Not one single hurtful thing ever got changed by someone grinning and bearing it.
Hurtful things changed because people have said ‘That hurts me. Stop.’
And every time you try to silence someone and tell them that they shouldn’t be hurt, shouldn’t be offended, shouldn’t choose this battle, that this isn’t important and that other things are more important - you are serving the hurtful rather than the hurt. (via moniquill)
Anonymous said: Dear Boyfriend I recently sought advice from a street astrologist, on where I might find my significant other. Their advice was; "Seek your spirit animal. They are half crab, half cat, an entity called Meerclaw. You will find them where suburbia meets the shore." Does this sound legit to you or should I ask for my five dollars back and give them a one star yelp review?
"When we talk about opponents, about adopting and defending positions, scoring points, or, simply, winning and losing arguments, it is difficult to know how we might articulate the things we mean by these phrases without using these warring and related sports metaphors. Yet embedded as it is, we can and should attempt to pry loose this metaphor in our thinking about argument and in our practice of argument.
Toward that end […] a necessary first step involves acknowledging the entanglement of this metaphor with the long historical narrative of reason as embattled, as continually warding off and defending against the ever-lurking threats of unreason or irrationality. I will also contend that this metaphor of embattled reason is significantly compelled by the recurring historical metaphorical gendering of reason, by the persistent depiction of the “man of reason” as continually battling aspects of unreason regularly constructed as womanly or “feminine” — passion, instinct, nature, body, unruly bodily intrusions, or distracting charms.”
- Phyllis Rooney, “Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason,’ in Informal Logic, vol. 30 no. 3 (2010), p.211-2.
She’s hella right. What good reason is there for all of our metaphors for argument to be based on sport and war? The goal of any argument shouldn’t be to win, but to come to the best conclusion. So why use winning-based metaphors?
How much better would our arguments work if ‘winning’ was never taken to be the goal?
Anonymous said: Should we make our home in a high-rise or in an older "character" building?
Here is one thing you can do if you have no house. Wear several hats – maybe three, four. In the event of rain, remove the one(s) that get(s) wet.
As if she singlehandedly destroyed those
multitudes of men.
As if she all alone
made this wound in us. Klytaimestra in Aiskhylos’s Agamemnon, translated by Anne Carson (via elucipher)