This happens to me pretty frequently.

I think is alright, language is a bridge and sometimes we feel more comfortable speaking our native language than others. But I don’t really mind speaking in English or Spanish with people I meet in Brazil. But the moment of realization that you are talking with another native speaker is always full of joy.

#feels-nice to speak with other bilingual or polyglots :)

Amen

Nice work Jacob :) I like your piece. I do get the feeling your photo-bashing is getting better with each iteration

This doesn’t have the right to be this entertaining!

Direct Action (doing) > Electoralism (asking for permission)

Remember, the whole point of social mobilization is to be able to use social force so people is able, more and more, to change their situation, to help them see they can change things if we organize and respect each other in solidarity. The issue with voting, is not the vote itself, that’s whatever. Is that all that effort helping putting a “new boss” in the old position, could have been put in working towards social organization.

Do remember to learn about politics, and why anarchist do what we do. Is not because of being a square, is because social organizations are the most effective way to deal with all those issues you see politicians go in circles and circles, and you just got really stigmatized about the beliefs that political participation is electoralism. It is not, political action is way more than that: is making water and food access a right, is helping people without a ceiling improve their living conditions, is about creating industry and fighting business, etc.

Now, if you feel uncomfortable with this idea, maybe you are more aligned with social democracy and those other kinds of socialism that ain’t really into the working with each-other thing, but in need of an elite of help you move through everyday bullshit. The same ones that put us in this precarious position to begin with. Organized anarchism is about helping and solidarity, federalism and autonomy, not dependence on bosses. We find problems, we deal with them.

It seems to be that your question is a misinterpretation of past philosophies and theologies. Believing in an afterlife isn’t even natural for human beings and you can check that out in the work of anthropologist who trace our ancestry to hunter gatherers. Most of them have a really straightforward relationship with death.

What you mean is the thinkers of civilizations, and that’s a topic that Lewis Mumford covered in his book The Myth of the Machine. That thinking in the afterlife and all those tools like spirits and gods were used along history for… Power. You can think of that like proto-science or just trying to make sense of the reality, but to assume that all smart people of the past believed in gods, spirits, “the little people” and the afterlife is to picture a really homogeneous (probably greek or egyptian) past of humanity.

I wouldn’t say “What’s wrong with us modern people?” since today I find really reasonable to be critical of one’s and other beliefs. Not for the sake of destroying it, but in search for better philosophical answers. If you say something exists, you better try to explain what it is and how did you conclude that it exists and, if possible, show some empirical evidence. Today we’ve got science that is to date our best shot at nailing some comprehension of our material realities, yet, it all exists in a socio-political context, so to assume that something is “scientific” and therefore “real” is to have things mixed.

I suggest you to check the history of philosophy, that work of Mumford that I find it to be a masterpiece in sociology that everyone should know, and if possible, maybe understand how serious thinkers think: some are believers, some are not, but a sure thing is that a conversation about the validity of some positions exists somewhere. Like Spinozas god or Descartes god, how magical thinking works, why we believe what we believe, etc.

This is really noice.

As an anarchist: I must agree.

Fuck it, from where I come from: people in agriculture get smacked just by existing or trying to build common cause with “let’s end hunger in the world”. I’m with you, salutations from America Latina ! And let’s make those fuckers get what they deserve.

Oh that’s one of the fat ones. But not all of 'em, keep on searching and you’ll eventually find the (highly disgusting) answers!

ty c:

Here from the South America: Now, Imagine Who Funds The US

Man, capitalism is just fucking wild, isn’t it?

I always thought that artificial languages always needed more stickiness. I learned some Esperanto, but it is easily forgotten if there is no need to use it.

Solarpunk, like many Libertarian Socialist paradigms, really shines with diversity, so languages focused on Solarpunk sound quite weird, like having homogeneous aesthetics. Usually, language changes, like the way Zapatistas talk in Spanish, pursue specific goals that can be done within a language rule set or some mixture between different languages like Spanglish (Spanish + English) or Portuñol (Portuguese + Spanish). The whole point is to be able to communicate a concept.

Now, like the examples you have shown, it seems easier to frame the “Solarpunk language” not as a language per se but as a dialect. Since some geographies share more common communication than between language speakers, it happens in English, Arab, Spanish, French, and Chinese… When you learn to speak those, there is always the question of whether you sound like a foreign person or a native from someplace.

Shit man, I feel this picture

Fellas, the FOSS team gets +1 c:

I want you to know that: I always check your post and I want to collaborate sharing academic texts and other sources. And I really appreciate your work so far :) Thanks for your determination friend

Caramba

I’m in love with this version !

o/