Perhaps AI Kilmer will do interviews as well.

Im norwegian, and I was a question mark until I read the comments which made me transition into an exclamation mark.

Way to go!

Now, I’m going to become an artist!

Now I know how to draw a bicycle!

First I was like “Is that Trump?” and then I was like “Ah, Boris Johnsen”.

I like to say screw with or against the sun.

Did her hips do tax evasion? BLASPHEMY!

Who needs a scary story when we’ve got reality, right😅

On point.

Fucking creeps.

They dont lie!

subbing for the machine

I’m happy to share my thoughts :)

Yes, recontextualization, or I would personally use the term reframing.

The “we” are those who are part of an conversational process in determining whether a word is appropriate or not. I’m mainly working in the norwegian language, but experimenting with transferring these images into english.

With regards to language, I’m sprouted by esperanto which is a language that makes it very easy to understand and make our own words. I’m also sprouted by nynorsk, ivar Aasen and høgnorsk which are traditions within norwegian to make words more poetic.

One of the guiding beliefs behind my work is that words changes how we relate to our world.

The goodness of a word

The way I’m determining whether a word is good is twofold, that which makes it poetic, and that which makes it healthy.

poetic

The reason why poetic words are valued by me is for several reasons. They makes learning easier, makes the words easier to spread, makes emotions come accross much more easily, and encourages guardianship for the language.

Here are the points I follow to make sure the words becomes poetic:

• Openness - That it is easy to understand the components of a word. A word that is open would be for deem “understand”, because english speakers knows what both “under” and “stand” means. The word “religion” would have less openness because it is not so known that it comes from latin “re”, “leg”, meaning to read again.
• Soul - That the word is using clear images that maps well upon reality.
• Flexibility - That the word can be applied even in situations that we did not initially concider. A word like “rich” can be used to denote that somebody has a lot of money, but also that there is abundance of life, or that there is a lot of vitamins.
• Creation - That the word encourages creation of new words and concepts. I like to reframe “isms” towards “frame” because that way the discovery process feels less boxed in; You could say more intersectional.
• Merge - The word should merge into the structure of the language culture.

Healthiness

This is about understanding how a word is coloring our world, and to what degree it steers us towards our dezired societies. This process is painted by subjectivity, and so what might seem like a compelling argument for some may not be for others.

A few guiding points to understand whether a word is healthy or not:

• Is it de-humanizing? Does it take away the humanity of a group of people? Is the word appropriating a culture?
• Is it cold? Does it prevent us from personal growth? A word like “noob” is a derogatory term for somebody beginning to learn about something, this could be relighted towards “beginner”, but I like to relight it towards “sprout” because that word makes us think of ourselves as plants.
• Is it leeching? Does the word encourage destructive behaviour? The word “value creation” in context of increasing production, makes us think of overproduction as a good thing although it is killing Gaja.
• Is it strengthening might? A word like “leader” encourages hierarchical thinking, so relighting it towards a horizontal word would be better. In norwegian the word “los” would be appropriate because it is somebody who is non-coercively helping. That is not to say that leader should be weeded out of our language, but rather that in everyday context, it would be more appropriate to use horizontal words.
• Does the word divide us up? The normalization of nation-states makes us normalize the nationframe, which makes us think that we are in competition with our neighbors.

On the flip side we can express these points as their opposites, whether a word is following:

• Humanity. That we value men over might and machine.
• Bloom. That we look upon ourselves as growing beings that strive for growth.
• Samlife: That we live with nature, not against it.
• Demight: That we take stance against might and machine.
• Samhold: That we strive for upholding eachother and

https://slrpnk.net/post/36226957

Ill look into that! Thank you for critique!

Several things. The climate report of 2018 made me realize that the world fern isn’t regulating itself, it isn’t able to adapt to changes, because otherwise why would it not have adapted to the situation beforehand? It scared me, and made me want to bring about a change.

I was still following progressive politics at the time and still identified as a democratic socialist. I rooted for Bernie Sanders in the american progressive movement, and was quite upset that he lost again.

That was when I started listening to a youtube channel called re-education, which was some kind of edgy anarcho communist guy. I thought his videos was interesting, and so it felt like anarchism could be achieved. At that point I identified as an anarchist.

However, I have been quite interested in language and how it impacts our conception of the world. Until recently I have identified as an anarchist. But Anarchism is as broad as hierarchism, and so identifying as an anarchist is like having a conversation where somebody is asking “Where are you from”, and me answering “I am from Eurasia.” It is true, but most of the time it would make more sense to be more specific.

We should be clear about exactly how we envision non-state societies. Therefore I now primarily identify as a democratic confederalist and an oakist.

When somebody claims authority over an geographic area; The authorities and that which it subjugates is the walldom. The heart of the walldom is where the authorities lies.

Roots are our sense of origin. The roots are unlike nations not connected to walldoms. One may regard their roots as from where their parents are from. So one could say that a person has roots in Norway and Germany for instance.

To relight is to stop using one word and start using another word.

It plays on the idea that we can be enlightened about something like nationalism, but that we reckognize that this enlightenment is miscoloring our world, and so we ought to remove this word from our language. However, oftentimes it is not possible to simply remove a word, because it is a word that is used to refer to real world phenomenas, and so we have to find another word that can replace the miscoloring word.

In this deem, we have unlighted nation and enlightened root, thus relighting away from nation towards root. Think of it like a spotlight that is moved from one word to the other.

I like to relight nation towards root. That way it’s not about upholding the heart of walldoms.

Theres a comment saying “jokingly” the killing of people reduce emission. First of all, this is eco fascism because although Im sure it is not intentional; A joke forwards an attitude. It is a sightsteer.

This sightsteer takes on consumerist approach to climate action. However it is important to note that it is might and machine that is poisoning our world, not people. We should put responsibility where it belongs. That way we can plan for actual change, instead of symbolic change.