YEARMANKIND

[yearmankind]

Where are we now?

A final blog post? A final video? I don’t know. The idea of that is a lot to take in. As I ponder this all, memories are flooding back. I can see storm clouds gathering in the distance—it’s a very emotional time. After all these years, why come back? Why subject myself to even further abuse? Is it all for naught? Or is there something there behind it all? Does the potential still exist? Could the year be approaching to lead mankind to a new era?

When I embarked on my initial demonstration using an innovative reverse heckling methodology, I had high hopes for the future. It feels like just yesterday.

Not everything went as planned. Without getting into every detail, what I will reveal is that over the years I have spent a lot of time reflecting and honing my crafts. I have tried to achieve complete meditative and spiritual awakening through a cornucopia of advanced techniques. I have even submerged myself repeatedly for hours on end in an isolation chamber to dwell upon the fundamental questions of our time.

So what does this all mean? I don’t know. One thing I know for sure is that I am here. I’m not dead or in jail, as some with hidden agendas would like you to believe. I am here, but am I back? That remains to be seen. This could very well officially mark the end. It could be the end of a vision, the end of a belief in the future. Or it could be something else. Paradoxically, it could be the beginning. How does one truly discern the beginning from the end? Such questions will have to remain unanswered for now due to the multivariate profundities at play.

What we do know is that something happened here. Whether you think it was good or bad, something happened. And so after this revisitation, this moment of reflection, I must now grapple with the following questions: is it time to walk away for good? Is it time to leave it all behind—to no longer think of what could have been—and to no longer pine to lead a movement?

Feel free to express your thoughts. Although, I will have you know that I may very well not even see them or factor them in at all to my determination processes.

Since I never took the chance before, one thing I would like to remark on is that I did notice a while ago that the video hosting platform disabled the like to dislike ratio from public view. I found this interesting. Apparently what contributed to their reasoning for implementing this change was exactly the hate brigade type of behavior that has continuously been directed toward me. I guess they would suspect I owe them a great deal of gratitude. Except, to be clear, all they've done is hide the abuse. You know who still sees it? Me.

When an unjust act occurs, the correct response is not to hide the evidence. To really drill the point home with an obvious example, why do you think something like the Holocaust Museum exists? It is never acceptable to just sweep it under the rug. And so right now, in the following paragraph, I think I'll take the opportunity to state for the record what this dislike abuse has amounted to.

As of this post, mid August 2025, the total # of likes I have received is 4,043; the total # of dislikes I have received is 15,572. This means that as it pertains to these wondrous embodiments of creation I have disseminated for the betterment of all people—this product of blood, sweat, and tears—the like percentage is roughly 20%. For every five votes that are made, roughly four of those five are cruel, punishing dislikes, penetrating and permeating the core of my soul. This is not easy for me to say. However, it is only through shining a light that the chance to overcome can survive.

On a lighter note, one thing I’ve improved upon is being able to unplug, to unwind—to look into the sky at the storm clouds overhead and say, “Ah”. If this is the end, thank you to those who have wished me well. There may not have been many of you, but you made your imprint. You shaped me in profound ways, and this is something I will never forget. And if this is not goodbye, I don’t know what that could mean. All I know is that each day, one must awaken and face the music, as it were. And that is what I will continue to do. Go now. Make your imprint. And let us continue to await the year mankind transcends hatred, arrives at symbiotic enlightenment, and opens the door to a new era. Goodbye, at least for now.

- YMK

[yearmankind]

Transcript: A New Heckling—That of Sophistication

When an individual engages in public speaking before a captive audience, that individual is engaging in the presentation of ideas. And when audience members hear and consider ideas being put forth, they often respond in various fashions. On one side of the spectrum, a response might entail the maintaining of a quiet and attentive disposition. On the other hand, a response which is quite different, is the combative expression of a point of contention intended to disrupt.

One might argue that when appropriate, these disruptive expressions of contention are necessary. They serve to provide a counter-balance against hateful and insensitive remarks. However, there is a problem with this type of behavior that I must address.

First, I would like to provide a quote: "Today, more than ever, the role of the heckler could play a vital role in bringing us back to reality. People need to be called out when they are in the wrong, and if no one else is going to step up, perhaps it is up to me to be a leader."

That is a quote from myself. I wrote that previously on my blog when I decided to stand up for my beliefs. But since that point, I have felt a considerable amount of hesitancy in becoming fully engaged with this type of activism for the following reason: These types of responses necessitate disorder and teeter upon impolite behavior. Not to mention, they are also largely ineffective, as they often result in being drowned out by the individual on the stage, as they are in a position of situational advantage with regard to vocal amplification.

While it may be the case that instantaneous expressions of dissatisfaction from the position of an audience member are necessary at times to ensure that a suitable counter-balance is met, I cannot help but feel that we can do better. I cannot help but feel that in these instances, we do not have to sacrifice our civility.

Hence, I would like to propose an alternative: a new heckling—that of sophistication. It is a methodological form of activism that I have authored and I shall refer to it as “reverse” heckling. It is "reverse" in the following sense: Rather than speak out of turn from the audience to voice objection toward what has been said by an individual on the stage, one must wait for or create an opportunity to voice objection from the stage itself, and direct it toward the audience. In some instances, an individual who has made a statement that is to be objected to will have become part of that audience.

Perhaps the most practical application of this method is at an event which features an open microphone, thereby explicitly allowing anyone in attendance the opportunity to proceed onto the stage at a given time. For example, one might be in attendance at such an event, hear an inherently offensive remark, carefully form their objection, proceed onto the stage at a later point in the event, and articulate their objection in the most powerful way that not only provides the necessary counter-balance, but captures the hearts and minds of all those in attendance and makes a strong case for justice. What has been done here is that heckling activism has been made more civil and more effective. In a way, it has been reversed.

This method also has the potential to be applied at speaking events which do not explicitly allow its attendees the opportunity to take the stage and let their voice be heard. Such potential relies on the collective understanding of what I would consider to be an axiomatic principle of social engagement, and that is the following: At any gathering, as fellow human beings, we must ultimately give precedence toward equality and justice. What this means is that when a speaker makes a statement that is inherently offensive, there should always be an implicit allowance for an individual to express the necessary objection. Attendees who shared this objection would come together, choose a representative, and lobby the host of the event to allow their voice to be heard. If this were to result in a denial of opportunity, it would be a clear illustration of the lack of understanding on the part of the host as it pertains to this core principle.

Regarding how one might determine whether or not a statement qualifies as offensive in an inherent sense, I will now briefly summarize the proper way this is to be carried out. The following is a quote from my myself, which conveys the essential methodology: "The spectrum of this ‘inherency' is defined by the collective amount of positive and negative associations that apply to various ideas. Something is inherently offensive or triggering if it can be said that for most people it carries more negative associations than positive associations.” In addition to that, "There is a degree to which something has the potential to likely cause offense. The more potential there is, the more negative associations there are, and the more inherently offending something can be deemed." Due to time constraints, I will stop there with regard to that point. For further clarification, I refer you to my previous writing on the topic.

One other, important point regarding the application of reverse heckling activism, is that it is by no means limited to assuming the form of a response to something in particular that someone else has said. It is only in the sense of what has traditionally been considered heckling. Since this method entails an individual with a relevant grievance or objection taking the stage itself to address it, the opportunity is presented for such time to be utilized to address broad topics, such as over-arching societal narratives and their consequences—ideally when there is a clear relation to the event proceedings. There are many issues which play a significant part in shaping the modern-day cultural milieu. It is important that we address them all, and seek opportunities to present the points of contention we hold. Let us not hesitate to “heckle” the ideas and practices that are utilized in attempts of oppression.

In keeping with the theme of public speaking, an example of a topic one might look to address in an attempt to provide that necessary counter-balance is one that I have touched on, myself. And that is the covert attack of insults that pervades and to a large extent makes up what the supposed field of stand up comedy has become. You certainly don’t have to look very far. Listen to most popular, self-proclaimed comedians, and you’re likely to find individuals participating in the spread of discrimination and insensitivity, cloaked under the false premises of what their behavior is purported to be about. It is something I will continue to denounce, and I encourage others to do the same. One of the things that I want people to understand is that the hateful things you say can have devastating consequences; whether or not you intend for that is largely irrelevant.

Finally, as we move forward and consider all the issues of our time, I would like to take a moment to emphasize the importance of specialization. When we look around, and see all of the things going on in the world, it can be overwhelming. Sometimes, it becomes easy to fall into the trap of not believing that you can make a difference. The way to overcome that is to enhance your view to a finer particularity—in other words: to choose an area of focus. It is important for us all to choose an area upon which we might feel an overwhelming desire to devote a great deal of our individual efforts. If we work together in this way, we can address all things.

And let us express our discontent in a civil and effective manner. I believe that reverse heckling activism is a way that we can do just that. Its only real limitation is the lack of immediacy in the response. My recommendation would be to assess each situation accordingly and choose the course of action you feel will have the greatest impact. I would encourage everyone to consider the utilization of the method I have presented here today to serve the common good.

So, when we leave this lecture hall, let us leave inspired. We must never forget that the future is in our hands. I will now provide one last quote from myself: "I don’t want to be just a pawn—a keeper of the status quo. Rather, I want to be a fierce activist—intrepid in my advocacy. The power structures that allow callous indifference to persist must be shaken. Those who wish to derive sick pleasure out of offending others must be called out. And in this quest, I will not be silenced." Spread the word. Thank you.

[yearmankind]

Hashtag activism campaign launch and avoiding slippery slopes

With great anticipation of what is to come, I have launched my first hashtag activism campaign. An accompanying video provides the explanation (along with my video filter art), and instructs how one can take part. I believe this will mark an important step as I continue this journey. I encourage everyone to watch the video and make their voice heard in a positive way. I would like to take the time now to address a few things with the rest of this post.

An objection often hinted at by my detractors—attempting to take the form of a reductio ad absurdum—is that if everyone were to become offended by everything, nothing could be socially permissible. Therefore, no one should ever take offense at anything. This is not very well thought out, however, and can easily be refuted, sparing us the misfortune of having to travel down such a rabbit hole. Just apply this thinking elsewhere, and notice how it makes just as little sense. For example, if we were to create laws banning everything, then no one could do anything. Therefore, we should have no laws? Obviously not. To call this line of reasoning childish would be insulting to children. It is not really worth addressing, yet I felt the need to after seeing some variations of it.

It leads, however, to what I wish to discuss, which is the concept of inherently offensive or triggering material. How one determines what is and is not offensive in an inherent sense is an important consideration. The spectrum of this “inherency” is defined by the collective amount of positive and negative associations that apply to various ideas. How does one identify and differentiate between what is and is not inherently offensive or triggering? Something is inherently offensive or triggering if it can be said that for most people it carries more negative associations than positive associations.

An obvious example of inherently offensive material would be jokes that deal with the death and suffering of individuals. Like I have pointed out before, things that are obviously offensive—and thus in an inherent sense—are easy to recognize. It is still important, however, to understand that the reason certain topics should be off-limits from insincere comments is due to the overwhelming amount of negative associations they carry, and the undesirable impact such comments can have.

It is true that people can become offended by many things, but there is a degree to which each of those things has the potential to likely cause offense. The more potential there is, the more negative associations there are, and the more inherently offending something can be deemed.

Furthermore, if something is offensive or triggering to someone, without being inherently so, their sensitivity should be considered and respected. However, in such a case, the initiator is much less at fault. This is how the slippery slope is avoided.

This method is not perfect, but none of the taken-for-granted ways we arrive at conclusions are. Discounting something that is incredibly useful because it lacks an infallible calculus (as does everything else) is terribly misguided. I have presented a very effective method that offers the best indication as to where something lies on the spectrum of inherency with regard to offensive material.

As an aside, I would also like to address that I have never advocated for enforcing limitations on what people can say by law, school ordinance, or any other measure. I do not agree with people who do. I want people to make the decision to be more respectful, as opposed to being forced to. As I have stated before, my goal is to cultivate greater levels of civility in our discourse. The way I intend to do this is through activism and compelling argumentation.

One other thing I have noticed, is that many of my detractors like to use ad hominem attacks against me in place of actually engaging and responding to the ideas I put forth. If this is your best response to my argumentation, you are an embarrassment to public discourse. Your ability to engage with ideas is substandard and inferior. You have displayed rather clearly that you are a fool.

Lastly, to those who might wish to say that the focus should be on other issues in the world today that are of greater importance, I would respond by saying that there is room to address all things. This underlies the importance of specialization. I have chosen to concentrate in this area, because I see it as one that is ripe for meaningful impact and lasting change. This an opportunity we should not miss out on.

[yearmankind]

The Making of YWTMMS

I have gone back and forth over this—trying to decide whether or not to release this video—and I have decided that I will. “YOUR WORDS THEY MADE ME STRONGER” (which I will refer to as YWTMMS), is an experimental music video that came about via a natural creative process. I have always seen experimental music as a powerful mode of expression, and that is why I chose it for this project. Having said that, I cannot say that I am entirely comfortable releasing the video due to the sensitive nature of the content for myself, as well as the fact that some discrepancies arose during the process of making it that I took issue with. Nevertheless, I have decided it best to release it to the public. I will now provide an account of its genesis.

Some time ago, I was contacted by an acquaintance who was aware of the hate campaign that had been organized against me online. I described some of the things I had been going through, and this person—who happened to be an amateur videographer—expressed an interest in helping me make a video about it. Despite my hesitancy, I later decided to take part. I designated a theme for the project, which would be my triumph over adversity. Then, I chose the form: an experimental music video featuring an interpretive dance composition based on an original experimental music composition and spoken word poetry composition. I began to look at this as a meaningful opportunity.

The first step would be to write the lyrical content. I accomplished this with ease as I have always been an excellent writer. I was able to poignantly capture my vantage point at that moment in time. Next, I wanted to venture into the domain of experimental music. I am an appreciator of virtually all genres of music, but the ineffable nature of that which one might call experimental is one that has always intrigued me. I have found that immersing myself in and expressing myself through experimental music compositions can be a great source of healing and restoration.

I proceeded to collaborate with a friend who composes music. We discussed the outline for how the track would sound. Soon after, my friend began compiling interesting samples to use, started programming the different layers, ultimately composed the piece in its entirety, performed the essential editing and mixing, etc. I had several tasks during this process as well.  For instance—and this may seem like a small thing—I made sure that I would be the one to always press the “record” button at the appropriate time. I actually found this to be significant and representative of how essential my role truly was. I was at the helm actualizing my vision.

Upon completion of the track, it was time for me to compose original choreography that would be used in the video. I found this part very exciting. I had participated in dance classes as a child, and saw this as a great chance to utilize the skills I had honed at such an early age. Included in my choreography were occurrences of indeterminacy. These would materialize through various improvisational flourishes. Once that was done, I chose the outfits I would wear for the different sequences, as well as gathered together the props that would be used. Now it was time to record the video.

I contacted this acquaintance of mine and said that I was ready. We went out and got started. I had my outline, and I was to be given instruction and suggestions throughout. For the most part, things went well. However, there were times when I did not fully agree with the direction I was given. There were also times when I did not feel entirely comfortable doing a certain thing, and I was pressured into doing it. I don’t think this is a good way to work with people. When I expressed this, the reason I was given was that it’s just what directors do to motivate, and it’s all for the sake of achieving the best final product. While I understand this line of reasoning, I couldn’t help but have my qualms with the approach. This created some tension between us.

There were also times when I thought the experience was very positive. For example, at the end of the sequence in the forest, I kneel down and go through my transformation. This was to symbolize my choosing life over death—a very intense moment. The direction I received was very valuable. I was told to take some time to meditate on all the hardship I have faced in my life, and then use this moment as a sort of cleansing. I would let the anger and fear that resides deep inside me surface, and cast it away. I made myself very vulnerable as I let out these emotions, and what resulted was a moment of the utmost honesty. I found it truly transformational, and I hope it can inspire others.

During the editing process—which was a collaborative effort—my acquaintance and I had a bit of a falling out. We are still on speaking terms and in contact, but we agreed that we should probably not work together again. What happened was that I got the sense that this individual was not taking the project as seriously as it should be taken. This individual even admitted to me that some amusement was being had on their part in the making of this art, and they didn’t see a problem with that. This just did not sit well with me at all. Now, of course it is fine for people to have a good time when they are involved with something. But when the subject matter is a serious one, based on the struggles I have incurred in my own life no less, I cannot accept this attitude. This lead to some sparring, and a mutual parting of ways upon completion of the project. Ultimately however, I did not see overwhelming reason to believe the work had suffered because of it. That is why I can still release this video—the message remains intact despite the presence of any minimal stylistic choices I might not prefer. There are always compromises to be made in the realm of group-driven efforts.

When I stated at the beginning that I wasn’t sure if I should release the video, part of that comes simply from the fact that I am opening myself up again to the potential negative feedback that spiraled me into a tailspin in the first place. I realize that this concern is something I must overcome, though. I must be able to face this and stand up for who I am in order to move on. Another reason for my hesitancy is that there are parts in the video where I am following the direction I received that I did not endorse. I can’t help but find this off-putting and undesirable. But most importantly, the video as a whole can be difficult for me to watch. It reminds me of the things I have gone through, and the times I have suffered. For this reason, however, I know that the video is very powerful, and it is something I am willing to stand behind.

In terms of the meaning behind YWTMMS, the structure and symbolism within, the imagery depicted, and so on: I could certainly go through every bit of detail and explain what everything was supposed to mean. While I am open to doing this, I will abstain for now. This is because I realize that with all great works of art—despite the fact that the artist may have intended to convey one very particular meaning—it is possible for someone to draw a slightly different meaning from it. Rather than state exactly what the different colored sequences in the video represent, why not leave open the possibility that someone might draw a slightly different meaning than was originally intended, thus becoming inspired in a unique way?

Having reached this point, I think it is quite clear that I have become a stronger individual. How else could I have amassed the confidence to take on such a new and intimidating challenge? I was faced with the daunting task of performing everything outside in public as well, and I met it head on. I knew the result would be more raw and organic. It fit with the theme of being exposed and vulnerable—something all too familiar for me. I have to say that I came away rather impressed with myself and my natural aptitude. I believe that when I am supremely focused, I have what it takes to be an exceptional artist. I hope to bring more achievements like this into the world that exemplify the same embodiment of unabated, visceral passion, and devotion to what is right. I believe these contributions to society truly are empowering.

I have gone through a dark time in my life, and I am prepared to spell out those details quite clearly. I believe it is important for people to realize the consequences that their actions bring. Hence, I am about to release another video that addresses this. It will be a very personal divulgation, but it is something that I believe can serve as a wake-up call for many people out there.

These are exciting times. In addition to all of this, my first ever hashtag activism campaign is in the works. I believe I have what it takes to be a leading voice for justice. I will continue to influence the conversation, inspire others, and serve as a positive role model. As you can see, I am still here, far from silenced. Your words—they made me stronger.

[yearmankind]

Principles of Appropriate Discourse: On the Necessity for Boundaries in Comedic Expression

We often get caught up in our own perspectives, neglecting to consider the sensitivities of others. Then, when we become the victim of a heartless quip, the conditioning is usually apparent: we fear speaking out against it, lest we suffer a backlash. It’s time to break this cycle. Over a year ago, I shared a video in which I was not afraid to take a stand. It received little attention until recently, when instead of being lauded, it served as a spark for an online hate campaign organized against me. If there is one thing I did not realize then, that I realize now, it is how far we have to come as a society before we all understand how to accept one another. So, I am engaging in this conversation. It’s time that we finally have a serious discussion on what should be considered unacceptable in our discourse.

“It’s just a joke!” many will say, after making an offensive statement. Why do we act like this is a suitable justification? Why do we prioritize telling offensive jokes over respecting the psychological welfare of fellow individuals? I, for one, will no longer put up with this excuse. Labeling an insult a joke is merely a cover for allowing discrimination and insensitivity to persist and go unnoticed. We have deluded ourselves to the point where many actually believe that joking about horrible occurrences of death and suffering, or associating someone with these, is funny. This is absurd, and it is damaging; it is the epitome of perversity.

So, you might ask, how do we know what isn’t okay to joke about? What happens when things seem to fall into grey areas? The truth of the matter is that there is no single, catch-all answer to this question - no hard and fast rule. The most crucial component in determining whether a joke is acceptable or not, is the exercise of an empathic judgment. What many know as “The Golden Rule,” is a very useful tool. We shouldn’t say or do things to people that we certainly wouldn’t want to have said or done to us. Now, you might ask, isn’t it the case that some things are offensive to some people, and not to others? This is true. So, when someone tells us they find something we said offensive that we didn’t anticipate being interpreted as such, and they explain why this is with good reasons, while being completely genuine, we should respond accordingly: we should be sensitive to their perspective.

Now, are there things that we all object to being said to us? At first glance, it would not appear to be the case. The people that pour out their hatred and bigotry online don’t seem to care, do they? However, I think they actually do. The reality is that they have been desensitized. A cultural conditioning mechanism is at play, continually being reinforced, making them think they don’t care. Nowadays, it seems to be the norm that we turn a blind eye to things we should actually voice our objection towards. This is the muck we find ourselves in; this is what we are up against. It is going to take many brave voices (not just my own) to speak out against it, and wake people up.

Some say that in comedy “anything goes.” Well, to that I say: more of a fallacious notion I have not heard. Just think for a minute if the most devastating thing were to happen to you - the people you care about the most were killed. Imagine that your family was out for a drive, lost control of their vehicle, and ended up spiraling over a cliff, leaving them decimated on impact. Later, your friend calls you, and thinks he has a great joke to cheer you up. He says, “Hey, I heard your family just got killed. Look at it this way though, now you can say you live on your own - much cooler!” I bet most “anything goes” comedy advocates would have hung up the phone immediately, or would have at least been terribly disappointed, and offended, by such a heartless remark. Your friend just belittled the most tragic event in your life - of course you should be upset! So as you can see, “anything” does not “go.” There are things that can be said that can hurt everyone. I’m sure many will deny this, but that just shows the sinister nature of the delusion so many are operating under.

I am reminded that all hope is not lost when I see cases of people coming together to ardently express their disapproval of terribly inappropriate jokes. Recently, there was the movement initiated by Suey Park. Unfortunately, much like myself, she has been persecuted by many for the views she has expressed. I will go into more detail on that situation later in this essay. First, let’s take an example where everyone seemed to be on the same page. Look no further than the incident several years back involving comedian Michael Richards. He referenced an African-American person in the audience in perhaps the most offensive way possible. What was the result? He was promptly booed off the stage, and forced to issue a public apology. That is the proper response. That is what needs to happen much more often when other unacceptable “jokes” are made.

I see cases like that and I think people do still care - we have not become completely desensitized. There are certain things people say, that many of us actually agree should not be said without eliciting defiant, unwavering condemnation. However, it is unfortunate how rare these responses occur. What is at fault for their conspicuous sparsity? The active, cultural mechanism of desensitization is to blame. We have to learn to consider the perspectives of others, and to object to jokes made regarding a plethora of serious issues - not just a select few - that matter to a whole host of people. We have to come to greater understandings, and from there, newfound passions on these issues will emerge. The examples of us coming together to denounce unacceptable joke-making are a testament to the power that exists within us all - the power to revolt against injustice.

While I admit that grey areas exist, there are certain things we can absolutely identify as examples of what we mustn’t accept being joked about, due to the potential psychological harm they can inflict. Obvious examples are those having to do with the death and suffering of individuals, as well as unjust discrimination based on arbitrary characteristic distinctions. Everyone should be treated equally and with respect. Tragic events that deeply affect people (and should deeply affect us all), ought to be revered, not mocked. We must arrive at a time when any joke about a tragedy is dutifully renounced by all that hear it. There is a reason for the classic distinction between “comedy” and “tragedy.” They are not meant to intertwine. If we try to make comedy out of tragedy, chances are we have crossed a line in terms of what should be deemed acceptable. As far as making tragedy out of comedy, it seems to me that simply doesn’t work.

You might be under the impression that it appears difficult to point out jokes that are inappropriate. However, this is not the case. Most of the time, they are incredibly easy to identify. In your typical setting, it is blatantly obvious that something is unacceptably offensive. Heck, some comedians will even go so far as to label their material purposefully offensive - a narcissistic gloating exercise arising out of their irreverent callousness. So, while it might be true that there are issues that fall into grey areas, this is no excuse for falling victim to the trap of allowing our sensitivity to sink into utter paralysis, preventing us from calling out the things people say that we know are wrong. Just because a spectrum exists, in which more nuanced things on one end are not as clear, the obvious things on the other end remain absolute and clear as day. If someone claims something is offensive, and you disagree - but you both have legitimate reasons - that issue might fall into a grey area. This does not change the fact that it is wrong to joke about things which entail great suffering.

So, what are some steps to take moving forward? Well, regarding live comedy settings, most people seem to think it is impolite to interrupt a comedian and heckle them. I agree with this, as long as the comedy is respectful, and not crossing any lines. However, the game changes dramatically if the comedian opts to joke about a sensitive issue, or poke fun at a tragedy. Once this occurs, it becomes the duty of the audience to interrupt, and make it known that what has been said is unacceptable. How else would we expect progress to be made? If the audience members are too afraid to call out blatantly unacceptable jokes, at the very least they can not laugh. The moment we bail out the comedian by succumbing to conformist chuckling, we fail in our duty to uphold justice. An example of an unacceptable joke that got attention a couple of years ago was made by comedian Daniel Tosh, when he said something to the effect that he wanted an audience member to get raped. The fact that this is actually tolerated by some is unbelievable. There were people arguing on both sides of the issue, but the fact of the matter is that Daniel Tosh is a sick individual for making such a remark, and he should have been booed off the stage. To laugh at such a joke - to take pleasure in wishing suffering and misfortune to others - is utterly vile.

It is here that I see a glaring need for a newfound activism. The sad state of the comedy world today is that unacceptable material has become the norm. The sickness has taken over to the point where aspiring comedians think they must do this sort of thing by necessity in order to succeed. So today, more than ever, the role of the heckler could play a vital role in bringing us back to reality. People need to be called out when they are in the wrong, and if no one else is going to step up, it looks like it is up to me to be a leader. If no one else is going to provide a voice of reason and of conscience at comedy events, which sadistically perpetuate this “anything goes” mentality, further strengthening the cultural mechanism of desensitization that bleeds out hatred, perhaps the time is now for me to embrace my calling. The necessity to advocate for this cause I speak of seems to elude many. But while I continue to be persecuted now for what I believe, based on ill-founded reasons, in the end I know my work will be honored, and I will be recognized as a visionary.

Another way to create meaningful change is by being active online, especially through “hashtag activism,” or “hashtivism.” As I mentioned previously, a recent example is the phenomenal work done by hashtag activist Suey Park, with #CancelColbert. She called out Stephen Colbert for making a racist joke, and in doing so, jumpstarted a larger conversation on what should be deemed unacceptable in our discourse. Much like myself, she suffered an intense backlash from people who must be experiencing drastic amounts of cognitive dissonance. Aside from having a misunderstanding of the situation, many undoubtedly take out their frustration on her because they realize they are wrong, and they just can’t accept it. Suey Park is a hero, and someone we should all look up to. Sadly, folks like she and I end up being treated like villains, but hopefully, this will one day change. I sincerely hope that she appreciates the work I have done and will continue to do. Perhaps our paths might cross eventually, at which point we can fight for this cause together. 

And I must take a moment to speak in her defense, as she has been the target of an even more vicious online hate campaign than the one directed at me. I must address the many brainwashed fools out there who think Suey Park was wrong in her criticism of Colbert’s racist joke. A common response was something along the lines of, “Hey, it’s satire! You didn’t get the joke!” The level of foolish misunderstanding embedded in this response confounds me. I find it painful; it makes me cringe. Of course it’s a joke! Of course it’s satire! Do you honestly think Suey Park does not realize this? If you do, please, go back to school. She is criticizing the satire! She is criticizing the joke! She is making the same point I am making, which is that there are some jokes we should deem unacceptable! How this is lost among people is beyond me. And no, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has little relevancy if any in this discussion. We’re not talking about establishing restrictions on types of speech and subjecting those who break them to government persecution. The main point being addressed is regarding what should be deemed unacceptable in our discourse. We’re talking about reaching greater levels of civility.

Satire is not exempt from criticism. Just because something is satirical doesn’t make it a good thing. In fact, there is a good chance that it is damaging. In Colbert’s joke, he rehashed old racist tropes and used Asian-Americans as a punchline. This is offensive whether he is actually satirizing a racist person or not; the context is irrelevant. The joke was a response to the charity started by the owner of the Washington Redskins, and it implicated how the obvious motivation behind starting the charity was an attempt to divert people from clamoring for the racist, anti-Native American name of the team to be changed. Pointing this out is good. However, in Colbert’s joke, by drawing a comparison between this and Asian-Americans, the suggestion is being made that a distinction is not needed between these two different examples of racism. In the end, an offensive caricature coupled with insensitive language is justified on the mere basis of being ironic in its usage. This is no excuse for exploiting a minority group by making them into a punchline; it is far removed from contributing to any social good.

It is difficult for me to fathom how so many people seem to be against me. When will you realize that I am fighting for you? I am fighting for everyone’s right to equal respect, so that when you find yourself on the receiving end of a “joke” that demoralizes you and makes you feel worthless (rightfully so), you will have the courage to stand up for yourself, and tell that person that what they said was wrong. Perhaps you just need to understand what it is like to struggle, and to be picked on. And then you will no longer see me as a villain. I am certain that in the end, the haters will be on my side. They will regard me as a trailblazer - a fighter for principles they always believed in, but never fully understood. When we reach a moment of true awakening, we will all be on the same page; there will only be one side that makes any sense. The movement Suey Park helped initiate is fantastic, but it needs to continue, and there needs to be more like it. We need more widespread awareness and activism against unacceptable jokes. The people that believe in this must come together and take this to the next level. One of my goals is that one day, all those who express nothing but hatred toward me now, will realize I was fighting for them all along, and that we’re in this together - to cultivate a more respectful society.

Sometimes I think what it would be like if I hadn’t posted that video. I recognized a dire need to call attention to wrongdoing, but obviously, the world was not ready to commend bravery. Instead, the world decided to band together and demonize me - make me into a punching bag for online bullies. Well, there’s no going back now. I can’t undo this. And the more I think about it, the more I realize I don’t want to go back and undo anything. I don’t want to be just a pawn - a keeper of the status quo. Rather, I want to be a fierce activist - intrepid in my advocacy. This experience has changed me; I have become hardened. Before, I used to be hesitant in standing up for what I know to be right. I recognized the problem, but didn’t know how to approach it. Now, more staunch and resolute I could not be. There is no doubt in my mind what must be done. The power structures that allow callous indifference to persist must be shaken. Those who wish to derive sick pleasure out of offending others must be called out. I won’t tolerate allowing insensitivity to go unchallenged. And in this quest, I will not be silenced.

[yearmankind]

"betrayal" - my response to an onslaught of hate

Just the other day, I decided to check my email. Not long after, I realized that a video I had posted over a year ago, as well as an accompanying blog post, had “gone viral.” The only problem was, this had come about for the wrong reasons. What has happened during the past couple of days, is that I have experienced an outpouring of hate that has left me emotionally scarred and broken.

I feel betrayed - ripped apart. I posted that video to show how one can be victimized. I was called a slur that associated me with an evil act of terror. And I have received no support, whatsoever. It tells a lot about the tragic state of our culture. Also, the insincerity expressed by many regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks is appalling. We must come together and stop the hate. I have not given up hope, but I must say, after this experience, the bigotry seems nearly insurmountable.

“Too small is our world to allow discrimination, bigotry and intolerance to thrive in any corner of it, let alone in the United States of America.” - Eliot Engel

The video showed a clear example of a joke that crossed the line. Am I still mad at the people at that improv audition, including the gentleman that used the slur against me? Of course not! Once they apologized to me, I even apologized to them for what might have been a slight overreaction on my part. The fact that I went so far as to apologize shows that I am selfless. I did not have to apologize for being wronged. I did that out of my ability to express forgiveness.

After going through this whole ordeal - becoming the target of incessant bullying - I could easily give up. Maybe I’m just not fit for this world. I cried after reading the comments directed at me, and I am not afraid to admit it. Things are going terribly for me, and this couldn’t have come at a worse time. I honestly thought about just killing myself. What I am trying to say is, I need help; I can’t fight this alone. I challenge people to stand up for me! Don’t be afraid of the haters! Where are the people who stand for fair and non-discriminatory treatment? If you support this, let your voice be heard! I feel like I am on an island.

Many people commenting seemed eager to point out that I should stop doing comedy, and that I will never succeed in comedy. If you read my first blog post, you’d know that I never intended to do comedy in the first place! While my friend and I were waiting for our ride, the people at the improv audition practically begged us to participate, since barely anyone had shown up! And so I ask the haters: who’s the fool now?

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” - Winston Churchill

As a matter of fact, I actually like comedy; I always have. I like comedy that treats people fairly and doesn’t unjustly make people feel like garbage. I’ve even tried comedy in the past; I’m not afraid of trying different things.

And I have to say, in a weird way, all this talk that I can’t do comedy actually really makes me want to prove you wrong! I believe this stems from my ardent belief in not backing down from bullies. I happen to live near NYC, considered by many the comedy capital of the world. Maybe I’ll start going to some open mics, huh? Maybe I’ll show you how easy it is. Maybe I’ll make you eat your words.

Despite the mistreatment I have received from the haters, I will forgive them. In the spirit of Jesus Christ, I will “turn the other cheek.” I realize the sad reality for them, which is that they just hate themselves. Such vile bitterness is merely a projection of the self. It tells much more about them, than it does about me.

So, where does this leave me? As far as I see it, I have two options: I can let this destroy me, or I can use it as an impetus to create meaningful and lasting change in our society. I can choose to rise above and seize this moment, to promote equality, to live for justice, to live for Truth. And I can do comedy, too, if I want to - that or anything else. I can take a stand and not let people dictate what I can and cannot do.

“A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.” - Christopher Reeve

Martin Luther King Jr. once said something to the effect that he felt “pushed” to fight for the cause of bringing about equality. In a way, I see myself in a similar light. I have been bombarded with hate, but what pushes me forward is the hope that I can make a difference, helping mankind transcend hatred, and understand how to accept others. This is the meaning behind my username: I await the “year” for “mankind” to transcend hatred.

So remember, haters, this isn’t over. You thought you picked just another guy to ridicule - someone you could exploit for your sick games - and forget about soon after. Well, let me tell you something: you picked the wrong guy to mess with. And you’re going to be sorry. I’ll prove you wrong; I will win.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Video response, which includes my poem "betrayal":

P.S. It seems many have trouble understanding the necessity for boundaries in comedy - lines one shall not cross. I will be posting a follow-up in the coming days delineating and shedding light on this issue.

[yearmankind]

9/11 jokes are wrong

A few days ago, it was after 7pm and my friend and I were waiting to get picked up by someone at a community college we were visiting. We walked inside a building just outside where we had told him to meet us, and once inside, we noticed a group of about five people who were looking over at us. Not after long, one of them asked if we were here for the "improv". We asked what he meant and told him that we were waiting for our ride. He said they were having an improv comedy audition and that we could participate if we wanted to. We found that quite amusing and thought, "Hey, this is how we can punish our friend who's late in picking us up, by making him come in and do improv comedy." And as we stood there wondering whether our friend would ever show up, the guy told us that they had a lower turnout so far than expected and that we should be a part of it. We thought, "Hmm, why not?" Well, the answer to that question would become apparent soon enough.

They had us fill out a form with our contact information and answer a couple of questions. It was kind of funny: we had just been wandering around and all of a sudden it looked like we were becoming part of comedy troupe. So we walked into the room and it was time to start. My friend had his mini-video camera with him which would come in handy. First, they had everyone go up one at a time and talk about a topic for 30 seconds. We did that and I remember thinking, "Okay, I can do this." The next part was a group activity where I was picked to go up with two other people and act out a scene. It was about a reunion at which one of us didn't actually belong. Also, one person had to be sitting, one standing, and one leaning, and if someone changed position then the other person had to change. Seemed kind of silly but I thought, whatever, I'll go along with it.

What happened next is the main reason I am writing this. The guy who "didn't belong at the reunion" in the scene we were playing, called me something that I did not take lightly. He called me "9/11 beard". At first it took me a moment for it to sink in, but then I realized, he just associated me with a terrorist attack, the most devastating in recent history. What followed was that I lost my cool (rightfully so), and left the room. I don't know how most people would have reacted to being called this and being discriminated against, but I felt taken advantage of and offended. Here I was participating in this event off the cuff for these people, and that's what I get in return? Unbelievable. The thing is, there are lines that should not be crossed in comedy. Joking about 9/11 and associating someone with it is just not acceptable. The attempted "joke" really hit me in a bad place.

I did get an apology which was good, and as we went back into the room, the guy in charge said they were going to call it a night and stop the audition. So we walked out and hoped our ride would finally show up. After about ten minutes we were still waiting, so my friend went back to the room to see if they had all left. It's hard to believe the situation could have become worse, but it did. My friend heard some noises and when he got there, he found that they were still auditioning. So they had completely lied and told me they were done just to get rid of me! I went back in and asked them if this was true but they denied it and assured me they were just about to leave. Yeah, right.

I am writing this to show people how easily it is to be taken advantage of. Don't discriminate against people!!! Don't make jokes about 9/11!!! And don't lie to people just to get rid of them!!! Spread the word.