#and with topics that are very relevant to today's political climate

[leviathangourmet]

Attack on Titan is not "mid", it's actually really good and I am prepared to fight people on this

[cemason001]

Sooo...Last year my new years resolution was to read 30 books. I tracked 145 books this year (so far, i dont think i logged them all). Decided the year is almost up and I want to do a (weekly?) book count down. Below is the first one. Its a classic, I'll pick a couch potatoe book for next time.

Title: 1984

Published 1949

Author: George Orwell

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

🌶

It iss not a particularly fun read. The characters are purposefully one dimensional. It is however one of the first books I'd recommend everyone should read at least once in thier lifetime. This heavyhanded, politically driven forbidden love story is timeless & has some earth shattering, thought provoking points that are very relevant to today's political climate. 1984 reads like it's 2024. I still am confused and impressed by how this book is and always has been relevant to current events. It explores topics like totalitarianism, individual freedom, government surveillance, and the power of language.

Favorite quotes:

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

[afvenvs3000f24]

Unit 5: Education's impact on climate change and nature interpretation

Given that this week there is no prompt, something that has always been very relevant to me and recently has been an important matter of discussion, especially with many political elections and discussions around, has been climate change.

In this course, as nature lovers, we've spoken about the conservation of nature, privilege within nature, and how we have built our relationship with it throughout the years. These discussions have been very insightful and have allowed me to have deeper and more frequent thoughts about our world and how we treat our environment; it has even encouraged me to stay more up-to-date with current climate change issues and concerns, especially within politics as political leaders have some of the most prominent effects on what we do as a society (in regards to carbon emissions of the country and policies) to combat this serious issue. A couple of weeks ago, I was scrolling on TikTok and stumbled upon a live stream, broadcasting the US presidential debate, and stayed to watch as I was curious about what either party had to say about their plan on climate change. After watching, I was completely shocked to hear Donald Trump and many others for that matter, claim climate change is "a hoax" and the lack of detail for both parties' plans on reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Additionally, a few more weeks after that, I decided to tune into the US vice-presidential debate as well and was disappointed once again with the absence of clear set plans of action and the amount of misinformation people were believing from these political leaders in general.

Another driver for my recent passion for climate change advocacy is that this semester, I'm taking a course on the topic (ENVS 3010), and so far, we've been taught an incredible amount of information that I had slightly heard of before, but never truly understood the emphasis on. Within this information, we were taught about the critical actions we must take now to protect all living species 50-70 years from now before it's too late (here is a link to a user-friendly PDF to learn a bit more about predicting the Earth's future climate based on the actions we take today!).

This is all to say that although a couple of months ago, if you had asked me if I knew a lot about climate change, I would've said I knew enough about it, but these courses have unexpectedly become very introspective for what I considered to have been "knowing enough" about our world and it's declining safety. I began reflecting on my ignorance in not doing research on my own out of curiosity or thirst for knowledge; then, my professor made a point in class, sharing with us potential ways to attain the best outcome out of the damage that has already been on to our environment, education. I began to question if my experience was something possibly many others experienced without having courses such as these to open their eyes. I've noticed simply through talking to others and asking their views on such topics (through social media and in-person), that the lack of knowledge in regards to this is a much larger gap than we often would like to think and many may think selfishly, as they don't believe they (or humans overall) will be alive long enough to see the effects and dangers of global warming. That's why, to do my part as a "nature interpreter" and help preserve our environment, I will be doing more research to be able to hopefully provide much more accessible manners of information about what power others have to make an impact and the facts about what's happening to our planet, all through engaging TikToks, social media posts, and maybe in the future my own podcast!

Sources:

CoastAdapt. (n.d.). What are the RCPs? https://coastadapt.com.au/sites/default/files/infographics/15-117-NCCARFINFOGRAPHICS-01-UPLOADED-WEB%2827Feb%29.pdf

‌

McDonald, J. (2024, September 9). Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points - FactCheck.org. FactCheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-clings-to-inaccurate-climate-change-talking-points/

‌

PBS NewsHour. (2024). WATCH: Harris and Trump face question about climate change in debate | ABC Presidential Debate [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoycdE1G0C0

‌

PBS NewsHour. (2024). WATCH: Harris and Trump face question about climate change in debate | ABC Presidential Debate [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoycdE1G0C0

‌

Sarnoff, L. (2024, October 3). Hurricane Helene brought climate change to Walz-Vance VP debate, but was it enough? ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-helene-brought-climate-change-walz-vance-vp/story?id=114438058

[sunaleisocial]

Exploring the history of data-driven arguments in public life

New Post has been published on https://sunalei.org/news/exploring-the-history-of-data-driven-arguments-in-public-life/

Exploring the history of data-driven arguments in public life

Political debates today may not always be exceptionally rational, but they are often infused with numbers. If people are discussing the economy or health care or climate change, sooner or later they will invoke statistics.

It was not always thus. Our habit of using numbers to make political arguments has a history, and William Deringer is a leading historian of it. Indeed, in recent years Deringer, an associate professor in MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS), has carved out a distinctive niche through his scholarship showing how quantitative reasoning has become part of public life.

In his prize-winning 2018 book “Calculated Values” (Harvard University Press), Deringer identified a time in British public life from the 1680s to the 1720s as a key moment when the practice of making numerical arguments took hold — a trend deeply connected with the rise of parliamentary power and political parties. Crucially, freedom of the press also expanded, allowing greater scope for politicians and the public to have frank discussions about the world as it was, backed by empirical evidence.

Deringer’s second book project, in progress and under contract to Yale University Press, digs further into a concept from the first book — the idea of financial discounting. This is a calculation to estimate what money (or other things) in the future is worth today, to assign those future objects a “present value.” Some skilled mathematicians understood discounting in medieval times; its use expanded in the 1600s; today it is very common in finance and is the subject of debate in relation to climate change, as experts try to estimate ideal spending levels on climate matters.

“The book is about how this particular technique came to have the power to weigh in on profound social questions,” Deringer says. “It’s basically about compound interest, and it’s at the center of the most important global question we have to confront.”

Numbers alone do not make a debate rational or informative; they can be false, misleading, used to entrench interests, and so on. Indeed, a key theme in Deringer’s work is that when quantitiative reasoning gains more ground, the question is why, and to whose benefit. In this sense his work aligns with the long-running and always-relevant approach of the Institute’s STS faculty, in thinking carefully about how technology and knowledge is applied to the world.

“The broader culture more has become attuned to STS, whether it’s conversations about AI or algorithmic fairness or climate change or energy, these are simultaneously technical and social issues,” Deringer says. “Teaching undergraduates, I’ve found the awareness of that at MIT has only increased.” For both his research and teaching, Deringer received tenure from MIT earlier this year.

Dig in, work outward

Deringer has been focused on these topics since he was an undergraduate at Harvard University.

“I found myself becoming really interested in the history of economics, the history of practical mathematics, data, statistics, and how it came to be that so much of our world is organized quantitatively,” he says.

Deringer wrote a college thesis about how England measured the land it was seizing from Ireland in the 1600s, and then, after graduating, went to work in the finance sector, which gave him a further chance to think about the application of quantification to modern life.

“That was not what I wanted to do forever, but for some of the conceptual questions I was interested in, the societal life of calculations, I found it to be a really interesting space,” Deringer says.

He returned to academia by pursuing his PhD in the history of science at Princeton University. There, in his first year of graduate school, in the archives, Deringer found 18th-century pamphlets about financial calculations concering the value of stock involved in the infamous episode of speculation known as the South Sea Bubble. That became part of his dissertation; skeptics of the South Sea Bubble were among the prominent early voices bringing data into public debates. It has also helped inform his second book.

First, though, Deringer earned his doctorate from Princeton in 2012, then spent three years as a Mellon Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Columbia University. He joined the MIT faculty in 2015. At the Institute, he finished turning his dissertation into the “Calculated Values” book — which won the 2019 Oscar Kenshur Prize for the best book from the Center for Eighteenth-Century Studies at Indiana University, and was co-winner of the 2021 Joseph J. Spengler Prize for best book from the History of Economics Society.

“My method as a scholar is to dig into the technical details, then work outward historically from them,” Deringer says.

A long historical chain

Even as Deringer was writing his first book, the idea for the second one was taking root in his mind. Those South Sea Bubble pamphets he had found while at Princeton incorporated discounting, which was intermittently present in “Calculated Values.” Deringer was intrigued by how adept 18th-century figures were at discounting.

“Something that I thought of as a very modern technique seemed to be really well-known by a lot of people in the 1720s,” he says.

At the same time, a conversation with an academic colleague in philosophy made it clear to Deringer how different conclusions about discounting had become debated in climate change policy. He soon resolved to write the “biography of a calculation” about financial discounting.

“I knew my next book had to be about this,” Deringer says. “I was very interested in the deep historical roots of discounting, and it has a lot of present urgency.”

Deringer says the book will incorporate material about the financing of English cathedrals, the heavy use of discounting in the mining industry during the Industrial Revolution, a revival of discounting in 1960s policy circles, and climate change, among other things. In each case, he is carefully looking at the interests and historical dynamics behind the use of discounting.

“For people who use discounting regularly, it’s like gravity: It’s very obvious that to be rational is to discount the future according to this formula,” Deringer says. “But if you look at history, what is thought of as rational is part of a very long historical chain of people applying this calculation in various ways, and over time that’s just how things are done. I’m really interested in pulling apart that idea that this is a sort of timeless rational calculation, as opposed to a product of this interesting history.”

Working in STS, Deringer notes, has helped encourage him to link together numerous historical time periods into one book about the numerous ways discounting has been used.

“I’m not sure that pursuing a book that stretches from the 17th century to the 21st century is something I would have done in other contexts,” Deringer says. He is also quick to credit his colleagues in STS and in other programs for helping create the scholarly environment in which he is thriving.

“I came in with a really amazing cohort of other scholars in SHASS,” Deringer notes, referring to the MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. He cites others receiving tenure in the last year such as his STS colleague Robin Scheffler, historian Megan Black, and historian Caley Horan, with whom Deringer has taught graduate classes on the concept of risk in history. In all, Deringer says, the Institute has been an excellent place for him to pursue interdisciplinary work on technical thought in history.

“I work on very old things and very technical things,” Deringer says. “But I’ve found a wonderful welcoming at MIT from people in different fields who light up when they hear what I’m interested in.”

[jcmarchi]

Exploring the history of data-driven arguments in public life

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/exploring-the-history-of-data-driven-arguments-in-public-life/

Exploring the history of data-driven arguments in public life

Political debates today may not always be exceptionally rational, but they are often infused with numbers. If people are discussing the economy or health care or climate change, sooner or later they will invoke statistics.

It was not always thus. Our habit of using numbers to make political arguments has a history, and William Deringer is a leading historian of it. Indeed, in recent years Deringer, an associate professor in MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS), has carved out a distinctive niche through his scholarship showing how quantitative reasoning has become part of public life.

In his prize-winning 2018 book “Calculated Values” (Harvard University Press), Deringer identified a time in British public life from the 1680s to the 1720s as a key moment when the practice of making numerical arguments took hold — a trend deeply connected with the rise of parliamentary power and political parties. Crucially, freedom of the press also expanded, allowing greater scope for politicians and the public to have frank discussions about the world as it was, backed by empirical evidence.

Deringer’s second book project, in progress and under contract to Yale University Press, digs further into a concept from the first book — the idea of financial discounting. This is a calculation to estimate what money (or other things) in the future is worth today, to assign those future objects a “present value.” Some skilled mathematicians understood discounting in medieval times; its use expanded in the 1600s; today it is very common in finance and is the subject of debate in relation to climate change, as experts try to estimate ideal spending levels on climate matters.

“The book is about how this particular technique came to have the power to weigh in on profound social questions,” Deringer says. “It’s basically about compound interest, and it’s at the center of the most important global question we have to confront.”

Numbers alone do not make a debate rational or informative; they can be false, misleading, used to entrench interests, and so on. Indeed, a key theme in Deringer’s work is that when quantitiative reasoning gains more ground, the question is why, and to whose benefit. In this sense his work aligns with the long-running and always-relevant approach of the Institute’s STS faculty, in thinking carefully about how technology and knowledge is applied to the world.

“The broader culture more has become attuned to STS, whether it’s conversations about AI or algorithmic fairness or climate change or energy, these are simultaneously technical and social issues,” Deringer says. “Teaching undergraduates, I’ve found the awareness of that at MIT has only increased.” For both his research and teaching, Deringer received tenure from MIT earlier this year.

Dig in, work outward

Deringer has been focused on these topics since he was an undergraduate at Harvard University.

“I found myself becoming really interested in the history of economics, the history of practical mathematics, data, statistics, and how it came to be that so much of our world is organized quantitatively,” he says.

Deringer wrote a college thesis about how England measured the land it was seizing from Ireland in the 1600s, and then, after graduating, went to work in the finance sector, which gave him a further chance to think about the application of quantification to modern life.

“That was not what I wanted to do forever, but for some of the conceptual questions I was interested in, the societal life of calculations, I found it to be a really interesting space,” Deringer says.

He returned to academia by pursuing his PhD in the history of science at Princeton University. There, in his first year of graduate school, in the archives, Deringer found 18th-century pamphlets about financial calculations concering the value of stock involved in the infamous episode of speculation known as the South Sea Bubble. That became part of his dissertation; skeptics of the South Sea Bubble were among the prominent early voices bringing data into public debates. It has also helped inform his second book.

First, though, Deringer earned his doctorate from Princeton in 2012, then spent three years as a Mellon Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Columbia University. He joined the MIT faculty in 2015. At the Institute, he finished turning his dissertation into the “Calculated Values” book — which won the 2019 Oscar Kenshur Prize for the best book from the Center for Eighteenth-Century Studies at Indiana University, and was co-winner of the 2021 Joseph J. Spengler Prize for best book from the History of Economics Society.

“My method as a scholar is to dig into the technical details, then work outward historically from them,” Deringer says.

A long historical chain

Even as Deringer was writing his first book, the idea for the second one was taking root in his mind. Those South Sea Bubble pamphets he had found while at Princeton incorporated discounting, which was intermittently present in “Calculated Values.” Deringer was intrigued by how adept 18th-century figures were at discounting.

“Something that I thought of as a very modern technique seemed to be really well-known by a lot of people in the 1720s,” he says.

At the same time, a conversation with an academic colleague in philosophy made it clear to Deringer how different conclusions about discounting had become debated in climate change policy. He soon resolved to write the “biography of a calculation” about financial discounting.

“I knew my next book had to be about this,” Deringer says. “I was very interested in the deep historical roots of discounting, and it has a lot of present urgency.”

Deringer says the book will incorporate material about the financing of English cathedrals, the heavy use of discounting in the mining industry during the Industrial Revolution, a revival of discounting in 1960s policy circles, and climate change, among other things. In each case, he is carefully looking at the interests and historical dynamics behind the use of discounting.

“For people who use discounting regularly, it’s like gravity: It’s very obvious that to be rational is to discount the future according to this formula,” Deringer says. “But if you look at history, what is thought of as rational is part of a very long historical chain of people applying this calculation in various ways, and over time that’s just how things are done. I’m really interested in pulling apart that idea that this is a sort of timeless rational calculation, as opposed to a product of this interesting history.”

Working in STS, Deringer notes, has helped encourage him to link together numerous historical time periods into one book about the numerous ways discounting has been used.

“I’m not sure that pursuing a book that stretches from the 17th century to the 21st century is something I would have done in other contexts,” Deringer says. He is also quick to credit his colleagues in STS and in other programs for helping create the scholarly environment in which he is thriving.

“I came in with a really amazing cohort of other scholars in SHASS,” Deringer notes, referring to the MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. He cites others receiving tenure in the last year such as his STS colleague Robin Scheffler, historian Megan Black, and historian Caley Horan, with whom Deringer has taught graduate classes on the concept of risk in history. In all, Deringer says, the Institute has been an excellent place for him to pursue interdisciplinary work on technical thought in history.

“I work on very old things and very technical things,” Deringer says. “But I’ve found a wonderful welcoming at MIT from people in different fields who light up when they hear what I’m interested in.”

[kairalika]

Diving Divine Denny Ja 58 Elected Work: Corona Virus and Ratuan Ratu Adil

In this modern era, the development of technology and information has had a big impact on society, including in terms of the delivery of news and thought. One of the figures that is quite famous in the world of Indonesian literacy is Denny JA. Denny JA is known as a writer, writer, and culturalist who has critical and controversial thinking. One of his works that attracts attention is Denny JA 58: Corona virus and Ratu Adil’s prediction. This article will explore Denny Ja’s selected work with the aim of providing a deeper understanding of the contents and messages contained in the work.    The Corona virus has become a very warm and relevant topic in recent years. In his work, Denny Ja tries to associate the Corona virus with Ratu Adil’s forecast. Ratu Adil, according to the belief of many people, is a figure who will come to bring justice and kindness in the world. Denny Ja argues that the emergence of the Corona virus is the forerunner of the signs of the arrival of Ratu Adil.    In his work, Denny Ja described how the Corona virus became a frightening specter for many people around the world. He gave a picture of the negative impacts caused by this virus, such as rapid distribution, high mortality rates, and serious economic impacts. Denny Ja also tried to analyze why the Corona virus became so troubling and why Ratu Adil’s prediction was related to this.    In the search for Denny Ja to previous works, he found a link between the Corona virus and Ratu Adil’s prediction. He argues that the emergence of this virus is a sign that the world is in a state of crisis and requires a figure like Ratu Adil to restore balance and justice. Denny Ja also highlighted how the Corona virus pandemic has revealed the injustice that exists in the world’s social and political systems.    Although there are many controversies and criticisms of Denny Ja’s ideas in his work, it cannot be denied that he has succeeded in attracting the attention of many people. Denny Ja presented his argument with a straightforward, clear, and logical writing style. He uses evidence that supports his arguments, such as statistical data, scientific research, and literature references. Denny Ja also uses a style of language that is easily understood so that his work can be reached by various groups of people.    In this work, Denny Ja also provides a number of recommendations and solutions to overcome the problems faced by the world today. He encourages people to be more concerned about global issues, such as climate change, social inequality, and injustice. Denny Ja invites readers to think critically and act as agents of change that are able to face these challenges.    In his conclusion, Denny Ja 58’s elected work: Corona virus and Ratu Adil’s prediction is a controversial work but has an important value in understanding the challenges faced by the world today. Denny Ja succeeded in delivering critical messages and provoked the reader’s thoughts. Although there are many different points of view regarding this work, it cannot be denied that Denny Ja has succeeded in creating an interesting and relevant work with the reality that we are facing right now. This work becomes a reminder that we as individuals and society have the responsibility to play an active role in creating a better world.

Check in full: Diving Divided Denny JA 58: Corona Virus and Ratuan Ratu Adil

[abda-ideas]

The Smartness Mandate with Professor Orit Halpern

In today's rapidly evolving technological landscape, the term "smart" has become ubiquitous. From smartphones and smart homes to smart cities and even smart healthcare, the integration of data-driven technologies into our daily lives is undeniable. But what does it truly mean to be "smart"? Professor Orit Halpern delves deep into this question in her discussions on the "Smartness Mandate."

The idea of 'smartness' is not just about devices or cities being technologically advanced; it's an epistemology, a way of knowing. It signifies a shift in how we perceive, interact with, and shape our environment. Historically, the concept of smartness has its roots in the desire for efficiency, optimization, and control. With the rise of big data and the Internet of Things (IoT), this concept has taken on a new dimension, emphasizing data-driven decision-making processes in various domains, from urban planning and healthcare to education.

However, as Professor Halpern points out, this data-centric approach comes with its own set of challenges. The over-reliance on data can sometimes overshadow the human element, potentially infringing on personal privacy and individual rights. Moreover, while data can provide valuable insights, it is not devoid of biases. If not carefully managed, these biases can perpetuate systemic inequalities, making the very systems that are supposed to be "smart" a tool for furthering disparities.

Another intriguing aspect of the smartness discourse is its connection with resilience. In a world increasingly fraught with uncertainties, from climate change to socio-political upheavals, the ability of systems to adapt and recover from shocks is crucial. The smartness mandate, with its emphasis on data-driven adaptability, positions itself as a solution to these challenges.

So, why did I choose this topic? The concept of "smartness" is at the intersection of technology, society, and philosophy. It challenges us to reflect on the kind of future we are building and the values we prioritize. As we stand on the cusp of a new era defined by artificial intelligence, understanding the implications of the smartness mandate is not just relevant but essential. It pushes us to ask critical questions about the role of technology in our lives and the kind of society we envision for the future. In essence, the topic serves as a mirror, reflecting our aspirations, fears, and the choices we make in the age of digital transformation.

[communition101]

The Art of Debate: Strategies for Success

Debate is a concept that eclipses the boundaries of politics, race, and religion. It is a crucial tool for the development of critical thinking, persuasion, and effective communication, and revolvement of conflict. In this extensive blog, we'll look into the different parts and functions of a debate and look into strategies that can help you become a better debater.

Understanding the Structure of a Debate

A formal debate consists of several key elements:

Opening Statements

Opening statements are your first chance to grab the audience's attention and lays the foundation for your argument. Begin with a strong introduction and background, a very clearly stated thesis, and a small overview of your main points. Cite your sources and evidence to support your claims from the outset.

A good example of Opening Statement:  "Ladies and gentlemen, today we discuss a fundamental question: the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution enshrines this right, but in an era of rising gun violence, it's crucial that we weigh the benefits and costs of unrestricted gun ownership."

Rebuttal

After the opening statements, the opposing sides have the opportunity to rebut each other's arguments. This phase requires a keen understanding of your opponent's points and the ability to counter them effectively.

A proper rebuttal: If your opponent argues that the Second Amendment is absolute, you could counter with, "While the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, it's important to remember that no right is absolute. The First Amendment, for instance, does not protect hate speech or incitement to violence."

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination allows debaters to question each other directly. This is a chance to probe your opponent's arguments, seek clarification, and expose weaknesses.

A clear question: During cross-examination, you might ask your opponent, "Can you provide evidence that shows a direct correlation between the number of guns in civilian hands and lower crime rates?"

Constructive Speeches

Following rebuttals and cross-examinations, both sides typically present additional constructive speeches to reinforce their arguments.

Constructive speech with evidence: In a constructive speech, you could outline statistics showing a correlation between stricter gun control measures and reduced gun-related deaths in countries like Australia and the United Kingdom.

Closing Arguments

Closing arguments are your final opportunity to leave a lasting impression. Summarize your main points, restate your thesis, and make a compelling case for your position.

Closing the Argument: In a closing argument, you might emphasize the need for comprehensive background checks as a good measure to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, providing instances where lax regulations led to tragic incidents.

Strategies to Gain the Upper Hand

Thorough Research:

Before the debate, you must research your topic thoroughly. Gather all the facts, statistics, and expert opinions you can to support your argument. Citing credible sources will strengthen your credibility.

For Example: When discussing the negative effects of climate change, reference reports from organizations like NASA and World Health Organization (WHO) to support your claims.

Clear and Concise Communication:

Speak clearly. Avoid jargon or overly complex language that might confuse your audience or even yourself. Use relevant evidence based examples to illustrate your points.

For Example: When explaining complex concepts like laws and law structure, something that most people will not be able to fully comprehend, use analogies that the average person can understand, like comparing the sub-sections in laws to a multi-layered pyramid within a that makes up the law as a whole, as this will make sure everyone can visualize and understand your argument. 

Organization:

Organize your arguments logically. Use a clear structure format, like problem-solution structure to help your audience follow your train of thought.

For Example: If discussing the impact of AI on low-skill jobs, structure your argument by defining the problem and then listing possible solutions.

Adaptability:

Be prepared to adapt and change your line of reasoning based on your opponent's arguments. Flexibility is very important in a debate.

For Example: If your opponent introduces a new argument you didn't anticipate, adjust your rebuttal on the spot by drawing on your knowledge of the topic.

Reputation Management:

Be mindful of your tone and demeanor. Be professional and avoid attacking someone personally. A composed and respectful approach to debating is what you should be doing in a debate, and failing to do so will result in a loss of credibility.

Stay cool: Even if your opponent becomes aggressive, let them explode, their shrapnel is like confetti to you, because you’ve already won.

Emotional Appeals:

Use emotional appeals sparingly. When you do, make sure that they are well timed and clearly fit into your argument and always back them up with evidence. Failing to do so will detract from the credibility of your argument. 

For Example: When making an emotional appeal, it makes a bigger impact when you share personal stories of saddening or maddening events related to your argument to provide a real-life context to your argument. This will make your argument feel more grounded in reality, which can give you an edge over your competition that you can exploit by asking them how your argument is affecting them negatively.

Practice:

Practice is crucial to improving on your debating skills. Engage in mock debates, seek feedback, and refine your delivery.

For Example: You can join debate clubs and forums where you can practice and refine your debating skills, as well as receive constructive feedback from fellow debaters.

YOU HAVE TO:

1. Maintain steady eye contact with your audience

2.  Speak with conviction to convey confidence in your position. Practice always helps with both of these things. The more you do it the better off you will be. Having an audience is extremely helpful.

Pay Attention to your Body Language!:

Your body language is a big part of your confidence. Make sure to keep eye contact with your audience, use nonverbal communication such as hand waving, shrugging and banging your fists in order to convey your point on a more human level. Don’t slouch or else you’ll look like a grouch

Manage Your Time:

Make sure you have time to present and articulate all your points while being able to take feedback along the way. Your not giving a presentation, your having an intellectual debate, which is more like a conversation

Incorporating these strategies can positively affect the execution of your argument and significantly improve your chances of gaining the upper hand, as well as making a compelling case for your position. Remember that debate is about promoting critical thinking and constructive dialogue just as much as winning.  

[jmartell]

520 Journal Entry 6: Let's Discuss Context

One topic that I found compelling in the Pater reading, but we have not yet discussed in class is the history and ethnic association that accompany specific typefaces or imagery. In Pater’s writing he specifically references the historic origins of the Blackletter typeface, associating it with Nazi Germany. He also has a section titled, “Ethnic Typography,” which addresses typography that seem to support stereotyping with a specific ethnic association, like typefaces used for branding or advertising of ethnic or minority-specific content.

I think this topic would be especially relevant in today’s political and cultural climate, where we are pushed more at odds with one another, but also trying to embrace each other. Being aware of more historical ties between specific images and their sacred cultural or important historical links would be helpful and important for our future as designers and consumers of design. One example that would be good knowledge for designers to have is the context behind the Japanese Rising Sun Flag imagery. This flag and image carry very serious and heavy history with it, and it is still used today in a lot of design contexts, that are not connected to or cognizant of that very real and important history.

One aspect of this sort of thing that would be interesting and useful to discuss could be dog-whistles, or coded language. The term ‘dogwhistle’ refers to coded language and uses the concept of an actual dogwhistle to illustrate this, by referencing whistles that are too hight of a frequency for humans to hear, but are heard clearly by dogs. This connects to the the language it identifies, because often coded language is meant to be understood by a specific group, but not the overall population. An article I found on this subject, titled, “Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation, and Philosophy of Language” written by Jennifer Saul, talks more about this subject. (https://academic.oup.com/book/9256/chapter/155975503?login=true)

She talks about the important ties between dogwhistles and hate speech, politics, and propaganda, all of which are relevant to graphic designers today. She also gives examples of dogwhistles that have been previously used in political campaigns or examples that might be heard today in most media.

Dogwhistles, have become more and more prevalent on social media as a form or political signaling, but also as a form or intimidation or hate speech, often being commented on minority creators’ content. Being aware of these words, phrases, images, and their history would be insightful and helpful knowledge to have as designers going forward.

(Saul, Jennifer, 'Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation, and Philosophy of Language', in Daniel Fogal, Daniel W. Harris, and Matt Moss (eds), New Work on Speech Acts (Oxford, 2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Aug. 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198738831.003.0013 , accessed 20 Mar. 2023.)

[nekropsii]

The forever-repeated sentiment that analyzing the Alpha Trolls or taking any level of the content of their character seriously is “stupid” or “a waste of time” due to them being “intended purely as jokes,” especially regarding various social media cultures at the time, double especially in reference to the- at the time- current Homestuck fandom climate is… Aggravating.

Yes, the Alpha Trolls ARE, on various levels, easy to brush off as “purely joke characters,” but you want to know what else was? The Beta Trolls. They functioned practically the same exact way upon their initial release- the ENTIRE concept of Trolls in Homestuck is literally just based on Internet Trolls! Back in the day, they, too, were received largely as jokes! And they kind of were! A big reason we take them so seriously now is due to their inevitable plot relevance and screentime.

My prevailing hypothesis is that one of the few main reasons the Alpha Troll cast is/was often brushed aside as pure, unanalyzable parody and nothing else is the reverse of why the Beta Troll cast eventually WAS taken seriously- screentime! And their… Lack thereof. We take Meenah decently seriously, just as we take Aranea decently seriously- and that’s because out of the Alpha Troll cast, they got the most screentime!

Due to the nature of them being short-stay characters, their nature as being partially based in satire had to be... Well, inflated. Do you remember the first interactions the Beta Troll cast had with the Beta Kids, and how they were… Very much so more blatantly just Internet Trolls? That’s what I believe is going on. Everything had to be pushed to the max, obnoxious behavior due to a millennia’s worth of brain rot being put pedal to the metal. They’re very straightforward characters when you look solely at their interactions with each other, no thought to any deeper psychology... Kankri Vantas, Seer of Blood, is an amazing example of this who I often see... With offense intended to nobody, largely mishandled.

Off the bat, it’s very easy to recognize exactly what he, as a character, is parodying, ESPECIALLY if you were on Tumblr during his relevance. He’s largely a satirization of the at the time overwhelming, severely misguided Discourse and Callout Culture permeating through the then-present Tumblr sphere. Not only that, but the commentary on it as a whole and what kind of people for the most part perpetuated said online political climate was very, very interesting and, shockingly, very, very true. Let’s get this out of the way- Kankri is most definitely intended as a White Tumblr Teen circa 2013.

Kankri Vantas is an honestly pretty good tongue-in-cheek satirization of old Tumblr “Social Justice” politics in the fact that it was perpetuated largely by (mostly) white, very online, sheltered teens with little to no actual life experience in the things they want to advocate for or against. The result of this often meant an echo chamber-like circle of kids of similar age and experience regurgitating the same topics, buzzwords, opinions, etc. over and over again. Due to the nature of being a teenager, there’s a persisting need to feel both special and like you belong to something- which is where Kankri’s ties to MOGAI and otherkin come in. (This is not an invitation to start discourse on the validity of either, I am simply stating facts about the character.)

But there’s a few very important thing one needs to note about Kankri- of which needs preemptive statements. Yes, he is a minority himself in the fact that he is a mutant limeblood. No, this absolutely does not stop him from being an abhorrent little shit when it comes to minorities. Which was ABSOLUTELY a huge problem in old Social Justice circles, and it still is today! We see him exhibit this type of behavior several times- he’s EXTREMELY preachy about supporting any and every type of minority, but then we see him CONSTANTLY talking over and bullying actual minorities, even down to policing the language they use to describe their own experiences!

He openly harasses a once-physically disabled man for using words he CAN, in fact, reclaim, which he used in reference to himself to talk about his own experiences, (Rufioh)

Harasses another disabled man by calling said literally disabled man ableist and saying he’s “perpetuating a harmful stereotype,” not for saying or doing anything harmful, but for wearing something which he needs to wear due to his disability AND his hobbies- said item being a helmet, and said hobby being skateboarding- all of which is done in a condescending fashion. (Mituna)

Not to mention he actively denied systemic misogyny exists to a woman’s face even when given a very intellectual explanation as to why it does, as well as slut-shaming her several times, once again to her face. (Porrim)

This guy fucking sucks! And on top of that, a fun thing to notice is that he’s a total bootlicker! Everyone he harasses are minorities, oftentimes in more ways than one- he’s bullied Meulin, who is a deaf, lowblood woman, Rufioh, a lowblood man (of color!) who was once quadriplegic, Mituna, a lowblood bipolar man with brain damage, and Porrim, a midblood woman with a shamelessly active sex life! But he’s all supportive and buddy-buddy with Cronus, highblood pseudo-royalty who also harasses/abuses people with minority status!

There’s so much that’s worthy of discussion, even just pertaining to Kankri’s character- and he by far is not my favorite! All of that character, all of that psychology, hidden JUST beneath the surface-level reading of “Kankri is a Tumblr parody.” THAT’S why the Alpha Trolls getting brushed off so quickly as topics of analysis is just so frustrating to me! There’s so much to consider, so much to notice, so much to analyze, and plenty of room to fill in the blanks left by canon!

And if no one else is going to do that level of analysis on them, then I will. That is a threat AND a promise. Sylph’s honor!

[clearlymiraculous]

A more serious post about Megaleech

So we were definitely hit with the sledgehammer of foreshadowing at the end of the episode, and I'm definitely thinking someone is a Sentimonster, but I honestly want to talk about today's akumatisation/amokitisation setup.

This would have been SUCH a good episode to give an introduction to kids on how politics actually work, especially given that Gen Z (and maybe Gen Alpha, considering they're close to entering high school) have been very vocal about being more environmentally friendly. Schools in Australia, at least, staged walkouts in 2019 as protests against climate change. And it just... failed so badly.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, once again I'm relying on my usual two minute Google search, but what I'm specifically talking about is how laws are passed. From aboutfrance.com:

And from senat.fr:

For those who didn't take legal studies in high school, a bill is a law that hasn't been passed.

So I'm sure you're wondering what the introduction of the O'Hare Air tower to Paris has to do with actual lawmaking... well, as for any public service building (because the Mayor isn't going to be there for any old building opening - off topic, but why do kids shows insist on Mayors being at every public event ever? They've got work to do... you know, politics), there would have to be a series of official bodies to send proposals through. In fact, they apparently did go through that process, if Mylene has been protesting all year about it.

So.. back to my original point: why would you make such a relevant episode for your viewers, especially a topic on which they are known to be passionate (that is not to say elder generations aren't, I'm just thinking about the intended audience here), and yet there is not even an inkling of any suggestion given to kids on how to help?

Like sure, plant a tree... only I don't think kids running down to Place de Vosges after this episode is going to go down so well. How about... I don't know, introducing the idea of speaking to local political representatives? Sending a formal petition to the Mayor to introduce a more environmentally friendly initiative to combat pollution?

Especially considering that Mylene and Ivan were ignored in their 6 month long protest, this would have been so good as a pair of episodes. Have the kids learn about the legislative process in school when the Oxygen protest is first announced. Mylene and Ivan protest, only to be ignored. Frustrations build and Shadowmoth seizes his chance. It ends hopefully, with the idea of communicating with the Mayor.

The next episode, the ending is shown to have not turned out favourably - there are so many ways the Mayor could be akumatised. He could be annoyed that some kids are inundating him with petition slips. He could be chewed out by investors (which, if Gabriel is one, we know he'd be all too happy to do this if it means he can get another victim). It could be shown that maybe other members of local/national government were not so easily convinced by a random group of Parisian kids, and of course Mylene expresses her frustration by embarrassing him in public somehow.

As usual, I've written my post without any kind of plan or coherent thought... only the knowledge that I love this show and I just... want it to do better. also I got distracted by T.A's response to Jeff Bezos and does he seriously think he came up with every good idea

[tanadrin]

I suppose because politics is what means I have no future of any kind left, so it's hard to be silly about it. And I seem to have landed myself in a sector of social media filled with people who are very smug about how smart and nihilistic they are, and I hate all of you with the hatred that only a miserable, powerless person can feel.

I don’t buy it. Unless you are quite literally scheduled to be executed at dawn, “no future of any kind left” because of politics is catastrophizing. People in very dire circumstances the world over often manage to build some kind of life for themselves; it may not be the life they want, and the suffering they endure because of the circumstances they are limited by should not be dismissed, but to say that someone in such adverse conditions has no future is to infantalize them and deny them the agency they do have to shape their life to some extent.

And this is an insight I’ve found important when dealing with depression in myself: even if one’s catastrophizing is not irrational (say, you’re a queer person stuck in an extremely homophobic environment, at minimum for the next 5-10 years), that does not mean it is useful. To put it another way: circumstance might justifiably make you angry and sad and frustrated. That may be rational. Deciding, in the face of that anger and sadness and frustration, to surrender to it is not rational.

So--assuming that you are not a political dissident due to be executed, nor suffering from a terminal illness which somehow for political reasons cannot be cured (if either of these things are true, you have my sincere condolences)--I have to say, this ask reeks of someone who’s depressed. If you are depressed, you will always be able to come up with reasons why happiness is unattainable for you, due to circumstances entirely out of your control. This is not a crazy thing to think, because if you are depressed and not treating that depression, most if not all the things you try to do will not solve your unhappiness because they are usually orthogonal to what is making you unhappy. Your very ability to accurately imagine future happy states and what might bring them about is suppressed by depression; for instance, you might, if you are depressed and you know it, rationally understand that exercise often helps with your depression, but be unable to motivate yourself to exercise because the intuitive link between if I do X I will feel better is broken by an internal forecasting system that refuses to spit out predictions other than “nothing I do will help with anything.”

A depressed state is not a psychotic break--it doesn’t cause you to lose touch with reality--but I think depressed people would sometimes benefit from treating it like one, because it does subvert your ability to accurately model the world, and therefore you can’t trust your own ability to reason or intuit about certain topics. I have both experienced this from the inside, and seen it from the outside: friends whose depression causes them to believe they are unlovable, and thus that nobody loves them, even when told (and shown) repeatedly that they are very much loved, and very important to the people around them.

In fact, you remind me of this post: depressed and anxious people who notice politics is depressing and anxiety-inducing, and that depressing and anxiety-inducing problems confront the world and society, and therefore conclude that their depression and anxiety are a rational and reasonable response to the world. But that doesn’t follow at all! A lot of responses to a depressing and anxiety-inducing environment are more useful that shutting down and withdrawing, or letting yourself be paralyzed; and even if there are negative external factors in the world affecting your life, if you have nothing in your life that is a sufficient source of joy to offset these things at least somewhat, then you have problems sufficiently severe that I don’t think your depression or anxiety can be laid at the feet of the world at large alone; more likely, you’re dealing with shitty personal circumstances, and these are far more likely to be tractable to your individual capacities than, like, all of climate change. And if you do have some sources of joy in your life, you can cultivate those further.

To put it another way: humans are very bad at reasoning about things on large scales or over large timelines. One reason we’re slow to solve problems like climate change is that we tend to be pretty blasé about remote and impersonal problems, which is actually often useful as well--because it means we’re capable of adjusting our hedonic barometer to create joy even in catastrophic circumstances. If you are constantly worried about big issues like climate change or the Trump presidency to the point where you can never do that, then the conclusion you should draw isn’t that you’re a uniquely rational human being with a uniquely accurate worldview, it’s that your brain is broken and you should not trust your intuitition.

Emotional states are not rational models of the world. They are tools our brain uses to motivate certain kinds of action. They probably have their origin in our social evolution, but this means they are extremely untrustworthy when it comes to complex, large-scale, philosophical, or impersonal issues, because these are not scenarios our brains evolved to handle before the advent of high-population, highly-stratified societies.

Now, I realize it’s hard to convince someone they are depressed and/or should seek treatment by rational argument (lord knows I’ve tried in the past!), because after all, if we were being perfectly rational, we would not feel depressed. We wouldn’t feel anything; again, emotions are contingent tools, not highly rationalized responses to the world! So I won’t belabor this point any longer. Instead, now I’m going to get annoyed with you.

Because here’s the other thing depressed people do--and I have done myself. They see people who are not depressed, whose hedonic barometers are functioning normally, and capable of experiencing joy even in arguably (or inarguably!) shitty circumstances, and they get mad at them. How dare you be capable of laughing at a joke, or sharing a meme, or having a nice day, when everything is so bad!

This is a common response, not only from depression, but also I think from grief, or fear, or trauma, or lots of other things. But it’s bullshit. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to demand that everyone feel your suffering as acutely as they feel their own. You don’t get to demand that just because you’re a pessimistic ball of frustration and anger that everyone else be, too. You get to--and ought to--demand that people treat you with empathy and respect, but that doesn’t mean they don’t get to make jokes about topics you find depressing as hell. Yes, even topics that personally affect you, and may not personally affect them (though, of course, a lot of times people assume the person making the joke isn’t personally affected by the topic, when in reality they are and the joke is a way of relieving stress and coping with frustration).

That calvin and hobbes meme I reblogged is an extremely generic political compass meme; the only relevance it has to the world today, I suppose, is acknowledging that, like, politics is a thing that exists. If you’re upset by that--how dare people laugh at politics, the source of all my problems--you’re being a dick.

And this leads my to my final point, which is this: while we are all of us owed compassion, we also owe others compassion. And people caught up in their own anxiety and depression and anger often don’t see the way their emotional states impose costs on the people around them. They often treat the people around them badly--worse, at any rate, than they normally would--and react defensively if this is pointed out to them.

I’ve done this. I have friends who have done this. I get it. It doesn’t make someone a horrible person! It doesn’t meant they deserve to feel the way they do. But it does create the second half of a twofold moral obligation. You see, I believe that the, call it “utilitarian selfishness” view, is essentially correct: if all humans are of similar moral worth (they are), and you can only help one person (often true), and that person is yourself, it is no less moral to help yourself than it is to help someone else. This is usually framed as a grant of permission: “you are allowed to be selfish sometimes.” But it’s also an obligation: “you should not be a dick--even to yourself.” You have a positive obligation to care about your own suffering! And you have a positive obligation to try to reduce the costs your suffering--your bad mood, your depression, your anxiety--imposes on the people around you.

Because I’m not a smug nihilist. I actually believe, with embarrassing intensity, in a large number of abstract principles. And while I believe circumstance or injustice can conspire to make people feel miserable and powerless, and I have the utmost sympathy for you feeling that way, no one is so omnipotent as to be able to truly excise our power to do something with our life that is rewarding to us, no matter how modest. Your subjective feeling of misery is not license to be a dick to people, or to misrepresent them or their motivations. And if reading my tumblr (or anyone else’s) makes you miserable, you have a positive moral obligation to stop, because you’re being a dick to yourself, which is no more justifiable than being a dick to me. And being a dick to me because you don’t like my Tumblr, because you’re miserable and I’m not, is pants-on-head stupid.

I, too, have been so convinced of my misery and powerlessness, and so utterly convinced of my inability to make improvements in my life, that I have yielded utterly to the feeling of myself as a despised, helpless, wretched thing. You can spend years in that state. A lifetime, even. I suppose it relieves you from the burden of having to try, which is a tiny shred of comfort when the climb up the hill seems so steep. But I have found that in the long run it brings no other relief; there’s no regression to the mean, just an endless prolongation of misery. It required some courage, and not a little determination, to try to climb out of that pit. Sometimes you struggle. Sometimes you fall back in. Sometimes it’s easier to believe there’s nothing beyond that place of unhappiness. But there is, and you can get there, and the choice of whether or not to reach it lies only with you.

[politijohn]

Sorry to bother you, i was just kind of curious. I always see your tags #taxtherich , #eat the rich, or whatever.. basically saying to tax the rich more, but what exactly is wrong with the wealthy? (Trump excluded , everything is wrong with him.) like I’m speaking like musicians and maybe lawyers? Does the MC (middle class) have to suffer because the rich aren’t taxed enough? Can you explain this please?

Thanks!! :) I love your blog as it’s very informative.

Hello! If you looked through those tags already, I suspect you already have a little bit of an idea. I could write an entire essay on this, but I’ll try to be brief!

Money is the inherent cause of almost all the world’s problems. It drives climate change, corrupts politics, war, enables mass incarceration, poverty, low wages, high rents, inadequate union authority, etc. Capitalism has coerced too many people into thinking that happiness revolves around making lots of money and buying lots of nice, flashy products. People who maintain a lot of wealth built and maintain a system that entices others into wanting to achieve it. It gives them power in a society attracted to greed.

The result of this has been that rich people acquire more and more wealth and the rest of people have less and less (I’ve tagged #economic inequality on many related posts on this topic). At the same time, these wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, the top 1% in the US owe ~70% of all unpaid taxes. It is also too difficult for the IRS to audit rich people because they have such (intentionally) complicated and shady assets to track. Those tax dollars should, of course, fund programs that help people who are less fortunate.

Some rich people are more sinister than others. I wouldn’t say Donald Trump is the same type of rich as, say, Serena Williams. Williams certainly made her mark as a professional athlete, which leads to other ways of building money later on. Trump on the other hand... 

But what’s similar between these individuals is they are both inclined to maintain the economic status quo because it benefits them. In many ways, enabling the accumulation of wealth is a bipartisan issue. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see the majority of Hollywood stars identify as liberals who support liberal politicians like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. As I’ve discussed in my blog before, liberals are not our friends. They’ve been bought out to exhibit an illusion of concern towards social issues but they would never dare threaten to upend the economic system that we see today. I say “illusion” because if you refuse to combat the inherently destructive economic system we have, “social issues” like LGBTQ or women's’ rights will never be fully addressed. It’s a perfect place for “non-sinister” rich people to think they’re doing good while pocketing more money. This even extends, of course, to foreign policy where demand for resources like fuel and trade are key to making the rich even more money. On these issues, the Republican and Democratic Party often agree, which is bad.

I laughed a little when you brought up lawyers because the people in that profession who make lots of money are those who represent wealthy people and corporations. I.e. they help them make more money, so they are rewarded with some in return. After reading about this topic, are you surprised?  

So as the rich get richer, the middle and lower classes slowly merge into a mega class of people with less and less resources to afford the bare minimum. Even as employees become more productive, comparable wages are laughably low. It’s not by accident.

“Eat the rich” was a saying dating back to the French Revolution. It has resurfaced because economic inequality in the US is moving to the same abhorrent condition that France was during their Revolution. There’s another relevant saying, "no one earns a billion dollars.”Similar to how the French aristocracy exploited peasants, today’s uber rich have made so much money so fast that it is impossible for that money to have been genuinely earned. Looking at Jeff Bezos, for example, you can see how his employees historically received low wages and continue to experience harsh working conditions. His plants and headquarters buildings have also inspired mass gentrification. Why? So he and his shareholders can make more money. Bezos makes ~$321 million a day, $13.4 million an hour, $222,884 a minute, and $3,715 a second in 2020. There is no possible way one person could spend that money in a lifetime, nor should they be able to while his employees are living on welfare. 

Drastic measures are needed to repair or rebuild the economic system. Taxing the rich is an important first step. The rich, whether they are bad in a sinister or passive sense, will still have lots of money if they are taxed at a higher rate. It’s not even unachievable. We had a great start under FDR and the economy was booming for the middle class. 

One more note: The happiest countries on Earth have higher taxes and strong social safety nets that enable a strong middle class.

“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

[the-necessary-unnecessary]

you're very welcome! what kind of stuff are you doing at uni at the moment btw (I find politics interesting so always like to hear about that 😅)

Ah damn how much time do you have? Short answer is that right now nothing much since I'm on easter holidays and the actual course material has now been delivered with exam/essay season on the horizon (yes I pay 9 grand for 10 actual weeks of taught material...). But that means that I'm starting writing essays so I can give you a brief (sike i long ago figured out i cant do brief ://) breakdown of that!

One is for my EU module which has varied through things like the theory behind European integration, the institutional makeup on the EU and then onto specific policy areas/events like the refugee crisis, brexit and even a last minute edition on how they have responded to the pandemic and the vaccine. My essay is about critical theories (focusing on feminist, Marxist, post colonial and environmental approaches) and how they can enhance our understanding on the integration process through their focus on dynamics of power etc. Definitely my favourite module this year!

Then my quantitative methods stuff has been a continuation of a research project I'm doing on the general publics' attitudes towards climate change activism, so analysing the data gathered from a survey i created before writing up the results and process. I wasn't mentally prepared for coding but its much cooler when you're using software on data from your own survey!!

A third one is on political theory where we've gone all the way from hobbes and his social contract to the very pertinent topic of MLK and non-violent protesting. For this module my current essay is on John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor's 1860s marriage and how whether their critique on this institution (women being socially and economically forced to marry, women being oppressed in marriage and marriage having bad effects on characters/families) is still relevant today - I argue that it is.

And finally my module on comparative politics, the one that I've been putting off for last to start writing/revising... its super interesting but so much work, it's basically a research project which we had pretty much free reign on. Mine is going to focus on the case study of Libya, whose democratisation (or lack thereof) process I aim to use to try and decolonise the very western dominant conceptualisation of democracy. It requires a lot of research, and me coming to a lot of my own conclusions, but it's a topic area which I'm very passionate about so it should hopefully start coming together at some point.

Anyways, thank you for staying with me if you reached this far and I hope it was somewhat interesting. I'm defo enjoying the course a lot this year!!

[funknrolll]

Celebrating Prince: discovering a timeless artist and his meaningful and impactful art. Part 1. From the 1970s to early 1990s

Hi music lovers, it has been a while since my last post. Today is an important day and as a fan of Prince and as I’m extremely passionate about his art, my tribute could surely not miss. Since this article is extremely long I decided to divide it into more than 1 big post and do a whole week celebrating this immense artist, his life and his meaningful and astonishing art. Additionally let me say that I began this article in summer 2019 and I managed to finish it just now and to be honest, it is a 20 thousand words article. With this said, I hope you enjoy this new format, I hope you guys enjoy this article and I hope it will make you reflect on how impactful and important was and still is Prince’s art.    

First, let me say that I have heard so many things about Prince’s artistry. Some comments came from uneducated people who did not even take a second of their lives to understand, and do research on his art. Hence, I think the time to shed some light on Prince’s art, has come (finally). I hope to help some of those people understand this artist better and to finally appreciate him the way he deserves. We owe Prince big time. Today’s music and musicians  owe Prince everything. Without him, many of the artists we listen to today, WOULD NOT BE EXISTING. As we all know, Prince loved to experiment with music, trying out new music genres, new styles, new harmonies, melodies, rhythms and so on. This is one of the factors that led this legend to create a unique, wide and broad vault. There are so many songs of his that I love so much and that I find relevant for this article. The ones I chose, are going to prove that Prince and his music did not just revolve around sex and sexuality, (even if the artist through his music took the topic to another whole level). Through the article, we will see that Prince was more than all that I mentioned above. He was an extraordinary human being, blessed with so many enormous talents, with a beautiful mind, a uniquely pure soul. A true gift of God. With this in mind, let us start this article.

Starting with For You and the self-titled album “Prince” lyrically speaking they both are centered on the bittersweet feeling of love. However, what strikes me every time I listen to these masterpieces is that Prince was only 19 when he produced them. Moreover, the artist was skilled enough to produce, write all the lyrics, play all the harmonies and melodies and therefore compose all the arrangements for the songs and eventually record everything in the studio. He was only 19 with already an enormous talent.

The next album I will tell you about is Controversy. Specifically, I will analyze two songs contained in the album, which are exactly the homonymous song Controversy and Ronnie Talk to Russia. Controversy was released in 1981 right after For you, Prince and Dirty Mind. This album is totally different from the previous three. Indeed, if we listen closely and attentively, we will discover that the dissimilarities lay in the sounds, melodies, lyrics, and intention with which this masterpiece was crafted. Speaking about the song Controversy, I find it extremely relevant and unique. Melodically and rhythmically, we can listen to a Prince who was enormously far from the Prince who produced and crafted I wanna be your lover and For you. Besides what I just mentioned, what I find hugely relevant about this masterpiece are the contents. Indeed, in this song, we can investigate how open-minded Prince was. The song was the product of the artist’s intelligence who took all the rumors and the fake news made against him and turned them into this song which not only was a smart clap back but it also hid an extremely deep meaning which lays in its bridge and is characterized by a spoken almost rapped part:

“ People call me rude, I wish we all were nude

I wish there was no black and white, I wish there were no rules

People call me rude, I wish we all were nude

I wish there was no black and white, I wish there were no rules

People call me rude, I wish we all were nude

I wish there was no black and white, I wish there were no rules

People call me rude, I wish we all were nude

I wish there was no black and white, I wish there were no rules “

The message Prince was delivering with this was  evident: it does not matter whether we’re straight or gay, black or white, female or male, we all should be one and we are all the same. In fact quoting the artist: “So life is just a game, we’re all just the same”. In my opinion, this song is such an anthem and a hymn of freedom, and through this masterpiece, Prince encourages each of us to be ourselves no matter what. Moreover, this masterpiece, I would say, was a predictor of Prince’s whole career, as from that moment on, through his music he had always delivered the message of freedom of mind, freedom of expression, freedom to be ourselves, and a message of love and unity. Another song that I find extremely relevant for this article is Ronnie Talk to Russia. As we can infer from the title, this track had social and political purposes. Indeed, the title refers to the 40th American President Ronald Regan. Through this song, we can see another side of the artist who was very much conscious and interested in social issues. Moreover, this song was written and composed in the 1980s which means it was in the middle of the Cold War between the United States and Russia and therefore the lyrics make even more sense. Prince with the extremely earnest masterpiece was encouraging the then-President of the United States of America, to open the dialogues with Russia before it had been too late. Indeed, as the artist sang:

“ Ronnie if you're dead before I get to meet ya

Before I get to meet ya

Before I get to meet ya

Ronnie if you're dead before I get to meet ya

Don't say I didn't warn ya

Ronnie talk to Russia before it's too late

Before it's too late

Before it's too late

Ronnie talk to Russia before it's too late

Before they blow up the world”

After Controversy, 1999 was released. One of my favorite songs on this album is Free, which is probably one of the most underrated in Prince’s vault. A true hymn of freedom. In my opinion, the lyrics of this masterpiece are quite self-explanatory. Basically, in this song Prince is encouraging each of us to be glad about our freedom. The kind of freedom, Prince is talking about, is the freedom of the mind which is something extremely important and that should never be taken for granted. Besides that, another of the topics contained in this masterpiece is the fugacity of life, or else that life is so short and we should never take it for granted nor should we waste it as it is something extremely precious that needs to be cherished. Moreover, this song is introduced by the beat of a heart and some steps. Perhaps the artist had a specific motivation to use these two characteristics to the point that he even used them in the song. In my opinion, Prince might have used the heartbeat to symbolize life and therefore our freedom and the fact that we should be happy for what we have which is our freedom and our life; because as Prince said, it is something some people do not have. This peculiarity is well connected to the lyrics, indeed as Prince sings:

“I know your heart is beating, my drummer tells me so

If U take your life 4 granted, your beating heart will go”

Additionally, as regards the steps used to introduce the song, this is the second detail that is exceedingly well related to the lyrics as Prince sang to be glad that we are free to go anywhere we want. Musically speaking, there is another peculiarity that makes this song even more relevant. Prince’s voice and performance are two of the major key points of this masterpiece. Indeed, in my opinion, without the proper execution of a talented artist, this song would have lost its impact and hence would have been less meaningful. The heartfelt, emotional and genuine performance the artist delivered is what makes the song even more credible, and therefore impactful. Additionally, what I find mesmerizing about Prince, is how he had always been able to create a connection with the listener through his music.

Jumping forward in time, in 1987 Prince released Sign ‘o’ the Times such a meaningful album. The album was released after Purple Rain (1984), Around the World in A Day (1985) and Parade (1986). In this masterpiece, Prince is delving into a wide range of different topics that shift from love, social issues, climate change, sex, death, new diseases, poverty, religion and so forth. Not only can we see Prince’s musical evolution in this masterpiece, but also how he was unraveling his true beautiful self as an artist and human being. There are three songs that I find extremely relevant for this article and these are the homonymous Sign ‘o the Times, Starfish and Coffee and The Cross.

Starting with Sign O the Times, this song begins with an extremely strong bassline which is entirely played by Prince like all the other instruments in this song are. Indeed, this is the first album that is not played by the Revolution. Hence Prince with this masterpiece is showing one more time his immense musical skills. Also, the instrumental part of this masterpiece is, I would say, extremely simple and neat. Indeed, a few instruments were used to craft the song. However, the arrangement is quite complex. In my opinion, Prince might have kept the instrumental part simple and neat to confer more importance to the lyrics. This was an extremely well thought and ingenious choice as thanks to it the artist is having his listener to put all their attention to the monumental lyrics of the song. As I mentioned, the lyric is the fulcrum of this song. In fact, through the eloquent, self-explanatory and skillfully written lyric, Prince is delivering such an important message. Through this work the artist is externalizing all his concerns about climate changes and social issues such as the appearance of aids, drug addiction, and poverty. The relevance of this song is still extremely actual, now more than ever. The second song I mentioned, Starfish and Coffee, is probably my favorite in this album. Perhaps because it deals with a topic that is close to my heart. According to the internet, this song was inspired by a real person. Indeed, according to Prince’s then-girlfriend, Susannah Melvoin, the song is about one of her classmates who was extremely peculiar and ignored by all her classmates except Susannah. Needless to say, that when Prince heard the story and asked for more details and eventually Starfish and Coffee was born. In addition to that, Prince then confirmed on the old website love4oneanother that this song is specifically about a little girl with special needs. Lyrically speaking also this song, is extremely eloquent. The artist’s sensitivity and gentle personal touch in telling this moving story and depicting the main character is what makes the song unique. Besides the touching story behind the song, the extremely peculiar arrangements and melodies would suggest a happy song dealing with a happy story, rather than a sad story. However, Prince might have opted for this specific arrangement either to allure the listener to pay attention to the song, or to ease a song that would have been too painful if it had had an arrangement coherent with the lyrics. The third song I mentioned is The Cross. This masterpiece probably holds the most hermetic meaning among all the songs on this album. Although the title would suggest the Cross symbolizing Jesus Christ, his name is never mentioned. Moreover,  the heartwarming and reassuring lyrics and the monumental, almost Beatles-like arrangement, are two of the major points of the song. Indeed, the song opens with a few instruments and then their number increase as the melodies build up and expand like a beautiful flower opening and showing its beautiful colors. The cherry on the top of the pie is the artist’s emotional and impressive performance that never ceases to give me chills. Last but not least, I don’t know if it is just me, but this song and the intention of the performance and the arrangements are giving me Beatles vibes.

Among all the albums produced, Music from Graffiti Bridge is perhaps one of my favorite by Prince. After Lovesexy (1988) and Batman Soundtrack (1989), the artist released the soundtrack of his third movie: Graffiti Bridge. (I really recommend this movie in case you have not seen it yet). This movie despite all the comments and criticisms it received, is, in my opinion, a masterpiece that delivers such a hugely important message. It is a pity that some people are not able to look beyond appearances to search for something deeper. The album boasts the presence of a special guest and music legend or else Dr. Funk, Uncle Funk aka George Clinton. Among the songs on this masterpiece, the most meaningful and relevant are New Power Generation, Elephants and Flowers,  and Still Would Stand All Time.

The first song I mentioned is New Power Generation. The message it delivers applies extremely well to music today. Indeed, the message Prince has always strived to send out through his music and life was that music’s most important and highest purpose is to change the world and people for the better. Therefore, artists should make efforts to create music with that specific aim. This lesson should be applied to music today as most of the artists today do not create music to inspire people but rather for their own advantage. Besides, the artistic and personal evolution of the singer is quite undeniable. The arrangement of the song vaunts the presence of some of Prince’s talented fellow artists such as Morris Day who skillfully executed the drumline and the beautiful singer Rosie Gaines who with her signature voice is performing the powerful background vocals. Additionally, with the soulful and expressive vocals, Prince gave proof of his skills using a good portion of his vocal extension and lastly giving proof of an extremely broad range of vocal techniques.

Another relevant song worth listening to is Elephants and Flowers. The song is perhaps one of the most spiritual on the album. The crystal-clear lyrics hide a deep meaning, lesson, and message of hope and love. In fact, through the metaphor of the Elephant and the flowers Prince is basically teaching that God created everything from something big as an Elephant to something as small as a flower. Hence, the lesson behind the metaphor is that God made us all and the prayers of those who believe in Him are not wasted in vain and He listens to them. Moreover, as in many of the artist’s songs, it could not be missed the implicit allusion to the afterworld which is being depicted as a beautiful place without sorrows, confusion, nor tears. Indeed as Prince sang:

Think I'm gonna fall in love tonight.

When I do, there won't be no more (confusion)

There won't be no more (no tears)

There won't be no more enemies, so that eliminates all the fear

And there won't be no sorrow, (sorrow)

There won't be no pain, (no pain)

There won't be no ball and no chain

Strip down, strip down, elephants and flowers.

Moreover, it is also important to pinpoint the instrumental part which is quite different from the artist’s previous works. The song is crafted with drums as the prevailing instrument followed by a skillfully played signature guitar solo. Although the relatively small number of instruments played, Prince has been able to craft an instrumental that sounds like a whole full orchestra. In my opinion, one of the reasons why the artist sometimes used a small number of instruments could be perhaps because he wanted to give importance to his vocals and the beautiful voices of the background singers. Another reason why might be that he wanted the audience to listen attentively to the lyrics. Moreover, another thing that I believe is of extreme importance, is that Prince played all the instruments in this masterpiece. Mind-blowing, isn’t it?

Another song that I find relevant is Still would Stand all Time. This was the last song played in the movie. Unlike all the other songs on the album, this one is different: firstly, because after 13 funk, rock, and pop songs, the artist decided to experiment with another music genre which is soul. Through some crystal-clear lyrics, the artist delivered a precise and straightforward message. There were no implicit messages, no inferring. Hence, the meaning is as simple as it gets: universal love, love for one another and the hope in a better world full of love, where people could finally join together, love each other, without dishonesty, anger, fear, jealousy, and greed. A world where people leave their pasts behind and join together against injustices. A world where no man will rule another man. This is basically the message Prince has lived up to his whole life. This message can be applied to today’s world and society, as we live in a world ruled by greed and anger and sorrow when instead we should be loving each other like brothers and sisters without hate, racism, greed. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we lost most of our humanity and kindness. Back to the song. Yet the peculiarity that makes the song monumental, besides the beautifully written lyrics is the instrumental. First of all, to make you understand better how brilliant Prince was, I need to say that in his song, the artist used a three-tone sampled flute from Prélude À L'Après-Midi D'Un Faune by Claude Debussy, from the cd Images For Orchestra. Besides the sampled flute, the vocal part is  another relevant peculiarity. Indeed, Prince is giving one of the most touching, expressive and heartfelt performances that gets straight to the heart and soul of the listener. Additionally, not only are these vocals a joy for our ears but the choir and Prince are using an extremely wide range of vocals techniques that show how musically educated the artist was. Indeed, at the very beginning of the song we can listen to Prince singing the first line of the song and the choir using the echo technique repeats Prince’s line. The echo technique is used almost throughout the entire song, except for two lines where the vocal technique used is the call& response. Indeed, the first line where the vocal technique I mentioned, is used is:

Oh, love, love, oh love if you would just please give us a sign

Still would stand all time

In these two lines, Prince is singing the first one and the choir responds with the chorus. Moreover, the other part where this technique is used is:

Love, love, it’s not that far away if we all say yes and give it a try

(Got to give it, a try, yes!) still would stand all time (I say still)

(so many times) so many times, I thought I could not make it

(still would stand all time)

The first line is performed by the choir to which Prince responds with “Got to give it a try, yes”. The chorus is performed by the choir and Prince responds with “I say still”. In the third line, Prince and the choir switch their parts and Prince sings the mainline and the choir responds. Despite the vocal parts are dominant in this song, the instrumental is also deserving recognition. First of all, it is important to notice Prince’s ability to craft an extremely complex arrangement. Moreover, what I find mesmerizing is how this brilliant artist could use a broad spectrum of harmonies and melodies and still make them work perfectly. Indeed, if you listen attentively, you would hear Debussy flutes from the Prelude in perfect harmony with the melodies played on the piano and the beats of the drums. As regards to the piano, we can listen to several different and difficult techniques used to craft this beautiful melody. Also, it is relevant to mention the fact that Prince played each instrument you hear in this masterpiece. Moreover, I do not know if it is just me but this kind of song makes me miss Prince more and more. He had this beautiful ability to connect with people through his music and therefore touch our heart in a way only a few artists have been capable of. This song is one of them. A total monumental masterpiece.

This was the first part of a series of articles dedicated to Prince to celebrate his life and most importantly his art. Stay tuned for more. In the meantime stay home, stay safe and healthy. Peace and Love 4 one another. G💜

[f-nodragonart]

Worldbuilding, briefly

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I approach worldbuilding in my own work, and how worldbuilding appears in the media that I admire, and just want to share some thoughts

so, y’know how lot of writers admit that it feels like their characters end up writing themselves? hijacking the creators’ brains and acting out their own lives? I feel the same can be said for settings, if they’re given the chance to breathe freely

suffice to say, a setting should feel dynamic-- a living, changing thing that affects (and is affected by) characters/plot/etc., and has solid internal logic. I think the two central concepts which make for good worldbuilding, in this respect, are:

a sense of history 

holistic integration with all other story elements

History

when a setting only exists in the present moment, it comes off flat and static-- merely a cardboard set-piece that could fall over at a gust of too-strong wind (or critical thought). settings need history to feel vibrant and alive, just as any individual character needs history to inform their actions and beliefs

essentially, good worldbuilding answers the question of, “How did we get here?”

in practice, having a sense of history helps a great deal in predicting and designing how a setting looks at the present. think of it like following branching pathways back to the source-- the main divergence(s) from real-life. as humans living on planet Earth in our particular sociocultural environments, whatever we create will automatically borrow from what we’re familiar with, so it helps to track down where we may be subconsciously starting at. once we find that initial divergence, it’s a simple matter of following logical stepping-stones from that source, up to the present point 

thus, you can break the broad question of, “How did we get here?” down into smaller, more manageable chunks by carefully tracking along a path of history

some examples of what I’m talking about here: 

need an explanation for the current geopolitical climate? trace back the basic history of all the countries in question, follow it back to basic sources (fighting over resources/territory, power/ideological struggles, etc.), to figure out why the geopolitical landscape looks as it does today. want to figure out how a particular culture came to their current beliefs/practices? look back to the history of their land-- what resources do they use, what ecological cycles impact them, how much cultural overlap do they have with their neighbors, and how does this impact what they most cherish in themselves and others? want to figure out how/why a creature exists in your world? map their evolutionary taxonomy and ecological relationships back to a point that connects to the other creatures on your planet-- where exactly did they “start” out and what pushed them to evolve the way the did?

most of these sub-questions will likely never be directly answered in your story, and you don’t even need to have detailed answers for most of them. but trust me when I say that YOU knowing the answers (even answers that you may consider broad and simple) will affect how you craft the present setting and its sense of history

of course, the level of divergence from real-life will impact how much reworking a given setting needs in order to feel self-sustaining and whole. a world where political history diverges from real-life only a few years previous is going to have different needs than a story whose very life-forms are built on different molecular structures than Earth life, for example. it can be intimidating in some cases, but if you’re willing to put in the work and research for it, you can make some pretty incredible discoveries

Holistic Integration

I’ll fully admit, Folding Ideas’ video on Ludonarrative Dissonance is what rly got me thinking abt this topic (and more deeply abt my own thoughts on stylistic/tonal consistency). his central idea about how we can approach story elements as separate or integrated rly clarified some of my vague opinions/feelings on certain media

essentially, worldbuilding shouldn’t be treated as separate from other story elements like plot and themes, if you want it to work holistically in your world. otherwise, your worldbuilding may start telling a different story from the plot/themes/etc. you’re consciously trying to craft. in fact, I’ll even argue that it’s impossible to treat worldbuilding separately, on a fundamental level

let me focus specifically on themes for a moment when I say, humans don’t create objectively. we don’t craft worlds or stories without automatically inserting our own beliefs and ideas into the settings. to say that a setting is free of theme in particular is highly arrogant, imo, and a sign that the creator likely thinks their own views are simply the “norm”. a magic system will reflect a creator’s views on souls and energy and existence; creature designs will reveal the aesthetic and types of animals a creator gravitates towards; various political systems will reflect a creator’s background and assumptions about the power/morality of said systems

in this way, I think it’s downright impossible to craft a world without themes in the first place. so it just makes sense to recognize and lean into that, while crafting the more deliberate themes of a story

but even if we do assume, for sake of argument, that worlds COULD be crafted objectively, I just don’t understand why they would? why/how a world functions the way it does will affect the ways characters move through that world, and how they experience their arcs and subsequent themes. like, it’s genuinely baffling for me to imagine crafting a story without every element organically weaving into and affecting one another, it just doesn’t feel like it would even work

because when an element of the story doesn’t exist in service of the other elements around it, that element becomes a useless distraction rather than an asset. folks complain all the time about useless characters-- people that take up precious screentime without moving any other element (plot, character arcs, tone, etc.) forward. yet the same can absolutely be said for settings-- settings which just exist as spaces to set characters while they experience a plot, separate from that given setting. when these settings don’t touch any other element of the story in any meaningful way (or vis-versa), they become distracting and useless, and ultimately destabilize/undermine the other elements

like, when we’re told a setting is rough and dangerous, but the characters that live there don’t act like it (no street smarts, no sense of caution towards their environment, no sense of where they are and how to get where they need to quickly--), it undermines the reliability of the characters’ personalities/arcs. when we’re told a setting is full of casual magic which affects everything, yet we’re shown a 1:1 picture of real life with no sign of how people using magic, how tech may integrate with magic, how magic affects aesthetic or history, it distracts from and undermines the fantasy/escapism. when we’re explicitly told that a story’s themes center around defying expectations/roles, yet the setting we’re supposed to root for only reinforces pre-defined roles and rules, it completely undermines any of the deliberate themes the creator intends. when we’re following a plot through various environments meant to showcase the variety of culture and aesthetic a world has cultivated, but we’re merely shown variations on a very similar theme, it’s distracting and boring

worldbuilding should not feel like a dissonant piece from other story elements. worldbuilding should harmonize with and enhance all other story elements, and those elements in turn should enhance the worldbuilding. while it absolutely is useful to tackle or talk about certain elements separately (I mean, I am taking a whole post to discuss worldbuilding, specifically), ultimately a good story is a whole whose parts can’t be fully removed from one another

Internal Logic

you may be wondering why I have yet to make any real mention of “logic” up to this point, since that’s how most folks analyze worldbuilding. hell, even I usually judge worlds based on how well they stick to their “internal logic”. but I think focusing on a vague sense of “logic” puts the cart before the horse, so to speak

if you don’t know the history of a particular setting, how can you track any cultural/political/etc. logic to its source? to say that logic “pre-establishes” certain rules is to admit that there is a sense of history there in the first place, thus specific events preceding the present text which explain why the present exists as it does. like, the big bang is a historical event that’s set up the logic of our entire universe, the same way a war sets up the political logic of a nation going forward. thus, history precedes logic

but before history can set precedents in worldbuilding, it’s really the other story elements which decide what history is important enough to establish in the first place. a story whose themes center around biological imperatives and ecology will need worldbuilding with a strong biological history; a story whose plot centers on political intrigue will need a world with a strong political history; a story with characters ranging across all different cultures will need to establish history for those cultures, etc. you aren’t obligated to establish the history of every single aspect of a setting, merely the parts that are actually relevant to the rest of the narrative in some way

this is how the internal logic of a story is established: by knowing exactly what history needs to be established to enhance the other story elements. logic should organically follow, once you have a strong grasp of history and holistic integration

-Mod Spiral