Friday, May 19, 2017

A naive engagement towards personal action

 

"You make me wanna die"
"Make Me Wanna Die" - The Pretty Reckless

I have a huge problem: when I hear about what happens in the world, or even what happened in my country in the past, the implications of the happenings being spoken about get stuck in my head. It depresses me, and can chase me for days before the emotional response it creates in me goes away. For that time, I can almost only dream about that, mostly about me changing things. It's really hard for me to convince myself that, at least for now, there's nothing I can do about it, and that the most effective thing I'm to do is relaxing and stop concerning myself in such a way.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't read anything. If I didn't know the things I know and didn't have the convictions I have, I could still live that unconcerned life I lived when all I did was drawing furries and writing stories about them on Wattpad. Life was artistical, sexual, musical, colorful back then, and it didn't involve Kurdish people being bombed by the fascist government in Turkey: it was a blind, self-focused imaginative life, and it was perfect. Wanting to go back to it, though, seems like a disposal of responsibility; nothing is going to be done if nobody cares in the first place.

But I do feel impotent either way. I know there must be something that can be done to induce action by those who can actually have a determining role on the situation, but I don't know what to do. I must keep in mind that I'm underage and unknowing of any association or group with this objective, so there might really be nothing I can do now, apart from trying my best to raise awareness. I know the perfect engagement on this is calmness, keeping oneself together and, without getting obsessed or depressed about the subject, trying one's best to help the cause, but probably I still need a lot of thought to give myself in order to reach it.

I do want to live naively, and I do want to go back to being able to see life the way it was. I do want to help, and I do want to be part of the solution, but I also want my life back. I know it's my mindset that is wrong, but it seems so hard to change or get rid of...

How art creates the artist


"You're the creation,
You're the reason,
You're the rising sun,
And the colours in my mind."
"Creation" - The Pierces
I like to say we all have an untamable and violent beast inside us, it kicks us and crashes us until we let it have its freedom, and we can only set it free for a little while, whether its in a drawing, in a song, or in a writing. It's the desperate need for self-expression.

It's only when we let that vicious monster out of us, that we feel that we are building ourselves, that we are getting to count somehow, leaving a mark, a proof that we've been there. When something horrid and morbidly amorphous has come from the most obscure spot of our being and has reached an audience in the shape of a beautiful creation.

And it's that terrible reflection of us, left for ourselves to see in everything we do, that makes us somehow. We see this when we realise the character we created for a story is just a slightly modified version of what we could never avoid being, when we become words or lines on a paper drawn by an illusory and unreal creation of our imagination, then, is when we're created.

We're never truly born until we're made, and only our imagination can make us.

"S.W." 6

"You're told to write a composition in order to make your mark a bit less shameful. However, a group of Russian scientists found that if you don't, the world is going to implode. You know they are serious because they're Russian. The future is in your hands!"

Somebody once asked me "hey, how are you feeling?"

That question, with all its simplicity and the fairest of intentions, submerged my consciousness into a state of confusion and reflection, in which the word "feel" constantly gained and lost an enormous quantity of obscure meanings, where everything I could think of about my current state flowed inside my head like a raging current in the middle of the ocean willing to merge with the air and reach the wind above.

Words came and went from my thought like nervous rabbits exploring an infinity of new holes to stay in, always coming back in the form of a possible response, without success. I didn't want to say anything too shallow, but I didn't want to refer to Descartes' concept of divinity either.

So I looked at them, opened my mouth, and, with a big smile, I said:

"I am the Queen of the Universe. The waves part, they engulf me and the water is warm."

I think I might have scared them a bit.

S.W. 5

"You suspect a friend of yours suffers from nomophobia but doesn't want to accept it. Write a conversation with him/her in which you explain why you think so and suggest possible measures to help him/her overcome this addiction."

ME. Hello!

THAT PERSON. Hi!

ME. I don't want to sound nosy, but, are you okay? You look anxious.

THAT PERSON. It's nothing, don't worry. I left my cell at home, and it concerns me. I might be missing something important!

ME. Oh, are you waiting for an important call? What is it?

THAT PERSON. I don't know yet! I have to check!

ME. Wow, you're trembling! Is everything fine?

THAT PERSON. Maybe Stacy has sent me a message!

ME. Stacy? But you hate Stacy! Even the stray cat next street hates Stacy!

THAT PERSON. Who cares about Stacy? It's rude not to respond!

ME. Whoever it is who texts you, I'm sure they can understand you might not be able to answer for a moment!

THAT PERSON. But everyone is going to hate me!

ME. No, they won't! And if they do, then they can't have been very good friends either way!

THAT PERSON. But I don't want to be alone!

ME. You won't be, I'm here. Come with me, we'll have ice cream and discuss about the role of means of production within socialism, it's going to be fine!

THAT PERSON. O... Okay.

S.W. 4

"Write a letter to an imaginary pen pal from a very different country. Tell him/her about the most common pets in the country where you live and the problems and advantages of them. Ask him/her about similar questions in his/her own place. Express opinions, suggest ideas..."

Hi! It's me, H!

I'm sorry I couldn't write to you lately, we had some problems here, our cat Iris was sick and we were very worried about her!

Speaking about cats, we have four more now! Tigreta got children, we named them Petitó, Tarat, Loki and Yuichi! I named Yuichi after you because he's always so nice and loving, and he somehow likes to listen to the crazy things I say, so I looked at him and said, "oh, my God! It's Yuichi!"

I'd say, though, that the most common pets around here are dogs. We don't really like them in my family, we rather find them to be stinky and annoying, and we wouldn't be happy about waking up with the floor full of dog poop!

I was wondering, are cats popular there in Japan? I once saw in a video that there are cafes with cats so they accompany the clients during their stay! I found it to be an amazing idea, Catalonia should embrace cat cafes!

So, do you have any pets? I'd love to read from you, it's been long!

Meow,
H

S.W. 3

"Learning English my way"

Once upon a time, there was a young girl willing to learn a foreign language from scratch. She wasn't very motivated, and she thought of herself as lacking of the resources the task before her eyes required.
Consequently, she proposed to herself gaining a motivation source as her first goal. So she imaginated her ideal man, with all his greatnesses, but with one downfall: the only language he could ever speak or understand was that which she was to learn.

Once she was motivated for her objective, or maybe just aroused by her creation, she was suddenly enlightened by her possibilities. As the feeling of helplessness that had overwhelmed her at the beginning nimbly dashed towards the distance, she became able to identify one crucial tool for her mission: the Internet.

Hence, with the help of an app called Duolingo, she gained the force and inspiration to finally proceed on her purpose.

And that is the story of how I started learning Italian, because I don't remember how I did it with English.

S.W. 2

"Write about the influence of psychologists in our society. Are they well considered? Could they be the answer to our psychological necessities?"

My brother is studying psychology. It's been his passion for most of his life, but the truth is that he's had to work really hard to get as far as he is and he's still far from being done, even if he's just two months away from getting his degree.

Our mother loves to help others. She's a caring person who enjoys listening to others and, according to herself, she's got a supernatural talent: she can read others' past, present and future in cards, so others come to her as a listener and foreteller.

However, though I do not intend to diminish my mother's labour on putting others on ease, I do see a problem in it having a higher social acceptance and credibility than my brother's, which is sustained by centuries of research, review and correction. Psychology, like democracy, is one of those things which only become useful if the society they're in is mature enough.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

S.W. 1

"Divorce rates are increasing in Europe. Does this mean that marriage is in crisis? are you in favour or against marriage? Write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper explaining your opinion."

Flagellum Kinetoplast
The Daily Freakout
25 Triana Park
Heathergrad, Furry Federation

Dear editor or editors of The Daily Freakout;

I'm sending this letter as an avid letter of your newspaper with the intention of discussing or at least giving my view on the topic adressed last Wednesday by the writer and columnist Amoeba Hypotenuse in its paper edition. In the article she wrote, she described the decline of marriage and the increasing recurrence of divorces in Europe as "a major crisis that can only be compared to the Holocaust."

Without passing judgement on whether or not Mrs. Hypotenuse belongs in a psychiatric hospital, and with all my education towards her readers and followers, I must clarify that a much wider view on the human causes and consequences of an event should be required before comparing it to mass genocide. If I'm to say, our society is evolving into a much more diverse state in which people are pursuing and following their own aspirations beyond the perishing imposition of anti-human religious values, often getting to personal and individual –and therefore heterogeneous– view on what kind of relationship is wanted, sometimes defying the traditional concept of romantic monogamous love.

This societal transition is, at the same time, leading to a change of view towards traditional concepts like marriage or the permanence of romantic relationship, which are being questioned and no longer taken as an absolute truth.

However, that is just my personal opinion. I think those changes are something we, as people living in different spots of the enormous diversity of our species, who want freedom to be achieved, should be celebrating.

Thank you so much for your time and attention.

Sincerely yours,
H Y
Leader of the Flying Oranges Union.

Friday, March 17, 2017

"Why do we love? A philosophical inquiry"

"Why do you love me?
It's driving me crazy!"
"Why Do You Love Me?" - Garbage
As a school task, we had to watch this TED-Ed video and answer this worksheet related to it. Here are my answers:

1.- Attraction is natural, and so is the need to bond with other human beings in a variety of relationships, that can range from acquiantancement to deep connection. It comes as a rational consequence that a combination between attraction and bonding must be inherent as well.

When it comes to deeper reasons, or the reasons causing that attraction and that need to bond, the question gets more complicated. According to Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, we humans are just containers for our genetic material and our life goal is to pass it to a future generation, making attraction and love ways to force us into our biological destiny. If that is so, as a transsexual person who has many friends among the LGBT community, I must say nature does quite a terrible job. I see love as more of an arbitrary thing that, if anything, used to have a biological function. With evolution, humans have separated pleasure from reproduction in a radical paradigmatical division, and we can simply have one without the other... and in the case of pleasure without reproduction, we usually do. And that is beautiful.

So, if I am to say, we love because we love. Human evolution is strange, and we simply do things just because we're like that, as a species or as individuals. Some need love, some don't, some bond with many, some don't bond, it's more of an arbitrary thing.

2.- Beautiful, intoxicating, heart-breaking and soul crushing.

3.- Plato, Schopenhauer, Russell, Buddha and Simone du Beauvoir.

4.-
Plato - "Love makes us whole, again."
Schopenhauer - "Love tricks us into having babies."
Russell - "Love is escape from out loneliness."
Buddha - "Love is a misleading affliction."
S. du Beauvoir - "Love lets us reach beyond ourselves."


5.-
"Dependance on another means boredom and power games." – S. du Beauvoir
"We succeed in perpetuating human species and perpetuating human tragedy." – Schopenhauer
"Quench our physical and psychological desires." – Russell
"It enriches our whole being together." – Russell
"Attachments are a great source of suffering." – Buddha
"Love is the longing to find a soulmate who makes us feel whole again." – Plato
"Love infuses our life with meaning." – S. du Beauvoir

Tollerance, voltaire and K. Popper [part III]



"But you,
You can do better than that."
"Better Than That" - Marina And The Diamonds

That author was Karl Popper. Mostly known for his theories on science and its development, as well as for his rivality with the Vienna Circle, he proposed a rational correction to Voltaire's postullate of absolute tollerance based on empyrical observation: he added to it the logical premise implying that tollerance towards intollerant views would put that same tollerance in danger. Or, in other words, if, in twenty years, we let that man called Adolf Hitler speak and freely win the ellections in his country, we may be messing up big time.

That way, Popper got to the conclusion that, in order to protect tollerance, some views threatening it must be deprived of it: tollerance should not be applied to attacks against it. That brought an authoritarian but also clarifying turn to the debate: from then on, the absolute tollerance paradigm proposed by Voltaire did not seem so inherent, and a further analysis of what should be allowed and what shouldn't replaced it.

Some say complete tollerance does not work because people are not mature enough to actually take their own decisions. Then another debate should be on whether or not defining maturity over those standards can really be considered tollerance...

That debate, however, does not belong here.

Tollerance, Voltaire and K. Popper [part II]



"You hit me once,
I hit you back,
You gave a kick,
I gave a slap."
"Kiss With A Fist" - Florence + The Machine 

Not even a century after Voltaire's time, Humanity had tollerated the takeover of the ongoing technological progress for the sake of enslaving the majority in a paradigm of exploiters and exploited ones: the magnificent Industrial Revolution had happened, and most people in Europe were starving thanks to it.

At the same time, politics in the Old Continent were filling with tension between nations, with constant attacks between liberal states like France or the United Kingdom and monarchies and imperial states like the newly unified Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Ottoman Empire, where regional nationalisms were fiercely persecuted; while this was happening, both sides were accumulating weaponry for an explicitly upcoming war.

It would not be until the early 20th century, in Vienna, when a philosopher would add a bit more sanity to Voltaire's thesis and its effect.

Tollerance, Voltaire and K. Popper [part I]



"Got an opinion,
Yeah, you're well up for slating."
"Everyone's At It" - Lily Allen

The Illustration significated the culmination of three centuries of continuation of ancient philosophy, as well as of continuous and scheme-breaking scientific development, innovation in formal disciplines like maths or logics, retaking of mythological and anthropocentric art and literature... Overall, it was the peak of an impressive intellectual rise in all areas.

Voltaire
One of the topics that Illustrated philosophers spoke about was human freedom and tollerance. From the opposite political thesis of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to the complete anthropological model presented by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the limits and preferable ways of human action were spoken about all over the European continent and the United Kingdom, though in separated currents on the two.

The author that interests us is the one who unified both philosophical worlds, who brought the philosophy of Locke and Hume and the science of Newton to the Old Continent: Voltaire. Voltaire's works all revolve around a central thesis, which is based in the total acceptance of all positions in debate; Voltaire, ideologically, became the biggest defender of total tollerance in all areas, ideology, religion, culture...

It would not take all of the centuries passed before that to prove how disasterous the literal applying of his thesis could be.

The "Nip/Tuck Dialog" Task

 "If you weren't born with it
You can buy a couple ornaments
Just be sure to read the warning, kids,
'Cause pretty soon you'll be bored of it."
"Mr. Potato Head" - Melanie Martínez

For a school task, we had to write a dialog about surgery in pairs and record it. In lack of the recording (and I must say that is my fault), here's the written version of it:


~Our dialog (Heather, Campio)~

A Hey, hi!

B Hi!

A Oh, my God! The surgery went wrong, didn’t it? Your face looks horrible!

B What!? It’s awesome!

A What? Is that what you asked for?

B Yes! I wanted something inspired in Dali’s art!

A Oh, goodness... As long as you’re happy, I guess...

B Why don’t you try it out?

A Nah, I’m not that much into surrealism...

B But, I mean, haven’t you ever wanted to look different?

A Now that you say it... I’ve always wanted to look like a fruit!

B A fruit?

A Yeah! Nothing looks more healthy and delicious than a fruit!

B So, which fruit would you look like?

A A pineapple, a strawberry... Every kind is fine! But the fruit I’ve always loved the most is the pear!

B The pear!?

A Yes!

B So, are you gonna go for it?

A Hmm... Yes, definitely!

B See?

A Pear me, here I come!

"How do you know love is for real?"

 "Because it's not love,
But it's still a feeling.
No, it's not love,
But my body's reeling
To move closer next to you."
"Because It's Not Love (But It's Still A Feeling)" - The Pipettes

According to the composer, vocalist and arreglist Florence Welch in the YouTube presentation for her second album as part of the band Florence + The Machine, "Ceremonials" (2011), love feels like a long lasting note, a long scream that echoes in one's mind and fills it along with the heart. According to myself a year ago, love was more like a long lasting erection.

When one asks people what love is, the responses are impressibly homogeneous and incoherent: on one hand, everyone seems to agree that love is, naturally and inherently, what the romantic love stereotypes say it is, an emotional dependence (pure, independent from sex, of course! I mean, duh) that links two people together, making them magically have the same needs and interests by the action of some kind fairy, while also, on the other, everyone agrees that people are heterogeneous and have a variety of needs, some have the need to share their feelings with a partner while also need to have sex in function of their sexual needs, which vary in quantity and object with time, some can handle traditional romantic love for longer, some are induced to vomit by the sole thought of it...

Love is Eurovision. #UndeniableTruth
The truth this comes to show is that everyone has a different response to the seemingly natural feeling of attraction and inclination towards sharing a relationship, meaning that love is probably not something generalized that everyone reaches as the same state of feeling but rather something that varies in definition from individual to individual. With this premise, it seems hard to ask oneself whether or not love has been reached or whether or not love is what is being felt.

Then, how does one know the love they feel is for real, or if it can be called love? For the previously exposed reasons, I prefer considering it is not possible to be aware of it: one must do what is felt and how it's felt, without social schemes, with consent but without imposition, freely, collectively and individually at the same time, with the people we, as we say, love but in the way we want to love and how we feel like loving.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

In 2013, the best that Europe had to give itself was a song about suicide


"Birds falling down the rooftops,
Out of the sky like raindrops.
Birds falling down the rooftops."
"Birds" - Anouk

The Eurovision Song Contest has had a long and variable evolution over its six decades of existence, and one of its traits that has changed the most over time is its meaning: Eurovision has been a sign of unity in Europe, a folklore showcase, a display of social movements, a space for new musical tendencies and a historical remembrance spot; all in an hours-long yearly music contest.

However, every year –or every now and then– the contest harbours a performance that breaks all those semantic schemes to mean something completely new, strange to the dynamics of the event, and make a short space for something out of the norm. It's usual that those performances fall into oblivion in minutes and remain unnoticed until a couple of years later; this, though, even as an exception itself, has some strange cases.
Anouk used an alternative setting for her performance.

One of them, and my favourite, is the case for The Netherlands' song in 2013, "Birds," by Anouk. In an edition, like most, full of love songs, empowering anthems, generic songs and folkloric elements, a song about the consequences of a breakup and subsequent suicidal thoughts, with a beautiful and artistic performance that broke all schemes, even when it came to positioning and use of the staging, rose. It did not win, but it did not remain unnoticed or forgotten either: at that moment, it was impressively striking.

The artist, Anouk, not precisely known for making generic pop songs that could fit an event like Eurovision, chose not to stand on the stage but on the end of the elevated way coming from it that went right into the crowd: that way, with a series of camera cuts, Anouk seemed suspended from the ground and at the same time closely surrounded by the public. The lights, staging and choir, all coming from the stage and filling the performance with an ethereal yet meaningful completion, gave the already magical succession a colorful and heartfelt turn.

For all those reasons, despite the official winner being Denmark, with a generic pop song and a performance filled with folklore, more of a follow-up of what the winner of the previous year had done with "Euphoria," "Birds" is undeniably my favourite song and performance in the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest.

"My soulmate," a task-induced reflection


"You, soft and only,
You, lost and lonely,
You, just like heaven."
"Just Like Heaven" - Katie Melua

For today's task (which somehow counts as a "Your say" writing), linked to our current project about love and relationships, it's required to describe one's ideal soulmate at the moment. To be honest, at first I had no trail of a clue as to how my soulmate should be, but further thought on what I want to do and who I'd want to share my life with has brought some concrete conclusions.

My soulmate should be somebody to collaborate and fight along with, an ally, a comrade. A person of ideas, wiling to change the world for the better and to give their voice and forces to the struggle of the oppressed. I think it would be absolutely impossible for me to share my life with someone who has opposite or unfitting convictions compared to me or no convictions at all.

Another factor to bear in mind is the kind of relationship one can have with a soulmate. If I take the traditional model, with a romantic-sexual relationship in it, the description gets a bit more concrete. I like men: genitals of both sexes are ugly, but I find male anatomy to be, in general, more erotic; that, in return, means I wouldn't care whether we're speaking of a cisgender man or a trans man, and I actually think sharing something like being trans would not only make it that we fight together but also that we have something deep in common.

Furtherly focusing on my sexual likes and romantic needs, though, I think hugging a person who is hard to the touch is just as comforting as hugging the street light next street; my soulmate, in that sense, should be chubby, at least slightly (yes, I ~might~ find chubby men erotic or arousing). I find ripped or only muscular people quite gross, and I think the ideal body type of my soulmate would be big, strong, but also plump and stout; preferably hairy. This, though, is a minor addition compared to the second paragraph.

Most importantly, though, my soulmate must share things with me. What would I do with a rich privileged cis man? How am I going to get him to help me when I fight against his privilege? How can I say to Mr. Bourgeoisie's face that I want to overthrow his class? I can't love someone like that, someone I see as a tyrant and as part of the reason why this world can be such a dark place.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Evolution and Revolution, part II


"My supermodel legs,
They never held up much weight in my world.
My supermodel legs,
'Cause women should be women, girls should be allowed to be girls!"
"Supermodel's Legs" - Marina And The Diamonds

Last week, I wrote about the main reason I considered to be blocking the possibility of a game-changing revolution not only in the Spanish context but worldly. The resulting post was inspired by an article linked at the end of it, and pointed out at the excess of information given to citizens and the lack of time offered to emit a moral judgement towards it as the factors to bear in mind.

However, further introspection has risen new questions about my own thoughts on the topic, and I'm not so sure of what's written there anymore. Taking a look at my own case, I've found myself tending to hide in certain contexts, to the extent, to put a concrete example, of washing my Twitter profile off political symbology –that was meant to represent me and my thoughts– for the sake of springing a good opinion on people I admire or just like, who were going to notice my profile as soon as I liked a tweet of theirs, in fear of them disagreeing.

The issue this brings to my mind is that I'm not the only one who might be hiding content that could lead to people gaining awareness on an issue; that, considering how caring on others' opinions people normally are –not excluding myself–, is a determining factor. On the other hand, it's obvious to me that if a collective susceptible of triggering the revolution we're talking about is not identifiable as part of such, it's unlikely that the so-mentioned group gets to notice its members in order to unionise and make collective action as a result.

This, I consider, is what was left in my latest post. If we got to solve these issues, at least in ourselves, it's likely, though, that we woldn't have done enough to make change active or even possible, but I think we shouldn't underestimate societal factors when what we want is a collective movement to happen.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Evolution and Revolution


 "A thousand words
Were never spoken
They'll fly to you
They'll carry you home."
"A Thousand Words" - Final Fantasy X-2 Soundtrack

Quite recently, two Syrian journalists found resources from the UK government signed by the NATO in possession of the Islamic State. The resulting news sprung over social media quite fastly until the issue was fully forgotten, days later. The same case, and on the same topic, was given with news regarding a NATO executive who was mysteriously killed while investigating the origin of the wealth of the so-mentioned Islamic State. No western government had to offer any explanation regarding any of the two facts, and both were gone from the collective mind in not much more than a week.

We're constantly being told about horrible things nobody's doing anything about, we were literally told that we're being surveilled as we use the Internet or the telephone; literally, a man called Edward Snowden told us that. We were told, too, about the US arming civil wars in countries like Yemen; literally, a man called Julian Assange told us that. And we're constantly being told about much more terrible issues no government is responding to, because there's no need to as there's no response either way.

We don't even have to go outside this country to find it. Here in Spain, we're constantly being told about corruption cases in the political parties we keep voting. In Autonomous Communities like Valencia votes are traditionally homogeneous in time; in the Valencian case, it's the PP being voted, but in Andalusia it's the PSOE and in Catalonia it's been CiU for so long, and all this time we've been knowing about corruption cases regarding and afeccting those very communities that voted them. Even in the state government we find a whole tendency towards corruption and forgiveness or oblivion, in all the political powers and even in the business and sindicates' areas.

We know, through the information we're given, that our country is stuck in a rotten static system that makes it impossible for Spain to have a heatlhy future, but still that system remains completely undamaged. The largest step taken by the citizens is going into manifestations nobody ever listens to besides those agreeing with it, and that, after the Internet has become the way to raise awareness and unionise the population, does pretty much nothing.

So, inside all of this, why isn't a revolution happening? We know we need it, we know we're trapped in a paradigm where the powerful can even overthrow a foreign government if it doesn't fit their interest, we know nothing is moving by itself and we know nothing is changing if not for worse. Well, the question to lead to that answer must rather be the following: what's the difference between the people who made revolutions and us?

Our world has changed a lot in many different ways, every generation is different from the previous and every time brings a new way to see things. But I think we can all agree that our evolution has been quite linear overall; all this time, we've been moving towards a single direction. We now live in a world where the norm is receiving tons and tons of information of radically different kinds in radically different ways: we watch the news, where they tell us how the UK has admitted that they invaded Libya using lies as a justification and, thirteen seconds later, how an actor took a picture with a famous cat. At the same time this happens, we look at our phones, scrolling through our Twitter timeline, and looking at more countries, more lies, more actors, more cats and even porn in some cases; meanwhile, we might even be listening to music as well, being then conditioned by how the song we're hearing makes us feel, and the list goes on and on.

The thing, then, is that we're stuck, trapped, inside a "tweet culture," where information is reduced to a 140-character-long or maybe a 13-second-long pill to be swallowed right after another radically different one and before even another with a completely different taste. From here on, it's easy to respond to the main question: a revolution isn't happening because we don't have time to think about the information that would cause it in order to have an emotional response, hence, start that revolution. We don't judge the information we're given anymore because we're not given the time to think about it, we then just think in short phrases, tweets, that we didn't even create ourselves but were directly taken from what we were told.

The solution to this is introspection. We know the things we say publicly in the social media are part of that succession of pills and won't be heard or remembered, so the only thing we can change by ourselves is, guess what, ourselves. We need to lose the laziness towards choosing a thousand words in an article rather than a hundred letters in a tweet, we need longer inputs, we need to give more time to the information we're given and to ourselves, we need to silence our phones and focus on one thing at a time, think, valorate, judge, have an emotional response and, from that response, create something new.

But we can't let apathy keep winning.

Original post the idea was taken from [in Spanish]: https://lamentiradelsistema.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/por-que-no-estalla-una-revolucion/, recommended reading for a fully understanding on the topic.