The Love Flow Station

(Note: This is a paper I wrote for an English class I was taking two years ago. The research and the writing were rushed, and it was essentially me just taking advantage of an opportunity to write some philosophy for a college class. I only wrote on this topic because it was one of three I was allowed to do, and the sources I could find to cite weren’t necessarily the best. This is a construction of an argument out of the sources available to me at the time and not necessarily an accurate depiction of the nuanced views I have on this subject. I still believe this is a decent paper that makes some good points.)         Kentucky has recently passed a bill allowing parents to complain about obscene literature in their children’s school library. This legislative action raises several philosophical questions about intellectual freedom, obscenity, and childhood. The government should protect the right of the public to determine what is contained in the collection of their ...

  “‘Brain rot’ is defined as ‘the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging. Also: something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration.’” -Oxford University Press Many people in our meta-modern world are growing increasingly concerned about brain rot. After all, the name itself implies something that is harming the brain and tends to be referring to a loss of intelligence, becoming idiotic, etc. Under this definition, how could a good philosophy of brain rot ever emerge? For to become a philosopher of brain rot, one would have to have engaged with the brain rotting media and undergone a deterioration of their intellectual state. Shouldn’t all philosophy of brain rot be bad philosophy? This is what I set out to do here today. To produce a good philosophy of brain rot, and to do that we must first over come thi...

Introduction Although some confusion remains, people generally know what one means when they use the word queer as a noun. Homosexuality, transgender identity, neopronouns, etc. They understand that queers are some vague group of people with genders and sexualities that refuse normative scripts and standards. Use queer as a verb, however, and all of a sudden… people are lost. They can’t even begin to piece together what you could possibly mean when you say you queered your gender or your sexuality, heaven forbid anything else. Look closer and you’ll find that people will begin to experience a sense of anxiety, unease, and agitation when queerness as a verb is used. Look even closer, and you begin to see a deeply interesting clash occurring within people between their desire to conform to normative scripts and their desire to negate them.  In this essay, I’m trying to help allies with their treacherous journey into including themselves in queerness rather than remaining outside s...