Not that there is always a right side of history, preferably the left, as many so-called progressives seem to think. Far from it. But it's also a fact that having the "rotten finger" to choose the "wrong side" has been a very common habit of the right. And if there is a ''right side," it always faces where the facts point. For example, the systematic slaughter perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the state of Israel, in which a large part of the Western "right" has been co-opted to support its executioners (not to mention a large part of the Establishment). But not only co-opted, because people who identify as conservatives actually tend to support groups they consider stronger rather than siding with weaker groups in a context of conflict. And it doesn't matter if they are "Aryan" Nazis or "untermenschen" Jews, as long as they are identified as "powerful" and ideologically aligned, and this trend is very likely to continue.
Minha lista de blogs
sexta-feira, 8 de agosto de 2025
O desprezo da "direita" pela carnificina contra o povo palestino é o seu padrão mais previsível
Não que exista um lado sempre certo da história, de preferência à esquerda, como parecem pensar muitos dos ditos progressistas. Muito longe disso. Mas também é fato que, ter o "dedo podre" para escolher o "lado errado', tem sido um hábito muito recorrente da direita. E se existe um "lado" certo, ele está sempre virado para onde apontam os fatos. Por exemplo, a carnificina sistemática que tem sido praticada contra o povo palestino pelo estado de Israel, em que boa parte da "direita" ocidental foi cooptada para apoiar seus carrascos (sem falar de boa parte do Establishment). Mas não apenas cooptada, porque pessoas que se identificam como conservadoras realmente tendem a apoiar grupos que consideram mais fortes ao invés de se colocarem ao lado dos grupos mais fracos dentro de um contexto de conflitos. E não importa se são nazistas "arianos" ou judeus "untermenschen", contanto que sejam identificados como "poderosos" e ideologicamente alinhados, e essa tendência é muito provável que se confirmará.
If I were a Brazilian public school teacher, I'd be feeling a particular rage toward the "left" lately...
Because of "modern" pedagogy, compulsory "inclusion," and now, in 2025, with yet another "Greek gift," with the introduction of full-time classes in the country's public schools...
Because "modern" pedagogy has practically stripped teachers of any true authority over their students, and compulsory "inclusion" is forcing them to deal with students who require more specialized attention*, increasing their burden of responsibilities and daily challenges in their workplace, with the full-time model, they will have to spend more time in the school precisely to manage these and other problems that occur within a classroom, such as overcrowding...
* This after the so-called "well-intentioned" began attacking the very existence of "special schools", crucial in serving students with the most severe disabilities.
So, no matter how much higher the government might raise teachers' salaries in Brazil, with all these problems to manage, which are mainly the result of the "good intentions" of the "left" over the space of two to three decades, only a fanatical and/or ill-informed teacher would continue uncritically supporting so-called progressive ideas, beliefs, and/or parties, if it is precisely these who have most complicated their professional lives in a practical sense... But, apparently, these teachers "still" represent a likely majority... If they will continue to blame only the "right" for their ordeal...
And no, I'm not in favor of returning corporal punishment to students as a standard method of dealing with "misbehavior," as was the case in the past, or of there being no inclusion whatsoever for students with disabilities or special needs in "regular" schools. But, as always, I want there to be a minimum of balance in the decisions tied to public policies, made by those who hold that power. But that seems like a lot to ask.
Se eu fosse um professor brasileiro de colégio, estaria sentindo uma raiva especial pela "esquerda", ultimamente...
Por causa da pedagogia "moderna", da "inclusão" compulsória e, agora, nesse ano de 2025, com mais um "presente de grego", com a introdução do tempo integral das aulas nas escolas públicas do país...
If the "left" is truly pro-collective...
...then why does it encourage so much identity-based sectarianism?
It's common to think, even among those who oppose the beliefs and policies of the "left," that they are pro-collective, even to the point of condemning them, in the sense that they favor the individual always submitting to the will of a majority*, a dystopian scenario of democracy that I have called democracism. But not even that, since, at least in countries that once declared themselves socialist and the remaining ones, not even this simplistic and problematic logic of democracism has been instituted, if these countries have functioned politically as one-party dictatorships, in which the ruling party itself determines their course, without true popular participation.
* A moment of selective amnesia for the "right," if that is precisely what it has also done throughout its long history of cultural and political hegemony.
But the question in the title of this text calls into question the validity of this thought or statement, since, if they were truly in favor of the "collective," aka the people, and their multiple intersectional identities, they should not promote certain groups over others, as they have done. Being "in favor of the collective" conditions "all" identity groups as favored, especially, and rationally, those that are vaguely categorized, without direct moral implications, for example: men, white, tall, heterosexual...
So, again, the "left" cannot be considered "in favor of the collective" because they promote very unequal treatment among human groups, in which some groups are treated as inferior (usually, broadly defined as oppressors) to those treated as superior (oppressed), even more so when they seize power, in this case, specifically the radical "left," and gain complete control over a society. China, North Korea, Cuba, and the former socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe are notorious and constant examples that the "left," in practice, has been as much or even more of an executioner of the people as the "right." Even if it has contributed to social improvements, it has often been accompanied by tacitly oppressive policies against groups it condemns as "enemies of the state's interests," whether in a scenario of absolute control or relatively predominant control (as has happened in Western countries currently, in the 2020s, where the identitarian "left" has become dominant in several key sectors, such as culture and education, but also, albeit not absolutely, in government).
But "being pro-collective" also implies being pro-individual.
The dichotomous idea that positioning oneself as pro-collective implies sacrificing the individual seems to me potentially problematic, since a collective is always composed of individuals, its raw material, and therefore, its most visceral expression. "Being in favor of the collective," then, should also mean "being in favor of individual rights." The only relevant point of disagreement would be precisely when a dichotomy is imposed: whether the collective is used against the individual, or the opposite, when it is the individual who, under a herd effect, can sacrifice the collective, as has actually happened in "modern" societies. Furthermore, the final conclusion is that being in favor of the collective does not automatically imply being in favor of collectivism, if it is also possible to think along the lines I proposed in this text, in which being in favor of collective well-being inevitably implies the well-being of the individuals that make up the collective, but without one canceling out the other—that is, the paradigm of reconciling their interests, strictly in the sense of "harmonizing."
Se a "esquerda" é realmente a favor do "coletivo"...
... então, por que incentiva tanto o sectarismo identitário??
Um truque comum entre indivíduos "de alto QI"/A common trick among "high IQ" individuals
Talvez o truque mais comum, é o de racionalizarem suas deficiências (comprovadas ou comprováveis) em outras facetas da inteligência humana, além das capacidades técnicas em que tendem a ser excelentes, nomeadamente de inteligência emocional e de racionalidade. Em outras palavras, de racionalizarem suas crenças irracionais e/ou julgamentos insensatos com explicações inteligentes, pelo uso de suas altas capacidades cognitivas quantitativas, especialmente as linguísticas, mas que os mantêm à margem de um desenvolvimento mais robusto de suas capacidades racionais e emocionais, ou capacidades qualitativas... Paradoxalmente falando, é o mesmo que usarem as capacidades cognitivas em que são mais inteligentes, mas contra outras capacidades, para continuarem menos inteligentes do que poderiam ser, inclusive em um sentido mais objetivo e decisivo de inteligência, que é a própria razão... Claro que tendem a fazer isso sem ter o pleno entendimento do que estão fazendo, de que estão se prejudicando intelectualmente, talvez um custo-benefício que, para eles, valha a pena, se costuma estar associado com a adaptação social especialmente em contextos humanos tipicamente dominados pela irracionalidade.
Perhaps the most common trick is to rationalize their deficiencies (proven or provable) in other facets of human intelligence, beyond the technical capabilities in which they tend to excel, namely emotional intelligence and rationality. In other words, rationalizing their irrational beliefs and/or senseless judgments with intelligent explanations, using their high quantitative cognitive capacities, especially linguistic ones, but which keep them on the margins of a more robust development of their rational and emotional capacities, or qualitative capacities... Paradoxically speaking, it's the same as using the cognitive capacities in which they are most intelligent, but against other capacities, to remain less intelligent than they could be, including in a more objective and decisive sense of intelligence, which is reason itself... Of course, they tend to do this without fully understanding what they are doing, that they are harming themselves intellectually, perhaps a cost-benefit that, for them, is worth it, if it is usually associated with social adaptation, especially in human contexts typically dominated by irrationality.
Two more (possibly repeated) thoughts about intelligence
Two more (possibly repeated) thoughts about intelligence
Learning difficulty or disability?
The first expression, learning DIFFICULTY, is the one most commonly used, especially in the contexts of education and psychology. However, as I've mentioned before, perhaps it would be better if this expression were limited to personal contexts in which a true learning potential is perceived, which has been hampered by factors external to the individual. Therefore, the learning DISABILITY/LIMITATION could be generalized to other contexts. If, in fact, a persistent inability is very likely a permanent phenotype and not just a condition that can be completely reversed or resolved. And to accept it as it is, without this unrealistic belief that we have indefinite potential, especially in intellectual terms, so popular in "postmodern" times...
What is the most primary cause of a deficiency in rational (objective and impartial) thought?
While personality plays an important role in this context, it may also be that the cognitive aspect influences more primarily, because it is or appears to be more structural than the psychological aspect, and that this influence is therefore reflected in behavior. For example, difficulties with cognitive flexibility and autonomous reasoning, especially in the sense of "the ability to perceive true or feasible patterns," may be causal and antecedent factors that direct individuals, who present them, toward ideological fanaticism (or religious fundamentalism), which, in turn, expresses itself precisely as an inflexibility of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. But it's not just a question of inflexibility, it's also a question of extreme subjectivity, which perhaps best defines both fanaticism and irrationality: a chronic inability to think objectively and impartially, or less personally, in which this adulteration of perception occurs, a kind of intoxication with one's own references supported by a preferred and restricted set of dogmatic beliefs that are predominantly unrealistic or distorted.
Again, the paradox of impartiality
However, it may also be that high rational capacity itself is simply another type of subjectivity, characteristically less extreme, that cannot be universally developed or achieved, as I have concluded. Returning to an older thought of mine on the same topic, in which I argue that rationality also has a bias, but a bias toward the anti-bias...
Mais dois pensamentos (possivelmente repetidos) sobre inteligência
Dificuldade ou deficiência de aprendizagem??