I like Half Alive

I’ll be honest; This looks petty, and I dont see the point of putting so much energy into this.

I first read; “Same train, 26 years apart.” I bubbled; “You be lyin’.” And then my eyes was like; “Oh they be talkin’ about the driver.”

oof

Stop tieing ourselves to the machine.

In arabic they say to food food.

In norwegian we say to butter butter.

school: Whoa whoa there pal… We love free speech, but not that kind of free speech.

Stopping overproduction is what we should focus on.

who is that?

Thank you for sharing.

I think anarchism is an interesting example, because even though I subscribe to it myself, I see that it is easy to exploit theory to shut people up.

Have you experienced a cult?

Oh my god! Almond water usage is skyrocketing!

this is what I call dreaming!

I don’t have much time to discuss this further, but I would ask if you choose to continue to advocate for these ideas, that you do it somewhere other than !anarchism.

It seems like you never wanted to have a proper conversation after all. I would have respected you more if you would have told me that right from the get go instead of wasting my time like this.

You claim there is scientific consensus, then you at least should be able to refer to a single scientist or somebody who communicates about science.

I love assistance😏

dead = no

That is a fun fact!

When you feel like you are having a bad day, just feel blessed that you dont live in america.

Scientific consensus

To be clear, ‘we’ are okay with these words because the scientific consensus is that a word’s etymology doesn’t have a strong relationship to the thought it represents.

My thesis is that because people pay so little attention to word etymology in the process of communicating thought, the entire exercise in thought shaping through extensive use of neologism has little actual benefit. My thesis is supported by the existing research on language relativity. I think your project primarily serves to make the speaker more alien to any outside audience and increases the mental effort required in speaking and writing.

You have repeatedly asserted your belief as fact when it is contradicted by science on the subject: the etymology of words have a powerful influence on the thoughts of casual speakers who use them.

Could you be more specific? Are you referring to a specific study or a statement from a scientist? I don’t want to argue on cloudy grounds.

Light as analogy for knowledge

People who use ‘enlighted,’ ‘insight,’ or ‘outlook’ unless they’re poets or wordsmiths aren’t consciously choosing to use vision-based metaphors for knowledge. The prevalence of this metaphor in language is the result of a longstanding historical bias against the blind, but the existence of the words aren’t the primary cause of this bias, they are a symptom. If we could remove social biases against blindness, these words might possibly disappear but more likely remain as linguistic artifacts of a less empathetic time because their actual effect on how we think about blind people is negligible.

Listen… If transferring senses to other contexts are ableist, then it goes much deeper than a critique of light as an analogy for knowledge. Expression like “Listen to your heart.” “I heard that your mother was in town.” “I feel like we are on the same page.” “I can’t stomach it.” “The music wasn’t my taste.” “He had a warmth”. All these expressions transfer senses to other contexts; Would you deem them as ableist? Or is the light analogy for knowledge somehow different from these? Or what is your specific reasoning here? Is there a specific critique you are reffering to? Is this a specific critique from the blind community? You suggest that we use the light analogy because of ableism, could you elaborate on this? Please elaborate your stance, otherwise I’m not going to take this critique seriously.

And even if your critique turns out to be legitimate, that doesn’t change the fact that your critique is hypothetical as of now. You have not linked me to any resources strengthening this claim. You have not reasoned why you have come to this conclusion. You have neither come with an alternative analogy for light as an analogy to knowledge.

I find your casual dismissal of blind people in your brave new words alarming and abhorrent.

This comes out of nowhere. I don’t see how your reasoning implies that “I dismiss blind people”. This comes off like mud throwing than actual fair critique.

and yet chose to expand and reinforce the existing linguistic bias you believe is harmful to them.

I simply entertained the hypothetical critique. I didn’t say I agreed with it. I thought you used it as an example to emphasize your point about that we should scrutinize neologisms, which I agree with.

Heliocentrism

Based on your belief, I find your lack of interest in supporting heliocentrism disappointing.

I believe in heliocentrism. I challenge your assumption that the word “sunrise” implies that the sun revolves around Earth.

How to steer society

Based on your statements, you do believe it will steer society’s attention away from their value as people,

No, I don’t. We should steer people towards the meaningful and away from the harmful. Towards nature, personal growth, community, solidarity, mutual aid, and so on. Away from materialism, leaders, machine, capitalism, nation states, coldness.

Reasonframe vs bondframe

The word radical comes from the Latin radix, meaning root. Thus the saying ‘being radical is grasping from the root’ - treating society’s problems by disrooting their source rather than treating the problem’s symptoms. The word etymology people use today is a symptom of the way people historically thought when the words were invented. Changing the way people think now is much more effectively done by rational argument and demonstrating the effectiveness of new ideas.

This is where we diverge. I believe that the words we are using today are misguiding us into supporting the machine, normalizing nation states, forwarding coldness, support dehumanization, support hierarchies, support robbing of other countries, alienate ourself from nature, alienate ourself from personal growth, disempower us, and yada yada. Our words are not neutral and all words paint our world and how we bond to it.

If we want to bring about lokening of Gaja and our societies, we need to scrutinize our languages in fern to understand how we are being sighsteered.