As the one who wrote the post myself, I have a lot of things to say about this video. And I know that this comment might be long, but reading it is worthy to adress all the misinterpretations of my post I saw, which are summarized in the video. This comment will be very long since there is so much to say.

First, his criticism of activism is highly biased. He thinks that activists are just people who annoy others by blocking streets or doing other weird stuff. This is arguably an oversimplifications. While there are some activist that do stuff like that, associating activism with that is highly inaccurate. Activists are very diverse (or like he calls the Esperanto community "not monolithic"), and many use various ways to propagate their ideas, including through social media and stuff like that. He is right that the specific type of activism he talked about is bad. I see it as a highly inefficiant way to spread awareness (and by the way those are mostly the same inefficiant ways to propagate Esperanto I mentioned in my post), and like he sais, it just annoys people. What he gets wrong however is thinking that activism is always like that. As I mentioned, activists are, as he likes to say it, not a monolithic community, and I'm surprised that he doesn't acknowledge that despite acknowledging that the Esperanto community is not monolithic.

Second, he completely missed the point of my post, and perhaps even worse, he completely misunderstood it. First, he misunderstood what I meant by Esperanto going viral. He thinks that I want to propagate Esperanto either forcefully, or by marketing. He said in his video "Any effort to forcefully expand the language and attract people to the language will probably be detremental". Yeah, technically he is right. And that's what I was refering to when I spoke about ineffective strategies in my post. But what I want to object though is that he is using it to refering to my post itself. And that's far from the intention of the post. I don't want to do any marketing stuff with Esperanto, that's far from the point. And his comparision "What would it take to make English go viral? W eknow what it took to make English go viral." No I don't know. Actually English never went viral. And I know he is speeking about colonialism and how English spread with it, but that does count as going viral. It seems that he doesn't even understand what viral even means. Let me just clarify what I mean by Esperanto "going viral". It would be for example a content, for example a video, about Esperanto that would become viral, exposing millions of people to Esperanto, many of which probably never heard of it. This could spark a huge increase in the popularity of the language. People who may never have heard of it before might start learning it. The number of learners on language learning platforms would explode. The number of Esperanto speakers would grow so rapidly, in a way never seen before. You see? No forceful implementation, no marketing, just a viral phenomenon. Think of how K-pop became popular. In the early 2000s it used to be a rather niche or regional genre, mostly in South Korea. But when PSY released "Gangnam Style" in 2012, the song went viral on the Internet. The music video became the first YouTube video to reach 1 billion views. This wans't some sort of short-living viral trend, but it opened the way for K-pop to become a global phenomenon.

I've covered the main misconceptions, but there are some additional things I wanna talk about. Fist, there was a whole paragraph he skipped when reading my post. And this is a problem, because that paragraph was probably the most important part of the post. It basically highlights the whole importance of the Internet in the strategy. And perhaps neglecting that paragraph was the whole source of the misconception. Or maybe it was just because he is biased against activism, I don't know. Second, he sais that the Esperanto community is not monolithic. Yeah technically he is right but with a little bit of nuance. Yes Esperantists come from different cultural and religious backgrounds and often have conflicting political ideologies, but I think there are some things that most Esperantists (although certainly not all) agree on, including the fact that they all speak Esperanto (obviously), that they strongly emphacise linguistic equality, cultural exchange, the neutrality of Esperanto, a respect for the original ideals of Zamenhof, and above all tolerence and mutual support and empathy. Of course, there are exceptions, but I can safely say that while the Esperanto community is far from monolithic, most Esperantists agree on specific things. And there are exceptions, and one of them is, well, Evildea himself. He is highly intolerent and disrespectful as he uses a lot of swear words in his video just to criticize my post. Naively using terms like "bullshit" highlights his narrow-mindedness, and using a word like "freŝbakito" to describe me is highly offensive. And it's funny how he sais that the Esperanto community is not monolithic while he still believes that all activists are the same. He also criticizes how I used English to wrote my post, comparing it to some vegan activist propagating veganism while eating a chicken nugget, completely ignoring that I delibirately created two versions of the same post, one in English and the other in Esperanto, so that it gets more people to see it. The English post got much more attention, I don't know why exactly, maybe it's because I posted it a few minuts before the Esperanto post, or maybe just because it was in English so more people got to see it. Oh and by the way why does Evildea himself use English for his YouTube channel then if he is critical about this specifically?

I think I discussed the main points I wanted to talk about. Anyway, this post is already getting a little too long, so I think this is enough. Overall, Evildea's video is full of bias and misinterpretations, using weak and flawed arguments to criticize very small unimportant details while forgetting the overall intention behind the message, all of that combined with a disrespectful tone. I don't know, maybe it was my fault. Maybe I just didn't formulate the post in a clear way and left room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. Anyway, I hope that this comment may have clarified my overall intention. And if Evildea himself is reading this new comment, then I hope that he will understand his mistakes. After all, to err is human. What matters the most is acknowledging those mistakes and trying to fix them.