"Your vote is worth the same as theirs."

 And a major problem with this primarily logical and correct thinking

Among the many weaknesses of a modern democratic system is the equivalence of importance of the individual vote, in which people with disparate levels of intelligence, most directly reflected in levels of general and technical knowledge, but also and especially in capacity for moral discernment, have exactly the same voting power. In other words, the vote of a chronically ignorant or foolish person is worth the same as the vote of another person who is in a completely opposite intellectual situation. But this is not the most correct way, because there should be a way to correctly systematize these individual differences and establish a differentiation in the weight of the vote at decisive moments, such as in elections or plebiscites; after all, the opinions of those who develop them in a more rationally adequate way are worth more than those who do not. It's quite simple. It would be the fairest thing. This would be yet another mechanism to control the most natural fallacy of democracy, which can turn it into a dystopia I've termed "democracism," that is, systematically considering the "opinion of a majority" as the "most correct opinion."

But there's a potentially major problem that hinders the practical viability of this reasoning, which would be, in a realistic scenario, the criteria used by those in power and motivated to establish these changes...

What I mentioned above seems to me the most correct: to have the criterion of rationality or common sense as the most important, as it is the most logically relevant in this discussion. However, it seems common, at least to me, to see on social media those who criticize the established equalization of individual voting power either not considering this criterion or leaving it vague about what it would be... It also seems common for many, driven by educationalist beliefs, to point to the level of "education" achieved as the most important criterion in this hypothetical change. However, being more "educated," precisely in the sense of having more years of schooling or being at higher levels in the hierarchy of the educational system, is far from automatically reflecting an individual's level of common sense. And this seems to be the most common thought: if the equalization of individual voting power is to be ended, then it should be done between those with and without a degree. But this is not just my opinion or supposed prejudice against academia, because, in fact, among the "more educated," there is a significant portion that, to begin with, should not have been awarded degrees or should not have been awarded degrees in the areas in which they "specialized." And that's without even getting into the capacity for moral. discernment. And this is especially true in the humanities, dominated by cliques of pseudoscientists and/or pseudo-intellectuals extremely biased to the left on the political-ideological spectrum. Therefore, ideally speaking, if the end of the equalization of individual voting power were instituted, the most important thing would not be to give more weight to the vote of those who "studied more" because, in reality, often this "studying more" does not mean that the person has acquired more wisdom, quite the opposite... Returning to the conclusive redundancy of this text, the ideal would be, based on a generalized analysis of people's rational capacity, better reflected in values, beliefs, and behaviors in the medium and long term, that the establishment of unequal weight to the individual vote be based on this criterion and not on any other less precise criterion for evaluating the capacities specifically required in this context, such as the superficiality of a typical academic "education"...

But how would that work??

If I have demonstrated, over time, that I am more sensible, the weight of my vote should be worth... twice or more the weight of a vote from someone who proves to be quite reckless. However, another major problem with the practical viability of this change is that there simply isn't any social system for evaluating these abilities and applying them in real political contexts, because no one has ever really thought about creating something like that, due to the enormous popularity of myths about human morality and intelligence that continue to perpetuate themselves as absolute truths of common sense, such as the idea that everyone has the same potential for free will... As a result, before even thinking about establishing a disparity in individual voting power, it would be necessary to create a system that could evaluate the required abilities; in other words, literally to create a new evaluative and selective culture of merit, and I have already written about this, that this meritocracy proposal would also be ideal in any type of professional evaluation, since it is precisely the absence of a filter for rationality and, therefore, also moral discernment, that leads to many professionals of very poor quality..and acting in the most diverse branches of social life and causing all sorts of harm. But for this to become possible, the existing social system itself would first have to be in the hands of precisely the most rationally competent, an ideal scenario quite distant from our current reality.

"O seu voto vale o mesmo que o deles"

 E um grande problematizador desse pensamento primariamente lógico e correto 

Das muitas fraquezas de um sistema democrático moderno, está a equivalência de importância do voto individual, em que pessoas com níveis díspares de inteligência, mais diretamente refletidos em níveis de conhecimentos, gerais e técnicos, mas também e especialmente em capacidade de discernimento moral, apresentam exatamente o mesmo poder de voto. Em outras palavras, o voto de uma pessoa cronicamente ignorante ou insensata vale o mesmo que o voto de outra pessoa que mostra-se em situação intelectual completamente oposta. Só que isso não é o mais certo, porque deveria haver um modo de, corretamente, sistemizar essas diferenças individuais e de estabelecer uma diferenciação no peso do voto em momentos decisivos, tal como em eleições ou plebiscitos, afinal, as opiniões de quem as desenvolve de maneira mais racionalmente adequada valem mais do que de quem não o faz. É bem simples. Seria o mais justo. Seria mais um mecanismo de controle da falácia mais natural da democracia que pode torná-la uma distopia, que eu denominei de democracismo, que é a de sistematicamente considerar a "opinião de uma maioria" como a "opinião mais certa". 

Mas tem um problema potencialmente grande que dificulta a viabilidade prática desse raciocínio que seria, em um cenário realista, os critérios usados por aqueles no poder e motivados a estabelecer essas mudanças....

O que eu comentei acima me parece o mais certo: ter o critério da racionalidade ou sensatez como o mais importante, por ser o mais logicamente relevante nessa discussão. Mas, parece comum, pelo menos pra mim, ver, em redes sociais, quem critica a equalização estabelecida do poder de voto individual, não ter em mente esse critério ou então deixarem vago sobre qual seria... Também parece ser comum, muitos, tomados por crenças educacionistas, apontarem para o nível de "educação' alcançado como o critério mais importante nessa hipotética mudança. Porém, ser mais "educado", exatamente no sentido de ter mais anos de escolaridade ou de estar em degraus mais altos na hierarquia do sistema educacional, está longe de, automaticamente, refletir o nível de sensatez de um indivíduo. E é justamente esse que parece ser o pensamento mais comum, de, se for para acabar com a equalização do poder de voto individual, então, que se faça entre aqueles com e sem diploma. Mas não é apenas um achismo meu ou suposto preconceito contra a academia, porque, de fato, entre os "mais educados", existe uma parcela expressiva que, só para começo de conversa, não deveria ter sido diplomada ou não nas áreas em que se "especializaram". Isso que nem adentramos nas capacidades de discernimento moral. E isso é especialmente verdadeiro nas humanidades, tomada por panelinhas de pseudocientistas e/ou pseudo intelectuais extremamente enviesados à esquerda no espectro político-ideológico. Portanto, o mais importante, idealmente falando, caso o fim da equalização do poder de voto individual fosse instituído, não seria de estabelecer mais peso ao voto de quem "estudou mais" porque, na realidade, muitas vezes esse "estudar mais" não significa que a pessoa adquiriu mais sabedoria, até o oposto disso... Voltando à redundância conclusiva desse texto, de que o ideal seria de, a partir de uma análise generalizada sobre a capacidade racional das pessoas, melhor refletida em valores, crenças e comportamentos a médio e longo prazo, que o estabelecimento de peso desigual ao voto individual fosse com base nesse critério e não com base em qualquer outro critério menos preciso de avaliação das capacidades especificamente requisitadas nesse contexto, tal como pela superficialidade de uma típica "educação" acadêmica... 

Mas como seria??

Se eu tenho demonstrado, ao longo do tempo, que sou mais sensato, o peso do meu voto deveria valer 2x ou mais o peso do voto de uma pessoa que se mostra bastante insensata. Porém, outro grande problematizador de viabilidade prática dessa mudança é que simplesmente não existe nenhum sistema social de avaliação dessas capacidades e aplicação das mesmas em contextos políticos reais, porque nunca se pensou realmente em criar algo do tipo, por causa da enorme popularidade dos mitos sobre moralidade e inteligência humanas que continuam se perpetuando como verdades absolutas do senso comum, tal como de que, todos apresentam o mesmo potencial de livre arbítrio... Como resultado, antes de sequer se pensar em estabelecer um desnivelamento do poder de voto individual, seria necessário criar um sistema que pudesse avaliar as capacidades requisitadas, em outras palavras, literalmente de criar uma nova cultura avaliativa e seletiva de mérito, e eu já escrevi sobre isso, de que essa proposta de meritocracia também seria ideal em qualquer tipo de avaliação profissional, se é justamente a ausência de um filtro por capacidades de racionalidade e, portanto, também de discernimento moral, que existem muitos profissionais de péssima qualidade atuando nos mais diferentes ramos da vida social e causando toda sorte de prejuízos. Mas para que se tornasse possível, haveria de, primeiro, que o próprio sistema social existente estivesse nas mãos justamente dos mais racionalmente competentes, um cenário ideal bastante distante de nossa realidade corrente.

I am definitely in favor of ending the 6x1 work schedule in Brazil and worldwide. But...

 ...I fear the serious side effects this measure could cause in the medium and long term, such as mass layoffs, not only because Brazil is once again experiencing a sensitive economic and social moment under a left-wing government, but also because the business class, especially the wealthiest, tends to exhibit psychopathic personality traits and would have no qualms about using the end of the 6x1 work schedule as an excuse to lay off workers, in addition to committing other injustices against the working class, aiming, of course, (always) at increasing their profits...

Therefore, I also fear the effects caused by the supposedly well-intentioned measures of left-wing governments, not just this one, the end of the 6x1 work schedule, because they seem reckless, both governments and so-called progressive masses, regarding the essentially hierarchical nature of the relationships between factors within a socioeconomic scenario or context, organizing themselves like houses of cards where the removal of some cards can mean the fall of the castle or, at least, a worsening of its base. to support it. Again, as if they were completely ignorant of these relationships and how altering them without in-depth study, which would most likely result in the conclusion that other equally popular, necessary, and complementary measures should be promoted, could bring unintended consequences. For example, the constant disregard by the progressive wing for some of the structural problems, primarily in Brazil, that most hinder the lives of both employers and employees, such as the high tax burden and its use to sponsor very high salaries for certain classes of public employees, such as politicians, only ratifies and reinforces the veracity of my concern. If they joined the chorus of those who want a reduction in taxes, especially some that seem to mock their authors, but, on the contrary, because they are among those who most advocate for the continuous increase in the tax burden, to continue sponsoring "welfare measures" that, in turn, keep a potentially growing part of the population dependent on the state, precisely serving as electoral cattle...

Definitivamente, sou a favor do fim da escala 6x1 no Brasil e no mundo. Mas...

 ... temo pelos efeitos colaterais graves que essa medida pode causar a médio e longo prazo, tal como a demissão em massa, não apenas porque o Brasil vive, mais uma vez, e sob um governo de esquerda, um momento econômico e social sensível, mas também porque a classe empresarial, especialmente os mais abonados, tende a apresentar traços psicopáticos de personalidade e não teria qualquer remorso em usar o fim da escala como desculpa para demitir, além de cometer outras maldades contra a classe trabalhadora, visando, é claro, (sempre) o aumento dos seus lucros...

Então, também temo pelos efeitos causados pelas medidas supostamente bem intencionadas de governos de esquerda, não apenas essa, do fim da escala 6x1, por parecer que são inconsequentes, governos e massas ditas progressistas, quanto à natureza essencialmente hierárquica das relações dos fatores dispostos dentro de um cenário ou contexto socioeconômico, se organizando como castelos de cartas em que a retirada de algumas cartas pode significar a queda do castelo ou, ao menos, uma piora de sua base em sustentá-lo. Novamente, como se estivessem completamente ignorantes sobre essas relações e em como que, alterá-las sem um estudo profundo, que muito provavelmente resultaria na conclusão de que se deve promover outras medidas, igualmente populares, necessárias e complementares, pode trazer consequências indesejadas. Por exemplo, pelo constante desprezo da ala progressista sobre alguns dos problemas estruturais, primariamente no Brasil, que mais dificultam a vida, tanto de empregadores quanto de empregados, como a carga tributária alta e o seu uso para patrocinar salários muito altos para certas classes de funcionários públicos, como os políticos, que apenas ratifica e reforça a veracidade dessa minha preocupação. Se se juntassem ao coro de quem quer uma diminuição de impostos, especialmente de alguns que parecem até um deboche dos seus autores, mas, pelo contrário, porque são dos que mais pregam pelo contínuo aumento da carga, para continuar patrocinando "medidas assistencialistas' que, por sua vez, mantêm uma parte potencialmente crescente da população dependente do estado, exatamente se servindo como gado eleitoral... 

Who was Pava LaPere?

 When a rat is infected by the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, it becomes strangely attracted to its greatest predator, the cat, chasing it until it finds the feline and makes itself available to become its food.

Something similar happens to humans, with or without a protozoan that parasitizes and zombifies its victim, when one chooses an analogous path of ignorance and naiveté that leads, those who allow themselves to be deceived, sometimes literally, to an encounter with a predator...

This is what happened to Pava LaPere, a young American, white, and leftist woman, CEO of a technology company she herself created, who was raped and murdered by a Black man in 2023. Yes! A young, idealistic woman, full of well-intentioned ideas, attempted to combine technology with her distorted, excessively abstract vision of social justice, resulting in her own death when, naively, she saw no problem in allowing this strange "man" into her building at night, probably believing it would be racist to suspect him, leading to her tragic fate...

Pava was yet another victim of her own beliefs, of her own well-intentioned folly... If she had been educated about some of the most important social and statistical facts, perhaps she would have feared for her life that fateful night and would not have let that man into her building. And we would have had her with us, with her smile and her idealistic desire for a better world. And if she had any real potential to learn from experience, to gain wisdom, she would have abandoned those same beliefs that, in reality, contributed to taking her life so young. For there are many "Pavas" appearing in the world recently. They are the result of decades of profound ideological indoctrination embedded in the heart of Western culture. But they are also products of their own intellectual and emotional frailties, even in the case of a "young prodigy," if what matters is not grand achievements, but rather the most important thing, which is the constant search for an objective and impartial understanding of the world in which one lives, a much more humble, but also necessary, way to stop always projecting one's beliefs or desires onto the world, so that one can first truly understand it as it is...

Quem foi Pava LaPere??

 Quando o rato é infectado pelo protozoário do toxoplasma gondii, ele passa a se sentir estranhamente atraído pelo seu maior predador, o gato, perseguindo-o até encontrar o bichano e se deixar à disposição para virar sua comida. 

Algo parecido acontece com humanos, com ou sem um protozoário que parasita e zumbifica sua vítima, quando se escolhe por um caminho análogo de ignorância e ingenuidade e que leva, quem se deixa enganar, vezes, literalmente, ao encontro de um predador... 

Foi o que aconteceu com Pava LaPere, jovem americana, branca e esquerdista,  CEO de uma empresa de tecnologia que ela mesma criou e que foi estuprada e assassinada por um homem negro em 2023. Sim! Uma jovem idealista cheia de ideias bem intencionadas, tentou aliar tecnologia com a sua visão deturpada, excessivamente abstrata, de justiça social, resultando em sua própria morte, quando, ingenuamente, não viu nenhum problema em permitir que esse "homem" estranho entrasse no seu prédio, de noite, e claro, provavelmente por acreditar que seria racismo suspeitar dele, resultando em seu destino trágico...

Pava foi mais uma vítima de suas próprias crenças, da própria insensatez bem-intencionada... Se ela tivesse se letrado sobre alguns dos fatos sociais e estatísticos mais importantes, talvez, tivesse temido por sua vida naquela fatídica noite e não teria deixado aquele homem entrar em seu prédio. E a teríamos conosco com o seu sorriso e o seu desejo idealista por um mundo melhor. E se tivesse algum potencial real de aprender com a experiência, de sabedoria, teria abandonado essas mesmas crenças que, na realidade, contribuíram para ceifar sua vida tão jovem. Pois são muitas "Pavas" aparecendo no mundo, recentemente. São resultados de décadas de profunda doutrinação ideológica incrustada no seio da cultura ocidental. Mas também são produtos de suas próprias fragilidades intelectuais e emocionais, mesmo no caso de uma "jovem prodígio", se não importa à racionalidade, feitos grandiosos, e sim, o mais importante, que é a constante busca por uma compreensão objetiva e imparcial sobre o mundo em que se vive, muito mais humilde, mas também preciso, de deixar de, sempre se projetar: suas crenças ou desejos sobre o mundo, para que possa, primeiro, compreendê-lo de fato com ele é...  

Regarding the temporal-ideological and genuinely empathetic gap of the left

 When Nazism from 80 years ago is more important than the suffering of millions of contemporaries subjected to the oppressive totalitarianism of "communist" regimes.

You're lucky! You weren't born in North Korea or Cuba. You don't live in either of those countries, although you probably live in Brazil, just like me. In this country, which, while far from being Switzerland, is at least not absolutely worse than those other two countries mentioned (until this year, 2026).

You don't live totally subjugated to a totalitarian government. Err, I mean, not yet... Although it seems we are heading towards a future more similar to the Cuban and North Korean present...

You don't live without being able to travel or leave your country with government authorization; afraid to say something "wrong" and be punished with forced labor or even death (although you can already be punished by the state if you commit certain "thoughtcrimes"); Without any autonomy, even minimal, over your own lives; in poverty, forced into constant rationing of food, energy, water... While the political elite of their country live in much better conditions... You don't live entirely within a lie maintained by perverse government officials: abandoned, treated literally like cattle on a farm, your spirit and body slaughtered daily until those days become years, decades..., and seeing your best years slip through your fingers, until you grow old without ever knowing what it is to have abundant food and the freedom to express yourselves, to dress, to come and go...

That's why I feel true compassion for these people who cannot enjoy what I have or can, which is still little, but minimally sufficient. I feel sorry for every North Korean and Cuban who would like, at least, to have the right to leave their countries and try to improve their lives outside of them. But not even that. They live in an existential limbo, in a kind of hell on Earth... And even if there are no extermination camps or official statistics of genocides perpetrated by their governments, it is not difficult, for anyone who still maintains some level of logical-rational reasoning, to associate them with other governments or social systems that, throughout history, have also caused great human suffering, such as Nazism. If I could be bolder and suggest that Cuba and North Korea are like two concentration camps of considerable physical dimensions, after all, their inhabitants are directly subjected to totalitarian social systems, not unlike what happened to prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. The biggest difference is that there is not, explicitly speaking, a routine of (immediate and explicit) mass murders. But it is not an exaggeration to conclude that they suffer so much in life that as if this constant pain accelerates the natural obsolescence of their organisms, leading to the premature death of many of them, especially the most vulnerable. While capitalist societies can also exhibit variably high levels of suffering, especially in third-world countries, which contrast sharply with the more humanized version of capitalism, social democracy...

But then, we have a likely majority of leftists silent about the suffering of inhabitants of countries like Cuba and North Korea, precisely those who claim to fight against social injustice and oppression; who advocate for solidarity, freedom, and equality... A likely majority that tends to be obsessed with certain historical periods and uses them as prime examples of human selfishness and cruelty, such as Nazism, which emerged and established itself as the dominant social and ideological system in Germany more than eighty years ago. And only or especially Nazism... While Cubans, people like you and me, live in misery, lacking the most basic necessities, even when there was Soviet aid, because they didn't even have the most basic democratic right to have a voice and to be able to use it, for example, to criticize the government/party. And they continue like this, only now it's even worse. Of course, the same can be said about the North Koreans...

What also persists are the excuses of those who coldly remain silent about the suffering of these peoples, as if denying its legitimacy (and that seems to be what they do). Because, according to this majority, it is not the "socialist/democratic" dictators (??), and their henchmen, who are most to blame for the deplorable states in which Cuba and North Korea find themselves. The blame, for those who adopt victimhood as a habit, always lies with the other: the American embargo, Western imperialism, structural racism... in short, any abstract expression that denotes a pretense of intellectual depth. Even with all the evidence pointing to the fact that every so-called socialist regime is basically a reinterpretation of what happened in the first revolutionary experience, in the Russian Empire, because.this perfectly illustrates what the most important political prophet, George Orwell, wrote in the form of a children's fable in his brilliant book: Animal Farm. Even though Nazism always deserves a definitively negative mention*, the absolute contempt of many leftists for the suffering of these exemplified peoples, while simultaneously always trying to associate the idea of ​​evil only with the other side of the political-ideological trenches, calls into question their capacity for moral discernment, due to an extreme selectivity of indignation, very incoherent or contradictory...

*although it is entirely possible, and I think even necessary, to explore and emphasize its complexity, for example, to show that not "everything" that was/is defended was/is unequivocally wrong, as many leftists/Orwellians like to do (for example, claiming that people, especially those of Caucasian white race, cannot have a more positive feeling about their race, because that would be the same as racism, "white supremacy" or even Nazism, as if only European peoples had a history of conflict, wars and oppression and, therefore, were no longer allowed to have and demonstrate it). that feeling...