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.

The existential dread of bootlickers

In places where police brutality is rampant, cops are comparable to domestic abusers. They wrongfully arrest and kill citizens and then try to gaslight everyone that life is better with their presence, despite evidences to the contrary.

I don’t know how to compare bootlickers here. Are they Stockholm syndrome sufferers? Domestic abuse enablers? Both? Neither? I can’t say. I am more comfortable to describe them from an existential perspective.

When non-bootlickers are in trouble, they either call the police for help and expect to be disappointed (and may get brutalised as a “bonus”) or they don’t bother at all, accepting their fates as their problems eat them alive.

Some are hopeful; while they are distrustful and even hostile towards cops, they still believe institutional reforms are possible. Others are cynical; they see the authorities as inherently evil entities and no amount of reforms will cut it.

Meanwhile, bootlickers believe humans are destined to worship the authorities. Whether the cops violate human rights or not, they don’t care. What they care about is ensuring cops receive unquestioning obedience from the masses. They believe worshipping the authorities is the meaning of life.

For them, not bootlicking means feeling naked and frail in this treacherous earthly realm… and they believe non-bootlickers make them experience those feelings, even though those “strong” cops are still in power.

They cannot comprehend that some non-bootlickers want the cops to stay exist, but with drastic structural reforms. They cannot comprehend that it is more complicated and grey than simply bootlicking vs lawlessness.

They disregard the fact that those “strong” cops are their fellow human beings, meaning they are also at life’s mercy; as mankind’s solace, they are inherently impotent.

I also don’t know how to deal with the existential dread. But, I am certain putting my trust on violent men in uniforms is not the way.

.

.

Note: Bootlickers and non-bootlickers are not comparable to theists, agnostics and atheists.

The former’s contention is about cops’ worth in our lives. Meanwhile, the latter’s is about Gods’ existence.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

My kind of ideal place to grow up in

Disclaimer: while I didn’t grow up with an upperclass lifestyle, my upbringing was still a financially-privileged one. Privileged enough to not growing up hungry, privileged enough to not be financially wrecked by the ongoing pandemic.

But, even if my family had a billionaire dollar, I am certain I would still not grow up with the ideal physical and human environments.

Let’s start with multiculturalism. I wish my upbringing was even more multicultural.

I am a Muslim who grew up in urban parts of Indonesia; anyone with similar upbringing would have been exposed to people of different ethnic backgrounds (and, to some extent, their foods) and would have interacted with Christians (arguably more than western Christians have interacted with Muslims). Interethnic marriages are also common among urbanites.

The diversity of my hometown specifically – Batam – is even more noticeable. Because it is a planned city, it is dominated by five ethnic groups instead of one. Christianity is not the only visible minority religion; Buddhism also has a strong presence.

But, it is not enough for me.

While I am used to interacting with my culturally and religiously distinct fellow countrymen, I wish I can witness them “practicing their identities” up close.

I wish I grew up attending traditional cultural festivals of different ethnic groups, complete with the traditional music, dance and attires. I also wish it is more socially acceptable to join the religions’ holiday celebrations and marry outside one’s religion.

Most importantly, I wish I grew up in a place where bigotry and incitement are more unacceptable. It is disturbing how many Indonesians love inciting/tolerating anti-Chinese violence, use Israel to justify their anti-Semitism, perceive atheism as extremism and perceive dark skin as a defect. I hate that I used to be one of them.

While I wish Indonesia has more racial and religious diversity, it can be dangerous with the thin ice we are currently standing on.

It would also be better if the multilingualism is official as well. I hate how we have hundreds of language and yet we only official recognise one. I also hate that not all Indonesian schools obligate the teaching of regional languages, treating them them as mere vernaculars, making them more prone to extinction; even Javanese, the most spoken and empowered regional language, is on the decline.

Even if it is unfeasible to use regional languages as mediums of instructions at schools (like they do in India), the least we can do is acknowledging their importance to our identities as Indonesians, just like we do to our national language.

Now, about the city itself.

I spent most of my life in Batam and a handful of years in Jakarta metro area. While Batam is definitely less hectic, both undoubtedly have poor walkability and mass transit. But, even if they are almost the exact opposite, it is still not enough.

My ideal city should has more parks, more lush trees in the pedestrian areas, more car-free streets, less highways and less cars in generals. I want it to consists entirely of mixed-use, transit-oriented developments, where every amenity and transit stop is accessible by a short walk. I want all public transit to be rail ones; inexplicably, every time I visit countries with better mass transit, I prefer their trams and metros over their buses.

Oh, and when I say amenities, I am referring to medical emergency units, primary and secondary schools, stores that sell fresh foods, pharmacies, community centres, multilingual libraries and lush parks. I believe those are facilities which every person must have easy access to, both financially and geographically.

It is not enough for public housing to be well-maintained. It also needs to be spread out all over the city, ensuring the residents are not segregated into the periphery. Yes, I am also opposed to gated communities, where the privileged ones live in a bubble.

Ideally, I want as many festivities possible. From traditional Indonesian festivals similar to Sekaten and Tabuik to ones with more “international” themes like Jazz. But, if I have to choose, I would prioritise the traditional Indonesian ones.

Pragmatically, traditional Indonesian arts make Indonesia stand out on the global stage. Spiritually, they help feel more attached to our ancestral heritage. As much as I love modern western music, it is unable to do any of them (unless when fused with traditional Indonesian styles).

Apart from the usual themes of arts, sciences and history, the museums should include niche or weird ones. They can be about dolls, stamps or history of specific neighbourhoods and districts.

There should be at least three non-sectarian research universities that attract students from all over and offer a wide range of academic programmes, especially the so-called “useless” ones. Each of the university operates their own public museums and public broadcasters. If there are religious seminaries, one of them must be multireligious.

It has its own local and multilingual public broadcasters that prioritise quality over ratings. While they can broadcast programmes produced elsewhere, 60% of the programmes must be locally produced.

It has a diverse range of architectural styles, preferably pre twentieth century and early twentieth century ones. But, if I have to include more modern ones, I would prioritise ones that have as many ornaments as possible or ones with weird shapes.

If I have to include the simplistic ones, I would rather choose the Critical Regionalist ones. If I have to include International Style, I would want the number of such buildings to be kept to a minimum. If I have to include Brutalism, I would relegate such buildings to film and TV sets that produce dystopian fiction.

The city is connected to a Swiss-type railway system, ensuring the citizens can arrive to not only other human settlements, but also a wide-range of natural recreational places (e.g. beaches and highlands) within two hours or less. No cars and highways needed.

I am certain that if I grew up such environment, I would be a much better person.

I would grow up as a much more self-reliant child and teenager who didn’t need assistance just to leave the house. I would develop a greater sense of adventure (without being a thrill seeker who can only have fun when the risk of injury and death is high). I would have been physically healthier as well. While I am not ashamed of my homebody tendency, it would be nice to balance it with more outdoor activities.

I would have been more curious about my hometown and discovered many hidden gems, like small eateries in alley ways, niche museums or even weird-looking buildings. I would be familiar with my hometown inside out.

I would have been exposed to more diverse aesthetics. While I am not ashamed of my enjoyment of pop culture, I wish I also grew up with more niche and offbeat alternatives.

I would have learned that unity in diversity requires more than just living side-by-side. It also requires us to confront and overcome the differences and, most importantly, humanise our fellow human beings.

My upbringing would have been a much richer, more well-rounded and more pluralistic experience.

Of course, there is high a possibility of me taking things for granted. But, as long as I am exposed to the world beyond my hometown and country, it’ll be okay.

Yes, interethnic and interreligious lives are far from perfect here. But, I started to appreciate them more when I learned about the ones overseas, with their glaring imperfections.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Diversity: from pro to anti

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

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

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

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

Now, for my hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis ends.

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being a child of a single mother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You still need the human aspect

I used to feel inexplicably uneasy every time I watched videos by Wendover Productions. It is one of the channels which topics genuinely intrigue me. But, something always felt off.

Thanks to Alan Fisher, now I know why.

Fisher is another Youtuber whose content shares thematic similarities with Wendover, albeit his is more niche. He criticises Wendover’s videos for being hollow shells. Lots of technical information on the surface, no humanness underneath. That critique explains my uneasiness.

While there aren’t that many, I found comments critical of Fisher’s take, saying they would love science and tech videos free from personal opinions.

I do understand their frustration; they are coming only for the technical information. But, we should not forget one thing about STEM: they were created to benefit mankind. Sooner or later, we have to have discussions about how they affect us.

(Note: the following topics are not something Wendover has discussed in its videos. They are just something I have talked about with other people)

You can explain the differences between metric and imperial measurement systems. But, you also have to acknowledge that a system which conversion simply requires moving the decimal point is significantly more dependable and less likely to cause accidents than a system which requires one conversion formula for every pair of unit. Not to mention that metric is much easier to people who suck in math.

You can explain the technical details of man-made physical environments (e.g. buildings and urban planning) and machinery of different modes of transportation. But, you should also talk about how they affect our physical, financial, social and psychological well-being, both on collective and individual levels.

You can explain the technical details of information technology. But, you should also talk about how to ethically and cautiously utilising it, making sure it improves interconnectivity instead of stoking divisions, spreading misinformation and violating privacy.

You can explain the technical details of GMOs, pharmaceutical products and nuclear energy. But, you should also mention their political and/or corporate misuse, which distract the masses from seeing the actual benefits.

You can elaborate on the latest technological breakthroughs. But, you should discuss whether they are actually beneficial and sustainable in the long run or they are just symptoms of fake futurism which may or may not exacerbate humanity’s existing problems.

You can elaborate on evolution theory. But, you should also talk about the taboo attached to it. Is it because of literal interpretations of the scriptures? Is it because of anthropocentrism? Is it both? Is it because of a reason I have never thought of before?

If we want to know which technical knowledge is the most beneficial, we must take a look at the data. If it is clear, then we must take a stance by choosing the empirically-proven approaches and ditching the ones that aren’t. If the data isn’t clear, then we must have discussions, which inevitably involve lots and lots opinions.

If we want to know how theoretical knowledge affects us, we must observe people’s responses to it. Do they embrace it to widen their horizon? Do they reject it for contradicting their personal beliefs? Do they believe certain knowledge is useless if it does not bring immediate practical benefits?

Why do humans have such varying responses? How can we spread science appreciation to the wider society? How can we convince people to change their beliefs when faced with refuting evidences? How can we convince them that expansing one’s horizon is also an actual benefit?

If you think science communication must convey nothing but technical information, why bother?

Why bother with science communication – which is meant to make the masses appreciate STEM even more – when you disregard its significance in our human lives? Why bother when you could have just written and read textbooks and scientific papers?

It sounds like I absolutely hate Wendover. While I do think most of his videos aren’t that great, there are two which I truly love: The World’s Most Useful Airport and The Final Years of Majuro.

The former is about an airport in an extremely isolated island called St. Helena. It covers the airport’s arduous technical aspects and its impacts on the islanders’ lives. He interviewed the locals, including a couple whose baby received urgent life-saving treatment thanks to the airport.

The latter is about how climate change is threatening to swallow the entirety of Marshall Islands, which means the Marshallese people will lose their ancestral homeland soon. He interviewed them as well, even ones who lived abroad.

They tackle issues which can be solved using STEM and warn us about the consequences of our refusal to solve them. Unless you are a robot or one of those Ayn Rand-esque selfish bastards, hearing the human side of the stories would make you more appreciative of STEM’s existence and more concerned about its use.

The thing is Wendover does not need to travel to a far flung place and interview its residents. If he compliments his STEM content with some dashes of social sciences and humanities and he acknowledges that it is okay to add personal opinions as long as they are well-reasoned and respectful of facts, his other videos would have been much more profound.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“Cancel culture stops people from growing”

… is something what people argue against cancel culture. They believe even the worst of the worst should not be cancelled; if they are cancelled, they would never learn to be better people.

I disagree because it insinuates that every mistake humans make is equally bad. We know damn well that is not true. Making tasteless jokes is certainly not on par with inciting violence, being sexually predatory and filming a dead body and showing it your young viewers. You won’t grow up if you don’t taste the bitter consequences for your actions.

Obviously, the severity must be proportionate. Ruining someone’s a career just for a tactless joke – especially the one made in the past – is needlessly cruel. Stern but constructive criticism is more than enough; you would learn that likeability requires reading the goddamn room.

But, incitement of violence? Sexual abuse? Filming a corpse and showing it to children as entertainment? Do I need to explain how harmful they are?

If you committed either one and the only punishments you get are mere criticism and temporary income decrease, it sends a message that your atrocious acts are trivial stuffs which people overreact to. Why should you learn from your mistakes when you can repeat them over and over again and always left relatively unscathed?

Take Youtubers Logan and Jake Paul as examples. They were never cancelled. As severe as the criticism was, they were never on the brink of losing their careers. In fact, not only they are still thriving, they are still sleazy.

As far as I am concerned, neither of them continue targeting mature content to children (and Logan only filmed a dead body once). But now, they are peddling cryptocurrency scams.

They never stop being bad guys; they simply changed their modus operandi. Logan also created a well-received podcast which, intentionally or not, gives a false impression of personal growth.

If not getting cancelled fosters personal growth, why are the Paul brothers still the cunts that they are?

If influential and problematic Youtubers like them were cancelled, they would be powerless to cause widespread harm. Not only they wouldn’t continue mistreat lots of other people, they also wouldn’t normalise toxicity, to the point where we have extremely low bar of human decency on Youtube, making them look virtuous compared to other problematic individuals.

Would they grow as human beings? I don’t know and I don’t give a fuck.

Seriously, between stopping a disease from spreading and giving it a chance (which is not 100%) to cure itself, why the fuck should we prioritise the latter?

Why the fuck should we risk letting it spreading just for the sake of your pathetic, deluded sensibility?

Why the fuck should we responsible for their redemption arcs?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.