Noa

wannabe leftist without a community

anarcho-communist: Hierarchy allows for the dissolution of accountability, so hierarchies need to be dissolved.
story witch: I play with language to find narratives of power, which is the flow of power from reality --> sense --> emotion --> thought --> behavior --> impact, in order to remap language to better reflect reality.

Public Key

npub1u05gn05389gqw5mlqa85sawftard0xh3wacwdl2v4mpchegjeuzqmhavse

NIP-05 Address

vex_at_kolektiva.social@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw86yfh6gnj5q82dlswn6gwhy473khntchwu8xl4x2asutu5fv7pqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx269jxz2

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub1u05gn05389gqw5mlqa85sawftard0xh3wacwdl2v4mpchegjeuzqmhavse

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-10-02 20:11:52 UTC

- reply

that's no moon

2026-09-07 00:43:42 UTC

- reply

a friend of mine built a braille e-reader for this exact reason, but since she made it in college, the university patented the rights to it, & so nothing's come from it.

2026-06-22 18:46:24 UTC

- reply

mixed feelings about this, since being more moral than a country committing genocide is the lowest bar, but also we live in a willpower crushing machine & a call for more willpower as the solution feels empty.

2026-04-12 00:09:14 UTC

- reply

Court is about winning rather than justice.

2026-02-04 01:42:24 UTC

- reply

that "unless" is vague enough to negate the whole thing when "assaulting an officer" is thrown as a charge when the person an officer is beating gets their blood on the officer's uniform.

2025-08-31 13:22:09 UTC

- reply

I'd argue they're actually malicious non-compliance, since every implementation I've worked with uses third-party cookies to save user's "choice", & many would run ads using third-party cookies until prompted otherwise, & many would ignore user input altogether.

2025-03-01 20:35:33 UTC

- reply

Dems didn't take a dive to impeach Trump later. Kamala told a room of suits years ago we'd be fighting wars over water by 2030s. This is just setting the stage for that. There's no going back.

2024-11-16 00:05:52 UTC

- reply

car problem or driver problem? Probably both with this one lol.

2024-11-09 00:20:49 UTC

- reply

Biden wouldn't even stop a genocide to prevent fascism. This is just fantasizing a "good" authoritarian.

2024-11-08 21:21:47 UTC

- reply

while it'd be funny for him to die before inauguration, next in line would be worse for us.

2024-10-19 19:18:28 UTC

- reply

genuine question: how can a feeling be a choice? Or are you referring to using said feeling to fuel action as being a choice?

2024-10-19 18:50:29 UTC

- reply

absurdities are embedded into colonial languages, rationalized by the "look no further" notion of "paradox".

2024-10-17 19:40:46 UTC

- reply

I pop that warning up when I'm lacking the brain energy to discern if I'm contributing to conversation or stifling it, but don't want to not reply by default (inaction is my default under uncertainty). But thanks; removed it. Would you mind if I reply without making such discernments & without the warning? I'm not above making such communication errors.

2024-10-17 18:36:51 UTC

- reply

when I've messaged you about the perspective of power (pops) 💩, I think I neglected to mention that its function is to cleave responsibility/cost from power/ownership & offload said responsibility/cost down the hierarchy that enables this separation.
Part of that cleaving involves cementing blame reassignments to prevent pathways for accountability from forming. Pops is anything serving one-way functions for respect/notoriety/power accumulations. AI's primary function is cementing this one-way function (pops) to absolve pops itself, which functionally surfaces the eugenic/domesticating/asymmetric-power-serving logic of pops while simultaneously preventing alternatives by poisoning the information well (digitally, physically, & socially). They're trying to quite literally kill alternative ideas/perspectives by killing or starving all that can't be controlled. Power without consequence, ownership without responsibility, domination without retaliation, colonialism without revolution, "I fuck around & others find out"; that is the goal. "Because I/AI said so" as irrefutable basis for Truth.
In other words, it's all about domination & domestication, which is the root of "it's all about the money".

2024-09-12 21:31:23 UTC

- reply

hope it's not covid RIP get well soon

2024-09-12 18:12:22 UTC

- reply

I don't fear being a coward I've accepted it's an accessibility thing for me. 10 minutes of anxiety & BAM diarrhea.

2024-09-12 17:41:08 UTC

- reply

well then apologies because I'm functionally a coward. All I've been doing with this is a result of having 0 willpower/desire to live & still needing to function. A single doubt is able to paralyze me when I enter a depressive cycle & lock me in until I resolve it. That's why I said above I could talk about it but was unwilling to debate yet. I need something more tangible than my experience to prevent doubt from entering since I'm constantly worried about whether I'm deluding myself since I know white people are prone to savior complexes & this project of mine is at a minimum in an adjacent genre.

2024-09-12 17:04:11 UTC

- reply

no to both. I'll be honest this all from a personal ADHD coping mechanism (ACM) that evolved into my spiritual beliefs after a shrooms trip. The combination of the two left me feeling like emotions were compressed information & thoughts were just the unpacking of. I started finding ways to modify my ACM to fold, flatten, &or unpack my emotions intentionally into my language so less was lost in translation.
It's the consistency with how well this has worked for me that has me convinced. I'm basically trying to fold & flatten the "we're all one" emotion so I can code it, reverse-engineering from pops so I can work out a pathway out of the structural cowardice that is colonialism.

2024-09-11 20:01:23 UTC

- reply

the pops/anti-pops contrast functions at the level of decision making rather than the level of personhood. People do both just not in the same context. & There are circumstances that necessitate looking through the perspective of power (e.g. survival or desperation).
At the level of personhood, I use the aggregate of one's pops tendencies as an indicator of what's "safe" to introduce to them (whether people, ideas, or things). I don't like
One thing I neglected to mention is where I'm attaching this information to. I categorize things by the deterministic parts of story logic. This is the context I find the pops/anti-pops contrast to be most useful. Because it's a reciprocal contrast tied to outcome, it is what draws the internal line of "us vs them" within the context of a story (mirrored within one's personal narrative). It's what people use to determine moments of exerting control vs giving up control, which I believe are the only choices we really get. Genuinely believe the rest is deterministic.

2024-09-11 18:11:08 UTC

- reply

oh I talk to anyone who's willing to listen about my ideas. The difficulty is that I can usually only talk about the pieces instead of the whole, since the whole is difficult to comprehend without the pieces.
If your understanding of existence is that reality acts upon consciousness the same way a prism splits light, then perhaps "I'm building generic yet personalizable endpoints to the subconscious to enable people to feel more & trust their intuition" would suffice.
Otherwise, perhaps starting from "language & how we function as humans is part of the lie of society, & the lies embedded within language act upon intent the same way gravity does to light, causing a disconnect between intent & outcomes in a way that consistently benefits power accumulations"? This one is the reason it's so hard to talk about it. I swear there's hardly any concepts in English that aren't "near misses" of what they refer to, warped to accommodate the perspective of power.
Oh that'd be a good place to start! So what I would consider to /not/ be a "near miss" is any concept that creates what I'm calling a "reciprocal contrast". This would be like light/dark, love/fear, hot/cold, etc, where more of one necessitates less of the other. The perspective of power is a reciprocal contrast vs the perspective of experience. Using Pops for "perspective of power symbol". This contrast is useful for discerning whether someone prioritizes power or experience & is therefore a great indicator for their relationship to hierarchy.
Pops is the pattern embedded into colonial language that causes people to prioritize power & give it the benefit of doubt. Its function is to replace relationships of reciprocation with transactions, which replaces internal motivators with external. This narrows the window of tolerance in relationships, which when combined with economic pressure is a recipe for resentment, control, & disconnect. It's why I say the function of money (transactional) is to replace trust (reciprocal) as the glue of society. It's also why I say relationships are engineered to fail under colonialism. Genuinely believe we can't unify without addressing this.

2024-09-11 01:44:42 UTC

- reply

oh I'd misinterpreted your intent with the last reply. I didn't realize you were solutionizing.
So I *am* working on something, & I can share but I'm not trying to convince you of it & I'm not trying to debate the validity of a work-in-progress.
Basically I've found a pattern in English that has me believing I've found how colonial languages function as a tool of domestication.
Said pattern is deterministic & predictable, to the extent that I'm convinced its why "history repeats". I'm also convinced it can be coded.
Doing so would create a fixed point of contrast at a higher perspective than we can experience under domestication, which would create a bridge to said perspective & would allow access to tools that can't function without a level of trust that would be foolish to extend in this society without some form of protection. & such levels of trust could quite literally replace money between those involved. & That creates a bubble under which people can operate from purpose/gratitude, rather than violence/resentment. IMO the answer is to grow & protect that bubble until it encompasses everything, thereby circumventing the need to participate under capitalism.
It's assuming quite a lot & is very incomplete, but I'm hoping I just need to get it to the point where I *can* try & convince others & debate its validity, 'cause there's no way I can do all this on my own before capitalism gets me.

2024-09-10 23:18:51 UTC

- reply

could I challenge you to name a single law that can't be boiled down to decision(s) on where & how to apply violence to achieve/enforce an outcome? I genuinely can't imagine it.

2024-09-10 20:25:05 UTC

- reply

in practice, the systems we live under are not democratic. 90% of Americans have effectively 0 impact on policy. Here's a source to back the claim: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/
So that kinda debunks the "we asked for it" theory.
We can't systemize violence without getting more violence. Laws are inherently violent as a result.
I'd argue that people's relationships to violence is what defines political ideology best, with "we need violence to maintain order" being the essence of conservatism, as that "order" is the status quo.
This makes practicing law perfect for conservatives, because under such a practice, violence is inevitable. I'd imagine it to be very difficult to hold onto abolitionist principles when one's livelihood is dependent on violence being necessary.

2024-09-10 16:28:23 UTC

- reply

conservative lawyers make the most sense. The point of laws is control. Not a single law can be enforced without violence to back it up. If law is the backbone of society, violence is the backbone of law.
Though conflated with natural laws of physics, a legal law is indicative of a structural gap that requires willpower to bridge it & thus guarantees a % of non-compliance. & Violence is used to maintain said bridge.
So if there is a guarantee that the system of laws cannot guarantee outcomes, the violence becomes the guarantee. & So instead of ease in society growing by systemizing outcomes, violence in society is what grows.
Sounds like a perfect match for conservatives.

2024-03-23 16:29:12 UTC

Cis men: Don't hate the player, hate the game
Everyone else: Ok, fuck patriarchy
Cis men: Not like that