Feeling persecuted by foreign tongues

Are you someone who can only speak English and nothing else?

Do you always feel uncomfortable when people near you speak in another language to each other?

Why is that? Is it because you believe they are talking crap about you behind your back? Is it because you find it rude because you feel excluded?

There is only one effective method to deal with this: stop making everything about yourself, you conceited fuck!

If those people insist on speaking to you in a language you don’t understand, then you should be mad. But, we know damn well that is not the case.

What happens is they are speaking to each other – minding their fucking businesses – and then, you intrude their conversations, insisting they have to speak in English even when talking to each other. You believe you have to know what they are talking about, even when what they are talking about does not fucking concern your soiled ass.

You are the one being inconsiderate, not them.

I also notice that the likes of you love using this particular justification: those people may be talking about y0u behind your backs. Well, there is the keyword: MAY.

Unless they are talking to each other while staring at you mockingly, how do you – a worthless monolingual who doesn’t know the difference between there and their – know they are talking about you? No, probability is not an evidence.

Le me give you a tangential anecdote.

As you can tell, I am not a pleasant person to interact with. I can be aloof, rude and mean. I would be surprised if people don’t talk shit about me behind my back.

I am also from Indonesia, a culturally-diverse country with lots of languages. Relatives, classmates, teachers, shopkeepers, repairmen, mom’s acquaintances, clergymen, I grew up hearing them speaking Sundanese, Javanese, Batak, Minang, Dutch, Arabic and various Chinese languages like Teochew, Hokkien and Mandarin. I am only fluent in English and the national language, I understand none of the others.

But, despite all of those facts combined, I am never paranoid.

How am I not paranoid? Well, not only because I literally don’t have evidences of their badmouthing, I am also not conceited enough to believe others are thinking about me 24/7.

Basically, if the mere sounds of other languages unnerves you, it is not the speakers’ problem. It is yours.

Either you are narcissist who thinks the world revolves around you… or just a bigot desperate for excuses.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

BS people believe about urbanists: an extension

This is not a continuation of the previous blog. This is an attempt to extend two of my points.

I want to extend one of them because of the recent fifteen minutes city controversy. As I have debunked it in another blogpost, I am not going to detail it here; I will focus on the projection instead.

.

.

Fourth, fifth and sixth projection part B: Propaganda and/or social engineering

You believe urbanists are nothing but victims of either propaganda or social engineering (I have heard people use either term). You genuinely believe we cannot form our urbanist beliefs on our own.

False.

Most, if not all, urbanists grew up in car-centric (sub)urban sprawls and some of us still live in such places. They are the reasons why we become staunch urbanists, because we end up craving places that are the exact opposites.

Yes, those urbanist content creators may not use impartial languages. But, they still provide citations for their arguments; they are not just mere pundits.

Now, how about you?

Most, if not all, of you grew up in car-centric urban sprawls and still live in them. Without ever living in a walkable, bike-friendly and transit-oriented city, you dismiss the possibility that you may enjoy living in one.

In fact, you believe dense urban environments are innately anti-humans and humans are biologically wired to seek lives in those North American-style suburbs…

… Despite the fact that, as a concept, city is as old as civilisations and is an inevitable byproduct of human advancements… while those North American-style suburbs are results of deliberate 21st century policy-making. If your claim has any factual basis, it would have been the other way around.

Don’t forget your reactions towards urban planning in general.

You are dismissive of what urbanist content creators have to say even though, as snarky as they can be, they are equipped with actual data… while you are only equipped with anecdotes and feelings.

It is so blatant who are the victims of propaganda and social engineering here.

Seventh projection part B: imprisonment

You believe fifteen minutes city is a project to turn cities into prison complexes where residents are prohibited from leaving their neighbourhoods without special permits and we urbanists are the complicit idiots.

False.

There are no evidences of any governments proposing such policies, especially in the name of urban planning. Literally none. Even North Korea doesn’t do that.

What places like Oxford are proposing include restriction of car movements and increasing walkability. What’s so prison-like about improving mobility for people who cannot drive?

And no, a policy that only targets car movements won’t lead to totalitarianism; slippery slope fallacy AKA your personal feeling is not an evidence.

But, do you know what is a prison? A car-centric city.

In such a place, it is next to impossible to go anywhere without cars. If you are too young and too old to drive or you have disability, your mobility is at the mercy of other people who drive. If none of them is available, you cannot go anywhere.

Cars are also expensive. If you are too poor to buy one, you are at the mercy of public transit; in a car-centric place, public transit is – more of than not – unreliable because the vehicles get stuck in traffic, the frequency is very infrequent and the routes are very limited and non-sensical.

If you are neither poor nor rich, you can own a car. But, the maintenance cost is still pricy and, considering the instability of oil prices, it may gets even pricier. Unless you genuinely love driving and don’t feel coerced to own one, the expenses would feel smothering.

Oh and don’t forget the traffic.

Believe it or not, cars cause congestions. The more roads have cars, the more congested they become. Building wider roads does not satisfy the demands, it actually induces them, as it compels even more people to drive.

Just take a look at any highways in the world. Virtually every single one of them has regular congestion issues. The 26-lane Katy Freeway is the widest in the world and yet, it still manages to be the most congested in the big ass state of Texas.

Car-centric urban design is also hostile to drivers by trapping them in regular traffic jams congestions. More walkable, transit-oriented and bike-friendly one, which provides alternatives to cars, actually liberates them by having lesser congestions, if at all.

Extremely limited mobility, the lack of options, financial burden, perpetual congestions. While they are not literal prisons, they are still problems that shackle us from living our lives more freely, caused by government-implemented car-centrism, provoked by lobbyists of the automotive industry.

Deep down, you know you are complicit by helping the spread of pro-car propaganda. That’s why you try to avert the negative attention from yourselves to urbanists, by accusing them of the things you are guilty of.

Either that or you are just virtue signaling.

You don’t actually care about any forms of oppressiveness. But, you do care about looking good or feeling good about yourself.

Hence why, instead of condemning actual cases of oppression (no matter how figurative and “mild” they are) with actual people denied of higher living standards….

You choose to speak out on a non-existent one, supported by nothing but probability fallacy, slippery slope fallacy and the words of pundits.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The fifteen minutes city conspiracy “theory” (and why you believe in it)

Fifteen minutes city is one in which every basic amenity is reachable by foot and/or bikes from your house within fifteen minutes. Cars optional.

While urbanist Carlos Moreno coined the term in 2016, the concept itself is as old as mankind.

Every city that was built prior the automobiles and -paraphrasing Jason from Not Just Bikes- didn’t get bulldozed for them is a fifteen minutes city. Even though they do suffer some level of car-dependency, many cities in Europe and East Asia still easily fall to this category. Basically, if you have lived in those regions, you almost definitely have lived in one.

Now, let’s talk about the conspiracy. Supposedly, it started because of what is happening in Oxford.

Apart from embracing a fifteen minutes vision, the city council also plans to heftily fine any drivers who drive into certain zones too many times. I don’t know if the fifteen minutes vision and drivers’ fine were intended as one package. But, I do know the controversy about the latter is overblown.

The fine is actually an extreme form of road congestion pricing and, like fifteen minutes city, it is also not a new concept. Singapore created it in 1975 and London has been implementing it since 2003; in fact, London’s charge zone is one of the biggest in the world.

Personally, I am not a fan of congestion pricing. If you want to tackle congestion, you need to prevent it from happening in the first place. You have to design the city in a way that most residents prefer walking, cycling and mass transit commuting over driving; you have to minimise the presence of cars. Prevention is better than cure.

But, tyrannical?

Congestion pricing only targets drivers. Non-drivers AKA pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit commuters can easily go to other neighbourhoods as many times as they desire without getting fined. Besides, you still can drive to any places you want, albeit with a higher price; literally no one and I mean NO ONE is forcing you to stay in your neighbourhoods forever.

To be honest, as infuriating as it is, I am not surprised by the blooming popularity of this conspiracy “theory”. Some people – including you – have misguided ideas of freedom, including one involving transportation.

You believe any kinds of restrictions – even the most reasonable and minor ones – are tyrannical. You are such absolutists with their idea of freedom, you think even constructive criticisms are censorship attempts.

When you have such extreme worldview regarding freedom, you believe in the slippery slope fallacy that every restriction leads to totalitarianism. In this case, you believe cars represent freedom of movement and any restrictions against them is the same as calculated efforts to imprison you within your own neighbourhoods.

Your extremeness also closes your minds.

Every time you watch urban planning Youtube videos, you are always dismissive of the content despite the cited studies showing the harms of car-dependency and the benefits of dense, walkable and transit-oriented urban developments.

You love twisting other people’s words. Even though most urbanists never propose a complete ban of cars on cities, you insist that they always do. Even though there are no evidences the Oxford city council want to confine people to their neighbourhoods, you insist that has always been the intention.

When I try dispelling misconceptions about fifteen minutes city, you insist your definition is the right one and the one I provide is wrong, even though a simple google search would show my definition (Carlos Moreno’s, to be exact) has existed for far longer than yours.

You – a gullible fuck who falls for an unproven conspiracy “theory” – also has the gall to call me a sheep, simply because I refuse to humour you.

You are extreme because you want the world to revolve around the needs of people like you, consequentially making your so-called championing of freedom hypocritical.

In the North American context, you support local governments mandating the existence of (sub)urban sprawls where cars are the only viable mode of transports… because you believe there is nothing freer than being forced to own and drive cars and being trapped in daily traffic jams and endless financial burdens.

In a more global context, you celebrate with glee every time a cyclist is killed on the roads; you believe anyone who dare to use roads other than for driving deserve to be executed. Freedom is only for those who surrender themselves to cars.

No, I am not being unfairly judgemental here. I have had my share of interacting with the likes of you. You are literally guilty of those things.

I want to assume nuances from your arguments. But, I always end up disappointed. The more I interact with you, the more I see how close-minded you are.

You are far worse than I expected.

It is just as frustrating as talking about religions.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Bigots are not that united

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No conquer and divided needed.

Conquer and divide.

Hmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to not be judgemental

*puts on a mask*

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

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

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

Well, you have to embrace absolute forgiveness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can do this all day.

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

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

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

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

MCU films kill movie stars…. and how is that supposed to be bad?

Seriously, how?

When I was a much more unsophisticated film consumer, I watched films because of their premises, they were adaptations of certain source materials and they were sequels of films that I liked. I was not star struck by the actors.

As a teen, I started taking more heed of of my sexual attractions and I did find some actors more attractive than the others. But, I still didn’t watch films because of the actors. Still wasn’t star struck by them.

When I was around 19, I started exploring cinema beyond the mainstream Hollywood. Apart from the aforementioned ones, I also added a new reason for me to watch a film: the director. Nowadays, I already have three personal favourites.

And this was when I started to bewildered by the concept of a “movie star”.

You are watching a film and yet, instead of focusing on the story and maybe on how its execution, you choose to focus on your favourite actors, even though they are supposed to be the characters they are depicting instead of being themselves; that’s literally what actors are hired for.

Yes, I do know some actors perform better than the others; I have certainly caught myself fawning over their sublime performances. But, it still does not make me star struck for multiple reasons.

Good acting skills aren’t unique to specific actors, the most acclaimed actors don’t always give their best performances and, most importantly, the most popular actors aren’t always the best performers.

It should also be noted that some actors are famous for portraying characters with similar traits, over and over and over again.

I don’t think this is necessarily bad. If they are actors who always perform characters specifically made for them and cannot be performed by anyone else, then I can see why people watch films just for them. I am thinking of the likes of Rowan Atkinson, Jackie Chan and Charlie Chaplin, whom we never expect to have a wide acting range (even though they may have it).

But, most actors aren’t like that. We expect most of them to have an actually wide range instead of simply performing their public personas.

Okay, if you love them solely for their public personas, then why bother watching their films? I mean, you can simply tune in to any of their media appearances, including their interviews and any shows they guest star in.

Heck, we are in 2023. I am certain some of your favourite movie stars have become Youtubers as well. You can definitely watch their videos.

My point is people love to bash MCU for supposedly showcasing filmmaking at its shallowest… and yet, they often have nothing but the shallowest arguments.

First, Martin Scorcese – supposedly one of the most acclaimed directors of all time – argued MCU films are not cinema; he made his own definition of the word “cinema” and act like it is the most objective one. Basically, if I didn’t know who uttered the words, I would assume they were uttered by a snot-nosed and self-righteous teenager.

Then, we also have Quentin Tarantino – another supposedly acclaimed director – who thinks MCU films are bad because they kill the movie stars.

I mean, there are lots to criticise about MCU films. The extreme commercialisation, the lack of risk-taking and the excessive amount of jokes. But, he criticises them because they kill celebrity worship, something that actually deserves to be killed off?

He is a fucking film director. He should be focused on the stories and how they are executed. But, for some reasons, he thinks upholding celebrity worship – something of no value – is just as important. Are you fucking kidding me?

I don’t know if they are desperate with their criticisms or they genuinely believe they are onto something.

But, one thing is certain: their simps will take their words like the gospel, regardless of the profundity or lack thereof. Because status trumps everything.

.

.

Oh, and there are times when I actually watch films solely for their actors.

Those films are called porn.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Voting conservative

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

Is it because you want equal rights?

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

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

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

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

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

Is it because you are an actual proud conservative?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it because you want to be loved?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it because of inferiority complex?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it because you have actual grievances about your communities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“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.

How to catch a groomer (and virtue signal)

*puts on a mask*

What is grooming?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.