How to appear environmentally woke

*puts on a mask*

As the title suggests, you don’t have to actually care about the environment. But, appearing so can help your public image among the gullible morons.

And it is so goddamn easy to do. All you have to do is to embrace the so-called “green” products.

It is cool to love cars that do not run on gas. You know, hydrogen and electric cars, especially ones made the so-called Godsend genius whom humanity can live without, Elon Musk.

Of course, we can simply implement bike-oriented, transit-oriented, mixed-used, pedestrian-friendly urban developments which not only effectively prevent air and noise pollution, but also use way less raw materials… you know, the things which those bulky and unnecessarily computerised Teslas require lots of.

But, who cares about actual effectiveness? What matters is looking cool. Oh, and if you are a car-culture fanatic, you can cling on to your fetish of those resource-hungry monsters without damaging your reputation.

Hating plastic is also a good way to go. It is trendy to do it and to love the alternatives, even though it is also scientifically unsound.

While plastic waste is indeed destructive, its productions is actually way more environmentally friendly than the productions of those more “natural” alternatives, as they require more agricultural practices and therefore, more destruction of the natural environments. Not to mention that plastic ban targets specific products while ignoring the rest. The randomness makes the whole thing futile.

But, again, it is trendy to hate plastic. Who cares about whether something is actually green or not? In fact, not only hating plastic makes you look cool, it can also disguise your hatred of disabled people.

People don’t realise how dependent many disabled people are on plastic straws. Some say they should be replaced with metal and paper straws, despite the fact that metal is great heat conductor and paper – no matter how thick it is – can get soggy. It sounds like you cannot use plastic ban to hide your ableism.

Actually, you can. For some reasons, when talking about straws, many people forget how hot metal can be and how soggy paper can be. Consequentially, despite their legitimate concerns, the protesting disabled people are dismissed as spoiled brats.

So yes, you can definitely use plastic ban to satisfy your hatred of cripples.

If I dig deeper, I am sure we can find more ways to use environmental wokeness for our selfish interests. But, those two are definitely the most popular ones.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Youtube, better than TV

I have made a few blogs arguing against the belief that traditional celebrities are inherently more talented than Youtubers. I mean, considering Youtubers started their careers by doing everything by themselves and they had to wait years for their efforts to pay off (assuming they will ever pay off), the belief is as preposterous as the so-called flat earth “theory”.

But, somehow, I didn’t think of one aspect of Youtube: how the content is presented to us, the consumers.

On TV, you cannot simply watch anything you want. The TV bosses are the ones who dictate on which shows to green-light, continue and cancel, which episodes to repeat or not repeat, which time the shows should air and which scenes to cut. Customers are not kings.

Admittedly, they are not kings on Youtube either. The trending pages are rigged and there are still content restrictions; in unfortunate circumstances, videos and even entire channels can be wrongfully taken down.

But, Youtube videos won’t be taken down simply for being unprofitable or niche. Considering literally everyone has the right to create content, almost every type of content imaginable is almost certainly present on the website. If you have niche interests or if you are a member of a marginalised community, you can definitely find videos which entertain or empower you.

Oh, and don’t forget you can actually pause, rewind and restart the videos and you don’t have to watch them immediately once they are up! Once they are there, you can watch them literally at any time you want… assuming they won’t be taken down, of course.

Even if you can attest to the inherent superiority of traditional celebrities, you have to acknowledge the temporal flexibility of digital platforms like Youtube; our pesky lists of obligations will never ruin our viewing experiences.

I know I am stating the obvious here. But, sadly, it is not obvious enough for everyone.

I still encounter (admittedly older) people who cannot comprehend that pausing and rewinding are a thing. They genuinely think TV and Youtube work the same way.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Your Name (and the true human bonding)

Just another of my very late film ‘review’.

Warning: while I won’t give details about the plot, this essay may still be a spoiler for you.

I don’t know how I ended up watching one of Makoto Shinkai’s works. I am not an avid fan of Japanese animation; most of the ones I have watched, like Doraemon and Ninja Hattori, were unavoidable in the first place as they were staples of Indonesia’s Sunday morning broadcast.

In fact, I don’t remember how I first heard about Your Name. Maybe it was the film poster in a cinema near my house and I was intrigued by its simplistic title and visually-conveyed ethereality. Maybe I was introduced to it by The Anime Man, whom I watch solely for his sarcasm and his ways of breaking down storytelling. Either way, it lingered in my mind for some time before I decided to watch it… and I am glad I did!

Visually, it is a very pretty animation! The animators made sure that even the backdrops are being held to a high aesthetic standard. But then, this is my first Makoto Shinkai’s work; I don’t know if this is a trademark of his. The beauty, while deeply appreciated, is not unforeseeable. The poster easily gave it away.

The story’s complexity, on the other hand, was surprising to me. The fairly intricate metaphysicas is not something one expects from one of the most highest-grossing traditionally-animated films, Japanese animated films and non-Anglophone films of all time. Maybe it’s like Life of Pi all over again, where the audience was too fixated on the visuals and ignoring the subject matters altogether.

Or maybe, they are smitten by how the film conveys emotions to the point where they become personally affected themselves. At least, that’s the case with me.

Because of it, I became an emotional wreck for days; one of the other times I fell into such bad shape was the first time I watched Jacksepticeye’s A Beginner’s Guide playthrough. I have had my share of emotional arts and entertainment works and yet not even the masterly creations of the likes of Bergman and Tarkovsky trigger a surge of neurochemicals in me.

One may go to a conclusion that Makoto Shinkai is an EQ genius who experience feelings like no other! Bergman, Tarkovsky and the rest of mankind should learn from him if they want to become more emotionally-intelligent human beings!

Obviously, what I just said was stupid. He may possess a high EQ. But, I doubt his is the highest ever. One thing I am certain about is his masterfully immersive storytelling, seamlessly taking us the characters’ extramundane world. But still, that explanation feels unsatisfactory for me.

For me (and presumably some people), the answer is a lot simpler. While immersiveness is indeed a factor for the sense of intimacy, it is not the be-all and end-all. Ultimately, the characters must be relatable to you.

Your Name chronicles the lives of two teenagers living in two different places and time who switch bodies. While the relationship was initially hostile, they end up seeing each other as their other halves whom they cannot imagine live without. Their bond is so strong, they still possess a sense of inexplicable longing after losing any pertinent memories. Years later, when they finally meet face-to-face, they quickly form a bond without remembering each other’s names. That facet of the characters’ life is very relatable to me.

Unless you – a nasty person that only exist in my head – are dumb enough to take the story literally and are accusing me of living a fantasy life or you are unaware of the age we are living in, there is a (small) chance you will understand why the film is personal to me: the internet.

Since I became active on Facebook, I started to have lots deep interactions with my fellow human beings. In fact, I met my first real best friends on the site! I can interact with them for hours and hours and I will never get bored by the wonderfully genuine human connections!

To make it even more delightful, almost all of my interactions involve internet users whose homelands are distinct from mine. I can form bonds with human beings in spite of their distinct environments, in spite of the terrestrially great distances, in spite of them living in very different time zones!

Of course, the reactionaries will fiercely disagree with me. They believe social interactions inherently require corporeal presence. For them, the lack of corporeal presence instantly invalidates every single reciprocity that has occured, no matter how genuine they are. Any person who possesses an open-mind will easily recognise how retarded such mentality is.

Let’s dissect the term ‘social interaction’. ‘Social’ means anything related to ‘society’, it is derived from the Latin word ‘socius’ which means ‘allied’ (I think). ‘Interaction’ is derived from ‘inter’ and ‘action’; basically, it is an action that directly influences every party involved.

If one lives in a mostly analogue world, one could be forgiven for still retaining such mentality. Of course, that world has become the past! Our lives have been heavily influenced by digitalisation. The gravity of social media today is comparable to the gravity of sexual repression in Indonesia.

Surely, after witnessing one of the great alteration of human foundations, the long-established meanings of ‘social’, society’, ‘interaction’ and ‘friends’ have inevitably become obsolete. So, sooner or later, we have to rethink the way we decipher them. For me, it sounds more reasonable than acting like grumpy, soon-to-die dinosaurs who hate how prejudice is no longer cool.

No, I am not dismissing the importance of offline relationships. Humans (still) live in an earthly realm. I (grudgingly) acknowledge that humanity cannot exist without physical contacts. Even if we don’t care about having friends and partners, we still need to buy groceries, to study, to work. Internet hermits like me need to go offline from time to time if we want to sustain ourselves.

But, traditionalists also have to acknowledge the strengths of online interaction. The cyber space gives us the freedom to be free from intrusiveness and toxicity, eases our efforts to search for like-minded individuals and, in spite of our current circumstances, still provides us the platform to meet anyone, no matter what their upbringings are and no matter where they live! Like it or not, ‘traditional’ interactions lack any of those advantages!

Now, about the quality of relationships: how does one determine it? Well, I believe emotional mutualism (I don’t know if it’s a real term) and sincerity are crucial determinants (people-pleasers will disapprove of the latter). While they are obviously my personal touchstones, I am confident some will agree with mine. And yes, I can say my Facebook friendships fulfill the requirements!

My interaction with fellow homo sapiens is frequently laced with deceit, vanity and unyielding distaste of liberty. But, thanks to the benefits I mentioned two paragraphs ago, they occur significantly far less in my internet social circle. Based on my anecdotes (as that’s the only thing I can provide), not only online relationships can be as good as the offline ones, they have the prospect to be even better!

I believe that’s the reason why I find Your Name very personal. No, I don’t think the story is a deliberate allegory of our digitalised world. But, the tale of a human bonding that transcends space and time will surely have an impact on someone whose personal relationships are almost entirely established in the cyber world.

I can’t say anything about other people who have watched it. How many of them were emotionally affected by the watching experience? For those who were, why? If the reason had nothing to do with human bonding, I genuinely would like to know what that reason is.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Flatulent musing: does the information in data storage operate its own metaphysical anatomy?

(LOL at the title! As if I have never done such thing before…)

Going straight to the point, the answer is: yes, it does.

When I say data storage, I am alluding to any entities that store information. Paper, wood, stone, magnetic tapes, optic discs, flash memories, anything! When I say ‘information’, I am alluding to not only numerical data and objective facts, but also hypotheses, lies, emotions and even fictional worldbuilding!

If the ‘info’ does not confine itself to a definite time, space or mindset, then I think its actuality is solely corporeal; its size is strictly limited by the tangible containment. But, if given its own temporal, spatial and contexts, the ‘info’ may also belong to an entirely metaphysical realm; its size is unaffected by the size of the containment.

What counts as temporally, spatially and mentally unspecific ‘info’? For me, it includes mathematical formulas, empirical facts, trivial opinions and theories. ‘Clear sky is blue’ irrefutably counts as an empirical fact. ‘Blue cheese is disgusting’ irrefutably counts a trivial opinion. What about theories? Aren’t they just theories?

Contrary to popular belief, a theory is not a speculation. In natural sciences, it is an elucidation of natural phenomena which has gone through a multitude of rigorous scientific scrutinies. In social sciences and humanities, it is a mindfully-constructed paradigm that bequeaths us a frame of reference about human phenomena which intangibility hinder us from definitively deciphering them. Just like mathematical formulas, they are the foundations of human knowledge. Timeless and unbounded by fixed settings.

Now, what counts as temporally, spatially and mentally specific ‘info’? For me, it includes conjectures, hypotheses, histories, memories and fictional worldbuilding.

Even though they look indistinguishable on the surface, hypotheses and conjectures are actually distinct from one another. The former are well-thought-out, based on some evidences, used to commence further enquiries and, ideally, free from biases. The latter, on the other hand, are entirely affected by personal biases and often senselessly treated as absolute closures.

Both, however, are similar in that they take aim at natural and human phenomena which are always time and space specific. But, considering how hypotheses are integral aspects of knowledge exploration, they have a place in the physical and metaphysical worlds. As conjectures are not concerned about amplifying our horizons, they only belong in the metaphysical world.

I put histories in this category because not only they are bound by time and space, they are also influenced by how historians and so-called historians interpret the evidences. Whether the interpretations are sound or shamelessly one-sided, they are inherently influenced by our ways of thinking.

I am not sure how I should categorise numerical data, falsehood and emotions. Numerical data, despite being mathematical, is also bound to specific time and places. Falsehood and emotions, despite being intangible, are directly affected by how we perceive reality.

Okay, I know I sound inconsistent this whole time. I keep claiming how ‘infos’ that are not restricted by space cannot be metaphysical. Basically, I sound like I am making an antithesis to my own (so-called) hypothesis. I may as well claim cheese is not dairy because its main ingredient is milk.

Of course, I have to remind you, dear non-existing readers, and myself, a forgetful pseudo-intellectual, that my absurd postulation is comprehensible in the context of data storage. That is the main source of pretentiousness here and I keep stalling from talking about it. Now, I will discuss it by using examples:

Example 1

Let’s imagine you have one thick book and one small flash drive. The book is the complete issue of War and Peace while the drive has the digital copy of the entire novel. Obviously, one is physically bigger than the other. But, metaphysically, they are of similar dimension.

The novel itself contains a world of its own. It portrays the 1812 French invasion of Russia through the author’s own perspective (who interacted with the people who actually lived through it), it is loaded with philosophical discussions and it has hundreds of characters, each has the ability to his/her unique individual sub-story. It is one gigantic metaphysical world to offer.

A physical book needs over a thousand pages to chronicle the story. A digital copy can be saved inside a digital storage slightly bigger than a medicinal capsule. It shows no matter how big it is, if the technology is adequate, it can fit into even the smallest storage.

Example 2

Now, imagine we have two sheets of A4 paper. Obviously, it is impossible to determine which is physically bigger. But, we can determine which one is metaphysically so.

If one sheet contains nothing but mathematical formulas and the other contains a statistical study, the latter is obviously bigger. Mathematical formulas’ universality do not make them solely attached to certain worldly occurences and therefore, they do not bring any metaphysicality with them.

Every statistical study is inevitably attached to the specific occurrences each of them is established from. Everywhere they go, those studies bear incorporeality that represents those occurrences. If each statistical study covers one million lives, then one sheet paper that contains the study has bigger metaphysicality than a million sheets of C1 papers that offer nothing but formulas. Oh, and don’t forget the possible biases of the researchers who probably skew their samples.

Even when two ‘info’s have comparable physical weights, the density of their content makes their metaphysical weights drastically differ from one another.

Example 3

It is similar to the previous one. Yes, there are more. Just grin and bear it.

You are holding one of your school year books (just pretend I know the typical content of year books). It includes one class photo that features you, your classmates and one of your teachers and thirty of individual photos of each student. The class photo has more metaphysical weight than all of those individual student photos combined.

Those thirty photos represent thirty stories, one for each student. That one class photo represents more than thirty one. Besides the ones from individual students and the teacher, we should account stories of interpersonal relationships of its occupants.

By himself/herself, the teacher adds thirty interpersonal stories; I mean, he/she is the teacher. Then, assuming each student interacts with at least one classmate, they add thirty more. So far, the photo already has ninety-one possible stories.

Even some loners such as myself were able to interact with at least three classmates in each class. Obviously, most students in the photo would interact with more than three. It is conceivable the number of interpersonal stories may surpasses nine hundreds.

Oh, and I am grossly incompetent in mathematics. In all likelihood, your own calculation is more precise than mine.

Example 4

Just imagine there are one relief, one painting and one photograph in front of you. Each depicts a city’s bustling daily life. Which one has the biggest metaphysics? The answer is it can be all three. Each represents the creator’s personal bias about the city.

But, sculptures and paintings depict their subjects decoratively, unlike photographs which depict theirs in a true to life manner. Shouldn’t that mean photographs don’t have strong metaphysics? Well, they do have it if they are shot artistically.

Just like sculptors and painters, art photographers also have methodical, creative processes and clear visions about what their works should be about. They determine the camera angles, the lighting and the colour palettes. In the end, artistic photographs are also deliberately created to suit their creators’ biases. If the photographers are not artistic, then it is a different story.

Considering how casual photographers’ sole agenda is to capture the moments, the resulting photos only exhibit real life stories. They are devoid of any deliberately-placed slants. They don’t have biases to strengthen the metaphysics.

Example 5

Let’s just say I have two flash drives. One is filled with two of my best college papers: one is for an Indonesian studies class and the other is for a philosophy one. The other drive is filled with personal, pontificating writings AKA most my blogs which there are over a hundred of them. Which drive possesses the bigger metaphysicality? It is the one with my college papers in it.

My college papers obviously discuss about real life issues. But, both are also studied through contemplative lenses. The thing about academic philosophical analyses is not only I have to propose well-reasoned, consistent and concise thoughts, I also have to take other individuals’ thinking in consideration, especially ones published in academic journals; if I know what I am doing, they can prove my thoughts’ intellectual validity.

A large chunk of my Indonesian studies paper, which discusses the collective mentality of Indonesian Muslims, is a critique of a published scholarly article which conclusions I fervently disagree with. While I commend his denouncement of extremism, I also condemn the author (such a harsh word, I know) for his black-and-white taxonomy of Indonesian Muslims and his anti-liberalism apologetics. This paper of mine contains the thoughts of not one but two individuals.

My philosophy paper has even a bigger metaphysicality. It discusses the pros and cons of refugees acceptance. Again, besides containing my thoughts, the paper also includes the thoughts of other individuals, seven to be exact; they consist of two media scholars, one sociologist, one moral philosopher and three ethicists who have interest ‘global ethics’. Their sound contributions to the discussions have the potentials to be the solutions for said crisis.

In total, those two papers alone represent the minds of nine different individuals. My tirading essays, on the other hand, only represent the mind of one single person. They are only concerned about manifesting my thoughts and feelings, unconcerned about others’ in fear theirs will be deviant against mine.

In the end, my college papers have wider metaphysical horizons than all of my personal essays combined.

Conclusion?

Well, not only I am far from ready to be a scholar, I am certain I have made every person who read this article in its entirety ends up hating certain words like ‘metaphysics’, ‘metaphysical’, ‘info’ and ‘thoughts’.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

My identity

(Based on my New Media class assignment. It was made in 2014. Three years ago. In this new version, I will also compare my 2014 view with the current one.)

The pictures above are screenshots of the pages I like on Facebook. The shrinks among you will try to ‘psychoanalyse’ me based on that alone. I am sure you will get your ‘analyses’ wrong. Yes, what I like reveals my true self. But, I have only shown you eighteen pages. You should also consider the groups I join, my taste, my backgrounds, what I share online and how I interact with fellow human beings online and offline. Here, I will discuss how I form my online identity and its legitimacy as a form of legitimacy. First, we need to define what identity is.

2017 update:

Some of the Youtubers featured in the screenshot… well… I have stopped watching them almost completely since 2015, a year after I made this assignment. I also liked a page called ‘Positive Outlooks’. Yeah, I don’t remember how I ended up liking a page with such revoltingly-syrupy name.

R. Atchley (cited in Kelly 2010) defines identity as a group of traits that distinguish a self from the others; it is the only thing that can represent a self. I personally see myself having more than one; my online behaviour is different from the offline one. Stard and Prusak (cited in Kelly 2010) believed that to be true; they stated a self can have more than one depending on how it represents itself. An online identity is different from its offline counterpart because the former tends to be more mindfully presented, considering how social media gives users more time (Champagne cited in Bouvier 2012, p. 40). Every identity is legitimate despite contradicting each other. Online, I have two: humanist and spiritual.

2017 updates:

It is anecdotal, but I believe online identities are not always sensible; they can be a lot nastier than the offline ones. New media seem to be good at breaking down our metaphysical guard.

I still believe one can embrace two seemingly clashing identities; humans are complex creatures. But, I also admit the syncretic identification can appear as cognitive dissonances to most people, especially when said individuals refuse to acknowledge the contradictions’ existence.

My humanist identity is an identity I embrace when dealing with fellow human beings. It covers my social, political and cultural identity. When online, it is mostly liberal and internationalist in nature. I constantly clash with conservatives, I prefer English over Indonesian and most online articles I read are about international issues instead of local ones. When I first joined Facebook, I was far less international but was already liberal. Then, I started to meet people from all over the world and had good relationships with them. Offline, it is a different case.

I still have shreds of conservatism and nationalism inside my offline self. My lifestyle is neither too liberal nor too conservative. I live in Australia at the moment, studying in an international university and have no problem respecting local customs. But, I spend most of social life interacting with fellow Indonesians and acting like a stereotypical Indonesian inside my house. Even though both are different, my online and offline identities greatly influence each other. I would be completely completely liberal and international online if my offline self is not more moderate and more nationalistic. Unlike my humanist identity, my spiritual identity took longer to form itself.

2017 updates:

I am not sure about my usage of the word ‘humanist’. Humanism is often defined as a divine-less and human-centred form of spirituality. It is obvious how my so-called humanist identity has nothing to do with spirituality. Back then, I did not bother to open my thesaurus. Now, I think ‘temporal’ or ‘profane’ are the more appropriate choices.

I was fooling myself when I said I had good relationships with everyone on Facebook. I did end up being close to some users. But, at the same time, I also had many clashes caused by various reasons. Sooo easy to interact with me.

Now, I am back to Indonesia, even though I am still studying off-campus mode on the same university. The reason I mostly interacted with Indonesians while living abroad is I lived with my sister, who had many Indonesian friends and acquaintances in Australia. If my sister was not with me, I would have more interactions with Aussies. If you barely socialise and you live in Australia, your interactions would mostly consist of Aussies. Duh!

Spirituality does not have a universally-accepted definition. I personally define it as a way to embrace one’s true self; it is not necessarily about connecting with the divine as agnostics and atheists may also describe themselves as ‘spiritual’. My online spiritual identity is a reformed/progressive one. I believe there must be a reform in the way believers interpret religious teachings. On Facebook, I join groups and like pages dedicated to progressive/reformed/ Muslims; I also like pages dedicated to progressive Christians. If online users ask what my religion is, I would immediately answer progressive/reformed Islam. Offline, once again, it is a different case.

I am closeted with my belief in order to avoid any conflicts. There are not many openly progressive Muslims. The internet is our safe haven, the only place where we are able to congregate peacefully (most of the time); the online congregation is more spiritually satisfying than the ones I encounter in mosques. But, there is a problem with my spiritual identity: it is insecure and fragile.

I am doubtful that I perfectly represent my identity. I tend to have low tolerance of conservative and moderate Muslims, even the non-violent ones, seemingly contradicting my so-called progressive nature. Technically, I am a progressive/reformist-wannabe militant liberal. It will actually help if I interact with more people, not just the ones who claim to be progressive.

Piotr Bobkowski (2008) believed young people are not enlightened enough to properly express their faith (p. 3) and yet they can be too showy (p. 21). Literally me. I am very quick to announce my religiosity while still not being learned enough. Compared that to my fellow self-identified progressive/reformist Muslims who are both well-read and reserved.

2017 updates:

I still embrace that definition of spirituality. But, nowadays, it has become more layered and slightly more complex (only slightly). I realised how I defined it in 2014 was too simplistic and superficial.

I keep typing ‘reformed/progressive’ regarding my Islamic identity. Many people use the two words interchangeably, sometimes along with the word ‘liberal’. From what I know, there are no established distinctions between reformist, progressive and liberal Muslims. But, I tend to identify with the first two as I do think liberalism is different from progressivism and reformism.

My militant liberal attitude was short-lived. I was very impressionable and let myself influenced by the nasty self-proclaimed reformed/progressive Muslims whose idea of progressive Islam includes selling their fellow believers to anti-Muslim bigots. That’s why I am often reluctant to join online communities dedicated to such well-intentioned movement. It is too bad because many self-proclaimed progressives out there still maintain their dignity.

I agree with Bobkowski to an extend. It is true youngsters are prone to irrationality and immaturity; unsurprising considering how young brains are not fully-developed. But, at the same time, adults can also be guilty of the same, especially when it comes to spirituality. Case in point, those sell-out so-called progressive Muslims.

Online identity is as legitimate as its offline counterpart. In the digital era, both are inevitable crucial parts in overall human identities. One can’t live without the other, despite seemingly different from the surface. It is not important if they are different from each other or not, it is more important if they are true to a person’s true self and they don’t make him or her an intolerant individual.

2017 update:

It should be like this: it is more important if they encourage our true selves to embrace reason and high moral standards.

 

Bobkowski, P 2008, ‘An Analysis of Religious Identity Presentation on Facebook’, International Communication Association 2008 Annual Meeting – Conference Paper, pp. 1-24.

 

Bourvier, G 2012, ‘How Facebook users select identity categories for self-presentation,’ Journal of Multicultural Discourses, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37-53.

 

Kelly, L 2010, What is Identity?, Australian Museum, retrieved 19 May 2010, <http://australianmuseum.net.au/blogpost/Museullaneous/What-is-identity>.

Youtube fans, haters and their imaginary prerogative

I wrote an article about how Pewdiepie’s fans are horrible. I am fan myself and I have horrid experiences with fellow bros. But, I don’t know why I only focused on that one specific fandom when the others are equally horrid.

Maybe because Pewdiepie was and is currently the Youtuber I watch the most. Maybe because Pewdiepie fandom is so infamous. But then, it’s frustrating how we quickly dismiss the existence of his militant haters.

Haters. Like the zealous fandoms, they are one of Youtube’s cancers. Both are the extreme ends of the spectrum. Both are waste excreted from different orifices of a same person. Both also suffer the same disease: a bulging sense of entitlement.

They believe the entire Youtube community must kneel down and pleasure their nether regions. When excited, their genitalia boast non-existing expertise about what’s good for a group of diverse and many ‘unseen’ individuals. They express their excitement in different yet equally infuriating ways.

One sin that fans always do is forcing their Youtubers to be their besties. Yes, our Youtubers are NOT our friends. Their impacts to our personal lives are indeed inspiring. But, ours do not intertwine with theirs and probably never will. It’s still a tough truth to sell.

Fans want their favourite Youtubers stark naked and touch every inch of the bare skins as they desire. Their idols are nothing but emotionless piles of flesh, blood and bones who are destined to please the lustful ego of complete strangers. If they aren’t treated like sex toys, they are treated like puppets.

Retar…I mean, fans believe they are ever-powerful Gods and Youtubers are their subjects. They believe they have the complete creative control to the channels. Heck, they even think they can impose draconian rulings on the Youtubers’ personal lives! You can get attacked simply for dating the ‘wrong’ person (e.g. Jacksepticeye) or for not coming out (Joey Graceffa). Then, the haters chime in.

They declare themselves as being more sophisticated and more moral than the fandoms. In fact, they use this as a justification to hate certain Youtubers. Of course, that does not hold ground for two reasons:

First, Youtubers aren’t always responsible for their fans’ actions; some behaviours are simply beyond the former’s control. Second, the haters are equally rabid bunch of degenerates.

The most obvious haters’ sin is…their hate. They waste their precious time searching for Youtubers they hate, clicking their videos and posting cancerous comments. They even express their hatred in comment section of videos…created by different and sometimes unrelated Youtubers! What is their ‘rationale’ for this?

Well, they believe the expression of hatred will lead to the Youtubers’ downfall. Hatred will bring negative energy to their channels. In the end, destruction is inevitable. It does make sense…for the most simplistic of all minds. Instead of weakening them, the Youtubers end up getting stronger.

Clicking their videos literally means giving them more views. More views means more money. More money means more power. One can use money to obtain higher status and more fame! That’s the truth about life! Wait, that’s not all.

Haters also forget that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. I am a Pewdiepie fan because of the haters. They are the ones who introduce me to him! They keep spamming comment sections with his name. Curiosity made me check his channel and a bro I am now. I am genuinely grateful for the haters.

In fact, many of my fellow bros are! Giving lots of attention to Youtubers is almost akin to nourishing them with free ads. More subscribers also means more power. With many strangers adoring you, it is relatively easy to defend yourself. But, what if the attention does not give them more followers?

They may or may not get more. If they don’t, it still doesn’t matter. We often forget that Youtubers are media and communication people. They are savvy in both fields. They can use their fame their advantage. Their skill is their power. If they want to, they can topple world governments. Again, thank you hater, whose stupidity doesn’t stop there.

They love to denounce content creators of certain flaws. Obviously, valid criticism is important; everyone needs it to be a better individual, personally and professionally. But, the validity kills itself when the criticism is laced with hypocrisy.

They condemn the Youtubers they hate certain flaws…while openly praising their favourite Youtubers who clearly ALSO have those flaws! If you have a proudly blind sense of judgement, don’t get pissed when others dismiss your words; it’s their moral right. I am still not done, yet.

Those haters, no matter how annoying they are, are very harmless. Deal with them like one deals with overly-pampered toddlers. But, some are worryingly more dangerous as they bring their hatred to an atrocious level: slander.

They are so tightly cocooned by their hatred, their heads will come up with horrible lies, camouflaged them as truths and post them online. Unsurprisingly, they cannot present a single evidence to support their claims. Well, they think they can; for them, ‘hatred’ is literally the best evidence a person can have. Unfortunately, gullibility is a widespread social disease.

Present a handful of shit and a swarm of flies will gobble it up. They will do so either because it satisfies their repulsive, ingrained taste buds or they are simply starving and will devour anything they stumble on. Both are convinced of its supposedly refined taste. Then, they proceed to throw the shit to other people’s faces, including the slander victims.

One may say that slander is mere words; we should just ‘man up’ and not let ourselves hurt by it. Slander is literally harmless, they say. Well, that’s easy to say if you are not the victim.

Before Wall Street Journal falsely accusing him of anti-Semitism (and still haven’t apologised for it), Pewdiepie had been accused of stealing charity money and beating his own girlfriend. Even John Green of the Vlogbrothers was accused of being a sexual pervert who ‘loved’ teens. Those accusations are so horrible, they can potentially ruin lives. Haters who do this should be taken seriously.

So, what cause haters to do all of these? Well, as I said earlier, just like those rabid fans, haters have a bulging sense of entitlement. Like those fans, haters think everyone in the Youtube community are destined to be their personal slaves who indulge every single one of their desires. They literally cannot accept that they aren’t the only people who matter.

No, I am not saying that we should keep our mouths shut. We can, and should, give creative suggestions to our favourite Youtubers. Heck, I even believe we can give advices for their personal lives. Yes, it is true that Youtubers can’t live without us fans. But, we should also remember that we were attracted to them in the first place because of the uniqueness of their individuality.

We can, and should, also give stern criticism to the Youtubers we hate. Heck, I even believe we can give ‘harsh’ comments (mind the air quotes). But, our criticism should be bound by reasons and facts, not our feelings. The rule still applies even when they spit out shameless prejudice. Don’t be a hater. Don’t be an SJW. Be a critic.

Yes, I know that ‘traditional’ celebrities have also been harassed by rabid fans. But, digital media platforms like Youtube give wider access for us to interact with our idols; the wall between us and them is a a lot thinner. This digital metaphysics worries me. I fear that it makes us even more prone to suffer from delusions, believing that we have actual intimacy with our idols.

Speaking about the personal nature of Youtube, the website gives us freedom that ‘traditional’ media lacks: we can choose to watch any videos we want. Don’t like a Youtuber? All you have to do is to NOT clicking his/her videos! It’s that simple! You’re not forced to watch videos you hate.

Youtube does suggest you videos; even then, those videos are very likely related to the ones you frequently watch. Maybe they have similar styles or content. Maybe the creators are acquainted to the ones you are subscribing to. So, don’t get angry when you’re suggested videos of your hated Youtubers. In fact, you have so much freedom there, you literally have no reasons to be a hater.

I don’t know how end this article.

So, the end?

Those peculiar, fantastical and thoughtful genres

I am referring to three in particular: magical realism, surrealism and absurdism.

If you tell people to describe them, they would say ‘confusing’, ‘weird’ and ‘pointless’. Of course, they are wrong about them. But, the ignorance is understandable. The three genres are of acquired taste. Even not all of the lovers grasped them at first.

All three have one similarity: they encourage contemplation. They want us to reflect on our own life. They make us contemplate about what is true and what isn’t. They encourage us to reconsider our outlook concerning our own existence. Either that or they make you die of boredom or confusion.

Contemplation is not exclusive to strong realism. Even unworldliness has the ability to foster its growth. Realism reminds us about real life entities we are already aware of. Those three genres prefer us show us we failed to notice by ourselves: life’s ‘abnormalities’.

Their portrayal are always deadpan. No explanation to their existence and mechanics. They are just another life banalities we deal with every single day. What kind of ‘abnormalities’ they are depends on the genres. I’ll start with magical realism.

As the name says, its oddity is the magical elements. It encourages us to acknowledge the ‘magic’ in our real life. The stories feel both very real and fantastical at the same time. Those are more than enough to disaffiliate the genre from fantasy.

Unlike magical realism, fantasy is escapist. Magic is explicitly depicted as a non-existing entity. It abducts us from the real world temporarily (or permanently…). Viewing the two genres interchangeably is ignorance; unacceptable if it comes from actual fantasy writers and fans. Okay, I should go on to surrealism before I end up ranting.

The peculiarity of surrealism comes from its liberal blend of the conscious and the subconscious. It illustrates how both are inseparable from each other. All of our actions are, on some level, affected by something intangible deep inside us. Oh and it’s not to be confused with absurdism.

On the surface, it may looks similar to surrealism. But, instead of depicting the subconscious, it depicts the absurdity of life (the name’s obvious). It reminds us that even our conscious world can be senseless at times. Sometimes, we have to accept it.

Not only they want us take heed of the life abnormalities, the trio also inspire us to embrace them. They are benign and even enriching to our life. Forsaking them seem unwise; doing so, we are defiling our own very being. Those three genres can utilised as our guidance. Well, that’s my personal outlook, anyway.

I may also add a fourth ‘peculiar genre’: science fiction. I find it a unique genre because it has a place in the world of entertainment and the arts. I never thought sci-fi could be artsy until I found Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris.

From there, I managed to find other artsy sci-fi films like Tarkovsky’s Stalker, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: Space Odyssey and David Cronenberg’s Videodrome (artistry highly debatable, though). Each one has something in common: contemplation about our relations with science and technology. Yes, that C word again.

They dwell on how our life are tremendously shaped by the existence of science and technology. They supply us with greater practicality and alter how we regard our fellow human beings and even ourselves. That’s what artsy sci-fi films have to say. I never thought they could have such capacity until I found Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris.

From there, I managed to find similar films like Stalker (also by Tarkovsky), Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: Space Odyssey and David Cronenberg’s Videodrome. I am excited to watch Jean-Luc Godard’s Alphaville, Andrzej Zulawski’s On the Silver Globe (I’m sure I butchered his name) and read Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five.

I am even excited to explore new genres as well.

In Defense of Youtube

I don’t know how to “properly” describe Youtube.

For starter, Youtube annoys the shit out of “traditional” media because of no good reasons other than it exists. They are like older siblings who despise their newborn siblings, taking their parents’ attention.

But, in this age, “traditional” media are helpless without digital platforms, including Youtube. Especially Youtube. They need it to stay relevant. They are like annoying elders who talk shit about the youngsters they are dependent on.

People will refute my statement, saying that there are good reasons to hate Youtube. Things like poor content, lack of talent and quick fame and fortune. Youtube does have those traits…and so does “traditional” media.

First of all, poor content. Youtube does have mindless challenges videos, overt-reliance on slaptick, second-hand humour, screamy gamers, dramas, tasteless pranks and clickbaits. Understandbly, it’s hard to be convinced about some Youtubers’ talents. Some.

Venture deeper and you will find thoughtful vlogs, witty and off-beat humour, nicely-packaged educational videos, satires and even honest commentaries. Yes, they tend to have lesser views. But, many still manage to get over a million views per video. Talents, on some levels, are still appreciated.

“Traditional” media, even in the for-profit one, do have quality content. I love shows like Community and The Golden Girls. I enjoy reading highbrow periodicals. But, it’s undeniable that mediocrity also (and still) dominates the industry.

“Reality” shows, “educational” channels airing anything non-educational, pundits pretending to be journalists, unethical journalists, gossip columnists, imitative and skin-deep TV movies, paparazzi, shock jocks, sitcoms without humour, irresponsible coverage of extremists, inappropriate children’s shows, just to name a few.

Youtube’s young. It is still eleven years old. It having dumbed down content is understandable, albeit extremely annoying. In fact, it’s impressive how much quality videos it possesses. “Traditional” media having that flaw is more unforgivable.

Printed media is centuries old. Broadcasting media is around a century old. They have lots of time to improve themselves. But, sensibility isn’t for everyone. Up to these days, one can still find content so horrible, it makes you wonder if “traditional” media people ever finish pre-schools (pre-schoolers are smarter than them, anyway).

Second, easy fame and fortune. I have encountered various comments online about how “traditional” media are more resilient. Some use their own money to start their careers. They also have more rivals. Once again, easily debunked.

Yes, some do need to invest themselves. They do have to wait for their efforts to take off. But, once their works are published or broadcasted, they will undoubtedly get paid. That’s not the same with Youtubers.

They can immediately upload their videos. But, they are lucky if they get one view. Most of them keep making videos for years, not getting a penny, not knowing if their channels will ever take off. They don’t have viral videos. While waiting, they obviously need to make a living by having other full-time jobs.

Admittedly, a few do get instant fame. But, more of than not, their viral videos are mindlessly inept, no obvious signs of skilled video-making. In the end, those Youtubers quickly fade away, just like any other fads. If they want a Youtube career, they have to step up their game and not letting themselves judged by their viral videos.

Even if the videos are of finer quality, they still have to work harder. Their viral videos shouldn’t be their only magnum opuses. Get too comfortable and soon they’ll be another fads as well. Sad, wasted talents.

Talents. Skills. I admire “traditional” media people as well. But, I abhor the belief that every single one of them strongly have both and Youtubers have none. Again, easily debunked. (I copied and pasted that one).

In their early careers, Youtubers have to be their own hosts, actors, idea makers, camera operators, channel managers, editors, writers, thumbnail designers, special effects people, set designers, basically everything. As their channels grow, they have to become their own PR practitioners as well.

In their earliest videos, they may include other people to participate. But, they are usually either volunteering friends or relatives.

They can hire professionals, obviously. You know, the ones with actual needed skills. All they need is sufficient amount of money and leadership skills. That sounds like an easy feat, right? Right? Right?

“Traditional” media people don’t need to do that many tasks. More of than not, they are already assigned to focus on specific tasks. Not a requirement to be skilled in various disciplines (even though it is a plus point).

I also mentioned something about less rivalry in Youtube. Yeah, no. In “traditional” media, your rivals are the people who have entered or attempted to enter the industry. They’re not that visible. But, you know their exist. It’s not the same with Youtube.

Everyone who can access Youtube is a potential rival. Many started Youtube either out of boredom or the need for self-expression, no prior interest or skill in media. Never underestimate them, though. They can easily eclipse your gleaming career sooner or later.

Already-established Youtubers can possess millions of views and subscribers under their wings…and still be unknown by the majority of Youtube community. They are such a colossally-huge collective, it’s possible to be both popular and under-the-radar at the same time. It’s harder to know who your rivals are. The competition is absurdly more potent.

Actually, instant fame and fortune on Youtube is a possibility. All you need is one thing: an already-established “traditional” media career prior. With an escalator, you would have it way easier than many Youtubers.

(I acknowledge the rivalry aspect also applied to the world of blogging. But, as I’m new to it, I prefer to focus on Youtube instead).

If you think the title should be changed to “Youtube fanboy getting abusive traditional media”, I would agree with you. I admit that I am being harshly unfair against them, throwing all of their hardwork out of the window…

…Just like how people treat Youtubers. Many of us are too snobby to acknowledge their potentials, too ignorant to realise that the website’s much younger age. We are too comfortable with the olds, refusing to give the new a chance.

Notice how I type the word “traditional” with quotation marks. Well, I am one of the people who realise that everything old used to be new.

Slowly but surely, the new continues on its journey, resiliently defies the sneering from the old ones. Then, they relent, finally admitting the new one deserves a place among them. The new becomes old, slowly replacing its predecessors.

The story’s not done yet. The formerly new takes its turn as a sneerer, wishing that the new dies young…

…And repeat.

One day, digital media in general will be regarded as “traditional”. If Youtube dies, a new website will replace it. What we consider “traditional” nowadays will be too quaint, even older people will abandon them. Even digital media cannot escape such fate.

I overuse the word “traditional” here. I was warned that such practice takes away the meanings. Well, that won’t be a problem here. Traditionalism is not that meaningful. In the end, it’s more about widespread acceptance rather than supposedly-existing intrinsic values. Don’t judge something from its societal status.

(Wait, I also overuse the word Youtube. *sighs*. Oh well).

Oh and one more thing. I am indeed a Youtube fanboy and I am not ashamed of it. I love both the excellent and horrible content of the website. I also have never created a single video.

Well, I always want to. But, not only because I’m a chronic procrastinator, I also lack the confidence. I don’t have a single experience in both video-making and performing arts. So far, my confidence only extends to analysing Youtube…

…And blogging, of course.