Your belief in the primacy of language in determining thought isn't original - it's been repeated and advocated for with extreme enthusiasm. You are not alone in accepting the idea uncritically.

With regards to science, here's an example, one of many of demonstrating that under conditions of scientific rigor, assertions based on this belief don't hold up to scrutiny. If you read the wikipedia page I linked you critically, I think you will find the general consensus of peer-reviewed studies is as I've described. Further, when it comes to science, evidence against an idea is much more valuable than evidence 'for' - this is related to the human cognition problem of confirmation bias, and the power of falsification to winnow valuable insight from bullshit.

I feel I've sufficiently justified my critiques of your neologisms, I don't feel the need to elaborate further. It's enough for me that the blindspot in your use of vision metaphors has been brought to your attention.

While I don't think your language design has practical application, I do think the questions you've raised about the extensive reliance of ability-based metaphors to communicate ideas would make for an interesting literary exercise.

I don't have much time to discuss this further, but I would ask if you choose to continue to advocate for these ideas, that you do it somewhere other than anarchism.

I believe as long as we are okay with words like enlighted, insight, outlook, then making words from these knots is fine. It is fine to challenge light as a symbol of knowledge, but then it isn’t about challenging the new word, but challenging submerged structures.

To be clear, 'we' are okay with these words because the scientific consensus is that a word's etymology doesn't have a strong relationship to the thought it represents. People who use 'enlighted,' 'insight,' or 'outlook' unless they're poets or wordsmiths aren't consciously choosing to use vision-based metaphors for knowledge. The prevalence of this metaphor in language is the result of a longstanding historical bias against the blind, but the existence of the words aren't the primary cause of this bias, they are a symptom. If we could remove social biases against blindness, these words might possibly disappear but more likely remain as linguistic artifacts of a less empathetic time because their actual effect on how we think about blind people is negligible.

The word radical comes from the Latin radix, meaning root. Thus the saying 'being radical is grasping from the root' - treating society's problems by disrooting their source rather than treating the problem's symptoms. The word etymology people use today is a symptom of the way people historically thought when the words were invented. Changing the way people think now is much more effectively done by rational argument and demonstrating the effectiveness of new ideas.

My thesis is that because people pay so little attention to word etymology in the process of communicating thought, the entire exercise in thought shaping through extensive use of neologism has little actual benefit. My thesis is supported by the existing research on language relativity. I think your project primarily serves to make the speaker more alien to any outside audience and increases the mental effort required in speaking and writing.

You have repeatedly asserted your belief as fact when it is contradicted by science on the subject: the etymology of words have a powerful influence on the thoughts of casual speakers who use them. Based on your belief, I find your lack of interest in supporting heliocentrism disappointing. I find your casual dismissal of blind people in your brave new words alarming and abhorrent. Based on your statements, you do believe it will steer society's attention away from their value as people, and yet chose to expand and reinforce the existing linguistic bias you believe is harmful to them.

It’s as absurd as if fascists, democratic socialists and tankies united under a hierarchist ideology.

There are strains of ostensibly 'anarchist' movements that attempt to enter the anarchist umbrella, and through consensus among anarchist movements have been rejected. If the umbrella was not important there would not be an incentive for entryists to try and usurp it. De-prioritizing the value of the umbrella leaves it vulnerable to future entryism. Fascists in particular love to copy anarchist aesthetics, and opposing this requires vigilance.

And as absurd as your example may seem on the surface, it is not unusual in practice. All three are engaged an a morbid game for control for the levers power within a state. In this high stakes contest, the people cannot be said to be honestly represented by any party - they are the chips the players throw into the pot. Anarchism seeks to stop the game, replace it with one that isn't predicated on casually discarding human lives. Like rival gamblers towards an outsider who has come to upend the card table, the players are more likely to unite in opposition to anarchists than to concede their justice.

I like to relight propaganda to sightsteer. To take attention with the goal of changing attitude. This is a word that makes it much more obvious how society steers our sight through advertisements, media and politicians, while at the same time strengthen us to use sightsteer ourselves through chalking, singing and storytelling for instance.

If you're not currently aware, you may want to read up on the concept of Linguistic Relativity. This is a concept that has been explored by many anarchist adjacent authors including George Orwell, Suzette Haden Elgin, and Sonja Lang.

While there may be some correlation between the structure of language and thought, the scientific consensus is that relationship is not strong. Old words primarily carry their modern connotations, and thus any malformed word can be re-purposed by consistent transformative usage. People rarely think of breakfast as the breaking of a fast, for example. More importantly, people who use the word 'sunrise' are not more likely to view the word as flat, or the center of the solar system -- as its early usage and etymology implies.

Meanwhile new words of the type you are suggesting are subject to increased scrutiny, based on the implied acceptance of the framing that language determines thought. For example your new vocabulary like 'relight' and 'sightsteer' could be seen as linguistically re-enforcing existing negative biases against blind people or worse intentionally privileging people with sight as more cognitively capable.

To be clear, I am saying that we as anarchists generally should focus on activities that are likely to further our goals, the ultimate goal being a more just society that collectively respects the importance each of its members' individuality. I think building alternate vocabularies and languages are less effective means of achieving those goals. Despite that, I also believe your experiments with vocabulary are charming, and if you can absorb my criticism and still find it a worthwhile activity, I hope you continue.

"anarhcism is a heavily painted term."

It's important to pay attention when using the passive voice like this, that the actor of the verb is elided from the sentence. If you can correctly identify who is primarily responsible for 'painting' the term, you also have an explanation for why many anarchists would find your proposal as a kind of surrender, a step back, and concession to or complicity with enemies of humanity.

Historically, a lot of ideas, concepts, and movements have been renamed in order to avoid the kind of 'negative aura' you're talking about. For example, many terms considered today as offensive ableist language began as medical terms used in clinical settings several hundred years ago. Earlier terms were appropriated as slurs, and new terms were developed to replace them in a condescending manner but with the express intention of compassion. Then over time those new terms also became slurs, and the process began again. This process has been called by some the 'Euphemism Treadmill' because it doesn't stop. There is no final term that remains untainted by a 'negative aura' because the negative aura doesn't come from the term itself, but the society in which the term is used in.

The related concept of 'rebranding' is also popular in the corporate world, for example when the scandalous military contractor Blackwater rebranded to Xe, to Academi, and then to Constellis. The rebranding process requires a top-down effort which is unlikely to succeed among people with anarchist beliefs, and is usually done with the purpose of distancing the group from a significant scandal.

Anarchism as a movement is not without scandal, as with any umbrella political ideology. But it has consistently been on the right side of history, and people who proudly used 'anarchist' to identify themselves have been on the forefront of labor history, women's liberation, black power, and humanist thinking. You can't rebrand anarchism without stepping down from the shoulders of those giants who built our movement with their lives and deaths.

Anarchism is inseparable from the concept of choosing to use dysphemism over euphemism, and generally speaking plainly, truthfully, and without guile. While most of the world has moved on to using terms like 'public relations,' 'spin,' or 'fair and balanced reporting' for their self-advocacy, many anarchists embrace the old term 'propaganda' to describe their own activity. Anarchism is the opposition to what is destroying the world, and the willingness to use negatively loaded terms in a positive way is effective propaganda.

An instructive example is the history of movements and organizations fighting slavery, apartheid, discrimination, and for equal rights. Historically, these movement have had groups who accepted then-modern euphemisms for black people - for example the NAACP founded in 1909 or the UNCF in 1944, they are almost exclusively referred to by their acronyms today. There is a growing realization that conceding linguistically with the society you oppose is a form of collaboration with it.

A good counter-example is the Chicano Movement. 'Chicano' was once explicitly a racial slur, but Mexican-American leaders chose to re-appropriate the term as a positive identity. In collaboration with the Black Power movement, they fought against society's stigmatization of indigenous art, literature, and culture. They were so successful that the past associations of the term are no longer its primary association.

If you consider Zapatistas as a role model, consider this response by Subcomandante Marcos to a smear campaign by the Mexican government:

Yes, Marcos is gay. Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10pm, a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains.

You are welcome to self-identify as horizontalist here, but understand that you are not rebranding anarchism, only creating an offshoot identity that signals its willingness to co-exist with the society that structurally must suppress anarchists no matter what term they use to call themselves.

Two years ago, Lemmy.world tried a similar move with their MediaBiasFactCheck bot. It was soundly rejected by the community, and they finally relented after weeks of outcry. Why is Rimu putting us through this again?

Ow, my head hurts. What day is it?

I love Doctorow posting.

It's rewarding to see a humanist approach vindicated, even if it is accidentally. I've seen articles that celebrate snipers in African states who are hired to shoot and kill poachers to preserve local wildlife. With an alternative method of autonomy and support, I think Africa's problem also could be resolved without ending human life.