Waiting for Barbarians
Bottlecaps, are they as good as any other form of currency? Does it even matter if the currency is considered intrinsically valuable, or is it enough that people think that their bottlecaps are worth food and services? Continue reading “Bottlecaps for Cash?”
This is an Architectural Article illustrating the popular architectural design styles of the 20th Century. The article offers a movie that showcases a particular style and then provides a brief description of the architecture’s history along with a few examples of the style.
The Art Nouveau style was quite interesting, although my personal favorites are still the Fascist and Brutalist styles. Including movies that typify the styles was a nice touch because it offers an engaging way to continue learning about the architecture.
http://j.mp/1I8PtY9
via Science and Technology News: A Brief History Of Modern Architecture Through Movies.
Bento Boxes, AKA food dishes arranged to make a picture. It is a beautiful thing that we can see what people all around the world are doing.
An interesting example of how creative dream states can be. This fellow woke up at 2:25AM and drew an idea from his dream. Later, he was able to turn that sketch into a wall decoration.
It’s amazing what we miss out through our striving for sleep. Speaking from experience, a good idea is always worth writing down, especially if it’s good enough to wake you up.
Original Office Wall Art Piece – Pipe/Wood/Steel – Album on Imgur.
TIL Robert Nisbet, founder of Berkeley’s Sociology dept., believed believed that the university is the last vestige of Medieval society and that it has been under attack for the since 1945 by something called The Last Reformation.
The core value that has been under attack? That “Knowledge is important”, in the Aristotelian sense of the word. The university was meant, according to Nisbet, to stand apart from society and discover knowledge that could then be used by others. This Ivory Tower of separation is what actually kept the University autonomous as their purpose was only to discover and document, rather than become involved in social matters.
Exhibit A, a masters degree in Women’s Studies.
Exhibit B, a Credited course on Male Privilege.
These classes are courses in Dogma, meant to change and lead people’s thinking. Of course there ought not to be solely One Truth, yet these fields of study are not intended to bring about knowledge. Instead, the new philosophy of Universities is to bring about social change. This change of objective creates a sense of dependency and interconnection that compromises the University’s ability to objectively seek out and communicate knowledge.
In essence, Nisbet was observing the transition of Universities from reservoirs of knowledge to Institutions of Social Change via the mechanisms that F.A. Hayek wrote about in his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism. Universities today are training camps of social dogma, wherein the average student will walk away a less competent and independent thinker.
We see this in the double standard language of campuses for example: advocating equality and freedom while at the same time denying open debates and shutting down Free Speech. The modern day University has the intended goal of reeducating people to think and believe certain things, instead of just teaching people knowledge.
Researching this essay led to the following Essay, Blending Social Theory with Effective Actions for Change
I adhere to the concept of respect through offense. Now, to explain this idea, I am going to paint a picture for you. Imagine a Christian is walking by and sees a gay couple on the street. Now, the Christian and the gay couple give each other a nice long stair. Neither likes what they see. The Christian has a big King James Bible, and the gay couple have cut off shorts with the pockets going past where the jeans have been cut off.
Now, arguably we’re all offended by the cut off jeans, but let us move one. Who is at fault here? The Christian or the gay couple? My vote, neither is guilty. They both offended each other and both deserve to be offended. Offense is not a crime. Not only is offense not a crime, it is a sign of respect.
When you self censor yourself or allow others to make you do that,
out of fear of offending someone else because “they’re weaker
brothers” or such like, You are asserting yourself over them as their
betters or superior. Hiding your opinions from them because you don’t believe they can’t take it. 
Instead, people should expect to be offended now and again. When you respect a person enough to give them your actual opinion, offensiveness and all, you’re giving them a compliment. They may even learn something or have their views broadened.
People can be insensitive, they can forget to think about everyone else in a room and say something rude. There are two ways we can deal with this, either we say nothing which could potentially offend someone (Which is everything) or we expect ourselves to grow up.
Now, I am not talking about going up to people and trying to make them cry. There is a definitive difference between offending someone and harming them.
To harm someone with your words is to use a connection that bypasses a person’s defenses and hurts them personally. To offend someone is to say something that agitates them. If a person starts a fight over something said, that is offense and not harm. The distinction between the two is when there is a known emotional hurt or vulnerability for a given topic or issue. Harm is done when someone deliberately hits on those topics to cause emotional distress and pain in another person.
Now, let us say a person is lording over a rape victim, making jokes about it, such a person is not just being offensive. He or she is inflicting actual, emotional harm. While there is no law against such behavior per se, it would take a special kind of piece of crap to do that. Anyone and everyone would and should be completely justified in not speaking to such a person.
The other issues to consider is when someone takes offense on someone else’s behalf.
Taking on other people’s offenses is a terrible breach of
communication. To be offended on another person’s behalf is
detrimental because there are no limits on what that person may do, especially if the victim is a hypothetical. If someone in the room is not being harmed, there is no foul.
This idea is not a full expression or guide for social behavior. There are times when being confrontational or offensive are neither beneficial, kind, nor constructive. Not everyone is well suited to being offensive either, some folks are just too darn nice!
That said, people do need to try and grow up a little.
Interesting Star Trek the Next Generation wardrobe footage. The music makes it rather unsettling.
Creepy TNG Test Footage – YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lvG0jm0B5Y
Most hipsters brag about liking things way before you ever did. Not me, I like stuff after it’s way out of fashion. Razr phone? Just got mine. Breaking Bad? Just started (Skyler should be more supportive). Car? Buick, 1999 Cruise Control is really handy! I hear they’re working on these things called Ipads. Sounds a little pod people to me, but hey what do I know?
Be a dislocated hipster and celebrate how old and not in style you are.
Viktor Frankl, a neurologist and psychiatrist, believed that between stimuli and response, there is a personal volition and will. From his experiences in Nazi death camps, Frankl came to believe that people cannot avoid pain, however they can choose how to respond to that pain. His theory of logotherapy is that man, rather than being motivated by pleasure, is the pursuit of meaning. Further, Frankl believed that man is not wholly dependent on the circumstances for his or her actions, instead having a choice. “Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather he determines himself whether he give in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.” (Man’s Search for Meaning, p. 131 to 134)
