Belonging

 

Jack: I contend that social media creates a false illusion of belonging. 

  Because of virtual proximity, lower-class people with no social status mistakenly believe they are on the same level as the elite, socialites, or models, based solely on insignificant online interactions. 

  This distortion is fueled by internet political correctness, where the rich pretend to like the poor and the beautiful claim that aesthetics don't matter, creating a false sense of inclusion. 

  However, you only need to step outside the virtual environment for reality to hit you in a cruel and brutal way.

William: What’s the big deal? 

  During Carnival, people feel like they belong to a samba school or a street parade; once it’s over, life goes back to normal.

  It’s the exact same thing at church during a service.

  Same goes for a soccer team's fanbase.

  Why should Instagram be any different?

  It only gets "cruel and brutal" if a person is completely clueless and mixes up these environments, but that kind of behavior will happen in any other setting.

What are we supposed to do with clueless people?

  There’s no shortage of advice, warnings, and recommendations telling individuals not to blur the lines. 

  At the end of the day, that old saying still holds true:

  "If you don't learn the easy way, you'll learn the hard way."

  Personally, I prefer a less emotional version:

"If you don't listen to reason, you'll have to deal with the consequences."

Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Women and Socialism

 

Katy: Hating women for exercising their right to choose is an anachronistic reaction that no longer has a place in our society. 

  Neoliberalism shapes us as human capital, bringing market logic and result optimization into our emotional lives. 

  With women's financial independence, the criteria have changed; we look for emotional value, not just financial provision. 

  Calling this an excessive demand is, in reality, mourning the loss of patriarchal bargaining power.

William: Seeing hate in everything is a form of radicalism that shouldn't have a place in our society.

  Just because someone makes a counterpoint, like being against abortion, does that mean they "hate" women? 

  Many women (maybe most) are against abortion, do they hate themselves?!

  In a casual conversation, a man interrupting a woman is already labeled misogyny... But a woman can even tell a man to shut up, and that's perfectly fine... 

 (This simple observation on my part is already classified by many as HATE.)

  Moving on to your point... 

  I don't see this man who wants to financially carry the whole family on his back 😂. 

  Maybe that was back in my grandfather's or great-grandfather's time. 

  My mother, aunts, neighbors... most of them worked.

  Even in the upper-middle-class families I knew, the most common thing is for the woman to have her own money.

   Here at home, my wife makes more than I do, and it's been that way for most of our relationship.

  I deduce that you're further left just by bringing up something completely unrelated to the topic, like "neoliberalism." 

  Are the "rules of the game" any different in a socialist country? 

  Can you name one for us to analyze?

  The greatest socialist experiment in human history so far was the USSR. 

  Does anyone have data proving that male/female relationships were much better in Russia than in the United States?

  Russia was socialist for 74 years. 

  That's a long time; a child born after 1917 was raised and raised their own children under Socialism.

  My point is that Russia should reflect (even after 1990) how Socialism "empowers" women more than traditionally capitalist nations like England (just as an example).

  We know that deeply ingrained habits take time to change; they pass from generation to generation. 

  For educational purposes, let's consider a generation to be 40 years, the period spanning from early childhood to the stage that would statistically be "middle age."

  Start of the Soviet Revolution: 1917 + 40 = 1957

   End of the Soviet Revolution:  1990 + 40 = 2030

  In other words, from 1957 to 2030, we should expect to see a much better situation for women (and relationships) in nations that attempted to implement "Marxist thought."

  I saw a survey showing that women tend to lean more to the left than men. 

  If you, as a leftist woman, do some research, you'll easily see that Capitalism brought far more "empowerment" to women.

  An easy example:

  "East Germany (Socialist GDR) never had a woman govern the country with powers equivalent to those of Angela Merkel. 

  Throughout almost all of its history (1949–1989), East Germany was a one-party socialist regime. 

  Real political power didn't lie in the presidency or parliament, but in the position of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party (SED), a role that was always held by men, like Walter Ulbricht and Erich Honecker.

  Wikipedia

  In capitalist England, we had the empowered Margaret Thatcher. 

  In Reunified Germany (Capitalist), we had the empowered Angela Merkel.

  Anyone who knows history, man or woman, and makes a RATIONAL analysis is left with no arguments to defend Socialism.

Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Living in the Slums

 

Alexander: I HATE LIVING IN THE SLUMS WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING!

William: When you find a situation unbearable, you do everything in your power to change it for the better. 

  If you can’t move out of the ghetto, at least do your part to make it a better place. 

  This is BASIC INTELLIGENCE, it’s practically instinctual. 

  If my hand is on a scorching hot object, I’ll do whatever it takes to pull it away from that harmful, "unbearable" situation.

Take this for example: I’ve always felt my parents had more kids than they could actually afford to raise.

  Imagine if I went and did the exact same thing now. 

  How could I criticize my parents and then follow in their footsteps? 

  IF I REPEAT MY PARENTS' MISTAKES, I’m either a total hypocrite or just plain stupid.

  What’s even worse is demanding a "Nanny State," acting as if the rest of society owed us something...

Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Price and Value

 

Leonard: I’m starting to realize that the value we place on things is a total invention; money is nothing more than a collective leap of faith. 

  I’ve been questioning my own arrogance, why would one zip code make me any better than another?

  I feel the guilt of someone who ignores the pain of others while keeping the system running.

  If, at the end of the day, it’s the moments that matter and not the assets, why focus so much on the outer shell? 

  I’ve decided to create my own reality by helping people without an agenda. 

  I might be naive, but I’d rather face my own insignificance and live with total transparency. 

  Here is my invitation to you: make peace with who you are, quite apart from what you own.

William: The value of things is a "total invention"!?

  Value comes from necessity or desire, which is what drives supply and demand. 

  Look at water, for example, is that worthless?

   We need water; that’s not a social construct, it’s a biological necessity.

  What is the value of water? 

  If it’s abundant, the price is low; if there’s a shortage, the price is high. 

  To establish value, we need an efficient medium of exchange, we need to set a "price."

   That’s where money comes in; it simply replaced bartering.

  As for your point: 

  "make peace with who you are, beyond what you possess." 

  I’m already good with who I am, Leonard. 

  That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the things I've earned.

Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Home Sweet Home

 

Antony: Earlier today, I snapped at my mom over something completely trivial. 

  If it had been a stranger in that same situation, I would’ve just taken a deep breath. 

  I kept thinking about it afterward—how I have the least self-control with the people I love most.

   It’s as if intimacy gives me a license to be the worst version of myself.

William: I’ve always made a point to watch myself when it comes to that. 

  For me, it’s actually the opposite.

  Of course, I try to be polite and courteous to everyone; I’m a civilized person. 

  But I’m much more patient with my wife and daughters than I am with anyone else. My mother passed away in 2014, and things I would stay quiet about with her, I’d fire back at other people for immediately 😉. 

  It’s always seemed more logical to me to maintain a good environment in my immediate circle without worrying too much about the outer ones. Especially our home, the place where we live should be a safe, welcoming space. 

  A place where we actually look forward to coming back and being well-received.

Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

The Elite and the Right

 

Ailton: Do you realize the reason Paulo is seen as a communist/socialist and is hated by the Right, both then and now, is because, back in his day, only people who could read were allowed to vote? 

  At that time, political rights were tied to literacy. Education was extremely elitist, and most people had no access to it. 

  Freire didn't accept that. Being the great educator he was, he developed a method to teach adults to read and write in record time. 

    As a result, these adults gained the right to vote. The Right didn't like that one bit. 

  They accused Freire of being a communist, and he ended up having to flee the country. 

  He didn't promote "victimhood"; he argued that everyone deserves political rights, regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

William: I’m not so sure about that. I’ve studied Freire’s work and biography extensively.

  He openly declared himself a socialist educator and was one of the founders of the Workers' Party (PT). 

  His "magnum opus," Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is built on the fundamental concepts of historical and dialectical materialism, things like class struggle, praxis, and overcoming the oppressor-oppressed relationship.

  As for the rest, Freire’s literacy projects were actually funded by the United States. 

  He also taught at SESI, which was funded by industrialists (the elite). 

  And "the elite" has never been synonymous with "the Right." 

   Does being rich automatically make someone right-wing? 

  Look at Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel… they were all wealthy. 

  There’s no shortage of rich people supporting the PT today. 

  Just look at the big players like BTG, JBS, and Itaú...

 Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Left-wing intellectuals

 

Roberto: Why do intellectuals tend to lean toward the Left?

William: First, let’s ground ourselves in human history.

 "The term 'Right' emerged during the National Constituent Assembly of 1789, during the French Revolution. The division was physical: those who defended royal authority, the aristocracy, and the Church (the Girondins and monarchists) sat to the right of the assembly president. They sought to preserve the traditional order and the power of the clergy and nobility. This seating arrangement gave rise to the political concept of the 'Right' as the conservative or reactionary wing, in opposition to the revolutionaries on the Left." 

 *Gemini*

 "In Marxism, 'Right' generally refers to reformist or revisionist tendencies within the labor movement. These are sectors that seek to reconcile labor with capital, prioritizing gradual changes through parliament rather than abrupt revolution. Internally, the term labels those who stray from revolutionary orthodoxy (like Bukharin’s 'Right Opposition'). For Marx, the Right represents the maintenance of the bourgeois status quo and private property. Marx’s ideas eventually culminated in the Russian Revolution of 1917." 

 *Gemini*

  Therefore, talking about "Right" or "Left" before 1789 is purely subjective. Were Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, or Marcus Aurelius "right-wing" or "left-wing" thinkers?   

  It’s better to analyze their thoughts without getting stuck on those labels.

  Adam Smith’s "The Wealth of Nations" was released in 1776 and is considered the founding milestone of the capitalist economy. 

  However, back then, there was no internet, books were expensive, and there were no planes. Ideas moved slowly. 

  Mercantilism dominated until about 1850. 

  Capitalism as we know it didn't truly take hold until around 1900.

  From 1900 onward, we’ve always had thinkers on both sides. 

  In my view, the Left is more romantic.

   Humans aren't always rational, but they are always emotional.

   I consider myself Center-Right. 

   I argue that if you want a house, you have to work for it and exercise financial discipline. 

  The left-leaning thinker says we can organize ourselves into a State, and you will be given a house.

   Believing we can just "get" a house sounds a lot better than having to work to build one. 

   Right there, the left-wing thinker already wins over the majority.

  Back in the early 1900s, that didn't seem like such an absurd idea. 

  Honestly, I think I would have been a Marxist if I had been born in that era. 

  But I was born well after the middle of the century, and I studied the collapse of the USSR in detail.

  What we observe most often is that "well-intentioned" Socialists, once they reach power, never want to leave. 

  In practice, the nations that chose Socialism essentially reverted to a phase of Absolute Monarchy.

   They just swapped titles like "King," "Pharaoh," or "Emperor" for "Supreme Leader." 

  Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel... what is the real difference between them and Kings?

   To answer your initial question: 

"Why do intellectuals tend to be left-wing?"

  From 1900 to 2010, the "romanticism" of the Left proved to be more effective. 

  However, the popularization of the internet and the arrival of smartphones around 2007 brought a flood of information to the average person. 

  The expectation now is that rationality will begin to predominate.

   It’s not about eliminating romanticism altogether. It’s about having a more balanced "emotional intelligence."

   The trend I see is that older left-wing thinkers will eventually pass away, and they aren't being replaced with the same intensity we saw in the past.

Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Iran and the War

 

Salin: The things they tell us are "impossible" would actually cost only a fraction of what this war does. 

  As the saying goes: "They have money for war, but they can't feed the poor."

William: If the Iranians understood that, there wouldn't be a war in the first place. 

  Just imagine how much they’ve blown on tunnels and missiles.

Salin: You should take a look at who actually started this (Iran vs. the USA). 

  Don't just look at where the fighting is happening, but which country brought the war there to begin with.

William: Look, I’m not the type to just jump on a bandwagon to justify my opinion. 

  These conflicts shifted to a whole different level once the Iranian Revolution happened. 

  The Ayatollahs being Shia wouldn’t be an issue if they kept it within Iran, but they’ve gone out of their way to export that revolution across the Middle East by funding Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. 

  The Ayatollahs brought the "war" to the Sunnis and the Israelis. 

  Take Saudi Arabia, for example—it’s a dictatorship, sure, but they mind their own business and live in peace with the West.

Salin: A revolution that was sparked by outside actors, I might add. 

  Before that, the successors of the Persian Empire actually had a democratic and egalitarian government.

William: Outside actors are always playing a hand everywhere. 

  But as far as I know, the American connection with the Shah was no different than their connection with the Saudis. 

  If you want to talk about outside agents, you're probably thinking of the Russians.

Salin: Like I said before, every country in the Middle East is like that. 

  Peace with the Western world isn't "free",it ’s conditional on submitting to foreign interests.   

  As always, it's just business.

William: Iraq invaded Kuwait. 

  If Saddam had just stayed in his lane, he’d still be a dictator today. 

  Iran is heavily intervening in Yemen and Lebanon; they aren't innocent victims in any of this.

  Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Is Trump Bad!?

 

  Many people say Trump is bad.

  Compared to whom?

  I’d rather be governed by him than by Alexandre de Moraes. 

  (Just one example among many.)

  And what about compared to Putin?

  No one stopped Putin during the invasion of Georgia or Crimea.

  Thank goodness Trump showed up.

  Everything was way too easy for those dictators.

  It’s a good thing Trump has strategic interests in Brazil.

  I hope the mafia currently in power doesn’t commit any abuses now that they’re being watched so closely.

  If it weren't for the Americans, the elections would already be a lost cause.

  If the majority of the people want to stay in such a corrupt environment, fine, whatever, the only way out is the airport.

  The real problem is if the majority wants the PT out and the Supreme Court doesn't let it happen.

  Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Paulo Freire and Socialism

 

Ailton: Do you realize the reason Paulo Freire is seen as a communist or socialist—and why he’s been hated by the right wing both then and now—is because, back in his day, only people who could read were allowed to vote? 

  At that time, political rights were tied to literacy. Education was extremely elitist, and most people had no access to it. Freire wouldn't stand for that. Being the great educator he was, he developed a method to teach adults to read and write in record time. 

  Suddenly, these adults gained the right to vote. The right wing hated it. They accused Freire of being a communist, and he eventually had to flee the country. He wasn't "playing the victim" or promoting "victimhood"; he believed that everyone deserved political rights, regardless of whether they were rich or poor.

William: I don't know about that. I’ve spent a lot of time studying Paulo Freire’s work and his biography. 

  He OPENLY DECLARED himself a socialist educator and was actually one of the founders of the Workers' Party.

   His "magnum opus," Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is built on the core concepts of historical-dialectical materialism, things like class struggle, praxis, and overcoming the oppressor-oppressed relationship.

  Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Mother's Love

 

Francine: Can you imagine hearing from your own mother that she regretted becoming a parent? 

  In other words, that she regretted giving you life? Women’s minds are becoming so twisted. 

  This world is seriously lacking God!

William: “We are not the measure of all things.”

   I notice people understand when I express this thought, but they don’t put it into practice… don't ask me why… I’ll save that for another reflection.

 The norm (the standard) is for a woman to love her children deeply. But that isn't the measure for all women. 

  There are those who definitely do not "feel" the desire to be mothers.

  That’s where this other thought comes in:

 “We don’t choose what we feel; we decide how to act based on what we feel.”

Scenario A: The woman never gets married, she’s perfectly happy just being an aunt, and everything is fine.

Scenario B: She finds a partner, he doesn't want kids either, and everything is fine.

Scenario C: She finds a partner who really wants children. 

  Since she wants to stay in the relationship, she has one or two kids, but without that standard maternal love. 

  Personally, I think it’s horrible for a mother to tell a child she regrets having them. 

  Whether the child was an “accident” or born out of the woman’s interest in maintaining a relationship, it's part of the “civilized” deal to avoid those kinds of comments.

  But what prompted me to reply to this comment is a situation I haven't written much about. 

  I always say we don't choose the family we're born into. 

  But parents don't choose the kind of children they'll have, either.

   Who doesn't know a "standard" couple who ends up with a child who is "off the rails" in the worst possible way? 

  I’ve known and heard of so many "problem children."

  The parents raise the child with so much love, and yet by adolescence, the signs of another "deadbeat" in the world are clear.

   Drugs, crime, promiscuity, aggression, laziness, rebellion without a cause…

  There are normal parents who don’t say it out loud, but if they did say they regretted having a specific child… 

  I would understand perfectly. I’m just glad my two daughters are such lovely "spirits/personalities."

  Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Inner Work

 

 "No matter how isolated and lonely you feel, if you do your work with sincerity and conscience, unknown allies will come to meet you."  

  (Carl Jung)

William: 😂😂

 That has nothing to do with anything.

  If I'm feeling lonely, the solution is to work with “sincerity and conscience” — whatever that means — and then “strangers” will come to meet me...

  What strangers are we talking about, folks!? Forest spirits? 😂

  Let’s do a serious analysis. I read a lot of Jung back when I still considered psychology a “science.”

  The “work” Jung is talking about is the work of self-knowledge.

  The “unknown allies” would be the people or opportunities that appear when you’re aligned with something authentic — a sincere goal, not just a passing passion.

  My problem with this kind of thinking is that it ignores the “failures” — or at least those who never quite reached the goal they were aiming for.

  There are far more writers who, despite all their efforts (“work”), never achieved any real recognition in their careers.

  Let’s talk about something more concrete, like businesses.

  Nobody opens a company expecting to lose money.

  The person does their “inner work,” steps out of their comfort zone, becomes an entrepreneur — and still, hundreds go bankrupt every year.

  Visible or invisible friends... if they come to the rescue, they’re clearly not enough.

  I can speak from experience. I opened a small restaurant, dedicated myself a lot, and only ended up with losses.

  I like to write. I sent drafts to several publishers.

  I currently maintain four blogs... praise is rare, and criticism is frequent.

  Should I wait for some prestige in the next life, like some religions preach!?

   I read a lot of Jung. 

  The mix he creates fits better with those Indian gurus, and I never found any of them I actually admire either.

  What I mean is that Jung went through this process and the recognition came to him.

  If you talk to anyone who has achieved some level of success in any field, you’ll hardly find someone who got it right from the very beginning.

  Just to mention one name, remember Michael Jackson and all the stories about the difficulties he faced in his childhood and adolescence.

  There are plenty of kids who get beaten by their parents and who also sing and dance well.

  But how many actually reach stardom?

  My conclusion is always the same: happiness does NOT exist.

  Even people who achieve fulfillment in their area of interest still have their “existential voids.”

  Yes, do your “inner work.”

  Have the goal of realizing yourself in something.

  But have a Plan B.

  Adapt to what you actually achieved.

   Wanted to make 10 thousand and only got 3 thousand?

   That’s the reality you’ll have to deal with and try to live the best way possible.

  Life has infinite variables, and most of them are not directly under our control.

  Do your inner work, respect your colleagues (and friends if you have any), and keep an eye out for opportunities.

   Beyond that, it’s about seeing what “luck” (the unpredictable) brings you.

  Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Different Religions

 

Fabio:  The fact that there are so many different religions is proof that no god exists.  

  If one or more gods were powerful enough to create the world, they would have to fight each other until only one remained  and that wouldn’t make them all-powerful.  

  On the other hand, if there was only one god, he would have had to reveal himself the same way everywhere in the world, without ever creating different rules for different peoples. For example, cows are sacred in India but not in other places, and eating pork is a sin for Christians (even if some don’t follow it).

William: What if a god does exist and simply allows multiple religions… in the portion of the universe that belongs to him?  

  The universe is huge. If there are several powerful beings and civilizations out there, why couldn’t they reach some kind of peaceful coexistence agreement, just like we try to do here on Earth?

  You’re contaminated by the idea of salvation and living in some paradise.  

  But there are other possibilities. 

  Maybe we’re just pets  a distraction for some other kind of beings who are very different from us.  

  Like how we treat our own pets.

  We could be in a test.  

  Life on Earth is like a training program: whoever reaches certain goals (hopefully wisdom) moves on to the next phase. Whoever doesn’t is discarded or annihilated.

  Anyway…

MATERIALISTS vs. SPIRITUALISTS

  In the theory of evolution, the best adapted ones subdue the less adapted.  

  Atheists are clearly being subdued by other humans who believe in other forms of life that we call spirits.  

…Persians, Greeks, Romans  all those religious (spiritualist) civilizations that shaped modern life.  

   Like any other animal, we were born without beliefs. Atheism wasn’t our future  it was our past.  

  That said, whether spirits exist or not becomes a secondary issue.  

  The fact is that spiritualists are more “evolved” (more efficient), in the sense of being better adapted.  

  Believing in deities is just a minor side effect that  

*does NOT affect the overall superior performance of spiritualists compared to atheists.

    Does this logic make sense to you?

  Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Undue Advantage

 

  “In 2025, Brazil recorded the highest number of feminicides in the last decade. 

There were 1,568 women murdered because of their gender, a 4.7% increase compared to 2024, when there were 1,492 cases.” 

  (CNN)

 

  After 3 years of PT government, I still find fanatics blaming this increase on the previous administration.  

  Man, come on!

  If the PT's policies for this type of crime are so good, the least you'd expect is some stabilization.

  They defend that restrictions on firearms should be even stricter.  

  However, “white” (bladed) weapons are the most commonly used to injure women.

  What I, William Robson, “theorize” happened?  

1 - It could just be an outlier, a coincidence—these numbers naturally fluctuate.  

2 - Undue Advantage.  

  This is more complex.  

  Most of us have reasonably good common sense.  

  A measure that seems fair to us might even annoy us, but it doesn't make us “furious.”  

  Priority parking spots for seniors and people with disabilities.  

  It's annoying to have fewer spots available, but we understand that physical limitations put those individuals at a disadvantage, so we can offset it by giving them priority service and closer parking spots.

  What can make us furious are undue advantages.  

  Why does a judge get two vacation periods a year (regular vacation + judicial recess)? Just because!?  

  Why do families of some prisoners get incarceration benefits?  

  If their income is low, why not just get Bolsa Família like everyone else?

  In republican Brazil, I don't know of Black people being barred from studying, but in the United States there was segregation.  

  It's understandable that Black people there got furious over undue advantages given to whites.

   Well, women (biological or not) are now getting undue advantages.  

  It's natural that this provokes anger in men.

   Why does a woman's word carry more weight than a man's!?  

  (In cases of a woman's accusation, there's a “presumption of guilt” for the man—many have had their lives ruined because of this.)

  Why does a woman's life have more value than a man's!?  

  (Harsher penalties in cases of “femicide.”)

  Bills are being proposed that would let women freely insult men, but men can only “praise” women or stay silent.

   Men's anger keeps building up. Those who already have a propensity for violence… the last straw that makes them overflow with rage has the faucet of these laws wide open.

  Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.

Strait of Hormuz

 

  “U.S. Sends 2,500 Marines to the Strait of Hormuz  

According to U.S. officials, the troops are already on their way, aboard warships, to reinforce forces in the region.”

  

  This is happening because of Iranian blockades in the strait, which carries 20% of the world's oil, causing major global economic impacts.

  

  Since late February 2026, Iranian attacks on ships and mining in the Gulf have raised fears of escalation in the war.

 

  The Iranians could make concessions, the way the Venezuelans did.  

  The Americans aren't even demanding regime change—just some moderation would be enough.  

  Instead, the Iranians are choosing to double down on radicalization.  

  That leaves the Americans with no choice but to raise the stakes.

  Of course, this is going to have consequences.  

  In a ground invasion of the main island in the Strait of Hormuz, American soldiers' DEATHS are expected.

   From my perspective, it would then be fair for the Americans to occupy that little island indefinitely, even after the war ends.

  Iran's radicalization will mean losing territory to the United States, just like the “Arabs” lost territory to Israel.  

  Then comes the usual victim narrative: “We were at peace and got invaded out of nowhere.”  

   Believe that if you want to ignore the FACTS.

  Terapia da Lógica - Link

✧✧✧

.

Genocide

 

  

 “-cide” comes from the Latin “caedere,” which means to cut, kill, or annihilate.  

  When it appears at the end of a word, it indicates the act of killing or the destruction of something specific.  

  In the case of **genocide**, the word is a combination of:  

    Geno (race, tribe, or nation) + **-cide**  

   Genocide literally means the deliberate extermination of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

  Unlike “homicide,” which has existed for millennia, the word genocide is relatively recent.  

It was coined in 1944 by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe the Nazi atrocities, since there was no technical term that defined the systematic murder of an entire people.

*Grok*

  I have nothing against the creation of new words... as long as there’s a sensible explanation behind them.  

  The Nazis had, as one of their main focuses, the annihilation of Jews simply for being Jews.

  Look, there’s a big difference between wanting to kill a Jew who committed some crime, did something you didn’t like, or because you want to annex a territory that happens to be occupied by Jews.  

  You would act the same way if they were Kurdish, Romanian, Buddhist, Viking...  

  It’s another thing entirely to want to annihilate anyone who is “Palestinian” (an easy current example).

  Israel’s actions are as surgical as possible; there’s no way to completely eliminate unwanted collateral effects (the deaths of innocent Palestinians).  

  The United States doesn’t even want to occupy the territory held by the “Persians.”  

  All it would take is a shift to a less radical regime, and Iranians could live in peace.

  Was Bolsonaro a genocidaire?  

  Hmm... during the pandemic, João Doria did whatever he wanted in São Paulo, and even so, there were 185,000 deaths.  

  What killed people was the CHINESE VIRUS.  

  “Genocide” in this case is an ideological narrative.  

  Not even the Chinese were genocidal.  

  They were irresponsible.  

  It was “reckless manslaughter” against humanity.

  To wrap up...  

  In the case of the term femicide, the change in concept that’s being pushed is illogical.  

  They’re turning a crime of passion into “genocide of women.”  

  Is the woman being killed simply for being a woman?  

  That’s not what we see. If the guy truly “hated” women just for being women... he wouldn’t fall in love with one to the point of not wanting to see her with anyone else.  

  Does that logic make sense to you?

  Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.