#it's totally ingrained conservatism

[coulsonlives]

ALL OF THIS. Say it with me:

👏Your identity doesn't make you immune from being a bad person with a shit personality 👏

Many lgbt teenagers and young adults growing up on the internet today have socially conservative beliefs that they voice at all times that they got from their conservative parents which they’ve never challenged because they think the life experience of being gay or trans makes them politically progressive

[officialpenisenvy]

aren’t there good things that come from family members loving and supporting each other? i’m not trying to be a dick, i just haven’t heard the term “family abolition” before or heard about this as a movement

don't worry, i totally get it, family is an institution that is profoundly entrenched in our culture and has been throughout history, so i know it can be really tough to imagine a world without it. family abolition is an incredibly varied and complex movement and summarizing it is way beyond the scope of my abilities, so this is just the way i personally see it at this point in time. individual families can absolutely be a positive community full of support and love, in fact i would say that my own extended family is a net positive despite it all; still, the institution of the family overall is largely a negative force that creates insular pockets of complacency and silence around the abuse that occurs between its members, while at the same time overstating any potential harm that comes from outside sources or society at large.

if you're anything like me, the vast majority of people in your life come from abusive or otherwise deeply dysfunctional homes, ones that have done demonstrably more harm than good in their own personal development and growth: beyond the anecdotal, just look at the statistics on, for instance, the rates of queer youth with abusive or bigoted families, or how many conservatives today use the family as a shorthand for all that is good and pure and must be protected from degenerate perverts (despite studies showing that the vast majority of child sexual abuse comes from within the home).

i sometimes liken family abolition to church abolition, as both are deeply rotten institutions and forces for conservatism built on abuse upon abuse and wrongful hierarchy upon wrongful hierarchy, as well as both having some good apples such as individual family units or parishes that can be incredibly positive forces in people's lives. however, this comparison isn't perfect: namely, the church responds to the need for a spiritual and ideological connection based around a specific faith and teleological belief, a need that can be met by no other community of people in today's society (barring other religious congregations, of course). the family's function, on the other hand, is not unique to itself: a common adage is it takes a village to raise a child, and i really do find it to ring true when discussing family abolition — a handful of blood-related individuals will never be better fit to raise a healthy and happy child than a wide and sprawling community founded on trust and mutual accountability and communal child-rearing experience, a community that doesn't necessarily exclude the blood relatives of the children but works to integrate them in a larger context where any potential abuse of power is kept in check and denounced.

of course, this is mostly theoretical: we live in a society (bottom text) that is deeply capitalistic, and capitalism is founded on the institution of the family, so it's probably utopian to imagine the abolition of the family before the collapse of capitalism. and even then, many societies in the world and throughout history are not capitalistic yet are still founded on the family (albeit with varying definitions of it, some of which are very close to the proverbial "village" i described above): if the aim is to dismantle the family altogether and not simply alter its definition to fit more members of consanguinity or non-consanguinity, it will have to be a concerted and strenuous effort to go against an ingrained part of our understanding of the world.

[skepticalarrie]

This ask has me seething with rage lol. It’s not about being British, it’s about class and if you are not British working class then you won’t get it.

Firstly, you’re not comparing how British Harry and Louis are by talking about their likes and dislikes, I was raised on a council estate in Cheshire very close to where Harry was raised and let me tell you, he was very very comfortable before the band. I am not saying he was rich because there’s a massive difference between £60k a year and multimillions but he would not have had to think about money growing up, he lived in a very safe area, he was incredibly comfortable and that comes with a certain amount of financial conservatism regardless of how socially liberal you are, as well as general ingrained “snobbishness” which is not me insulting him, it’s just the culture.

Chavy would’ve been an insult to Harry’s family. Louis on the other hand was raised working class, again I’m not saying he was on the brink of homelessness, but definitely living paycheck to paycheck rather than with a buffer to fall back on if anything went wrong. The area itself was less affluent, less safe, more multicultural (Cheshire is white, especially 15+ years ago). His background and priorities and comforts from his youth are different to Harry’s, he has the working class camaraderie, he likes the pub (I could write an essay on Harry’s local vs Louis local but only British people could understand it lol) and football and fastfood and whatever else you deem trashy or chavy because he did grow up as what Harry’s peers would call a “chav” and he’s allowed to reclaim that. It is nice when you’ve been called a chav too to see someone like you not immediately distance themselves from the working class when they make it big and I suppose you either feel that or you don’t.

Also, imagine being from that background and then overnight you’re a millionaire. You can lose your identity. Again I could write more about why it was essential for Louis and Zayn to have each other so as not to totally lose themselves because you can’t take a working class northern teenager to Hollywood and expect them not to be psychologically affected, so I think it’s impressive that Louis has been able to combine those identities and carry his past with him whilst also obviously enjoying the finer things too.

That was an essay and I only got like half of my thoughts across sorry Allie, but basically what I want to say is stop policing how Louis identifies with the social class he grew up in. It’s not an act, he’s not deceiving anyone, he has expensive taste too and he’s not hiding that, he’s just proud of where he came from and it’s insulting when people can’t accept that he’s a multifaceted person.

Thank you so much, anon! I appreciate this message so much. When I used the argument that “Louis is just very british” and reclaiming his roots, I thought about developing the thought but I don’t think I’m in a place to do that since I’m not british in the first place. And you just did that in a beautiful way. I don’t think people fully realise how americanized their images were back then and how much the industry still keeps forcing artists on that. So when we see someone is so openly proud of something that is not american at all, that comes across as weird and forced. It’s a shame.

In reference to this and this

[bemouldenblog]

Dreams of Ill-Fitted Expectations

Y’all...It has legit been 10 years since I graduated high-school. 10 DAMN YEARS! I was reminded of this a couple weeks ago  when that group text came through saying: “Hey, Everyone! It's our 10 year HS anniversary this year. I thought it would be great if we got together to celebrate…” 

The funny thing is that I started writing this post months ago before that text even came though. It was finished, yet of course I sat on it for no good reason. I also find it funny that it quite effectively touches on my high school experience and how it has significantly affected my relationship with what I would consider my greatest adversaries: perfectionism, regret, and expectation. Let’s get to it...

Let me begin by telling  you about my high school experience. Or at least the aspects of it that will help this  post make sense. If I’m to be totally honest...for the most part, I WANTED OUT! Just give me my degree and let me be free! Now don’t get me wrong, I am grateful that my parents did all they could to make sure my siblings and I got the best education they could afford. But it was a Christian school, and Christian schools have the potential to do a number on you. The school featured capitalistic conservatism, radical evangelicalism and “covert” bigotry (among other things) clothed in Jesus’ fabulously righteous garments. This is never good for a black and/or closeted queer youth. (I could go on, but I won’t...nor do I think I need to) In my experience, I can say that it may have ingrained certain expectations and an obsession with unattainable perfection. This became a cocktail of people-pleasing and self-hatred. 

All of this is coming from the valedictorian or the class of 2009! (I’m still caught up on 10 years...And my have things changed within them…) I was the student who received countless academic and  “Christ Like Behavior” certificates as well as the peer who got cheated off of the most (If I even allowed it, which was rare).  I was a saint, doted on for my dedication to academics and God. I think y’all get the picture. In my head, perfection was expected of me, and I was to deliver. I was to “become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22) Exhausting!! (or the way I internalized it then definitely was.) Chiiille, unlearning some of this mess is grueling work , but I think I’m doing a good job at it. 

If you do not have enough background, DM me. We can discuss. But we’re gonna fast-forward to today…

Click here and you will get a pretty accurate glimpse at my today as it relates to this post…

My high school experience is front and center in one of the most vivid dreams I’ve ever had, a dream that I continue to recall when I need  to get my life all the way together in my journey away from perfection and unsustainable expectations. 

In this dream, I find myself back in high school, and I am playing the part.  Respectful. Quiet. Smart. Liked, but not necessarily part of a clique. Awkward AF (and some things never change). I am seated with the student body and faculty in the main auditorium. Weekly chapel service is about to commence, but I have to go to the bathroom. I get up to tell my teacher, the physical embodiment of all the pressure I felt to meet every unsustainable expectation of my life who we are gonna called Ms. Beulah Harrison. This was a huge reason as to why I could not stand her, among a few other reasons. She was the worst, but she was human...even if she did not want us to know it.

“Young man you’ve got 5 mins,” she admonishes Beulah-ly (yes I turned her name into an adverb. Her personality was so big, her name could be any part of speech). To which I respond, “Girl, all I gotta do is pee. I’ll be back in 4! Bloop!” Back then I would have never said something like that to anyone, especially not Beulah! However, in this dream world, I did and my girl LAUGHED! 

Somewhere between amusement and utter confusion, I proceed, and find clothes strewn all throughout the bathroom. I also find two washers and two dryers (which were definitely not there in real life).I take care of business despite my confusion, and as I wash my hands I notice that my ass is standing there in some boxers and a t-shirt. My uniform must be somewhere in this mess! I manage to throw on what I believe to be the right clothes, turn to look in the mirror, and see that what I’m  wearing is definitely not my uniform. I am wearing hot pink jeans, and a slightly faded navy, black and hot pink button down that is both tiger-striped and floral patterned.

I am now frantically looking everywhere for my uniform. I can’t go back to chapel in this! I begin putting random garments in my backpack (which was actually my current one) that I think are mine, knowing damn well most of these items would not pass dress code. I look back at my bag which has become a much larger drawstring laundry bag. I look though the bag, but to no avail. Not knowing if what is in the bag is clean or dirty, I eye the washers and dryers. “Maybe if I wash all of this I’ll be able to find the uniform and get back to chapel.”  At that moment I say to myself (out loud...in the dream...calm as ever...), “Brandon, stop it. You know what this is about. Wake up.”

I don’t know if I would have ever found the uniform in my dream. I also don’t know if all of that took place in the 5 minutes Beulah gave me or in the 4 minutes I told her it would take me, but all of the above are somehow beside the point and the point exactly.

I’ve spent years trying to fit into “clothes”(expectations) that no longer fit or suit me. I’ve gone through a lot to try to do so as well. Sometimes I’ve sacrificed my peace of mind and happiness to remain in them, but the same way you outgrow clothing, you definitely outgrow expectations. These expectations weren’t just those that others had for me; they were my own as well. And of course, my own became a lot more stringent than those of others. Compounded expectations became burdens, and burdens can turn into familiar yet dismal comfort.

Upon waking up from this dream, I made a commitment to confront the ill-fitted expectations and perfectionism that have hindered me for years. Lawd knows It is not an easy task, but dedicating myself to this confrontation and detachment has made it easier to forgive myself for my imperfections, embrace excellence and move forward. With that in mind, I’m excited to try on some new clothes.

[jonayariley]

Something I've been thinking a lot about recently is how differently Judaism and Christianity approach the general concept of religious belief - specifically the concepts of God in general and religious law in particular.

There's no baked-in value to interpretation and debate for Christianity. Not to say that an individual Christian can't be inquisitive and approach their ingrained beliefs critically, but it's not something that the religion necessarily encourages and supports.

Judaism (this is the only other religion I'm comfortable making a comparison to since I don't have personal experience in any others) in the very construction of one of the fundamental texts (the Talmud in this case, but tbh this is true in terms of how everything is presented) includes at its core the idea of both questioning and interpreting everything. Even the very concept of God is open to that process - you find about as many different views on God as you find Jews (hyperbolic, but seriously there's a lot of different ways of viewing the Divine here!).

Christianity is, at its very heart, based on the central idea of the divinity of Jesus Christ and Christians are supposed to accept that belief to varying degrees of certainty. Depending on the specific denomination of Christianity, this can range from being Not a Big Deal™ to About the Worse Thing You Can Do™

So like "not all Christians" and all that but at the heart of the religion is the idea of accepting at least one thing without question - taking it on faith and all of that. And depending on what Christian you talk to, they might take a lot of other things on faith and see the questioning of those things to be particularly bad, possibly to the point of seeing opposition as being the product of their literal Devil.

And Christianity is very common in the US. As of 2020 (source for all these stats), like 70% of the US identify specifically as Christian (of the 75% of respondents who are religiously affiliated). If you want to winnow things down to white Christians (for that intersection of religious and racial power structures) you're left with 43% of the population. Or, put another way, over half of the religiously affiliated population. White Evangelicals make up 14% of the total, so the white Evangelical population makes up like 19% of the religious folks in the country, which is a significant number. Not quite the 1/3 originally cited, but still a very big number!

(none of this is to say that non-white Christians can't be subject to the same problems or trend towards conservatism for the same reasons, but I'm white and have limited experiences with non-white Christianity so I'm not gonna try to speak specifically to that experience - the intersection of race and religion can be complex and I feel like focusing on the way that white Christians influence politics in the US is enough to make my point since they're the ones driving the fuckshit here)

(also, seeing that Jews make up only 1% of the religious folks in the US kinda makes more sense of the "I've never met a Jew in my life" response to that one poll I saw the other day)

Anecdotally, Evangelicals tend to be politically very influential in a way that's deeply distressing to me. They've been this way for a very long time, and the fact that other white Christians are gonna act in solidarity with them in various ways and the varying degrees. Like, maybe the less-observant Catholics don't fully agree with the Evangelicals, but they'll hold the line of stuff like being anti-abortion. And they both come from a tradition that emphasizes "faith" as a core value and not "debating every aspect of your religion in a process that goes back thousands of years and is part of one of your key religious texts."

So yeah, "Christianity is a cult" is a simplistic way to put things... but also it does share some cult-like characteristics that make it especially dangerous as a core of political action in a country that is extremely Christonormative (maybe not a word, but you know what I mean)

Also, very important to point out that a certain percentage of those religiously unaffiliated are gonna be former Christians who never fully unpacked their upbringing and background. Like, one point I've seen a few times that I think is really valid - being non-Christian doesn't mean you don't think like a Christian.

So you get folks who maybe aren't Evangelical, but they have some of the same ways of thinking about people - the same kinds of "don't ask questions" and black/white thinking about morality and purity culture. Shit like that. Or just that they see Christian influence on the government as being more-or-less normal (or at least less alarming than it maybe should be).

idk - there's a lot to unpack here but I think the core idea is a valid one - if you wanna understand why the US is the way it is, "white Christianity is fucky-wucky" is an important building block.

To my international friends: If you ever wonder why Americans are the way they are, just remember that 1/3rd of all US citizens are in a cult that teaches them to suppress the activity of their prefrontal cortex, particularly when it comes to doubt, critical thinking, and differentiating emotional responses from personal values.

[clementine-lominsan]

WHY I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE

2018-12-02 

In an era of utter insanity, reaction is the only way to preserve one’s moral conscience. 

Why am I not a liberal? Because I admire the luxuriant giant tree of civilization, including its roots. So it seems being a conservative is the “natural” answer. But what does it mean to be a “conservative”? What do conservatives “conserve”?

A conservative today is usually an economic liberal. He promotes free market whose major principle is free trade and free market. The goal of all this, is actually nothing else than the goal of a socialist: the increase of efficiency, the increase of employment, the increase of living standard, the increase of literacy, the decrease of fetal mortality and the advancement of technology.

We are told that the increase of total social wealth is what actually made these goals possible. Surely I do not oppose the increase of total social wealth, but what does that mean? In the eyes of the bourgeoisie, the word “wealth” usually means one thing, the material profit. As the classical liberals boasted, “it was the capitalist who created the condition where any socialist activism is possible”, and “without capitalism, 80% of world’s people would not be there!”

But is humanity better just because we have more people? Does the happiness of humanity hike with the sharp improvement of the material life? No matter how much the material condition improves, one could not help wondering why, despite all this material progress, the spiritual, or mental wealth is shrinking.

The rise of suicide rate in the more materially wealth parts of the world, and the prevalence of drug abuse and the political consensus of both left and right wings on pot legalization, the trend in legalizing non-hetereosexual “marriage”, and the vulgarization of popular culture.

Even worse, the mind and the behavior of the deracinated masses are now being engineered by social media giant corporations. One may argue “but this is not the intention of free market capitalism!” But the road to hell is paved good intentions, and moreover, I am not sure urging young kids to engage in computer games with gambling functions (“microtransaction”) is “good” intention.

The obsession with the material, is perhaps inherent in the bourgeois mind. Historically, they have no real sense of loyalty to any land, any king, any belief, any community or even any family. Nor do they have any fixed social function. As the great conservative thinker Edmunk Burke put it, “the laws of commerce…are the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God.” (Maybe Burke and his students believe in Hermes, the God of Commerce? “Orthodox Christians” without charity, what a paradox!)

In other words, they are materialists. What does it take to go from this kind of materialist to the Marxist dialectic materialist? Hegelian dialectics, the black magic of sophistry, that is. Besides, after the rise of industrial capitalism, there has been more and more giant companies which is not actually owned by any private person. Yes, everyone can buy their stock shares, but what is the separation of management from private ownership, aside from being the sheer violation of the private property right?

Of course, usurers need this, so they can concentrate their attention in the financial industry, which makes everyone else “proletarian” – whose only possession is the labor-power. The ideological and economic continuity means industrial capitalism is the prelude of socialism. Surely there are free-marketeers, and there are mainly two sorts of them, “minarchists” and anarchists.

The so-called “minarchists” ask for such as minimal modern sovereign state: it has a standing army, a nationalized police and a centralized legal system. One has to remember the first economic liberals, i.e. Physiocrats called for an Enlightened tyrant – it means compared to the ancient free states supported by pious and loyal people, the so-called “minarchy” is nothing but a tyrannical modern state supported by deracinated masses: the instrument of a Leninist state is already there.

As for anarcho-capitalism, there is no anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism; there is only lawless anarchy, where physical violence and “smart” backstabbing are the eternal law of survival. In reality, the so-called minarchy is being practiced, and here we are, bound with quantity over quality, efficiency without purpose, property without ownership, and snobbery without organicity: the greatness of a modern industrial capitalism!

The eternal state with its permanent laws, seems to be ingrained in the mind of the eternal Anglo conservative, and conservatives in other spheres of culture are believing in it as well, thanks to the neoconservative Wilsonian order. It is said, that only by trial-and-error, we will know what works the best.

It is also said that we must preserve the traditional political institutions unconditionally. These two are in fact contradicting each other. The change in the internal and external, material and spiritual environments, requires the relevant changes in the social and political institutions, so a civilization can survive.If we see certain political institutions as god-given eternal entities, the fate of the Late Qing Empire will be repeated: the state is getting paralyzed by European colonists, peasant rebels, cult terrorists and radical revolutionaries – from 1851 to 1863, China’s population declined by more than 200 million! Why? Because they were overly obsessed with their ancient political traditions without making any effort to revitalize them.

As T. S. Eliot put it, “Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, ‘tradition’ should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition.Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour.” This political sloth has proven to be causal to the repeated defeat of conservatisms in history. Surely, many conservatives care words more than reality, so much so that they would sacrifice anything for their “political values”. They are too persistent on political values but sometimes too flexible on moral values. I wonder how much this overintellectualization is related to “sola fide” of Martin Luther.

It is the central conservative dogma that the state can do little, if nothing, to promote moral thoughts and behavior. Edmund Burke once said, “It is in the power of government to prevent much evil; it can do very little positive good in this, or perhaps in anything else.”

But is it true? Centuries before Burke, St. Augustine of Hippo believed that the state simultaneously serves the divine purposes of chastening the wicked and refining the righteous. Many conservatives argue, based on the minarchist doctrine, that the state is an evil, but a necessary one. Meanwhile, they also argue that the state should be impartial, and by “impartial”, they mean amoral. From the theoretical point of view, anyone committed to the mission of promoting evil must start his adventure by convincing evil is “necessary”: “Only Catholics soaked in canon law and papal superstition maintained the old prohibitions against usury”, wrote Cotton Mather; “If we did not nuke Japan, we would have suffered unbearable losses”, argued the 21st century neoconservative.

Even worse, conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are actually the pioneers of various postmodern progressive social movements. So, political amorality becomes political anti-morality. Again, if one looks back into the history of the progress of such a political ideal, despite of its ostensibly just claims, what it has wrought us is one license to vices after another. Virtues need no license, because anyone with moral conscience know that virtues are hard to maintain so there is no real legal restriction on them.

By contrast, an interesting observation from the generation educated under Estado Novo or its Spanish counterpart is said to be extremely polite and respectful. “It can do very little positive good in this”? History seems to disagree. For a traditionalist, as opposed to a conservative, what must be permanent are the moral values, and the political values can be flexible and the political institutions must serve the purpose to preserve the moral values, not the other way around.

Needless to say, the flexibility on moral values has cost conservatives a lot, besides the well-known political defeats. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn once said, “the urban conservative…is nothing but an inhibited ‘progressive’.” From Lawrence v. Texas to the eventual legalization of non-heterosexual marriage, one sees this pattern, especially from the opinions of the conservative judges, such as this opinion from Clarence Thomas on Lawrence v. Texas, “Although he agreed with Scalia’s dissent for the most part, Thomas felt obliged to write separately to point out that the law was ‘silly’ and should be repealed”.

Is this law really “silly”? One would wonder why CDC stopped publishing data about AIDS back in the years of Obama administration. The progressives are convinced missionaries of their progressive previsions, while conservatives are half-hearted followers of social traditions.In reality, I really do not think any Old Whig could tell others to obey the traditional political values when they themselves were the revolutionaries who destroyed the legitimate ancient institution via the “Glorious” Revolution. Those “eternal” Angloes who boast about Magna Carta never pay any tribute to Alcuin of York: so much respect for tradition! So it is not really surprising that conservatives are just Fabian progressives – progressives with a 10 year jet lag.

Thus, it is not difficult to understand why conservatism lacks real content and has no actual proposal. The conservatives today are more radical than the Radicals back in the 19th century. Paul Joseph Watson, “the defender of gay rights and women rights against bigotry”, once said, “conservatism is the new counter-culture!” By that I guess he means it is the new urban fashion among spoiled middle class kids. Maybe in 10 years, Kanye West will become the new William F. Buckley Jr. yelling “Stop!” in his hip-hop songs.

Why am I not a conservative? Because conservatism is insufficient for the mission of restoration and regeneration: there is little to “conserve” in modernity and postmodernity (or, “neo-modernity”). In an era of utter insanity, reaction is the only way to preserve one’s moral conscience.

[dailynewswebsite]

Fox News viewers write about ‘BLM’ the same way CNN viewers write about ‘KKK’

Speaking politics more and more looks as if an train in speaking previous each other. GeorgePeters/Getty Photographs

It’s no secret that U.S. politics has develop into extremely polarized.

Even so, there are in all probability few dwelling People who ever witnessed something that fairly compares with this fall’s first presidential debate.

Was it actually the case that the nation might do no higher than a verbal meals battle, with two candidates hurling fourth-grade insults and speaking previous one another?

To us, the discordant debate was only one extra symptom of the nation’s fraying civic discourse, which, in a latest research, we have been capable of present extends to the phrases we use to speak about politics.

Earlier this 12 months, we began establishing a knowledge set that consists of the entire viewer feedback on YouTube movies posted by 4 tv networks – MSNBC, CNN, Fox Information and One America Information Community – that focus on slices of the political spectrum. Collectively, the info set accommodates over 85 million feedback on over 200,000 movies from 6.5 million viewers since 2014.

We studied whether or not there are distinct variants of English written within the feedback sections, akin to the excellence between British English and American English.

Utilizing machine studying strategies, we discovered these permutations do exist. Furthermore, we will rank them by way of the “left-ness” and the “right-ness.” To one of the best of our information, that is the primary empirical demonstration of quantifiable linguistic variations in information audiences.

Our second discovering, nonetheless, was much more sudden.

Our machine studying translation system discovered that phrases with vastly totally different meanings, like “KKK” and “BLM,” have been utilized in the very same contexts relying on the YouTube channel being analyzed.

The corporate a phrase retains

When translating two totally different languages – say, Spanish and English – automated translation methods like Google Translate start with a big coaching set of texts in each languages. The system then applies machine studying strategies to develop into higher at translating.

Over time, this know-how has develop into more and more correct, thanks to 2 key insights.

The primary dates again to the 1950s, when linguist John Rupert Firth got here up with the aphorism “You shall know a phrase by the corporate it retains.”

To fashionable machine translation methods, the “firm” a phrase retains is its “context,” or the phrases surrounding it. For instance, the English phrase “grape” happens in contexts resembling “grape juice” and “grape vine,” whereas the equal phrase in Spanish, uva, happens in the identical contexts – jugo de uva, vid de uva – in Spanish sentences.

The second necessary discovery got here reasonably just lately. A 2013 research discovered a method to determine – and thereby hyperlink – a phrase’s context in a single language to its context in one other. Fashionable machine translation relies upon closely on this course of.

What we now have achieved is to make use of this kind of translation in a completely new approach: to translate English to English.

When ‘Trumptards’ develop into ‘snowflakes’

That will sound weird. Why translate English to English?

Effectively, think about American English and British English. Many phrases are the identical in each languages. But there will be refined variations. As an illustration, “residence” in American English could translate into “flat” in British English.

For the needs of our research, we labeled the language utilized in every community’s remark part “MSNBC-English,” “CNN-English,” “Fox-English” and “OneAmerica-English.” After analyzing the feedback, our translation algorithms uncovered two totally different patterns of “misaligned phrases” – phrases that aren’t equivalent throughout the remark sections however are utilized in the identical contexts.

One sort was much like “flat” and “residence,” within the sense that each are describing ostensibly the identical factor. Nonetheless, the phrase pairs we uncovered have totally different intonations. For instance, we discovered that what one neighborhood calls “Pelosi,” the opposite one calls “Pelousy”; and “Trump” in a single news-language interprets into “Drumpf” in one other.

A second – and deeper – type of misalignment occurred when the 2 phrases refer to 2 basically various things.

For instance, we discovered that in CNN-English, “KKK” – the abbreviation for the Ku Klux Klan – is translated by our algorithm to “BLM” – shorthand for Black Lives Matter – in Fox-English. The algorithm is mainly discovering that the feedback made by one neighborhood about KKK are very very like the feedback made by the opposite about BLM. Whereas the assumption methods of the KKK and BLM are about as totally different as will be, relying on the remark part, they appear to every signify one thing equally ominous and threatening.

CNN-English and Fox-English usually are not the one two languages displaying these kinds of misalignments. The conservative finish of the spectrum itself breaks into two languages. For instance, “masks” in Fox-English interprets to “muzzle” in OneAmerica-English, reflecting the differing attitudes throughout these subcommunities.

There appears to be a mirrorlike duality at play. “Conservatism” turns into “liberalism,” “pink” is translated to “blue,” whereas “Cooper” is transformed into “Hannity.”

There’s additionally no lack of what can solely be referred to as infantile name-calling.

“Trumptards” in CNN-English interprets to “snowflakes” in Fox-English; “Trumpty” in CNN-English interprets to “Obummer” in Fox-English; and “republicunts” in CNN-English interprets to “democraps” in Fox-English.

Uncharted territory

Linguists have lengthy emphasised how efficient communication amongst individuals with totally different beliefs requires frequent floor. Our findings present that the way in which we speak about political points is turning into extra divergent; relying on who’s writing, a typical phrase will be imbued with a completely totally different which means.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

We marvel: How far are we from the purpose of no return when these linguistic variations start to erode the frequent floor wanted for productive communication?

Have echo chambers on social media exacerbated political polarization to the purpose the place these linguistic misalignments have develop into ingrained in political discourse?

When will “democracy” in a single language variant cease translating into “democracy” within the different?

The authors don’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or group that will profit from this text, and have disclosed no related affiliations past their tutorial appointment.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/fox-news-viewers-write-about-blm-the-same-way-cnn-viewers-write-about-kkk/ via https://growthnews.in

[everydayantisemitism]

With "hundreds" of fans performing Nazi salutes, it's time to take firm action against antisemitism in European football

#EverydayAntisemitism

The far-right has long seen European football as a recruiting ground. In Britain, informants and even players have claimed that neo-Nazi groups often infiltrated groups of football fans. Similarly, fears have previously been raised about neo-Nazi elements establishing themselves in various countries, including Germany, Spain, and a myriad of other European countries.

These troubling links between the politics of the far- right and European football should cause us to pause and reflect on the “Jewish” character that many European football clubs have assumed in their rivalries. Famously, Tottenham Hotspur in the Premier League has been known as the “Yid Army” for decades. Whilst Tottenham has always had a significant Jewish supporter base, the epithet “Yid” is used both by non-Jewish supporters, and by non-Jewish supporters of opposing teams, who often use it as an insult.

Opposition to the use of the term is often dismissed as over-sensitivity. Many Tottenham Hotspur fans view the term as affectionate, and opponents often see derogatory use of it as solely attached to the club, with antisemitic intent absent. Yet, many matches between Tottenham and other London clubs will be marked by hissing noises from the stands – an attempt to mimic the sound of the gas chambers, as well as multiple puerile chants clearly targeting Jews. The extent of these chants is well documented, examples can be read about here and here. This antisemitism has even previously escalated into a stabbing.

Several recent incidents on the continent illustrate just how deeply ingrained this antisemitism has become in what is referred to by its fans as the “beautiful game”. Last week, Lazio fans plastered images of Anne Frank in a Roma jersey around the stadium that the two rivals share, and the BBC reports that antisemitic slogans such as “Roma fans are Jews” were also found in the stadium. Whilst Roma is not a club that has a reputation as an ostensibly “Jewish” team, like Spurs and Ajax are, it does have a large Jewish following, something almost certainly not lost on many Lazio fans, who have previously used the Holocaust to taunt their rivals before; in 1998, Lazio fans flew a banner reading “Auschwitz is Your Homeland. The Ovens are Your Homes”. The Italian Football Federation have announced that a hearing is to be held, which Lazio representatives will have to attend.

The reaction to the Anne Frank stickers was fierce, but time will tell if there is any bite behind the bark. Sergio Mattarella, Italy’s President, called the stickers “inhumane”, and “an insult and a threat”. Anxious to salvage the club’s reputation, Lazio President Claudio Lotito visited a local Synagogue, yet a local news source claims that a recording shows him mocking the visit, which he allegedly treated as a mere charade.

One initiative taken that was taken following these disgraceful scenes was that Lazio appeared in t-shirts bearing Anne Frank’s face to display their opposition to the Antisemitism of their fans. Across Serie A, extracts from Anne Frank’s diary and Primo Levi’s “If This Is A Man” were read at matches, followed by a minute of applause. Yet across Serie A, sections of fans ignored the displays, or worse. Hundreds of Juventus fans allegedly turned their backs and sang the Italian National Anthem. Worse still, 500 Lazio fans outside the Stadium sang Nazi songs and performed Nazi salutes during the ceremony. Crotone fans also reportedly sang their club’s songs as the reading was taking place. Many of the fans taking part in these despicable displays are thought to be “ultras”, a word used for football hooligans in Italy.

There are growing calls to permanently ban those involved with such displays of antisemitism. The police have already identified 16 individuals suspected of being involved with the Lazio incidents.

These events could easily lead one to the impression that efforts to combat antisemitism in football is futile. The response – involving police investigations, a genuine effort to increase awareness, widespread, unequivocal condemnation from political and sporting leaders, and attempts to build bridges with the Jewish community – was thorough and generally appeared to be carried out in good faith. Yet if this is followed up with prosecutions and stadium bans, the authorities will be in a position to demonstrate the antisemitism in football is completely unacceptable and will meet strict sanctions, something which is yet to be achieved on a widespread basis in London derbies involving Tottenham. In order to seriously tackle this problem, football fans need to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that racism and antisemitism are still disturbingly common in Europe. The language of antisemitism does not stand in isolation, but is a continuation of the antisemitism prevalent in society at large. Until this is recognised, and perpetrators are consistently identified and sanctioned, antisemitism will always enjoy a safe refuge in the hearts of European societies – their national sport.

English football once had a far more pronounced problem with racism, far- right extremism and hooliganism. Groups such as the National Front determinedly sought to recruit football fans, producing a magazine, The Bulldog, which devoted pages to covering the sport. The Bulldog was freely distributed in many football stadia in the country. After the Heysel football tragedy, a crowd crush in Belgium at a match between Liverpool and Juventus, leaflets for the far-right British National Party were found in the terraces, according to Christos Kassimeris, a prominent academic writing on racism in football.. Many of these activities seem to coincide with the decline of the far-right as a political force following the advent of the Thatcher government, as many of its target supporters were drawn towards mainstream conservatism, which had been repackaged to have a greater appeal to sections of the white working class. The Bulldog was founded in 1981 and the Heysel tragedy was in 1985. Senior National Front figures such as Martin Wingfield and Martin Webster both publicly stated that various factions of the National Front targeted football fans in their recruitment according to Anthony King in The European Ritual. Christos Kassimeris and others have suggested that the decline in political support for the National Front caused them to increase their activities, dropping previous pretence of having a broad economic program, and instead focusing on populism capitalising on racist sentiment.

Whilst in Britain, huge progress has been made in reducing racism and far-right activity in football grounds, 50% of match-goers witnessed racism since 2010, down from 61% between 2000 and 2009, and 67% between 1990 and 1999. Football fans can face criminal sanction in the UK under several statutes.: Iindividual racist expressions can be charged under the Public Order Act 1986 for using “obscene or foul language at football grounds”. Repeated racist chanting, but only by grounds of supporters, became a criminal offence under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act. It was only with the passage of the Football (Crime and Disorder) Act 1999 that individuals were caught under a specific offence, but only if they repeatedly chanted racist slurs. The changes in the criminal law, though not perfect, have led to a decline in overt racism in English football. Concurrently, efforts within football have made a clear difference. The Kick It Out campaign was born out of cooperation between groups including the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) and the Football Supporters Association (FSA). The Kick It Out initiative established a set of guidelines, including preventing the circulation of far- right materials in stadia. Whilst some far-right material has been distributed in the last 20 years, and racist chanting still happens, both are in a clear decline. All of these measures, however, require good-will from prosecutors, clubs and the majority of fans, to have serious impact. Increased fines for clubs, bans for players and supporters, and perhaps most potently, point deductions, can help create incentives to stamp out overt displays of racism. If, however, we are presented with the reality of extremists once again targeting football fans, bans of those who are known to be associated with far right groups outside of football may be prudent. The fact that 500 Lazio fans congregated outside the ground to perform Nazi salutes and chant Nazi slogans strongly suggests that these individuals had already previously been banned for their behaviour, but in order to ensure they are not able to poison the wider footballing environment, measures such as those often taken in the UK – such as banning them from being within a certain distance of a football ground within a certain time period of a match – would go a long way, as would seeking an understanding from bars popular with supporters that they will be refused entry, something currently achieved with police cooperation from bars in towns with trouble-prone nightlife.

  Only time will tell whether there is any serious prospect of reducing the influence of the apparent deeply ingrained antisemitism from, at least, hundreds of Italian football fans. However, in the UK, where Tottenham supporters’ groups stubbornly refuse to recognise the antisemitism of their use of the word “yid”, and where there are frequent displays of virulent antisemitism from opposition fans, there are also lessons to be learned. Where one group of fans uses this slur “in appreciation”, shortly after, outright antisemitic abuse comes as a reaction. The actions of those who engage in outright antisemitic abuse at football matches is obviously totally unacceptable. However, the fact that football fans abuse their own clubs’ reputations by using these epithets as a badge of honour has to be recognised as something that is taking the high amounts of emotion that are present at sporting events, and allowing this to be dumped on Jews by opposing fans. The result is a culture that is still, despite all the progress in cleaning up European, and particularly British, football since the “bad old days”, still can be fundamentally unwelcoming to Jews, where sntisemitism goes largely unpunished.”

[oswald-hanciles-posts]

THE OSWALD HANCILES COLUMN (July 5th 2019)

THE OSWALD HANCILES COLUMN (July 5th 2019)

Follow this link to join my WhatsApp group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8ZCnQiqUFQJ4NxfEttj1X

Part 1

The SLAVE SHIP-FREEDOM SHIP-Science/Technology/Philosophy forum is a new subgroup of the SLAVE SHIP-FREEDOM SHIP Movement.  

The overall purpose of the SLAVE SHIP-FREEDOM SHIP Movement has been presented to you.  I now present the Rationale of this subgroup.

Part of the reasons why the Atlantic Slave Trade could have been possible, and could've lasted for over three hundred years was the relative scientific and technological backwardness of the Negroid peoples in the tropical rainforests regions of Africa that were enslaved.

Largely, in their religions, cultures and traditions, their mythologies, songs and dances... the Negroid peoples in pre-Atlantic Slave Trade Africa had stifled, or, discouraged, that Discipline of Curiosity which would engender science.  Thus, the Tyrants of Conformity would reign supreme; superstition, and conservatism would hold sway in nearly all Negroid societies. For centuries, Negroid peoples generally stifled their own ingenuity in science and technology, and were quite willing to be consumers of the products and ideas from Europe - so, they captured and sold into slavery their fellow Africans.  That did not mean the complete absence of science and technology in pre-Atlantic Slave Africa, please; but whatever glimmers of science and technology existed in the tropical rainforest’s regions of Africa from which the slaves were yanked from...  was not robust enough. Over two centuries after the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade, very little has changed in the mentalities of nearly all Africans in countries carved for them by European colonialists. Modernity in African societies have been just a gloss. The dearth of scientists and competitive scientific institutions generally in Africa; the aversion to science in the mindsets of most Africans; the pathetic and shameless readiness to be avid consumers of products and ideas from the West, and China... would inexorably  lead to  nightmarish scenarios  as near-Armageddon is being predicted for Africa by leading scientists and credible scientific institutions when man-made Climate Change gains momentum.  The emerging realities of Climate Change makes it imperative for a paradigm shift by Africans as regards science and technology; the demand for dramatic increase in investments in science and technology by governments and the private sector in Africa must be given urgency; there must be intense, imaginative, and relentless popularization of science and technology in Africa.  

The aforementioned goals cannot be achieved if a philosophical approach to science and technology is not unleashed and inculcated into Africans.   The mental blocks of superstition, conservatism, and inferiority complex must be shoved aside.  There must be 'war' fought against those religious thinking, political and economic and sociological approaches that inhibit the growth of a science-oriented society in Africa.  

The general tepid response by most of Africa's leadership to the crescendo of global   alarms about Climate Change today is largely because of the subconscious disdain by even Africa's educated elite to science and technology; and the ingrained belief by Africa's elite that science and technology are really the exclusive realm of the Caucasian, and now, the Asiatic races.

 Africans can best go into necessary Green Preventative War Mode as man-made Climate Change gains momentum when Africans who understand science, or support scientific approaches to issues... come to the fore; are significantly empowered.

The Climate Change emergency in Africa is integral with the science and technology emergency.  My vision is that we transform the gloom and doom being predicted for Africa into a GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY... A RENAISSANCE; A SURGE IN INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH.

I will expound more on this later.  

 Spread this word widely and intensely.  

Spread the word not only to elders, or scientists, or intellectuals; or not only to youth, but, spread the word to even children.

Spread the word all over Africa - every country in Africa; every micro-society in Africa.

Spread the word to Africans and Negroid people on all continents.    

 I pause,

Oswald Hanciles, The Guru

July 5, 2019

12:28 hours in Freetown, Sierra Leone

   ·         Hopefully you will send this piece to your Igbo friends!

That:

It is not gone unnoticed that in their desperation for power in Nigeria and their notorious tribalistic mentality that led to the assassination of Hausa-Fulani Army officers and their attempt to wipe out the Nigerian Muslim political elite( Amdou Bello, Tafawa Bellewa etc)that led to the counter coup and the subsequent civil war of Igbos vs the rest of Nigeria and all  the destruction of lives and property was solely their responsibility!

If they chose to continue fanning the same ethnic and religious hatred towards Northern Muslims, before God and man ,they will pay a bitter price that will eventually Annihilate them in the face of planet earth.

In my humble advice, taking into consideration that they are Africans first and foremost, one would hope they learn to live in peaceful co-existence with their fellow Africans, for the fact that, been together/ sharing the God given land of the African continent, Africa has always been  for all of us( black race)  to live in peace and harmony, it has always been like that prior to European colonisation. The 1889 Berlin conference that created these mini states should be totally eliminated in our mind set as nothing but a tragedy and we should reverse it and not call for more divisions, it is possible for us to live despite the differences in the foreign religion that was impose on us.

 Africa and Africans are moving ahead with total unity of the African continent and Africans are not interest in tribal mini states which can hardly survive in a Global world.

African people should have the right to move freely in the African continent,  call home in any part of Africa where they lay their hat and fend for themselves.

 There is no place in Africa for a Rwanda style carnage, those who pursue such agenda will be isolated and exterminated like a bad Cancer!

Viva Africa

I.Barrie

UK

☝🏾Posted by I. Barrie in Sierra Leone Think Tank forum

 I. Barrie:

Are you Nigerian?

Even if you are Nigerian, what are your sources on Nigeria's history?

Who told you my source is an "Igbo friend"?

Can you trawl up information from the internet, and seek credible information from Nigerians with integrity, and scholars on Nigeria... on the history of Nigeria (especially 1966 to 1970), and the socio-economic and science/technology dynamics of Nigeria today? Be dispassionate with your analysis.

For the records: I hope Nigeria will stay united.  I hope the disproportionate natural resources of Nigeria, and its impressive human resources, can be better harnessed to surge Nigeria forward like China or South Korea - and for Nigeria

to become the pride of the Negroid race on planet earth.  

Distortion of history, and contortion of political realities to score political points... triggered a genocidal war in Nigeria in the 1960s; and this history risk being repeated. Today!!

 For those Africans  - especially in West Africa  - who are cocooned in countries carved for them by European white  supremacists in the Conference of Berlin in 1884/1885, be reminded of this African saying: "One does not remained unconcerned while your neighbour's house is on fire". Maybe, that could be why in the 1990s the Federal Republic of Nigeria expended billions of dollars, and lost thousands of lives of its soldiers, to extinguish the fires of wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone.  

Closed-minded West Africans... Sierra Leoneans... should save themselves... by being resolute in understanding Nigeria, and helping to catalyze prevention of the ethnic war that Nigeria's nationalities appear to be stubbornly careening towards.

The vultures are hovering. ..

I am a fervent pan-Africanist.  Psychologically and spiritually, I am a "Nigerian". I refuse to acknowledge the limitations of the boundaries imposed on Negroid peoples in Africa by the white race.  Join me.

 I pause,

Oswald Hanciles, The Guru.  

July 5, 2019

06:54 hours in Freetown, Sierra Leone

[unspokenwords101]

Cultural and National Identity

“I am a Filipino born to freedom,

and I shall not rest until freedom

shall have been added unto my inheritance—

for myself and my children

and my children’s children—forever.”

Three hundred years of Spanish colonization, forty years of being under the control of the Americans, and another three years under Japanese occupation, we, Filipinos, lost our identity. And when one loses his identity, he cannot live freely. Knowing who you really are is the first step to becoming free. When we think about the Japanese people, innovation comes to mind. When we think about the Americans, what comes to mind is freedom. America is the land of opportunity where everyone is free to pursue their own dreams. But when we think about the Filipinos, I cannot think of a single word to describe us. Hopefully, it’s not the widespread corruption, poverty, or conflict in Mindanao that describes us. More than three hundred years of being under the control of other nations robbed us of our identity. Until now, we are still struggling to find that identity. Even our sense of nationalism is very shallow. Our Pinoy Pride is limited to Manny Pacquiao, beauty pageants, competitions (Weren’t you proud of El Gamma Penumbra?), and recognitions abroad. But when you think about it deeply, what does it really mean to be a Filipino?

We have become a copycat nation. It’s not because we lack originality, but because we lack identity in the first place. Our identity is somewhat in our colonial mentality because we have been told for more than three hundred years that we are an inferior race, that other nations’ products are better than ours. Colonial mentality has been deeply ingrained in our culture—from the products we patronize to how we do our work. When given a choice, we would choose an American product over a Filipino product. At work, a certification from a local body is nothing compared to a certification from a foreign firm. Big Filipino companies hire foreign consultants when there are also Filipino consultants who can probably offer the same advice. But honestly, it’s not our fault either. Most mainstream Filipino products, TV shows, and movies are made by those who settle for “pwwede na ‘yan” or mediocrity. Another thing about our Filipino culture. We keep on creating second-rate imitations of American or foreign products. Side by side with the original, which would you prefer to buy as a consumer?

Would you rather watch Gagamboy who has the same powers as Spider-man or the real thing? How about Lastikman which came out after the success of Spider-man? By the way, the plot of Lastikman was pretty much the same as the first Spider-man movie with Tobey Maguire. Most Filipinos live up to their “second-class” citizens stamp.

Don’t get me wrong. There are Filipinos who do amazing jobs. There are Filipino products, movies, and even services that are very much original and so much better than foreign products, movies, and services. The independent movies. The locally-made shoes from Marikina. Many Filipino products, services, and people are original and world-class. But, they are not mainstream. They do not get the attention they deserve because they get associated with the poor “Made in the Philippines” label—cheap, second-rate imitations. Most of the time, they get our attention and, more importantly, our support only when they get recognized abroad—another sad thing about our colonial mentality. Colonial mentality is also deeply ingrained in the Filipino youth. Most of the youth’s dreams are geared towards working overseas or in large foreign companies. Maybe our colonial mentality is simply an effect of falling so far behind in terms of culture, technology, or creativity. Maybe we patronize foreign products and services because we cannot do them yet. Maybe we need to learn from others’ best practices first before we create our own original versions or find our own way.

But, we are not in any way an inferior race. We are not second-class citizens.

Now, more than ever, we need to find our identity in order for us to progress together as a nation. In an increasingly connected and global world, we need to find our identity—an identity to unite us, an identity to differentiate ourselves from other nationalities, an identity to strengthen us in the face of global pressures, and an identity to contribute to globalization.

Maybe we do not value freedom (or make the most of our freedom) as much as the Americans do. For us, Independence Day seems like just another holiday. Maybe we are not as innovative as the Japanese. Maybe we are not as efficient as our Asian neighbors. But, what sets us, Filipinos, apart? I read a comment somewhere that Filipinos are overly dramatic. At first, I got offended. But then, I realized that there is some truth to it.

And maybe there’s also a bright side to it.

Maybe Filipinos are overly dramatic. But, it’s because we have a big heart. Remember our #puso campaign during the FIBA games? We were so close to beating the giants like Argentina and Croatia with just the sheer amount of heart of our players. They played with a lot of desire. We like to have a deep, emotional reason for everything we do. We like everything we do to be meaningful, to be based on love, to be based on our values. And maybe that love, together with our ideals and values, is our identity. We are defined by our immense capacity to love, conservatism, respect, humility, and resiliency. We are the only nation with a word for collective effort towards a single goal, even if most of those who exert effort do not benefit at all—bayanihan. Also, there must be a reason why Jose Rizal is our national hero, not Andres Bonifacio. Maybe it’s because of his ideals.

Unfortunately, in this day and age where progress is measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate, production, and consumption, our identity seems impractical. After all, love, conservatism, respect, humility, and resiliency are not really helpful in producing a good or a service. Therefore, they are not helpful to achieving a higher GDP growth rate. We discount our identity because our values and ideals cannot feed an empty stomach. Worse, we are totally forgetting our identity because of social pressures, widespread poverty and corruption, hopelessness, and globalization. My point is, in the face of poverty, social pressures, getting ahead, and globalization, it’s easier to compromise than to exert a tremendous (unrealistic and impractical) amount of effort to uphold our values and ideals. Sadly, now is the time we need our identity the most, yet now is the time we are losing it.

Our country is an archipelago of 7,107 islands and our nation has as many dialects. No, not really. But, we are a diverse nation. We have our manileños, cebuanos, kapampangans, bisaya, ilocanos, ilonggos, and so on. Each group has its own characteristics, language, and even stereotypes. Even our Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) seem to have characteristics of their own. Yet, no matter how diverse we are, we are united in our ideals and old-fashioned values. These ideals and values are the things we share in common.

The real challenge for us, Filipinos, is to remain true to our identity in this fast-paced world full of compromises. We also need to go back to our values and ideals and integrate our identity in our daily lives once again. And we need to do it together. We need to be united in hoping for our country. We need to be united in making individual sacrifices for our country. Collectively, our sacrifices will go a long way. We need to be united in upholding our values. We need to be united showing our bayanihan spirit once again.

One of my favorite scenes in the first Avengers movie is when Captain America asked Agent Phil Coulson what he thought about his costume:

Captain America: The uniform? Aren't the stars and stripes a little old-fashioned?

Agent Phil Coulson: With everything that's happening, the things that are about to come to light, people might just need a little old-fashioned.

In this age of globalization, loss of culture and identity, gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, and excessive consumerism, the world needs a little old-fashioned. And maybe this is a chance for us, Filipinos, to share with the world our old-fashioned ideals and values. This is a chance for us to integrate our identity in our products, our services, the way we do our work, the way we do business, and the way we interact and deal with other nationalities (and even with our fellow Filipinos). In everything we do, we can show our genuine love, respect for others, and our no-one-left-behind bayanihan spirit. In every product we make, we don’t need a Philippine flag stamped or a “Made in the Philippines” label to make it nationalistic or patriotic. We just need to pour our hearts out in every product we create.

Our identity—our ideals and values—is our greatest contribution to globalization. We have inspired the world many times before especially through our resilience. It’s time to inspire them again with our old-fashioned values. Apparently, our being overly dramatic in everything we do makes us original. It is our passion that makes us unique. And maybe that will help us come up with original products—not copycat ones.

And maybe, just maybe, the world needs just that.