Dear fans of Cuties…

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I keep seeing comments by you accusing us, the film’s detractors, of being unable to accept the harshness of our reality.

Now, I am not going to deny that. I know for a fact that some humans think it is problematic to call out problems. My fellow Indonesian Muslims think I am being divisive simply because I call out the divisiveness of the Indonesian society.

But, that’s not the really the case with us, is it?

If you even bother to listen and read our words, you would know we hate the film NOT because it acknowledges the existence children’s exploitation, but because it perpetrates it! We hate the film NOT for exposing the problem. but for being the problem!

If anything, you are the ones who should be interrogated here.

How the fuck can you watch a film featuring actual pre-pubescent girls twerking on camera and don’t see anything wrong with it? How the fuck can you watch blatant children’s exploitation and think it is a great commentary against it?

I don’t know what kind of world you live in. But, in the real world, condemning something means you don’t do that something. I mean, it is just common sense; you can’t commit murder and expect us to believe you are against it.

And the worse part is, I know damn well that many of you are not fucktards.

I know Youtubers whose commentaries I consider to be thoughtful. So, it surprises me that some of them praise the film for supposedly being anti-child exploitation.

I don’t know why you are like that. Maybe I overestimated your thoughtfulness. Maybe I am being reminded about the fallibility of my fellow human beings: just because you have many thoughtful moments, that does not mean you are immune from idiotic ones.

Maybe you are easily smitten by good intentions. You don’t care about the methods and the results. It is the thought that counts, you naively believe.

Whatever causes it, it is genuinely unnerving. Not as much as people who are aroused by the content. But, unnerving nonetheless.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Punching sideways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huda Fahmy isn’t like that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What’s dignity?

According to my dictionary, it means self-respect and the quality of worthy of respect. Any other dictionaries I looked into said similar things. Basically, it is how much we are respected by others and by our own selves.

The problem is we are too focused on how others see ourselves.

Some of us think we should listen to others’ so-called criticism NOT for the sake of self-improvement, but for the sake of caving in to peer pressures, for the sake of mindless conformity.

Let me give you an example (and yes, it will be dragging):

Let’s just say there is a young man in front of you who is unemployed, physically unfit and afraid to do any thrill-seeking activities. You constantly criticise him for not having a job and for not being physically active. You also love mocking him for being a scaredy cat.

The question is, why do you do that?

Ideally, you pester him to take a job and exercise because you care about him. You don’t want him to end up having little or no saving, having a snow as white resume and having extremely poor health. You pester him for good reasons.

You mock his fearfulness because you are annoyed by his macho guy-wannabe attitude and you use this opportunity to put that giant pussy in his place.

But, with some of you, that’s not the case, isn’t it?

You pester him to take a job NOT because you care about his future, but because you are offended.

You are one of those retards who believe the meaning of life is to work and/or to uphold neoliberal capitalism and that young man offends you because he unknowingly gives your retarded belief(s) the finger.

You fat-shame him because you don’t like seeing fat people. Who cares about his health? You think you are entitled to see so-called ‘beautiful’ people all the time, to have more people to masturbate to.

And regardless if he is a macho guy-wannabe or not, you would still mock him for being a scaredy cat. Maybe you are offended that he does not fulfil an arbitrary gender role. Maybe you are a retarded bully who takes pleasure in humiliating others. Maybe you are both.

My point is (if you can endure my ramblings) we should be careful in how we let others defining our ‘dignities’.

If they keep bothering you because they genuinely care about you or they are concerned your behaviours may negatively affect others, then you (unfortunately) have to listen to them. If they keep bothering you simply because you are different, then you should give them dildos so they can fuck themselves.

Obviously, differentiating the two is easier said than done. So, the only way to deal with such situation is to ask yourselves these questions:

If I follow their words, who would get the benefits: me or other people? When it benefits them, do I contribute something to my society’s welfare… or do I only pander to the sentiments of self-centred and obnoxious cunts? Would I have an easier time achieving my goals.. or  would I have an even harder time because of it?

How about my emotional health? Would I be just fine… or would I end up miserable because I care too much about other people’s feelings and care too little about mine?

Just be careful when others try to change you for the sake of giving you ‘dignities’.

An actually great defence of monarchism

Well, not ‘great’. Just more convincing.

I have my share of documentaries about royal families. Unsurprisingly, most of them are about the British one; to a lesser extent, I also have watched ones about the Japanese and Swedish ones.

When I watched the documentaries about the Swedish one, I was surprised by the presentation. Instead of classical music or any music that represent Swedish heritage, they utilise pop music. Instead of framing the monarchs as untouchable members of the elite, they are framed as if they would blend really well among the commoners.

I asked a Scandinavian friend of mine and he confirmed Scandinavians prefer their monarchs ‘relatable’.

For a long time, I was confused: how did Sweden, Denmark and Norway manage to cling to both monarchism and Jante Law? Now, I know why.

It is the complete opposite with documentaries about British and Japanese royal families.

Besides the more abundant use of classical music soundtracks, they also lavishly display the wealth, the lineage and the celebrity status of the monarchs… and they are seen as good things! The documentaries insinuate the monarchs are worthy of our admiration because they are blue-blooded wealthy celebrities, because we are (supposedly) inherently underneath them!

Don’t get me wrong: I am still not a big fan of ‘relatable’ monarchs. Even if their relatability is genuine and unfiltered (I doubt it is), it still does not erase the fact that they get their arbitrarily-existing jobs because their ancestors who lived centuries ago were politically powerful. The borderline cultish veneration is still there.

But surely, if you argue monarchs are needed because they are symbols of their people, wouldn’t it make sense to depict them as ‘relatable’? If that’s the case, there is a higher chance I would be a monarchist myself. I don’t see how anyone can symbolically represent others if they are seen as inherently above them.

Well, I do see it. People who are comfortable with the existence of wealth and lineage-based strata would be just fine with feet of the powerful (the right kind, obviously) rested on their heads. For them, it makes perfect sense to feel presented by over-privileged and definitely not relatable individuals.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on 

 

The internet makes us more ‘isolated’… so what?

Let’s be honest with ourselves: not every social interaction psychologically benefits us.

As an introvert, I hate small talks. If I am the one who starts a conversation, it means I am genuinely interested in its topic. For me, small talks are only useful if you want to please anyone who can make your life financially and/or professionally better. A small talk only for the sake of it gives a delusion of bonding.

Many Indonesians see small talks as borderline virtuous acts… and yet, the Indonesian term for small talk is ‘basa basi’ and ‘basi’ means ‘rotten’ or ‘outdated’. I don’t know why we describe something we love with such spiteful adjective. Maybe we take pride in being ‘rotten’ and ‘outdated’. Who knows?

Oh, and don’t forget that toxic people exist. Despite the financial and professional leverage, every single interaction we have with them is and will always be psychologically hazardous. If you believe there is no such thing as toxic interactions, you have to claim that toxic people don’t exist!

And when I say ‘isolated’, I mean it in a physical sense.

Whether you believe it or not, what we do online still count as social interactions. Even though the most objective definitions of ‘social’ and ‘interaction’ say nothing about being online or offline, it is still ingrained in our collective psyche that physical closeness determines the quality of the bonding, compelling us to ignore the superficiality and toxicity of actual offline relationships.

If we are shown a photo of a family or a group of friends using their phones, most of us would be heartbroken. I, on the other hand, would laugh at you abnormally fragile crybabies.

Even if I dismiss the soundness of online relationships, so what if they are on their phones? How do you know that one image is a representative of their entire life together?

Many people fail to comprehend that you can be active both online and offline… just like how they fail to comprehend that you can condemn Islamic extremism and anti-Muslim bigotry at the same fucking time (seriously, both Muslims and non-Muslims don’t fucking get this)!

What if we are told the people in the photo stop interacting with each other after acquiring internet access? Most would probably blame it for deteriorating the relationships. But, is it really?

How do they know the relationships weren’t bad in the first place? How do they know the interactions weren’t surface-level or toxic? How do they know internet ‘addiction’ is the root of the disease and not its symptom?

If the offline relationships have been proven to be beyond repair, I don’t see anything wrong about ditching them for the online ones. If anything, the internet ‘addiction’ may have stopped the relationships from deteriorating even further.

One may argue that even if the current offline relationship is not a keeper, we should replace it with an offline one as well. Well, if you are the type of person who is not dignified enough to be reasonably picky with relationships, it is feasible.

But, some people like me should be picky for our own mental sakes.

As an introvert, I need people who respect my innate need of solitude and my distaste of small talks. As a stutterer, I need people who won’t abuse or sneer at me for my defect.

Considering how introversion and stuttering are only found in a small number of people, the average people see me as ‘abnormal’ and, unless you live under a diamond-crusted golden boulder, you know damn well they see anything ‘abnormal’ as nuisances or even dangerous.

So, if I desire pleasant relationships, it is better to go online. Offline, I have to vet every person I encounter and potentially exposing myself to snake venom in the process. Online, unless you are a victim of bullying, the venom is easy to steer clear of.

If there are peer-reviewed studies with replicable results which show how online relationships will never be as fulfilling as the offline ones, I will concede. But, so far, I only encounter brain-dead dribble excreted out of the unwiped ass of extrovertedly-inclined and digital-hating normativity.

Oh, and I now hate those ‘internet corrupts us’ memes. Not only they have become tiresome after seeing them in an ungodly abundance, I also cannot shrug off the hypocrisy of posting and sharing anti-internet memes on the fucking internet. Can’t believe I used to find them profound.

.

.

I initially wanted to talk about having somewhat niche interests because, unlike the so-called ‘real’ world, the internet is where I can easily discover people to share interests with. But, even though my geekiness can be a lightning rod of ridicule, I was never abused for it, thankfully.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

 

Monarchists

Straight up, many know nothing about how government works.

For starter, most monarchies nowadays are constitutional. In those countries, monarchs are NOT the heads of governments, they are heads of states. Whether they are elected or they get the positions  because of their long-dead ancestors, their jobs are simply meant to be personifications of their respective states. Their duties are mostly entirely symbolic.

As a result, for every political progress and deterioration that occurs in a constitutional monarchy, it can only be credited and blamed on the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the government.

In the specific case of the late Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej, he was credited for being a unifying force for his ability to douse conflicts in his country. But, if he was indeed a unifying force, wouldn’t he successfully prevent any future conflicts from emerging ever again, even after his death? I mean, at this point, coup has become a Thai tradition.

While I am clearly annoyed by monarchists in general, the British ones are a ‘special’ breed: they believe once Great Britain becomes a republic, they will refer to the prime ministers as ‘presidents’ and it is too outrageous to imagine.

Two problems why it is a stupid sentiment.

First of all, why does the title fucking matter? Why is it so personally hard for them to refer to their leaders as ‘presidents’? It is extremely petty to make a big deal out of such an inherently inoffensive title. A president is literally someone who presides over things, for fuck’s sake!

Second, it is just another symptom of their political ignorance.

The UK is one of the countries that embrace parliamentary system. In such set-up, the heads of government are elected by the parliament; with some exceptions, they and the heads of state are two separate positions, with the former having actual executive powers and the latter having almost entirely ceremonial roles. Hence, why constitutional monarchies are parliamentary; the presidential and semi-presidential ones have no rooms for centuries-long, so-called divinely-approved nepotism.

What’s the point of this article?

It is simple: I just wish monarchists admit their love of the monarchs is anything but rational. No, they cannot claim rationality when their arguments defy basic facts about politics and, most importantly, when they behave like cult members.

In the UK specifically, not only they take criticisms of the monarchs too personally, they also think Meghan Markle, whose so-called sin is defiance against the status quo, is a bigger monster than Prince Andrew, who cannot convince the world that he and Jeffrey Epstein did not share the same hobby.

Don’t forget there are countries where insulting the monarchs is literally illegal.

Many will laugh when someone admits that him/her approval of certain things (e.g. monarchism) is entirely emotional. But, I cannot laugh at that someone because it would be hypocritical of me

My embrace of theism and Islam are also entirely emotional and that acknowledgement is a sign of self-awareness and self-awareness kills the zealots, apologists and even potential-extremists inside us, including the ones inside me.

As a result, not only I have acknowledged other people’s inherent right to hate the things I love, I have also acknowledged the potential soundness of their hatred.

If monarchists accept their monarchist stances are emotionally-driven and accept their beloved monarchs are their ‘nationalised waifus’ (as Oliver Thorn of Philosophytube nicely put it), they would stop behaving like cult members.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

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

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

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

One can guess why I love this short film.

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

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

While analysing it, I found two peculiarities.

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

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

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

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

Oh, and the hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The overtly-polished Casey Neistat style

I call it the Casey Neistat style because that’s how others call it (even though some people think the style predated him) and I don’t have an alternative name for it.

From the title, you can easily tell I am not a fan.

Okay, I am not saying I hate the aesthetic. I actually think it looks beautiful and proves every image can look pretty when captured by the right person. But, that’s also my problem with it: it looks TOO beautiful.

Before I was immersed in Youtube cultures, I had already watched arthouse films like Andrei Tarkovsky’s and Ingmar Bergman’s. They are visually stunning and narratively compelling (for me), exposing me to cinematic art works.

Also resulting in my high expectations of vloggers like Neistat.

It is already ingrained in my mind that good cinematography HAS to be accompanied by compelling stories. But, vlogs don’t tell ‘profound’ stories (mind the quotation marks), even when they showcase out of the ordinary events or the lives of perpetual travellers.

If anything, those vlogs feel pretentious. The polished cinematography seems to do nothing but overcompensating the passable narratives.

Oh, and when I said that vlogs are not narratively profound, I meant it as a compliment. Because they are supposed to narrate Youtubers’ semi-personal lives, I always expect raw and mundane storytellings; that is what I find attractive about vlogs in the first place!

I actually do enjoy some Neistat-esque vlogs, like the ones of Evan Edinger, Terry Song and Adam Neely. The difference is theirs are more stylistically restrained, allowing a greater presence of rawness and mundanity.

Thanks to its participatory nature, Youtube has opposites for almost everything. For Casey Neistat style and the likes, there are content described by Nerd City as post-ironic.

I cannot make myself enjoy the works of Youtubers like Filthy Frank, MaxMoeFoe and IDubbz (his Content Cop videos are an exception). Apart from the crassness which I find extreme (even for a relatively crass person like me), I am also anxious about the blurred lines between irony and sincerity.

But still, despite my inability to relish such content, I cannot help but respecting those creators for their unsuppressed mockery of the insincere and synthetic charm endorsed by the establishment. While I admittedly do embrace some of the establishment’s ideals, I also despise the idea of venerating them.

Thankfully, despite the increasing pressure of uniformity, the platform still has a sizeable freedom to dissent, something those employed in the ‘traditional’ media can only dream of. Therefore, almost every imaginable type of content has a place on Youtube*.

Whether it is aesthetically and thematically extreme** or middle-of-the-road, you will definitely find it.

.

.

*Obviously, there are restrictions to what can and cannot be uploaded. But, it is no secret Youtube content policing is both ineffective and misguided. ‘Lawful’ videos can get taken down and ‘unlawful’ ones stay. Supposedly, people have found porn on the site; while I do have found softcore films, I have yet found hardcore ones.

**Post-irony is extreme due to its depictions of life as an inherently ugly entity. But, I would argue overtly-polished aesthetic is also extreme for its overtly beautiful depictions of life; once one is accustomed to it, acknowledgement of the ugly reality feels taboo.

A bit of tangent here:

Andrei Tarkovsky said he utilised both colour and monochrome scenes in his films because those shot entirely in colour felt like animated paintings for him and therefore, felt ‘too beautiful’ to be realistic.

I never thought that I would reference Tarkovsky’s philosophy while discussing Youtube.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Literacy increased, thanks to the internet

Media literacy, not literacy literacy. I cannot help but noticing how prevalent it is among Millennials and Gen Z, who are arguably the biggest internet consumers.

Okay, I am not saying that we are one hundred percent literate in the media. We are not. But, compared to the older generations -who consume the internet a lot less-, we are far less easily duped by internet content.

We are more reactive to clickbaits and we have great eyes for photoshopped images. We also can get belittling and even hostile towards ‘fakeness’.

Yes, my words are anecdotal. But, the generational disparity is hard to ignore and I had been noticing this for quite a while; I was even more convinced of its existence after watching a Danny Gonzalez video, in which he doctored his own photo to make himself look like someone else and his Instagram followers immediately knew it was photoshopped. He succeeded only after an impressively-meticulous planning.

(Note: I have to mention that the much younger internet consumers are also relatively gullible. But then, it has less about their internet experiences and more about having less developed brains.)

Personally I credit our relatively high media literacy to four factors:

1. The participatory nature of internet cultures

Unlike ‘traditional’ media, the digital one allows its consumers to be its content creators as well and many embrace the opportunity.

Inevitably, many internet consumers know the behind-the-scenes process of content creation; they have learned how to doctor images, edit videos, do sound design and write scripts and/or blogs.

2. The unintentionally educational nature of certain content

Some Youtubers I have watched love to make videos about having fun with photoshopping. Those who make commentaries constantly call out deceptiveness of online content creators; sometimes, even ‘traditional’ media is not free from their ‘wrath’.

Consequentially, many of their viewers will end up becoming more vigilant for doctored images and overtly-manipulative choices of words, video editing and sound design, even without any prior experiences in said activities.

If you are a Twosetviolin viewer (or one of a similar channel), you would probably be able to detect fake musical performances in films and TV shows, even without any prior experiences in musical performances.

3. The awareness about public personas

Youtube fans are becoming more cognisant about public personas.

They know how Youtubers behave on camera do not always represent their true selves and they have learned to differentiate the masks from the true faces. The fact that some Youtubers constantly switch personas in the same videos force viewers to be attentive of the behavioural changes.

Yes, idiots who easily fall for personas still exist. But, I notice their presence has waned for the past few years.

4. The embrace of irony and post-irony

I previously said that internet consumers can be hostile towards ‘fakeness’. Well, that is not entirely accurate.

‘Enjoying things ironically’ is a thing and online, it is very widespread. It is socially acceptable to enjoy things because they are aesthetically-bad and, consequentially, some content creators love making content that is meant to be enjoyed ironically.

Scripted vlogs are one of those ironically enjoyable things.

Vlogs are meant to be unscripted accounts of the Youtubers’ lives and any scripted moments easily stand out, thanks to their glaringly plastic quality. But, as long as the creators do not claim their works to be factual, the viewers will be able to enjoy the artificiality.

Post-ironic content is as popular as the ironic one, if not more. While it still involves irony, it also thrives to blur the lines between it and sincerity, forcing the viewers to work harder to separate the two.

I was introduced to the concept of post-irony by Youtuber Nerd City, who asserted that post-ironic aesthetic on Youtube was meant to defy the saccharine and overtly-manufactured one approved by the Youtube establishment. While I was never a fan of creators like Filthy Frank due to the borderline transgressive nature of their works, I cannot help myself from holding their rebellious intent in high esteem.

So…?

Obviously, you don’t have to turn future generations into internet addicts. Schools can simply start teaching basic communication and media skills.

The problem is I don’t know which specific skills that should be taught and how they can be integrated into existing curricula. I am also unsure about the necessity of theoretical media studies in this case.

Oh, and I doubt many will acknowledge the importance of media literacy. Persuasion is also an issue.

I support monarchism because…

*puts on a mask*

Being a monarch is a hard-earned job!

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

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

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

The monarchs make me feel happy!

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

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

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

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

They are literally Gods!

Nepotism is everywhere!

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

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

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

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

*takes off the mask*

 

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.