Archive

Posts Tagged ‘SJW-ism’

On Hari Kondabolu’s Crusade against ‘Apu’ Character in The Simpsons

October 30, 2018 5 comments

I am sure that many readers of this blog have, over the last few months, heard something about an obscure (and untalented) Indian “comedian” known as Hari Kondabolu try to use a SJW-ism heavy documentary to promote the claim that the Apu character in ‘The Simpsons’ is somehow an incredibly racist stereotype. So let me begin by acknowledging that the Apu character is a racial stereotype, and was always seen as such- even when it was introduced as early as the 8th episode of Season 1 in 1990. Nor am I pushing the counter-argument that it is all OK because every characters in that show is a stereotype (which is also correct). Instead, I will focus on the likely motivations for a person such as Kondabolu to go on this fake moral crusade.

But before we go into Kondabolu’s likely and selfish motivations, let me tell me what struck me about this controversy when I first heard it a few months ago. While portrayals of non-whites in american media have almost always been negative, till the last few years- there was one aspect of Kondabolu’s crusade which immediately felt odd, even then. The choice of Apu as the most pernicious media stereotype for a person of Indian descent struck me as peculiar, since it ignored the significantly worse stereotype presented by the Raj Koothrappali character on that sad laugh-track ridden piece of crap aka ‘the Big Bang Theory’. So what made Kondabolu ignore a far worse stereotypical character from a much more recent show?

To understand what I am talking about, let us quickly compare both fictional characters starting with Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. As you might have guessed from the inauthentic name itself, this character in ‘The Simpsons’ is basically how many supposedly “liberal” and “enlightened” whites in USA saw Indian immigrants throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Having said that, many features of this character other than his (also) inauthentic accent are actually not negative. Confused? Let me explain. The character of Apu is a highly educated guy from India who ends up running a popular convenience store in Springfield. Note that he is never shown as incompetent or stupid. In fact, he is shown as far more knowledgeable than other characters on that show.

Apu is not depicted as being psychically smaller than other characters, effeminate or sexually awkward around women. More importantly, his life does not revolve being associated with white characters. In other words, he has his own life, world and complete social circle. He is also not interested nor seeking acceptance from white characters in that show. His political views are also not liberal or conservative. For example, he is pro-gun rights but also has no interest becoming a Christian to gain more social acceptance. Long story short, the character of Apu is fully fleshed out and equal to others on that show. One could even say that he is one of the better examples of a non-white character in american media, especially one from early 1990s.

Now let us talk about the abortion known as Raj Koothrappali on the laugh-track ridden crap-a-thon known as ‘The Big Bang Theory’. Compared to the character of Apu, Raj is brownface. What makes this even more problematic is that this particular show started in 2007. So what is this character’s distinguishing features? Well.. for starters, he too is highly educated- but any similarities with Apu end right there. Unlike Apu, the character of Raj is repeatedly shown as naive, stupid and ignorant of “american white” social conventions. He is also depicted as the “undeserving” rich progeny of some Indian guy. He has no social life beyond hanging with and trying to gain social acceptance from a bunch of white social losers.

The character of Raj, in contrast to Apu, therefore does not display agency. He is nothing more the punchline of jokes and a target for extra ridicule in that show, unlike Apu. He is not depicted as having any strong belief system, secular or otherwise. Did I mention that he is physically smaller than the other dweebs on that show? But it get’s worse. He is repeatedly shown as highly effeminate, one might say.. quasi-gay. In fact, for many years, he was shown as unable to speak in front of (white) women without being drunk. He is also depicted as unable to manage his own money or life, in other words- infantile. And that hack.. I mean Kondabolu wants us to believe that the character of Apu was a negative racial stereotype.

So why did that sad hack choose to focus on Apu in ‘The Simpsons’ rather than the execrable character of Raj in that abomination. It comes down to a calculation. Kondabolu calculated that he could get more media coverage if he went after a more well-known character than a less well-known one. Think about it, had most of you heard about Hari Kondabolu before this controversy? Why not? If you read a bit about his early career, you can clearly see a guy who is desperate to use any SJW-type issue to become famous and rich. Kondabolu was heavily in the SJW scene even before most of us knew about its existence. His choice of target had, therefore, everything to do with self-promotion and nothing to do with a genuine interest in the cause.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Most Likely Mode of Discreditation for TransGenderism Ideology

July 28, 2018 22 comments

Many of you might have noticed, over the past five years, that not a day goes by without some mainstream media outlet publishing a piece or two about how biological gender is passé and becoming transgender is somehow the hippest, coolest or bravest thing to do. They also seem to promote the viewpoint that becoming transgender somehow results in people becoming happy and mysteriously solving many of their problems. Oddly enough, these same ivy-league anointed presstitutes are still amused by the idea of male members of the Heaven’s Gate cult undergoing voluntary castration in order to meet space aliens.

Then again, recent human history has no shortage of equally peculiar ideologies becoming fashionable for a period of time before being exposed as highly problematic and then becoming extremely disreputable. Did you, for example, know that the idea of forcibly separating the children of first-nation people in Canada and Australia to be “educated” in residential schools was once considered sound public policy? Or how about the once widespread public acceptance for forced sterilization of poor and non-white women In USA? Or how a bizarre surgical procedure such as lobotomy were once seen as a cure-all for anything that looked like “mental illness”.

I could give you many more examples such as race-based eugenics, recovery of memories of ritual satanic abuse etc .. but you get the point. Anyway, let us talk about why the transgender ideology as it being promoted today is almost certain to meet the same end as a number of these now utterly discredited and highly noxious ideologies. But before we go there, let us talk about the difference between that ideology and sexual orientation. To be more precise, let us talk about why sexual orientation is a totally different creature than transgenderism.

Firstly, the fact that a percentage of people prefer being sexually intimate with somebody of their own sex has been common knowledge throughout human history. There have always been gay men, lesbian women and bi-sexual men and women. If you don’t believe me just look the art, literature, stories and other documentary evidence from non-christian cultures and even some christian cultures. Do you think all those extremely close male friends of certain famous roman emperors were just friends? Do you think that the Pope who commissioned Michelangelo to paint frescoes in St. Peter’s Basilica was not aware of his sexual orientation? Do you think people in 17th-19th century were oblivious about what went aboard sailing ships with all-male crews?

And this brings me to the second relevant difference between sexual orientation and the ideology of transgenderism. When was the last time homosexuality was promoted as somehow ethically or morally superior to heterosexuality? The vast majority of gay men will always tell you that they discovered while growing up that they were born with said sexual orientation. The same goes for lesbian women and bi-sexual men and women. They simply wanted true legal equality and freedom from harassment and discrimination- which is something any rational person can agree with. And now, we have legal equality for them in most western countries.

By now, you might have figured out that I have no issue whatsoever with people finding their sexual orientation as they grow up. As you will soon see, there is a reason why I have highlighted some words in previous sentence and paragraph. To understand what I am getting at, let us talk a bit about myself- specifically my strong preferences for certain body types in women and certain BDSM practices. So how did I come to know that I preferred women with toned and curvy behinds or how did I figure out that I was into spanking willing women? Well.. the simple answer is that I just kept on going towards what I really liked over a period of years.

I did not reach my current physical preferences in women or sexual practices because those were considered fashionable or because somebody else told me or encouraged me in that direction. I reached there on my own and am therefore completely satisfied with the destination. But what does any of this have to do with the failure mode of transgenderism as an ideology? And why did I talk about all those other now discredited and noxious ideologies with no apparent connection to transgenderism near the beginning of this post?

What is the real connection between highly abusive residential schools for first-nation children, forced sterilization based on consideration of race-based eugenics, the use of horrendous surgical procedures such as lobotomy and the transgender ideology in its current form? Well.. it comes down to the validity of consent given by of those damaged by such “interventions”. To put it another way, if a person of sound mind who has reached the age of legal consent decides that they want to undergo surgery for transitioning into somebody of the opposite sex- well.. that is their right. And as long as they are aware of the realistic limitations that such a change would have on the quality of their life- that is their business.

But what about children and adolescents who do not have the range of life experiences and mental maturity necessary to make such a life altering decision? And this is not simply a “will nobody think of the children” type question. Consider for example, the consequences of an overenthusiastic mother putting her male child, who allegedly displays some feminine tendencies, on drugs to block puberty. What happens if the subject of such an intervention grows up to regret its effects? Is the mother and the “medical professionals” who supported and facilitated such a decision guilty of castrating that child? And this is the most likely scenario, since mothers seeking male-to-female transitions for their allegedly trans male child are far more common than mother seeking a female-to-male transition for their female child.

Or what about clinics who dole out hormone blockers and bilateral orchidectomies to any adolescent complaining of something hastily diagnosed as ‘gender dysphoria’? What happens when some teenage boy with mental health issues who thinks he is ‘trans’ and undergoes an orchidectomy grows up to regret that decision? What if the teenage boy makes that decision based on an air-brushed promise that transition to a woman will somehow improve his life? Who is responsible if the subject of such an irreversible surgery believes he was lied to by medical professionals? Are you now starting to appreciate how horrendously problematic the current elite and media driven fascination with helping children and adolescents to ‘transition’ could become?

How bad could the delayed backlash really be? Let me help you understand with a few thought experiments and examples.. Would you, for example, dare to support the ‘aboriginal residential schools system’ in polite company in Canada or Australia? If now, why not? Would you support raced-based eugenics, forced sterilization and lobotomies at your office Christmas party and still have a job in the coming year? Remember that they were all once “common sense” policies supported by the majority and governments of that era. Heck.. those who still support them on twitter are fearful of their employers and friends finding out.

Did you know that Penn State university will have to pay over 220 million to survivors of the eponymous sexual abuse scandal. And that is secondary to the reputational costs of that scandal to recruitment for their famous football program. Or what about the massive reputational hit to USA Gymnastics and 500 million dollar payout by Michigan State University because they looked the other way while Larry Nassar diddled hundreds of little girls under his care? Can you now imagine a catholic priest without also thinking of the enormous sexual abuse scandal and coverup within the catholic church. And remember, the vast majority of children affected by those scandals were only mentally scarred.

Now try to imagine the size of the shit-storm, a decade from now, when thousands of children and adolescents who were transitioned while legally minor or under air-brushed assurances realize that they are very unhappy with results of irreversible surgical and medical procedures. Even the loudest squawking by ‘trans’ activists will then have no effect on the course of events, resulting in the utter discreditation of these ‘activists’ in popular public perception. We have seen this story many times before, and it always ends badly for the ‘activists’ and whatever bullshit cause they are promoting.

Have a feeling that responses to this post will necessitate another one on this topic.

What do you think? Comments?