Black history month has passed and gone. Pride month is in full effect. One wonders what marginalised group will be put on the chopping block, the next witch to be burned at the stake, the next symbolic month that celebrates their plight.

In Europe, the most discriminated group are the Roma people - also known as the "gypsies", but arguably, antisemitism is on the rise - largely thanks to Zionism, but I've also heard "the Jews run Hollywood" one too many times this year. I've sort of gotten re-woke, because I've also realised that I've failed one of my rhetorical heroes.

I watch Vaush (yes, I know - booo) and he recently had a video about using the pejorative "orc". If you check my comments, in various Ukranian communities, you'll see I've used that word a couple of times.

It speaks to a deeper issuer and a problem that is hard to focus on, simply because enemy mentality is on the rise, humanism is being subverted by naturalism, nationalist fascism is en vogue again. People are paying lip service to the honour system in a time of law and contracts.

I am a Norwegian. The first part of our constitution is weird, because it juxtaposes two things that could arguably be seen as opposed - since the former is traditionally associated with naturalism. "We hold that this country has it's values and morals in its Christian and humanist tradition."

I am a humanist, but in calling Russian conscripts "orcs", I abandoned this philosophy in a moment of catharsis. I have also been telling people to help Russians, that common Russians abroad should be empowered to oppose the Russian, nationalist regime. There's some cognitive dissonance in these stances.

I'm often drawn back to Martin Luther King when he spoke on non-violent protest. So many people flip on MLK when their violent revolutionary pops out of their gonads, when people with melanin content of the skin start to talk about Malcolm X and his attitude towards violent oppressors.

These people almost always forget Malcolm X's journey to Mecca and his change in philosophy upon returning to the US, but he was also assassinated shortly after, which means there is more media about Malcolm X before he went to Mecca than after.

But what he saw, despite rampant Islamophobia in the west, was all kinds of people praying and worshipping together, albeit not in the colours of the rainbow, but at the time it was something so diametrically opposed to what he had experienced in the US that it inspired and moved him deeply. One wonders what he could have said and done if his life wasn't cut short.

When MLK talked about non-violent protest, his stance was to not dehumanise your opponent, that the act of dehumanization makes you no better than your opponent, that you've intrinsically sacrificed your principles to fight the thing you might ultimately become.

MLK's rhetoric is still being taught in Norwegian schools, in both English and Norwegian language classes, studied for his powerful rhetoric. But I hope that his message and the philosophy of stoic humanism sets it's seed in the young mind, and I hope more people can see why dehumanization makes monsters of us all.

Thank you for reading.

If there's one phrase that has echoed in the back of my mind, it's that I have no family, and by that I mean no children or spouse - and I'm middle aged.

I have relatives of course, sisters, nieces, nephews and a grandma. Both my parents died some years ago, so there's no going home to them. My sister's are so busy with their lives, and one actively ignores me, largely because she's dealing with her own issues.

I'm not going to grandma's, because my crazy creationist cunt of an aunt will probably call me a communist atheist while she parrots Isreali propaganda. I'd rather be alone than face that, which is sad AF since grandma is selling the family house and this will be the last year we can spend Christmas there.

Add to that the fact I never really had a full relationship because I focused all my time developing skills, something that used to bring me joy and the promise of success, but now I sort of hate what I do and haven't been able to reach success. I've all but abandoned my dream and am deeply insecure about my future. In effect I have worked long and hard with nothing to show for it.

I have no feeling of belonging with my own countrymen even, and the foreigners are so self conscious that you instantly get pegged as "one of them", "the other", as they treat you as an inferior because they them selves have been made to feel inferior and feel the need to cope via toxicity. Can't turn around without being slapped with some social pressure or putdown. I don't feel like dealing with anyone.

This will be the second Christmas I spend alone and I don't really feel like reaching out. I feel like a burden, like someone who has to be catered to, facilitated, tolerated. My only want is an escape. Whether that means leaving the country, joining a cult, moving out into a cave, I don't know.

I just don't know how to deal. I can't really relate to anyone and I can't find anyone I can trust, or who I feel I can confide in. So I take to the internet, to completely random strangers for respite.

Tell me your stories of loneliness, wether ongoing or from the past, how you intend to deal with it or how you dealt with it.

"Anti-semitism" is a frightening word. It harkens back to imagery of leather boots, supremacy and the Holocaust. For years and years the word has meant one thing and one thing only: prejudice and hatred against Jews.

But, as should be apparent, Semites are not Jews, though Jews can be Semites, but not if they are converted Jews. Why? Because though "semite" is largely about linguistic history, it can be seen as a common denominator for several people groups, including among others Arabs and Asyrians. As always, it's about people who share a language tree, geographical history and cultural similarities, as defined by people groups.

Why then is it when we say anti-semitism, per definition, we mean persecution against the Jews? I've alluded to the answer in the first paragraph. The first time it was really used was by, you guessed it, pre-first world war Germans, as a more scientific and clinical term replacement for Jew hatred. Among the many battlefields, we find scorched earth even on Wikipedia, as the edit warriors have been vying for territorial control over paragraphs, because some of these warriors want anti-semitism to mean one thing and one thing only.

Etymology works like this: someone puts together some words, nevermind how aptly or even logically, and as it becomes popularized said definition gets written into stone. It doesn't matter how nonsensical the word or phrase is. Once it's common parlance, it's common parlance. Not only that, but since Semite is largely about language groups and not about people groups anymore, that word changes as well, as it's mostly used when discussing middle Eastern language trees. But, also, nationalists and authoritarians of the past have historically persecuted people for not using their ratified language, and the reason for that should be apparent to everyone. It's not just he who defines history who wins the war, but he who defines the language.

Which brings us to today. The word "anti-semitism" has been a favourite deflection word for the authoritarian right wing government of Israel, and if you don't like that definition, tough titty: political definitions are not defined by common parlance, no matter how much certain politically inclined people who play ball with moving goal posts would want them to. It's been used to deflect any sort of criticism against the Israeli government, as a politically form of saying "rumpel stiltskin". All your detractors sort of get Thanos snapped out of the conversation.

What defines words still isn't up to politicians though. It's still up to the people. So what if we say old, Nazi scientists don't get to define our words, and neither does nationalists with yamucka's. Let's say Semites is still a set of people groups with overlapping history. Let's say that it includes Arabs, Assyrians, Palestinians, etc, because there is still some cultural and historic overlap, much like with Germanics. Germanic language and history tree, started it's life in the Nordics, a tree that worked it's way down south. But it's so far back in the past that it also is largely used in language studies and language studies alone, as the cultural overlap has long since replaced with a cultural gentle nod instead.

As a quick aside, "islamophobia" is in a similar way abused by certain extremists Imam's and Mosques, who find the term equally politically advantageous, just like those crazy Christian denominations your aunty is apart of, that the family collectively treats as a propaganda spewing elephant in the room, as they too lay their persecution fetish on the dinner table. Does that mean that islamophobia isn't real, or that Christians don't get persecuted? Not at all. People generally have the capacity to be awful and it's best to call out prejudice, social paranoia and subverted political intentions wherever they may be found.

It just goes to show that when political interests take over scientific language and definitions, that it is almost always bullocks. The word "terrorist" for instance means absolutely nothing but "who is our enemy today", from a political perspective. The term is used by governments all across the world to justify curbing dissent while trying to avoid being defined as a persecutor, as well as justifying invasions to uphold the petroleum dollar.

Personally, whenever anyone says "anti-semite" to me, I'll be sure to remind them who technically are defined as Semites, and that the language being used to define "the one true heir to the land" is some old European, Crusader-ass bullshit that literally means nothing, discounts hundreds of years of social development and geopolitical changes and has the simple job of whitewashing everything Netenyahu and his cabinet of blood thirsty maniacs does.

I'd be pleased to know what Assyrians, Arabs and Jews think about this. Did I say anything wrong? None of us are above being wrong, and in the way you correct people will be pertinent to how that information gets spread, and also intrinsically how language is shaped. It's up to us then to form responsible, apt and correct language to dispell language being weaponized for political purpose.

As always; use your words and use them responsibly.

Thanks for reading.

Social media is one hell of a drug. It'd have you swallowing giant gummy worms whole at the back of a sip'n'strut. Oh sure, the catharsis is nice, but at some point you'll need to ask yourself "why are we like this?"

Lately I've been noticing how some comments make me want to exclaim "IT'S A TRAP!". Obvious, open and quite frankly kinda basic baiting, like some disgruntled parent at a PTA, smacking his chest with his bare hand, telling another parent "cash me outside bro how bout dat?"

Like okay, this one comment was doing a set up where the intention was to either get someone to A) depose Hamas or B) defend Hamas, with the intent of jumping down someone's throat.

Why are people like this, mommy? And why am I calling someone "mommy" on social media? Can't we just make homemade cookies like we used to do on rainy nights, and be happy? And why is daddy always drinking the unhappy juice? I think I probably already answered that question...

Mommy, I want McDonald's!!!

I know there's a bit of disconnect by me writing this on an actual social platform, but it's Beehaw - so it's cool.

Lately I've been getting away from Facebook again. I have friends and family on there who are sharing less than savory thoughts. Thoughts of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and even worse: the fettid stench of hatred. I went on there and decided to try and rationalize through status updates, but found myself becoming more frustrated, more angry myself.

I took a break from it the last couple of days and I feel better now. I've shared a couple of articles, but only articles of interests within tech and creativity. I felt like I'm landing a lil bit.

But now I made the mistake of accidentally pressing a notification on my phone... from Twitter (and no, I refuse to call if "X").

I was lead right to a post where some of my countrymen were snarling at a news article where some politicians were praising certain Palestinians who were fighting for their freedom from oppression and apartheid. The thread was full of videos from certain terrorist groups in Palestine unrelated to the actual people being praised, along with irrelevant subjects about battery manufacturing and green energy.

I'd just like to say that despite the crazy things my friends and family have said, even the crazy things I've said, does not have the same pure hatred that I read from that thread. I felt my anxiety bluster up as I mustered the gumption to reply, stating that I wondered why they were sharing videos of people who had suffered apartheid and persecution and blatantly ignoring what the state of Israel has been doing.

I'm now considering just deleting Twitter altogether, as I really don't use it that much. I used it only for a couple of choice accounts from good people who say wholesome things, but I've noticed that their updates don't show up anymore. I feel like Musk is monetising all the worst parts of human behaviour and that scares the ever loving crap out of me.

Say what you will about Facebook, and I'm very critical of Meta and Zuckerberg myself, but doesn't Zuckerberg seem a tad more... adjusted? Even though Facebook has been caught funneling people into extremist echo chambers I don't think I've ever seen anything as bad as what I'm seeing on Twitter right now.

I have friends and family who swear that social platforms in them selves is the source of the toxicity that is found on them, but as we can see on certain federated platforms (with strict CoC's of course) that isn't always the case.

Oh sure, we can talk about dark design patterns, micro dopamine feeding through doom scrolling and attention fishing notifications until the cows come home, but I think we all know that the internet - and by extension social platforms - is a big old mirror we hold up to ourselves.

It's like a reflection into our very minds and we don't like what we're seeing. We scream into the mirror at some imaginary antagonist, a sick and twisted being that stares back in disgust, but all we really are seeing is the reflection of ourselves.

Anyways, no point to all this. Just wanted to get that off my chest. I hope you are doing well and that you are treating yourself kindly.

Thanks for reading.

Speaking as a creative who also has gotten paid for creative work, I'm a bit flustered at how brazenly people just wax poetic about the need for copyright law, especially when the creator or artist them selves are never really considered in the first place.

It's not like yee olde piracy, which can even be ethical (like videogames being unpublished and almost erased from history), but a new form whereby small companies get to join large publishers in screwing over the standalone creator - except this time it isn't by way of predatory contracts, but by sidestepping the creator and farming data from the creator to recreate the same style and form, which could've taken years - even decades to develop.

There's also this idea that "all work is derivative anyways, nothing is original", but that sidesteps the points of having worked to form a style over nigh decades and making a living off it when someone can just come along and undo all that with a press of a button.

If you're libertarian and anarchist, be honest about that. Seems like there are a ton of tech bros who are libertarian and subversive about it to feel smort (the GPL is important btw). But at the end of the day the hidden agenda is clear: someone wants to benifit from somebody else's work without paying them and find the mental and emotional justification to do so. This is bad, because they then justify taking food out of somebody's mouth, which is par for the course in the current economic system.

It's just more proof in the pudding that the capitalist system doesn't work and will always screw the labourer in some way. It's quite possible that only the most famous of artists will be making money directly off their work in the future, similarly to musicians.

As an aside, Jay-Z and Taylor Swift complaining about not getting enough money from Spotify is tone-deaf, because they know they get the bulk of that money anyways, even the money of some account that only plays the same small bands all the time, because of the payout model of Spotify. So the big ones will always, always be more "legitimate" than small artists and in that case they've probably already paid writers and such, but maybe not.. looking at you, Jay-Z.

If the copyright cases get overwritten by the letigous lot known as corporate lawyers and they manage to finger holes into legislation that benifits both IP farmers and corporate interests, by way of models that train AI to be "far enough" away from the source material, we might see a lot of people loose their livelihoods.

Make it make sense, Beehaw =(