I am an unintentional defender of Christopher Alexander.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Why, in this moment, should anybody be writing about Christopher Alexander – a great white male with a heroic legacy who believes that the relationship between a Christian god and architecture can be empirically verified?question0.783
  A reflexive political question posed in July 2020 about the urgency of writing about Alexander.
• I defend Alexander against architects who have barely read his books but hold disdain for him.claim0.736
  Part of her defense of Alexander's serious consideration.
• De-universalizing Alexander by researching his collaborators and context would be preferable to solo-figure Christian teleology.hypothesis0.716
• As an architect, Alexander has become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.claim0.703
  Alexander's personal scientific and professional conclusion stated in the Mid-Book Appendix.
• Christopher Alexander's levels of scale, latent centers, and alleviation of stress already operate as care geometry independent of explicit care language.claim0.703
• I warn programmers and UX designers not to worship Alexander, and to be critical about his universalizing theories.claim0.699
  Steenson's caution against uncritical adoption of Alexander's work in technology.
• Architects should understand Alexander's influence, programmers should critique it, and all should be suspicious of the monolithic white male architect trope.claim0.697
  Steenson's normative stance on how different groups should engage with Alexander.
• For technologists, Alexander himself represents 'architecture': he is often the only architect they can name.claim0.696
  Observation about Alexander's outsized symbolic role in software communities.