More random slurs

 "Zero tolerance for criminals"

Typical conservative talk

I agree!!

But... What about criminals in suits and ties with lots of money?

The premature death of a "celebrity" may be regrettable, but it's also regrettable that there are people so socially and economically privileged, especially if they have the audacity to speak publicly about the supposed privileges of those far less privileged than themselves and how much they supposedly suffered while alive...

Even though prejudice based on identity or nature can be very painful, not having enough to eat or living in financial insecurity is an even more visceral suffering that hinders the fullness of life. Furthermore, a wealthy person who suffers negative discrimination can still compensate with their privileges...

The problem with mourning the death of a famous person is that, for most, it consists of mourning the loss of a person they never knew, who often left no objectively good social contributions, and who is also associated with offering condolences as a matter of privilege, making it clear that certain lives are supposedly more worthy of collective commotion than others...

The politically correct "left" confuses compassion with pity.

The "leftists" loves to justify his great intolerance of differing opinions with the rule of "not being tolerant of the intolerant..." but intolerance is much more justifiable when it comes to a fool, which is precisely what they tend to be...

An unmistakable trait of stupidity is the chronic inability to avoid generalizing groups. Precisely what "left-wing" (and also "right-wing") identitarians do most...

Regulated and restricted immigration is like drinking in moderation, and mass immigration is like alcoholism...

Many of those who most believe in and desire the application of eugenics, usually conservatives, if they truly understood what it would entail, especially if eugenics' main goal were to elevate human rationality, would fight to keep humanity as stupid as possible...

Besides the "pathological altruists" and those ignorant on the topic, among those who position themselves as completely opposed to any practice of eugenics, there are also those who have a personal interest in it, such as those with antisocial personality disorders... if they tend to prefer dysfunctional societies in which they disguise themselves better and consider them a perfect environment for adaptation, also in the sense of being successful...

Being in a problematic situation does not necessarily make an individual problematic. If there are problematic individuals who are in stable and peaceful life situations...

There are those who many consider "dead weight," primarily because they are supported or "carried" by others, or who present a more apparent relationship of unilateral dependence. But there's also the "living weight," the one who, even if they contribute financially or are not more dependent in a relationship, also contributes negatively, in other ways and/or not enough...

"It's important to respect the president because he's an authority"

Or

"It's important to respect an authority because he's an authority"

Redundant arguments like this are never sufficient for a truly philosophical analysis...

It's possible to hate groups without necessarily generalizing all the individuals who associate with them.

There are only three ways to develop sympathy for more objectively problematic groups (with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals):

Self-identification

Distance

Or a fanciful idealism

Sometimes, the best way to understand people's beliefs is

by seeking to know who they are.

Why do geniuses tend to be lonely?

For two main reasons:

1. Because, by becoming obsessed with their most interesting topics, they tend to become less interesting as social figures.

2. Because this intellectual obsession tends to shape their ways of seeing and relating to the world, constructing a unique existential perspective that is difficult for others to access or understand. While the ideal for socialization is for an individual's existential perspective to be as generic as possible, very easy to relate to and align with.

Every living being has its own beliefs, not just humans. Belief, in its most primitive sense, is an echo of confirmation based on what one feels, perceives, and experiences.

If creativity is intelligence and rationality is also intelligence, what is intelligence?

As if everything is God, what is God?

If "everything" is more of an abstraction than an absolute fact.

The problem isn't necessarily reading little, but thinking and understanding little. And, in this sense, there are many who are avid readers, but also have a deficient capacity for philosophical-scientific understanding... Just like those individuals excessively biased to one side of the political-ideological spectrum who are more ignorant than knowledgeable on a range of topics, even or especially those who appear to have specialized.

The problem, a priori, is not that the humanities are 99% ideologically biased to the left or right, but that the truths corresponding to them are not...

The same applies to the arts. It doesn't matter if they're biased to the left, center, or right, but what does that mean (bad taste, excessive politicization...)

The biggest differences between individuals with high (120 or higher) and low IQs (90 or lower): the ability to memorize and rationalize personal beliefs, even the most irrational ones

The biggest difference between the most rational and the least rational individuals: the ability to understand reality, which is the most critical to intelligence

"I am totally against discrimination and segregation."

Say those ''self righteous'' people who are always discriminating and segregating themselves in ideologically homogeneous spaces of more intimate coexistence...

Ideological fanaticism can be as serious as untreated schizophrenia, because the individual subjected to this condition begins to experience and interpret reality in a completely distorted way, always biased towards their delusional beliefs...

Genuine self-knowledge is scientific self-knowledge, which is also philosophical, which means knowing one's own potential and, therefore, one's own limits.

A classic example of ideological self-knowledge, in the worst sense of the term, means being unaware of one's own limits, believing one has infinite potential.

The safest way to self-knowledge is to begin with one's own limits, and then understand one's own potential, if these are determined by the former.

"We change all the time."

Self-knowledge requires the discipline of a trained self-observation so as not to make the kind of vague or imprecise deductions, like the one above.

No, we don't change all the time, literally. Most people don't change significantly in the long term. And the minority who exhibit more notable behavioral changes very likely already had underlying factors, inherent in their own nature. For if there is a first rule of behavior, it could well be this: no tendency emerges or expresses itself without a predisposition, just as there is no middle without a beginning. And the origin of our behaviors lies within ourselves, in our most innate mental traits, and not in the external "environment," so to speak, a collection of multiple factors given this abstract name, very similar to the idea of a whole, nothing more than a sum of factors confined to an arbitrarily determined space.

*Disregarding exceptional cases of brain injury or other mainly external factors that cause personality/mental changes

Attempts to universally extrapolate one's own experiences or life trajectories, as if they were possible examples in any other personal context, seem to tend to be based on seemingly less complex examples, especially in more challenging contexts. An example of a very common fallacy of thought...

The right to free association or self-segregation is also, especially, the right not to be forced to live with those who don't know how to live with them...

Claiming "anti-racist" these days (the 2020s) has progressively become an identification that expresses a lack of scientific and even moral (philosophical) understanding of related topics: race, behavior, society... rather than just a political-ideological inclination, much less a morally superior inclination, if the most fair judgment is never possible based on lies.

Just as, especially for a woman, who identifies as a feminist, has ceased to signify just a political position, much less a morally superior position, even by behaving like an inverted machismo, a widespread dehumanization of the male gender by many activist groups...

Still including within the fallacious term of "anti-racism" "anti-Semitism," anyone who is too biased to consider it in the way those most interested want it, as a thought crime, is as fanatical as those who passionately and uncritically declare themselves "anti-racists."

A person apparently endowed with high cognitive capacities who adopts "anti-racist" narratives, as well as other "identity" strands, is either suspected of doing so, perhaps benefiting from this position, or what is suspect is their rational level, that is, their epistemic level of rationality. But because it is tacitly irrational behavior, defending or relying on distortions of facts, what is already confirmed as a low level of instrumental rationality is not suspect...

Just as shame, if not more so.It's those fanatical individuals who clearly defend and/or rely on distortions of reality are the ones who act as apparent opponents of the fanaticism and influence of the first group. In both cases, the same question arises: are they more like madmen or cynics?

In absolute terms, no racial or ethnic group is superior to another, because no group is endowed with absolute uniformity of individuals, especially in terms of intellectual and moral behavior.

But in relative and historical terms, it is perfectly sensible to conclude that, yes, this hierarchy exists...

The paradox of labeling and moral behavior

The more you distance yourself from or condemn a label, the freer you feel to act in accordance with that same label, but through non-traditional or non-explicit means.

The same insufferable authoritarians who claim to be against any type of segregation are precisely those who most want to impose their unpleasant presence everywhere...

Every abstraction is arbitrary. A city, a concept, or a word. It's the same as giving form or limits to what doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. It's the same as giving form and structure to the imagination.

A teacher's humanistic training doesn't mean they have to take on roles that aren't their primary competency, but rather that they at least master a minimum of legitimate knowledge about the sciences they deal with in their daily professional life. Therefore, ideally, teachers shouldn't be assigned other roles, such as that of psychologist/psychiatrist, but rather that they know how to psychologically and cognitively assess their students, so they can direct their teaching strategies. Or at least have a multidisciplinary team to support them.

A partir da verdadeira "justiça social", segregação e discriminação podem ser moralmente justificadas/From the perspective of true "social justice", segregation and discrimination can be morally justified

 A partir da verdadeira "justiça social", segregação e discriminação podem ser moralmente justificadas

Também no sentido de necessárias, afinal, ao menos em relação à segregação, ninguém deveria ser obrigado a conviver, ainda mais se for com pessoas cronicamente "problemáticas'... Nesse texto, apresentarei rapidamente uma maneira de solucionar esse problema de convívio forçado e injusto, sem cair na tentação do "racismo', mas com uma ressalva que problematiza ainda mais as narrativas dominantes sobre o tema...

Bairros exclusivos para os "mais educados"??

Mais educados não apenas ou unicamente no sentido acadêmico, mas especialmente em termos de polidez, empatia, inteligência emocional, enfim, de capacidade real de convívio respeitoso... Então, seriam construídos ou estabelecidos "condomínios fechados" que excluiriam aqueles que não conseguem conviver socialmente de maneira educada ou, moradores de qualquer bairro poderiam escolher apenas aqueles que comprovadamente conseguem fazê-lo com consistência... Portanto, nada mais justo do que segregar quando existem razões lógicas que justifiquem tal ato. E que, nesse caso, ainda se consistiria em uma auto segregação, menos passível de recriminação moral coerente.

Mas mesmo quando, aparentemente, não existe uma razão lógica para a segregação, tal como no caso de fazê-lo com base em aspectos físicos ou raciais, todo indivíduo, em uma sociedade que respeita seus direitos mais básicos, está no direito de se segregar, se quiser, ou de se associar com quem ele desejar, e isso inclui até mesmo o critério da etnia ou raça, invalidando a associação absoluta da ideia de racismo com a de segregação racial que tem sido estabelecida como um dogma moral desde a segunda metade do século XX. Mesmo no caso mais famoso, que aconteceu durante o regime do Apartheid, na África do Sul, se as questões mais objetivamente discutíveis ali foram: a imposição da segregação racial a nível nacional, sem deixar para a livre escolha de indivíduos e grupos, e a administração rudimentar do governo sul africano em relação aos territórios destinados à população negra, além da repartição muito desigual de terras. 

Se a "verdadeira justiça social" não sacrifica injustamente certos grupos, pela criação de bodes expiatórios, para supostamente corrigir equívocos históricos cometidos contra indivíduos de grupos marginalizados, até porque processos sociais de marginalização não costumam acontecer de maneira unilateral, como se fossem sempre ou absolutamente injustos, o que quase nunca é o caso. 

E quanto à discriminação??

Idealmente falando, toda sociedade humana deveria se constituir por filtros justos ou racionais de seleção e, portanto, de discriminação, que incluem ou excluem com base em critérios moral e intelectualmente justificáveis, tal como o estabelecimento de quotas para deficientes (mas não para outros critérios, como o de raça ou sexo) e a seleção dos indivíduos mais objetivamente capazes para determinada função. Pois é conclusivo quanto à inevitabilidade dos filtros de discriminação, se toda seleção é uma discriminação, no sentido de exclusão implícita, e se sempre se baseia em critérios específicos, também a especificação como sinônimo de discriminação...

Pois é quase certo de se concluir que a maioria daqueles que advogam pelo fim de qualquer medida de discriminação e de segregação: não compreende com profundidade do que se tratam esses conceitos, e os praticam em suas esferas pessoais, como bons hipócritas, se todo ser humano tem os seus próprios critérios ou gostos pessoais.

From the perspective of true "social justice", segregation and discrimination can be morally justified

Also in the sense of being necessary, after all, at least in relation to segregation, no one should be forced to live together, especially if it is with chronically "problematic" people... In this text, I will quickly present a way to solve this problem of forced and unfair coexistence, without falling into the temptation of "racism", but with a caveat that further problematizes the dominant narratives on the subject...

Exclusive neighborhoods for the "more educated"??

More educated not only or solely in the academic sense, but especially in terms of politeness, empathy, emotional intelligence, in short, a real capacity for respectful coexistence... Then, "gated communities" would be built or established that would exclude those who are unable to socialize in a polite manner, or residents of any neighborhood could choose only those who have proven to be able to do so consistently... Therefore, nothing is fairer than segregating when there are logical reasons to justify such an act. And in this case, it would still be self-segregation, less subject to coherent moral recrimination.

But even when there is apparently no logical reason for segregation, such as when segregation is based on physical or racial characteristics, every individual in a society that respects their most basic rights has the right to segregate themselves if they wish, or to associate with whomever they wish, and this even includes the criteria of ethnicity or race, invalidating the absolute association of the idea of racism with that of racial segregation that has been established as a moral dogma since the second half of the 20th century. Even in the most famous case, which occurred during the Apartheid regime in South Africa, the most objectively debatable issues there were: the imposition of racial segregation at the national level, without leaving it up to the free choice of individuals and groups, and the rudimentary administration of the South African government in relation to the territories destined for the black population, in addition to the very unequal distribution of land. If "true social justice" does not unfairly sacrifice certain groups by creating scapegoats to supposedly correct historical mistakes made against individuals from marginalized groups, then social processes of marginalization do not usually occur unilaterally, as if they were always or absolutely unfair, which is almost never the case.

What about discrimination?

Ideally speaking, every human society should be constituted by fair or rational filters of selection and, therefore, of discrimination, which include or exclude based on morally and intellectually justifiable criteria, such as the establishment of quotas for the disabled (but not for other criteria, such as race or sex) and the selection of the most objectively capable individuals for a given function. For it is conclusive as to the inevitability of discriminatory filters, if all selection is discrimination, in the sense of implicit exclusion, and if it is always based on specific criteria, then specification is also synonymous with discrimination...

For it is almost certain to conclude that the majority of those who advocate for the end of any measure of discrimination and segregation: do not understand in depth what these concepts are about, and practice them in their personal spheres, like good hypocrites, if every human being has their own criteria or personal tastes.

Limites do conceito de racismo, com um exemplo: o direito à livre associação/Limits of the concept of racism, with an example: the right to free association

 É racismo não querer conviver ou limitar o convívio com indivíduos da raça y ou da etnia x??

Muitos diriam que sim, que é um exemplo clássico e indiscutível de racismo. Mas o direito à livre associação (que também pode ser chamado de "auto segregação") não é racismo. Como acontece com frequência, preconceitos, tal como o racismo*, e preferência pessoal, também entram em conflito por aqui, porque parece difícil determinar onde que um começa e o outro termina... 

Então, como resolver esse impasse?? 

Aplicando a minha proposta de conceito para o racismo, buscando pelo conceito mais objetivo e imparcial possível, ainda mais se tratando de uma palavra ou termo abstrato e que, ainda por cima, é mais específico a contextos sociais, com implicações morais... Finalmente, ao invés de usar o conceito mais adotado, de comportamento discriminatório com base na raça ou etnia, enfatizar em sua própria raiz, que é o estabelecimento de uma relação equivocada de causalidade ou generalização (e não de correlação interseccional) entre fenótipo racial e comportamentos, até como maneira de separar, por definitivo, preferência pessoal de racismo, bem como de qualquer outro tipo de preconceito. Também ajuda a não super-enfatizar racismo ou preconceitos às ideias de discriminação e segregação, se, como eu já comentei em outro texto**, não são unilateralmente imorais, por estarem dependentes de contexto para que se possa determinar o quão injustas, insensatas, cruéis, ou o oposto, podem ser. 

* O racismo pode ser por preconceito (racismo negativo ou generalização pejorativa de um ou mais grupos raciais) ou por fanatismo (racismo positivo ou supremacia racial de um ou mais grupos raciais). Eu falei sobre esses tipos de racismo que propus nesse texto: Racismo "negativo" e "positivo".

** "Sobre mais dois casos de manipulação semântica para fins políticos supostamente benignos: discriminação e segregação"

Esse texto busca justificar e defender o direito à livre associação, de que, a priori, nenhum indivíduo deve ser obrigado a conviver com ninguém que não queira, mesmo se por motivação racial ou por outra razão parecida (por orientação sexual, religião...). 

Is it racist not to want to socialize or limit socializing with individuals of race y or ethnicity x?

Many would say yes, that it is a classic and indisputable example of racism. But the right to free association (which can also be called "self-segregation") is not racism. As often happens, prejudices, such as racism*, and personal preference also come into conflict here, because it seems difficult to determine where one begins and the other ends...

So, how to resolve this impasse??

Applying my proposed concept for racism, searching for the most objective and impartial concept possible, especially when it is an abstract word or term and which, on top of that, is more specific to social contexts, with moral implications... Finally , instead of using the most adopted concept, of discriminatory behavior based on race or ethnicity, emphasize its own root, which is the establishment of a mistaken relationship of causality or generalization (and not of intersectional correlation) between racial phenotype and behaviors , even as a way to definitively separate personal preference from racism, as well as any other type of prejudice. It also helps not to overemphasize racism or prejudice against the ideas of discrimination and segregation, if, as I have already commented in another text**, they are not unilaterally immoral, as they are context dependent so that one can determine how unfair, unwise, cruel, or the opposite, can be.

* Racism can be due to prejudice (negative racism or pejorative generalization of one or more racial groups) or fanaticism (positive racism or racial supremacy of one or more racial groups). I talked about these types of racism that I proposed in this text: "Negative" and "Positive" racism.

** "About two more cases of semantic manipulation for supposedly benign political purposes: discrimination and segregation"

This text seeks to justify and defend the right to free association, that, a priori, no individual should be forced to live with anyone they do not want to, even if for racial motivation or for any other similar reason (sexual orientation, religion... ).

Sobre mais dois casos de manipulação semântica para fins políticos supostamente benignos: discriminação e segregação/About two more cases of semantic manipulation for supposedly benign political purposes: discrimination and segregation

 (Eu já falei sobre o caso da xenofobia nesse texto: "Novo exemplo de desonestidade 'de esquerda': xenofobia")

Sempre imorais??

Discriminar é o ato de tratar de maneira diferente, de diferenciar.

Segregar é o ato de separar, dividir ou isolar.

São duas palavras abstratas e, como costuma acontecer com esse tipo de palavra, estão desprovidas de uma determinação moral que só é imposta a partir de uma contextualização. Isso significa que, discriminar pode ser moralmente bom ou ruim, assim como segregar. No entanto, graças ao aparelhamento ideológico progressivo das instituições tradicionais, especialmente no mundo ocidental, essas duas palavras têm sido unilateralmente determinadas como imorais, também no sentido de injustas ou irracionais, como se segregar ou discriminar fosse sempre errado (exagerado, desnecessário, cruel...).

Ainda dentro de suas respectivas possibilidades, existem atos correspondentes de auto discriminação e de auto segregação, quando são mais direcionados para si mesmo. Um bom exemplo de auto segregação é a existência de grupos religiosos, vezes determinados por linhagens raciais, tal como os judeus ortodoxos e os amish. Já em relação à auto discriminação, pode e costuma se dar em vários contextos pessoais, mesmo sem ser percebida pelo indivíduo.

Exemplos em que segregação e discriminação não são imorais:

Segregar indivíduos ou grupos de indivíduos objetivamente considerados perigosos para a segurança pública ou mesmo de se auto segregar em relação aos mesmos...

Discriminar pelos artistas mais objetivamente talentosos para uma finalidade específica que busca pelo primor artístico.

A própria meritocracia é um tipo de discriminação positiva.

Separar vagas de estacionamento para deficientes físicos; tratar deficientes mentais de maneira positivamente diferenciada ou positivamente discriminatória.

Exemplos históricos de práticas de segregação e discriminação que têm sido retratados como absolutamente abjetos pelos mesmos indivíduos que inventaram e/ou adotam manipulações semânticas desses termos:

Segregação racial na África do Sul e no sul dos EUA

Pois apesar de serem exemplos de segregação por critério de raça e portanto, passíveis de crítica*, se é mais racional segregar por critérios mais objetivos, tal como por comportamento, não foram baseados unicamente no desejo ou intuito de separar indivíduos por raça, mas também e, justamente, com base em estatísticas de comportamento por grupo racial. Portanto, mesmo se o critério usado fosse o comportamento, ainda ocorreriam níveis variados de segregação racial, por causa das diferenças médias de tendências comportamentais entre as populações humanas.

* Pelo critério de auto segregação, há pouco com o que discutir.

Por fim, é importante destacar que discriminar e segregar são atos constantes, praticamente inevitáveis em nossas vidas e também nos ambientes sociais em que navegamos. Então, lutar contra algo que nós é tão lógico, básico e natural não parece contraproducente. Como conclusão, o ideal seria de buscarmos pelas medidas mais racionais ou justas de discriminação e segregação e não de nos iludirmos tratando-as como desejavelmente descartáveis.

 (I already talked about the case of xenophobia in this text: "New example of 'left-wing' dishonesty: xenophobia")

Always immoral??

Discriminating is the act of treating differently, of differentiating.

Segregation is the act of separating, dividing or isolating.

They are two abstract words and, as is often the case with this type of word, they are devoid of a moral determination that is only imposed through contextualization. This means that discriminating can be morally good or bad, just like segregating. However, thanks to the progressive ideological rigging of traditional institutions, especially in the Western world, these two words have been unilaterally determined to be immoral, also in the sense of unfair or irrational, as if segregating or discriminating were always wrong (exaggerated, unnecessary, cruel. ..).

Still within their respective possibilities, there are corresponding acts of self-discrimination and self-segregation, when they are more directed towards oneself. A good example of self-segregation is the existence of religious groups, sometimes determined by racial lineages, such as Orthodox Jews and the Amish. Regarding self-discrimination, it can and usually occurs in various personal contexts, even without being noticed by the individual.

Examples where segregation and discrimination are not immoral:

Segregating individuals or groups of individuals objectively considered dangerous to public safety or even self-segregating in relation to them...

Discriminate among the most objectively talented artists for a specific purpose that seeks artistic excellence.

Meritocracy itself is a type of positive discrimination.

Separate parking spaces for disabled people; treat mentally disabled people in a positively differentiated or positively discriminatory way.

Historical examples of segregation and discrimination practices that have been portrayed as absolutely abject by the same individuals who invented and/or adopted semantic manipulations of these terms:

Racial segregation in South Africa and the southern US

Because despite being examples of segregation based on race criteria and therefore subject to criticism*, although it is more rational to segregate based on more objective criteria, such as behavior, they were not based solely on the desire or intention to separate individuals by race, but also and, precisely, based on behavioral statistics by racial group. Therefore, even if the criterion used was behavior, varying levels of racial segregation would still occur, because of the differences in average behavioral tendencies among human populations.

* According to the self-segregation criterion, there is little to argue with.

Finally, it is important to highlight that discriminating and segregating are constant acts, practically inevitable in our lives and also in the social environments in which we navigate. So, fighting against something that is so logical, basic and natural to us does not seem counterproductive. In conclusion, the ideal would be to look for the most rational or fair measures of discrimination and segregation and not to deceive ourselves by treating them as desirably disposable.