Photographing Things.

I've been photographing things for a long time now. Yup. Got myself a nice little DSLR camera. I take pictures with it. Mostly of things. People. People sometimes. I take pictures of them doing things. Or not doing things depending on what they are or are not doing at the time. I take a lot of pictures of fellow comedians. I take pictures of bands. I take pictures of street art and graffiti. I take pictures when I travel. I take pictures when I'm at home. I take pictures. It's fun. Do you take pictures? You should take pictures. It's fun. It's also hard. It can be hard to take pictures. The hard part is learning. But learning is fun. Fun. Yes. I like learning. I'm always learning. I'm always learning and usually learning when I am not even aware that I am learning. I am learning to take pictures better. But it's slow. Oh so slow. I don't get the whole F-stops thing. Do you do? It gets me all confused all the time. Stupid F-stops. Who decided F-stops were a good idea? Pfffft. F-stops.

Good night.

To Halal or Not to Halal

Okay, I found another twitter topic to discuss. Yay. Good ol' twitter. Perfect for writing prompts. The issue this time? Halal vs non halal meat. There has been quite a kurfuful regarding the use of halal meats in the UK by some chain restaurants, which has brought a wide ranging discussion about how meat is slaughtered, the role religion plays in this slaughter and in society as a whole, the desire for people to have halal meat labelled as such and then outright right wing attacks on everything to do with Islam or Muslims (as well as right win religious attacks on all that is of the kufr).

Now, apparently, when the glorious Quran was revealed to everyone's favourite prophet, Mohammed, god had a specific way in which he wanted animals slaughtered. This involved a slitting of the neck of the animal and having a lovely prayer said over the beast. That god. He thought of everything, didn't he?

Some say that halal is a brutal, cruel way of killing an animal because it is not stunned before the life ending procedure. Others say is it more humane because....well, god said it was. Truthfully? I don't see it as being any better or worse than non halal slaughter. In theory, both are supposed to be humane or not humane depending on who is determining this (which is not the animals who aren't able to tell us what they would prefer). Too much of our meat comes from factory farms and mass slaughterhouses that hardly provide animals with a decent life. At the same time, there is a growing desire by people to have their meat prepared in more humane ways, wanting to ensure that it is free range and free of growth hormones. They want a better life for the animals they eat before eating them. So, this desire is growing. People want less brutality, but still love a good burger!

Proponents of halal meat say that their method is the antithesis to the brutality of non halal meat while proponents of non halal meat say their method is the antithesis to the brutality of halal meat. Both are right and both are wrong. On paper, both systems look good. In non halal, animals are supposed to be stunned before slaughter. The fact is, that this can often be botched or not adhered to in the most humane of ways. Likewise, the idea that a quick slice to the throat provides a snappy demise is often not properly adhered to with not sharp enough blades, slightly off slices, etc. In the end, both systems have their flaws and benefits.

The demand in the UK is at least for labelling of halal meat so that people know what they are getting and can decide for themselves. Seems fair and reasonable. Yet, for some reason, there seems to be a backlash against this idea. Why? I have no clue. Just label the stuff. There are others calling for an outright banning of religious slaughter like Denmark did. Is this right? Well, sure, I'm not against it, nor for it. I don't believe some god of some sort gave man the idea of how to slaughter animals. It was a man made idea and it's from 1400 years ago (at least in terms of halal). If we have better methods now, and we know how to kill an animal in a more humane way because, you know, we have evolved in our understanding of the world and the creatures we exist with, then we should go with the best method possible. I'm not sure that halal is necessarily, however, as horrible as some say. Again, not being an animal that is about to have it's throat slit, I have no clue what an animal would prefer.

There seems to be some ridiculousness on all sides. First off, I'm getting a bit tired of the Muslims who are critical of non Muslims who wish to not eat halal meat. I've seen them be called ignorant racists, over reactionaries, etc. At the same time, if Muslims were eating non halal meat that they thought was halal, the outrage would be significant. So, there seems to be a bit of a lack of understanding of peoples desires outside of the Muslim community, dismissing the requests of non Muslims. Basically, I say, if you would refuse to eat non halal meat, don't get mad at people because they don't want to eat halal meat. At the same time, we have people saying this is another case of creeping Sharia and must be fought and using it as another way to be right wing idiots. Whatever. Both sides are kind of clued out.

Basically, the solution is, just label the stuff. Make sure people know what they are consuming. We have/request labels for everything from GMO's, free range, organic, place of origin, quality, etc. I don't understand why labelling halal meat as halal meat as an issue. One person on twitter said that it would open up restaurants and people to attacks and they shouldn't be singled out. Huh? Look, just label the stuff. Nothing wrong with it.

It's interesting though that the fury echoes an experience had when we were living in Qatar. Qatar is a pork free country. You can't even buy proper marshmallows because apparently they contain pork by products. Alcohol could only be purchased at a few select restaurants, and at a store in the industrial area that you had to have a special permit to shop at. The store thought they might import some pork so that people with this permit could indulge. Oh man, the uproar. The store was run by Qatar Airways. There were calls to boycott the airline, and so much furor over the idea that a bit of pork may enter the country. The backlash was immense. There, however, when there is anger like this, it is called asking others to adhere to "cultural sensitivities". When it happens in the UK...it's racism...:) Mind you, I still can't figure out which race Islam is, or what race halal slaughter is associated with.

Russell Brand visited the East London Mosque (guided by non other than our good friend Mo Ansar) the other day and said something to the nature of "If you don't want to eat halal, become a vegetarian not a racist". Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding of the fact that Islam isn't a race. As I have said a million and one times, it is a religion, a set of ideas that are open to disagreement, debate, satire and even outright dislike. It is not, and should never be, immune to criticism. It is a religion. It's not okay to hate Muslims just because they are Muslims. That's hating people. But to hate ideas? Not an issue. The idea of halal meat is just that, an idea within a greater set of ideas of how the world should be. Therefore, it should not be protected. It should be questioned, and struck down if shown to be wrong.

So, the issue of halal vs non halal is complex yet simple as the same time. Let's go with the simple part of this: Just label the stuff. Accept that there are going to be differing opinions. If determined to be a completely inhumane way of dealing with slaughter, then consider banning it. It isn't racist to ban a practise that isn't good. Will people have an issue with it? Of course. But, first and foremost, animal welfare should come first here. At the moment, because I don't know enough because I am not an expert in this field, I say just label it. If there is conclusive evidence that halal slaughter is not a good way to go, then I'm not against banning it. At the same time, I think we should be looking at factory farming and mass slaughter practises as well. There is a huge movement scrutinizing them, so it's not like it is an ignored issue as some on the pro halal side claim. It is an issue and many are working on it. But there is no doubt, that is just as big of an issue as halal meat. Let's just do the best we can for the animals. Label meat so people know the source. And continue to research the best methods to slaughter.

When to Write?

I want to write at times when I don't have some news story or twitter outrage. These seem to be the main things that get me writing. I need to find new inspiration, to be able to write when nothing is happening, when things are calm, when my brain isn't filled with all of these thoughts on specific subjects. I suppose you could say writing for the sake of writing and see what the brain can come up with all on it's own without these outside prompts that usually end in posts that are more full of anger than they are happiness, creativity, joy or observations of a nice, warm variety. Did that even make sense? Probably not. It's rambling. Mind you, isn't that sort of what I want to do anyway? Ramble and see what comes out? I guess I just did it. Was it successful? You be the judge. Wait, don't. Just....don't.

Tea anyone?

That was a random thought. I'm not making tea. I don't want tea. I would make tea for you but you are over there, not over here. Make your own tea if you want some. Quit asking me for tea....dammit. 

Stupid Smart People

Do you realize how many people out there are way smarter than me? Stupid idiots, being smarter than me. How am I supposed to look smart when all these stupid smart people are being so stupidly smart and making me look like an idiot! What a bunch of idiots! Here's the deal. I am not a huge, big, fancy educated guy with a PhD label or some other kind of little thingy after my name. But, damn it, I want people to just shut up and accept that I am smart and right even though I am not compared to smart people who are more right while I am wrong and are able to show how wrong I am with their smartness. It's not fair I tell you. And why are so many smart people online anyway? How did all these smart people start using the internet to communicate with people who think they are smart but aren't smart at all, like me. Go away smart people so us fake smart people can get back to thinking we are smart, you stupid idiots. You think you are so smart, eh? Okay, you are so smart. But, shut up and stop being a stupid idiot about being so smart. 

The Troubling Reality of Mo Ansar (with update)

I have been rather drawn into the world of twitter as of late, focused on one individual from the UK who I feel is an interesting subject to focus on. His name is Mo Ansar, a self proclaimed twitter celebrity. You can follow the big guy on twitter here.  He is a "commentator" on Muslim issues, which is something that can't be argued. However, he lists off a whole variety of other titles on his website and twitter bio, the vast majority of which are unsubstantiated. Evidence for most of his claims, including visiting lecturer, Imam, and theologian just doesn't seem to exist in the slightest. No evidence. None. Zero. Nada. Complete goose egg.

This bio from his website SOUNDS incredibly impressive. "A theologian, public speaker and visiting lecturer on Islam in contemporary Britain, Theology and Islamophobia; Mohammed is a civil rights activist and legal advocate working with a number of organisations in the fields of politics, diversity and education. With a wealth of experience tackling extremism and radicalisation, Mohammed has lead and delivered cutting-edge local and national initiatives." So, where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Civil rights activist? Fine, we'll give him that. Anyone can be a civil rights activist. Legal advocate?  Questionable. Theologian? Zero proof of this. Basically, he's good at writing an impressive sounding paragraph. But, as you will see with links to articles below, there is plenty of gaps in some of the claims he makes.

So, why am I so fascinated by this guy? Because he is such an outrageous personality who HAS come up with all of these grand claims of who he is. He has developed this bizarre persona as a grand expert on all issues related to Islam. He wears this utterly pointless outfit all the time to show just how darn Muslim he is, dammit, and it just doesn't make sense. This long thobe, scarf and little hat look like a combined mess of cultural images tossed together to create some kind of official costume. It's mostly Arab in characteristics, which is odd for a Pakistani man who was born in Britain. It's rather farcical, to be quite honest. It smacks of trying too hard. But, it has been very successful and beneficial for him. I think part of the reason that TV stations love to call on Mo at an almost scary level is the fact that he comes out as a prepackaged Muslim complete with costume, who can speak well with no accent, and who can be called at a seconds notice and he will rush down to the TV station and give them exactly what they want. He is an interesting case study that anyone interested in psychology would be fascinated to look at. The type of person he is brings to mind are the ones focused on in John Ronson's brilliantly humorous and interesting "The Psychopath Test". I'm not saying Mo is a psychopath. Not at all. But, just like Ronson meets with these bizarre and interesting characters, I see Mo as a character that is bizarre and interesting that I wish to focus on. What is the point in focusing on a "normal", well adjusted person when you can track down a bizarre and interesting person. Right? Am I right?

I am right, and a number of others seem to be keen on studying him as well. For all intent and purposes, he appears to be nothing but an arrogant fraud as outlined well in this article at a blog called Harry's Place. Mo and his followers have written it off as just some right wing, "neo con" BS smear tactic, but it does raise some important questions that Mo himself doesn't seem willing to come clean about. Another great article questioning his credentials is this one by Adrian Hilton. Someone else, I'm not sure who, has done an excellent job of compiling information about our friend Mo here at Anarchopedia. Basically, we have people across the spectrum, from the left to the right questioning Mo Ansar. Sadly, Mo doesn't seem to want to give many answers, hence his nickname "No Answer". The only people who don't seem to be asking questions about his claims are the media outlets that keep calling on him to be on their shows. Why are they dropping the ball on this? Why are they continually giving a platform to a person, and putting up CG's under his name telling the public about grand titles (like theologian), who has little proof of what he claims to be. What does this say about these news organizations? Can anyone just walk in off the street, claim to be an expert in something and be tossed on air with a list of claims under their name they have no proof of having? It appears this is the way the media is working when it comes to our dearest Mo. How is this helping anyone? It seems like a giant insult to all viewers who depend on the media for truth.

A good insight into the brain of Mo Ansar can be found here in the report and results on a court case he was involved in where he took a former employer, Lloyd's Bank, to court over what he deemed to be discrimination based on race. He lost. Section 14 of the summary is uncannily accurate in it's assessment of the man and is worth reading. The court notices what so many of his critics have also noticed, including his manipulative ways, his lying and his arrogance.

Based on all of this information presented above, it appears that we have a fraud on our hands. "So what?", you may ask. Fair enough, if that doesn't bug you, then that's up to you. But a man who is regularly paraded on the TV as some kind of an expert on Islam and Muslim issues who has got there, not by merit or by proven knowledge or understanding of almost any subject, but by what appears to be lying deserves to be scrutinized. When you turn on your TV and there is Mo giving his views on everything from segregated seating at University lectures (which he is for) and the banning of Halal meat in the Netherlands (which he is against), you would hope that these views were coming from a position of understanding and knowledge. They aren't. They are coming from just another dude on the street who has an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. They are like assholes. Everyone has one. So, why exactly is his opinion worth more than the average layman? It isn't quite frankly. It isn't in the slightest. And, generally speaking, he doesn't just address the issues, he tends to do it in the most dramatic way possible, using over the top, inflammatory rhetoric that easily riles people up. So, that makes it extra concerning. His twitter time line (his main way of interacting with the public) is filled with overly dramatic tweets like this recent one that I randomly selected:  "The US funded it, the UK supported it. Innocent people, children, massacred in #Egypt for our coup d'etat. The sheer inhumanity of it all." Wow, not only does this show an extreme lack of understanding of the very complex situation in Egypt and the rock and hard place reality of diplomacy between the West and a country that has had a few massive, bipolar swings in leadership changes in a short amount of time, but it further highlights his ever present contempt of "The West", in particular the US and his own country, Britain. He fails to have paid any attention to the fact that many Egyptians called for the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, and bristled at the very notion it was a military coup, saying that it was the continuation of the revolution that led to the downfall of Hosni Mubarek. A good number of Egyptians even showed up in front of CNN headquarters in New York City to protest the fact that CNN dared use the term "coup" to describe the events of the military overthrowing Morsi. That isn't to say most Egyptians are happy with the results, including the recent death sentences of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters. So, he rejects all this and presents his view, as you can see, in the most dramatic, over the top fashion he could muster in less than 140 characters. And this is but one of thousands upon thousands of examples that he is pumping out to 22,000 followers.To me, this is scary.

What is particularly bothersome about Mo is that he is an utter hypocrite who thinks that people cannot see what he is up to. I think he really looks at people as being stupid. I really believe this. I think he sees us all as too stupid to see through him. Well, maybe some are, but it is clear that many aren't and they are becoming more vocal about it, both on twitter and through blog posts and articles. Here is a man who screams Islamophobia on a daily basis who talks about love, peace, unity and tolerance. Then, he pulls crap like being part of a very public lynch mob against Maajid Nawaz over a tweet by Nawaz featuring Jesus and Mo, (one of my all time favourite web comics). You can read all about the infamous incident here. You can also read about it here. And here. Basically, you can find no shortage of information on this very public spat. But, here is what it boils down to. Mo HATES Maajid Nawaz. All of Mo's great talk about love, peace and unity seems to come completely derailed as soon as the subject of Maajid Nawaz comes up. There is no peace and love from Mo when it comes to Maajid and it renders his grand talks about it impotent. It is clear that he holds a grudge against Maajid. The reasons are many. After Mo Ansar did a documentary where he and EDL leader Tommy Robinson hung out and were little buddies, Mo thought he was the one who drew Tommy away from the EDL. So, when Tommy joined Maajid's controversial Quillium foundation (an anti-extremism think tank) Mo felt pretty slighted, as has been publicly evident. And Mo has held a deep grudge over this (and other things) and constantly runs down Maajid. The fact that Mo was one of those that led the drive to have Maajid removed as a Liberal Democrat candidate (supposedly) over the Jesus and Mo tweet shows just how far Mo is willing to go down a deep, dark path. What is particularly odd is that Mo himself said he wasn't offended by the tweet, yet, he wants to publicly lynch Maajid? I just don't get it. But, that's the mystery of Mo. But beyond Nawaz, he has had very public spats with LBC radio personality Iain Dale, who Mo reported to the police over what was an honest, open tweet asking Mo his views on homosexuality in the wake of Mo supporting an imam at a mosque that refused a BBC show on Free Speech because it discussed homosexuality...basically, homophobia. Why Mo wouldn't answer Iain is beyond me. But, somehow it ended with Mo reporting Iain to the police in a ridiculous fashion. Peace, love and unity? Out the window. Furthermore, his seeming hate of historian Tom Holland, who is, without a doubt, a brilliant and passionate historian, is very public. Again...where is the peace, love and unity? Mo constantly takes shots at Tom, and his most recent disgusting attack came in the form of suggesting that Tom Holland should be put on a poster of people who cause a "clash of cultures" which included famed mass murdering ultra nationalist Anders Breviek. What? Wha? Huh?? Wow. That shows a level of contempt and hate that is head scratchingly bold. And, it is the exact kind of thing that if done to Mo would result in Mo possibly calling the police in. Hypocrisy? Yes. Peace, love and unity? Not in the slightest.

Mo's central focus is his religion. He loves his religion, Islam. Can't fault him on that. He has his religion and it gives him something. Good. Great. Wonderful. Is he an expert in his religion? Hell no. Even though he claims to be a theologian and Imam, (again, no evidence of it), people are often scratching their heads as to what version of Islam he is even following, and what understanding of Islam he actually has. He has gone on the record as saying some bizarre things, like Muslims were the first to discover the "New World" and mingled very peacefully with the native population. What? Seriously? Yes, seriously he seems to believe this. He has gone on the record as saying there is no homophobia in Islam. What? Seriously? Well, depends on your interpretation of Islam, but the way it is too often practised we see no shortage of institutionalized homophobia. Basically, he wants to put Islam in the brightest light possible. He will go to seeming no lengths to point out how great Islam is....while at the same time spending no shortage of time completely running down the UK, and especially the US. His contempt of the US is strong. But, it is his contempt of Britian which raises some hackles. Recently, Al Shabab, the infamous Islam terrorist group, issued credible death threats towards Mo. Britain, his home, offered him police protection. So, Islamic extremists, who he rarely talks about and often downplays, threaten his life and the country he regularly condemns offers him....police protection? Wow. Someone has something backwards.

He recently was in a video put together using Parrell William's song "Happy" featuring British Muslims being, you know, happy. They dance, they sang, they had fun. Mo was in the video for a very short time, yet seems to think the thing revolves around him. He has been lambasted by conservative Muslims who point out in the Quran where it specifically says no dancing or singing. Mo, who says that the Quran is perfect, 100 percent the word of god, not changed, ever, not even a single period or comma seems to have missed this part of it. I do however back him on this one, with the idea that the Quran is open to interpretation and Mo's interpretation allows for dancing in a video...especially if it gives him a few precious seconds on screen. I wonder, however, what he would say if Maajid Nawaz was in the video and faced criticism for it?

So, in almost every context, we are dealing with someone who appears to be a fraud. He can't seem to tell a straight story on who he is, his qualifications or back up the vast majority of his outlandish claims. We have a man who cries Islamophobia, who contacts the police over ridiculous reasons, who stoops low when it comes to attacking his critics and who then turns around and talks about tolerance and love. Basically, we have someone that I cannot figure out how anyone can trust, and who should not be paraded around by the media as some grand expert on Islam and Muslim issues. But, the media insist on calling on him. Again, it's because he is the perfect little package. He has the costume, he is articulate, has a perfect British accent, and can be called on at anytime of the day and night to show up for an interview. He LOVES attention. He thrives on it. This is why I believe that he seems to have created this persona. He wants to be a big shot. He wants to be validated. He wants to by someone. What he doesn't want is to have to actually work to be that someone. This is what I have observed in him. That's what many have observed about him.

It bothers me personally that a man like this gets away with it. No one likes a con. No one likes a fraud. No one likes to be manipulated. I feel that he manipulates. He manipulates the media. He manipulates the public.He manipulates the Quran. He manipulates his religion. His lack of true knowledge and understanding pose a problem on a number of fronts. It means that we really aren't getting the truth. We are getting opinions from a guy who doesn't seem to really have much knowledge of most of the subjects he approaches, which does no one any favours. We have a man that constantly tries to silence criticism of his religion (and himself) by smearing everyone who does as being part of the English Defence League, and being a neo-con Islamaphobe. How is this helping anyone, exactly? What kind of peace, love and unity allows for the silencing of critics of Islam (and himself) by calling everyone who does an Islamophobe? Not helpful. Not useful. It's divisive. It's childish. There is no doubt that Mo has attracted the ire of many nationalists, racists and right wingers, and some of them say some scary things to Mo that are steeped in utter and complete ignorance. But, Mo isn't exactly showing a lack of ignorance himself. With Mo we have a man that is using his religion as a way to fame. He wants to be someone. His Mo Ansar character, which is essentially what he is, is offering him this fame. And people are buying into it. On the surface, he comes across quite charming, nice, kind and intelligent. Scratch the surface and we see a lottery ticket that doesn't pay out. And it is doing no one any good to keep holding on to it.

UPDATE: Iain Dale, who I referred to above, has been cleared by the police saying there was no reason for them to pursue the issue. Tell Mama said the same thing. In response, Iain Dale wrote an excellent blog post talking about this experience. You can read it here. It is an intelligent, interesting and insightful bit of writing that gives a good analysis of how Mo operates.

It is worth challenging Mo, much to Mo's chagrin. Mo wants to be in a position of power, a leader, an authority. Part of his persona revolves around the idea of challenging authority as a "civil rights activist" and "community leader". This also puts him into a position where he needs to be challenged as well. He seems wholly against the idea of being challenged, and resorts to attacks and accusations towards those asking questions, claiming they are merely right wing, neo con Islamophobes. If he wants to be in a position of power and authority, he must understand that people have every right to challenge him and ask questions, and given his dubious record, his shady claims of experience and his over the top rhetoric it is doubly important to challenge him. Iain has done just this. His blog is worth a read.

Reflections on Comedy (part 1)

Comedy. Oh you are an odd beast, you are. Yes, I do comedy. Am I a comedian? I don't know. At what point can you declare yourself a comedian? I get up on stage every week and I do my little jokes and sometimes people laugh and sometimes people don't. Sometimes I actually remember my jokes. Half the time I don't. There are times when I feel like the audience loves me, and times when the audience wants me dead....if there even is an audience.

It all seems so objective. I've seen some hilarious people get mixed reactions, and some terrible comics get a great reaction. Why? It's all down to the right people being in the right place at the right time in the right frame of mind. All factors have to come together perfectly for a really good night. How often does that happen? Maybe if you are Russell Brand or Louis CK or something it's every night. When it's a guy like me getting stage time here and there at open mics, with the odd contest thrown in and whatever else I can do, it's rare that all those factors come together. But, when they do....it's magical. 

Suey Park, Racism, Whiteness, and Colbert

Oh geez. Great. Another twitter trend that leaves me wondering what the hell to actually think when it comes to being someone on the left, and a white male. Yes, this topic is terribly uncomfortable for me as a white male. I cannot lie. I do get defensive. I do feel hurt at times. I do feel like a punching bag. And, once again, this is the case. Yes, I am writing this from my own personal perspective and how it relates to me, my "race", my identity, my feelings, and so on and so forth. Let's make that perfectly clear. Yes, I am a human with feelings.

So, if you don't know the story by now, a new twitter campaign started by someone named Suey Park has emerged (and is subsiding) under the hashtag #CancelCobert. A good rundown of the controversy can be found in this New Yorker article. I'll give you a few minutes to read those before I continue. Done? Okay, good.

Okay, here is the deal. You can't tell someone who believes that something is racist towards them isn't racist. If they feel like it is racist towards them and they feel hurt or bothered by it, who am I or anyone else to tell them that they are wrong. But she is wrong. But it's bad to say that. And maybe she isn't wrong. I have no clue. From my perspective, my opinion, the joke was actually quite good and was also fighting the type of racism that Ms. Park is saying the joke is actually perpetuating. So, it sets off a nuclear explosion in my head. What the hell am I supposed to make of all this?? I'm on the left. How do I process this one. How do I reconcile of the fact that I don't think it's racist and want to call the whole campaign stupid with the fact that I also think racism is stupid. It's all just stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

One of the main arguements is that progressive white people are racist for not seeing the Colbert joke as a racist attack on an oppressed minority, of which Park sees herself. And because I don't see the joke as racist it turns out that I am racist...I think? I don't know. I'm guilty of something, that's for sure. I'm just not one hundred percent sure what I am guilty of. Therefore, I must resign from the whole conversation. But, I want to say a few things before I do. You know this whole fact that I am a white male? Screw it. I'm not. I'm tired of being accused of being a white male, and thusly part of a fascist system that oppresses everyone else. That's why I am not white...I am pink. And I am not male...I am human. So, just leave me out of it. Don't implicate me personally in any of this bullshit. I'm not part of any system. I'm just living my life, okay.

I'm not going to go into some grand thing about reverse racism, because that's stupid. But, I also hate the whole "Check your privilege!" garbage and the demonizing that too often goes with being a white male or whatever I am that I didn't choose to be and have no power over and must take all criticism of white maleness over or I'm not a good left winger that I think I am good at being. In other words, the whole thing is a mess and I have no clue where I fit in here, especially because I feel as rejected from most groups as it is and always have. I look at someone like Park who has more education, power and influence (and probably money and stature, or whatever) than I will ever have and can't help but feel horrible for oppressing her so badly with my whiteness. No, I don't know what it is like to be Asian. Has it been rough for her? Probably. I don't know. I haven't lived her life, just as no one else has lived mine. So, just as generalizations and jokes about her ethnicity can be seen as offensive, I think looking at me as a white male and making generalizations about that is offensive, and no one can tell me how to feel about it. I feel what I feel. And, yes, when it comes to the topic of me being part of a system and race that is the big oppressor, I have to stand up and say it does bother me because that means I am not being looked at for me...but as part of a group that I don't feel any strong association with! But, saying that turns me into someone someone else will say is saying, "Oh, I'm a poor oppressed white guy!" and will be told to check my privilege and shut up or whatever. Well...whatever, indeed. I know I'm not oppressed, although I have faced plenty of realities that have not made life overly easy. I hate the term privilege so much it makes me want to spit so I will just say I absolutely know that I have it better than so many people on this planet for a whole variety of reasons, not just my skin colour OR penis. I know these things. Privilege checked. Done. Complete. I understand this, okay. So, don't start on with that crap. Okay? Point clear? Good.

So, what am I trying to say here. Good question. Basically, I'm trying to say that issues around race, sex, heirarchy, oppression and all that jazz are more complex than sometimes it is made out to be by very academic approaches to these issues that too often want to categorize all this stuff into neat little groups and how certain people are supposed to feel, act and approach the issue, and that just doesn't sit well with me (but run on sentences do.). And I think that this whole #CancelCobert tag shows this once again even though some, including, I believe, Ms Park, want it to be a very cut and dry issue based on race and gender theory or whatever it is that this is all based in . And I refuse to be stuck in any of these categories and want to be able to make my own decisions about who I am and what I am going to think and hope, just hope, to avoid being labelled as something I don't want to be just as anyone else. Is that too much to ask? Probably, yes.