Textos sérios, Imagens sérias e Vídeos sérios
Como dizia o appresentador do programma 'SuperStars' da rádio Musical FM no anno de 1991,
«sem muito papo, vamos logo ao que interessa».
«sem muito papo, vamos logo ao que interessa».
Entre ou Registre-se para fazer um comentário.
Comentários
Assim como os antitheístas serviram de massa-de-manobra (ou "idiotas úteis") para a maçonaria na Europa do século 18, assim também os atheus conservadores são "instrumentos úteis" para o extremismo christâon nos dias de hoje. No caso da Revolução Francêsa, a ironia do Destino decidiu que vários maçons fôssem picados pellas cobras que êlles próprios criaram; enquanto que no caso actual, em pleno século 21, é duvidoso que os atheus fantoches cheguem ao ponto de se rebellar contra seus mestres invisíveis.
https://popularresistance.org/deep-racism-the-forgotten-history-of-human-zoos/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
Êste é pra calar a bôcca dos que me accusam de só falar mal dos direitinhas ^_^
Toda figura caricata alçada a uma condição de exercer poder seja em cargo público seja como um Malafaia foi colocada lá por conta dos radicalismos que estas figuras dizem combater.
Eis porque a esquerda elege Bolsonaro e a direita Jean Wyllys
http://www.mediafire.com/view/rjpsy6o40s37sl8/christianismo-lixo.png
Professor, o senhor é gay?
Já ouvi essa frase algumas vezes. Uma vez por ano ao menos algum aluno pergunta. Na verdade, geralmente alunas. Como já ouvi várias vezes e sempre me intriguei com o por quê da pergunta e hoje, a pergunta veio de uma aluna de uma turma de 1º ano no meu CIEP, em Inhoaíba, resolvi usar Paulo Freire e partir do concreto para o abstrato. Parei a aula e mudei o tema para "gênero e sexualidade" (estudávamos antropologia, então é pertinente). Usei a pergunta da aluna e a mim mesmo como exemplo.
Perguntei a ela o que a levou a fazer a pergunta. Qual era o motivo da suspeição da minha homossexualidade? A aluna não quis responder, com medo de uma reação negativa ou até agressiva minha, como é bastante comum na sociedade. Insisti e ela começou a falar. Daí todos os alunos se interessaram muito e começaram a falar também os motivos de suas suspeitas.
Resolvi, para ser didático, anotar no quadro os motivos para debater um a um.
Os motivos, que para eles são características da homossexualidade que eu tenho, foram os seguintes:
- Uma aluna me deu mole e eu não "peguei".
- Coloco às vezes a mão na cintura
- Gestos e fala característico de homossexual (segundo dois garotos apenas)
- Não fala de relacionamentos, namorada, nem da vida pessoal, o que fez no fim de semana, etc. E outros profs falam...
- Sou professor novo, moderno, simpático. Isso n é característica masculina.
- Tem outros alunos comentam que eu sou gay
- Sou vaidoso, me cuido esteticamente.
- Quando os alunos me perguntaram se eu era gay, não neguei agressivamente, mas debati o assunto. Só no final disse que não era. Não provei que era hétero mostrando fotos minha com alguma namorada, etc
- Não sou machista
- Tenho 30 anos, não casei e não tenho filhos. Todos as pessoas e trinta anos que eles conhecem já casaram e tiveram filhos. Só gays chegam aos 30 sem casar.
- Tenho amigos gays.
Sim, a lista foi longa (rs) e os instiguei a falar tudo.
Não é difícil deduzir que os pressupostos (anotados no quadro tb) dessas falas são:
- Homem que é homem, pega aluna, não rejeita mulher.
- Homem que é homem não coloca a mão na cintura.
- Homem que é homem fala das mulheres que "pega", "prova" que é homem através de fotos com mulheres.
- Professor hétero não é simpático. Simpatia não é característica masculina.
- Homem que é homem não é vaidoso.
- Homem que é homem nega com veemência a homossexualidade, como se fosse um crime. E é obvio que homem de verdade não debate esses assuntos, muito menos usando a si mesmo como exemplo.
- Homem que é homem é machista.
Obs.: como eu queria as feministas "linha dura" que me acham O escroto machista lá naquela sala pra debater isso com eles. rsrs
- Homem de verdade casa antes dos 30 e tem filhos antes disso.Talvez vc se pergunte por que eu não neguei com veemência e encerrei o assunto? Porque debati algo pessoal com adolescentes de 15 anos em média?
Primeiro: qual o problema em ser gay? Por que negar isso com veemência? É crime? Imoral? Não. Ser gay ou hétero para mim é como ser flamenguista ou botafoguense. Não tem nada de bom ou ruim em nenhum dos dois.
Segundo: Acho que foi a melhor das oportunidades de debater um assunto tão delicado e proporcionar o acesso à uma outra visão de mundo aos alunos.
Não. Não sou gay rs e fiquei impressionado com a visão estreita de gênero e sexualidade de adolescentes me pleno 2016, tão limitada e machista. E fiquei imaginando a feroz repressão que os homossexuais sofrem no dia-a-dia.
Por outro lado é compreensível os alunos terem essas concepções na cultura onde estão inseridos.
Como assim vc tem 30 anos e não casou se as meninas têm filhos aos 15 às vezes? rs
Como assim vc não pega aluna que te dá mole? Só pode ser viado rs
Eu resolveria facilmente o "problema" mostrando foto com alguma mulher com que fiquei, mas por que eu me preocuparia em provar a heterossexualidade como quem prova a inocência? Por que usaria uma mulher como prova de algo?
Pode parecer engraçado para muita gente ler isso e pra mim foi. Muito. rs Mas para eles não. É o que pensam mesmo.
Parece anos 1940, mas é 2016...
Imaginem se o projeto "escola sem partido" continua avançando como está. Voltaremos às trevas em pouco tempo. Precisamos debater gênero e sexualidade nas escolas, mais do que nunca!
O machismo é opressor com os homens também, se liguem nisso!
Obs.: Hoje fui trabalhar com uma camisa rosa. Aí ferrou... rs
}}
FONTE: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1133787830047987&id=100002503432116
Preconceituosa é a opinião do professor de que a visão dos alunos seja machista. São adolescentes. Semi infantis ainda, que apenas absorvem a realidade do meio que os cerca, não sem razão, de que o que caracteriza um gay é tudo aquilo que realmente caracteriza um gay. Ou um gay não é caracterizado como tal, a partir de seus hábitos e ações?
Se algo tem cheiro de goiaba,
aparência de goiaba, gosto de goiaba, reage a uma ação como uma goiaba, muito provavelmente trata-se de uma goiaba, da mesma forma, se X tem atributos de gay, quanto mais atributos de gay tiver, mais tenderá a se tratar de um gay.
(Phillip E. Johnson)
In a retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books, Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin tells how he first met Sagan at a public debate in Arkansas in 1964. The two young scientists had been coaxed by senior colleagues to go to Little Rock to debate the affirmative side of the question: "RESOLVED, that the theory of evolution is as proved as is the fact that the earth goes around the sun." Their main opponent was a biology professor from a fundamentalist college, with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in Zoology. Lewontin reports no details from the debate, except to say that "despite our absolutely compelling arguments, the audience unaccountably voted for the opposition."
Of course, Lewontin and Sagan attributed the vote to the audience’s prejudice in favor of creationism. The resolution was framed in such a way, however, that the affirmative side should have lost even if the jury had been composed of Ivy League philosophy professors. How could the theory of evolution even conceivably be "proved" to the same degree as "the fact that the earth goes around the sun"? The latter is an observable feature of present-day reality, whereas the former deals primarily with non-repeatable events of the very distant past. The appropriate comparison would be between the theory of evolution and the accepted theory of the origin of the solar system.
If "evolution" referred only to currently observable phenomena like domestic animal breeding or finch-beak variation, then winning the debate should have been no problem for Lewontin and Sagan even with a fundamentalist jury. The statement "We breed a great variety of dogs," which rests on direct observation, is much easier to prove than the statement that the earth goes around the sun, which requires sophisticated reasoning. Not even the strictest biblical literalists deny the bred varieties of dogs, the variation of finch beaks, and similar instances within types. The more controversial claims of large-scale evolution are what arouse skepticism. Scientists may think they have good reasons for believing that living organisms evolved naturally from nonliving chemicals, or that complex organs evolved by the accumulation of micromutations through natural selection, but having reasons is not the same as having proof. I have seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever "science says," become skeptical when they realize that the scientists actually do seem to think that variations in finch beaks or peppered moths, or the mere existence of fossils, proves all the vast claims of "evolution." It is as though the scientists, so confident in their answers, simply do not understand the question.
Carl Sagan described the theory of evolution in his final book as the doctrine that "human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way." It is the alleged absence of divine intervention throughout the history of life—the strict materialism of the orthodox theory—that explains why a great many people, only some of whom are biblical fundamentalists, think that Darwinian evolution (beyond the micro level) is basically materialistic philosophy disguised as scientific fact. Sagan himself worried about opinion polls showing that only about 10 percent of Americans believe in a strictly materialistic evolutionary process, and, as Lewontin’s anecdote concedes, some of the doubters have advanced degrees in the relevant sciences. Dissent as widespread as that must rest on something less easily remedied than mere ignorance of facts.
Lewontin eventually parted company with Sagan over how to explain why the theory of evolution seems so obviously true to mainstream scientists and so doubtful to much of the public. Sagan attributed the persistence of unbelief to ignorance and hucksterism and set out to cure the problem with popular books, magazine articles, and television programs promoting the virtues of mainstream science over its fringe rivals. Lewontin, a Marxist whose philosophical sophistication exceeds that of Sagan by several orders of magnitude, came to see the issue as essentially one of basic intellectual commitment rather than factual knowledge.
The reason for opposition to scientific accounts of our origins, according to Lewontin, is not that people are ignorant of facts, but that they have not learned to think from the right starting point. In his words, "The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. . . . Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth." What the public needs to learn is that, like it or not, "We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of material relations among material entities." In a word, the public needs to accept materialism, which means that they must put God (whom Lewontin calls the "Supreme Extraterrestrial") in the trash can of history where such myths belong.
Although Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only source of truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of the hokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science. As examples he cites three influential scientists who are particularly successful at writing for the public: E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas,
each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Wilson’s Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia. Dawkins’ vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing nonselective forces in evolution. Thomas, in various essays, propagandized for the success of modern scientific medicine in eliminating death from disease, while the unchallenged statistical compilations on mortality show that in Europe and North America infectious diseases . . . had ceased to be major causes of mortality by the early decades of the twentieth century.
Lewontin laments that even scientists frequently cannot judge the reliability of scientific claims outside their fields of speciality, and have to take the word of recognized authorities on faith. "Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution."
One major living scientific popularizer whom Lewontin does not trash is his Harvard colleague and political ally Stephen Jay Gould. Just to fill out the picture, however, it seems that admirers of Dawkins have as low an opinion of Gould as Lewontin has of Dawkins or Wilson. According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, "the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." Lewontin fears that non-biologists will fail to recognize that Dawkins is peddling pseudoscience; Maynard Smith fears exactly the same of Gould.
If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact. Lewontin confirms this suspicion by explaining why "we" (i.e., the kind of people who read the New York Review) reject out of hand the view of those who think they see the hand of the Creator in the material world:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
That paragraph is the most insightful statement of what is at issue in the creation/evolution controversy that I have ever read from a senior figure in the scientific establishment. It explains neatly how the theory of evolution can seem so certain to scientific insiders, and so shaky to the outsiders. For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
The prior commitment explains why evolutionary scientists are not disturbed when they learn that the fossil record does not provide examples of gradual macroevolutionary transformation, despite decades of determined effort by paleontologists to confirm neo-Darwinian presuppositions. That is also why biological chemists like Stanley Miller continue in confidence even when geochemists tell them that the early earth did not have the oxygen-free atmosphere essential for producing the chemicals required by the theory of the origin of life in a prebiotic soup. They reason that there had to be some source (comets?) capable of providing the needed molecules, because otherwise life would not have evolved. When evidence showed that the period available on the early earth for the evolution of life was extremely brief in comparison to the time previously posited for chemical evolution scenarios, Carl Sagan calmly concluded that the chemical evolution of life must be easier than we had supposed, because it happened so rapidly on the early earth.
That is also why neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins are not troubled by the Cambrian Explosion, where all the invertebrate animal groups appear suddenly and without identifiable ancestors. Whatever the fossil record may suggest, those Cambrian animals had to evolve by accepted neo-Darwinian means, which is to say by material processes requiring no intelligent guidance or supernatural input. Materialist philosophy demands no less. That is also why Niles Eldredge, surveying the absence of evidence for macroevolutionary transformations in the rich marine invertebrate fossil record, can observe that "evolution always seems to happen somewhere else," and then describe himself on the very next page as a "knee-jerk neo-Darwinist." Finally, that is why Darwinists do not take critics of materialist evolution seriously, but speculate instead about "hidden agendas" and resort immediately to ridicule. In their minds, to question materialism is to question reality. All these specific points are illustrations of what it means to say that "we" have an a priori commitment to materialism.
The scientific leadership cannot afford to disclose that commitment frankly to the public. Imagine what chance the affirmative side would have if the question for public debate were rephrased candidly as "RESOLVED, that everyone should adopt an a priori commitment to materialism." Everyone would see what many now sense dimly: that a methodological premise useful for limited purposes has been expanded to form a metaphysical absolute. Of course people who define science as the search for materialistic explanations will find it useful to assume that such explanations always exist. To suppose that a philosophical preference can validate a cherished scientific theory is to define "science" as a way of supporting prejudice. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinists seem to be doing, when their evidence is evaluated by critics who are willing to question materialism.
One of those critics, bearing impeccable scientific credentials, is Michael Behe, who argues that complex molecular systems (such as bacterial and protozoan flagella, immune systems, blood clotting, and cellular transport) are "irreducibly complex." This means that the systems incorporate elements that interact with each other in such complex ways that it is impossible to describe detailed, testable Darwinian mechanisms for their evolution. (My review of Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box appeared in FT, October 1996.) Never mind for now whether you think that Behe’s argument can prevail over sustained opposition from the materialists. The primary dispute is not over who is going to win, but about whether the argument can even get started. If we know a priori that materialism is true, then contrary evidence properly belongs under the rug, where it has always duly been swept.
For Lewontin, the public’s determined resistance to scientific materialism constitutes "a deep problem in democratic self-governance." Quoting Jesus’ words from the Gospel of John, he thinks that "the truth that makes us free" is not an accumulation of knowledge, but a metaphysical understanding (i.e., materialism) that sets us free from belief in supernatural entities like God. How is the scientific elite to persuade or bamboozle the public to accept the crucial starting point? Lewontin turns for guidance to the most prestigious of all opponents of democracy, Plato. In his dialogue the Gorgias, Plato reports a debate between the rationalist Socrates and three sophists or teachers of rhetoric. The debaters all agree that the public is incompetent to make reasoned decisions on justice and public policy. The question in dispute is whether the effective decision should be made by experts (Socrates) or by the manipulators of words (the sophists).
In familiar contemporary terms, the question might be stated as whether a court should appoint a panel of impartial authorities to decide whether the defendant’s product caused the plaintiff’s cancer, or whether the jury should be swayed by rival trial lawyers each touting their own experts. Much turns on whether we believe that the authorities are truly impartial, or whether they have interests of their own. When the National Academy of Sciences appoints a committee to advise the public on evolution, it consists of persons picked in part for their scientific outlook, which is to say their a priori acceptance of materialism. Members of such a panel know a lot of facts in their specific areas of research and have a lot to lose if the "fact of evolution" is exposed as a philosophical assumption. Should skeptics accept such persons as impartial fact-finders? Lewontin himself knows too much about cognitive elites to say anything so naive, and so in the end he gives up and concludes that "we" do not know how to get the public to the right starting point.
Lewontin is brilliantly insightful, but too crankily honest to be as good a manipulator as his Harvard colleague Stephen Jay Gould. Gould displays both his talent and his unscrupulousness in an essay in the March 1997 issue of Natural History, entitled "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" and subtitled "Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains." With a subtitle like that, you can be sure that Gould is out to reassure the public that evolution leads to no alarming conclusions. True to form, Gould insists that the only dissenters from evolution are "Protestant fundamentalists who believe that every word of the Bible must be literally true." Gould also insists that evolution (he never defines the word) is "both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief." Gould is familiar with nonliteralist opposition to evolutionary naturalism, but he blandly denies that any such phenomenon exists. He even quotes a letter written to the New York Times in answer to an op-ed essay by Michael Behe, without revealing the context. You can do things like that when you know that the media won’t call you to account.
The centerpiece of Gould’s essay is an analysis of the complete text of Pope John Paul’s statement of October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsing evolution as "more than a hypothesis." He fails to quote the Pope’s crucial qualification that "theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." Of course, a theory based on materialism assumes by definition that there is no "spirit" active in this world that is independent of matter. Gould knows this perfectly well, and he also knows, just as Richard Lewontin does, that the evidence doesn’t support the claims for the creative power of natural selection made by writers such as Richard Dawkins. That is why the philosophy that really supports the theory has to be protected from critical scrutiny.
Gould’s essay is a tissue of half-truths aimed at putting the religious people to sleep, or luring them into a "dialogue" on terms set by the materialists. Thus Gould graciously allows religion to participate in discussions of morality or the meaning of life, because science does not claim authority over such questions of value, and because "Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology." Gould insists, however, that all such discussion must cede to science the power to determine the facts, and one of the facts is an evolutionary process that is every bit as materialistic and purposeless for Gould as it is for Lewontin or Dawkins. If religion wants to accept a dialogue on those terms, that’s fine with Gould—but don’t let those religious people think they get to make an independent judgment about the evidence that supposedly supports the "facts." And if the religious people are gullible enough to accept materialism as one of the facts, they won’t be capable of causing much trouble.
The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked. Propagandists like Gould try to give the impression that nothing has changed, but essays like Lewontin’s and books like Behe’s demonstrate that honest thinkers on both sides are near agreement on a redefinition of the conflict. Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism.
«A pessoa coloca a palavra "pós-moderno" no texto pra criticar pessoas da comunidade LGBT protestando contra preconceito, e eu já sei que vem bastante bosta, nem continuo lendo, porque nem sempre estou com Plasil à disposição.
Segundo certa esquerda ungida, as LGBTs estão afastadas dos trabalhadores comuns, as LGBTs não estão querendo disputar as massas que são cristãs chamando elas de homofóbicas.
Segundo certa esquerda a luta das LGBTs atrapalha a classe trabalhadora pois a divide, atrapalha a luta de classes colocando trabalhador contra trabalhador.
Pois bem, para essa esquerda ou a classe trabalhadora não tem orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, ou deve sempre ser heterossexual e cisgênera.
Preciso trabalhar para pagar o aluguel da kitchenette onde moro, vender minha mão-de-obra para conseguir comprar a comida que eu como, mas para essa esquerda, uma vez que sou transexual, estou afastada da classe trabalhadora.
Essa esquerda determinou como pessoas como eu devem protestar, e no caso, se eu passei uma vida inteirinha sendo discriminada, agredida e inclusive sendo expulsa de casa por conta de gente que usou da fé cristã para justificar tanta crueldade, não devo exasperar, afinal, afastaria eu a classe trabalhadora cristã.
E quando digo isso sempre aparece quem diz que "ah mas a fé cristã não é isso, Deus não é desse jeito, Jesus não ensinou isso".
A fé cristã, Deus e Jesus são entidades que só se materializam pelos atos de gente de carne e osso, gente de carne e osso que passou a minha vida inteira dizendo que eu ia arder no inferno e falando coisas absurdas para mim pelo simples fato de eu pertencer à comunidade LGBT. Ouvi inclusive dentro de uma igreja, a Catedral da Sé, o que eu estava fazendo lá dentro, uma vez que eu não era filha de Deus.
Segundo certa esquerda, a materialização dos corpos da comunidade LGBT que são diuturnamente expulsos da sociedade e assassinados não existem, já que puro modernismo.
Segundo certa esquerda, homofobia, lesbofobia, bifobia e transfobia são invenções pós-modernas. Nunca existiram, passou a existir de uns dias pra cá na ilusão dessa gente inventando história. Ou seja, as dores das pessoas só passam a existir se a gente criar uma palavra para nomeá-la, e eu que pensava que era o contrário.
Centenas de países ao redor do mundo que punem com prisão ou pena de morte uma pessoa simplesmente por ser da comunidade LGBT: tudo país pós-moderno.
E claro, falar sobre essas atrocidades atrapalha a luta de classes.
Falar que a comunidade trans está majoritariamente desempregada, subempregada ou se prostituindo divide a classe trabalhadora.
Falar que nos EUA a população trans possui o dobro da taxa de desempregados em relação ao restante da população é pós-modernismo demais.
Essa esquerda produzindo textos no facebook não consegue disfarçar seus preconceitos, discriminar pessoas da comunidade LGBT é lutar contra o capitalismo. Sei...
Na verdade estão a fim de disputar todas as massas, desde que não sejam da comunidade LGBT, porque se o for, abstraíram que a classe trabalhadora pertencente à comunidade LGBT pode sofrer diversas discriminações em função de orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, resultando inclusive em seus assassinatos.
Mas devo entender que esses assassinatos também são pós-modernos.
Próxima vez que fomos enterrar a próxima vítima de um crime de ódio por pertencer à comunidade LGBT, já sabem, digam que estão indo a um velório pós-moderno.
Afinal, antes ser pós-moderna que pré-medieval.»
1) insiste em dividir a sociedade entre os mais-iguais e os menos-iguais
&&
2) finge que as differenciações injustas "não existem"
http://www.krisis.org/1999/manifesto-contra-o-trabalho/
«'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of a movement to take over and destroy Western society. Originally the term had a niche academic usage within Cultural Studies where it described The Frankfurt School's objections to forms of culture they saw as having been mass-produced and imposed by a top-down Culture Industry, which they claimed was able to cause the reification of identity, alienating individuals away from developing an authentic sense of self, culture and class interests. British theorists such as Richard Hoggart of the Birmingham School developed a more working class sense of "British Cultural Marxism" which objected to the "massification" and de-localization of culture, a process of commercialization Hoggart saw as being enabled by tabloid newspapers, advertising, and the American movie industry.
However, since the 1990s the term "Cultural Marxism" has been appropriated by paleoconservatives as part of an ongoing Culture War in which it is claimed that the very same theorists who were objecting to the "massification" and mass control via commercialization of culture were in fact staging their own attack on Western society, using 1960s counter culture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness as their methods. This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich but also holds currency among alt-right/white nationalist groups and the neo-reactionary movement.»
FONTE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Não precisam se envergonhar de admittir que foram enrollados pello Orvalho de Cavallo, pello Julio Severo, pello Luciano Ayan, e demais picarêtas "do bem".
Na verdade, existe — e é a ideologia (anti-sexual) promovida como "ordem natural das coisas" pellos conservadores christâons e seus alliados pseudo-scépticos e pseudo-atheus.
E é o que sou hoje: obrigado Ayn Rand.
Tantos preconceitos...
E?
Cá a falácia comum de que a realidade vá se submeter às crenças das maiorias.
Que aliás são temporais e locais, pois que o arcabouço de crenças dum "grego" do ano -300 ou romano do ano 0 seria praticamente irreconhecível pro americano típico eleitor do Trump.
"Matéria" é um conceito mal delimitado e não fundamental em Física. Então dizer que "a Ciência" é materialista é quase que um truísmo, uma circularidade. Pois as ciências lidam com o que podemos captar e claro, como sempre ressalto, implícitos os axiomas de certa causalidade - ponho o certa pra levar em conta a atual QM...- e anti solipsismo.
Todas tentativas de introduzir "imaterialidades", "espiritos", na nossa realidade fracassaram até agora miseravelmente, se restringindo aos delírios imaginativos.
O exemplo mais gritante, e bem relevante cá no nosso território, é o espiritismo, que conheço perfeitamente.
A única coisa séria que pode ser alegada sobre a direita no Brasil é que ela em sua forma "mainstream" é caricata e mal representada.