Como que o pragmatismo ratifica fanatismo ou doutrinação/How does pragmatism reinforce fanaticism or indoctrination?

 É uma dinâmica bem simples em que a doutrinação ou o fanatismo, quando dominante dentro de um contexto individual, primeiro dita "o tom" de quais serão as crenças mais influentes na (deturpação de) percepção e também na tomada de decisão. E como o ser humano não foge à regra muito universal de comportamento de seres vivos, de agir pragmaticamente, ao tomar sua doutrinação como referência absoluta de realidade (que eu também já considerei como um sinal essencial de irracionalidade), passa a se direcionar objetivamente com base nela, muitas vezes, sem refletir as próprias ações...

It's a very simple dynamic where indoctrination or fanaticism, when dominant within an individual context, first dictates "the tone" of which beliefs will be most influential in (distorting) perception and also in decision-making. And since human beings don't escape the very universal rule of behavior of living beings—acting pragmatically—when they take their indoctrination as an absolute reference of reality (which I have also considered an essential sign of irrationality), they begin to objectively direct themselves based on it, often without reflecting on their own actions...

The Dark Side of Being a Fan

Emma Watson is best known as the actress who played Hermione Granger, one of the main characters in the Harry Potter film franchise, based on J.K. Rowling's iconic book series, released in the late 1990s and which helped revive young audiences' interest in reading. She has played other film roles, but it's clear that it was primarily because of the Harry Potter films that she became known worldwide. Emma has also gained notoriety for her political activism. But this activism is typical of "celebrity" politics, with plenty of politically correct and biased rhetoric and little hands-on action. Despite having built a less than impressive career in terms of acting, both in the arts and in politics, Emma has millions of followers on Instagram and other social media platforms, on this particular one, around fifty million—that is, she has more Instagram followers than Argentina has. Many of this young lady's millions of social media followers are her "fans," and as you might imagine, they are people who harbor a sense of fanaticism toward her, treating her as if she were a special, flawless human being and exaggerating her personal and professional achievements.

Whenever I think of social activism, I think of those people, usually women, who dedicate their lives to fostering and caring for stray animals, almost always dogs and cats. I think of the sheer number of followers these people tend to have: far fewer than "Hermione," the activist of words... I think of the difficult lives these kind-hearted people lead to maintain their altruistic projects with some of the most reviled creatures in a typical urban environment, and how much more celebrated these celebrities are, even or especially when they do nothing truly special (or quite the opposite). And there's no way to conclude that their fans contribute more to feeding the ego of this type of celebrity, who also engages in abstract activism, and that they could do something more objectively altruistic, at least by following animal rights accounts, given that the more followers a social media account has, the more money it can earn from sponsors... They could help much more noble causes than stroking the ego of narcissists (sorry, but that's my impression of Emma and others like her). This is one of the darkest sides of being a fan: the typical injustice of deifying figures who, frankly speaking, are far less relevant in a practical sense, even if their faces are known worldwide. If they themselves could actually do good, helping NGOs and individuals genuinely engaged in altruistic projects, using their own image to drive support, but also contributing generously. But no... They prefer to act like parrots of supposed social activism full of ulterior motives, such as, for example, supporting refugees, which, in reality, have as their most important objective to push the globalist agenda of slowly destroying the cultural and ethnic identities of nations through mass immigration.

Why isn't Charlie Kirk's murder similar to the murder of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson?

Charlie Kirk, an American conservative activist, was murdered during a presentation at a university in Utah. He was murdered because he was conservative, right-wing, pro-Israel, anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), pro-"big business"... In other words, he lost his life because of his beliefs. Even if I don't agree with many of them, being tolerant means precisely that: accepting that ideological differences exist. As insensitive and ignorant as it may seem to me for someone to defend Israel and not stand with the Palestinian people, for example, I still can't prevent that specific position from being adopted by others. I can lament that the average human being is so irregular in moral and rational terms. I can try to convince those who believe this or that, but I can't stop anyone from having their own beliefs and expressing them publicly.

(Although I believe that certain types of beliefs, positions, or modes of expression should be inhibited, as I already discussed in this text "The Only Rationally Acceptable Limit to Opinion Censorship: Absolute Dehumanization")

I would only agree with Charlie Kirk's political assassination if I were a person driven by unhealthy ideological fanaticism and believed that dissenters should be punished, imprisoned, or even eliminated. Although I also believe that, while tolerance of dissent is a rule of civility, there are more urgent contexts in which, at the very least, harsher measures may be necessary, or when the maximum limits of tolerance based on rational criteria—moral and intellectual—are being exceeded.

Aside from some "conspiracy theories" that have emerged to explain what happened in this case, the official police version is that Charlie's killer was a young man in his early 20s (Tyler Robinson) who seemed to identify as "left-wing." A relatively similar case of politically or ideologically motivated murder occurred in the US last year, also committed by a young man identified as Luigi Mangioni, who took the life of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson. But these primary similarities end there, because while Michael Kirk was an activist who made videos and lectures about his beliefs, ideas, and thoughts—some quite sensible, in line with common and necessary criticisms of certain "progressive" policies—Brian Thompson oversaw the systematic denial of payment for certain medical treatments to thousands of his health insurance company's members, while continuing to increase his profits by cutting these "costs." So, although his murder was a barbaric crime, it is more difficult to fully condemn it, precisely because of his cruelty in denying payment for the treatment of sick people out of pure greed. Both cases show how important the context is in determining the type and severity of the crime, because when justice is too slow to severely punish serious crimes that are committed, or even tolerant, especially if they are committed by "upper class" people and based on cruel legalities, typical of systems that are designed to favor "elite" interests, such as capitalism, certain acts of "taking justice into one's own hands" end up filling these gaps, doing the job that should be done by the "system."

Another list of sincere insults

 Pseudo-intellectuals first seek to convince themselves that they are true intellectuals, especially when they are unaware of what they are or what they are not, and they usually are not. This theater or performance of appearance begins in the mirror itself.

The problem is not that bad art exists, but that it is elevated to the heights that should be reserved exclusively for high culture.

Ideologically fanatical individuals are at similar levels of insanity to untreated psychotic individuals. Perhaps the biggest difference between them is that, while typical psychosis causes subjective discomfort, atypical psychosis, generated by ideological indoctrination, has the completely opposite effect and, therefore, can perhaps be considered even more dangerous...

Regarding the mimicry of opportunistic or parasitic strategies in nature and extrapolation to the human geopolitical context:

The same situation, of one species deceiving another, posing as itself, invading its living space, usually that of a social species, and taking advantage of this deception to benefit. So, this opportunistic mimicry also occurs in the Western world, where a certain tribe of "chosen ones" poses as "native whites" to do exactly what is perceived in the natural environment...

Deception, usurpation, exploitation, even the destruction of the host species...

But make no mistake, because this type of parasitism has been characteristic of every complex society or civilization...

The example of this tribe was only used because it is an accurate manifestation of this type of mimicry in a human context.

If the right produces constructive shit and the left destructive shit, it is because the right's shit is more moral than structural, while the left, in trying to deconstruct this structure, ends up destroying it—the only structure that exists.

How to think rationally with an example:

First, ask fundamental questions about the topic. For example, "racism."

Who is defining these or those concepts?

(Who is defining the concept of racism? Ans: Ideologically biased individuals and/or groups...)

How objective and precise are these definitions?

(Ans: The concept of racism has not been defined in the most objective way because it has been done so vaguely, leaving room for confusion with other types of behavior or tendencies, for example, the confusion between personal taste and racial prejudice, or between negative opinion and negative generalization.)

But how do we define objectivity when it comes to an abstract construct?

(Ans: Precisely because it is an abstract construct, the concept of racism should be as strict as possible, the most objective way to define an abstraction. For example, my concept of it, as a generalization between behavior and race or ethnicity, "everyone in group X is like that," for example.)

The level of subjectivity in an aesthetic judgment depends on what is being compared. For example, comparing French (standard or Parisian) with Polish will inevitably result in the conclusion that the former is more aesthetically pleasing than the latter, if Polish seems to have a constant hissing sound, while French sounds more elaborate and, therefore, more sophisticated. It would be like comparing a beautiful flower to a blade of grass on the ground...

It seems common for those who define themselves as "independent" to be essentially stingy individualists.

"There is no absolute truth"

The denial of the existence of absolute truths is a declaration of absolute truth...

The vast majority of moral arguments are essentially emotional blackmail. But some blackmail is "better" or fairer and more objective than others.

Those who leave the "flock" of a traditional religion—that is, those who leave a typically religious ideological indoctrination but end up becoming very ideologically biased "progressives"—have merely exchanged one indoctrination or brainwashing for another...

The influence of the environment on human intelligence is only more significant, but never absolute, during the first formative years, of immersion in basic education, while biological or genetic influence becomes progressively significant the higher the level of complexity of knowledge, as it expresses more purely vocational aspects. It's basically the difference between learning to read and write and directing one's own interests at a much more complex and/or specific level.

The right is more about aggression and homicide, and the left is about immolation and suicide. If the traditional right has historically been a force of oppression and destruction, it has been more about attacking those it considers threats, but never, or primarily, itself.

While the left, especially the identitarian left, currently dominant in Western nations, has acted as a self-destructive or implosive force.

Culture is not the cause of human behavior, but one of its effects.

Old-school or classically trained actors (obviously) resemble classical dancers more than modern actors because they are also products of a system that prioritizes (or prioritized) talent over appearance. Currently, the most talented actors tend to be those who work in theater, precisely because it is a remnant of their profession's past, since theater continues to prioritize talent over appearance...

On expressions or statements that have aged poorly

"Class consciousness"

It has progressively become synonymous with hypocrisy and ideological fanaticism.

Indoctrination has a neutral or essential meaning and a pejorative meaning. In a neutral sense, it is any doctrine followed by an individual or group. Every culture has its indoctrination, its modus operandi, if no culture survives without a doctrine. Indoctrination, in a pejorative sense, is the opposite of education, because the former consists of transmitting information according to the wishes of the authorities who hold the power to transmit it, and not based on more objective, impartial, or rational criteria. Education, ideally, is the practice of wisdom itself.

Much of what is commonly called "the left" boils down to emotional blackmail and supposed good intentions.

Those who put "kindness" before knowledge also put ignorance before it.

Kindness without knowledge is no different from evil with knowledge.

The rational artist is a rare bird. Most artists are rationally idiots.

Intellectually pedantic and politically fanatical individuals are literally insufferable.

A narrative is an event, situation, or phenomenon described in the language of feeling. And therefore, it tends to be expressed imprecisely or even as a distortion of the facts.

The Main Difference Between Hyperfocus and Ideological Fanaticism

 Hyperfocus is a characteristic more common in some conditions, such as autism and ADHD. Individuals with hyperfocus exhibit a strong and sustained interest in certain topics, often focusing on these interests for several hours a day or for an indefinite period of time. Hyperfocus can be even more profound if it manifests itself over a long period of time. Hyperfocus can also manifest as the cognitive and/or psychological structure of ideological fanaticism, usually when the obsessive focus turns to political or ideological issues. But not only because it focuses on these issues, because the most important element in determining ideological fanaticism is the existence of a firm inflexibility about one's own beliefs that transcends common sense. That is, the level of conviction is so high that it prevents the affected individual from constantly self-criticizing them, including their self-criticism, such as how fact-based, evidence-based, or analytically balanced they are.

Signs that the "left" is behaving like a religion

Despite considering itself a secularized political ideology, which is not based on beliefs about deities and/or metaphysical dimension, the "left" has structurally behaved like a kind of religion and I will demonstrate this through a list of indicative signs:

1. It tends to be based on narratives rather than facts

Narratives are preconceived (and typically simplistic) interpretations of phenomena, situations or events, generally closed to criticism or intellectually honest updates. An example of a "left" narrative is that of "white guilt", which states that especially white people of European origin should be collectively held responsible for crimes committed in the past and present, omitting bad actions of other racial groups, including against whites, a narrative that expresses a fallacy of suppressed evidence, in which "half a story" is told.

2. Tends to present a dogmatic style of thought

Because it presents a narrative structure, this structure is also constituted by dogmas, which are statements or thoughts considered as absolute truths within a certain system of beliefs and which, characteristically, do not correspond to facts or objective truths. The dogma of human equality is an example widely adopted by those who identify with the "left", that there are no intrinsic or more pronounced differences between human groups (sex, race...).

3. Tends to be based on beliefs without true or forged evidence

In other words, it tends to be based on faith, on blind belief in certain postulates, generally based on forged or false evidence. The blind belief that there are no human races or that their differences are only superficial, of "culture", is an example of a "leftist" belief without true evidence or with false evidence (fallacious arguments).

4. Tends to base itself on emotion/subjectivity rather than reason/objectivity

Although not "everything" it defends or believes is untrue (it is much more complex than that), it often uses appealing methods, such as emotional blackmail, to convince or defend its points of view. Although it is not always intellectually dishonest to appeal to emotion, the "left" tends to show an unhealthy preference for this route, indicating that it does not have a strong enough rational foundation to prioritize objectivity and impartiality in its approaches.

5. Prefers language that is more abstract or metaphorical than literal

For example, the "left" obsession with certain terms, such as racism, clearly an abstract term, a human fiction that is taken as a fact as solid or real as a physical element of nature, and which, on top of that, has been used to promote the silencing of dialogue or criticism of its definitions and applications. Because, like a typical religion, it abuses metaphorical language, treating it as if it represented something beyond the abstract dimension. This type of intellectual conduct contributes to poor judgment. For example, attributing blame for violence to weapons, and not to those who use them to commit violent acts, is an example of poor judgment because there is an inversion of factors, attributing causality to an inanimate element. 

6. It presents a mythological pantheon

With leaders or political figures, artists and other types of "illustrious" people who stood out historically and were raised by the "left" as their untouched myths. The biggest difference is that they are not Greek gods from Olympus or Catholic saints, but flesh and blood humans, and full of contradictions...

In addition to a pantheon of "admirable" people, it also presents a "black list" of "execrable" people (true or not, or more exaggerated) that "leftists" love to hate, their pet "goldsteins" (according to the representation of the "personification of evil" in the classic of universal literature, "1984" by George Orwell, and which faithfully shows all the traits of indoctrination and fanaticism of totalitarian political regimes).

7. It is proselytizing and irrationally intolerant

Very similar to most traditional religions, followers of the "leftist" religion also seek attract new converts, often in an aggressive manner, in addition to contributing to keeping other followers strongly indoctrinated, always aiming to impose their opinions and beliefs through all means they can dominate, legally, culturally... instead of tolerating a broader spectrum of ideological diversity or ideas and thoughts, especially those who are more sensible (regardless of their origin in the political-ideological spectrum), and seeking to honestly criticize their own beliefs.

Ideological fanaticism and religious fundamentalism are atavistic expressions of human behavior

 Because they reflect chronic deficiencies or incapacities, linked to the most advanced thought that human beings can achieve, which is rational thought: reflective, self-critical, self-aware, objective, impartial, thoughtful... Which best enables us to improve our true understanding of the world... Because they reflect emotional instincts projected into language, in which they take the form of words and concepts and emulate human intelligence, hiding their much simpler and vestigial nature: an atavism of the mind, as if an animal of another species acquired the ability to learn our complex language but used it only to reinforce its instinctive impulses. In this case, in the real world, when dealing with humans themselves, a very common and little understood mismatch, often considered as an exclusive social or cultural phenomenon and not, or mainly, as a cognitive and evolutionary phenomenon, of something deeper that does not affect us equally if this also depends on the predispositions we present, to which some, or many, are more susceptible than others. Therefore, the more irreducible the individual is regarding his personal beliefs, especially those that are categorically irrational, the more guided or dominated by his emotional instincts he is. Wouldn't there be logical reason to believe in nonsenses that can even be easily refuted or at least severely problematized, from the belief in eternal life and divine existence to the secular belief in absolute human equality, for example. If the only logical reason I have found to explain this support for irrational beliefs is the apparent or felt personal benefit of doing so, but also because it reflects a self-projection of expectations and personality traits of the person themselves, of something they believe as a reflection of themselves, like an intoxicating state of excessive self-confidence, which leads to a less sober state. That is why it is so dear to a person afflicted by this delusion of grandeur to criticize, test and/or give up even their most irrational beliefs, if for them it would be similar to mutilating their own body, cutting and throwing away their own pieces of hope, dreams, motivation for life and sense of reality, even if falsified, and making room for facts or truths that they would not like to have in their mind as part of their personal belief system, which do not share their way of being and thinking.

Como identificar um fanático político-ideológico durante um debate ou conversa??/How to identify a political-ideological fanatic during a debate or conversation?

 Sinais de que você está debatendo com um fanático, especialmente de um certo lado...

1. Ele te acusa de muitos nomes 

De ser um fascista, racista, nazista... 

Porque não está realmente preocupado em argumentar ou debater.

2. Ele usa jargões constantemente 

Como se estivesse fazendo um discurso em cada comentário.

"É golpe"

"Luta pela 'democracia'"

Repete os jargões que seus líderes ou autoridades ideológicas lhes ensinaram e sem qualquer autocrítica adequada.

3. Ele não quer te deixar falar 

Não quer te escutar ou ouvir seus argumentos, porque quer minimizar o risco de acabar concordando contigo, especialmente com aquilo que não quer.

4. Ele fica em um estado de histeria 

Emocionado, passional, amedrontado, quando está em um debate...

Com medo de "perder" o debate ou de acabar tomando uma invertida. E como é o destino dos que se aprofundam demais na defesa de certas crenças, até que faz sentido evitarem debates verdadeiros, porque assim evitam se expor ao escrutínio dos de fora de suas bolhas e de perceberem da pior maneira o quão ignorantes realmente estão, mesmo que não admitam ou aceitem... 

Signs that you are debating with a fanatic, especially from a certain side...

1. He accuses you of many names

Of being a fascist, racist, Nazi...

Because he is not really concerned with arguing or debating.

2. He uses jargon constantly

As if he were making a speech in each comment.

"It's a coup"

"Fight for 'democracy'"

He repeats the jargon that his leaders or ideological authorities taught him and without any proper self-criticism.

3. He doesn't want to let you speak

He doesn't want to listen to you or hear your arguments, because he wants to minimize the risk of ending up agreeing with you, especially with something he doesn't want to.

4. He becomes hysterical

Emotional, passionate, scared, when he is in a debate...

Afraid of "losing" the debate or ending up being turned around. And as is the fate of those who delve too deeply into defending certain beliefs, it even makes sense for them to avoid real debates, because that way they avoid exposing themselves to the scrutiny of those outside their bubbles and realizing in the worst way how ignorant they really are, even if they don't admit or accept it...

Fanatismo ideológico, apenas conformismo social ou algo mais??/Ideological fanaticism, just social conformism or something more?

 Uma das características mais marcantes de um indivíduo que está ideologicamente fanatizado é um profundo conformismo a ideias, pensamentos e crenças que prevalecem em seus grupos de identidade ou aderência. Portanto, seria interessante pensar se essa característica não é apenas uma correlação interseccional, mas também uma relação ainda mais direta de causalidade entre os dois fenômenos e sobre qual viria primeiro, se é o fanatismo que tende a resultar nesse profundo conformismo de grupo ou se acontece no sentido oposto em que é uma necessidade mais intrínseca ou impulsiva pela conformidade social que desencadeia esse ciclo vicioso de fixação dogmática??

E/ou se o fanatismo ideológico, bem como o conformismo social, seriam resultados de uma mesma tendência para a sociabilidade intensa, similar ao que acontece com espécies sociais não-humanas, como as abelhas e as formigas?? 

Pois parece mais lógico pensar que a tendência para a sociabilidade intensa apareça primeiro, ainda mais em relação ao fanatismo ideológico, por esse exigir mais tempo de exposição a ideias, pensamentos e crenças para que possa tomar corpo. 

E um plus...

Eu tenho proposto (em outros textos) uma relação entre psicose e fanatismo ideológico, principalmente por causa da ocorrência de crenças falsas ou delirantes, um componente sintomático importante de quadros psicóticos. Pois existe outro transtorno mental que também parece estar presente em um quadro de fanatismo ideológico e até de maneira mais óbvia, que demorei a perceber: o TOC ou transtorno obsessivo-compulsivo, bem característico de mentes muito dogmáticas, com a diferença de que, nesse caso, acontece uma interseção entre cultura, política e psiquiatria, tal como se o transtorno se "materializasse" em forma de crenças político-ideológicas.

 

One of the most striking characteristics of an individual who is ideologically fanaticized is a deep conformity to ideas, thoughts and beliefs that prevail in their identity or adherence groups. Therefore, it would be interesting to think whether this characteristic is not only an intersectional correlation, but also an even more direct causal relation between the two phenomena and which would come first, whether it is fanaticism that tends to result in this deep group conformism or if it happens in the opposite direction, where it is a more intrinsic or impulsive need for social conformity that triggers this vicious cycle of dogmatic fixation?

And/or if ideological fanaticism, as well as social conformism, would be the result of the same tendency towards intense sociability, similar to what happens with non-human social species, such as bees and ants?

It seems more logical to think that the tendency towards intense sociability appears first, especially in relation to ideological fanaticism, since this requires more time of exposure to ideas, thoughts and beliefs in order to take shape.

And a bonus...

I have proposed (in other texts) a relation between psychosis and ideological fanaticism, mainly because of the occurrence of false or delusional beliefs, an important symptomatic component of psychotic conditions. There is another mental disorder that also seems to be present in a condition of ideological fanaticism and even in a more obvious way, which I took a while to realize: OCD or obsessive-compulsive disorder, very characteristic of very dogmatic minds, with the difference that, in this case, there is an intersection between culture, politics and psychiatry, as if the disorder were "materialized" in the form of political-ideological beliefs.

A relação entre baixa autoconsciência/autoconhecimento, fanatismo ideológico, narcisismo e irracionalidade/The relationship between low self-awareness/self-knowledge, ideological fanaticism, narcissism and irrationality

 Quem se conhece pouco ou muito superficialmente, por extrapolação lógica, também compreende menos a realidade ao seu redor. Então, como recurso intuitivo e muito impreciso de orientação, está mais propenso a apelar para as ideologias e, nesse processo, acabar sofrendo doutrinação ideológica ou lavagem cerebral...

Quem se conhece pouco ou muito superficialmente também é pouco introspectivo, menos propenso a pensar sobre si mesmo, inclusive em um sentido autocrítico. E isso é provável que o torne atraído ao apelo de narrativas ideológicas que também estão pessoalmente enviesadas...

Quem se conhece pouco ou insuficiente também conhece pouco sobre os próprios limites e potenciais, e isso aumenta em demasia o risco de que  confunda sua própria perspectiva com a perspectiva do mundo, isto é, suas crenças ou expectativas pessoais com fatos...

Quem se conhece ou se entende pouco também está mais propenso a super ou subestimar suas capacidades, inclusive a racional, de julgamento factual e moral, e então a adotar postulados ideológicos, mesmo se forem baseados em distorções de fatos, falácias... tratando-os como verdades incontestáveis, desde que confirmem suas crenças pessoais... 

Quem se conhece ou se entende pouco está menos propenso a prestar atenção em si mesmo, em seus próprios pensamentos e sentimentos, e então a entrar em contradição com mais frequência. Ou também pode ser demasiado egocêntrico e a prestar muita atenção em si mesmo, mas especialmente em sua auto imagem distorcida, que faz pouca diferença em termos de auto compreensão...

Aquele que se conhece ou se entende pouco está mais propenso a ser narcisista, especialmente se superestima a si próprio. Então, está mais propenso a adotar apenas as crenças ideológicas que estão de acordo com os seus sentimentos, pensamentos, personalidade, circunstâncias pessoais... enfim, que reforçam seu egocentrismo, sua interpretação pessoalmente enviesada da realidade (ou super personalização/ irracionalidade) ao invés de buscar amadurecer intelectualmente para aceitar e lidar com os fatos tal como se apresentam...

Mas um baixo autoconhecimento também pode se manifestar pela síndrome do impostor tornando um indivíduo mais vulnerável a adotar crenças ideológicas de maneira acrítica, não necessariamente ou apenas porque reforçam suas crenças pessoais, mas também como maneira de mascarar sua auto percepção real ou exagerada de incapacidade de pensamento lógico-racional. E no caso de ser uma incapacidade verdadeira, se alinha mais ao caso de narcisismo, de super autoestima, do que de sub autoestima.

Those who know little about themselves or very superficially, through logical extrapolation, also understand less the reality around them. Therefore, as an intuitive and very imprecise resource for guidance, they are more likely to appeal to ideologies and, in the process, end up suffering ideological indoctrination or brainwashing...

Those who know little about themselves or very superficially are also not very introspective, less likely to think about themselves, including in a self-critical sense. And this is likely to make them attracted to the appeal of ideological narratives that are also personally biased...

Those who know little about themselves or insufficiently also know little about their own limits and potentials, and this greatly increases the risk that they will confuse their own perspective with the perspective of the world, that is, their personal beliefs or expectations with facts...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are also more likely to over- or underestimate their capacities, including rational, factual and moral judgment, and then to adopt ideological postulates, even if they are based on distortions of facts, fallacies... treating them as indisputable truths, as long as they confirm their personal beliefs...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are less likely to pay attention to themselves, to their own thoughts and feelings, and therefore to contradict themselves more often. Or they may also be too self-centered and pay too much attention to themselves, but especially to their distorted self-image, which makes little difference in terms of self-understanding...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are more likely to be narcissists, especially if they overestimate themselves. Therefore, they are more likely to adopt only ideological beliefs that are in line with their feelings, thoughts, personality, personal circumstances... in short, that reinforce their egocentrism, their personally biased interpretation of reality (or over-personalization/irrationality) instead of seeking to mature intellectually to accept and deal with the facts as they present themselves...

However, low self-knowledge can also manifest itself through impostor syndrome, making an individual more vulnerable to adopting ideological beliefs in an uncritical manner, not necessarily or only because they reinforce their personal beliefs, but also as a way of masking their real or exaggerated self-perception of inability to think logically and rationally. And if it is a true incapacity, it is more in line with the case of narcissism, of over-self-esteem, than of under-self-esteem.

Mais pensamentos de alfinetes/More Pin Thoughts

 O fanatismo é uma identificação ou atração confundida com vocação 

O talento sem vocação é um desperdício 

A verdadeira vocação é a existência de uma atração relacionada a um talento

"A EXTREMA direita venceu" 

Temem e lamentam aqueles que se intitulam, com orgulho, como "RADICAIS", "subversivos"...

"Eu odeio a polarização política"

Dizem muitos esquerdistas, dos grupos político-ideológicos mais fanatizados e responsáveis por essa mesma polarização... 

Por mais primárias, superficiais, insensíveis e supersticiosas sejam muitas das crenças conservadoras, incluindo tipicamente a crença religiosa, ainda assim, elas têm preservado um mínimo de conhecimentos básicos e práticos, tal como de que só existem homens e mulheres (e adaptado ao contexto trans: de que um homem não pode se tornar uma mulher) ou de que existem raças humanas, em oposição às crenças "progressistas' 

Isso significa que, uma parte do que hoje em dia tem sido demonizado como "preconceitos' da "extrema direita", nada mais é do que uma herança cultural desse mínimo de conhecimentos básicos e práticos que eram passados de geração em geração 

Parece comum subestimar o quão grave pode ser uma deficiência em capacidade racional. Pois uma demonstração de sua periculosidade, primeiramente ao próprio indivíduo que apresenta esse déficit, é uma incapacidade de tecer uma boa compreensão sobre o mundo que tende a torná-lo suscetível a adotar crenças e atitudes que aumentam a sua insegurança pessoal, mesmo se inconsciente disso, por exemplo, de ser ou se tornar favorável ou indiferente à políticas de imigração em massa ao seu país 

Ainda assim, existem crenças progressistas que são basicamente complementares às conservadoras por também se basearem em preocupações legítimas, tal como a preocupação pela destruição massiva do meio ambiente por lucros, normalizada e justificada por muitos conservadores...

Típico ateu 

"Eu faço zombarias apenas com o cristianismo porque apenas os cristãos que tentam me converter à sua religião, isto é, que praticam proselitismo"

Pois um típico ateu, um ideólogo "progressista", reclama de proselitistas cristãos, mas se esquece ou não tem a menor consciência de que também se tornou um proselitista de suas ideologias ao defender que sejam impostas institucionalmente, diga-se, ideologias plantadas ou politicamente defendidas por "messiânicos" do sionismo internacional (plano de longo prazo de domínio político e estrutural do "povo' judeu sobre o mundo, começando com o mundo ocidental, em pleno vigor especialmente depois da segunda guerra mundial e detectável pela confluência de padrões tal como a enorme desproporção de judeus em espaços de poder em vários países ocidentais e também em movimentos que visam alterar cultural e etnicamente esses mesmos países) 

Argumento comum de um ateu brasileiro e autodeclarado progressista

"Eu critico especialmente o cristianismo por ser a religião mais importante no nosso país. Por isso que não faço o mesmo com o islamismo e o judaísmo" 

Então, por que você simplesmente não se abstém de ter uma opinião sobre esses grupos com base nesse argumento de não serem comuns por aqui?? Porque eu sei que você costuma ter opiniões mais positivas sobre essas 'religiões" e seus seguidores...

Eu não sou totalmente contra tentar converter os outros às próprias crenças, especialmente se forem baseadas em ponderação, objetividade e imparcialidade, isto é, em racionalidade. E, também, se todos nós fazemos isso, de qualquer maneira, mesmo se de maneira indireta ou inconsciente...

"Segundo previsões demográficas, a África subsaariana terá quatro BILHÕES de pessoas até o final do século XXI"

Pois dependendo de como você reagir a essa frase, isso pode indicar o quão realmente ignorante ou conhecedor você está sobre o mundo, especialmente quanto aos conhecimentos mais básicos, como aqueles relacionados ao comportamento humano...

Mais do que um pensador, o filósofo verdadeiro tem que se comportar omo um cartógrafo da realidade, como um criador de mapas de verdades...

Um esquerdista típico ao ler "A Revolução dos Bichos" pensa que é um dos porcos e não o cavalo...

Se uma "mulher trans" (um homem) pode disputar com mulheres em competições esportivas, então, por que brancos não podem se declarar negros ou pardos e disputar vagas de cotas na educação superior, concurso público ou emprego no setor privado??

Hein "esquerda" BURGUESA??   

Se ofender fosse um crime tão sério quanto espancar, estuprar ou matar, eu já deveria ter recebido uma boa quantia da justiça; todos nós já teríamos ficha criminal e alguns ou muitos "juízes da moralidade pós moderna" estariam atrás das grades...

O maior inimigo das artes é o relativista cultural

Em um cenário de democracia completa, o direito à livre associação seria um dos direitos mais importantes 

Fanáticos adoram cultuar seus "Goldsteins" ou "inimigos máximos', também por ser um modo de canalizar toda percepção de mal para o "outro lado" da trincheira, enquanto eles mesmos se abstêm de um auto exame de consciência

É comum que um professor seja uma pessoa comum que se pensa como um intelectual 

É comum que um ''historiador'' ou 'professor" de história esquerdista se comporte como um mero propagandista político 

A maldade de direita tende a ser sincera, orgulhosa e natural. A maldade de esquerda tende a ser hipócrita, disfarçada e cínica 

Talvez fosse melhor mudarmos o nome da profissão de jornalista para "pau mandado do poder", se a maioria deles se comporta exatamente desse jeito

O acadêmico "não-cientista" é, no mínimo, um burocrata e, no máximo, um pseudo-intelectual 

Quem mais "educa" ou influencia os filhos não são os pais, mas as ruas ou o meio e eles mesmos. Muito notável pelas diferenças intergeracionais de comportamento e tendências culturais 

O nível de ignorância de muitas pessoas continua no mesmo nível de crença em superstições em desprezo concomitante às evidências 

O instinto é o saber sem o aprender. Uma herança direta 

"Ninguém é obrigado a gostar ou a tolerar ninguém...

Mas é obrigado a respeitar...."

Só quando há respeito por ambas as partes...

Se Cuba é uma democracia plena, então, por que não acontecem plebiscitos legítimos que ratificam os desejos de sua população? Por exemplo, por que o povo cubano não pode decidir sobre a possibilidade ou liberdade de viajar ao exterior??

Tem um tipo de idiota que se assemelha ao gênio por também não dar importância à opinião alheia, seguindo a sua própria intuição, dependendo apenas do seu próprio juízo. E por isso que é um idiota e não um gênio 

O típico "nerd" é mais um idiota que se acha mais sábio que os outros, mais um falso positivo de inteligência racional 

Existem traços de personalidade e de inteligência que são tão intensos e naturais, ou tão constantes e indiferentes à qualquer influência do meio, que parecem ser mais intrínsecos do que os que parecem ser mais suscetíveis ou derivados de influências extrínsecas

Tem muitos abortistas fanáticos que dariam excelentes abortos 

Muitos se tornam ateus mirando na razão, mas acertando no niilismo e no narcisismo intelectual 

Afirmações extraordinárias sem evidências extraordinárias definem a estrutura de qualquer pseudociência ou pseudofilosofia 

O privilégio e o vitimismo podem fazer uma pessoa acreditar em qualquer coisa

É comum que o "artista pós moderno" seja aquele indivíduo que encontra-se desprovido de talento e que se beneficia de uma boa situação socioeconômica para investir em seu delírio de grandeza

No Brasil e em outros países, enquanto a esquerda promove a disgenia intelectual pelo incentivo natalista de grupos menos inteligentes, com base em hegemonia institucional e imposição de lavagem cerebral com pseudociências do bem e falácias morais, a direita faz o mesmo só que pelo fundamentalismo religioso. Ambas, inimigas da evolução humana mais ideal

Uma das maiores falácias sobre a bondade, amplamente adotada pela esquerda, e que também é uma falácia sobre a justiça, é a de que são plenamente possíveis mesmo sem imparcialidade e objetividade ou que podem ser praticadas em seu estado mais puro, como se isso existisse 

Aderência ideológica acrítica ou fanática reflete uma incapacidade de diferenciar o falso de um verdadeiro expertise ou conhecimento específico; uma deficiência intelectual qualitativa que parece comum entre professores, jornalistas... Um tipo mais "fordista", muito estreito em suas capacidades cognitivas, muito especializado em um conjunto mais restrito de 'conhecimentos" e que pode ser um fator que contribui para essa deficiência; que foi, inclusive, citada no livro "A Revolução dos Bichos" ("duas patas ruim, quatro patas bom")

Associada a essa possível ou provável deficiência cognitiva, também uma imaturidade emocional que impede o mais ideologicamente fanático de aceitar quando suas crenças não correspondem aos fatos ou não são ponderadas 

E também seria interessante saber se essa deficiência comunga com uma ideia de "minha autoria', de que é o cognitivo que influencia o emotivo e que, portanto, nesse caso, seria uma tendência perceptiva mais autocentrada que contribuiria para um narcisismo intelectual e, então, para déficits em capacidade racional e emocional (intrapessoal ou de autoconhecimento)

Isso também significa que se está apoiando intelectual e até moralmente em um conjunto mais fechado de ideias, crenças e/ou pensamentos que não são inteiramente baseados em ponderação analítica, imparcialidade, objetividade, isto é, em uma abordagem realmente racional 

Para você conseguir perseverar dentro de uma universidade, ou você precisa gostar muito de ciência e ainda ser capaz de avançar seus projetos genuinamente científicos ou ser excepcionalmente compatível com o ambiente de extrema conformidade ideológica que predomina nesse ambiente 

Alguns (ou muitos?) dos maiores defensores da democracia implicitamente a conceituam como sinônimo de anarquia ou libertinagem 

Se a educação superior realmente priorizasse a qualidade em seus processos avaliativos e seletivos, dentro de um contexto acadêmico, isto é, se priorizasse qualidades essenciais ao trabalho científico, como uma vocação e uma capacidade de buscar pela verdade objetiva, é bem possível que as universidades seriam muito diferentes do que são hoje, já que muitos dos acadêmicos que se enveredam em pseudociências, especialmente em "pseudociências do bem", enviesadas ideologicamente à esquerda no espectro político e amplamente toleradas nesses ambientes, não teriam espaço ou já seriam rejeitados durante os processos seletivos

Fanaticism is an identification or attraction confused with vocation

Talent without vocation is a waste

True vocation is the existence of an attraction related to a talent

"The FAR right won"

They fear and regret those who proudly call themselves "RADICALS", "subversives"...

"I hate political polarization"

Many leftists say, from the most fanatical political-ideological groups, responsible for this same polarization...

However primary, superficial, insensitive and superstitious many conservative beliefs may be, typically including religious belief, they have nevertheless preserved a minimum of basic and practical knowledge, such as that there are only men and women (and adapted to the trans context. : that a man cannot become a woman) or that human races exist, as opposed to "progressive" beliefs

This means that part of what today has been demonized as "prejudices" of the "extreme right", is nothing more than a cultural inheritance of that minimum of basic and practical knowledge that was passed down from generation to generation.

It seems common to underestimate how serious a deficiency in rational capacity can be. Because a demonstration of their dangerousness, primarily to the individual who presents this deficit, is an inability to form a good understanding of the world, which tends to make them susceptible to adopting beliefs and attitudes that increase their personal insecurity, even if they are unconscious of it. , for example, of being or becoming favorable or indifferent to mass immigration policies to your country

Still, there are progressive beliefs that are basically complementary to conservative ones because they are also based on legitimate concerns, such as the concern about the massive destruction of the environment for profit, normalized and justified by many conservatives...

Typical atheist

"I only make fun of Christianity because only Christians who try to convert me to their religion, that is, who practice proselytism"

Because a typical atheist, a "progressive" ideologue, complains about Christian proselytizers, but forgets or is not at all aware that he has also become a proselytizer of his ideologies by defending that they be institutionally imposed, that is, planted or politically planted ideologies defended by "messianics" of international Zionism (long-term plan of political and structural domination of the Jewish "people" over the world, starting with the Western world, in full force especially after the second world war and detectable by the confluence of patterns such as the enormous disproportion of Jews in spaces of power in several Western countries and also in movements that aim to culturally and ethnically alter these same countries)

Common argument from a Brazilian atheist and self-declared progressive

"I especially criticize Christianity because it is the most important religion in our country. That's why I don't do the same with Islam and Judaism"

So why don't you just refrain from having an opinion about these groups based on this argument that they are not common around here? Because I know you tend to have more positive opinions about these 'religions' and their followers...

I'm not totally against trying to convert others to one's beliefs, especially if they are based on consideration, objectivity and impartiality, that is, on rationality. And also, if we all do this, in any way, even if indirectly or unconsciously...

"According to demographic forecasts, sub-Saharan Africa will have four BILLION people by the end of the 21st century"

Because depending on how you react to this phrase, it could indicate how truly ignorant or knowledgeable you are about the world, especially regarding the most basic knowledge, such as that related to human behavior...

More than a thinker, the true philosopher has to behave like a cartographer of reality, like a creator of maps of truths...

A typical leftist reading "Animal Farm" thinks he is one of the pigs and not the horse...

If a "trans woman" (a man) can compete with women in sporting competitions, then why can't white people declare themselves black or mixed race and compete for quota places in higher education, public examinations or employment in the private sector?

Huh, bourgeois “left”??

If offending was as serious a crime as beating, raping or killing, I should have already received a good amount from justice; We would all already have a criminal record and some or many "judges of postmodern morality" would be behind bars...

The greatest enemy of the arts is the cultural relativist

In a scenario of complete democracy, the right to free association would be one of the most important rights

Fanatics love to worship their "Goldsteins" or "maximum enemies", also because it is a way of channeling all perception of evil to the "other side" of the trench, while theythey themselves refrain from self-examination of conscience

It is common for a teacher to be an ordinary person who thinks of himself as an intellectual

It is common for a left-wing ''historian'' or ''professor'' of history to behave like a mere political propagandist.

Right-wing evil tends to be sincere, proud and natural. Left wing evil tends to be hypocritical, disguised and cynical

Maybe it would be better if we changed the name of the profession of journalist to "stick of power", if the majority of them behave exactly like that

The "non-scientist" academic is, at best, a bureaucrat and, at most, a pseudo-intellectual

Those who most "educate" or influence children are not the parents, but the streets or the environment and themselves. Very notable for intergenerational differences in behavior and cultural trends

The level of ignorance of many people remains at the same level of belief in superstitions and concomitant disregard for evidence

Instinct is knowing without learning. A direct inheritance

"No one is obliged to like or tolerate anyone...

But you are obliged to respect...."

Only when there is respect on both sides...

If Cuba is a full democracy, then why aren't there legitimate plebiscites that ratify the wishes of its population? For example, why can't the Cuban people decide on the possibility or freedom of traveling abroad?

There is a type of idiot who is similar to genius because he also does not care about other people's opinions, following his own intuition, depending only on his own judgment. And that's why he's an idiot and not a genius

The typical "nerd" is more of an idiot who thinks he is wiser than others, more of a false positive of rational intelligence

There are personality and intelligence traits that are so intense and natural, or so constant and indifferent to any environmental influence, that they seem to be more intrinsic than those that seem to be more susceptible to or derived from extrinsic influences.

There are many fanatical abortionists who would provide excellent abortions

Many become atheists aiming for reason, but hitting on nihilism and intellectual narcissism

Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence define the structure of any pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy

Privilege and victimhood can make a person believe anything

It is common for the "postmodern artist" to be that individual who is devoid of talent and who benefits from a good socioeconomic situation to invest in his delusion of grandeur.

In Brazil and other countries, while the left promotes intellectual dysgenics through the natalist encouragement of less intelligent groups, based on institutional hegemony and the imposition of brainwashing with good pseudosciences and moral fallacies, the right does the same only through religious fundamentalism . Both, enemies of the most ideal human evolution

One of the biggest fallacies about kindness, widely adopted by the left, and which is also a fallacy about justice, is that they are fully possible even without impartiality and objectivity or that they can be practiced in their purest state, as if this existed.

Uncritical or fanatical ideological adherence reflects an inability to differentiate false from true expertise or specific knowledge; a qualitative intellectual deficiency that seems common among teachers, journalists... A more "Fordist" type, very narrow in its cognitive capabilities, very specialized in a more restricted set of 'knowledge' and which may be a factor that contributes to this deficiency ; which was even mentioned in the book "Animal Revolution" ("two legs bad, four legs good").

Associated with this possible or probable cognitive deficiency is also an emotional immaturity that prevents the most ideologically fanatical from accepting when their beliefs do not correspond to the facts or are not considered.

And it would also be interesting to know whether this deficiency shares an idea of ​​"my authorship", that it is the cognitive that influences the emotional and that, therefore, in this case, it would be a more self-centered perceptual tendency that would contribute to intellectual narcissism and, therefore, , for deficits in rational and emotional capacity (intrapersonal or self-knowledge)

This also means that one is relying intellectually and even morally on a more closed set of ideas, beliefs and/or thoughts that are not entirely based on analytical consideration, impartiality, objectivity, that is, on a truly rational approach.

For you to be able to persevere within a university, you either need to really like science and still be able to advance your genuinely scientific projects or be exceptionally compatible with the environment of extreme ideological conformity that predominates in this environment.

Some (or many?) of the greatest defenders of democracy implicitly conceptualize it as synonymous with anarchy or libertinism

If higher education really/prioritized quality in their evaluative and selective processes, within an academic context, that is, if they prioritized qualities essential to scientific work, such as a vocation and an ability to search for objective truth, it is quite possible that universities would be very different from what are today, since many of the academics who engage in pseudosciences, especially in "pseudosciences of good", ideologically biased to the left of the political spectrum and widely tolerated in these environments, would not have space or would already be rejected during the selection processes

Opiniões e reflexões tiradas do meu umbigo/Opinions and reflections taken from my belly button

 Que tipo de idiota compra e veste uma camisa de futebol com o nome do Lula* atrás?? Será que deveria arrebatar com "Lula, painho dos pobres, vote 13"?? 

* De um egomaníaco e carreirista político 

Se você diz e aconselha a nunca julgar os outros, talvez porque não julgue a si mesmo

Não busque ser um grande poeta. Só busque ser um poeta honesto e sincero para então ser um poeta autêntico, o que basta para a poesia

Entre o suicida e o filósofo 

O filósofo compreende e conclui que é tudo em vão.

O suicida sente e conclui que é tudo em vão.

O fanatismo ideológico também é uma clara manifestação de narcisismo intelectual, sinônimo de irracionalidade 

Islamofobia, homofobia, transfobia, xenofobia...

Por acaso, você é fobia-fóbico??? 

Por que o poeta tende à melancolia??

Por ser um pensador profundo e imediatista ou de curto prazo

Eu sou mais como um pensador imediatista ou de curto prazo sobre mim mesmo, mas de longo prazo sobre o mundo, enquanto o poeta típico também é um pensador imediatista ou de curto prazo sobre o mundo 

Muitas vezes, não importa se é ou se não é intencional, mas as consequências 

Parece lugar comum confundir dissimulação com preguiça, mas o preguiçoso deixa pra fazer depois, enquanto o dissimulado finge que não é com ele

"Situações extremas exigem medidas extremas"

Isso cabe perfeitamente para qualquer civilização humana, sempre tão problemáticas...

São muitos os dotados de uma inteligência artificial, literalmente artificial...

Quantos esquerdistas são esquerdopatas?? E quanto direitistas são direitopatas?? 

Quantos esquerdistas são cínicos, hipócritas, fanáticos??? 

E quantos direitistas são sádicos, insensíveis, oportunistas??? 

A maior ousadia!! 

De só querer um mundo de sensatos... suficiente para declarar guerra ao mundo!! Começando na cozinha de casa, nos corredores, na sala da tv, de estar, no banheiro....

Sobre tiranias

A tirania de 1984, clássico livro de distopia política, tem ao menos uma vantagem, a de ser explícita. Enquanto que, por exemplo, a tirania dominante no Ocidente desta terceira década de século XXI, de nome "Wokeismo", é até pior por usar recursos sofisticados para fingir que não é uma tirania ou que busca combater (outras) tiranias

O covarde não é o fraco que foge do forte. É o forte que persegue o fraco 

O mais triste e revoltante sobre o  genocídio palestino e a solidariedade da esquerda 

Se o povo palestino fosse de gente branca de olhos claros e cristã é muito provável ou previsível que não haveria essa empatia transmutada em indignação, diga-se, bem mais fraca do que deveria... Porque para muitos "esquerdistas", a preocupação de serem acusados de antissemitismo é equivalente ao imperativo moral de declararem apoio à causa palestina.  E porque aqueles que se dizem à esquerda tendem a apresentar uma "empatia" extremamente seletiva

O maior poder do mais racional é resistir às constantes tentativas de lavagem cerebral que caracterizam a dinâmica cultural ou social, humana. É a de conseguir se manter o mais íntegro, intelectual e moralmente, mesmo se a grande maioria perecer a essas marés de mentiras

Se eu tivesse saído de um país extremamente pobre para viver em um país de primeiro mundo, eu seria eternamente grato ao país que me acolheu ao invés de adotar uma postura vitimista e petulante, como fazem muitos imigrantes, especialmente os mais instigados por narrativas "de esquerda" 

"Nós temos que ser receptivos aos 'refugiados'"

(Menos no meu bairro)

"Eu mataria todos os macacos por um ser humano, se fosse necessário, porque um ser humano sempre vale mais"

Eu: Não seja por isso... me dá uma graninha aí, chefia?? 

Existe uma linha tênue entre gratidão e servidão 

Psicologia neoliberal: "autistas e outros tipos similares apresentam dificuldades de interação social, principalmente por causa de suas características psicológicas, ou por causa de si mesmos"

Psicologia mais ideal: "autistas e outros tipos similares apresentam dificuldades de interação social... mas também porque tendem a ser alvos preferenciais de discriminação negativa e persecutória nos espaços sociais em que transitam, especialmente por indivíduos dotados de traços de personalidade anti-social, e isso pode, dependendo do caso, ser um fator importante na deflagração desse cenário de dificuldades e não apenas por já apresentarem características ou traços que dificultam suas vidas em sociedade"

Duas palavras radioativas para qualquer tipo de fundamentalista: autocrítica e nuance 

Se de esquerda ou direita, religioso ou laico, oriental ou ocidental, globalista ou nacionalista...

O mais inteligente, essencialmente, não é aquele que possui maiores capacidades cognitivas, mas aquele que maximiza ou otimiza as suas capacidades, independente de suas envergaduras

O intolerante moderado tolera conviver com indivíduos que apresentam crenças relativamente distintas das suas, mas geralmente com a condição ou estratégia de evitar qualquer debate que as envolva direta e criticamente 

O intolerante mais intolerante, por enfatizar suas crenças ou sua doutrinação ideológica em seu cotidiano, é incapaz de conviver integralmente com o seu contraditório no sentido de chegar a estabelecer relações mais próximas e amistosas com aqueles que não compactuam com as mesmas crenças, nem mesmo com aqueles que apresentam diferenças mais pontuais 

O fanático é sempre uma versão caricata de um tipo mais ponderado, moderado ou racional

What kind of idiot buys and wears a football shirt with Lula's name* on the back?? Should it be "Lula, daddy of the poor, vote 13"??

* From an egomaniac and political careerist

If you say and advise never to judge others, maybe because you don't judge yourself

Don't try to be a great poet. Just try to be an honest and sincere poet to then be an authentic poet, which is enough for poetry

Between the suicidal and the philosopher

The philosopher understands and concludes that it is all in vain.
The suicidal person feels and concludes that it is all in vain.

Ideological fanaticism is also a clear manifestation of intellectual narcissism, synonymous with irrationality

Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia...

Are you by any chance a phobia-phobe???

Why does the poet tend to melancholy?

Because he tends to be a deep and immediate or short-term thinker

I'm more like an immediate or short-term thinker about myself but a long-term thinker about the world, whereas the typical poet is also an immediate or short-term thinker about the world.

Often, it doesn't matter whether it is intentional or not, but the consequences

It seems commonplace to confuse dissimulation with laziness, but the lazy person leaves it to be done later, while the disingenuous person pretends that it isn't up to him.

"Extreme situations require extreme measures"

This fits perfectly for any human civilization, always so problematic...

There are many people with artificial intelligence, literally artificial...

How many leftists are left-psychopaths?? And how many rightists are right-sociopaths??

How many leftists are cynics, hypocrites, fanatics???

And how many right-wingers are sadistic, insensitive, opportunistic???

The greatest audacity!!

Of just wanting a world of sensible people... enough to declare war on the world!! Starting in the kitchen, in the hallways, in the TV room, in the living room, in the bathroom....

About tyrannies

The Tyranny of 1984, a classic book of political dystopia, has at least one advantage, that of being explicit. While, for example, the dominant tyranny in the West of this third decade of the 21st century, called "Wokeism", is even worse because it uses sophisticated resources to pretend that it is not a tyranny or that it seeks to combat (other) tyrannies

The coward is not the weak who flees from the strong. It is the strong that persecutes the weak

The saddest and most revolting thing about the Palestinian genocide and the solidarity of the left

If the Palestinian people were white people with blue/light eyes and Christians, it is very likely or predictable that there would not be this empathy transmuted into indignation, let's say, much weaker than it should be... Because for many "leftists", the concern about being accused of anti-Semitism is equivalent to the moral imperative to declare support for the Palestinian cause. And because those who say they are on the left tend to have an extremely selective "empathy"

The greatest power of the most rational is to resist the constant attempts at brainwashing that characterize human cultural or social dynamics. It is about being able to remain as integrate, intellectually and morally, even if the vast majority perish to these tides of lies.

If I had left an extremely poor country to live in a first world country, I would be eternally grateful to the country that welcomed me instead of adopting a victimistic and petulant stance, as many immigrants do, especially those most instigated by narratives "of left"

"We have to be welcoming to 'refugees'"

(Less in my neighborhood)

"I would kill all the monkeys for a human being, if necessary, because a human being is always worth more"

Me: Not because of that... give me some money, boss??

There is a fine line between gratitude and servitude

Neoliberal psychology: "autists and other similar types present difficulties in social interaction, mainly because of their psychological characteristics, or because of themselves"

More ideal psychology: "autists and other similar types present difficulties in social interaction... but also because they tend to be preferential targets of negative and persecutory discrimination in the social spaces in which they move, especially by individuals with antisocial personality traits, and this can, depending on the case, be an important factor in the triggering of this scenario of difficulties and not just because they already present characteristics or traits that make their lives in society difficult"

Two radioactive words for any type of fundamentalist: self-criticism and nuance

Whether left or right, religious or secular, eastern or western, globalist or nationalist...

The most intelligent, essentially, is not the one who has the greatest cognitive capabilities, but the one who maximizes or optimizes their capabilities, regardless of their size.

The moderate intolerant tolerates living with individuals who have beliefs that are relatively different from their own, but generally with the condition or strategy of avoiding any debate that involves them directly and critically.

The most intolerant intolerant, by emphasizing their beliefs or their ideological indoctrination in their daily lives, is unable to live fully with their contradictions in order to establish closer and friendlier relationships with those who do not agree with the same beliefs, not even with those that present more specific differences

The fanatic is always a caricatured version of a more thoughtful, moderate or rational type