![](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/eb8782fc-b040-40ba-b0dc-89ca60a99122.webp)
![](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/d9a15e34-516b-4f18-a4c7-171aa9dc1e98.webp)
This is really noice.
This is really noice.
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.
Fellas, the FOSS team gets +1 c:
I’m in love with this version !
Man, I love Adam Something videos. Had to mod the shit out my Cityskylines playthroughts after learning about urbanism with him.
You inspired me to share this theme about Los Solidarios with my English-speaking friends at Lemmy. If you are an English anarchist, this may be a first; if you enjoy a piece of history, this is a song about the three friends that made a great change in the history of Spain fighting against Franco as the CNT/FAI. This song was created by a Spaniard who wanted to record the account as a song after the war, is the man in the OG video.
Original
Historia de tres amigos De la dulce libertad: Si se hicieron anarquistas, No fue por casualidad.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso y García Oliver Llamados Los Solidarios Que desprecian al Poder
Buscados y perseguidos Por el campo y la ciudad, Si acabaron en la cárcel, No fue por casualidad.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso y García Oliver: Tres hojas de trébol negro Contra el viento del Poder.
Siguiendo con su costumbre De burlar la Autoridad, Si cruzaron la frontera No fue por casualidad.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso y García Oliver: La negra sombra del Pueblo Contra el brillo del Poder.
Después de una temporada, Se volvieron para acá, Si temblaron los burgueses No fue por casualidad.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso y García Oliver: Tres balas negras de plomo Apuntando hacia el Poder
Translation
History of three friends Of sweet liberty: If they became anarchists, It was not by chance.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso and García Oliver Called the solidarity They despise power
Sought and persecuted By the countryside and the city, If they ended in jail, It was not by chance.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso and García Oliver: Three black clover leaves Against the wind of power.
Continuing with their custom To outwit of authority, If they crossed the border It was not by chance.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso and García Oliver: The Black Shadow of the People Against the brightness of power.
After a season, They came back here, If the bourgeois trembled It was not by chance.
Buenaventura Durruti Ascaso and García Oliver: Three lead black bullets Pointing to power
This song always inspire me to never lose sight on what’s important and never lose courage, even when the odds are against us. Hope it does the same for you all.
I’m with you in this one. The more I learn about internet privacy, the more I distance both.
ba dum tss
Found some niche communities with people who do really enjoy sharing some knowledge, artisans and artist. They have a communal spirit that makes my heart go warm.
You get it.
Is just a way to navigate the corporate landscape. Most of that is bullshit, just a suit, a happy face and some specific knowledge that helps you get an edge and you are done baby. If you’ve got a portfolio, even better.
I’ve got so many freelance jobs in my past this way. It is terrible, I agree. But most recruiters only care if the job is done, no matter who does it.
Then go vote by all means.
Just be clear about what you want to achieve. As far as I know, no matter who gets to the white house, Cop City in Atlanta is getting built, and USA alignment with Israel and its many interventions in the rest of the world hasn’t changed in decades. No matter who is the president.
If something is happening to change, it is thanks to people with conscience who organize to protest and riot. Hence, not asking for the politician to change is making things change.
In South America, there are many conversations about this topic, and as far as I’ve reflected, I don’t want Trump to get to the White House. But I’d rather keep working through direct action to make my community goals become reality, and many times, that happens by not asking but doing.
My goal is not for you to vote or not vote. It is to be reasonable on what you can achieve via voting and what requires more than that.
I think there is no reason to not lie at your resume while you are confident you can do the task. Most jobs out there are pretty BS anyway.
While I hope more people can bring their point of view to assist you in your decision-making, I will put my grain of salt. In times like these, I confess I choose anarchy, and a thinker of this position that covers the topic you are talking about is Enrico Malatesta in his text At The Café, which is free for everyone to read at The Anarchist Library.
The way I see it, like many anarchists, is that electoralism is part of the racket. But I understand why some people may see it as an essential part of politics. I’d rather keep working on those grassroots and direct democracy or consensus organizations that require our daily efforts than try to see who we’ll put in the decision-making seat and keep taking more power to the people.
To add to your nice post, I’ll share a poem by Xu Lizhi before he unfortunately decided leave this world, it is called “I Fall Asleep, Just Standing Like That” (here’s the source). I think it expresses why a world free from stress and anxiety is needed:
眼前的纸张微微发黄 The paper before my eyes fades yellow
我用钢笔在上面凿下深浅不一的黑 With a steel pen I chisel on it uneven black
里面盛满打工的词汇 Full of working words
车间,流水线,机台,上岗证,加班,薪水…… Workshop, assembly line, machine, work card, overtime, wages…
我被它们治得服服贴贴 They’ve trained me to become docile
我不会呐喊,不会反抗 Don’t know how to shout or rebel
不会控诉,不会埋怨 How to complain or denounce
只默默地承受着疲惫 Only how to silently suffer exhaustion
驻足时光之初 When I first set foot in this place
我只盼望每月十号那张灰色的薪资单 I hoped only for that grey pay slip on the tenth of each month
赐我以迟到的安慰 To grant me some belated solace
为此我必须磨去棱角,磨去语言 For this I had to grind away my corners, grind away my words
拒绝旷工,拒绝病假,拒绝事假 Refuse to skip work, refuse sick leave, refuse leave for private reasons
拒绝迟到,拒绝早退 Refuse to be late, refuse to leave early
流水线旁我站立如铁,双手如飞 By the assembly line I stood straight like iron, hands like flight,
多少白天,多少黑夜 How many days, how many nights
我就那样,站着入睡 Did I - just like that - standing fall asleep?
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.