rlocus

[rlocus @rlocus_]

@madeinbajor Excelente caixinha, deu pra tirar várias dúvidas nos comentários. Obrigado.

[rlocus @rlocus_]

@lorenaaorsi

[Fight Club 🥊💨 @FIGHTZINCLUB]

Sabe o que mais me impressiona no caso da Zoe Martínez fiscalizando vendedor ambulante? Não é nem a cena em si, é a contradição estrutural por trás. A pessoa se diz "conservadora nos costumes e liberal na economia", mas na prática age como a versão municipal do Leviatã positivo comteano, o Estado como tutor moral, gestor de vidas, supervisor da biografia alheia. É aquela velha direita que fala em liberdade mas só confia nela no PowerPoint. No chão quente da rua, vira fiscal do destino dos outros.

E aqui está o ponto que muita gente não vê, tanto direita quanto esquerda, no fundo, são filhas obedientes do positivismo, aquela filosofia que transformou o ser humano numa variável técnica, num recurso estatístico, numa peça de laboratório social.

A briga entre "progressistas" e "conservadores" é estética, a lógica profunda é a mesma, o povo é massa, é matéria bruta que o grande "papai Estado" deve moldar, corrigir, conduzir, disciplinar.

O pensamento positivista infiltrou tudo. Está na forma como se fala de aborto como quem discute defeito de fábrica.

Está na visão de "deficiente" como falha de produtividade, e não como pessoa humana.

Está nas leis em que o juiz praticamente entra dentro da sua casa para resolver briga de família que antes a própria comunidade resolvia, e resolvia melhor, porque isso produzia responsabilidade e amadurecimento.

É o Estado tratado como pai, o cidadão tratado como criança. É o ser humano tratado como máquina.

E é justamente aqui que o cristianismo, o verdadeiro, quebra essa lógica, ele olha para o indivíduo, não para a massa.
Para a alma, não para o rendimento. Para a dignidade anterior a qualquer capacidade técnica. No cristianismo, uma criança com deficiência, um velho pobre, um ambulante na rua, todos têm valor infinito porque são filhos de Deus, e não porque "agregam ao PIB".

Só que a mentalidade positivista venceu culturalmente. 90% das pessoas hoje raciocinam como pequenos engenheiros sociais, acreditando que a sociedade é uma máquina de engrenagens substituíveis, e não uma comunidade de pessoas, com história, fragilidades e vocações.

Quando a vereadora vai fiscalizar ambulante com a postura de quem está "corrigindo o sistema", ela não está sendo conservadora nem liberal, está sendo positivista. Está operando com a visão de que o cidadão é um objeto técnico a ser enquadrado, e não um sujeito moral com dignidade própria.

E essa é a ironia final, a direita que se diz anticomunista, e a esquerda que se diz humanista, ambas agem como se o Estado fosse uma grande incubadora social e o povo uma massa de testes.

Como tirar o positivismo da nossa cultura ?

[Alan Smith @AlanJLSmith]

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.”

Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free but what about the other six men?

The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33, but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage.

They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!“　

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”　

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”　

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that’s how it works.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Dixon Uranus @RealDixonUranus]

"In this jar, there are 2 red M&Ms. One of them is poisoned. In the other jar, there are 100 green M&Ms. Ten of them are poisoned. You have to eat one M&M. Which color do you choose?"

"I'll take a red one. There's more poison green ones."

"Excellent choice, Quantavious."

[hoe_math = PsychoMath @ItIsHoeMath]

There's a lot of talk about "repeal the 19th" lately because of how obvious it has become that giving women the vote has basically murdered every last bit of hope that humanity ever had to advance beyond the cycle of civilization death.

While it is true that giving women the vote was an awful idea and that it contributed massively to snuffing out the light of the future that we all thought was there in the 90s, it is also an unpopular thing to say, so I'm going to put a finer point on it. I will refer people to this thread when they ask from now on.

Blow, see my charts. The complicated one is a simplified map of psychological development. The other one, with the bell curves is a rough estimate of the development of all adults, and men and women separately. Women tend to develop to about one stage lower than men. This thread is not about why that is. This is just the facts.

As long as we are going to have any sort of government that allows people to vote, it does not make any sense whatsoever to allow people below this recommended minimum to have the right to vote. Smack in the middle of level 5.

Look at how few people that is.

Notice that more men than women get to that level. The bell curve chart is not to scale, so it might be a bigger difference than that (but probably not smaller).

You don't want people below level 5 voting. You really don't. You might think you do, but you don't. Because their reasoning is... not reasonable.

A person at level 4 will always just vote for "my thing." It might be Islam, or Republicans, or abortion, or whatever. But at level 4, a person has an idea of "the good thing," and will always fit all information into "that just makes my thing even more good." There simply is no such thing as reason.

Let's say your "thing" is "fried fish." Why not. You vote for more fried fish. Fried fish candidate. Fried fish on the flag.

Someone tells you that fried fish is bad for you and we should try to get away from it.

At level 4, that idea is just wrong. How could they be so STUPID? Fried fish is GOOD. So that means THEY must be bad. Now, you begin to write a story about how bad and stupid this person is so that fried fish can win.

Let's say that the oceans are being overfished to make fried fish, and it's ruining the ecosystem. Someone tells you this, too. Your response? They must just be JEALOUS that fried fish is WINNING. There isn't an "ecosystem!" You made it up because you hate fried fish, which is the only good thing in the world!

I won't get into it, but levels 3 and 2 are even worse than that. In short, someone at level 2 or 3 will just vote for "whoever is like me," even if that person is absurdly unqualified and has a history of brutal, vile crimes.

I hope you can see why it would be bad to let people at these levels vote. And if you can't, that probably means you are AT those lower levels. And so to help you understand why it's bad to let them vote...

Just imagine you're outnumbered.

If you love abortion, just imagine that no-abortion people outnumber you, and they are at level 4. Nothing you ever say or do will make them change their minds.

If you are pro-gun, imagine anti-gun people outnumber you, and they will never listen to a single word you say.

If you are muslim, imagine that anti-muslims outnumber you and they vote to get rid of islam, and they never care at all what you think about it.

You lose! FRIED FISH WINS! HAHAHAHA! That's your reality forever. You wouldn't wanna be stuck like that, would you?

As you can see, most people in the world are at these 4 lower levels. Women are at them more often than men. That means that voting became significantly less rational when we let women do it.

In addition to that, Western (White) countries usually have an average at about level 5 for men, 4 for women. Mass immigration means that you've replaced all those level-5 thinkers with millions and millions of level 3 and 4 thinkers, and some 2.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

And once again, if that doesn't explain things for you, you probably are just AT one of the lower levels. If you're going to say "women and nonwhites ARE NOT at lower levels," that's just your "fried fish." You're welcome to investigate all of this for yourself. I know what you'll find, and it's exactly what I've depicted.

So if we're going to keep "voting" as "a thing," we must also create a strict requirement of stable, rational thinking, which is going to exclude not only most humans, but also significantly more women than men.

SOME women will be able to pass the test. Just not as many. Which means that letting all women vote made voting less rational and more destructive, and that's a big part of why everything's so unbelievably fucked.

And that's what I mean when I say "we shouldn't have let women vote."

Maybe now you can see why they say "repeal the 19th" for short. No one has the time to say all this (except me).

[effectfully @effectfully]

>learns that syntax can be ambiguous
>fails to distinguish semantics from syntax
>concludes that programming is linguistics
>140K views and 10K likes on YouTube in a day

What is wrong with you, you fucking worthless idiots who upvote this absolute dogshit of pseudo-tech content?

[Flávio Gordon @flaviogordon]

Não consumam a narcocultura, e nunca exponham seus filhos a ela. Protejam sua família. Não coloquem funk carioca em festas infantis. Não deixem seus filhos frequentar ambientes infantis em que esse tipo de música e de estética seja naturalizado. Corrijam seus filhos toda vez que usarem alguma gíria ou termo oriundo da narcocultura. Demandem o afastamento de professores ou instrutores que apresentem aos seus filhos qualquer coisa ligada à narcocultura. Eduquem-nos de modo a que seus filhos jamais saibam quem é "Oruam". Desliguem, boicotem, não vejam nenhum tipo de produção "cultural" e "artística" que exalte e promova a estética do crime. Não permitam que a @tvglobo adentre vossos lares. Cuidem de alimentar com beleza e bondade a alma de vossos filhos. Eles só podem contar com vocês. Vocês são, para eles, uma espécie de BOPE espiritual - a última barreira a protegê-los contra uma sociedade ambiente corrompida e destituída de critérios.

[rlocus @rlocus_]

@MatInvest1 Ter filho sem a condição(patrimônio) dos 40 anos, no exemplo, é prescrever a escravidão para ele? ou eventualmente essa onda retorna?

[Astronomiaum @astronomiaum]

Isso é o suficiente para manter uma criança ocupada

[rlocus @rlocus_]

@f4b10rms você tem mais de 40 anos? talvez não perceba que o mercado mudou, e raramente se premia o esforço e empenho, além de promoções marginais

[rlocus @rlocus_]

@ZattarRafael em pouco tempo vai passar em algum concurso pra ganhar mais que isso carimbando papel

[GeoMenes @Geo_Menes]

5 Vantagens de morar no Brasil

[Nux @Nux_Taku]

Never forget the only reason you know the name Iryna Zarutska is because Elon Musk bought X and mainstream media never reported this.

Also don’t forget:

- Iryna Zarutska might be alive today if she wouldn’t have left war torn Ukraine to seek refuge in America.

- Iryna Zarutska might be alive today if she was a little more racist and picked a different seat.

- Iryna Zarutska might be alive today if the man sitting behind her remained incarcerated after 14 individual arrests.

- Iryna Zarutska might be alive today if activist judges that never passed the bar exam weren’t in charge of our public safety.

- Iryna Zarutska might be alive today if criminals were afraid to commit crimes and they didn’t know they would be put back on the street.

- Iryna Zarutska might be alive today if there was someone on the train willing to fight back instead of everyone sitting by and watching.

No guns, no violent right wingers, no sexism, no fascism, no systemic oppression, no hate speech, no violent trump rhetoric, no to every single thing we’re told is dangerous.

Just one violent psychotic repeat offender anti-white racist criminal allowed by the system to murder her. Surrounded by people that didn’t care.

Iryna Zarutska might not be alive today regardless due to God-ordained unforeseen events.

But we live in the world where we failed her.

We don’t need to live like this.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[✝️ @A_Paz_de_Cristo]

A maior carnificina da história:

[Freedomain - with Stefan Molyneux, MA @StefanMolyneux]

MAIN PROBLEM

Think how much reading, debating and thinking Charlie Kirk had to do.

Tens of thousands of hours to assemble his mind.

Think of how easy it was to pull the trigger and disassemble his mind - one single second

Civility is hard.

Violence is easy.

Slippery slope.

[Mat @mat_redpill]

@nikolas_dm