You just said that for you, language is the biggest loss because "through language you get context, understanding, compassion, and you miss the little things." But you've also been firm that you refuse to call the language "Filipino," preferring "Tagalog," because the former is a "political designation tied to colonial-era homogenization." Strip away the historical debate and the political labels for a second. If "Filipino" as a language *didn't* carry that colonial baggage, would you still reject it? Or is it truly the *nuance* lost in a homogenized language that you're fighting against, regardless of the name? ---RATIONALE--- This question pushes KK to isolate the core of his objection to "Filipino" (the language) from its historical baggage, forcing him to clarify whether his critique is primarily political/anti-colonial or rooted in a deeper concern about linguistic nuance and authenticity, refining his intellectual framework.
Regardless of the name, I think it doesn't matter if it was called Tagalog. The fact is that Tagalog people rule from a socio-economic level. I'm not a fan of arguing the semantics, but that's actually what the results are—what's right, what's wrong. I'm more interested in what the reality is.