#we are all simply different expressions of Source Conciousness

[boyczar]

rainy day schedule

[husbandohunter]

Moments of Despair #1 [Genshin Impact/Diluc x Reader]

Synopsis: “The man who was on fire and realized it too late.”

(A series of works where the boys deal with the passing of their beloved).

Albedo's despair

Warnings: angst, tragedy, major character death, graphic depictions of violence perhaps

(A/n): Had these ideas for a while after reading @/serensama To Mourn series of another fandom. So much sorrow and feeling I just was inspired to write ���

_______________________________________________

The moment you fell lifeless in Diluc's arms, he wanted to disappear.

It was raining again, he had always despised the rain. How it trickles down the slope of your cheek, like tears falling from the heavens. The sight of it mixing with your blood creating a thin stream of red rivers flowing beside him. They patter down obnoxiously because time didn't care, the gods don't care, the world didn't care. You were just a small fragile person to their eyes but to him you were his light. A candle that used to shine in his dark world was now dissipitated by the waters of reality.

Many droplets have passed and he was still holding you. Diluc could do nothing but stare. He hadn't shed any tears nor could he make a coherent sound. Perhaps it was because his tears have long run out when his father was held in the very same way. Or it was because he was heartless. He's usually told for being cold and indifferent. But the pain clenching in his chest was proof that he still had one (proof that it was still beating), much to his dismay. It would be better if he didn't.

So why can't he just look away? Your wounds, your bruised features, everything now etched so deep into the back of his conciousness that is was starting to awaken his worst nightmares. They were the source of the bile growing in his stomach. The irony stench filling up his nostrils felt so sickening. He couldn't turn away. You're dead. You're dead. You're dead. As if reality had yet to register, or maybe he refused to accept it, Diluc helplessly gazed down your body with blank and empty eyes.

"Master Diluc..."

Jean's voice called out to him pitifully. He rises up with his back turned, ignoring the stares given to him, "Leave. The knights of favonius are not needed here."

"But she's a Mondstadt citizen," The anemo user retorts, slightly taken aback by his impassive reaction, "It's my responsibility to ensure this case doesn't go unnoticed."

Unnoticed. Diluc scoffs in his mind, what a tasteless joke.

"It seems you weren't listening," he announces as his head was turned ajar so they could see the deep hatred glowing red in his eyes, "Leave. Now."

Jean's lips trembled before barely being able to say, "Alright" and retreating her knights back to the city. Kaeya narrows his gaze at his bother, the sorrow was evident through his pupils. He steps forward until he was arms length away from his brother. Too little too late, another failure was added to the belt.

Kaeya was a man of many words but for once he was at loss of what to say. No underhanded suggestions, no ideas taunting him to spill his thoughts, he simply asks Diluc, "What are you planning to do now?"

Silence. Kaeya couldn't predict what sort of expression his brother was making as he looks at your corpse. It brought a heavy weight of unsettlement upon him and here he thought he had already grown used to his brother's quietness.

Slowly, he turns around while letting the water pour down his face. Kaeya tightens his jaw as Diluc drags his feet towards him, stopping when their shoulders were parallel, "It's none of your concern."

"You're just going to leave her here?"

There was a slight pause which was enough of an answer. The Cavalry Captain sighs when he watched him walk away, what was the point of asking when Kaeya knew Diluc so well? He glances at your form before swiftly shutting his eyes.

It was his concern.

-------

A week later, the staff of the Ragnvindr household could hardly recognize their Master's appearance. They knew not to bother him when he decides to lock himself in his chambers. Diluc drowns himself with work from hours to no end as he connects the findings of the person that took your life. As expected, it was one of his enemies- a fatui member. The question was, which one?

"Master Diluc, I beg of you, please take care of yourself," Elzer pleads.

The pyro user didn't bother to spare him a glance or look at the tray of food he carried.

Food...you always brought them whenever he had to work overtime.

"I do not remember specifiying anyone to be allowed in my office," he voices aloud, "If it's related to business affairs simply leave that with Adelinde and I'll take a look at it tomorrow."

"I understand. But you've been working all day and night yet refusing to take any breaks in between. At this rate, you'll harm your health."

The feather pen in his grip kept dragging it's course, "This is beyond the duties assigned to you Elzer."

"That's because it was a request sent by your father," he adds, knowing that stepping over his boundaries may cost him, "If Master Crepus was still here, I'm sure he would have said the same thing."

Taking a deep breath, Elzer lays out his last card, "And also your wife."

The pen slows into a halt.

No one had brought you up until now. Elzer anxiously watches his Master shifting in his seat, his red bangs covering half of his face but he could still see the frown pressing firmly on his lips. It wouldn't be a surprise if Diluc suddenly bursted at him for mentioning such a sensitive topic, all that matters was his master's well being and Elzer was willing to risk everything for it. But nothing. Diluc turns his attention ever so slightly at the tray he carried.

"Fine, but I'm not eating that."

"What? Wasn't this was her favourite-"

"Do I need to repeat myself?"

Elzer furrows his brows before sighing, "...No, Master Diluc."

He exits the room while carrying the fresh dish of Once Upon A Mondstadt that you loved so much. The door closes with a soft click and he was alone again.

People found it strange how Diluc seemed so vacant to your passing. He didn't even show up at your funeral. Instead, he continues his duties as a Mondstadt nobleman like usual while taking care of business matters associated with the winery. Except those who were close to him could see the difference in his actions. Apathy, he was so mechanical in every task he did. Like a marionette attatched on strings, a doll without a soul. After all, his soul died the moment when yours did too. What remains was a shadow of Diluc and a being existing solely for revenge and duty. He was nothing but a remnant.

Fatigue begins to wash over him and he fights to stay awake. Because once he gives in it will all be over. Once he closes his eyes, he would see your face with a multitude of images from the past. He would hear your voice calling out his name from a distant space as it echoes off the walls of his mind. He would fall into a dream where you were still with him and as always, waking up to see that it was never real.

I should have pushed you away.

Because what hurt Diluc the most wasn't that you were gone, rather, it was how you were still here.

Then you'd still be-

Something breaks and it turned out to be the pen he was holding so tightly. Only now Diluc realized how fast his heart was thrumming as beads of sweat began rolling down his forehead. Focus. Don't waste time. He won't grant himself the liberty of anything when your murderer was still on the run. Every wound they inflicted on you was going to be returned in tenfold. He'll make sure of it. That's why, he refuses to think about you at all. Diluc occupies his mind with other matters since at this point, work was the only efficient method of keeping his sanity in tact.

She needs you to focus.

The door opens and Kaeya enters the room while holding a document, "We found the guy."

His reaction was immediate, "Where?"

"Hm, now that we meet, it's actually quite debateable," The captain notes wryly, "When was the last time you've gotten proper rest?"

"I don't have time for this, either you tell me or I'll do it by force."

Kaeya couldn't help but sigh, "Apologies but you don't seem to be in any state for a fight. I'm sure you know how it would end up if you were to face your enemy right now."

"..."

"Diluc, this isn't healthy," Kaeya asserts, it's been a while since he sounded so sincere, "I'm not here to prevent you from doing what's necessary however, perhaps it would be better if I finished it in your stead."

"No," Diluc stubbornly answers, "Hand that over."

"...Heh, then there's really nothing I can do to stop you it seems," he whispers with a sad smile, "At the very least, be careful."

"I intend to," The pyro user snatches the paper parchment out of Kaeya's hands before opening the window, "Also, if Elzer returns, tell him there's a few errands I have to take care of."

The night was a full moon and the sky was empty, Diluc leaps off the edge and disappears into the darkness. There was no telling of what could happen next. Since you weren't here, it was up to Kaeya to watch over him.

-------

The claymore dropped to the ground with a clang as it soaks up the blood of the fatui he just killed.

Diluc was tired, so tired.

He slumps down against the wall from pure exhaustion, all that adrenaline and hatred went up in fumes, leaving behind whatever was left in his heart: nothing. Two hours, not even that far from Mondstadt, the fatui hid in an abandoned building as he cowarded for his life. When Diluc arrived, he never expected this monster to be so weak. This was the person who murdered you? A pathetic nobody that was simply following orders? This was the reason why he lost you forever?

In the end, the only one to blame was himself, for being weak and unable to protect you. He was supposed to be your hero ("Darknight hero," you'd always tease), the rock that shields you just as you had been the warmth he longed for many years, did he give you enough? Was this enough? He thought avenging your death would grant him a peace of mind and the justice you deserved but deep down, he knew it will never be enough when it comes to his love for you.

"Diluc."

He closes his eyes, he hears your voice. He was so tired, it wouldn't be a surprise if he started hallucinating.

"Diluc."

"I'm sorry..."

The man lets out a trembled breath as he apologized to the image of you in his mind. I'm sorry I failed you. They were repeated like a mantra in hopes to reach you somehow. Of course that was impossible, his feelings, his emotions, love and sorrow altogether will never reach you again. And your arms that once comforted him and brushed his hair with a soothing voice, saying everything will be okay, where are they now?

"Diluc."

"Stop," he didn't want to hear your voice.

"Diluc, I'm here."

"Stop..."

"Diluc..."

He jolts his eyes open and lets out a yell, what was he saying? He doesn't know. All he needed now was to drown out the fake voices mocking in his head. Diluc grabs the nearest object and shatters it against the floor, the dam was broken and it flooded uncontrollably, breaking everything in it's way. The abandoned house was filled with loud cries of a man sobbing with agony like a broken-hearted child. He crumbles to his knees and falls to his side, lifting his forearms while clutching his face.

And screamed.

Archons, what did he do to deserve this? Why do the people he cherish get taken away from him? Diluc never wanted to be the Darknight hero if it meant having his father perish in his arms. He didn't want the feeling of stabs against his chest with every breath he took. He didn't want to feel cold while knowing it was because you weren't here to hold him. He didn't want your voice, your pictures or your memory.

He wanted you.

"(Y/n)..." he chokes. Rolling to his back, Diluc moves his arms to cover his eyes, letting the tears run down to his ears, "(Y/n)..."

For who knows how long, he lays there in the abandoned building and mourns. Diluc doesn't have the strength to move from his position, he found himself staring mindlessly through the cracks of the roof when his voice had gone hoarse. The corners of his eyes still burned and his head was throbbing with so much pain. Maybe he should just stay here but the thought of being in the same room as your murderer was unfathomable.

Picking up his claymore once again, Diluc drags himself out of the door. Where would he go? It's not like he had a home to return to because home was when he was with you. A doll without a soul, the marionette moves as if the strings have commanded him to do so. Where ever it takes him, he didn't care. He just knew he had to go.

[collectivefandomstuff]

mum... im being bullied on this site for writing and posting a story that apparently makes me into a racist even though i tried really hard to write it so its clear that the POV character is a shitty person and not me??? halp, i need advice pleaze

Hi there :) this is a sensitive subject, but I’ll give it a try.

When writing, what we’re essentially trying to do is communicate what’s in our heads to someone else’s using words. And, contrary to what some believe, using art/writing/whatever as a medium to convey those thoughts are hard and we all end up miscommunicating eventually. Now, in my experiece there are several types of literary miscommunication so I’ll try to cover them all:

1. Miscommunication due to differing perspectives. This happens when you and your audience comes at a text from different viewpoints. Sometimes it’s that you write from the metaphorical north and you can’t see that from the south this story looks way different. For example, look at 13 reasons why. They had a very graphic suicide scene that was meant to “start a discussion” but had other, much less positive consequences. In these situations, I usually ask myself: 1) am I willing to let the southern perspective stand? (as in, am I okay with what it implies?) and 2) is anyone getting hurt? If so, it’s not generally worth it.

The second incarnation of this miscommunication has to do with ethics. For example, if I were to write a story where the main character has an abortion, I would count on this making the character more sympathetic, not less, since I grew up in a culture without any real “pro-life” movement. I would be wary of the portayal because the protagonist would go through intense emotional turmoil, but I would never give the politics a second thought. Thus, if my audience tells me that the main character is a bad person (or that I am) I can stand firm on my ethics (or change them) and act accordingly.

2. Miscommunication through language. This is a big one. Sometimes when we speak to someone we just express ourselves poorly, and the same thing happens when we write. This one is hard to take as a writer, because there’s a prevailing idea that if you can’t convey your point you’re a bad writer, but that’s not the case. When writing, you usually start off writing cliches that have been written a hundred times before, and as you work at it you eventually start incorporating more of your own creativity into the work. When you do that, you can’t rely on people knowing the formula anymore and that’s when we start making mistakes. Let’s say I base a character on one of my friends, and someone criticizes that character for being a sexist trope since she dresses slutty and is pretty sexual. I’m over here like “no?? that’s Claire!” But in reality I failed to make the text reflect what I know: that Claire is multifaceted and interesting. These miscommunications help us become better writers and they never go away either. You know that one tumblr post about the Literature PhDs who has a whole seminar about whether Edgar Allan Poe was racist? Yeah.

From what you told me, you decided to take on writing an unsympathetic protagonist. That’s real tricky, and also a great way to practice characterisation and writing in general. It’s great that you’re doing it, but it also means that making these sorts of mistakes is more likely.

*this one is extra difficult if you’re writing in a second/third etc. language.

3. Miscommunication due to subconcious bias. We’re all products of our enviroments, upbringings, and experiences. Like with varying ethics due to cultural differences, we can’t ignore that sometimes we have preconceptions we’re not necessarily aware of and those can sneak into our writing. For example: I grew up in Europe, where there’s a strong anti-romani sentiment. The first time I learned about romani it was through the sentence “you can’t trust gypsies, they’re all thieves” (this is a slur and should not be used by non-romani. I’m using it here because this is a direct quote that underlines the severity of the jargon). I’m aware of this, and I conciously try to fight the cultural upbringing I had, but these things run deep. If I wrote a text and someone told me that it was offensive towards romani I would take that seriously, because sometimes bias shows up even when we don’t mean for it to. It doesn’t make us bad people, but it is something we have to be aware of as a possibility when we write.

Finally, there’s one more explanation that has nothing to do with miscommunication. Sometimes, tumblr does that because while tumblr is a safe space it’s also a bubble. A bubble with many, many people that tend to see the world through the good ol’ fashioned black/white goggles. Sometimes the audience is just wrong.

To you, anon, I would like to say this: from what you wrote it seems you’re going through a tough time. It’s hard being the target of an anonymous mass that are accusing you of being a bad person, especially in regards to a work you put a lot of effort into and conciously tried to make non-offensive. It’s okay to feel like you can’t handle it and simply change your account/take down the story/whatever makes you feel safe. Writing a story online shouldn’t become a source of bad feelings and thoughts.

If you want tips on the story itself, I would say try to re-read it and attempt to see it through the eyes of those who critizise you. Do they have a point? You can also ask someone else to read it, to get feedback. It can be really hard to see your own work from another perspective. If the discourse isn’t too toxic, you could also engage with your audience and ask them what parts of your story are making them feel that way, since this isn’t what you intended.

No author is perfect, least of all people writing for fun on the internet and it’s not always apparent to the audience how much their comments can hurt, in the end you wrote this story to communicate something and you’ve become a better writer for it. Likewise, you’ve learned something from the response and you’re under no obligation to leave it up or take it down or fix it or whatever. Don’t let it scare you away from writing more things.

I hope this helped. Take care of yourself anon❤️

Edit: I wanted to add that if people are genuinely drawing a direct link between your views and that of a purposefully flawed character then that’s on them and you should do whatever you feel is best for you and your well being.

[elaphaenotes]

9/7 Anthro Notes

Eating Christmas in the Kalahari

First Impressions:

This article leaves an interesting feeling in me, and I find myself weirdly in the situation as both a sympathizer of the anthropologist, and understanding the logic and reason behind the Bushmen's constant ridicule of the black ox. It makes sense, in a way, to keep a self-deprecating air over something that can get out of control if pride gets out of hand. It's also frustrating to me, to have something you worked and are really trying for bashed like that, mercilessly for a long time. It makes sense, but it also doesn't to me. But that's simply my point of view, they clearly have a different mindset about it.

General Notes:

The anthropologist stayed almost completely out of the affairs of the Bushmen, excepting the christmas ox. That was interesting, but it kept(?) the people he was studying from deviating from how they were just because someone new showed up with supplies.

The Bushmen have (or had, this is an article from a while ago, no idea how much has changed) a tradition to prevent conflict and promote humility, and not understanding that, Lee was hurt by their reactions.

Repeatedly, Lee is told that the reason he didn't know about the tradition was because he just never asked--asking things, the right things, is very important.

They had a 3rd hand knowledge of Christmas, and there isn't much interest in it beyond intersecting with annual events already taking place.

While Lee didn't overtly interfere with the people, he still got up close and personal, knew them, made friends and got close with people.

He had an interesting takeaway, there are lessons to be learned by things you don't understand at first. Different groups of people have different ways of instilling lessons, and to come across a new one through a new way is difficult and frustrating. That doesn't make the lesson any less important.

Park Chapter 1: Doing Anthropology

Impressions:

Very interesting, and brings up a good point right at the beginning that anthropology isn't just for places that seem far off and 'exotic' (although I don't much like that word, just seems like a garbage synonym for 'weird to you'). It isn't all mysterious tribes deep in a forest, anthropology is for everywhere and everyone, even different pockets Christianity which didn't cross my mind before.

Also interesting the set of requirements Park went through to end up choosing the Hutterites to live with and study, biological seclusion, genealogical knowledge, small group with a few large groups inside it, etc.

I'm really excited to learn about all this stuff, especially the language stuff because I'm a NERD. I want to know how languages affect people and their thinking and how language is affected by people and their values. I already know that the theory is that the more important a concept, the more words a language will have for it. I'm curious to learn more!

Vocabulary:

Biological/Physical Anthropology-> subfield of anthro that studies humans as a SPECIES.

Cultural Anthropology-> subfield that studies CULTURAL BEHAVIOR, SYSTEMS, and EXPRESSION among human groups.

Culture-> means of adaptation not from genetics, LEARNED and TRANSMITTED IDEAS.

Linguistic Anthropology-> subfield that describes CHARACTERISTICS of human LANGUAGE and studies the RELATIONSHIPS between LANGUAGES and CULTURES.

Archeology-> subfield that studies human CULTURAL PAST and RECONSTRUCTS PAST SYSTEMS.

Artifact-> any OBJECT that's been CONCIOUSLY MANUFACTURED. (V important in archeology)

Biocultural-> interaction of BIOLOGY and CULTURE.

General Notes:

Fieldwork is very important, and something that attracts people. Without it there wouldn't be as much information as there is now and is the source of PRIMARY source research. But it's not everything.

People are like bees but with conscious control over behavior. To understand bees you must study the bees, all bits of them. To understand people you must study the people, all bits, but unlike bees there is the bonus category of culture.

Anthropology is, basically, the study of WHAT AND WHY HUMANS DO. GETTING KNEE DEEP IN SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HUMANS AND HUMANITY.

Why do we LOOK like we do

Why do we ACT like we do

Why do we INTERACT the way we do

Why do we TALK the way we do

WHY DO WE DO THE WAY WE DO.

[theresatherethere]

Notes: Place and Placelessness (Relph)

General notes on place

1

“To be human it to live in a world that is filled with significant places: to be human is to have and to know your place”

6

Places are “sources of security and identity for individuals and for groups of people”

41

“Here is where we know and are known, or where the most significant experiences of our lives have occurred”

42

“A place is centre of action and intention, it is ‘a focus where we experience the meaningful events of our existence’”

It’s common use in language, not abstract theoretical, but trying to understand its multiple meanings and uses (first few pages, on why studying geography matters…)

44

“the recognition that while places and landscape may be unique in terms of their content they are nevertheless products of common cultural and symbolic elements and processes”

46

Three basic elements of the identity of places:

“Static physical setting, the activities, and the meanings”

63

Quoting Ian Nairn (1965)

“So sense of place is not a fine art extra, it is something we cannot afford to do without”

Sense of place more than “ability to recognize different places and different identities of a place”… rather “‘the sense of continuity of place necessary to people’s sense of reality”.

Sense of place can be authentic or contrived

Place as an active process

1

“the ‘creation of place’, or as the development of a system of meaningful places that give form and structure to our experiences of the world”

3

“Places of meaning: they are characterized by the beliefs of man. ‘Geographers wish to understand not only why place is a factual event in human consciousness, but what beliefs people hold about place… It is this alone that underlies man’s acts which are in turn what give character to a place’”.

“A place is not just the ‘where od something; it is the location plus everything that occupies that location seen as an integrated and meaningful phenomenon” - according to Lukermann - Relph somewhat disagrees…. but it includes perception!

4

“The foundations of geographical knowledge lie in the direct experiences and conciousness we have of the world we live in”

5

“geography is initially a profound and immediate experience of the world that is filled with meaning” - Dardel

30

Ian Nairn: “‘People put down roots… I’n a terribly short time; I myself take about forty-eight hours… I would even argue paradoxically, that that mobility increases the sense of place’”.

Susanne Langer: “a ‘place’ articulated by the imprint of human life must seem organic, like a living form… “

34

Places “are created and known through common experiences and involvement in common symbols and meanings” - made with other people THOSE that are highly imageable change less, are the scenes of important haps, express power. Those that are not… that is what I’m concerned with

38

Quoting Simon Weil, The Need for Roots

“To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul… A human being has roots by virtue of his real, active and natural participating in the life of the community”

*********

Field of care:

“The places to which we are most attached are literally fields of care, settings in which we have had a multiplicity of experiences and which call forth an entire complex of affections and responses”

“But to care for a place involves more than having a concern for it that is based on certain past experiences and future expectation — there is also a real responsibility and respect for that place both for itself and for what it is to yourself and to others. There is, in fact, a complete commitment to that place, a commitment that is as profound as any that a procaine make, for catering is indeed ‘ the basis of the man’s relation to the world’”

Can we find this kind of care at Burlöv? Of course we can!

Intentionality:

42

“Places are thus incorporated into the intentional structures of all human consciousness and experience. Intentionality recognizes that all consciousness is consciousness of something”

“Human intention should bot be under simply in terms of deliberately chosen direction or purpose, but as a relationship of being between man and the world that gives meaning”

43

“…places are essentially focuses of intention”

“in short, those aspects of the lived-world that we distinguish as places are differentiated because they involve a concentration of our intentions, our attitudes, purposes and experience”

“The essence of place lie in the largely unselfconscious intentionality that defines places as prfound centres of human existence”

44

“Inteidity of place is as much a function of intersubjective intentions and experiences as of the appearances of buildings and scenery”.

PROFOUNDNESS - who gets to decide

43 - not superficial or mundane experiences…. Relph seems concerned with only the spectacular, but these are not the settings of our lives, the frequency/habit/ritual of space making them important settings of our lives.

47

“The meanings of places..are a property of human intentions and experiences”

Home

Is Burlöv anyone’s home? Do they use that language to describe it?

39

“Home is the foundation of our identity as individuals and as members of a community, the dwelling-place of being”

40

“‘the fixed point by which he knew his position in the world and his relationship with all humanity’” - quoting Handlin (1951)

Heideigger thinks that modern people are unattached, have no homes, but Relph rebuts:

“there are surely more stages of association with me places than complete attachment and complete unattachement”

44

Places are a unity of “place, person and act” — action

71

“Even though the founding of a place may be its most dramatic and significant event, place-making is a continuous process and the very fact of having been lived-in and used and experiences will lend many places a degree of authenticity” !!!!

“What appears to the outside to be homogenous and placeless, is from within n closely differentiated into places by the personalization of property, by association with local events and the development of local myths and by being lived-in, all of which five a genuineness and authenticity to somewhere quite inauthentically created, be it a subdivision of mass-produced Tudorbethan houses or a high rise apartment building”

BUT - he thinks that these places are still somehow placeless? ? ? The drama of their creation can be understood as a geologic event, and we must take up the immense forms of planners and designers past decisions as much as we would a cliff face left over from an ice age. :::

“Yet such ‘authentification’ can never be complete for it can never reach the deepest levels of sense of place” I TOTALLY DISAGREE!

Why the judgement on place attachment to second hand homes?

78

Quoting Brett (1970)

“A place in this sense cannot be bought; it must be shaped, usually over long periods of time, by the common affairs of men and women. It must be given scale and meaning by their love. And then it must be preserved”.

142

Quoting Alan Gussow (1971)

“The catalyst that converts any physical location — any environment if you will — into a place, is the process of experiencing deeply. A place is piece of the whole environment that has been claimed by feelings”.

143

“At less deep levels placeless is the adoption of the attitude described by Harvey Cox as an ‘abstract geometric view of place, denuded of its human meaning’”.

Ways places distinguish themselves

3

“Place involves an integration of elements of nature and culture; ‘each place has its own order, it special ensemble, which distinguishes it from the next place’. This clearly implies that every place is a unique entity”. Lukermann

30

As visual landscapes. “and it is usually such clearly defined and publicly observable places that feature in trade accounts or in simple geographical descriptions”.

Rene Dubos: “there is a ‘persistence of place’ — or a continuity in the appearance and spirit of places; just as the individuality and distinctiveness of the appearance of any one person endures from childhood to old age, so the identity of a particular place can persist though many external changes because there is some inner, hidden force — ‘a god within’.”

145

“Placelessness must be transcended”

Quoting Georges Maroré (1966)

“That human activity become more dispersed is inevitable, but to compensate let the occupied, lived-in space acquire more cohesion, become as rich as possible, and grow large with the experience of living”.

“This will not come about automatically but through deliberate effort and the development of ‘secularization’, an attitude which corresponds closely to selfconscious authenticity” — ehhhhh

“Like everything else in the secular city variety must be planned or it does not happen” isn’t that technique ? ?  ?

146

“What we need… is an approach that is responsive to local structures of meaning and experience, to particular situations and to the variety of levels of meaning of place”

He rejects Alexander and Gorden Cullen (visual landscape), saying they are too “formal and too rigidly prescriptive”

Just let it happen! I have the benefit of hindsight. They were writing in a crisis of identity.

“An approach that takes its inspiration from the existential significance of place” - which just happens, without planners!

“Thus allowing scope for individuals and groups to make their own places, and to give those places authenticity and significance by modifying them and by dwelling in them”.

“it is possible to provide conditions that will allow roots and care for places to develop” the human urge for making meaning is so strong, they can root in 24 hours or 548 hours or whatever, they can find meaning in non-places, if you just let them.

147

“psycholgocial consequences and moral issues in uprooting and increasing geographical movbility and placelessness”

“The only alternatives are to celebrate and participate in the glorious non-place urban society, or to accept in silence the trivialization and careless eradication of the significant places of our lives” OR let it be and let the complexity of the world reassert itself.

Peacemaking is unconscious and authentic - especially at Burov century

Place and people

33

“Place is essentially its people”

34

“The relationship between community and place is indeed, a very powerful one in which each reinforced the identity of the other”

Places as individual

36

“Although common experience is unquestionably an important element in understanding place, it does not suffice to define its essence”.

37

What is important is that this place is uniquely ad privately your own because your experience of it is distinctively personal”

43

“Such places may be defined in terms of the functions they serve in terms of communal and personal experience”

45

“It is not just the identity of a place that is important, but also the intuit that a person or group has with that place”

78

“But authentic place-making seems to have become decreasingly probable on a community scale since Hellenic times, and now seems to be vested largely within individuals”  — “the probability may have declined but the possibility and the need for such genuine self expression in places still exists”.

Caring for place

37

“In both our communal and our personal experience of places there is often a close attachment, a familiarity that this part of known and being known here, in this particular place…and the familiarity that this involves not just a detailed knowledge, but a sense of deep care and concern for that place”.

42

“Drudgery is always a part of profound commitment to a place, and any commitment must also involve an acceptance of the restriction that places imposes and the miseries it may offer”.

44

“Improved knowledge of the nature of place can contribute to the maintenance and manipulation of existing places and the creation of new places”

121

“These inauthentic attitudes to place are themselves specific form of an inauthentic mode of existence in which both individuals and societies fail to recognize the realities and responsibilities of existence, and do not experience the world and its places for what they are” THIS BOOK PERPETUATES THIS!

142

“For those swayed by the easy charms of mass culture or the cool attractions of technique this does seem to be the primary, perhaps the only, way of experiencing environments; and consequently they feel no care or commitment for places: they are geographically alienated”

What he calls existential insideness

“The various levels of insiders are manifest in the creation of distinctive types of places. The deep levels of existential insiders are apparent in the unselfconscious making of places which are human in their scale and orgnaization, which fit both their physical and cultural contacts and hence are as varied as those contexts, and which are filled with significance for those who live in them”

“Authentic and self-conscious insiders offers a similar, though less completely involved, possibility for expressing man’s humanity in places”

“Uncommitted insiders is the basis for placelessness”

143

“Placelessness describes both an environment without significant places, and the underlying attitude which does not acknowledge significance in places”

Place as not necessarily beautiful

Burlöv centrum isn’t beautiful, but beauty (or pleasurability) isn’t a precondition for place

41

“The places to which we are most committed may be the very centres of our lives, but they may also be oppressive and imprisoning”

“There is a sheer drudgery of place, a sense of being tied inexorably to this place, of being bound by the established scene and symbols and routines”.

“As the ground of our everyday lives places must partake of what Henri Lefebvre (1971) has called ‘the misery of everyday life’, with its tedious tasks, humiliations, precipitation with basic necessities, it hardships, meanness and avarice.

Authenticity - OLD MONTREAL IS IN BAD FAITH

64

“An authentic person is thus one who is sincere in all he does while being involved unselfconsciously in an immediate and communal relationship with the meanings of the world, or while selconciously facing up to the realities of his existence and making genuine decision about how he can or cannot change his situation” - could be said more of Burlov than of Malmo Central.

65

“in unselfconscious experience an authentic sense of place is rather like the type of relationship characterized by Martin Buber (1958) as ‘I-Thou’, in which the subject and object, person and place, divisions are wholly replaced by the relationship itself”.

“An authentic sense of place is above all that of being inside and belonging to your place both as an individual and as a member of a community, and to know this without reflecting upon it” BURLOV ? ? ?

68

Contemporary society, as primitive society has “the need for a sense of place” however it “certainly does not follow that places created in technologically advanced cultures are made as authentically as those of primitive or even vernacular cultures”.

Place authenticity of vernacular cultures: “direct and unselfconscious translation intro physical form of a culture, its needs and values, as well as the desires, dreams and passions of the people”.

But even supposed “self-conscious”  design is operating within a context of need, materials available etc.

Writing in 1976: “In north America the only instances of authentically yet unselfconsciously created places are peripheral to the main thrust of the society” — now though, the main thrust is the reproduction of (inauthentic) urban spaces, meanwhile these placeless places have decayed and developed their own culture.

Using the aesthetic re-evaluations of the 1970s, where people began to appreciate the dishevelled and lived in character of inner cities, thus rendering those qualities as themselves inauthentic, in the campaign to preserve them or build new ones… I am suggesting another reevaluation of aesthetics.

“But to the insider, these shoddily uniform houses are small world, each as homogenous and well defined as a village” (Hoggart, 1959)

76

Somehow the taking up of legacy architecture is considered inauthentic…

77

He argues that making authentic place is the domain of artists and inspired individuals, “most od us are condemned to live in other peoples’ houses and machine made places” - so what, making place doesn’t just stop there. Tim Ingold — there is a constant making.

78

“With the exception of the work of such talented individuals modern self-concious design has tended to result in places which are single-purpose, functionally efficient, often in a style independent of the physical setting, reflecting mass values and contrived fashion”

but what of the handyman that punches a new door into a wall, that adds a plant shelf by a sunlight, all the little modifications that make home home? These places are built, then lived in. They are containers for inevitable homogeneity.

78

“As a form of existence authenticity consists of a complete awareness and acceptance of responsibility for your own existence” — okay, I admit not everyone does this… maybe… but no…

Distinguishes between fundamental connection with place ‘I-though’, and what is possible in contemporary society, an “I-You relationship with place, in which there is a genuine response to the meanings, symbols and qualities of a place and an attempt to identify it”. — think about this in terms of interviews — of course we’re not producing the space, but is it dangerous to devalue it in this way?

81

Describes inauthenticity of technical approaches to planning. Compares to Sartre. But now THAT can be applied to preserving “authentic places” like Old Montreal…

The orthodoxy of modern planning is not forever, it was movement that has since eroded, and now we must take up its legacy and find meaning in the cracks of the concrete.

82

“An inauthentic attitude to place is essentially no sense of place, for it involves no awareness of the deep and symbolic significances of places and no appreciation of their identities”.

His description of kitsch is focused on those intentionally constructed and mass produced objects and places like motels, ponderosa steak houses with fake cactuses, overzealous baroque decoration” … but now I must include real places themselves into the mix (Old montreal).

83

“Kitsch is an attitude of inauthenticity in which places are treated as thing from man is largely alienated, and in which the trivial is made significant and the significant is made trivial.

Placelessness

45

“Kevin Lynch defines the identity of a place simply as that which provides its individuality or distinction from other places and serves as the basis for its recognition as a parable entity”

“‘there are as many identities of place as there are people’”  

But also common identity:

“certainly it is the manner in which these qualities and objects are manifest in our experience of places that governs our impressions of the uniqueness, strength and geuineness of the identity of those places”

“the weakening of distinct and diverse experiences and identities of places”

64

opposed sense of place with placelessness, but I want to suggest, placefulness as an alternative  

65

“for contemporary man even when space is unselfconsciously experienced it is primarily functional and secular and places are merely interchangeable locations”  (“but for man people there nay still exist deep psychological links with places” secular and religious…

“But however great the need for such a sense of place may be, the possibility of its development for manu people in technologically advanced cultures has been undermined by the possibility of increased spatial mobility and by a weakening of the symbolic qualities of places”.

BUT BECAUSE these placeless places have become associated with low rents, these people have less choice “for a better home in a better neighbourhood”, their place ties are real.

78

“The present trend appears to be away from a variety of authentically created places which reflect an interaction of diverse intentions and values with a respect for physical settings and landscapes, towards non-place urban relax, international landscapes and placelessness” —— AH! I can use his terms against him, but fundamentally disagree with his point about second hand homes and authenticity reserved for genius.

79

At the time, 1976, anxiety about loss of identity, much like Arts and Crafts movement was a reaction to the first wave of industrialziation - legacy is cottagey 1920s homes for the latter, and the resurgence of inner cities and peacemaking for the former.

We are creating a ‘flatscape’, lacking intentional depth - BUT INTENTIONALITY IS SO RARE AS A FORM OF AUTHENTICITY, you said it yourself!

Quoting Cullen (1971) - “‘we appear to be forsaking nodal points for thinly spread coast-to-coast continuity of people, food, power and entertainment” - these are the needs and wants of modern humans…  he says it himself later on the page “while placelessness does comprise look0alike landscapes that result from improved communications and increased mobility and imitation, behind these lies a deep-seated attitude that attends to the common and average characteristics od man and of place.” That’s one side, the other size is how they’ve adapted it to their specific needs.

Always an anxiety about modernity, I understand, I would have fought with them too. But times have changed and we must embrace the nuances 40 years later.

80

“To a very considerable degree, we neither experience nor create places with more than a superficial and casual involvement” NO NO NO

90

Placelessness is “cutting across or imposed on the landscape rather than developing with it”

109

“It becomes virtually impossible to tell one locality from another, for they all look alike and feel alike” - how bout 40 years later ,with decay?

Burlöv as Subtopia

105

Subtopia, according to Nairn, is “the mindless mixing up of all man-made objects without any pattern of purpose or relationship”.

114

Scale and giantess of industry obliterates places. “The increasingly similarity and grand scale of operation apply not to just the mining and manufacturing centres but also to the associated management and retailing centres”

I think he places too much agency on the developers of these retail centres. They’re decaying, they’re empty, they’re not profitable… not “deliberately contrived”

121

“These inauthentic attitudes to place are themselves specific form of an inauthentic mode of existence in which both individuals and societies fail to recognize the realities and responsibilities of existence, and do not experience the world and its places for what they are” THIS BOOK PERPETUATES THIS!

“Such an inauthentic existence is the very root of and essence of placelessness, and the superficial expressions that constitute placeless geographies can only be properly understood in terms of such profound inauthenticity.

139

critique of modern places as simplified signs

but burlov simple aint

:The major feature of these myths that infuse present-day landscapes is their simplicity”.

Placefullness

80

“being lived-in confers some authenticity on even the most trivial and unrelentingly uniform landscapes”.

So, it’s not about the fear of placelessness, which will always exist… it is “important to recognize that placelessness is an attitude and an expression of that attitude which is becoming increasingly dominant, and that it is less and less possible to have a deeply felt sense of place or to create places authentically” — THAT SECOND PART IS WHERE MY ESSAY DWELLS.

117

An authentic geography is “primarily the product of the efforts of insiders, those living in and committed to places, and a geography which declares itself only to those insiders to to those willing and able to experience places empathetically”

131

The everyday

“Everyday life comprises all that is humble, ordinary, and taken for granted it is made up of repetitions, of small gestures, and insignificant actions in which all the elements relate to each other in such a regular sequence or accepted pattern that their meaning need never be questioned”

132

“In everyday life a sense of social responsibility has been outmoded by a desire for individual freedom and comfort” - because of narratives of placelessness?

“The everyday landscape is perhaps more easily understoodd as all the commonplace objects, spaces, buildings, snd activities that we accept as comprising the setting for daily routines. Ut has lurid signs, car parks, wires, side splits and semidetached houses, corner stores and filling stations. It is often ugly and chaotic, looks awful in many different ays, but in some respects a vital mess because it is unpretentious and uncontrived and a more or less unselfconscious expression of peoples activities and wants” — BURLOV

139

“We have not yet found our places in this redefined world” the world with “an expanded scale of events, big and alien”, quoting Gyorgy Kepes (1965).

WE HAVE NOW

{Places with settings which are not only distinctively local and reflect a continuity of style and tradition, but also constitute profound centres of care and existence”

“they have no active part to play in the new landscape” ??? I a disagree!

“The new landscape is characterizes not by its profound meanings and its symbols, but by rationality and absurdity and its separation from us, It is characterizes too by its everydayness as the ordinary and unexceptional background to our daily lives, by its confusion tear results from a lack of focuses, discrete regions, or any familiar pattern and by its simplicity and obviousness.

140

“The roots of significance in the present day landscape are shallow”

He tries to say he’s not being negative but he is! Critique of lack of care within landscape…

Notes for the book

Burlöv centrum is not spectacular, and that’s why I chose it

The places in this book are likely ones you’ve never read about it, and that’s precisely why I chose to write about them

83

Le Corbusier “a house ia machine to live in” and you can change your machine to live in as often as you change your bicycle, your fridge, your car - same as cities

And now, the modern tourist critical of those who check off capital cities and attractions, attempt to travel authentically. But nevertheless they are tourists, they are trapped by the fact that they will be moving on. They can only engage visually - airbnb and eating authentic food and stuff.

Relph takes up the standard narrative of globalization (90). But, there is local specificity, you can find it if you look for it. Unreasoanable and unfoudned fears that also heralded academics to call “the end of geography” with the invention of the internet.

93

Disenyification! ! ! I LOVE THIS BOOOOOOK

I agree with the cyncism, but philosophically disagree with the sentiment — these tourist industries are authentic in the mere fact of their existence

Directly addresses old motnreal phenomenon - I go both ways! I hate the museums these places have become and acknowledge that the high-rises are now part of Majorca’s culture !

Why I love the placeless cheap airline airports, they aren’t concerned with concealing those that work and live there? pg 93…

97

HE DIRECTLY CITES HONEST EDS IN TORONTO AS A PORNSCAPE AHHHH

Mercantile history, not directed to outsiders, but to everyone. We are consumers, not the whole of us, but that’s what humans are. It’s fine! Honest Ed’s has been celenbrated for its immense distinctness unlike anywhere in the world ! ! !

OMG

Portmeirion, North Wales, a village collected by architect Clough Williams Ellis in the early 20th century incorporating buildings from all over the world.

101

Museumification: old montreal, stockholm, amsterdam…

Williamsburg

Upper Canada Village - built after st lawrence vally flooded. Especially ghostly…

Skansen

Milton

Black Creek Pioneer Village

ETC

105 - the subtopia

The strip mall when it first emerged , described by Ian Young, 1969 cold comfort, notes from a native land

“A flat, stark, one-storey building constructed of several huge rectangles of glass and chlakbrick, splayed across the centre of a vast, empty carparl. A few neon signs shine meaninglessly from the walls, and on the smooth black lot the white parking lines look like cryptic glyphs of gigantic proportions; at intervals between them are high white metal poles, each with two lozenge shaped bottle green lamps suffusing the whole area in a ghastly green light…the lifelessness, the chilling stillness, conveys nothing human at all. It seems like nothing so much has Maertian landscape — the first scientific laboratory on the barn surface of a cold, alien planet”

My things have changed…

“In other countries, subtopic may take slightly different form” - THAT’S PLACE EXPRESSING ITSELF THANKS

109

“It becomes virtually impossible to tell one locality from another, for they all look alike and feel alike” - how bout 40 years later ,with decay?

“Subtopias has been developed not on the basis of direct experience but in an ad hoc way from the remote and abstract perspective of maps and plans — organic cities were ad hoc too, just different technology available.

BIG BUSINESS

“To a very great extent, the landscapes of tourism and subtopic are consequences of the activities of big business, for they are inevitably made up of the products and reflect the needs dictated by such business even when they have not been constructed directly by them”

Before the nineteenth century, most industries and businesses were local and small concerns, they fitted into their settings, made from local building materials, in scale

Written at a time when sense of place wasn’t included in economic planning which affected spatial planning, but now with Richard Florida, that has received a dollar value, and has the been homogenized

There’s that game that drops you anywhere in the world on google street view. But it’s broken by its very design, it only drops you onto roads. What if you were dropped into back alleys, back yards? Kitchens? Food courts?

137

he write about ontario place - but history didn’t end and it decayed and is not home to a host of meanings

Further sources

Lawrence Durrell, The Spirit of Place

Peter Black, God’s Own Junkyard - photobook of suburbia

Stephen Kurtz, 1973. Howard Johnsons all looking the same… !

Venturi, learning from las vegas - critique of strip mall architecture

[erlendbv]

Milo Yiannopoulus: Free speech vs. hate speech

Disclaimer: Whenever I comment on Milo, as I did last July, some super-controversial story pops up two days later. This time, he appears to be in trouble again – which I knew nothing about at the time of writing this story. I still believe the points about free speech and satire are valid. As I say in the end of this article, being exposed to controversial ideas doesn’t normalize them, but allows us to move forward. In the latest event, Milo may just have found the limits to what even he can talk about. And that is how democracy should work – I think.

Trigger warning: If you are afraid of Milo and his controversial ideas, please do not read any further. If you are able to separate his opinons from the cultural phenomenon he’s becoming, please do. And also, please read all the way through, to get an understanding of how I feel this relates to the world of humor and satire.

So this post is over 1.800 words. Yeah, sometimes I forget what “micro-blogging” is supposed to be. But it felt necessary to get it off my chest... Ready? Good.

Exposing haters

"Predictably, the comedian's argument is grounded in the same misguided premise that guided coverage of Trump's campaign — that by giving a microphone to provocateurs, we expose them — instead of doing what it really does: provide legitimacy." (via Mashable)

The Mashable article by Heather Dockray makes me question the ideals and motives of Milo’s opponents. It’s a well-written article, with arguments I recognize from other critics of Milo. I agree with some of the reasoning, though I consider myself too apolitical to take a moralizing stand – but I do find the situation intriguing.

In response to a guest-cancellation following the announcement that Milo was invited to Real Time, Bill Maher wrote the following:

“If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims - and he might be - nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.” (via Business Insider)

While correct, this is a pretty biased position, and the fact that this point has to be spelled out is worrisome. Having to cater to outraged liberals – a term which strangely seems to naturally turn into a pejorative label these days – is outright scary.

Semi-free speech

Sure, many of Milo’s statements are controversial – to put it mildly – but dismantling democracy to limit his right to voice them seems extreme. And violent protests in response to – or to prevent the voicing of – opinons we disagree with is not contributing in a positive way.

In a truly free environment, Milo will spout his outrageous claims – part political commentary, part satire, part trolling – and he will be met with laughter, silence, logic and facts. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill advocated free speech in his publication On Liberty. In his idea of an open and free society, unreasonable statements will be outreasoned by reasonable statements – so why be afraid of them?

If, in fact, we allow ourselves to honestly discuss with a person with opposing opinions to us, we may find that they are right. That’s not a bad thing. It’s not a “win/lose-scenario”. The real loss is avoiding the conversation or being so blatantly prejudiced that we do not allow ourselves to understand the opponent.

Free speech has no purpose if everyone is simply touting their own horn.

Free speech has no purpose if no-one listens.

Distrusting the audience

The Mashable-article concludes with a sigh, acknowledging the neverending cycle of public discourse:

“Oh well. Milo will appear tonight. Hot takes will appear tomorrow. A few people will stop watching Maher, a few more will join up. Someone will post about it. Someone will then hate share that post. The cycle will go on and on until it all becomes so familiar we forget we still need to stop it.” (via Mashable)

This conclusion is curious to me. Because, if we trust the audience to have the mental capacity to make up their mind, we should respect this. We shouldn’t be afraid to present all the facts, if we believe in the democratic process of giving power to the people. But if we distrust the audience, then why should we allow the platform at all? The article-author is worried that we will provide legitimacy and normalize the opinions voiced by Milo.

But if in fact this is what happens, we need to ask ourselves “what do we feel of that”? The hypocrisy is rather obvious. When people parading in the streets for one set of beliefs is held as a great example of a free society, but people lecturing on another set of beliefs is held as a corruption of the same qualities.

It all boils down to our core values and beliefs. And both ends of the political spectrum are bigoted. They both want to see their likeminded celebrate a crushing victory, while their opponents burn and suffer a painful death.

Talking about normalizing, providing legitimacy and forgetting “the need to stop it”, is simply an expression of fear. Fear of being on the losing side of the battle. But if the most well-argued position wins, what is there to worry about? Nothing. Unless you are more faithful to a specific conviction than to an open debate arena – in which case, your fear is understandable.

You then value your own beliefs over others. You consider your own mental capacity superior to others. You feel the need to protect them against corrupted thoughts, while not noticing that your own thoughts may very well be the most corrupt of all. Because you are not willing to accept that your fear of being challenged, exposed and offended by so-called “hate speech”, is just a way to postpone the inevitable death of your values – values you yourself do not feel confident will convince the audience if presented with the full, unfiltered spectrum of opinions.

Make up your own damn mind

So, back to Real Time with Bill Maher. On Friday, he was a guest, and he didn’t say much shocking. Unless you count his comments on Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer shocking, which I do not. I wasn’t shocked.

It was theatre. It was entertainment. Was it providing legitimacy and blurring the lines of right and wrong? My humble opinion – No. Putting Milo up against a trained interviewer like Bill Maher and thought leaders like Larry Wilmore, challenged him. And I believe even Milo himself appreciated this. He characterizes himself as a “virtuous troll”, as seen in the Maher-interview below, and that is exactly because he wants a reaction – he wants a discussion.

Discussing in safe spaces, brown-nosing, talking ourselves into agreement-ladders and clap-traps do nothing. It’s boring. Nobody learns anything. As Bill Maher states in his own interview with Milo:

“If I banned everyone from my show who I thought was colossally wrong, I would be talking to myself.”

So, first, have a look at the interview below:

And then, see how he’s challenged when faced with a panel:

I think Larry Wilmore is brilliant. I think Milo is an effective provocateur. I truly enjoy the opportunity to see these two men meet in a battle cage like this. Who won? Larry definitely had the crowd on his side, and I think he argued very well. I don’t think either of them were at their best when exclaiming “Go fuck yourself” (Larry) and “These guys are stupid” (Milo), but I think the exchange was fascinating.

This is the best opportunity to open people’s minds, where Larry’s audience and Milo’s audience meet. Both groups are exposed to the same discussion, and allowed to think about it.

Of course, like a presidential debate, many people have a tendency to agree with “their guy” and disqualify the “other guy”. But still, this is the discourse environment we want, right? Where opposing parties can meet, discuss and evolve together.

And I personally feel that if both are allowed to speak their mind, without being rejected, provides more of a “win-win-platform”, than a “win-lose”.

So why do I care?

This blog is focused on humor and satire, more than free speech exclusively. I am not a political commentator, but I am interested in the discipline of challenging power, which satire is. Satire is controversial, and a constant source of conflict regarding the rights to – and limits of – free speech. And Milo considers himself somewhat of a ridiculous court jester – the one who speaks the truth:

“You don’t just inherit free speech, you know, the first amendment. You have to fight for every generation. You have to reaffirm and relearn the importance. That has been forgotten in American college campuses. And it takes people as preposterous and ridiculous as me to thrust that back into the public conciousness – and I’m very happy to have done so.” (via CNN)

So while it’s somewhat of a cop-out to take the meta-stance of “I do not agree with what he says, but I defend his right to say it” (often wrongly attributed to Voltaire) – similar to the late great Patrice O’Neal who said ”The attempt is what I’m trying to fight for” (via Youtube) – it is my only reason to get involved.

I most certainly don’t agree with all (or probably even most) of what Milo says, but I find him refreshing. And it doesn’t matter what I agree or disagree with. My opinion is just one, single voice – and I’m no authority on any of these issues. The bigger issue, which does matter (to me), is fighting for a platform where different opinions can be expressed, ridiculed and debated.

Whether Milo is insincere and trolling (which author/podcaster Sam Harris thinks), also doesn’t matter. He claims that “‘the other side’, if you like, the progressive social justice left, is incapable of debate, incapable of rational response to opinions of which it disagrees.” (via CNN). This shows that we cannot debate the issues, before we agree on the terms of discourse. Milo said this at a lecture in mid-2016 when invited to speak by a satirical newspaper:

“My advice to you is invite as many controversial and obnoxious people to your college as you can, whether you agree with them or not. Show the left that you can invite controversial left-wing speakers, just as well as controversial right-wing speakers, and show them up for the authoritarian boobies that they are, show them up for the intolerant, single-issue, closed-minded idiots that we know them to be.” (via Youtube)

Provocative? Sure. Unnecessary name-calling? Absolutely. But I still think we should take note of this:

Allowing different opinions to be heard won’t normalizing hate speech. It allows us to better understand where we fundamentally differ and where we agree. It allows us to move forward.

You don’t need to agree with Milo to allow his voice to be heard, to interpret his words how you choose, to sharpen your own thoughts by being confronted by him – or (the horror!) be convinced by him. This requires mental strength on your part – and you can either build that strength or run further into your “safe space bubble”. But then you’re only fooling yourself, and not interacting with the world around you.

Alright. Back to the light-hearted, tumblr-friendly stuff...