Over the necessity of provocation

Public space should not serve as a social haven for people who try to work and who all they want is a measure of permanent threat. Public space should serve precisely to perform provocation, where this ʹstred is thwarted and the comfort of individuals, where the pressure on authority is exerted and where authority of noncompetents, inconsistence of values and legalities, and so on. Without provocation, such public spaces lose their vitality, become monotonous, and counterproductive. In a word, just social shelters where those who were given a certain institutional authority to exist take the lead.

Today's UPP is in a state of conservation, feared by any eventual damage to the scheme, and making serious and serial production of incompetence.

This serious lack of provocation is universal in the spaces of this institution. In college corridors, where you rarely see any lively discussions among students or professors on various public matters. In lecture halls, where you seldom see any provocative arguments. This lack of provocation is also noted in the walking, eye - blinking way of speaking to ordinary professors who in this form openly lay out their expectation of unwarranted obedience by students. And those last ones obeyed. Disprofession is a policy in itself based on some informed prejudice that most professors are actually ignorant, incapable of enduring intellectual provocation, and sexually frustrated, incapable of enduring vler/sexual provocation.

Professors themselves take this policy out of the public sphere of provocation. They themselves are extremely unprofessive. Few truly come to provoke the minds of the students. Few come to provoke reading, curiosity, and surprise. In fact, the only kind of provocation they're led by is for a high grade, and for a good social position in the production scheme. Being positioned, that is, unmatched, they naturally hesitate to provoke, and they fear provocation.

From the mouth of the UP's proretore, there was a call for students to dress in unprovocational form. This is a measure of prevention against sexual harassment or violence. This further shows UP's great need for conservation for things, for non-progress and recovery. In other words, the prorector demanded that the students not shake the patriarchal values of men, professors, and students, but especially professors whose will was understood by knowledge, study, legalization. She made it clear that professors can easily be provoked, so caution. And yes, that's true. Professors often feel attacked even if asked a curious question. So exciting. But even if you test them, then what? This poses a provocation of power, more than natural within UP's environments that daily spread illiteracy and primitiveness.

Sexual harassment is unacceptable but understandable. It stems from the girls' provocative clothing. There's something very disturbing here. As a student of I've never encountered any clothing that could be considered inappropriate, or sexually provocative, even for a moderate Muslim. There's a silent encoding of clothing that is respected by all. What worries is actually, the tendency for further coverage. For a further interpretation of power over the body of students and for an expansion of the professor's provocative territory.

Sexual liberation is actually achieved by closure, non-provocation, but not reverse. And the sexual emancipation of society can only be done elsewhere in public spaces. Clothing must be met with resistance everywhere. If provoked, he continues to feel provoked, and his provocativeness as a measure of violence, perhaps naively influenced by Berkeley's subjective idealism, he requires the establishment of his epistemic circumstance as a statistical circumstance. So he's afraid of a valuable change.

Yeah, well, come back. UP's.

Common professor of this institution needs the student to obey, look at it with praise, like Facebook status, humbly say good words on the street. His ego is so hurt it can't get fat. This ego-scoring policy for professors has turned into some sort of idealised rating, into some healthy relationship between professors and students. The one who does not respect his professor has no empathy for the pain that haunts him all the time. That's what most UP students are aware of. They tend not to be embarrassing or provocative to the professors. A scene where authority would collapse.

Grasping from two-way non-progress in thinking has only strengthened the possibility of increasing the feeling of sexual provocation. Sexuality cannot be thought of as some sort of grossly physical aspect of humans. As long as in our unconsciousness we harden and stabilize our values, our feelings, our provocation and hurt will be greater. And based on this vulnerability, through the tool of institutional authority, the authority of the UP's professors is composed. It's a shame.

A certain Muslim feels provoked even by looking at the eyes of a woman and thus speaks with her head in the other. Or they provoke her arms, not to talk about other things. There are those who do not give in to women as a form of greetings because they represent their extent of provocation. Sexual testing was the allet by which the mystic oppression was distributed, and she was expelled from the public sphere.

The encoding of clothing at the UP would follow a carefully established encoding of expression and behavior. I mentioned earlier the expectations that a common professor offers without receiving. He is also quick to apply for a wordew when discussed on matters of study. Even his ignorance, conveyed by means of a harmful ego, requires that you refrain from speaking or speaking carefully to his egos. Indiscreet legalization, the many spelling mistakes followed, but with a pedant attitude by the professor [that forges the roof of ego's vulnerability] make each curious student silent, not wanting to be embarrassed by the embarrassment of his professor.

But maybe that's what most of them did at the UP: an embarrassment everywhere. Even through sex.