Foto: Rudee Michelle Photography
Pogledi iz Amerike
V Jantarni lastovki objavljamo kolumne ameriškega avtorja Emmanuela Clacka. Skozi osebne zgodbe, dogodke iz preteklosti in aktualna vprašanja raziskuje zapleteno podobo ameriške družbe ter ponuja pogled na procese in napetosti, ki oblikujejo ameriški prostor.
***
Ena misel:
Kakšen je smisel razmišljanja?
Vsak razmišlja drugače, pa vendar vsi delimo iste misli.
Verjetno prav zdaj razmišljaš o tem, zakaj sem vprašal, kakšen je smisel razmišljanja.
Nekdo me je vprašal, kaj si mislim o teoriji zarote, ki jo je delil z menoj. Imel sem več misli, vendar sem okleval, ali naj jih povem, ker lahko nekatere misli veljajo za kontroverzne.
Zakaj?
Ali ne bi morali vsi imeti pravice razmišljati tako kot želimo? Ni absurdno pomisliti, da bi se bilo o tem precej lahko strinjati. Opazil sem, da največ razdorov povzročajo mnenja. Izgubili smo sam proces samoizražanja. »Napačno« mnenje lahko povzroči razburjenje in ogorčenje.
Zakaj?
Kdo odloča, katere misli so sprejemljive in katere niso?
V Ameriki obstaja rek: »Svoboda govora ne pomeni svobode pred posledicami.« Kot da bi si izmislili predpostavko, da svoboda govora velja samo takrat, ko se ljudje popolnoma strinjajo o tem, kar je bilo povedano ali predstavljeno.
V Ameriki obstaja rek: »Svoboda govora ne pomeni svobode pred posledicami.« Kot da bi si izmislili predpostavko, da svoboda govora velja samo takrat, ko se ljudje popolnoma strinjajo o tem, kar je bilo povedano ali predstavljeno.
Kot pisatelj moram razmišljati o tem, kaj bodo drugi mislili o tem, kar mislim jaz. Kot posamezniku pa mi je * vseeno, kaj si ljudje mislijo o tem, kar mislim. Za svoje misli in mnenja se ne opravičujem. V širši sliki mnenja ne bi smela biti pomembna. Ljudem bi moralo biti dovoljeno, da se izražajo in povedo svoje mnenje. Po mojem mnenju ne obstaja pravilno ali napačno mnenje. Mnenja niso dejstva. So subjektivna in odprta za interpretacijo. Precej nenavadno je, ko se ljudje prepirajo zaradi stališč in skušajo spreminjati način, kako razmišljajo drugi.
Moje razmišljanje izvira iz radovednosti, ki sem jo imel že od zgodnjega otroštva. Vedno sem čutil potrebo po tem, da vprašam: »Zakaj?« Hotel sem razumeti stvari. Še vedno jih hočem. Ko razmišljam, se ves čas sprašujem: »Zakaj?« To mi pomaga, da se pri različnih temah in teorijah poglobim v vprašanje, zakaj so stvari takšne, kakršne so. Najintenzivneje sem razmišljal v temni kleti hiše svojih staršev, ko sem se boril z depresijo. Vsak dan sem ure in ure sedel in premleval.
Pogosto sem razmišljal o življenju:
Zakaj smo tukaj?
Kaj se zgodi, ko umremo?
Ali boš vedel, da si umrl?
Pogosto sem razmišljal o religiji:
Kaj je Bog počel, preden je ustvaril nebo in zemljo?
Zakaj obstaja samo ena Biblija?
Zakaj nihče ne postavlja pod vprašaj značaja ljudi, ki so napisali Biblijo? Kaj če so bili grozni ljudje, ki so nedolžnim počeli grozne stvari?
Pogosto sem razmišljal o ljubezni:
Zakaj sploh obstaja monogamija?
Ne zdi se mi logično, da bi imeli samo eno ljubezen. Skoraj ničesar v življenju nimamo samo enega.
Zakaj tega ne prenesemo tudi na ljubezen in odnose?
Pogosto sem razmišljal o ljubezni:
Zakaj sploh obstaja monogamija?
Ne zdi se mi logično, da bi imeli samo eno ljubezen. Skoraj ničesar v življenju nimamo samo enega.
Zakaj tega ne prenesemo tudi na ljubezen in odnose?
Pogosto sem razmišljal o razmišljanju:
Zakaj drugi skušajo nadzorovati, kako ljudje razmišljajo? Prav v teh trenutkih sem začel spoznavati in prepoznavati stvari, o katerih sem bil, bolj ko sem razmišljal, vse manj prepričan. Takrat sem začel opažati vzorce in nekaj, čemur bi nekateri rekli propaganda.
Določenih misli ne smeš imeti.
Pogosto sem razmišljal o svojem življenju:
Sem neuspešen?
Kaj je moj namen?
Pogosto sem razmišljal o družbi:
Zakaj je toliko konfliktov?
Zakaj se vsak dan dogajajo umori?
Zakaj so orožje in droge tako razširjeni?
Zakaj se preprosto ne moremo vsi razumeti?
Skoraj tako je, kot da moraš pri vsem izbrati stran. Tega nikoli nisem razumel. Zakaj mora biti vedno eno ali drugo? Zakaj človek ne more biti na obeh straneh? Zakaj izbira ene strani v trenutku spremeni tiste na drugi strani v tvoje sovražnike? Kot da obstaja potreba po soglasju. Zakaj mora pri vsem veljati, da vsi razmišljajo enako? Najnovejša razprava na mojem časovnem traku se nanaša na transspolne športnice v ženskih športih.
Nihče, ki je bil rojen kot moški, ne bi smel tekmovati v ženskem športu. S tem se je preprosto strinjati, kajne? Saj prav zato sploh obstajajo ločene ekipe. Je bilo kaj ogorčenja, ko so se odločili ustanoviti ženske ekipe?
Po eni strani ljudje spoštujejo ustavo, ki je zelo star dokument, ter sledijo njenim zakonom in določilom. Toda iste logike ne uporabljajo pri obravnavi izjemnih oziroma novih situacij; za nedavne dogodke ustvarjajo nove kategorije, kot da je bil že vzpostavljen neki precedens in bi morali vsi sprejeti isto mnenje kot oni.
V zadnjih nekaj dneh sem med brskanjem naletel na stotine posameznikov, predvsem žensk, ki zagovarjajo stališče, da transspolne ženske ne bi smele biti izključene. Te iste ženske se opredeljujejo kot ženske, toda ko jih vprašaš: »Kaj je ženska?«, nikoli ne znajo dati neposrednega odgovora, ker bi opredelitev ženske pomenila, da moški, ki se opredeljujejo kot ženske, ne bi sodili v to kategorijo.
V zadnjih nekaj dneh sem med brskanjem naletel na stotine posameznikov, predvsem žensk, ki zagovarjajo stališče, da transspolne ženske ne bi smele biti izključene. Te iste ženske se opredeljujejo kot ženske, toda ko jih vprašaš: »Kaj je ženska?«, nikoli ne znajo dati neposrednega odgovora, ker bi opredelitev ženske pomenila, da moški, ki se opredeljujejo kot ženske, ne bi sodili v to kategorijo.
Jaz pa mislim takole:
Tu ne gre za spol. Gre za teorijo. Ali moraš verjeti, da je vse mogoče, ali pa sprejeti, da ni nič mogoče. Razprava pravi, da obstajata samo dva spola. Kako? Na podlagi česa? Znanosti? Je znanost eksaktna? Na koncu se vse vrne k človeku ali skupini ljudi, ki so se odločili, kaj neka stvar je. Kaj pa, če so se zmotili? Ali lahko moški zanosi? Je kakšen moški sploh kdaj poskusil zanositi? V življenju je zelo malo dejstev. Gre za to, kaj verjameš, da je res. Nekateri verjamejo, da je obstajal človek, ki je hodil po vodi, delal čudeže, nato umrl in se vrnil.
Drugi verjamejo, da se je življenje začelo z velikim pokom. Je potem res tako nezaslišano verjeti, da je nekdo lahko »ženska, rojena v moškem telesu«? Te izraze so ustvarili ljudje. Ljudje so te stvari označili in poimenovali pred tisočletji. Zakaj jih ljudje ne bi mogli poimenovati na novo? Stvari se razvijajo. Če verjameš, da so se ljudje razvili iz opic, je potem res tako nora misel, da bi nekdo želel spremeniti spol, ki mu je bil pripisan ob rojstvu, v tistega, v katerem se počuti najbolje? Vedno znova je tu tisti »tega ne moreš …« Zakaj? Imamo svobodno voljo ali je nimamo? Imamo svobodo govora in svobodo izražanja ali ne? Nas določajo meje ali smo tukaj zato, da jih premikamo?
Največje stvaritve in izumi so delo ljudi, ki so premikali meje. Tistih, ki stvari niso preprosto sprejeli takšne, kakršne so bile. Tistih, ki so razmišljali leta pred tem, kar je tedaj veljalo za mogoče. Filozofijo povezujemo z briljantnimi umi. Sposobni so si predstavljati stvari, ki še ne sodijo v območje trenutnih možnosti, pa imajo kljub temu dovolj daljnovidnosti, da v prenesenem pomenu vidijo prihodnost. Sčasoma se bo pokazalo, kaj je teoretično »prav ali narobe«. Bodite potrpežljivi. Razmišljajte naprej.
Med covidom so nam govorili o cepivih. Nekateri so jih zavrnili. Drugi so vztrajali pri njih. Čas je pokazal, da nam niso povedali vse resnice in da je to dobesedno povzročilo smrt neštetih posameznikov. Vse zato, ker so verjeli temu, kar jim je bilo povedano. Postavljaj pod vprašaj vse. Ali pa ne postavljaj pod vprašaj ničesar.
Nekoč je bilo splošno sprejeto, da ženske ne volijo in da je mogoče ljudi prodajati v suženjstvo. Pravi razsodnik mnenj, teorij, logike in misli bi moral biti čas. V tem trenutku, če s tem nikomur neposredno ne škodujejo, jim pustimo, da živijo v skladu s svojo resnico. Strinjajmo se, da se ne strinjamo. Verjemi, kar želiš verjeti. Teorije niso dejstva. Mnenja niso dejstva. Prepričanja niso dejstva. Misli niso dejstva. V teoriji vse to pravzaprav sploh ne obstaja.
V širši sliki bomo nekega dne vsi umrli.
Mislim.
Kaj pa misliš ti?
***
Conspiracy Therapy
Here’s a thought:
What is the point of thinking?
Everybody thinks differently, but we all share the same thoughts.
You’re probably having thoughts now about why I asked about the point of thinking.
I was asked my thoughts on a conspiracy theory that someone shared with me. I had several thoughts but was hesitant to share them because some thoughts can be deemed controversial.
Why?
Shouldn’t we all be allowed to think how we want to think? It’s not absurd to think that would be an easy thing to agree on. What I’ve noticed is that most disruption is caused by opinions. We have lost the process of self-expression. The “wrong” opinion can cause uproar and outrage.
Why?
Who decides which thoughts are acceptable and which aren’t?
In America, there’s a saying: “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.” It’s like they concocted this premise that freedom of speech is only for when people fully agree with what’s said or presented.
In America, there’s a saying: “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.” It’s like they concocted this premise that freedom of speech is only for when people fully agree with what’s said or presented.
As a writer, I have to think about what others might think about what I think. As an individual, I don’t give * what people think about what I think. I make no apologies for my thoughts and opinions. In the grand scheme of things, opinions shouldn’t matter. People should be allowed to express themselves and their opinions. In my opinion, there is no right or wrong opinion. Opinions aren’t facts. They are subjective and open to interpretation. It’s a rather confusing thing when people argue over opinions and try to change how others think.
My thinking derives from an early age of curiosity. There was always this desire for me to ask, “Why?” I wanted to understand things. I still do. When I’m thinking, I’m constantly asking “Why?” and it helps me think more deeply about theories and exactly why things are the way they are. My most intense thinking came in a dark basement at my parents’ house as I wrestled with depression. Every day, I sat for hours and hours thinking about my thoughts.
I thought often about life:
Why are we here?
What happens when we die?
Will you know that you died?
I thought often about religion:
What was God doing before he made the heavens and earth?
Why is there only one Bible?
Why doesn’t anyone question the character of the people who wrote the Bible? What if they were horrible people who did horrible things to innocent people?
I thought often about love:
Why is monogamy a thing?
It doesn’t make logical sense to only have one love. There’s nothing in life we only have one of.
Why isn’t that applied to love and relationships?
I thought often about love:
Why is monogamy a thing?
It doesn’t make logical sense to only have one love. There’s nothing in life we only have one of.
Why isn’t that applied to love and relationships?
I thought often about thinking:
Why do others try to control how people think? It was in these moments that I started to realize and recognize things that, the more I thought about them, the less convinced I became. This is when I started to notice patterns and what some would call propaganda.
You’re not allowed to have certain thoughts.
I thought often about my life:
Am I a failure?
What’s my purpose?
I thought often about society:
Why is there so much conflict?
Why are there murders every day?
Why are guns and drugs so prevalent?
Why can’t we all just get along?
It’s almost like everything requires picking a side. I’ve never understood that. Why does it have to be either/or? Why can’t a person be on both sides? Why does picking a side instantly make those on the other side your enemy? There seems to be a need for agreement. Why does everything require everyone to think the same way? The most recent debate on my timeline is trans athletes in women’s sports.
No person born a man should play women’s sports. That’s an easy thing to agree on, right? It’s the reason why there are separate teams to begin with. Was there outrage when they decided to make women’s teams?
On one hand, people abide by the Constitution, which is a very old document, and they’ll follow the laws and statutes. They don’t apply this same logic when addressing outlying situations. Instead, they create new pockets for recent events, as if there’s some precedent that has been set and everybody should follow the same opinion as them.
The last few days, I’ve scrolled past hundreds of individuals, mainly women, advocating that trans women shouldn’t be alienated. Those same women identify as women, yet when you ask them, “What is a woman?” they can never give a straight answer because if they defined a woman, it would mean that the men who identify as women wouldn’t fall under that category.
The last few days, I’ve scrolled past hundreds of individuals, mainly women, advocating that trans women shouldn’t be alienated. Those same women identify as women, yet when you ask them, “What is a woman?” they can never give a straight answer because if they defined a woman, it would mean that the men who identify as women wouldn’t fall under that category.
Here’s what I think:
This isn’t about gender. It’s about theory. You either have to believe anything is possible or you have to accept that nothing is possible. The debate is that there are only two genders. How? Based on what? Science? Is science exact? It all ties back to a human or a group of humans deciding what something is. What if they got it wrong? Can men get pregnant? Has a man ever tried to get pregnant? There are very few facts in life. It’s about what you believe to be true. Some believe there was a man who walked on water, performed miracles, then died and came back.
Some believe life started with the Big Bang. Is it outlandish to believe that a person could be a “female born in a male body”? These terms were created by humans. They labeled and named these things thousands of years ago. Why can’t humans rename them? Things evolve. If you believe humans evolved from monkeys, then is it such a crazy thought for a person to want to change their assigned gender to whatever they feel most comfortable with? There’s always, “You can’t do…” Why? Do we have free will or not? Is there freedom of speech and freedom of expression or not? Are we bound by limits, or are we here to push limits?
The greatest creations and inventions come from those who pushed the limits. Those who didn’t just accept things as they were. Those who thought years beyond what was considered possible. Philosophy is often associated with brilliant minds. They’re capable of imagining things that aren’t within the current realm of possibility, but they still have the foresight to figuratively see into the future. In time, things will determine what is theoretically “right or wrong.” Have patience. Continue to think things through.
During COVID, we were told about these vaccines. Some refused to take them. Some insisted. Time showed that we weren’t fully told the truth, and it literally resulted in the deaths of countless individuals. All because they believed what they were told. Challenge everything. Or challenge nothing.
At one point in history, it was widely accepted that women should not vote and that people could be sold into slavery. The true judge of opinions, theories, logic, and thoughts should be time. At this moment in time, if nobody is being directly harmed by it, then allow them to live their truth. Agree to disagree. Believe what you want to believe. Theories aren’t facts. Opinions aren’t facts. Beliefs aren’t facts. Thoughts aren’t facts.
In theory, they actually don’t exist.
In the grand scheme of things, we’re all going to die one day.
I think.
What do you think?
