranteed or worse, are intentionally restricted by the laws.

So yes, I am for both good economy and equal rights.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Zionists’ virtue signalling

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

And yet, zionists love to ignore them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How social sciences and humanities make me appreciate STEM

For some time, I grew up loving STEM. I loved reading encyclopedias and I loved watching the documentaries. It felt like they were expanding my horizon, my imagination.

Then, I started hating STEM classes when I was about ten or eleven. I was put off by the rigid pedagogy. They were all about rote learning, memorising facts and formulas; they didn’t expand my imagination and certainly not my horizon.

They didn’t entirely put me off any STEM interests, as I still watched science documentaries, albeit with less passion. But, they did make me despise formal STEM education and changed my focus towards social sciences.

I enjoyed my sociology classes in high school because not only they didn’t have rigid pedagogy (relatively speaking), they also compelled me to read between the lines. I did major in sociology briefly in University of Indonesia before dropping out, because I hated the social environment.

Then, I chose to major in media and communication at Deakins University in Melbourne…. and my mind was blown.

The curriculum was quite all over the place; I learned not only the social aspects of the topics, but also the cultural, ethical and even metaphysical ones. It mixed both social sciences and humanities.

Unlike social sciences, which study observable human behaviours, humanities focus on the the abstract and non-biological things that underlie those behaviours. Because humanities are dependent on interpretations, they are very subjective.

But, just because they are subjective, that does not mean we can say anything we want. We still have to provide evidences.

If you believe a novelist is a bigot, you have to point out parts of their novels which depict women and/or minorities in dehumanising manners. Your feelings are not evidences. If the depictions are much more complicated than you previously thought, then you have to acknowledge the complexity as well.

I actually argue that because of the subjectivity, humanities are very challenging to learn. Unlike social sciences where quantitative evidences are an option, humanities have to rely entirely on qualitative ones. You have to convince people the intangible and immeasurable things you talk about actually exist and affect their lives.

Now, about the title…

Even back when I loved STEM education, I used to believe the disciplines were full of clear-cut knowledge. I notice many people also felt the same. Such belief was perpetuated even further by media headlines about the latest scientific discoveries.

Then, one day, those people and I started reading the research papers.

They found out the results were either inconclusive, impossible to dumb down, contradictory to each other or eventually deemed incorrect. Feeling like they had been duped for years, they started railing against “mainstream” STEM for its impotence in finding the truth… or worse, for being a tool of the elite to keep the masses “misinformed”.

On the other hand, I ended up appreciating STEM even more.

Despite being entirely driven by quantitative data (which many people believe to be clear cut), they are able to grasp the intricate greyness of life; they remind us that even our physically tangible universe is too complicated to be put in dumbed down explanations.

Most importantly, they always add corrections and more nuances to the existing knowledge, if the latest peer-reviewed data demand them to; changelessness is not an option.

And I have no issues comprehending that because of what social sciences and humanities taught me: the way to understand life is to not see it as a collection of black-and-white and static boxes, but to acknowledge and appreciate its grey, arbitrary and abstract nature.

I can easily transfer such mindset to STEM… minus the abstract part.

I don’t know how many people out there share this experience of mine.

Maybe they are more common than I am aware of. Maybe they are so rare, they barely exist.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Queer acceptance is consequential

Anti-queer bigots argue giving queer minorities equal rights will drastically change the world we live in. From my personal experiences, when you ask them to elaborate, they usually give one of these four responses:

1. Queer equality will greenlight sexualisation and even sexual abuse of children, even though not only such things have existed prior, there are no evidences that queer people dominate the “child grooming industry”; if you can believe not all Catholic clergymen are child sexual predators, then why can’t you believe the same about queer people?
2. Queer equality will take the rights of cishet and/or religious people. Obviously, this is projection. They want queer people to have less or no rights and they assume queer people will return the favour.
3. Queer equality will allow people to marry animals and their own family members. Obviously, this is slippery slope fallacy; they believe those things will happen not because of evidences or proper reasoning, but because they feel they are entitled to force a correlation between two random things.
4. Queer equality will make cishet people queer. It doesn’t, it only allows queer people to comfortably come out of the closet. But, even if people can turn queer simply because queerness is accepted, that means cishet identity is fragile and not as strong as people think it is.
5. They refuse to elaborate. They make the claim and expect others to trust their words, confidently declaring their dogmatic asses as trustworthy.

But, they are not entirely wrong. Because no humans live in a vacuum, queer equality will bring changes to our world… but, not the changes bigots love to claim will happen.

Queer acceptance does not simply improve queer people’s quality of life, it also means we have to question everything about ourselves.

We are fearful that some or all aspects of our worldview are outdated and holding us back and therefore, have to be discarded for the betterment of everyone. Because our worldview is inseparable from who we really are, discarding it feels like we are “losing our true selves”.

Emphasise on the word “feels”. It does feel scary to let go of something we grew up with. But, I guarantee, doing so still allows us to be ourselves; the difference is our selves have become better and more open-minded.

The changes may not just be about changing our selves, they may also involve acknowledging their truest forms.

We are opposed to equality because we fear we may be queer ourselves. Queer acceptance means we are more free to explore such possibility. It means we have to confront it, sooner or later.

If we turn out to be queer, some of us fear we will suffer from intense self-hatred, unable to accept ourselves. Even if we are not queer, we still feel insecure about our sexuality and gender identity, because we don’t fully conform to the cishet stereotypes.

Many of us have to yet to realise that it is okay to defy society’s unnecessarily restrictive expectations, that there is nothing morally wrong about offending other people’s arbitrary and shallow sensibilities which serve no purposes other than coddling their own fragile feelings.

Easier said than done. But, it is possible.

.

.

Obviously, not all changes are good. Sometimes, changes can be for the worse. But, if you believe a tradition is worth preserving simply because it is old and no one are able to provide data-driven evidences of its benefits and refute data-driven evidences of its harms, then it deserves to be discarded.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Non-fat people can also be greedy motherf***ers

Before Smosh, I was only occasionally exposed to Reddit stories. Now, thanks to the videos, I am more familiar with them.

Many of the stories are undoubtedly infuriating. But, there is one which hits different: this is the first one which I find….. triggering.

In this story, an obese man got called a pig because he finished the last remaining sandwiches at a party and the reddit comment section thought he was the asshole. If you pay attention to the details, calling him the asshole is a bit too much.

First thing first, it was at a party and the foods were meant to be eaten. Unless you are one of those weirdos who think foods should be purely decorative.

Second, he said he waited for an hour before he ate the last remaining sandwiches, ensuring no one else wanted them. Despite having large appetite, he still had some self-control and tact.

Third, he brought chicken wings and, like the feral hairless apes they were, they gobbled every single one, leaving none for him. Not to mention they just watched, waited for him finishing the food before unleashing hell upon him.

While I may not be obese, I am still an overweight person with large appetite and I find the story too painfully relatable.

I am fatter than most people around me and yet, I have better self-control than many of them. My mom’s the worst.

Every time we eat at a restaurant, she almost always over-order the foods. When she doesn’t take heed of my complain, we – especially me – often end up feeling extremely nauseous at the end because I hate wasting foods and she has what we Indonesians call the “hungry eyes”: a condition in which we want certain things simply because we love their sights and not because we need them…. and that includes foods; yes, she rarely finish the food she over-orders.

Not only she lets her eyes conquering her guts, she also lets her tongue to do the same. It doesn’t matter how heavy and greasy a meal is, it would not satisfy her if it tastes like snacks. So, after a nauseating dinner of crispy fried wonton with cheesey potato filling (a recipe of her friend) which she insisted to be served with rice, she still wanted a “proper meal”; I had to buy fried chickens and fries from the McDonald’s for her.

And I haven’t talked about my high school friends. We were celebrating something at a restaurant (I forgot what) and we opted for buffet dinner. When it was time to eat, many of them acted like they hadn’t eat in days; they immediately took two plates and each was filled with a mountainous pile. And yes, they didn’t finish their foods.

While I admittedly eat a lot of foods and I am definitely guilty of regular emotional eating, I always finish my foods; food wise, I NEVER bite off more than I can chew. I never over-buy foods in supermarkets, I never over-order in restaurants and I certainly never pile foods in buffets. I certainly know my stomach’s limit.

Of course, unsurprisingly my mom thinks I am the one who lacks restraint. She also acts surprises every time I say I am full, as if greasy foods and snacks should never fill me up. Not to mention the fat-shaming I endured growing up, along with the other emotional abuses she committed.

And those high school friends? They had the gall to mock me for taking a second helping. While they were not abusive like she is, their hypocrisy is just as frustrating.

Nowadays, I am much braver in calling her out (which really violates her conservative Indonesian boomer sensibility). But, that trauma still lingers to this day, as shown by how triggered I am by the reddit story.

Obviously, the redditor and I do need to fix our eating habits. I acknowledge that people like us are endangering our own health and personally, I despise how the body positivity movement is hijacked by people who whitewash fatness; you can humanise fat people without pretending they are healthy.

But, at the same time, we must be honest with ourselves: non-fat people can also have bad eating habits and, if you have basic knowledge in health, there are other unhealthy habits that won’t make you fat. Fat-shamers never care about other people’s well-beings, they are just abusive cunts who hide behind so-called “good intentions” which gullible fucks fall for.

Despite his own shortcoming, he is obviously not the asshole. But, unfortunately, many on reddit think he is.

I have different assumptions of why that is.

Maybe they are just unfortunately myopic and thoughtlessly negligent with the details luridly displayed in front of them. As regrettable as it is, I can acknowledge they mean no harm with their opinions and their condition can be cured by teaching them basic reading comprehensions and empathy.

Maybe they are those self-hating fat and former fat people. They have yet to accept that they deserve criticisms and the opportunity of self-improvements without the abuses.

Or maybe they are those abusers. They read how the narrator is obese and they immediately go predatory-mode, seeing him as someone to prey upon for their own sadistic amusement.

.

.

As I said before, I found this story from one of Smosh’s reddit videos, hosted by Shayne Topp. Since I have been watching Smosh videos regularly, I – along with many – have been charmed by him.

Yes, he is physically attractive and funny. But, when he is not “performing”, he is also very chill and doesn’t take himself too seriously; judging from what his colleagues say about him (assuming they are telling the truth), he seems to be very likeable off-camera, so likeable they want to eat their lunches with him.

The reddit videos make him even more lovable for me. Even though I may not always agree with his assessments, he is the perfect host for such show: he is able to read between the lines, he is able to be nuanced without falling for false neutrality and he is not dismissive of other people’s life experiences.

With that reddit story, while he understands why people might get upset with the redditor’s behaviours, he also thinks the backlash is disproportionately harsh. He believes we can criticise the redditor without spewing venom.

And my crush for him gets him even stronger.

Yes, I know I have parasocial relationship with him. He doesn’t know I exist and if we ever meet, there is still very low chance we will ever be friends.

And yes, I also realise those traits of his may just be parts of his manufactured public persona. I shouldn’t be surprised or upset if they are eventually exposed as an act.

I have had parasocial relationships before. But, this is the first time I experience a very strong one in a long time. While I am more mentally impervious than most people I know, it still feels empowering when you grew up feeling lonely with your life experiences and a public figure validates them.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.