More sinful thoughts

  Cruelty is generally a combination of cowardice and injustice

There are two types of cowards, the one who always runs away from situations and the one who always confronts with violence those who are less strong than him or does so dishonestly, for example, in a gang.

However, it is the first type that tends to be most morally condemned

The other would be the most conceptually cowardly, if prudence is relative to personal and circumstantial contexts and, therefore, is not always synonymous with cowardice, while acting violently towards those who are weaker or doing so in groups against only a person is always a coward

That "tramp" who doesn't work is still not directly exploited by "capitalist society", more or less like a thief who robs a thief

The most rational opinion is often the most unpopular

Rationality is more like an ability to control oneself over one's will or the need to interpret facts according to one's own feelings, that is, control over one's own self-projection.

The most direct way to analyze an individual's intelligence is to find out how rational they are. The application of a battery of cognitive tests is a much more indirect way, because, while everyone who is highly rational is very intelligent, in rational terms, there is a greater diversity of intellectual performance in the real world in terms of those who score higher on IQ tests.

The highly rational individual is also the most self-aware and therefore the most realistic, the one who least filters objective reality

Right-wing contradictions

1.

"'Bullying' reinforces character"

Same person, outraged

"Look at that white person being beaten by a black man for no apparent reason"

two.

"I never said capitalism is perfect"

Same person

Generally incapable of criticizing capitalism, of perceiving its inconsistencies

"No matter the era, nostalgia is always the same subjective feeling that the past was better than the current present"

Not really, not least because of the great irregularities that have characterized the flow of human history. For example, a person who lived his youth fully in the 20s of the 20th century, especially if it was in the USA or Western Europe, and saw the crisis of 29 and the rise of Nazifascism, certainly had more reason to feel nostalgic about that time than someone who lived her entire life without experiencing major social turmoil. Just like today, in the year 2024 in which I write this thought, older generations and even young people who were born in the last two decades of the 20th century, have more logical reasons to regret the present, much more turbulent time, than who lived their entire life without experiencing any civilizational decline

The most self-aware are the most consciously contradictory

An extreme intolerance to differences of opinion may be because you think you are more right about everything you care/interest about or because you really are

Tip: most of the time it is the guess of the first option

It may also reflect a great (undeclared) insecurity about one's own opinion or the level of understanding one has about it and associated with a desire to preserve it at all costs.

One of the most typical expressions of irrationality is ethnocentrism or extreme and/or uncritical nationalism, another classic manifestation of anti-intellectualism, of suspension of logical-rational thinking in favor of ideological indoctrination.

Ex-atheists exist, just like ex-religious people. But there are also individual variations of disbelief and religious belief, and it is possible to wonder if the majority of ex-atheists were not among the most convinced and the same logic for ex-religious people, that they were not among the most religious or believers. I have already commented that those who come to identify as atheists or agnostics mainly for moral/emotional motivation are more likely to return to religion than those who do so for intellectual motivation. For in relation to religious people, I believe the pattern is the opposite, if the level of intensity of religious conviction is mediated by the emotive illogic of faith-based belief, which is only fully possible through the suspension of logical thought.

Those who cry out most for social justice also tend to be the most culturally or socially maladjusted, who also tend to be more genetically mutant than the most adjusted. This is also why they tend to adopt excessively unrealistic ideologies, paradoxically based on their own personal realism of misfit, the historical realism of normalized injustices, but also the unrealism of wanting to alter reality and then societies to reflect their minoritary natures and /or more dysfunctional

Controversial logic

Money dominates the world. "Jews' dominates the money. Jews dominate the world (??)

Most human beings are socially conformists, as they appear to have evolved, like nominal individuals of all social species, such as ants, to obey a superior hierarchical command and contribute to the community in which they reside according to their physical-behavioral characteristics. Because, basically, every human social organization functions as an organism and the individuals that constitute it as cells of its internal systems. So, it is possible to say that there are specialized types, that some types are more like white cells, that detect invaders from outside the organism (groups of potentially problematic immigrants??) as well as "sick" or "defective" cells, and others that are like red blood cells (which help repair damage to the body).

I still think that political extremes can be metaphorically associated with pathological states. For example, the extreme right, when in power, can act like an autoimmune disease, which attacks the body itself, based on a disproportionate defense to healthy cells, in addition to the increased risk of attacking other organisms. Now the left in power can also act as a disease that weakens the immune system, such as AIDS, causing less healthy cells and invasive elements to multiply...

In terms of types, some human beings would be more like brain cells, such as neurons, others more like specialized cells of other systems, such as the digestive and excretory systems. And, to represent the most rational and most naturally non-conformist to dysfunctional contexts or those that fall short of a fully balanced social organization, I think of neurons located in areas specialized in self-awareness, self-knowledge, objective perception of the world and mirror genes, related to empathy

With mass immigration, dysgenics, hegemony of ideologies that deny intrinsic differences in intellect and behavior, and anti-meritocracy, stupid "progressives" are making the possibility of using eugenic practices not only viable but necessary.

In fact, they are also justifying the possibility of the return of right-wing dictatorships in the West

For, perhaps, most people, generalist or collectivist discourses are much easier to internalize than discourses with more nuances, details and perspectives because they may even contradict each other, apparently, but they do not support Manichaean narratives.

Natural selection is more about maximizing survival than fertility, if the former is its ultimate goal and the latter is a means. But generally fertility is equivalent to the survival of a species at a collective level, means and ends indistinguishable.

What every self-declared left-wing progressive should learn

That no one is forced to like anything

No one is forced to like what they like

No one is obliged to tolerate the presence of another if it is not by mutual consent and if they have the power to choose

Finally, learn the basics of socializing

A relativist person: art, like personal taste, is relative and subjective.

A "left-wing" and relativist person: "art, like personal taste, is relative and subjective, but... (I think) that film is (objectively) excellent..." "I don't understand why there is people who can't like this or that film..."

A relativist is identical to an absolutist. Both reduce the complexity of cultural contexts to all or nothing

Academics versus scientists

Not every scientist is an academic. Not every academic is a scientist

An academic is someone who, a priori, works within a university, usually as a professor

A scientist is someone who ideally dedicates himself to science, to the systematization of logical-rational thinking in theory and practice, generally within a university. But you can also do it outside, by yourself

In fact, there are many academics who, in addition to not being a legitimate scientist, behave like a legitimate pseudoscientist

The greater the demographic profile, the fewer the number of good people

Good people exist more as individuals than as groups

A structural and basic definition for mental disorder is a stable instability, which is the opposite of but still the same as life itself, which expresses itself as an unstable stability

One of the greatest social injustices is the difference in access to financial stability between individuals from different social classes, caused mainly by the difference in family support, for example, the payment of private university tuition, in contrast to the absence and effectiveness of this same aid due to of the characteristic and intergenerational penury of many of the less privileged classes.

But, with the class struggle being robbed of protagonism by that of identities within the hierarchy of priorities of the so-called left, the focus on structural classism was diverted to structural racism, supposedly intact and more important...

The typical progressive believes that abstractions,such as "society" or "structural racism", directly influence people's behavior, that is, it reverses the order of factors in which, here, it makes a lot of difference, if it is the same as putting the cart before the horse, after all, People behave primarily according to their psychological and cognitive tendencies. Yes, context influences. Yes, but the context does not determine

I have already commented that morality is not only human, as it also has a universal nature, as a synonym for indispensability based on the adaptive and evolutionary contexts of individuals of a species. But morality is also a human fiction, as it is an abstract word, if the word itself is already,an abstraction, an individualized symbolization of elements, phenomena, derivations and fictions...

There has never been a need to replace old musical styles with new ones. One of the reasons for this replacement and consequent loss of cultural wealth has been economic transformations, even more so from the hegemony of capitalism, a system based on profit or the short term.

Brazilian popular culture was completely obliterated by capitalist popular culture

Being bisexual is not like being ambidextrous, equally left-handed and right-handed, but like being ambiverted, extroverted and introverted, more dependent on context and more fluid in its expression.

The immaturity of the past was to believe that there was an all-powerful father watching over all human beings

The immaturity of the present is to believe that there are no limits or duties, only potentials and rights

To be quite frank, and coming from a homo(bi)sexual, homosexuality is a hormonal disorder, but a mild one, not necessarily a disease. And this is also why human society should tolerate it, to a certain extent, encouraging healthy behaviors and this does not include promiscuity, also because of the intrinsic imperfection of life.