#all languages are means of communication and interconnection

[ominous-faechild]

This! @lloyd-the-green-gremlin <3

I completely agree with pretty much everything OP had to say though, tbh. The way people treat other languages that real people speak is insane. Like, that's how they communicate? It's how they live? It's part of who they are? How could you insult someone so intrinsically by insulting the very language they speak?

Personally, I've unfortunately run into issues with this because I have auditory processing disorder myself. I'll have a very hard time understanding people if it doesn't "approximately" sound how I expect them to. A lot of the time people speak in my daily life (yes!!! My daily life!!! So accents I'm USED to hearing!!!), I straight-up can't "understand" some of their words and have to guess what they say based on context clues. It's actually really rough!

I used to ask people to repeat themselves, but they'd just say it the same way, I'd still not be able to understand them, and they'd get frustrated with me and it'd cause all the more issues.

I've since learned to legit ask "say that again, but slowly?" and it's actually helped a lot! I think me phrasing it that way helps them understand (even if only subconsciously, idk tho) that it's a hearing issue, they're a lot more understanding of it, and when people speak more slowly they tend to enunciate much more, or make the different sounds more "distinct" so to speak!

(Though it's obviously not a hearing issue, it's auditory processing. I don't think a lot of people understand that exists, though, so I kinda just let them assume whatever they need to in order to make communicating easier between us.)

To circle back to the original topic, though--a lot of different accents make it much harder for me to understand people! Again, I struggle to understand people when they speak in ways I'm familiar with, so it's even harder when it's in ways I'm not!

Still, I think judging people off of the way they speak (with varies / depends on their family's accents, the places they've lived, and the language(s) they first spoke) is incredibly sucky. I just also think it's important to know that it's not always a classist, racist, or {insert -ist} thing!

Sometimes you just struggle to understand people who speak differently, or you don't like certain sounds, and that's fine! The problem comes when you treat people differently because of it.

Which is an incredible struggle for me, because there's this one kind of Voice that some men have that's so bass-y that the very sounds of their voice triggers my (autistic) sensory overload... but I have ways of coping with it, so!

not only are there no bad languages there are also no bad or annoying dialects

[brujaluas]

How are your dreams and your spouse's dreams interconnected?

pile 1

There is definitely a confirmation from your future spouse, they were basically like "hey look at me here, tell me about us" I looked at the cards and found it so adorable that I even said "aww" can simultaneously dream of a relationship or manifest them (and them too), you are on this mission of manifestation (and them too), have the same goals: to find the ideal partner. You can dream of children and they are your future children, there is a lot of appreciation here, you or your future spouse can even draw each other in some way do something artistic that reminds you or them of each other. You can dream that there are a lot of people in the dream, like "wow we don't even have privacy in our dreams?" but you will probably meet in a random environment with lots of people, festivals, streets, any common place.

pile 2

look, I see a soulmate energy here, for some!!! You will know, just know it, don't think "wow, could this spouse be my soulmate?" you will simply know. Well, here you have a very similar personality, the communication is the same, the way of showing love, the language of love is very similar too. Research the meaning of lilies, there may be something there for you. Here I see that flowers are important for this relationship, I don't know the reason very well, but in the future it will make sense romantic with each other, but it's not like you are dreaming about someone, you gave it to destiny and trust them, the universe will give you a very prosperous relationship in every way you want.

pile 3

You are so beautiful, they are so beautiful, both of you are so... I can't stand it! And look, i'm not a romantic person, but wow, what a beautiful love, what a beautiful connection! For some of you already know each other, just like in pile 1, have this desire to have an eternal partner, someone to stay by your side, to give the key to your heart, to be blessed by the angels, some believe in everything here, a twin flame energy! I heard. You and them dream very similarly, on the same tuning, you dream of a family, they do too, you dream of a relationship, they do too. It's all very cute.

[rebeccathenaturalist]

A new study demonstrates that invasive plants don't just directly compete with native species at a direct, macro level, but the ability they have to connect with mycorrhizal partners have a negative impact on the soil microbiome into which they are introduced. It also makes the point that the relationship between a plant and its mycorrhizal partners does not occur in a vacuum, but within the wider community of plants and the various beings in the soil microbiome.

All of this may seem common sense; after all, all of nature is interconnected in some way or another. However, mycorrhizal relationships are often presented in a 1:1 ratio, with a plant and its fungal partner working together in spite of whatever else is going on around them. It should come as no surprise that environmental factors can alter that relationship, and how effectively the partners exchange nutrients. In this case in particular, the invasive plant was able to tap into the mycorrhizal network, but less efficiently than its native neighbors.

Whether it can evolve more effective connections with soil fungi in the future remains to be seen. Moreover, this was a study done in a laboratory setting with two native plants and one invasive, and may not necessarily reflect the complexity of mycorrhizal networks in nature. Still, the fact that the introduction of a non-native plant species can affect how native plants and fungi interact is one more reason to remove invasive species whenever possible.

*"Myco" means fungus and "rhizo" means root. Some soil fungi wrap their mycelium around the roots of plants, or even grow into those roots. the plants then send carbon made from sunlight through photosynthesis down to the fungi, and the fungi give the plants phosphorus and other nutrients from the soil in a mutually beneficial relationship.

[fy-perspectives]

Who Are You?

Who is The Man? Perhaps he is within all of us, waiting to emerge when we choose to live with intention.

Who is The Woman? She is within all of us—a reflection of our highest potential, waiting to be brought to life through discipline, intention, and love.

Who is the Child? They are in all of us, waiting for a moment to emerge. They call us to remember the wonder, joy, and courage that are still within us, reminding us that the potential for growth and discovery never fades.

Who is the Family? It is all of us, bound together by the threads of love, trust, and shared experience. It is the heart of our humanity, the cradle of our dreams, and the foundation of a life well-lived.

Who is the Friend? The Friend is a gift—a chosen family member, a trusted ally, a co-creator of memories. They are the ones who remind us of the beauty in connection and the power of love without expectation.

And just as they stand by us, we, too, are called to be a Friend: to listen, to support, and to walk through life as a companion to those we hold dear.

In the end, The Friend is both a role we cherish and a reminder that we are never alone in the journey of life.

Who is the Community? The Community is us. It is built from our shared dreams, collective efforts, and mutual care. It reminds us that no matter how different we may seem, we are bound by our common humanity.

To be part of a community is both a gift and a responsibility. It calls us to contribute what we can, support those who need us, and celebrate the connections that make life meaningful.

The Community is a tapestry where each thread matters. It is a reminder that while we are individuals, our greatest strength lies in standing together, united by purpose and love.

Who is the Society? The Society is all of us. It is the embodiment of our collective efforts, dreams, and values. It is imperfect, yet filled with potential. It calls us to be better—not just for ourselves but for each other and for future generations.

In society, we find both the challenges that test us and the opportunities that inspire us. It is a reminder that while we are individuals, we are also deeply interconnected. Together, we create the framework for a better world—a society that reflects the best of what it means to be human.

Who Are The Arts? The Arts are all of us. They are in the child painting with abandon, the musician pouring their soul into a melody, the writer weaving words into meaning, and the audience moved to tears by a story that feels like their own.

The Arts are a testament to our humanity—our ability to create, to feel, and to connect. They are the soul’s expression, a reminder that even in the chaos of life, there is beauty, meaning, and hope.

Through The Arts, we find not only the essence of what it means to be human but also the courage to envision a world beyond the limits of our imagination.

Who is Culture? Culture is all of us. It is the collective expression of every individual, every family, every community. It is shaped by our daily actions, the stories we tell, the traditions we uphold, and the innovations we introduce.

Culture is not something we simply inherit—it is something we create, live, and evolve with. It is the ever-changing story of humanity, told through the language of art, action, and shared experience.

In the end, culture is not just a reflection of who we are; it is a call to understand, to connect, and to shape the world around us. It is the heart of our shared humanity, a bridge between past, present, and future, and a reminder that we are all part of a larger, interconnected story.

Who is the Lifestyle? The lifestyle we choose is uniquely ours—it is an ongoing journey of self-discovery, adaptation, and growth. It is shaped by our desires, choices, and actions, as well as the influences of the world around us.

In essence, the lifestyle we create is a reflection of who we are at this moment and who we want to become. It is a conscious expression of our values, a commitment to well-being, and a deliberate choice to live with intention and purpose.

Ultimately, the lifestyle is about more than just existing; it is about living with depth, meaning, and authenticity. It is about cultivating a life that is not only enjoyable but also enriching, leaving us with a sense of fulfillment and a legacy of growth, love, and connection.

Who is Civilization? Civilization is the collective effort of humanity. It is shaped by the actions, choices, and contributions of every individual who participates in it. From philosophers and artists to builders and scientists, every person plays a role in shaping the civilization they inhabit.

Civilization is both the product of human ingenuity and the responsibility of every generation. It is an ongoing process of creation, destruction, and transformation. It reflects our highest ideals and our greatest flaws, our moments of brilliance and our missteps.

In the end, civilization is not an abstract concept but a living, breathing entity. It is shaped by what we choose to value, how we treat one another, and the legacy we leave behind. It is our collective story, a narrative that continues to unfold with each passing day.

[hotsugarbyglassanimals]

it's honestly no surprise that a culture of misogyny was cultivated on here when lesbians were frequently villianized and ignored when it came to talking about our own experiences. we were no longer trusted to be the authorities on the lived lesbian experience which resulted in the continual erasure of our identities, to the point where people felt comfortable enough to write out the meaning of lesbian as a term entirely under the guise of "labels have no meaning! do what you want forever!". I saw this gradually inching closer when it started with who is allowed to use butch/femme, is allowed to reclaim dyke, the achillean flag, the toothpaste flag, up until it came to a head with b/i lesbians and trans m/an lesbians. In 2019 I joked "at some point we're not even going to be allowed to have lesbian as a term for ourselves at some point!"... and well. that's what happened. it came as no surprise to me that the steamrolling of our voices amounted to this, because when it became acceptable to disrespect us it lead the foundation for it to become acceptable to talk over anyone, essentially

and i think allowing that kind of culture to cultivate on here is what created this cascade effect where women are being shouted down for speaking on misogyny (and transmisogyny especially) and now for the erasure of transfem as a term as well. Completely disregarding a community of primarily women's input on their own oppression with zero pushback from others set the building blocks for this to be acceptable to do to other women. not saying there was zero of this form of transmisogyny going on before lesbophobia exploded on this site, but instead a large source of interconnecting networks of misogyny came together and turned into this. big mess

And I think a lot of this can be traced back to when other tme people took the wrong message regarding diligence against te/rfs, not out of genuinely caring for trans women's safety but how te/rfs affect them personally. This resulted in throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it came to discussions about feminism, because being told to look out for dogwhistles for how people on here talked about men was taken at complete face value - te/rfs talking about men wasn't rightfully viewed as actually being transmisogyny coded in their own language. In the case of trans men, attempting to view yourself as the primary victim of te/rfs under the guise of you being a man muddied the waters in who is actually the primary target. Not to mention, the scapegoat of lesbians as a whole being equated to te/rfism removed the chance for accountability when it comes to one's own perpetuation of transmisogyny

all that to say, lesbophobia and transmisogyny feed into each other due to the very nature of hegemonic masculinity, which demands for the placement of men on a pedestal and for women to be paid very little mind for anything. and i think indifference to trans women is the foundational building block in all of this

[vivididreams]

Can Multilingualism be a Sign of Passion and Intelligence ?

Ella is writing.......

Mastering more than one language is not just a linguistic skill; it is a powerful indicator of high intelligence and intellectual ability. When a person masters multiple languages, it suggests they possess exceptional analytical thinking skills and have the capacity to learn new ways of communicating with the world around them. Languages can be a vast gateway for exploring different cultures, opening up countless opportunities that others may not have access to.

A person who speaks several languages usually has a genuine passion for learning and interacting with others. This passion extends beyond simply understanding words and phrases; it is about grasping another's mindset and traditions, making them more open to the world. Language is not just about words; it is a tool for understanding how different people think and what it means to be part of another culture.

The intelligent person is the one who masters languages because they seek to understand the world in a deeper and more comprehensive way. For those who are multilingual, numerous opportunities open up in academic, professional, and travel domains. In the business world, for example, multilingual individuals can engage with international markets, negotiate with partners from different cultures, and expand their reach in global markets.

Shakira as example, who is a famous Colombian singer who speaks Spanish, English, Portuguese, Italian, and Arabic , I think that's what helped her to be well known everywhere. Then we have Jean-Claude Van Damme the Belgian action star who speaks French, English, Dutch, and Italian.

Multilingualism also reflects flexibility in thinking. A person who speaks several languages is often able to adapt easily to different cultural environments. In a fast-changing, interconnected world, those who speak only one language may struggle to engage in the complex global interactions, while those who speak multiple languages often find themselves at the forefront.

Thus, mastering several languages is not only a sign of intelligence but also a passport to broader opportunities and richer experiences.

For me , my mother language is Arabic but I studied English for long time and also, je peux parler un peu français et 그리고 저는 언젠가 한국 남자와 결흔하기 위해 한국어를 공부하고 있어요

Just kidding I like to watch k drama that's all😂

What about you, how many languages do you speak? And what is your favourite?

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

Can rare/endangered languages lack new vocabulary? As in, as society has new technology and invents new words and slang, only the more wider used languages have those new words. The less used languages have moved toward home langauge only rather than at schools or in the wider community and certainly not international so they completely lack in such vocabulary because it's never progressed that far. Does that make sense?

Tex: Short answer: No.

Longer answer: New words are always added to a language every generation, which is how a language survives. When this happens, in combination with fewer native speakers, a language may either die off in isolation or become assimilated into a more popular language. It’s crucial that any new words are not simply taken from another language, because that’s how a language is often stifled and subsumed.

To take an example of well-known languages, English is often mined for new words, particularly for technology. In French, the word for computer is not some adaptation of “computer”, but rather the word is ordinateur (Larousse), which comes from the Latin ordinator (Larousse). Now, Latin used to be a lingua franca throughout most of Europe, and because of that there are a lot of words carried over without the extinction of the languages that adopted new words (more or less). English is now a lingua franca, to the same degree of exposure and adoption.

Utuabzu: As Tex said, short answer, no. One of the basic characteristics of natural languages is that they are infinite, that is to say that every natural language is capable of conveying any concept or idea. If a community does not need to discuss something often, their language might need to use a rather roundabout way to do so, but it can be done. If a concept does need to be discussed frequently, then the community will either create a word for it or borrow one from another language. If a concept no longer needs to be discussed frequently, then the word might be repurposed to mean something related or be dropped altogether. This happens all the time, constantly, in every living language. Smaller, more isolated communities tend to experience this more slowly than larger, more interconnected communities, simply because new concepts are introduced to the former more slowly and rarely than to the latter.

English spent the 16th-20th centuries borrowing and coining a huge number of words related to geography, plants and animals, foods and products, because the expansion of the British Empire (and the US), the development of global trade and the industrial revolution brought English speakers into contact with a vast array of new concepts that had never previously needed to be discussed in English. England, being cold and damp, didn’t really require words like ‘jungle’ (borrowed from Hindi) or ‘canyon’ (borrowed from Spanish), nor did a late medieval English speaker need to talk about a ‘bicycle’ or ‘smog’.

The same processes happen in every language, no matter how much some people (Académie Française) try to stop them. Language is ultimately a tool used by a community, and the community will alter it to suit its needs.

The phenomenon you’re describing where different languages are used in different areas of life (called domains*) is called polyglossia (or in older works/works dealing with only two languages/dialects, diglossia), and it’s pretty common. Outside of monolingual speakers of standard national languages (Anglophones tend to be the worst for this) most people in the world experience some degree of polyglossia - usually using their local language or dialect with family/friends and in casual social settings and the standard national language in formal settings - though the degree does vary. 

Some polyglossic environments have up to 5 distinct languages in use by any given individual - the example I recall from my sociolinguistics textbook being a sixteen year old named Kalala, from Bukavu in eastern Congo(Democratic Republic of), who spoke an informal variety of Shi at home and with family, and with market vendors of his ethnic group, a formal variety of Shi at weddings and funerals, a kiSwahili dialect called Kingwana with people from other ethnic groups in informal situations, Standard Congolese kiSwahili in formal and workplace situations and with figures of authority, and a youth-coded dialect that draws on languages like French and English called Indoubil with his friends.**

*Important to note here that a domain is both a physical space, eg. the Home, School, Courtroom, and a conceptual space, eg. Family, Work, Business, Politics, Religion. There’s often overlap between these, but polyglossic communities do tend to arrive at a rough unspoken consensus on what language goes with what domain. Most community members would just say that using the wrong language for a domain would feel weird.

**note that this example is pretty old. So old that it still calls the country Zaire. The reference is in Holmes, J., 1992, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, pp 21-22.

Blue: The USSR presents an interesting case study when it comes to rare languages. It started with Lenin and policies aimed to develop regional languages, down to creating whole writing systems for those that did not have one. Russian was de facto lingua franca and functioned as an official language, but de jure, it was not. The goal of this policy wasn’t just to support literacy and education for different ethnicities; it created, via translations, a common cultural background and was aimed to spread Marxist ideology. If you want people to understand you and accept you, you need to speak their own language.

After these policies shifted, the regional languages didn’t die; they’re still taught in schools and are in use. And one of the important aspects of a language being in use – it grows and develops: as our reality changes, languages have to adapt to it, otherwise they die. And even if there is a “hegemonic” lingua franca that is more used across the board, the government might still be motivated to develop endangered languages, to facilitate the blending of the cultures and to solidify new ideas.

[formerheroeswhoquittoolate]

okay okay okay but I headcanon (firmly believe actually but whatever) that cass considers herself to be dick/jason/tim/damian's brother.

because. okay. gender and language are extremely interconnected. and without gendered language, it's difficult to explain gender and why you would use one term over another. and cass doesn't really have a language with which to understand gender. and when you're learning words, especially if you're starting from scratch, it's way more important to understand that different words mean different things. "brother" and "sister" are different words. even "brother" and "sibling" are different words. and you and I, who have been using language for a while, can argue all day about the denotations and connotations of the words, but to cass, who didn't have language for a good chunk of her early life, those semantics don't matter.

dick is her brother. jason is her brother. tim is her brother. damian is her brother. just like they are all each other's brothers. and calling herself their "sister" instead communicates a different meaning. it sets cass apart from them. she doesn't really know or care about the complicated history of gendered language. the word "brother" and the word "sister" are not the same thing. the other legal(ish) children of bruce's are all brothers. she would consider herself one, too.

[shamandrummer]

"The Seven Generations and The Seven Grandfather Teachings"

Discover Indigenous wisdom for a life well lived in James Vukelich Kaagegaabaw's book The Seven Generations and the Seven Grandfather Teachings. Based on ancient teachings from the Anishinaabe/Ojibwe people, this self-published (2023) book about the Ojibwe language offers not just historical insight but valuable life lessons for modern times. The book's teachings emphasize the alignment of words with actions and the importance of leading a holistic life. The central theme is the concept of interconnectedness: "Aanji-Bimaadizing means, 'transforming your life'." This is no ordinary transformation. It extends far beyond the self, touching the lives of past, present, and future relatives. We live in a reciprocally interrelated world where every action we take ripples forward and backward in time.

Grandparents – family connections in general – figure largely in Kaagegaabaw's story of the way Ojibwe language was handed down by a people who understand the land and their place on it. He points out that when we hear a word like Nookomis (my grandmother), we hear a sound "created by a person who knew this land back when it was covered by ice a mile high, before Gichi-gami, the Great Lake, Lake Superior, existed. When we use the old words, we are using words that were spoken by someone who saw woolly mammoths, giant Mooz (moose) and Misamik (giant beaver)."

Kaagegaabaw is proficient at explaining the heart of the Ojibwe language. He demystifies the vocabulary, breaking words into small parts for a clear understanding of their meaning. The primal language conveys a "Great Law" that helps speakers live in peace, harmony and balance. He cites the ancient Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) philosophy of considering the impact of each decision on the next seven generations. Seven generation stewardship is a concept that urges the current generation of humans to live and work for the benefit of the seventh generation into the future. As we navigate through the labyrinth of modern existence, how often do we stop and ask, "How do my actions today honor my past and pave the way for my future?"

The seven generation teachings, known as Gichi-dibaakonigwewinan, are truth, humility, respect, love, bravery, courage, honesty, and wisdom. The chapter about honesty indicates that just speaking the truth isn't enough; it's also imperative to align your words, actions, and intentions. Kaagegaabaw asks why would we use a sacred gift from the Creator, the Ojibwe language, to deceive others? The language demonstrates that the consequence of deceit is disorder. Only those who are out of balance will lie. As Kaagegaabaw put it,"Observe how I live, and the truth will invariably come out of it. It always does."

Kaagegaabaw concludes by pointing out that when we change and improve ourselves, we change and improve those who came before us and those to come – connecting them. As Kaagegaabaw so eloquently put it, "If I change myself, have I changed all of my relatives?" Though his ancestors were victims of colonization, genocide, and subjugation, Kaagegaabaw believes they can be healed through his interconnections with them. "I can still heal them," Kaagegaabaw asserts. "We are still writing our ancestors' stories."

About the Author

James Vukelich Kaagegaabaw, a descendant of Turtle Mountain, is a renowned international speaker, author, educator and digital creator. His keen insights were developed through speaking with and recording elders and native language speakers across North America as part of the Ojibwe Language Dictionary Project. James is a passionate advocate for sharing how to live a life of 'mino-bimaadiziwin,' the good life. For over twenty years, he has facilitated community language tables, consulted with public and private organizations on language and cultural programs, and traveled internationally as a keynote speaker. He has been featured in numerous publications, podcasts, radio & television programs. James lives in the Twin Cities, Minnesota with his wife and son.

[shrinkrants]

We need to talk about what's happening with the weaponization of the term "woke" and what it means for our movement. This isn't just another skirmish in the endless culture wars. It's a deliberate authoritarian strategy that we need to understand and confront head-on.

They're Stealing The Language Of Resistance…Again

Lets begin by clarifying where "woke" comes from. This term has deep roots in Black American culture, dating back to the 1930s, a period during which lynching of Black people was surging, as a call to stay vigilant - to "stay woke" -against the constant danger of racial violence and injustice. During the Ferguson uprising in 2014, #StayWoke became a rallying cry for a new generation of activists confronting police violence against Black communities.

The appropriation of this term isn't accidental or innocent. It follows a historical pattern we've seen repeatedly in American politics: concepts originating in Black resistance culture are extracted, stripped of their context, and then weaponized against the very communities that created them. The process carries particular power precisely because of how Black people and culture are simultaneously fetishized and demonized in American political discourse....

Our Path Forward

So what do we do about it? Here's a call to action for all of us fighting for a truly democratic future:

Reclaim our narrative: We must honor the term's origins in Black political consciousness while refusing to accept its weaponized redefinition. This isn't about defending the word itself but respecting the community knowledge it represents.

Focus on concrete impacts: When they want to debate abstract concepts like "woke-ness," we need to relentlessly pivot to how these policies hurt real people in real communities.

Frame this as a democracy issue: This isn't about special interests or identity politics. Instead, it's about whether we will have a democracy that works for everyone. The attack on "woke-ness" is fundamentally an attack on democratic participation.

Build stronger coalitions: The authoritarian playbook targets different communities sequentially to prevent unified resistance. We must create alliances that recognize these attacks are interconnected parts of a single authoritarian project.

Defend our institutions: Develop coordinated strategies to protect educational, cultural, and civic spaces from political capture and censorship.

Challenge unconstitutional restrictions: Contest the legality of these restrictions on speech, education, and civil rights protections through strategic litigation.

Create alternative frameworks: We need language that effectively communicates our values of inclusion, equality, and justice without relying exclusively on terms that have been weaponized.

The attack on "woke-ness" isn't just another culture war distraction. It's a sophisticated political strategy leveraging America's unresolved relationship with race to advance a broader authoritarian agenda. When we understand it for what it truly is, we can respond more effectively.

The work ahead won't be easy. But throughout our history, movements for justice have faced and overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges. By recognizing these tactics for what they are, building stronger coalitions, and recommitting ourselves to the long struggle for democracy, we can and will prevail.

[ilenvs3000w25]

Unit 9- Amazing Thing About Nature

The Hidden Language of Trees:

For today’s blog post I want to talk about something in nature that truly amazes me.  Something that has always fascinated me was how trees can “talk.”  When you first walk into a forest it always seems pretty quiet and all you hear is mostly the sound of birds chirping, leaves rustling, or maybe even the trickling of a stream.  However, what we don’t always realize or don’t always think of is the conversations trees are having.  Trees are always in active communication with one another to warn, protect, and nurture each other.  What is the first thing you think of when you hear the word forest?  I myself, and maybe even you, will first think of trees.  A Forest is a collection of trees, but also is an interconnected community that works together in ways that we are only beginning to understand.  

The Underground Web

Trees don’t just fend for themselves, they actually help one another out.  What I find interesting is that they can send nutrients and carbon to other trees.  For example, if a younger tree is struggling to get sunlight, an older tree in that area can send the nutrients the younger tree needs in order to survive.  Even when one tree is sick, others can send extra nourishment to help keep that tree alive.  The forest is not just a battleground of competition between species, but also a community that is built on cooperation.  

Trees that Warn and Protect

Imagine an insect infestation coming to invade a forest.  The tree that is under attack does not just simply suffer in silence, and instead can release chemicals that signal through their roots and into the air to send a message to other trees.  In the response, neighbouring trees can now help to produce signals as a defense.  This can make their leaves seem less appealing to the invading insects.  That same warning system isn’t just for insects, but also for environmental conditions as well.  Some trees can actually detect certain environmental conditions to help prepare for threats (ex. To conserve water in dry conditions).  This “hidden” language of the trees is fascinating and essential for their survival.

What does this Mean?

If you stop to understand the communication between trees, it can change the way you see forests.  So think, when a tree is cut down, it is not just a single organism being removed; it is disrupting a whole community.  It’s severing conditions and silencing part of an ancient and “hidden” conversation, one that has been happening beneath our feet for millions of years.  The next time you are walking through a forest, remember that it is not just a collection of trees, but it is a living, communicating, breathing network.  They are a society with complex connections and an “unspoken” language that we are just beginning to be able to decode and understand.

[disorderofsevenstars]

Gender and Divinity

At one end of the gender spectrum lies the Feminine, associated with Black and darkness, the Earth and mundane matters, collectivity, interconnection, receptivity, cyclicality, synthesis, and heterogeneity. At the other end lies the Masculine, associated with White and illumination, the Heavens and spiritual matters, individuality, separation, exclusivity, linearity, analysis, and homogeneity. These two extremes, Yin and Yang, interact to create a multitude of permutations which lie somewhere in between the purely Feminine and the purely Masculine. Everything that exists as part of what we usually call "reality" is located somewhere in this intermediate space. The extremes themselves are conceptual, and do not exist in material reality, as they are characterized by a purity which cannot be found in Nature.

Sleeping, dreaming, and Death-as-a-state (in contrast with Death-as-a-process) fall within the domain of the Feminine, as do gravity and magnetism, Zero and the even numbers, the elements of Water and Earth, the Moon, and the Cosmic Void or World Egg. Femininity denotes a state of rest, stability, and equilibrium. It promotes slowness and longevity, regeneration and even immortality, characteristic of oceanic or cold environments and the organisms that live there, shielded from the mutagenic properties of solar radiation. The influence of the Feminine on human societies manifests through tribalism, collectivism, and egalitarianism, giving rise to social structures such as animist and polytheistic religions, cults, clans, matrilineal descent systems, polygamy and polyamory, democracy, communism, hedonism, mysticism, subcultures and countercultures. It is driven by the Dionysian impulse to shed the Ego, losing the Self within something larger, like a drop of rain falling into the ocean. The Moon is a mirror; it does not generate its own light.

Femininity is the original and final state of all things. It is prominent in small children and the elderly, more so in non-human animals (especially large and slow-moving animals, those animals which are more primordial or lower on the food chain, as well as small animals with collectivistic tendencies such as ants), even more so in plants, and still more so in rocks, soil, and water. In animals, it is highly oriented toward the senses of touch, taste, and smell. During the course of our evolution, we developed eyes, learned to hunt, learned to walk on land, learned to stand upright, became taller, acquired language and logic, mastered the use of tools and fire, and lost our fur; some of us also lost our melanin. The development of an embryo into an infant, into a child, into an adult, involves a loss of plasticity; bones harden and fuse, the percentage of water in the body decreases, and neural pathways become more rigid. All of these traits indicate a process of Masculinization.

The Masculine is the domain of awareness, alertness, problem-solving, and conflict. It governs changes, transitions, and boundaries. Masculinity is a property of electricity, odd numbers, prime numbers, the elements of Fire and Air, the Sun, and the Axis Mundi. It is dynamic and always in motion, striving to reach the Feminine rest-state, like an arrow flying towards a target, or a key inserted into a lock. The influence of the Masculine on human societies manifests through individualism and inequality, giving rise to colonialism, capitalism, competition, war, monotheism, monogamy, patriarchy, the nation-state, asceticism, and scientific thought. Driven by the Apollonian impulse towards separation and clarity, it prioritizes facts over feelings.

Unable to coexist and seeing plurality as a threat, Masculinity seeks to dominate the Other and propagate the Self, often through violent means; Western culture, Christianity, and Islam are examples of this. Monotheism and patriarchy have a mutual affinity, and in many cases, one promotes the other. The god of a monotheistic religion is usually male. The Sun is the central axis around which all bodies in the Solar System revolve. This tendency of the Masculine to see itself as superior lies behind the association of Light with Good, and Darkness with Evil. Humans, considered as a whole, lean towards Masculinity, and serve as a Masculine counterpart to the natural environment of Earth.

The supreme divinity is like a polygon with an infinite number of sides: simultaneously circular and linear. Fate arises from the interconnection of individual wills, a product of emergent complexity, many individual entities inadvertently working together in a larger system. "GOD" can be described as genderless, or a perfect balance of all possible genders. It has the Feminine quality of Being, and the Masculine quality of Unity. It is an all-pervasive energy field of pure universal consciousness, which can be channeled into various manifestations that possess genders and other specific attributes, like white light being split by a prism into its spectral components. These facets of divinity are conceptualized in every pantheon of deities, in the 12 signs of the Zodiac, in the 22 Major Arcana or 22 letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, in Kabbalah as the 10 Sefirot, in Christianity as the Holy Trinity, in the Tzolk'in as the 20 Naguales, and in Chinese cosmology as the Ba Gua (Eight Trigrams) and 64 Hexagrams of the I Ching.

[3/16/2024]

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

re: what the previous anon said about AAVE grammar

ig this is more of a question for the black/african american community but is there anyway to use AAVE terms and grammar respectfully by someone who's not part of the community? I'm not white. I'm not even american, I'm from asia but I wanted to know because it had been so popularised in english-speaking internet i sometimes speak like that unintentionally so I was wondering if that's okay

Hello dear friend, I would suggest maybe asking someone who is within the Black community.

I'm Irish American- so I never really use AAVE, personally. I do, however, just read a lot of linguistic papers- and am currently in a postcolonial studies program wherein I read theories from Black intellectuals often.

I do think there is a difference between Online slang and AAVE; however, I know that it does tend to become interchangeable. Certain words and phrases become popularized through mass media- it is just the happenstance of the digital age. I don't think there is anything wrong with using phrases you find to be useful to your specific expressive needs- so long as it is not used in sarcastic manner or otherwise intentioned to make fun of the phrase. I guess just use it with appreciation for the people and culture from which it comes?

It is an interesting question. I think, as globalization continues to expand, that most people are wondering about the line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation.

I cited Glissant in my last post, and I do think Glissant would appreciate the interconnected dialogic of multiple communities making use of each other's linguistic markers. That's what I would surmise, at least, after having read everything he's ever written. To be clear, Glissant was a black Caribbean intellectual- not American- however, his prime contribution to the philosophy of linguistics was concerned with hybridization and cultural exchange. He, ultimately, argued that language is a medium of expression which will always reflect the interconnected nature of humanity. His position was such- because he was a Martinican writer. Martinique- of course- being a past colony of France continues to use French in their everyday lives. In fact, most people of Martinique speak only French- and the French dialect spoken there is creolized. Meaning that the French language there has been modified by the cultural situation and the cosmological structure of the people who use the language. Creole and French now have different vernaculars- within similar syntactical structures. It's really very fascinating to me- how we share and adapt language using it also to construct a cultural reality.

He argues in favor of creolization (or hybridity) because he argues that identity and language is constructed through systems of relation- not isolation. My argument would be inline with this logic. I think that people are innately interconnected- we build meaning, language, thought through relation to others. What is language if not a means to connect with each other? That includes relation to other cultures. So, I don't think it's wrong to say things like "it be like that" with the use of the Habitual "be" or "he funny" as an example of the omitted "be"

Words like "finna" or "lit" or "woke" have all long histories of embedded meaning in AAVE, which is also now part of youth culture and broader internet slang. I think this is just a natural result of our most human impulses- to share and feel a kinship to one another.

If I am wrong- I would welcome a correction. What do you think about the matter?

Also- I don't want to make it seem like Glissant believes all language is interchangeable. That is not the case, but that he does think difference is more constructive when viewed through a lens of solidarity and inter community dialogue. He coined "Tout Monde" meaning- all world, as an explanatory device for his theory that we all construct our reality in relation to each other. Through fluidity and not separation.

[tamelee]

I’ve seen a lot of kakashi fans saying he was anti-shinobi system and wanted it to changes and all… but I didn’t get this vibe from him at all in the manga? most of the times he’s either shown agreeing with the system, or just not having real opinion on what’s happening… if i had to choose, i would put him more in the "pro-system" category rather than in the "anti-system" category. what do you think about it?

((I hope this makes any sense 🫶 I really wanted to talk about this and the systems, but I’m not going to point out every moment with Kakashi. I think this mostly speaks for itself from a storytelling perspective. Long post 🍵))

Hm’ I can’t really understand the reasoning behind fans saying he was against it? Pro/anti-system doesn’t quite mean the same as pro/anti in fandom language in the context of such systems. Acknowledging the issues and not liking them but simply dealing with it anyway (‘Ninja’ literally is ‘one who endures’) because that’s expected of you as Shinobi, is not the same as actively rebelling against a system. They are soldiers that are trained to not show emotions and they become tools for the village. And the Shinobi system regulates the functioning of itself by stating Shinobi are tools for the country to use however they like.

For Kakashi especially, ‘dealing with it’ meant dealing with it the ‘right way’ despite acknowledging these are issues, right? The way things just are. And the ‘right way’ becomes subjective to each character when you consider that every village operates through what they think is 'right' because the 'right thing' benefits the local community and not the entire world or an individual. Even someone like Zabuza who was seen as a 'heartless monster' wasn't able to truly become emotionless and surely his 'right way' felt justified in regard to his past and what he had to do. But yeah for sure, overall, I agree. 

Just to clarify though;  From my understanding it doesn’t mean much on its own saying a character is in favor of/against the Shinobi system because it isn’t really anything other than an overarching framework for all Shinobi and part of the hierarchal structure of many systems within the Narutoverse. It’s a guideline, practical and operates on a large scale where it provides for different countries to manage coordination or any challenges that may arise but its meaning for a single character is hard to measure. It’s vague.  Konoha has its own military/authoritative system specifically for Shinobi from the leaf (and thus, Kakashi) and to give that any socialistic meaning, it adopts the ideology they call; ‘Will of Fire’ which purpose is to blur your individuality and eventually replace it with a communal mindset which profits on a national scale, or village mostly. I’m not saying there wasn’t any individuality in the characters because they wouldn’t be enjoyable/relatable otherwise; like Kakashi was (very well) known for ‘copying’ and having the Sharingan. 

 'Hatake Kakashi is a cool man who doesn't risk his life lightly, but now he's putting his life on the line. The 'Spirit of Fire (Will of Fire)' burns within him!!'

And if you view things from this communal mindset that Konoha has then you’re very much in favor of the system... I don’t really see how you can argue against it? Konoha and other countries all interconnect through the Shinobi system, but it is the individual and local ideology that causes so much suffering and are the sources of the story’s conflicts in one way or another. Each micro-system prioritizes their own (unless you're seen as a threat ig) and it promotes loyalty to one’s country through the ideology.

((Like Konoha claiming you become stronger by protecting something that is important to you,

but then indoctrinating everyone that the single thing that is most important ‘to you’ is the village and your ‘comrades’. There’s truth it in it but there is a change in purpose as Naruto’s most important person isn’t even part of the village at some point but a personal connection that he prioritized above the community and national borders. This includes Gaara as well.

In that sense, you could say Naruto is selfish, but in this case that’s a good thing, really well written and has nothing to do with ‘going against Sasuke’s wishes’ weh~’.)) 

When countries go to war with each other or are in conflict, they will always favor their own (system), not the ‘Shinobi system’ and will chase to profit. It is their responsibility to adapt at all times to make sure it thrives, for better and for worse. And these systems pretty much always come with an ideology and especially military systems are very Nationalistic because its purpose is to protect. Against all costs, it prioritizes itself above all. 'Balancing power' was a way to 'promote friendship' between all countries, but that didn't really work out though, did it? 

The WoF influences the character of Konoha’s system and it is through this that we can really measure what the narrative says regarding a character and analyze their (inter)actions. And Kakashi like most other characters very much operates through that (local system’s) ideology.. 🤷🏻‍♀️ There is nothing that truly indicates that Kakashi is against Konoha’s system much less is ‘rebelling’ or seen to behave in an antagonistic matter as told through the narrative. (Which tells us what is 'good/'bad' but allows you to question it still.) Most criticism Kakashi has against ‘bad’ aligns with the communal ideology that decides what is ‘right’/‘wrong’. That’s exactly why right/wrong and good/bad become incredibly muddy/grey and why it is nearly impossible for Naruto and Sasuke to find a ‘morally right’ answer for all and find peace in the story. Why the sequel probably (partly) didn’t even bother to try. Why the individuality of Naruto and Sasuke as main-characters were pointed out countless of times to indicate their roles which also changed throughout the story and why it became complicated when conflict rises between components within the same system. 

I’m just pointing out there is a (huge) difference because you can’t really be anti-system if you’re literally a part of it in every way and operate through those beliefs and values even on a micro-level which is an extension from the overarching Shinobi system. Especially when issue’s are acknowledged at the same time.

((Sasuke was right that in order to force actual change, destroying just Konoha wouldn’t do much in terms of the overarching system. It’d still exist through individual values and Shinobi beliefs and even if all was destroyed physically, most likely it would rebuild the same way like Naruto mentioned unless Sasuke would forever control and keep an eye on the new system which he said was his plan. Kishimoto didn’t just suck that information out of his thumb, it’s based on the way shit works in real life too. Both Naruto and Sasuke wanted balance but offered different solutions. Yes, the Shinobi-system can be seen as the antagonistic force as well and one could oppose the entirety of it for sure, but this is only true for a few characters who’ve done a lot of research first or lived long enough in order to come up with such a conclusion/active decision and are seen as antagonists in turn by everyone else who are in favor of the system as well. But it takes a whole lot more than just wanting change in order to rebel and be anti-system and with that, development that you really shouldn't take lightly.))  

But for the sake of efficient storytelling, why you’d even want Kakashi to anti the system in the first place...?

That Kakashi wanted things to change is only natural given his past, but countless of characters wanted things to change or admitted their wrong-doings ‘of the past’ and showed regret in any way. Especially authority mopes for a bit when faced with the consequences, but doesn’t take any accountability that really results in change even if they have the power to do so. Some even blame others. Like the Uchiha are blamed by Danzo for their own massacre??? A good Hokage that leads to lasting change doesn't just do what is currently expected of them and 'die like a hero', but thinks outside the box and is a little unpredictable. Almost has to rebel themselves for a bit which yes, we can finally talk about potential fr- Naruto had potential and it is backed up by Canon :') That's what potential is and not some hc possibility someone came up with on their own. Anyway, especially nearing the end they all start confessing which is kinda funny because a lot of them were already dead (Edo-Tensei) so it’s easy to then dump the responsibility to fix their fuck-ups on the newer generation (namely; Naruto and Sasuke) with a big ‘fuck you tho, but you’ll figure it out, good luck!’ on top. 

Or.. you know;

Figuring out what the system meant and finding an answer to change... it was kinda... the whole point of the plot. Each character plays a different role and contrasting viewpoints in a story serve great purposes to tell it. In regard to the system a few are;

Implementing the Theme wherein Naruto and Sasuke are offered (and forced) to find their individuality (outside of their role as Ninja where duty... or fate is decided for you) 

Presenting an answer that eventually should’ve led to a change in history which otherwise would’ve just repeated itself (or will again later on)

To show that the current and evolved Shinobi system is the source of most conflicts (especially the large-scale ones) and that the main characters are burdened with this responsibility

The significance of actually questioning, challenging and showing dissatisfaction towards the beliefs and values everyone around you blindly adopted and the impact it has on the characters and the scene which is only possibly through a development that calls for it

Leaving the area of ‘right’/‘wrong’ and ‘good’/‘bad’ very grey in order to make antagonists more powerful and developed, because if the system is the cause of antagonistic behavior, then who is ‘right’ anyway? Is the system itself the antagonistic force or are all the antagonists 'evil'/'bad' by default? :')

Get where I’m going with this? It’s not Kakashi’s role to actively challenge these beliefs. In fact, if everyone who wanted change gained that role, then every single thing Naruto and Sasuke did and decided on would become insignificant. Naruto’s actions would’ve been understood by the people around him and Sasuke would gain sympathy which in real life is great and well-deserved (well, fictional too), but would make a very boring and mediocre story. Even Kakashi pointed out these differences between Naruto/Sasuke and himself many times while looking at the past and contrasting history with, well, namely Naruto and feared a repetition through Sasuke. It is useful to the Theme that let Naruto and Sasuke explore what their bond/friendship meant, what anything meant really, and find their individuality outside the communal mindset of Konoha and from within. (Naruto’s Ninja way and Sasuke deciding to take matters in his own hands.) This development had meant nothing had Kakashi taught his students to rebel and question the system during their ‘team’mate days because maybe it was something he already believed in or because he operated through a personal philosophy instead of saying 'well, this is what it is, so...'. It would’ve influenced them in some way otherwise there is no reason to add it. But then Naruto and Sasuke’s choices wouldn’t have come from their development journeys or the trauma they lived, but simply because ‘their sensei said so/taught them’. (And sure, they could’ve challenged Kakashi on it, but that’s kinda pointless in this case. People often say Kakashi didn't understand certain things about his students and this all is mostly the source for it.) Much like Hokage-Naruto lamely claiming the village is ‘family’ because ‘the third always said so’. It’s meaningless to him personally. And what would that even mean for Sakura had Kakashi adopted contrasting beliefs? D’ykwim? 

Nah' I don't like this system and it definitely needs to change. I'm very impressed in the way Sasuke gathered all this information and then was forced to move towards a single solution which... from his viewpoint then, was the only way until Naruto offered his idea that was only born from his own challenges. I also don't like how characters (including Kakashi) view it and use it as some sort of emotional weapon to manipulate, intentionally or not. Though, I wouldn't want it any different for the sake of the story and I still very much like Kakashi. It is that incredible persistence Naruto and Sasuke showed BECAUSE of that very resistance at every turn that made the story so good and their decision so impactful. So yes, but no, I don't think it's a bad thing at all. -

(And yeah, the whole ‘comrade’-thing goes together with it all, though that may need a separate post someday. I really want to talk about the meaning of the words ‘family’, ‘friend’ and ‘comrade’ in Konoha because it doesn’t mean anything anymore if it’s not tied to the individual and it’s communal for a Leaf Shinobi that carries the WoF. And for me personally, the way Kakashi went about it makes sense. Doesn't mean I like it, but it makes sense. Naruto vowed to become a Ninja his own way and found meaning regarding his bonds along his journey while blurring the borders between countries (and systems) while Shikamaru for example, simply decided that his and his team-mate’s lives were okay to risk for the sake of the mission and to ’retrieve Sasuke’ who is only a ‘comrade’ to him because he was a Ninja of Konoha, someone he didn't like on a personal level. And when Sasuke wasn’t a Konoha Ninja, no one but Naruto thought he was worth ‘saving’. That’s why Naruto was also questioning why someone would give up their life for one another after Sasuke did so for him and Hiruzen did for Konoha and Kakashi answered the way he did after Iruka. Why he gave up on Sasuke but died for Choji. You’re simply ‘family’ as a villager of Konoha, but it was Naruto and Sasuke’s role in the story to figure out what personal bonds mean to them.

(I really want to make a separate post on this, I have too many thoughts, but gotta stop rambling ffs.)

[kamari3]

Another Vent Post

(typed this on my phone)

I just saw someone else on twitter say what I wanted to say so I'm gonna say it too.

It really makes me uncomfortable when people say "i'm not proship but i'm not anti: i'm normal." Because what I internalize from that is that you aren't willing to stand in solidarity with me.

At best, it means you dont have the energy or time to engage in activism and you want to curate you experience to avoid as much drama/conflict as possibe. i get that. the way you said it made me feel unsafe, and if i were a little less wise i would immediately interpret the statement as you saying you also want to hurt me, but i get it.

you dont have to get into fights you dont want to. you have every right to curate your experience no matter what side of the issue you fall on, and i will support you doing so 100%. no exceptions. no matter how upset i get, this fact does not change.

But you saying that could also mean you do also want me dead and just dont have the time or energy to shoot me yourself.

Yes, I get that it's cringe to have convictions about internet things. but this isnt dying on a hill about how fuckable you think hatsune miku is. this is about whether or not you are willing to support your community.

and whether you like it or not, the internet is also a community you are taking part of. you are literally here.

Like. Bro.

What do you even mean by "i'm not proship or anti, the whole thing is stupid"?

Do you mean it's stupid to have an opinion about how you treat other people?

Do you mean it is stupid to have an opinion about freedom of speech and censorship?

Are you trying to make me ashamed for caring about a political issue just because it most prominently affects online communities, and the farther reaching implications and impacts on these stances aren't obvious and dont use the same jargon?

(surely you know that the proship/anti issue runs parallel to the democrat/republican issue, and the anti-authoritarian/authoritarian issue. surely you know it also runs parallel with the queer/bigotry issue, since it uses all the same arguments and rhetoric. and the sex-work/puritanical issue. and the trans/transphobia issue. surely you understand that just because these political stances have nuances, differences of purpose and circumstance and vocabulary, doesnt mean they arent interconnected. they all still have threads of commonality and logic that interconnect them in parody and parallel. surely you get that the underlying root problem is a difference of ethics thats permeates nearly every polar difference of opinion and that talking about one leads to talking about all of them. surely you understand that these are nearly the same words in different languages and cultures-)

Do you actually mean, "i also think all you nasty proshippers are morally bankrupt and i hope you all die, but i dont have the energy to be a political activist so i will just let the ones that do rip you apart while i watch?"

Do you mean, "i also think that thought policing is wrong and that we shouldn't be judged for or treated badly for our fantasy/fiction indulgences, but i just dont think that it is worth getting into a fight over, and therefor i will not help you when other people harass and abuse you over fiction?"

i understand the idea of wanting to curate which labels you identify yourself with. you dont have to use the labels of proship or anti if those arent for you. but declaring the argument stupid or that anyone who has strong stances on it "needs to touch grass" only does harm. you arent making it clear whose side you are on. and while it sucks that there are sides to pick in the first place, that doesnt change that the sides are there and the fence is up.

and i'm not sorry to say that i trust someone who picks the side of the fence that wants to protect my person and my agency and my freedoms a lot more than someone who thinks me arguing my right to those is stupid.

idk maybe it IS terminally online to think controlling other people's fiction and personal life choices is bad. maybe it IS terminally online to say queers deserve to enjoy their media and representation too. maybe it IS terminally online to say "hey, maybe we shouldnt tell people their intrusive thoughts make them bad people". maybe it IS terminally online to say adults deserve the agency to be able to consent to whatever sex they want with other consenting adults, and that includes fictional sex acts they read, write, draw, and look at drawings of (wherein the artist consented to share the work, and the consumer has the agency to choose whether they view it or not, and change that at any time).

i dont think it is. but i'm just one person who has loud annoying opinions.

[not-easily-conquered]

What is nationalism? It's in your bio but I don't know what it is exactly though I have a vague idea

I also want to know your specific views on it (please)

You're very polite, thank you for that. Please note that not everyone will agree with my interpretation of everything, belief systems mean different things to different people.

Nationalism is, broadly speaking, kind of a catch-all term, essentially any ideology that places national interests, however you choose to define that, as the most important point.

From my understanding, nationalism is primarily divided into the following three categories

-Civic, meaning that one is a part of the nation by being of that nationality geographically or legally.

-Cultural, meaning one is a part of the nation by, at minimum, speaking the national language and holding national values, although most cultural nationalists go further with stuff like holidays, fashion, and cuisine.

-Ethnic, meaning that one is a part of the nation through ethnicity and heritage, a closed system.

There's also the associated racial nationalism and religious nationalism. I would personally argue they don't meet the definition but I'm not intending to start a fight

A few common beliefs I've noticed among many, though not all, nationalists include

Support for a strong, interventionist military or isolationism, rarely if ever a doveish foreign policy

Support for strict immigration controls

Distrust of foreign influence

Some sort of nationalization, particularly finance and energy

Protectionist economics

As for my specific views on nationalism, I'm not quite sure I can answer that directly, since it's obviously interconnected with other aspects of politics, economics, etc and I won't be writing 5k words on this, my "Write an essay now!" urge usually only happens with music. What I can say though is that I'm somewhere between civic and cultural, economically in favor of regulation and public ownership although not full-on communism, and close to isolationist in terms of foreign policy.