This is a question that propels my research (at RMIT University), e.g. I co-edited Life Without Money: Building Fair and Sustainable Economies (2011, Pluto Press, London)

I wonder if throwing Enlightenment-style reason at every (and everyone’s) problem – climate change to genocide – isn’t arrogant, possibly delusional. It matters to me because of the helpless engendered by constant exhortations to help save the world. Maybe others feel the same?

In a university class at the moment I am learning about indigenous land injustice. I came up with this question in a tutorial. History is not objective, and who really shapes it?

The sheer number of culturally diverse members of our community who show up to anti-Islam and anti-migration rallies flies in the face of the notion that such movements are only supported by those identifying as Anglo Australian.

Because I’m trying to take the first steps on an exercise regimen for the first time and first steps in writing a book and first steps in renovating parts of our house and it’s also a source of interest to me where people draw strength, for a lot of aspects of life.

Not everyone is into sport. For some, their equivalent is the arts/culture or even the environment. Why are these things considered ‘features’ rather than staples of our news diet? I wonder how society would change if one or two newsrooms started this trend?

I can kind of understand eating flesh – we don’t even see our own flesh in that way, at least not if all goes well. But skin? We’re covered in it. Gross. Crackly, chewy, stretchy, crispy burnt skin. ‘You gonna eat that?’ Yeuch.

I want to teach my 2 boys why this matters, so they can be feminists too.

I’m asking because it is a question, after standstill discussions with peers — some for; some against — I cannot clarify to myself what I believe. To have this question answered would not only put my mind at ease, but influence how I see the world and go about my life.

Perhaps like Impressionism before it, political correctness will be a useful, neutral shorthand for a way of seeing the world. Until then, it’s a insult thrown across Xmas dinner tables and in the opinion pages of The Australian. ‘You’re just being politically correct’ pointedly suggests that a view is being parroted, that is it not honestly held. Why are attempts, no doubt in my case faltering and inexpertly argued, assumed to be disingenuous? What does this do except reinforce an underlying idea that bigotry, or the ugly aspects of the Id, are not only raw but somehow better for being honest?

I’ve not been hungry for days…