Tuesdays With Morrie Revisited: “A romantic traditionalist, a shallow self-absorbed baby boomer and life’s shittiest craps”

Mitch Albom’s Tuesdays With Morrie

Well, not really. I’m being hyperbolic.

I wrote in my Instagram’s post that “revisiting a book is always a good idea to know how much you’ve changed… or not, and whether a book is a great work that transcends time and changes… or not.”

And “Tuesdays With Morrie” is not. So not.

So not great, not even good, that it made me wonder, why did I even cry my heart out years ago? Like getting some kind of enlightment or epiphany. Mine even has these colourful post-its of quoted lines that I thought were brilliant and hit all the right spots. Ugh.

Now that it’s almost twenty years later, I get another enlightenment… this book is a crap.

I re-read ‘Tuesdays’ because I was planning to watch “Sabtu Bersama Bapak”, which I thought was probably ‘heavily inspired’ by this book. Well, it’s a yes and no. ‘Tuesdays’ was published in 1997 and I consider it as part of the Inspirational Lit wave that hit the popular culture in the mid-90s along with “Chicken Soup For The Soul” series and “The Oprah Winfrey Show”. In fact, Oprah did later produce the TV film adaptation of ‘Tuesdays’, and Albom’s other book, “For One More Day” which was directed by the same director of another Albom’s book-turned-into-movie, “The Five People You Meet In Heaven”

Though it seems like ‘Tuesdays’ tried to disintegrate itself from the self-help genre, for me it failed to do so. It criticised the self-help books that flooded America’s book market by saying:

“Of course, there were a million self-help books on these subjects, and plenty of cable TV shows, and $90-per-hour consultation sessions. America had become a Persian bazaar of self-help.” (p.65)

I suspect Albom was talking about the ‘Chicken Soup’ series. Self-help, inspirational, motivational, whatever their jargon is, they all have the same effect on me. Left me feeling uninspired and demotivated.

I don’t know whether it was Albom’s conscious decision not to include other topics in this book that were probably mentioned by Morrie during their Tuesday sessions or it just happened to be that it was all there is to it about Morrie. If it’s the first, then I feel sorry for Morrie for being presented in such a way. If it’s the latter, then it’s really…

Morrie Schwartz was a professor in Sociology at Brandeis University, and Albom was one of his students. Studying Sociology apparently didn’t make either Morrie or Albom have a thorough and profound view of the world, at least not in this book. They just exchanged their white privilege’s ignorance covered in the so-called meaningful aphorisms.

The problems probably lie within Morrie and Albom’s backgrounds, and they seemed to heavily influence the way Morrie and Albom think. Of course it wouldn’t be fair to stereotype both Morrie and Albom, but they seem to be the almost perfect archetypes of their generations. Morrie was born in 1916, which made him part of the so-called G.I Generation or Greatest Generation. But let’s just call them the World War II Generation, the other less familiar term. Greatest sounds… well, too much. His father, Charlie Schwartz, was a Russian immigrant who left Russia to escape the Russian Army. Little Morrie lived in poverty. His father was constantly out of job, and because of the Depression, Morrie’s father found even less work in his fur business.

The experience of seeing people work in his father’s fur factory (his father was a labourer) made him make a vow that “he would never do any work that exploited someone else, and he would never allow himself to make money off the sweat of others” (p.78). This seems to be one of the World War II Generation’s values, “We before Me”. A value that in the years to come seemed to have no place in their über-capitalistic land of dreams.

The more I read about it (this generation division) the more I see ‘Tuesdays’, well Morrie’s aphorisms in this case, as a criticism towards the Boomers and their materialistic lifestyle and values. But unfortunately Morrie failed to see through these and recognising that the biggest contribution to their consumerism and hedonism are not only that they were being spoiled by their parents, but also thanks to their own economic and social systems, capitalism.

Though the 60s and 70s saw the rise of the counterculture of the 1960s, the civil rights movement, and the “second-wave” feminist cause (which later was also criticised for whitewashing), in which all the Boomers were the key players, but in the next coming years the Boomers evolved into a self-absorbed “Me Generation”. Everything is about “me, me, me”. Their ultimate goal is happiness. My happiness. Happiness, which was once just one of the emotions in the human emotion spectrum, has now become the holy and the only purpose of life. The purpose of life that, if you’re smart (and greedy) enough, can turn you into a multibillionaire by milking every drop of it.

Before going any further, perhaps this article by Simon Sinek in Salon can give a glimpse of World War II Generation and the Baby Boomer’s relationship:

“The Greatest Generation, raised during the Great Depression and wartime rationing, wanted to ensure that their children did not suffer or miss out on their youth as they did. This is good. This is what all parents want — for their children to avoid their hardships and prosper. And so that’s how the Boomers were raised — to believe that they shouldn’t have to go without. Which, as a philosophy, is perfectly fine and reasonable. But given the size of the generation and the abundance of resources that surrounded them, the philosophy got a little distorted. When you consider the rising wealth and affluence of their childhood, combined (for good reasons) with a cynicism toward government in the 1970s, followed by the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s, it’s easy to see how the Boomers earned their reputation as the Me Generation. Me before We.”

Now, Morrie criticised what this generation had become, which Albom represented being “.. so wrapped up with egotistical things, career, family, having enough money, meeting the mortgage, getting a new car, fixing the radiator when it breaks – we’re involved in trillions of little acts just to keep going…” (p. 64-65). Hence the “Love wins. Love always wins” (p. 40) type of aphorisms.

The problem is, it doesn’t.

If love always wins, we don’t have wars anymore. No discrimination, no violence, no blood, just none of those things. None. But it doesn’t.

Morrie probably wanted to relive the ‘We before Me’ values. A balance of hard work, a sense of being a part of a society and also love. The one thing that probably his generation was really deprived of, having lived in a constant struggle, but also the one thing that Boomers throw into the sea of divorces. So that’s what he emphasised most. Love.

Unfortunately, he passed on these ideas to the already self-absorbed and self-obsessed generation. As Brakow theorised, “One reason the Boomers were so spoiled, Brokaw theorizes, was their parents’ understandable desire to compensate for their own deprivation.” So they seemed to skip the ‘We’ part and went straight ahead to the ‘Love’ part. ‘Me + Love’ = self-love = positive psychology. A new breed of ignorance.

Now to my understanding, based on these backgrounds, Morrie was not likely to be an ignorant person. But somehow, he was too in a way. This ignorance came in the form of Morrie’s wise advice when asked by Albom “how can you be prepared to die?” His answer was,

“Do what the Buddhists do. Every day, have a little bird on your shoulder that asks, ‘Is today the day? Am I ready? Am I doing all I need to do? Am I being the person I want to be?” (p.81)

Huh? What the… ?!

The 90s (the period where the sessions took place) saw the booming of American Buddhism. Stephen Prothero, a professor of Religion, in his article “Buddhist Boomer” wrote,

“American converts are taking a 2,500-year-old faith and making it over in their own image — self-absorbed.”

He then went on saying,

“Boomer Buddhism, by contrast, is all too often shallow and small. It soothes rather than upsets, smoothing out the palpable friction between Buddhist practice and the banalities of contemporary American life, cajoling even the Dalai Lama to direct his great mind to small American preoccupations like “The Art of Happiness.”

This is actually ironic and pitiful since Morrie is a professor in sociology, the study of social behavior or society, including its origins, development, organisation, networks, and institutions. Yet he fell for this banality. So, I’m not sure whether this is Morrie’s or Albom’s conscious choice.

These picture-perfect ideals in delulu land also makes them lose the ability to see the bigger picture. Tom Brakow, who coined the term “Greatest Generation” recalled that at their time, “Whatever else was happening in our family or neighborhood, there was something greater connecting all of us, in large ways and small.”

I also need to remind myself that Morrie came from a generation that used to classify the African-Americans as second-class citizens. Brakow wrote “The majority of black Americans were still living in the states of the former Confederacy, and they remained second-class citizens, or worse, in practice and law. Negro men were drafted and placed in segregated military units even as America prepared to fight a fascist regime that had as a core belief the inherent superiority of the Aryan people.”

Again, I’m not sure whether this was purely Albom’s or partly Morrie’s, because one story in this book is racially biased and the choice of words feels like coming from white privilege’s arrogance.

“One time, a group of black students took over Ford Hall on the Brandeis campus, draping it in a banner that read MALCOLM X UNIVERSITY. For Hall had chemistry labs, and some administration officials worried that these radicals were making bombs in the basement. Morrie knew better. He saw right to the core of the problem, which was human being wanting to feel that they mattered.” (p.112)

If this book is out today in times of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, I’m almost sure that this would be criticised as racist. I suspect that that’s mostly Albom’s, since he also constantly talked about OJ Simpson’s case again in the background.

“I heard the door to Morrie’s study close. I stared at the TV set. Everyone in the world is watching this thing, I told myself. Then, from the other room, I heard the ruffling of Morrie’s being lifted from his chair and I smiled. As “the Trial of the Century” reached its dramatic conclusion, my old professor was sitting on the toilet.” (p. 158)

Mmm… no, we were not and no, it was not, you egocentric sheltered American Boomer. The world does not, nor will it ever be revolved just around your great nation!

Now, how did all of these very white American-centric problems, and very first world problems too, resonate with readers like me who came from the so-called third-world countries? I suspect that it has to do with the US cultural imperialism propaganda. It’s almost definite that when it comes to popular culture, people who live through the 80s and 90s in their adolescent years (the Gen X-ers), especially the urban middle-class kids and teenagers, can only remember mostly America’s popular culture products, and a little bit of British’s and Australia’s. Other than that, they are very minimal or almost non-existent.

“The secret of the success of North American cultural penetration of the Third World is its capacity to fashion fantasies to escape from misery, that the very system of economic and military domination generates. The essential ingredients of the new cultural imperialism is the fusion of commercialism-sexuality-conservatism each presented as idealized expressions of private needs, of individual self-realization. To some Third World people immersed in everyday dead end jobs, struggles for everyday survival, in the midst of squalor and degradation, the fantasies of North American media, like the evangelist, portray “something better”, a hope in a future better life — or at least the vicarious pleasure of watching others enjoying it.”

So it’s no surprise if the propaganda seemed to find its effective weapon in Inspirational Lit, which wave reached its height between 1993-1998, because the genre promises a better and happier life. Your personal and individual better and happier life, because it aimed to ‘dismantle’ the sense of ‘We’-ness. The same value that was not only highly valued by the World War II Generation, but also the same core value of socialism, the economic and social systems that American capitalism has fought to dismiss for decades.

“One of the great deceptions of our times is the notion of ‘internationalization’ of ideas, markets and movements. It has become fashionable to evoke terms like “globalization” or “internationalization” to justify attacks on any or all forms of solidarity, community, and/or social values. Under the guise of “internationalism”, Europe and the U.S. have become dominant exporters of cultural forms most conducive to depoliticizing and trivializing everyday existence. The images of individual mobility, the “self-make person”, the emphasis on “self-centered existence” (mass produced and distributed by the U.S. mass media industry) now have become major instruments in dominating the Third World.”

Not until the spectacular failure of capitalism, more Americans are embracing the idea of socialism.

 

It’s almost twenty years later. I have disassociated myself with the privileged middle class.

Because I am not.

Nor I am white.

Nor I am part of the first-world.

Nor I have benefited from the system.

 

So this book has become meaningless for me. A waste of an ideally revolutionary youth.

Master: God of Revenge/Noodles (마스터-국수의 신) (2016) VS Memories of Murder (살인의 추억) (2003)

Jadi ceritanya 3 minggu terakhir lagi ngikutin drako “Master: God of Revenge/Noodles”. Dari awal musik latarnya udah mengusik pikiran, ini kayaknya kok pernah denger dimana. Lalu kemarin gara-gara browsing mau cari komposernya siapa malah nyangkut di YouTube soundtrack-nya “Memories of Murder”.

 

Ternyata oh ternyata, bukan cuma musik-nya yang punya rasa & nuansa yang sama. Dramanya pun sepertinya begitu. Master dan Memories punya cerita yang sebenarnya bisa dibilang “biasa” aja, gak “sakit” atau berlapis macam Oldboy, Snowpiercer atau drako Heard It Through The Grapevine. Memories, film drama kriminal, berdasarkan kisah nyata peristiwa pembunuhan berantai di Hwaseong, sedangkan Master, drama pembalasan dendam, berdasarkan komik “Kooksooui Sin”. Ceritanya sendiri jauh berbeda, tapi kedua film dan drako ini punya sinematografi dan musik yang ciamik Sinematografer Memories adalah Kim Hyung Koo, sedangkan Master adalah Kim Jae Hwan & Mun Chang Soo (kalau gak salah baca). Sedangkan untuk musik, Memories mengandalkan komposisi Tarō Iwashiro dan Master didukung oleh Park Seong Jin.

Memories terasa lebih mentah (agak beda rasa ya jadinya kalo diterjemahin ke bahasa Indonesia dalam konteks ini) dan kasar sedangkan Master terasa lebih cantik walaupun gelap (lebih dekat ke rasa-nya “Gangnam Blues”). Tentu aja ini karena Master diproduksi buat konsumsi TV publik.

 

 

Untuk urusan musik, ini nih pemicu munculnya perbandingan ini, keduanya sama-sama menggunakan musik orkestra sebagai musik latar. Namun harus saya akui, walaupun sama-sama cantik dan menimbulkan perasaan pedih menyayat hati, secara konteks musik di Memories memang lebih tajam membangun emosi, sedangkan di Master rasanya belum sampai sana. Bisa jadi karena ceritanya sendiri memang tidak (atau belum, secara baru mau masuk episode 5 juga) setragis Memories.

 

 

Anyway, ngalor ngidul ini cuma bakal ditutup dengan komposisi Tarō Iwashiro buat Memories ini rasa-nya mirip sama komposisi Philip Glass buat “The Hours” buat saya. Bikin ngilu!

 

Catatan: ngalor ngidul ini ditulis beberapa minggu lalu di note Facebook

Push Your Limit. See The Bigger Picture

Sedih dan patah hati. Itu yang saya rasakan belakangan ini. Dari mengikuti kasus pemerkosaan, pemisahan gerbong perempuan di kereta api sampai kemarin yang paling baru, meninggalnya pekerja iklan karena lembur 3 hari. Tweet terakhirnya berisi, “30 hours of working and still going strooong.”

Kasusnya mungkin beda-beda, tapi ada benang merah yang saya tarik dari komentar, pendapat serta reaksi orang-orang di media sosial dari tiga kasus tersebut, yaitu korbanlah yang harusnya berhati-hati, bukan sistem dan hukumnya yang dibenahi. Di kasus perkosaan banyak yang berkomentar, “Kenapa mau disuruh datang ke kos? Kenapa baru setelah hamil 7 bulan melapor ke polisi? Kenapa bisa terjadi berkali-kali?” Logika macam apa itu?

Di pemisahan gerbong perempuan banyak yang berpendapat itu sebagai sebuah tindakan perlindungan. Perlindungan terhadap apa? Terhadap nilai-nilai patriarki? Kalau perlindungan terhadap kejahatan seksual maupun kejahatan lainnya, bukan semestinya pelakunya yang dihukum? Kenapa justru melanggengkan diskriminasi dan melebarkan jurang kecurigaan atas nama perlindungan?

Mengubah pola pikir emang gak bisa ditempuh dalam jangka waktu pendek. Butuh waktu yang panjang, amat panjang bahkan, yang belum tentu dapat kita lihat atau rasakan hasilnya saat kita masih hidup. Tapi selalu terjebak dalam kebijakan-kebijakan darurat ya juga bukan solusi dan makin memperparah masa depan karena kita justru mencederai pemikiran, logika dan hati nurani.

Masing-masing kasus memang gak mungkin dibahas secara sempit dan disamaratakan. Perlu penelaahan, penjabaran, pemahaman bahkan penelitian yang lebih luas dan dalam lagi. Itu juga salah satu alasan tulisan saya ini.

Kejadian yang paling baru adalah meninggalnya seorang pekerja iklan karena lembur 3 hari ditambah mengkonsumsi terlalu banyak minuman penambah energi. Gak lama sesudah berita tersebut keluar lalu bermunculanlah di berbagai media sosial postingan menanggapi hal ini. Sebagian besar yang saya baca intinya bilang, “Perusahaan tuh memang serakah. Mereka cuma mau memeras pekerjanya. Makanya kita sebagai orkerja harus “Know Our Limit””. Duh kok kayaknya sederhana amat ya solusinya?

Apa iya semua orang di awal masa bekerjanya udah tau bahwa korporat-korporat besar itu jahatnya amit-amit? Saya rasa hampir semua orang juga belum tentu tahu hal tersebut saat mereka baru mulai masuk dunia pekerjaan. Yang mereka tau mungkin hanya abis sekolah/kuliah lalu kerja, entah untuk alasan eksistensi diri, cari makan atau bahkan hanya sekedar mengikuti standar tahap kehidupan manusia.

Yang bisa bilang “Know Your Limit” saya asumsikan sudah pernah melalui kegilaan tersebut atau cukup nyaman dengan hidupnya saat ini makanya bisa bilang cabut aja kalau rasanya udah gak nyaman. Tapi apakah semua orang punya privilege kenyamanan itu? Kalau nggak suka, cabut aja. Sama seperti saya sering banget dikomentarin, dari pada “marah-marah” melulu, mending pindah aja dari Indonesia. Ampun deh, kelas menengah Indonesia.

Belum lagi di dalam masyarakat selalu ada banyak hubungan kekuasaan, dari yang sehat sampai yang super sakit, seperti kasus perkosaan yang saya singgung sebelumnya. Ini disadari gak sih? Apakah solusinya hanya sesederhana “mawas diri”?

Apa iya ketika sudah tidak nyaman dengan sistem kerja perusahan, hanya dengan mengungkapkan keberatan pada atasan akan membawa perubahan? Kalau iya mungkin budaya sistem kerja, dalam hal ini dunia periklanan, sudah membaik dari kapan tau. Tapi nampaknya gak sesederhana itu. Dalam budaya kerja yang sangat kapitalistik manusia nampaknya hanya dilihat sebagai alat produksi, replaceable. Lo gak suka, silahkan cabut atau gue gantiin. Mengerikan bukan? Dan ini terjadi di banyak sektor pekerjaan lainnya.

Lalu bagaimana mungkin orang-orang yang tercekoki atau mencekoki orang lain dengan jargon-jargon macam “Push Your Boundaries” sekarang bicara “Know Your Limit”? Apalagi kalau ada yang merasa “been there done that”. Justru kalau sudah pernah melalui harusnya sadar bukan bahwa ada sistem lebih besar yang menggerakkan kehidupan kita sehari-hari? Atau selama ini gak pernah sadar? Ini kan menyedihkan.

“Push Your Boundaries” untuk apa? Untuk memenuhi pundi-pundi korporasi yang tamak? Untuk jadi yang “terbaik”? Untuk pencapaian prestasi yang abstrak? Sebuah ilusi yang dibentuk oleh propaganda korporasi kapitalis melalui ayat-ayat motivasinya.

Kita tentu saja tidak pernah seutuhnya independent karena kita selamanya interdependent, apalagi kalau kita hidup dalam sebuah sistem masyarakat dan negara. Bukankah kasus terakhir juga  terjadi dalam institusi yang mengagungkan team work? Lalu apa pertanggungjawaban mereka ketika ada kejadian ini? Saling mengingatkan untuk jaga diri sendiri karena resiko akhirnya ditanggung masing-masing?

Sayangnya, bukan hanya dalam hal kasus ini tapi juga dalam kasus-kasus lainnya, banyak orang cuma mau melihat yang ada di depannya aja. Overworked, salahkan perusahaan yang jahat dan diri yang gak tau batasan. Pelecehan seksual, pisahkan manusia berdasarkan gendernya. Perkosaan, baik-baik jaga diri. Padahal jauh sebelum hal-hal tersebut terjadi sudah ada proses panjang dan kompleks yang mendahului dan menjadi penyebabnya. Bahkan seringkali menciptakan lingkaran setan.

Entahlah. Mungkin banyak orang yang masih berpikir bahwa hal-hal ini terjadi akibat pilihan sendiri, maka berhati-hatilah karena akibatnya juga akan ditanggung sendiri. Terjadi di luar kekuasaan korporasi yang buas, negara yang lalai, hukum yang tiarap, gempuran nilai-nilai “positif” (kerja tim, prestasi, passion, dll dll) yang dimanipulasi perusahaan-perusahan besar dan raksasa untuk menggerakkan alat produksinya demi mengeruk keuntungan sebesar-besarnya, dll.

Mawas diri ya tentunya penting, tapi mawas diri bukan cuma sekedar “Know Your Limit”, lebih dari itu juga menyadari bahwa kita adalah bagian dari sebuah sistem yang lebih besar. Ada hal-hal yang bisa kita
kendalikan dari dalam diri kita sendiri, tapi lebih banyak lagi hal-hal yang butuh kekuatan besar untuk dapat mencapai sebuah perubahan. Butuh “penyadaran” kolektif.

Banyak hal yang mungkin akan terlalu sulit diubah, bahkan mungkin selamanya kita bisa terjebak dalam lingkaran setan tersebut. Tapi selalu penting untuk memiliki kesadaran akan hal-hal lain di luar diri kita
sendiri dan dunia kecil kita.

*Catatan ini merupakan sedikit rangkuman dari diskusi dengan teman-teman lainnya (Anya, Mike, Ninin, Edo, Iskandar, Eko, Yoshi, Acha, Fanny, Ney). Setengah lebihnya meminjam istilah dan pemikiran mereka*

a room of one’s own and three guineas

well of course i’m not going to write about this book’s prominence in 20th century’s feminist literature. that had been done by Hermione Lee in the introduction and many other critics and scholars.

as one of Woolf’s fan – who feels that she’s probably more intrigued by her personal life than by her works, or probably she feels that her personal life romanticised her works, which makes Woolf a really interesting subject for her, if not an obsession – i always find that her writings (that i’ve read) feels like floating. even in this essay. i think that’s why it is categorised as novel-essay.

as usual, i always find my self groping every time i begin to read her writing. what is she saying? where is this going? where the hell am i? but quite differently than her last book that i read, The Waves, which i was totally and still am lost until now, i soon get a grip of what this whole thing is about.

i think this is one of the most interesting form of writing i’ve ever read so far. she’s going everywhere, jumping from one form to another, from one point of view to another. repeating words, repeating sentences, repeating terms, just like what i’m doing right now.

one time she wrote from the point of view of “the daughter’s of educated men” and the other time she wrote from “the educated men”‘s point of view. and then she wrote letters that feels like a one-way conversation.

though she constantly changing forms, one thing remains consistent. the feeling of floating. the facts are hard-hitting, but the feeling is floating. though she wrote a thorough observasion involving history, political and economic conditions, cultural, social and even religion influences, i can’t help but feel that somewhat the writing feels more like a story-telling rather than an essay.

the difficulty of course was to follow the flow of this book without having a wide or even just a slight knowledge about England’s history. well, it always feels like choking reading something without having a good knowledge and comprehension about it’s context and background. so i have to confess that i turn to Wikipedia for a brief summary haha.

of course it’s worth to note that Woolf wrote this essay with a-daughter-of-middle-class-educated-man’s perspective. one critic even said that Three Guiness should just be titled: “How to Be Privileged and Yet Feel Extremely Aggrieved”. but of course i also agree with other scholar’s response who said that the critic misread Woolf’s hyperbole.

it’s also always interesting for me to learn that in many cultures, the act of discrimination is always practised and conducted by the upper middle class and the bourgeoisie and less by the lower or working class. this is probably because the lower or working class cannot afford such luxury. their men and women must work to make ends meet among other reasons.

i think i’m going to re-read it in the future when my english vocabulary and grammar are improved. Woolf always have a massive vocabulary that for me her works are the most difficult writings in English that i’ve ever read.

 

 

on black, white, grey and dust that gets in your eyes

Kemarin saya terlibat perdebatan panjang mengenai moralitas dan sistem yang awalnya di mulai dari salah satu postingan teman saya di Path. Ketika saya mencoba memberikan pendapat bahwa mungkin seharusnya kita tidak seenaknya menghakimi moral orang yang (terpaksa) meninggalkan anaknya di jalanan, komentar saya langsung dimentahkan teman(-teman) si empunya Path, bahwa apa pun alasannya, “membuang” bayi adalah salah dan atas alasan apa pun seharusnya tidak pernah boleh dibenarkan.

Perdebatan berlangsung cukup panjang dan alot yang bahkan sampai di ujungnya saya rasa tidak ada satu orang pun yang mau melihat poin2 yang saya coba sampaikan. Hampir semua sibuk berkutat menjadi polisi moral.

Pada akhirnya, saya tidak tahan untuk tidak membagi perdebatan semalam di ruang yang lebih luas. Berikut adalah perdebatan lanjutan yang terjadi di Path saya. Sebagai keterangan pelengkap, saya menampilkan pendapat saya atas apa yang terjadi di Path teman saya (bisa dilihat dari foto 1). Gambar-gambar selanjutnya adalah argumen saya, Anya & Nathanael untuk menjawab pertanyaan atau argumen dari Andersen (Andre), pemilik Path dimana awal perdebatan ini berlangsung.

Untuk melihat awal pembicaraan ini dengan jelas tentunya juga harus melihat percakapan awal yang terjadi di Path tetangga tersebut. Namun tentunya hanya dapat saya cantumkan jika si empunya Path berkenan.

Screen capture dari perdebatan awal yang terjadi di Path tetangga. Tentu hanya cuplikan dari keseluruhan thread postingan tersebut

Masih sambungan dari pembicaraan sebelumnya.

Awal postingan di Path saya. Kenapa saya banyak pakai kata militan? Ya balik lagi harus liat argumen di Path tetangga tersebut

Sebagian komentar saya rasa gak perlu ditampilkan di sini karena gak relevan dengan masalah yang sedang dibicarakan.

Thoughts?