"We are stronger when we listen, and smarter when we share.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS In the political minefield that modern society is — where clashing ideologies about society can lead to aggression, or even social alienation — it becomes even more important than usual to stand your ground in your ideals, especially if you have a valid and justified point of view. All over the world, organizations such as WeThe15, Fridays For Future, and #BodyPositive Movement are important nodes for promoting an inclusive and supportive community for marginalized, discriminated, and underrepresented social groups. Despite opposition from many conservative and anti-progressive organizations, such movements have persevered. Not due to their backing, not due to their strength, but due to the sheer necessity for communities to demand respect from their peers. An important facet of social exclusion is ignorance. Oftentimes, communities that are historically reclusive and/or non-confrontational are misappropriated and stereotypes about these communities begin to spring up. Unless communities actively communicate their sides and their experiences with society, they are not usually given a recognized status in any modern setup. While this serves to promote "voicing of opinions" in marginalized sections, it also creates a dichotomous issue. Firstly, the initiation of any community as a "margin" creates a sense of prejudice against it. For example, calling queerfolk a "deviation" from the norm (of heteronormativity) reinforces the public opinion that they are "abnormal" and "unusual", although there is no measurable normalcy for emotions like love, preference and identity. Moreover, racial segregation only happens because oppressive racial cultures spread the poison of domination and superiority. Secondly, the aforementioned "voicing of opinions" becomes a critical challenge when oppressive forces of dominant cultures try to suppress the metaphorical voice of the minorities from being heard on a relevant platform. A good example would be the present hegemonic Republican administration in the U.S., which, despite the Fifth Amendment of their Constitution, continues to deport undocumented immigrants without due process of trial. Taking these issues into account, there arises the glimmer of a solution: DEI procedures. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a system, where people of varied identities and backgrounds are given a level playing field in terms of resources, opportunities and respect. However, more often than not, such a Nehruvian ideal can cause more harm thangood, when historically oppressed communities begin to use their equity rights to seek equality, which gives them an advantage over their oppressors. While this may sound like a good suggestion, it causes the cycle of hatred to go on perpetually, never benefiting human life as a whole. So, if not DEI, then how do we process the enormous differences in a globalized world? To answer that, let us look at how organizations like WeThe15 and others do it. Solidarity To the uninitiated, this is just jargon for ineffective social media posts. However, proper solidarity aims to incite awareness about issues, while also properly stating your stance in support of the victims. Solidarity is not about seeking attention, but about reaching a platform where such issues can be addressed directly to the authorities. Rallying Generally non-violent, protests and rallies are allowed by any democratic Constitution under their clause of freedom of speech, within the jurisdiction of local police. However, any oppressive administration will do their best to push back against community-wide gatherings. Hence, rallies and protests are often repressed by the police and government officials, if their ends are not met. Yet, even in the face of blatant force, it is important to persevere and to never stop speaking for the right things. Petitions Official directives can often be reversed in a democratic country, as long as the majority of the public is in agreement. Hence, petitions serve to prove a pre-emptive census of the popular opinion on a topic, and thereby can pressure the judiciary to consider the "voice of the nation". In matters of national importance, such a census can also serve as an immediate proof of the people's frustration with the choices of the government. If we compile these measures undertaken by inclusive and supportive organizations, we begin to notice a pattern: It is important to bring together people despite their differences and give them what they need. Rather than the "umbrella-ification" of DEI procedures which seek to dissolve differences by disregarding historical and cultural precursors, and the attempt to provide marginalized communities by what the dominants believe they need, the margins should be given an equal starting point — not by inclusion, but by acceptance — as completely normal sections of society. Yet, there remains a disconcerting overlap between inclusion and acceptance. What makes the two different? Inclusion (n.) 1. The act of including: the state of being included. 3. The act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability). Acceptance (n.) 1. The quality or state of being accepted or acceptable. 2. The act of accepting something or someone: the fact of being accepted: approval. (Souce: Merriam-Webster) From these definitions, inclusion appears to rely heavily on the incorporation of historically outcasted groups. This makes it a politically charged abstract noun. On the other hand, acceptance is a comparatively milder abstract, which focuses only on approval, and does not have much else to do with any historical basis. The social standing of any marginalized group should not be based on their history, but their historical importance then becomes an important part of understanding their needs from their point of view. However, before these groups are given this standing, they should not, ever, be judged on the basis of whether they are marginalized or not. The essence of all of this is simple. Empathy. Not sympathy, not pity. Empathy. You don't need to know someone, understand someone, be close to someone, just to treat them with due empathy and respect. You don't need to know if they're Hispanic, if they're queer, or if they're in economic distress to need to give them your time. Even if someone disagrees avidly with your views, every single person deserves to voice themselves. Of course, if a person does something that cannot be excused or forgiven on ethical terms, it is a different story altogether. But to let prejudice stand between a perfectly valid argument makes any attempt at improving society futile. After all, at the core of sentiments, we are all but humans, no matter what we look like, who we follow, who we identify as, or even what our beliefs are. Love is more invulnerable than we like to believe, and to ruin such a precious thing with prejudice is nothing short of sabotage. All races are valid. All religions are valid. All identities are valid. All your thoughts are valid. You are valid. And you're loved. Maybe that's counter-productive. No, I love you. All of you. And right now, there is not a thing you don't deserve. You are important. You're stardust, you're th universe. You’re love.