We should hand it to warmongers

No, I am not being facetious.

A war is a conflict which not only results in destructions of human properties, but also the brutal, violent deaths of innocent human beings, physical and psychological trauma of the survivors and the possibility of long-term geo-political instability, which may lead to even more violence.

To describe it as hell on earth is an understatement.

And yet, despite what we know about wars, warmongers have successfully convinced the world that killing innocent human lives, physically and/or psychologically scarring the survivors and destabilising the entire region are a must. Why? Because the hypothetical liberation promised by the so-called freedom-loving invaders.

What I just described does not make any fucking sense. And yet, warmongers have successfully convinced people to embrace that nonsensical belief.

One may argue I am giving them too much credit. Some people are so gullible, it does not take much to persuade them. In some cases, that is definitely the case: all you need to do is to say things, no techniques needed. But, the more I interact with people, the more I see the complexity.

Not all of the people who fall for the warmongering are stupid. In fact, I have seen some whose intelligence is above average, who are capable to process complex thoughts with great ease.

It is infuriating how warmongers can convince even the most intelligent people to believe nonsensical bullshit, while war-opponents are unable to persuade even the most gullible people.

This is just another reminder that simply knowing the truths and having the morality isn’t enough. If we want to spread our values, we must have the skills to do so and we must be great at them.

Obviously, this judgement of mine has been clouded by cynicism. But, I cannot help noticing how the more immoral and/or reactionary people are, the more likely they are to be accomplished in organisational and communication skills.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Can we stop pretending that every person who helps Ukrainian refugees is moral?

If you help people regardless of backgrounds, then you do have kindness in your heart.

But, we can clearly see people – in this case, westerners and their governments – are picky.

Not long after Russia started invading Ukraine, Europeans were quick to aid the incoming Ukrainians on the borders. The governments were on it to, with high-ranking officials showing supports for the refugees; even the Polish government sent veterinarians to help anyone who brought their pets.

And it is not just Europeans. Other countries like US and Canada also flocked to help. Even their firefighters donated equipment to their Ukrainian counterparts!

And the public discourse – unless one includes Tankies and Putin’s cocksuckers in the picture – is entirely sympathetic to the plight of Ukrainian people. They are perceived as human beings undeserving of such dire situations. No one was making a fuss about the refugees’ age and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Overall, the humanitarianism was unconditional.

Compare that when brown, non-western refugees were involved.

I acknowledege that many people did welcome them with open arms. But, there were also as many as people who greeted them with dehumanising hostility.

They constantly suffered violence on the hands of border patrols of the so-called civilised European countries. Many still live in refugee camps. Countries like Australia and the US think asylum-seeking is a crime comparable to murder. Denmark wanted to take refugees’ possessions as “payments”. Far-right ideologies became even more popular.

And the discourses are just as bad.

There were so many dangerous misinformation about the refugees. When certain refugees committed atrocities, the rest had to endure guilt by association. People genuinely believed the refugees had to stay in their own countries and risked their lives fixing the problems, especially if they were young men (because, even in dire situations, arbitrary gender roles must stay upheld). People would lose their shit when they saw refugees with mobile phones, laptops and expensive watches (because we all know those protect us from violence).

Some people suddenly argued we should focus on more important issues like women’s rights, children’s welfare, homelessness, LGBT+ rights, religious extremism and veterans’ welfare, even though none of them couldn’t give less fuck about those issues prior the brown refugee crisis (and they didn’t seem to mind having white Christians as religious extremists). They tried hiding their lack of humanity by putting on pragmatic or moral masks….. and fucking morons fell for it.

I almost forgot to mention how joyful people were when refugees got killed, almost killed or tortured. A Syrian family lost of their children to a house fire? Less Muslims to worry about. Refugees almost drowned? Funniest shit ever. Refugee children traumatised after getting caged? Womp womp.

I don’t know why I have to compare it to the Middle Eastern refugee crisis. Even the Ukrainian one has bigotry issues.

Non-white people in Ukraine – foreign or not – were prohibited to leave. There were even cases in which black, foreign men were given guns and told to fight for Ukraine. How the fuck is it okay to force foreigners – some of whom never planned to stay in Ukraine permanently – to fight for a country that is not even theirs and yet you allow the white citizens of said country to fucking flee for their lives? One white dead body is too many, any number of brown and black dead bodies is acceptable.

My point is I wish people are honest with themselves. If you hate your fellow human beings simply for being different from you, just say it!

The selectiveness of your empathy, your support or excuses for far-right ideologies, your penchant to fall for misinformation about non-white refugees, it is so obvious you have biases against certain races, cultures and religions. So, why bother putting up that translucent facade of yours?

And no, you don’t need to fear.

If governments implement anti-brown-refugee policies and mainstream media spreads anti-brown-refugee rhetorics, shouldn’t you feel at home in the mainstream society? I mean, it sure sounds you are one of the “normal” ones.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

So, you think the Russians are complicit?

If so, why?

Why do you think the ordinary Russians are guilty of the wars? Do you realise that not only the war has low support among them and the soldiers, they also live under an authoritarian regime and therefore, rendering them politically powerless? Do you realise that speaking out against the government can get you jailed and even killed?

I have to state the obvious because some of you still don’t get it and I don’t know why. Maybe you are a privileged fuck who spent their whole life in a liberal democratic bubble and don’t know how it feels to live under political repression. Or maybe, you are a bigot who will do anything to justify your dehumanising hatred of the Russians, regardless of the facts.

If you are the former, you probably think the Russian people can easily form paramilitary units and topple the government in days. You probably think the Russian people are lazy people whose desire for liberty is as paper thin as your desire to understand fellow human beings.

You probably think The Arab Spring and the fall of the USSR are great examples of how easy it is to defeat authoritarianism, even though the reality shows otherwise.

(I don’t know why I use the word “probably” when you motherfuckers explicitly spew those beliefs)

The Arab world are still packed with tyrannical leaders, Syria and Libya become plagued with instability, Russia in the 90’s was full of political and economic crises and it ends up with a post-Soviet tyrant anyway.

Basically, not only there is no guarantee of better lives, there is also high possibility of even worse ones; those who spend their lives in liberal democracies don’t know the feeling.

As you can see, I believe it is stupid to hold all Russians accountable. But, even if I believe such intellectual retardation, how does that make Americans and their allies?

Americans have way more freedom to oppose the establishment. But, the majority of them chose to support the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, happily consumed pro-war media content and even reelected their president! Even to this day, many Americans still make excuses for the invasions and American media has yet to acknowledge their past sin.

And American allies …

Some actively supported America in the invasions and even committing their own war crimes. Those who were not busy participating could have easily boycotted America and other war participants… and yet, they did none of those.

Despite having the freedom to publicly oppose the wars, to vote every single war-mongering politician out of office, to put every single war-mongering media outlet out of business and having the power to boycott entire countries, they voluntarily choose to support the wars, vote for the war-mongers and keep making them extremely rich and let the war participants unpunished.

I don’t believe all Americans and all citizens of their allies are complicit, just like I don’t believe all Russians are. In this regard, I am consistent. But, some of you clearly aren’t.

If you believe all Russians are complicit, then you should also believe all Americans and their allies are blood-thirsty war-mongers who want their children and children’s children aroused by the sight of white people turning brown people into mutilated corpses.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

So, you think you are anti-bigotry and extremism?

If I ask you what bigotry is, I am sure your answer would be something like, “the demonisation of (an) entire group(s)”. If I ask you what extremism is, I am sure yours would be something like, “the embrace of extreme views and/or actions”. Everyone can get the gist what both words mean.

Well, not really.

If you condemn someone for demonising an entire group of distinct human beings, then you are anti-bigotry. If you condemn someone for justifying the brutalisation of innocent people just for achieving certain goals, then you are anti-extremism.

Well, not quite. You are anti both IF you apply those attitudes to literally every person, including yourself.

If you condemn certain Muslims for being extremists and yet you justify the killing of innocent Muslims by American government OR you condemn American foreign policy and yet you justify the deaths of Americans in 9/11, you are not anti-bigotry and extremism.

Not only you see those groups as nothing but giant monoliths, you believe it is acceptable for anyone to kill the people simply for sharing “membership” with the bad apples. Not only you are anti to neither, you embrace them.

So many people have accused me of complicity to bigotry and extremism. Why? Because I defend not just myself, my fellow Muslims, my fellow Indonesians, but also non-Muslim and non-Indonesian fellow human beings from proudly malicious generalisations.

My accusers believe the only way to fight bigotry and extremism is to stereotype and even incite violence against entire groups. When I call them out, they always deny it. But, they always throw the accusation at me only after I denounce their stereotyping and incitement, not because I explicitly and implicitly justify the evil they supposedly condemn.

Yes, supposedly. It is very apparent they hate the immorality only when it is perpetrated by the wrong crowds; if the perpetrators are the “right” people AKA their allies and themselves, they would paint their immorality as praise-worthy, truth-telling politically incorrectness.

Call me radical. But, you cannot be anti-something when you love embracing that something.

Oh, and I also acknowledge both words are loaded. I do agree they shouldn’t be thrown around easily. But, I am confident I am utilising them appropriately.

I have encountered so many people who insist someone cannot be bigoted if they are not violent. Thankfully, unlike them, my standard isn’t that low.

If you have dehumanising beliefs about the “others”, you are bigoted. If you believe the end justifies even the most violent means, you are extremist.

If you are neither, why are you okay with such thoughts nesting in your thinking organ? Heck, why are they there in the first place?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Violence needed?

Before I talk about violence, let’s talk about sex for a moment.

I don’t remember who made the quote. But, reading it, I felt stupid for not realising it sooner. Basically, it asserted that depiction of sex should be more acceptable than the depiction of violence.

Why? Because sex is nice and violence isn’t. Religious sins aside, I am certain every non-asexual person who has ever lived finds consensual sex pleasurable. I would be surprised if you can many people who enjoy getting stabbed and shot at.

Unnecessary depiction of sex -even in a small amount- can be distracting. But, unless I am a small-time actor who cannot opt out from performing the scenes, I prefer that over excessive violence.

This makes me wonder: why do creators love depicting violence?

Obviously, unless they need psychiatric help, the answer is not that they love it.

If they openly admit they create anything that is popular, they are profoundly intrigued by the existence of violence or they just love action-oriented scenes, then I get why they create violent works.

If they dwell with stories of superheroes, criminals, martial artists, soldiers or adventurers and claim such stories won’t work without violence, then my feelings are mixed.

On one hand, I do get why said stories need violence. All of them deal with lots of physical actions and may feature violent characters, which are not inherently out of place.

But, on the other hand, what I said above is arbitrary.

Superhero and war stories can focus on the nature of heroism and morality and how the actions psychologically affect the protagonists; the latter can also focus on the validity of patriotism. Crimes do not always involve violence and their stories can also explore the nature of morality. Martial art stories can focus on the characters’ journey of improving their craft and that can be very psychological. And adventure stories? I am certain we don’t need violent villains to experience greater risk in our lives; life will provide it for us.

If you want to depict abusive relationships, the depiction of physical aspect is just a bonus; the most painful part about it is – once again – the psychological effects. Words – even ones uttered by the calmest and honeyed voice – can hurt more than cuts and bruises… and I personally can attest to that.

From my perspective, those creators appear to possess limited amount of imagination; they are unable to conjure narratives devoid of violent acts. They are unable to be creative with their supposedly beloved genres.

I have very limited experiences immersing myself in works of various genres. And yet, I can easily conjure war, superhero, martial art and adventure story ideas that do not involve violence.

Admittedly, I have problems writing stories inspired my own life using magical realist and surrealist styles – styles which I find most comfortable writing fiction in – , let alone writing genres which I clearly have no skills and knowledge in. It would be a miracle if I ever finish more than ten short stories in my lifetime.

But, one thing for certain: I don’t feel insecure about my own imagination.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to depict violence

There is a spoiler alert for the Amazon show Invincible, assuming you are not exposed to its memes.

I genuinely don’t mind about the presence of violence in arts and entertainment. My problem lies on how it is being depicted.

For one, it is obvious many in the creative industry are either too lazy or too incompetent to depict violence off-screen. I prefer the violence to be insinuated and having a greater focus on the aftermath. I am sure even adequately diligent and skilled filmmakers are able to create such scenes.

But, I won’t dwell too much on the undisguised depiction. As much as I love complaining about it, I am still able to tolerate the lack of subtlety. What I don’t tolerate is the trivialisation.

Here’s the thing about trauma: literally anything can traumatise you. Something does not have to be violent or injurious to be traumatic. It can be so by simply being significantly bad in your life.

And yet, most entertainment works love depicting violence as something which won’t traumatise us, as something we can brush off easily.

Even in superhero stories, I find that problematic. Yes, superheroes have superhuman physical strength. But, immunity from mental disorders is never explicitly mentioned.

I make a big deal out of this because we are accustomed to perceive mental disorders as either weaknesses or things we choose to suffer from. The fact that the media we consume do the same thing means our false perception is constantly being affirmed. It certainly does not help that many characters in our favourite entertainment are relatable, even those who are not (fully) human beings.

Even if they don’t or won’t suffer mentally, at least mention how desensitised they have or will become.

Oh, and there is a reason why I mentioned superheroes and non-human characters.

Recently, I have been watching clips (no, not entire episodes) of Invincible; if it wasn’t for a comic book nerd friend of mine, I would have never heard of the show.

Just by watching the snippets, I cannot help but feeling impressed. The voice acting performance is great, it is emotionally impactful and the inclusion of humour is seamless (love the scene where our protagonist almost catches his parents “doing it”).

And then, there are the scenes the show is infamous for.

Disappointed that Mark is too soft, his father “toughens” him up by using his body to mutilate innocent people. When the method fails, his dad beats him literally almost to death.

Mark ends up hospitalised for two weeks and is obviously saddened by his father’s betrayal. But, there are no indications of impending psychological trauma.

I don’t know why. But, if it wasn’t for the show’s existence, I would have never thought about this.

There are indeed exceptions. But, they are too rare for my liking.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“You are not from here! Shut the f#@k up!”

Those are the words regurgitated by Americans and, to a lesser extent, Brits and Aussies every time I -an Indonesian- critically comment on their countries. They believe I don’t have the grounds to do so and should just focus on my shitty country.

Do they have a point? No, they don’t.

Yes, I have only visited the US and the UK once long ago and I only lived in Australia for around a year. But, at the same time, I am (relatively) proficient in the English language. It enables me to interact with Americans, Brits and Aussies and getting to know their worldviews, both the good and the ugly.

Some of them try to camouflage their rotten true selves by spraying fragrant rhetoric into the air, successfully fooling the fools. Some don’t even try to hide their rottenness. While it is indeed hard to smell beyond the perfume, the unconcealed rotten stench is hard to ignore.

My English fluency also enables me to consume Anglophone media (even though I have been consuming it long before I could properly understand the language). Yes, it does not represent the reality. But, it does represent the ideals approved by the establishment and/or the masses.

As the Queen’s accent has become less prevalent in British TV shows and films, we can confidently say its social prestige has dwindled in the UK. As American pop culture has romanticise depictions of America’s interventionist foreign policy and no one bats an eye, we can confidently say the American public and establishment tolerate or even embrace interventionism.

How we react to the news stories are also very revealing. As many Americans are aroused by reports of police brutality, we can confidently say violent authority figures are worshipped by a large chunk of the American public.

How about those foreigners who want me to shut the fuck up? How much do they know about Indonesia?

Unsurpisingly, almost nothing.

None of them have ever visited it; when they do, they have only visited Bali, an extremely touristy province with predominantly-Hindu locals. None of them can speak Indonesian or any Malay dialects, hindering them from exploring the Indonesian mass media and the people’s reactions to its content.

For many of them, I am their first contact with an Indonesian. Some of them claim to have Indonesian friends which they are deem more knowledgeable about the country than I am, probably because they affirm false preconceived notions.

Sometimes I wonder if their Indonesian friends actually spent much of their lives abroad and have spent little or no time living here. Sometimes I wonder if they even exist. Call me a denier. But, knowing how humans behave, my scepticism is justified.

Those foreigners are indeed right to say Indonesia is a predominantly-Muslim country with human rights violations. But, those are extremely broad remarks. Everyone knows Indonesia is predominantly-Muslim and saying that a country has human rights violations is as in-depth as saying it has foods. It means shit.

When they do detail the cases, they exaggerate virtually all of them to a thousandfold.

Aceh does enforce compulsory hijab. But, there is no national policy obliging women to wear it and they can been seen ‘uncovered’ in the public spaces.

There are indeed territories that shut down churches under the pretense of ‘permit issues’. But, outside those territories, there are tens of thousands of churches still standing with thriving congregations.

Aceh, an Indonesian province, does implement provincial Sharia and that empowers Islamists all over the country. But, we have thirty-four provinces and Aceh is literally the only one governed under religious legislation; our national government does not use Sharia as its guiding principles, never declares the country as ‘Islamic’ and, in fact, acknowledges five other religions. The reality contradicts that infamous Pew Report (which probably only surveyed ‘mosque dwellers’ instead of those who have lives outside mosques and idiots still believe in the inherent quantitative researches despite sampling bias being a fucking real problem).

If you ask those foreigners, they would probably get many basic facts of Indonesia wrong.

Ask them to find the country on the map and they would probably point to the wrong location.

Ask them about its number of population and they would be surprised the country is the fourth most populated in the world.

Ask them to name our official language and they would probably answer ‘Arabic’, thinking that all Muslims are Arabs and vice versa.

Ask them to name our ethnic groups and they would probably stutter and think there is only one, not expecting any forms of diversity (there are far-right westerners who falsely believe every non-western country is homogenous and they utilise the lie as an argument against multiculturalism in the west).

Ask them to name the country which Bali is a part of and many of them would be shocked it is not a country; they would also be shocked that a predominantly-Hindu territory and an extremely hedonistic tourist destination is a province of a predominantly-Muslim country (and it seems the misconception indirectly endorse the falsehood about Indonesia being a Saudi Arabia clone).

If you ask me any basic facts about Australia, the UK and the US, there is a chance I would fare better than many of the citizens. Many Americans still think English is the de jure official language of their country and many Aussies and Brits still don’t know the duties of most present-day monarchs, including the British ones, are entirely ceremonial. I can also name of said countries’ many territories, including their still-existing colonies; many Americans don’t know what DC stands for and that Puerto Rico is a US territory.

In conclusion, not only the foreigners who told me to shut up don’t have any credibility to comment on my country, I have more credibility to comment on their own countries than they do… and mind you, my credibility is still low considering I don’t live there.

To change the topic a bit…

I am also rather assertive with my opinions about East Asia. Not as much. But, it still manages to irk one of my friends.

He said I couldn’t speak any East Asian languages and I have never lived in the region. As a person of East Asian descent who can speak multiple East Asian languages and have lived in two East Asian countries, he was annoyed by me and reasonably so.

But, he was also fucking annoying.

Instead of giving me evidences that counter my remarks, he simply said I should simply try living in those countries. For him, it was more than enough to put me in my place.

Yeah, no.

When foreigners claim Indonesia is an Islamic theocracy, I can tell them that the country still has loads of active non-Islamic places of worships, hijab-less women outside Aceh and things that are considered ‘un-Islamic’… and I can support my claim by simply linking them to countless videos showcasing hijab-less Indonesian women, vibrant church worships and the secular, extremely hedonistic and highly-westernised Indonesian pop culture.

Whether they convince the fools or not, it does not matter. I know my country rather well (I love to think so, anyway) and I have a decent internet access. Therefore, I have the means to debunk the falsehood and I can do so almost instantly. I have no excuses to not do so.

My friend annoys me because he complains about my alleged ignorance… and yet he does not bother to counter despite having the means to do so.

I don’t know how a person can see ignorance right in front of him/her, get agitated by it and somehow too lazy to annihilate it.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The real American power…

… Is actually soft.

I am referring to the concept of “soft power”, by the way. And no, I am not sorry for that shitty introduction.

I keep seeing and hearing comments made by zealously patriotic Americans about how their beloved country is respected by the world because of its hard power.

It is true to a certain extent. If you are one of those non-Americans who easily fall for American exceptionalism and who love jerking off to images of real life violence which America is responsible for while simultaneously getting unprotected, rough butt sex from America, you would drool over its hard power.

But, most non-Americans aren’t like that. When their governments do bow down to the US, they do so out of not wanting to get screwed on the world stage and NOT out of genuine respect.

Basically, projections of hard power, more of than not, are a form of bullying. Bullying with dire global consequences.

But, do you know what people all over the world love? American culture.

Experts of international relations have been arguing how affinity to foreign cultures will lead us to have more positive views of their countries of origin.

And because of my own life experiences (which I have to assert as entirely mine), this is something I am not surprised about.

Despite their constant criticism (bashing) of the USA, many of my fellow non-Americans (in this case, they are mostly Indonesians) can’t get themselves to wish literal death upon the country.

And they all have one thing in common: they openly enjoy American culture.

Apart from buying foods from American fast food restaurants and cafes, they go to cinemas mostly for Hollywood flicks, pay for cable TV to Hollywood TV shows and pay to attend concerts of American musicians.

How about the propaganda present in Hollywood films?

From what I notice, even some of the most dimwitted folks I know can easily acknowledge the propagandistic content of their sources of entertainment.

They know that they don’t easily fall for the infamously shameless American propaganda and they also feel Americans can entertain the world like no others. That’s why they are relatively unperturbed about it.

Me personally? A bulk of my favourite entertainers and artists are Americans; without them, I would have nothing but contempt for the United States of America.

Oh, and I should say ordinary Americans also contribute to their country’s positive image.

The last time I was surrounded by Americans, it was almost two decades ago when I visited the US as a young boy. I don’t remember interacting much with the locals.

But, if one sees the anecdotes posted by many non-Americans online, they frequently perceive the Americans as friendly, easy-going, open-minded, educated and charitable people and often seen as the antitheses of the US government (somewhat debatable).

The more negative anecdotes are often the results of interacting with the stereotypically jingoistic, war-mongering, fear-mongering, bubble-dwelling and proudly anti-intellectual Americans.

You know, Americans like Donald “Make America Great Again” Trump.

Americans who think their Godawful, alpha-wannabe attitudes will gain them genuine respect from the world.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I support colonialism…..

*puts on mask*

… because I am insecure little bitch of a citizen who needs extreme empowerment.

There is nothing more gratifying than the country I unwillingly was born into invade foreign territories and pretend they are destined by the universe to be ours.

It is even more gratifying that colonialism can also destroy the cultures and economies of the colonies. That way, they can suffer from extreme cultural and economic dependence on the motherlands, giving them even greater power projection on the world stage.

And I hate how my beloved country of Indonesia is not harsh enough in its colonisation of the Papuans.

The problem is Indonesia’s official motto is Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Unity in diversity. It forces us to wear a pluralistic mask, hiding the real face of our country.

Why can’t we be just like the Americans, the English, the French and the Japanese in the old days? If they keep doing what they were doing, so-called “languages” like Hawaiian, Gaelic, Basque and Ainu would cease to exist and the world would be a better place.

If it were my call, I would do my best to annihilate those savage Papuan “cultures” by punishing anyone who dare to embrace them and force the embrace of Javanese culture, which is inherently noble, wonderfully anti-egalitarian and is definitely a real, proper culture.

Not only that, I would also encourage skin bleaching and plastic surgery to the Papuans who have the dignity of not wanting to be monkeys.

Seriously, if people call you monkeys, it’s your fault for looking like ones.

I also hate how the Papuan provinces are given political autonomy. Literally the only provinces that deserve it are the ones who embrace Javanese supremacy!

If anything, not only I oppose the transfer of power, I also believe the Papuans should be stripped of their power to vote!

As they are subhumans, they are unable to make any good decisions. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote for the presidents and MPs!

Heck, I even believe they should not choose their own mayors! Everything has to be entirely up to Jakarta!

Of course, I have to be fair as well.

Despite my criticism, I also have to praise my country for making Papuans too economically dependent on western Indonesia, to the point they have to survive the high living cost with their pathetically meagre incomes.

Finally and most importantly, I also love how the government has successfully bred a morally-corrupt, violent and historically-illiterate citizenry.

When Papuans committed riots after a racist incident, it did not take much time for many Indonesians to condemned them for rioting and not spending a single second on condemning the racists.

Basically, they thought the Papuans were rioting for no good reasons. Hopefully, many probably still do.

If I think about it, the pluralistic official motto is a great tool for Indonesia’s colonialism of western Papua.

Most of us believe the official motto is the reflection of reality instead of a mere guidance. As a result, we see our country as the most tolerant and peaceful in the world despite its glaring bouts of sectarian violence.

Not only that, we also fool ourselves into believing the falsehood about how Papuans prayed to be rescued by the peaceful and tolerant Indonesians from the colonialist and racist Dutch monsters, even though annexation can be executed without the people’s consent and is a common method used by colonial and imperial powers.

We greatly mistreat the Papuans and then we gaslight them into believing that the mistreatments are societal well-being. Well-being they supposedly would have never enjoyed if they remain as Dutch subjects.

While I hate how we are too soft on them, I have to acknowledge that we have been giving them the deserving fingers for decades.

Now, it is time for us to give even more fingers.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The problem with forgiveness

We think we have the right to forgive every person who have committed wrongdoings.

But, we don’t.

The prerogative to forgive does not immediately apply to every person in existence. It only immediately so to those who are directly affected by the wrongdoings.

If you are directly affected by one of those wrongdoings, you are literally the only person who has the right to forgive those who have harmed you.

Your loved ones have the right to forgive once you have manifested WHOLEHEARTED forgiveness. After they have expressed THE EXACT SAME THING or AFTER THEY ARE DECEASED, the right now transfers to your acquaintances and also to complete strangers who have heard about your suffering.

But, what if you are deceased?

Obviously, that right immediately goes to your loved ones. Oh, and when I said “loved ones”, I meant it. Your immediate family members do not immediately count ones.

Just because you are related to someone, that does not mean you love one another. If anything, it is no secret that family members have not only trivialised the sufferings of their so-called loved ones, but also have intentionally inflicted pain on them.

If your best friends have shown how much they care about you more than your immediate family have, then they are your true “loved ones” and your family can fuck themselves!

I believe this problem exists because we communalise sufferings.

We believe in the idea that if one person suffers, every other person definitely feels the exact same pain. We believe that there is nothing wrong about pretending to feel the exact same pain.

Even if someone experiences the exact same affliction that you have or had, it does not mean you fully understand his/her suffering. Literally everybody is different; how you live your life won’t always work on other people. Forgiveness is not a universally effective antidote.

Those who suffer do not need our pretense. They need our empathy.

Empathy does not require us to pretend. Empathy requires us to simply acknowledge that what they are experiencing is painful to them, even though we don’t feel the pain ourselves.

—-

This anger of mine has been slowly brewing for years and the brewing started to intensify when I saw internet users who believed the Nazi war criminals should be forgiven and we should just drop the idea of prosecuting them just because they are old.

It deeply disturbs me because not only they trivialised the severity of human atrocity committed by the Nazis, they don’t even have any family members who endured the concentration camps.

Well, I am inclined to believe so because they didn’t mention having victims and survivors of the holocaust as family members. If they want their pleas to be more emotionally impactful, shouldn’t they mention about having those relatives?

Either they suck in persuasion or they are assholes.

My anger peaked when one of those plea makers cited the post-genocide Rwanda as a stellar example of forgiveness.

Except, it is a dreadful example.

When interviewed by Humans of New York, Rwandan president Paul Kagame said the country decided to not punish those who partook in the genocide.

Why? Because he said it was impossible to imprison almost the entire country.

Essentially, what Rwanda did was not forgiveness. What they did was absolution, a state-sanctioned formality, which itself driven by admittedly much needed yet still callous sense of pragmatism.

It is just dishonest to call this “forgiveness”, isn’t it?

Forgiveness is supposed to benefit humanity. Instead, it is being used to undermine it.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.