Non-Monetized Together #svalien


Obie Fernandez/Unsplash

You can also view this article at

I’m so tired of hearing this from people. Whenever a disgraced celebrity, such as Kanye West or Sia, comes out as autistic, there will always be somebody who will claim that the autism is a PR attempt for levelling public backlash against them. These people are very uninformed on what autism means.

News flash: autism is not, and never was, a status symbol for protecting someone from being criticized. It is a medical term for people who mentally process things differently than other people.

Some people will respond to Kanye, Sia, or Brewdog CEO James Watt with “autism isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card,” but these comments are still wrong because they feel a need to bring up the PR aspect unprompted. None of these three public figures never said anything about it being a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Anybody who thinks autism is a PR tool is completely detached from reality. They need to stop sensationalizing things and get in touch with the life experiences of the people around them. Could celebrities be taking advantage of people who have this wrong idea about autism? Maybe, but if commentators stop associating autism with PR, then autism won’t be an effective PR tool.

Before I leave, I noticed that even though Nonmonetized Together keeps getting more and more views, nobody other than me has written an article for it yet. I started Nonmonetized Together because I wanted a place where anybody on the Internet could have their voice taken seriously. Because of this, I would appreciate it if you provided me feedback as to why you haven’t yet wrote an article for this publication. Are there any changes you want me to make to Nonmonetized Together first?

#Autism #Neurodivergence #Society #Celebrity #Feedback


You can also read this article at

Update: I no longer use the term #svalien to describe this, I use the term “the context that isn’t limited in the same way as the political context.”

Definition of #Svalien

It’s a marker I invented to let everyone know that you don’t need to be constrained by politics when you’re on Nonmonetized Together. The community operates in a social context where you can be free from the limitations that your political role imposes upon you. Other activists are encouraged to make their own #svalien online communities to help restore a sense of hope among viewers.

Why, though?

I’m giving you the opportunity to get away with behaviours that would otherwise be viewed as politically self-destructive. This is one of the strategies I use to keep Nonmonetized Together a place with minimal influence from the outside world’s current unequal power structure. In this article, I’ll start by giving five reasons why #svalien spaces could be valuable and useful. Then, I will explain my strategies for achieving those goals and answer some other questions you may have about #svalien.

Reason 1: So you can work to achieve the same political goal with fewer sacrificial lambs

Politics is all about strategically allocating limited resources to achieve political goals. For a government to invest more in achieving a certain goal, they have to cut funding for other areas of society. Or when the government is changing laws, there are a limited number of people these laws can appeal to. Because of these restrictions, all political ideologies have sacrificial lambs — segments of the population who lose out from these ideologies gaining power.

Image from Jon Tyson/Unsplash

Sacrificial lambs are a necessary but unfortunate component in society. The best you can do to lessen the consequences of sacrificial lambs is to tell the lambs not to take the politics personally. Not only does this interpretation make things easier for everybody but it’s also more accurate — sacrificial lambs are a natural consequence of the democratic system, merely unlucky enough to be on the losing side of society. Yet promoting this reality will be problematic in the real world because of the aforementioned limited resources that political sides compete over. Personal attacks allow political interests to use their resources more efficiently.

This reality extends to most of the Internet, despite the fact that the Internet allows you to send public messages without needing to consider as many risk factors as would the government. But social media is also used as a tool by politicians, organizations, and influencers to extend their political reach, and of course their online messages have to be consistent with the messages they communicate in other formats. This means that the power dynamics of the offline world are replicated onto the online world. To change these norms concerning sacrificial lambs, there needs to be an online place that isolates itself from these power interests, and that’s what Nonmonetized Together promises to achieve.

You can use Nonmonetized Together to support your political orientation’s sacrificial lambs while attacking them outside of Nonmonetized Together. This would not be hypocritical because success through Nonmonetized Together means following different rules than the rules for achieving political success. For once and for all, I’m giving you the chance to interact with sacrificial lambs without feeling threatened by them. This may allow you to learn new things about them. If enough of these interactions occur, we might be able to reduce the fallout caused by political upheaval … by a tiny amount, at least.

Sebastian Herrmann/Unsplash

Reason 2: So you don’t have to group people in categories they don’t belong

Politics only thrives when it places people in broad categories. “Family values” can mean many different things, but when it becomes politicised as “pro-family values,” it typically only means one thing. Same thing with LGBT+ rights and “pro-LGBT+ rights” organizations. Liberal, conservative, and leftist are also broad categories, and a political party will usually identify with one of those three options instead of the subcategories that more accurately reflect people’s beliefs. This way, a political party can get 50% of the votes despite taking firm policy stances on ten different controversial issues.

Categorization benefits politicians because it encourages conformity, even when group members don’t feel like they completely belong. Categorization also allows politicians to pretend that they speak for an entire demographic of people — something that’s good for their public image but obviously untrue. There are variations in every group. For example, on his campaign website, Donald Trump aligns his interests with that of law enforcement, military veterans, and those who feel censored. Joe Biden doesn’t yet have a section on his campaign website where he highlights his plan, but in his recent tweets, he claims he is on same side as immigrants from Muslim countries, those struggling with student debt, and Tribal communities. But what about people in law enforcement who are struggling with student debt, or tribe members who feel censored?

Before Nonmonetized Together, these people would struggle to have their perspectives heard and would be given less support by society. If that sounds like you, your lived experience can now get some recognition from a community centred on finding solutions, inspiration, and knowledge. Another thing is that on Nonmonetized Together, there’s not that dynamic I mentioned earlier about needing to hold on to your resources, so you don’t have much to lose by acknowledging underserved populations on Nonmonetized Together. Compare that to the outside world where it’s usually less risky to pretend that reality is simpler than it is.

Reason 3: So people can feel comfortable sharing subversive views with the community

Some viewpoints, such as socialism or transformative anti-colonialism, don’t sit well with those in power, because they require people to let go of things they have developed a strong attachment to, and because they deal with concepts that are very uncomfortable to address. Because these beliefs are a tough sell to politicians, they are not well-suited to the “rules of the game” of politics. Many people who have subversive views have to tone them down to something more mainstream whenever they participate in the political sphere. Otherwise, they go nowhere.

I try to make Nonmonetized Together a place where people can feel comfortable sharing these ideas, but only if they want to. Really what I’m aiming for is a respectful community with diverse views. By making sure this blog avoids dominant power relations, I can remove the need for Nonmonetized Together users to appease people in power.

Reason 4: So people can present and interpret counterarguments as something to benefit from

It’s problematic to view the personal as political because then you will interact with people like a politician. An example of this is on social media, where counterarguments are used — and generally interpreted — as something that someone deploys to boost their own ego. Politicians behave this way because it’s part of their job, but this is not a socially responsible way for other people to behave. On Nonmonetized Together, I’m trying to create an alternative culture where counterarguments are instead used to benefit the person they are directed to.

Hector J Rivas/Unsplash

Reason 5: So you can have a non-political discussion about oft-politicized topics *Does not apply to Nonmonetized Together*

I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing for ordinary people to be politically conscious, but sometimes those discussions are not what you’re looking for. Sometimes you just want to talk about transgender people, vaccinations, or an at-war country from a completely innocuous perspective. Now, I don’t think Nonmonetized Together is the right place for that, but I suppose this could be an idea for other #svalien online spaces.

How should I refer to this publication in everyday communication?

This publication should still be referred to as Nonmonetized Together in everyday communication. The hashtag is supposed to be kind of like a verification symbol. I actually wanted to put it in the description but there wasn’t enough space except in the publication’s “notes from the editor.”

Does the word svalien mean anything?

No, I just find it catchy, coming from an English-speaking perspective. It’s just the word “alien” with the rarely-used letter combination “sv” added to it. Same reason why the Nonmonetized Together logo consists only of the colour pink. It’s simple and recognizable.

Strategies I will use to achieve this

If you have any other strategies or any ways of improving this list, please let me know!

· Correct people who use this platform incorrectly. When a commenter uses a tactic that is more appropriate for politics than Nonmonetized Together, I will tell them about Nonmonetized Together’s social context and how it affects their tactic. I will mention their tactic and their goal by name, and say that while their tactic may be suitable for their goal in most social contexts, the tactic would not help them achieve their goal on Nonmonetized Together, and that different strategies may be more useful. If this situation ever happens, being polite will be crucial because I will have to convey to the commenter that I wasn’t expecting them to understand everything about Nonmonetized Together. In fact, the only methods I have for keeping readers updated about Nonmonetized Together are either to answer people’s questions about it, or to respond to comments that get something wrong about Nonmonetized Together.

Edge2Edge Media/Unsplash

· Swearing off politics. In 2020, I decided that everybody would be better off if I didn’t have political beliefs, so I trained my mind to disregard my previous political opinions. Three years later, I’m no longer interested in competing for my political self-interest. I would rather enjoy my life for what it is and give you opportunities for achievement. I also find Christianity more satisfying than politics. Politics and Christianity are like two sides of the same coin. They’re both value systems but are complete opposites otherwise. Politics is all about competition, power, and ego while Christianity is supposed to be about co-operation, wisdom, and humility (there are a lot of people who appropriate religion for political purposes though, but the two are supposed to be separate). So right now, religion is a big goal for me, not politics. Even though most of my articles are not overtly religious, I feel like I’m doing a service to God by presenting a collaborative space that functions as an alternative to politics. That, instead of political competition, is what motivates me and gives me meaning in my life.

· Holding individuals accountable, not groups. This means that when I can, I should describe people in my articles as individuals, not as a member of a group. Depending on what’s appropriate for the situation, I can refer to them by username, real name, fake name, or no name at all, but not as an anonymous member of a group. I should refer to them like I do in this article. With the grown-ups in charge assigning blame to entire groups of people, it’s all too easy to forget that these groups aren’t identical clones of each other. Nonmonetized Together is here to resist this practice and describe people as people. I think presenting stories this way can help people view issues as they are without delving into identity politics. This might also make it easier for the people in these articles to come across Nonmonetized Together’s post on them, which would probably result in a significant positive influence on the issue that was being written about.

· Opening new avenues of thought in the comment section. If someone ever hijacks this community and uses it to fuel the political machine, I can respond to their comments not by discussing the same things everybody else has been arguing in circles about, but by making comments that open the very mental faculties they are trying to close. Since the person I’m talking with would technically be an Internet troll, I wouldn’t be too bothered if I don’t convince them of anything — I would mainly be writing for the readers, not for the trolls. The goal is to prevent readers from getting caught up in unproductive forms of political thought.

Antonio Janeski/Unsplash

· Implementing commenter’s suggestions. Nonmonetized Together isn’t my blog, it’s our blog. If you have any suggestions for Nonmonetized Together, let me know in the comment section so I can implement them. By making it easy to share your suggestions with me, this can help make the hunger of power irrelevant within the community. I haven’t had any suggestions yet (other than one deleted comment), but I will implement your suggestions as long as they are practical and they achieve their purpose. If I don’t think your suggestion will work, I won’t put it in place, but I will respond to your comment and tell you why.

· Researching claims that commenters make. Distributing misinformation can result in gaining huge political power. If I can’t verify user’s claims, I’ll ask them for verification. Until I get some sort of confirmation from the commenter, I will put a warning in the article so the readers are aware that the claims are unverified. An example of this would be my discussion with Turi Sue in the comment section for this article.

· Trying not to write articles from a position of authority. I want the author-reader power dynamic to be equal. In this article, I use the words “might” and “may” to indicate that the suggestions could possibly work, not that they would probably work. The article also gives the reader opportunities to decide for themselves what’s best for them. For example, at one point, I write, “This may not be the best idea, so I hope people who read this article can collaborate so they can make a better one.” I also ask, “Do you have any ideas for techniques to research information outside of AI’s influence?” I have noticed I’m not always great at sounding nonauthoritative in my writing, but that’s something I can improve on.

· Not monetizing the articles. This will bring the focus back to knowledge production, not money production. Trading knowledge for knowledge is more equal than trading money for knowledge.

· Not giving claps. Sometime maybe a few months ago, I decided I will no longer give claps to comments and posts on Nonmonetized Together articles. Other readers can, but as the creator of Nonmonetized Together, it could be a conflict of interest if I clapped.

· Being patient with the commenters. I give them as many chances as they need to explain themselves clearly. I can also start comments with something like, “let me know if I understand correctly.”

Priscilla Du Preez/Unsplash

· Targeting my responses toward all readers. Even when it seems like I’m responding to one person, I have to remember that there could be other people reading the response. I try to consider how this comment could be useful to them and inspire them to come up with ideas for positive change.

· Not using weaponized trigger words.

· Using straightforward language to avoid unnecessary conflict.

· Free speech with consequences. Yes, people have the legal right to behave unfairly, but that also means that I have the legal right to behave fairly by undoing the damage they caused. There are a few ways I can do this. The simplest option is to warn others about a user’s unacceptable behaviour. There is also the option of not responding to the harmful comments directly, but by responding to the comment as if it was undamaging, whether that be by jumping through obvious mental hoops or by slightly changing the comment’s wording. Yet unlike much of the “political” Internet, this isn’t to cause damage or create drama, but to treat the community fairly. Like I said, I can’t stop everybody online from being an unfair person (restricting their speech doesn’t change anything), but I can reduce the damage by being fair.

· Instead of telling someone their argument is wrong, telling them what is missing from their argument. People spend so much time complaining about the other political side but very little time figuring out how the opposition could be a better version of itself. This is because promoting encouragement is not compatible with the political field. Yet on Nonmonetized Together, it’s normalized to help others develop their arguments, so now everyone can benefit from political discourse. Instead of burning society to the ground, you can phrase your argument in a way that appeals to them.

· Keeping track of unsolved community issues and what needs to be done for them to be solved. This way, I can focus on making sure this community delivers on its mission.

· Allowing anyone an opportunity for redemption, but only if they write an apology piece. For them to be redeemed, this piece MUST show that they understand why their actions are wrong. It also MUST list a specific plan for what they will do in the future for them to not cause the same problems. When people don’t give others a chance to redeem themselves, they are no longer fighting for a cause, they are fighting against others. I don’t want Nonmonetized Together to be a place to attack people. I want it to be a place to attack problems in society.

· Only block users from the community if their behaviour is getting out-of-control. For example if users are actually causing people to feel unsafe or if there is a large-scale trolling attempt. Nonmonetized Together is supposed to be a place to actually find solutions to problems in the world. This sometimes requires some of the ugly parts of society to be shown. But, it does not require sickos to take over the community spreading fear and trauma.

· Not using “mentally ill” as an excuse to shut people down. Also, making sure other people here are not doing so. This article explains how I will create a culture where “mentally ill” refers only to is original meaning.

Helena Lopes/Unsplash

· Being careful where I work. I cannot work at a job that is too political or else I may be coerced into removing its #svalien context. If readers ever find where I work, I want them to feel comfortable with the knowledge so that it won’t create a conflict of interest.

· Only existing on certain websites. Nonmonetized Together is not appropriate for members-only websites because I want anybody to be able to access them. It also has to be on a website where I can create my own environment, so nothing like X or Facebook where all public posts are all tossed together in a “for you” page. What I mean by this is a website where you have to click on an article to read it and it will appear on a new page. This could help keep Nonmonetized Together safe from people who don’t want anything to do with us. And finally, it has to be in a long-form format so people don’t feel the need to distort the truth by condensing it. That being said, you’re free to make your own #svalien community on other websites. I’m just saying there are good reasons Nonmonetized Together is only on Medium and

· Pointing out the positives of comments that are completely wrong. Even if they’re so wrong that you think, “that person has no hope.” Well, by finding a strength to their comment, I can at least provide some direction in their life. If I only mention everything negative about their posts without saying something good, maybe it will alienate them from Nonmonetized Together, as well as further society, and will cause them to degrade in weirdo onlone echo chambers. If I mention positives, Nonmonetized Together can be the place that breaks this feedback loop. Also, when I point out positive aspects to bad comments, it lets other people know that I’m open to what they say and that I’m not just dismissing whatever they say. This would let people know that all they need to do is fix up their comment.

· Apologizing if a user is giving someone a hard time and reiterating the troublesome comment in a nicer way. Hopefully, this can help kill the toxic discussion and turn the conversation into something valuable for readers and participants.

Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

#Manifesto #Society #Politics #Internet #Svalien


Image created by AI tool DALL-E 2, the author has the provenance and copyright.

You can also view this article at

It’s sickening that there are people who tell complete strangers online that their most painful struggles are imaginary and that if they just ignore the pain, things will get better.

For example, I’ve seen this attitude expressed towards one of the most depressed and isolated communities on the Internet — the “blackpill.” This term refers to an incel group founded on the belief that no matter what they do, they are predetermined to never find someone who will fall in love with them. They’re also extremely isolated due to the blackpill philosophy being at odds with mainstream society’s understanding of relationships, which the blackpillers refer to as the bluepill. So, on top of feeling lonely, they also feel that no one outside of the blackpill understands them.

Some may notice the unbearable mix of anguish and hopelessness on blackpill forums and wonder why anyone would choose to be a blackpiller, but you have to remember that people don’t choose philosophies, they adopt them based on their experiences and the evidence presented to them. Hence, some bluepillers have suggested that even though blackpillers show a lot of hate towards women, they may just be lost souls and that they deserve mental health support from bluepillers.

While I am not opposed to this suggestion in theory, I keep seeing bluepillers use this as an excuse to message blackpillers they don’t even know, insisting that the bluepill is the way to go and that they can find love if they just adhere to a predetermined handful of bluepilled strategies. This would be tone-deaf even if they were just messaging other bluepillers who struggle to find love, because these are complete strangers and because things can be more complicated than that. But considering they are talking to people who are convinced that a) blackpill philosophy is real, b) that it is taking away their reason to live, and c) that the bluepill ignores these issues? Unbelievable. I can only envision this isolating blackpillers even more and worsening their mental health.

The first rule of making someone feel understood is to take their current situation into account. Based on what I’ve seen in my life, the bluepill is accurate, not the blackpill, but I need to remember that this does not reflect the blackpillers’ experiences. What do you do when talking to someone who already believes there’s no solution to their loneliness?

Why not just tell them: “I can understand that you are going through mental agony, and I’m sad that you feel this way.” End of story! Then you might make them feel more understood without advocating for the blackpill.

I hope that if any blackpillers are reading this, that I’ve shown them that bluepillers don’t necessarily have to be blind towards blackpill struggles. They may never take the blue pill again, but at least they don’t have to feel so hateful towards mainstream society after all.

#MentalHealth #Isolation #Society #Culture #Loneliness


Medium comments:

Maybe no matter what color pill someone identifies with, self-obsession is the culprit of their flaws. For instance, self-loathing and self-exaltation are two sides of the same coin. The key may be to stop thinking about yourself to feel better about life.

Robbie Newport

Interesting point. Yeah, it would be great if people cared more about people they talk with online and what they're going through. Think of it this way. The Internet allows you to communicate with people you would have never been able to talk to in person. If people embrace the Internet from this perspective, instead of using it to reinforce the type of bonds they make in real life, then maybe that will help them use the Internet to be less self-obsessed and more understanding of others.

Kevin the Nonmonetized

You can also read this article at

To prevent artificial intelligence from taking away people’s jobs, intelligences, and agency, people can find ways to explore, improve, and deliver skills that cannot be replicated by AI. If you want AI to support human activity instead of replacing it, you might want to start working on these skills immediately and develop them as much as possible. All it takes is for humanity to put more time into developing themselves than the amount of time that is put into developing AI.

Even if one person reads this article and commits themselves to this concept at their job, their methods may inspire other workers at the company and make a difference in how the business operates. If you succeed at finding ways for humans to outperform AI, you can give the company reasons to justify the extra cost of human workers. You can make a difference in the lives of many.

I think that pretty much everybody would think this idea’s worth a shot, but some people, especially anti-centrists, may feel like society needs to do more than that. So, this article’s comments section has two purposes. One, readers can share ideas for how humans can stay at pace with AI. Two, they can add any other suggestions they may have on what to do about AI. These suggestions can turn into action by being read by others and influencing readers’ real-life decisions (

I think customer service is one of the most important things to be protected. If the company you work at uses AI as customer service, maybe you can do something to serve customers who deserve something better. Maybe work after hours so you can provide an alternate service for people who want a human to do it for them. This may not be the best idea, so I hope people who read this article can collaborate so they can make a better one.

Another one of the biggest examples is how AI shapes our opinions and how we view the world. I’m mentioning this because it’s already been in full-force for years now with corporate-driven recommendation algorithms deciding what you see. This makes it only more important to avoid generalizing entire groups of people. I also suggest to remember that people are sometimes recommended different content than the content you receive, which may have influenced their thought process. This is why it’s important to give people a chance to explain why they feel the way they do, so you can provide a response that you can be sure applies to them.

This form of AI is easier to resist if you use search engines instead of social media, since with search engines you can search for viewpoints that challenge yours or specifically choose results that are lower-ranked on the search page. Search engines are tailored to the user’s preference too, but in my experience, it’s not as influenced by them as social media. Of course, there’s also, which does not run ads and sorts articles by most recent, ensuring everybody gets their voice heard.

Do you have any ideas for techniques to research information outside of AI’s influence?

Now this is, so I can’t leave without bringing attention to the fact that AI can now make blog posts. How can you make sure your posts compete with that of AI? Keep in mind the things AI will able to replicate a long time from now, not just today. Well, AI is trained off pre-existing information, so you can try writing in an original style. Then, you’ll be able to innovate before the AI can. You can write about topics that have barely been discussed on the Internet. AI would have trouble writing about those topics.

What can you do to prove that your blog posts are not written by a robot?

What else is there to say? You know I love challenging dominant power forces, but when there is a shift in society, I also adapt my methods in doing so. That way, I never admit defeat and I’m ready for anything.

#ArtificialIntelligence #Economy #Power #Technology #Society