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.

Another example (among many) of how the bourgeois-identitarian "left" is mistaken

A crime of racism or murder for futile reasons, which is worth more??

What is a crime of racism??

Is calling a black person or a person of "another race" racist?? Even if the context shows that this offense was a response to another offense?? But what if a white person is offended for being white??

Any offense should not be treated as a specific category or, then, be classified as defamation, as long as the complaining party has good reasons. Thus, there should not be this unequal treatment, since there is no difference between a serious offense and another.

But what about when there is an accusation of racism as a motive for a murder, should the supposed motive (which is often not confirmed) be treated as an additional?? So, if a person who is not black and especially if he is white (in the "anti-racist" hierarchy, white people are in last place) is murdered for a futile reason, is the crime less serious?

Is there a difference in severity between killing a person because he is black or for any other reason that does not justify such an act??

Because this is a completely useless discussion, characteristic of this 

caviar left...

Mais um exemplo de pseudo jornalismo e como seria se fosse um verdadeiro jornalismo/Another example of pseudo journalism and what it would be like if it were true journalism

 "Mulheres negras são vítimas desproporcionais de estupro no Brasil"

PONTO.

Uma notícia que circulou durante um tempo na mídia brasileira. 

Pois se trata de um pseudo jornalismo, forjado partir de uma narrativa ideológica, baseada em uma falácia de evidência suprimida, se não diz qual é o grupo que mais estupra mulheres, incluindo as mulheres negras, por ser "politicamente incorreto"...

Agora, como seria o jornalismo verdadeiro nesse caso

"Mulheres negras são vítimas desproporcionais de estupro no Brasil... E são os homens negros os que mais estupram mulheres negras" (dedução lógica com base no padrão de relacionamentos em que os intrarraciais tendem a ser mais comuns que os interraciais, e potencialmente confirmável pelas estatísticas).

Aí sim, temos a informação completa, os fatos mais relevantes informados, sem distorções ou falácias ideologicamente induzidas, tal como essa, mostrada acima e que visa transmitir ou reforçar uma ideia de vitimização de mulheres negras e omissão do papel de protagonismo dos homens negros nesse processo de vitimização. 

Isso não é racismo ou preconceito, ainda que possa ser usado para se fazer generalizações de causalidade entre raça e comportamento (conceito mais objetivo para o racismo). Até porque não significa que todos os casos de estupro de mulheres negras no Brasil têm como perpetrador um homem negro ou que todos os homens negros são estupradores em potencial. 

"Black women are disproportionate victims of rape in Brazil"

POINT.

A piece of news that circulated for a while in the Brazilian media.

Because it is pseudo journalism, forged from an ideological narrative, based on a fallacy of suppressed evidence, if it does not say which group rapes women the most, including black women, because it is "politically incorrect"...

Now, what would true journalism look like in this case?

"Black women are disproportionate victims of rape in Brazil... And it is black men who rape black women the most" (logical deduction based on the pattern of relationships in which intraracial relationships tend to be more common than interracial relationships, and potentially confirmable by statistics).

So yes, we have complete information, the most relevant facts informed, without ideologically induced distortions or fallacies, such as the one shown above and which aims to convey or reinforce an idea of ​​victimization of black women and omission of the leading role of black men in this victimization process.

This is not racism or prejudice, although it can be used to make generalizations about causality between race and behavior (a more objective concept for racism). Because it does not mean that all cases of rape of black women in Brazil have a black man as the perpetrator or that all black men are potential rapists.

O racismo também pode ser um conceito muito preciso/Racism can also be a very accurate concept

 Diferente do que já comentei em outros textos. Até porque, pode ser a sua aplicação mais comum que o deixe a desejar em termos de precisão conceitual, se também pode ser definido como um tipo de preconceito irracional ou racionalmente injustificável, assim como outros tipos de preconceito. Então, se aplicado em contextos reais de maneira coerente a esse conceito, um bocado do que muitos afirmam serem exemplos claros de racismo, na verdade, não seriam. No entanto, ainda pode ser ambíguo ou confuso e deixar margens para interpretações parciais, já que, para muitas pessoas, o conceito de racionalidade pode ser mais subjetivo ou relativo do que o seu ideal que, aliás, se consiste no exato oposto, de ênfase na imparcialidade e na objetividade. Por exemplo, no próprio caso do racismo, de ser confundido com ideias aparentadas de liberdade de associação e preferência pessoal, se, a priori, não é irracionalmente injustificável ter seus próprios gostos ou preferências. Por isso que, o ideal seria de adotar e aplicar o conceito que eu estabeleci, de generalização não-factual e/ou exagerada por causalidade associativa entre grupo e comportamento, tal como de se afirmar que "negros são violentos" (todos?? A maioria??), porque, quanto ao resto, de gosto pessoal por aparência à preferência de convívio... Um conceito mais objetivo que minimiza bastante a margem para interpretações excessivamente subjetivas do que poderia ser considerado racismo. Pois mesmo uma afirmação que a maioria considera como racismo, tal como de se dizer que "negros parecem com macacos", por mais ofensiva e grosseira possa soar aos nossos ouvidos, ainda não se trata de uma ofensa racista, no sentido de generalização pejorativa ou negativa associada a um comportamento, por ser, a priori, uma opinião pessoal que, por sua vez, pode refletir uma preferência estética pessoal. Se não é diferente do que dizer que "brancos, judeus ou chineses são feios" ou "parecem com esse ou aquele animal" (inclusive, se "parecer com um outro animal" pode não ser exatamente ofensivo. É porque é de praxe humanos acharem ofensivo serem comparados com animais de outras espécies). Pois é, parece que, se construído com mais objetividade, conceitos como o racismo podem acabar bem diferentes de como têm sido determinados, decepcionantes especialmente para quem os queriam mais vagos ou ambíguos, mas, talvez, mais justos, com menor risco de se tornarem armas para totalitarismos, como tem acontecido...

Racism can also be a very accurate concept

Different from what I have already said in other texts. Because it may be its most common application that leaves it wanting in terms of conceptual precision, if it can also be defined as a type of irrational or rationally unjustifiable prejudice, as well as other types of prejudice. So, if applied in real contexts in a coherent way to this concept, a lot of what many claim to be clear examples of racism, in fact, would not be. However, it can still be ambiguous or confusing and leave room for partial interpretations, since, for many people, the concept of rationality can be more subjective or relative than its ideal, which, in fact, consists of the exact opposite, of emphasis impartiality and objectivity. For example, in the case of racism itself, of being confused with related ideas of freedom of association and personal preference, if, a priori, it is not irrationally unjustifiable to have your own tastes or preferences. Therefore, the ideal would be to adopt and apply the concept that I established, of non-factual and/or exaggerated generalization due to associative causality between group and behavior, such as stating that "blacks are violent" (all? majority??), because, for the rest, from personal taste in appearance to social preference... A more objective concept that greatly minimizes the scope for excessively subjective interpretations of what could be considered racism. Because even a statement that the majority considers to be racist, such as saying that "black people look like monkeys", however offensive and rude it may sound to our ears, is still not a racist offense, in the sense of a pejorative generalization associated with a behavior, as it is, a priori, a personal opinion which, in turn, may reflect a personal aesthetic preference. If it's no different than saying that "Whites, Jews or Chinese people are ugly" or "they look like this or that animal" (in fact, "looking like another animal" may not be exactly offensive. It's because it is customary for humans to find offensive to be compared with animals of other species). Well, it seems that, if constructed with more objectivity, concepts such as racism could end up very different from how they have been determined, disappointing especially for those who wanted them more vague or ambiguous, but, perhaps, more fair, with less risk of becoming weapons for totalitarianism, as has been happening...

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... ).

More sinful thoughts

  Cruelty is generally a combination of cowardice and injustice

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

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

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

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

The most rational opinion is often the most unpopular

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

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

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

Right-wing contradictions

1.

"'Bullying' reinforces character"

Same person, outraged

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

two.

"I never said capitalism is perfect"

Same person

Generally incapable of criticizing capitalism, of perceiving its inconsistencies

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

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

The most self-aware are the most consciously contradictory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial logic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What every self-declared left-wing progressive should learn

That no one is forced to like anything

No one is forced to like what they like

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

Finally, learn the basics of socializing

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

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

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

Academics versus scientists

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

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

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

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

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

Good people exist more as individuals than as groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brazilian popular culture was completely obliterated by capitalist popular culture

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

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

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

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

Layers of truth//reality or abstract levels

More real level:

All physical and/or chemical elements and phenomena...

You, me, human beings, living beings, planets, rain, lightning, water...

Cutout or abstraction of real elements (primary abstraction by language).

Naming and categorization of real elements.

More real abstract level:

All our emotions and (other) organic reactions.

Feeling happy or sad, cold or hot...

Naming and categorization of derivation of real elements.

Cutout of cutout or abstraction of abstraction (secondary abstraction).

Naming and categorization of derivation, primarily from organic elements.

More abstract level:

All the concepts that we invent or that do not exist in the real world as we exist and that are less real or more abstract than our reactions: "racism", "prejudice", "justice", "names" of "cities", of "people"...

These are even more particular specifications than real specifications. For example, the feeling of hatred or contempt that can be classified as "racism" or "prejudice"

Cutout of cutout of cutout or abstraction from abstraction from abstraction (tertiary).

Naming and categorizing derivation of derivation from a primary abstraction or from real elements.

Another handful of modern heresies

1. For those who say they are "totally against eugenics", are they in favor of dysgenics?

If it is against the healthiest, most intelligent and/or sensible becoming the majority of a population, then is it for or indifferent if the opposite pattern happens?

2. From the food we eat, the neighborhood we live in or would like to live in, the people we live with, etc., etc., we are always trying to select what we consider to be best for us. Therefore, a good part of our choices could be considered, in a certain way, as "intentionally eugenic".

Even those who delude themselves into thinking that human beings are extremely moldable by their environment also seek to select people in their lives based on what they consider to be the best. Their biggest difference in relation to those who are not deluded about this is that they believe in an unlimited power of social engineering, of improving people through social interventions, a thought that is, in a certain way, "eugenic", instead of giving themselves defeated, accepting that differences in behavior and intelligence are more intrinsic and can only be "resolved" with the application of some legitimately eugenic mechanism of reproductive selection.

3. "The university has always been an environment of free thought and scrutiny of current common sense"

Reality: it was never literal or exactly like that... Quite the contrary, as it has also been the place where tyrannies of thought have been fostered, transmitted and imposed...

4. "Eugenics is unethical because it violates individual rights"

In fact, individualism, like collectivism, is extremist and radical and not sensible or considered, as many think, precisely because it gives total decision-making power to the individual, while the most balanced thing is that this power is shared and that this distribution is rationally mediated by context.

4.1 All extremism starts from the imposition of practically absolute rules, without exception

This is the case with individualism.

4.2 This individualist ideology seems to preach a kind of supremacy of the individual

As if their rights were sacred, even when they overlap with collective well-being or even in relation to their own well-being.

4.3 "We must treat people as individuals"

Also...

But we also need to treat each other based on the groups to which we belong or identify, since it is common for us to express, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, their behavioral tendencies.

There is no need to exclude one approach for another if they are complementary.

4.4 Still on the idea of a one-child policy or a limit of two children for people with proven low cognitive ability (with an average IQ of 90 or less/commented on in the previous list of thought crimes)

... access to sterilization would be facilitated and they could be encouraged with financial rewards, preferably lifelong compensation offered by the state.

5. Pathological lying is like a psychological reaction of escaping from reality, subconsciously preventing the individual from falling into a depressive state, acting as a psychiatric self-treatment of a "homeopathic" nature, in which an illness is treated with supposedly controlled doses of the same evil that causes it, a "little" of madness to avoid greater "madness", which would be depression.

Because ideological fanaticism, including religious fanaticism, would be a contextualized manifestation of pathological lying, of a predominant escape from reality, generated by the dominance of the subconscious over the conscious, that is, of non-homeopathic doses of irrationality.

6. The cultural left has defined itself as the defender of the arts, but...

... low quality or questionable music; doodles, paintings and installations devoid of complexity, realism or beauty; poems without rhythm, meaning or depth...

Defender of the arts, demeaning them???

7. Football fanaticism or "footballism" could be considered a specific and strong symptom of intellectual retardation, especially in men

8. There are those who see horizons but cannot see their own feet (excessive idealists)

And there are those who only see their own feet (excessive pragmatists)

9. The greatest enemy of the most rational is not the anti-intellectual, even if he is one of the most irrational types, but the pseudo-intellectual, precisely by pretending to be him, by disputing or occupying his space of voice and action

10. Much of politics is quackery. A handful of cults or sects posing as serious policies, as evidence-based measures and philosophical pondering

11. About the predator instinct

Why do animals of species X feel a great predatory attraction towards animals of species Y?

Perhaps, because they present constitutive aspects of their bodies and their brains (or nervous systems), products of evolution, which make them specifically and highly reactive to the individuals in question.

sa species, in a sense of predation.

And also because they shared the same ecological niche for a long time, which may have contributed to this specific reaction, just like our variation in taste for food.

12. The left, on average, is well intentioned, but stupid. The right, on average, is ill-intentioned, but smart

"Traditionally", right represents the predator (also the parasite) and left represents the prey. The predator, in nature, is smarter than the prey, which at least recognizes its own oppression

But there are also parasites and predators that are born from prey...

Our greatest tragedy, our heroes are not smarter than our executioners

12.1. The right tends to use honesty as a means to legalize evil. The left tends to use dishonesty to advance primary or seemingly compassion-based policies.

13. Intelligence and behavior are “non-physical” traits

But specific brain constitutions that reflect reactive or behavioral and perceptual or intelligence patterns are also "physical traits."

14. The difference in perception and understanding of objective reality between the most rational and the least is comparable to the difference between a human being and a non-human animal

15. The legitimate fool is not the one who does not know, but the one who does not know that he does not know.

16. About "reparations for African slavery"

"White people need to pay reparations to black people"

So, mixed race people who are "half black and half white" only have to pay half??

Poor white people also have to pay and even rich and middle class black people??

However, much of the blame for the social problems of black Africans and their descendants in the diaspora, such as poverty and crime, lies with "them" (those directly responsible), because, on average, they present intrinsic characteristics of behavior and intelligence that disadvantage them socially, even more so in complex societies. This is not an apology for racism, white supremacy or Nazism. It is just an important part of this reality that many, for ideological reasons, do not want to accept.

And the ideal would not be to "make amends for the supposed legacy of slavery", but to put an end once and for all to exorbitant social inequalities, which don't just affect black people.

16.1. "Racial quota systems are necessary, because they are mechanisms that seek to repair the effects of the 'legacy of slavery' and 'structural racism', factors responsible for the differences between whites and blacks"

Reality: racial quota systems are based on a "good" social pseudoscience, on the false idea of causality between abstract terms, such as 'legacy of slavery' or 'structural racism', and social and other differences between whites and blacks. Because the main factor responsible for these differences are the intrinsic and statistical differences in behavior and intelligence between ethnic-racial groups. In other words, if there is a disproportion of poor black people, it is not because they have supposedly been or continue to be socially excluded, but because the majority of them do not present psychological characteristics (such as prudence) and cognitive characteristics (high cognitive capacity) that favor them in the future. professional and economic sector. This means that, obviously, there are black people with favorable characteristics, as well as white people and other groups lacking them, if we are talking about statistical group variation.

Not that poverty is justified only by the intrinsic characteristics of individuals, because the imposition of low wages and high costs of living, in short, of arbitrary measures that complicate the lives of the working class, also plays an important role in perpetuating extreme social inequalities.

This does not mean that the evaluation and selection system for federal universities and/or public positions is completely meritorious, in the sense of being strictly based on evidence or the best approaches. That is why I have already proposed changes to it, particularly regarding the emphasis on the assessment of general knowledge, directing the focus to knowledge specific to the chosen area. I even believe that, following this change, there would be a natural increase, without the need for quotas, of students from other racial groups at universities and those hired in the public service.

Even so, it is a fallacy to believe that all professional and social fields need to present proportions of racial groups consistent with the national or local demographic composition, or more "balanced", if the most important thing is selection based on merit of ability, which is independent of this .

And as for social and racial differences, the biggest problem is not that there are few black dentists or lawyers or a majority of white dentists and lawyers, but that there are such large social differences, especially among people who are in great need, with income and assets. insufficient, even if they are hardworking and honest, and exaggeratedly well-off people.

17. 3 ways to say the same thing: from the most wrong to the most right

1. "All black people are violent" (explicit and therefore racist generalization)

2. "Black people are more likely to

  violent behaviors" (partial or vague and implicit generalization)

3. "There has been a statistical disproportion of black (men) involved in violent behavior" (emphasis on demographic/cutout, leaving no room for generalizations)

18. About changing the race of fictional characters in films and other artistic works due to ideological motivation

Self-declared progressive: "he's just a fictional character, who doesn't exist. What's the problem with changing his race??"

Me: "so if it's just a fictional character, why change his race??"

Self-declared progressive: "it is important that character Y is from race X and not from Y so that children of race X feel represented or identify themselves"

Me: "but if it's just a fictional character, why worry about his race or that children of race X won't feel represented if the character is of another race??"

Me: "We identify with animals and sea sponges in cartoons. Why think that children of race X wouldn't identify with a fictional character of race Y"??

19. "White lies" can be very cruel

Because if you say that an aesthetically "ugly" person is very beautiful, you can exacerbate their "ugliness" for yourself, for others involved, and for themselves. The ideal is to emphasize what the person stands out for positively and avoid exaggerations or "torn" compliments in relation to what they don't stand out for or what they do, but negatively.

My 3 thoughtcrimes about racial miscegenation

 Always good??

According to "left" ideological indoctrination, yes, racial miscegenation is a desirable and morally superior behavior or choice compared to racial endogamy.

But, is it really??

Here, I make a brief list in an attempt to refute myths about this topic that have been widely endorsed by "leftists" and for reasons that can range from naive or ill-informed to malicious or with ulterior motives.

1. Relating to a person of another race or ethnicity is a literal act of anti-racism

Historically speaking, racial miscegenation has only become more common in colonialist, imperialist and/or expansionist contexts, of conquest and subjugation of one people over another, or for pragmatic reasons, for example, when there is a shortage of women of the same race as the colonizers/invaders, as happened in Latin America, the opposite of what the anti-racist ideology supposedly preaches, of harmony between racial and ethnic groups of the human species.

Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that miscegenation, when there is generation of descendants, or even without, is morally superior to its opposite, because, a priori, there is no such superiority, if it is not racist to prefer to have relationships with people of the same race or ethnicity just as it is not xenophobia to prefer to do it with people of the same nationality.

2. Racial mixing is always beneficial to the genetics of a population by generating "hybrid vigor"

If that were true, then Latin Americans would be the most beautiful, healthy and intelligent people in the world. The hybrid vigor thesis seems to work without the need for racial mixing, within the same group, simply by promoting more exogamy, that is, inhibiting marriages between close relatives. From a scenario of large-scale racial mixing, there is no evidence that it improves the genetics or biology of a population. On the contrary, as it can also generate an increase in the heritability of incompatibilities, congenital diseases... in the case of populations that have evolved in isolation for thousands of years... It is still possible that it could have a positive effect, but as long as there is more selection directed towards the desired traits, in other words, a practice of eugenics, which would also work if practiced within the same more racially homogeneous population. Therefore, the idea that racial mixing, in itself, provides hybrid vigor in the next generations of mixed-race, or that racially homogeneous populations need to mix to generate it and avoid a decrease in their genetic diversity, does not hold water.

3. Because "education" and "upbringing" are more important, it is okay to marry a person of another race because your children will be shaped by the education you give them

If that were true, but that's not exactly how it happens, since, first of all, we inherit from our parents combinations of their traits, including personality and intelligence. Therefore, in addition to there being a high probability that your offspring will not inherit much of your physical phenotype, especially if you are Caucasian and your breeding partner is of another race, there is also a high probability that they will inherit little or none of your personality traits and intelligence, and this may seem like a "lesser evil", but the incompatibility of temperament and cognitive level is usually a factor of conflict in human relationships, even more so if it is related to character dysfunctions.

It appears that for many people who have mixed-race children, especially those of white race, there is a silent frustration or unpleasant feeling that they have been "surrogated" or that "their biological children seem adopted" by this perceived trend of hereditary discontinuity of physical and behavioral characteristics.

Conclusion

A priori, having a relationship with a person of another race, whether or not generating mixed-race offspring, is not morally right or wrong and, in practical terms, it can be as harmless as tying your shoes or eating an apple. But, from a deeper analysis, one realizes that it is not that simple, as shown above, even leaving the impression of being more like a risky behavior or choice, and even worse if that choice is based on "well-intentioned" lies (from "Anti-racist Fallacies", for example, which I have already commented on in the text of the same title).