thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
huge amount of predictability. Even though it's useful and efficient to learn how to use what has been left behind by others and learning from them, it also narrows our own paths of learning. By copying others' experiences and absorbing their knowledge, together with their own definitions of everything, we are letting them guide us. Like that, we are exploring the same path they had already started and leaving others aside. The poem "The Road Not Taken" by Robert Frost may come to mind. From my understanding of the poem, it mentions how one single person cannot travel more than one path at the same time, for being a single person, we can only take one of the forks and diversions in the road at each time.Although, just like I mentioned above, Robert Frost mentions the possibility of coming back later to the fork in the road and traveling to other one as well. So, it doesn't completely means that following down a path doesn't allow to try other ones too. It's just that it side tracks it for another opportunity. However, there are moments when a different type of approach is necessary. To an example, I shall revert again to the Imperium Romanum. Just like their constant use of standardization and refinement of knowledge produced a powerful empire and military machine, it also proved to be a hindrance in more than one occasion. I would like to mention the battle of Cannae and the ambush on the forest of Teutoburg, when enemies of the Romans used their knowledge of Roman traditions and praxis to deal heavy losses on the Romans and annihilate whole armies. Hannibal knew of how the Republic's armies had two leaders and of their tactics. Armenius served under the Empire's legions and tricked an army into an ambush. Alaric I, first King of the Visigoths, also served under Rome legions in the late Empire. And he lated used his knowledge to invade Italy and sack Roma itself. Although, to counterpoint it, all those defeats had many more factors to help it. Hannibal was a great tactician. Armenius deceived the Romans. And the Western Emperor, of the time Alaric sacked Roma, had ordered the execution of his best general, who was also his father in law and a figure who commanded respect and loyalty of many Roman Legionaries. And the two defeats were later met with fierce retaliation from the Roman part. It's no wonder that there is a Latin idiom that follows the lines of "It is a bad plan, which can not be changed and admits of no modification".In resume, strictly following codes and not adapting to the different situations faced is usually a bad idea. Traditions, heritage and past knowledge should not be allowed to smoother diversity. For, like I constantly maintain, diversity is what leads to creativity and evolution. Attaching one self, or even whole governments, to strict codes that allow no change. Institutions are good, but cannot be a burden. It's necessary to know when to leave habit aside and try different approaches.So, what
I mean to propose by all of that? Mainly that, there must always be a balance between following through with what we know, the tested means, and trying something new. I know it's a very ambiguous and actually really obvious solution. But I would rather be fluid, letting the situations arise, than discuss hypothetical situations to make a point on how either tradition and habit or constant changes and no uniformity. I also feel like the obvious should be said, if not for anything else, just to be a reminder to ourselves and the ones close to us. After all, things that may seem obvious to one, aren't going to be to everyone else. After all, that was also part of my argument.Conclusively, I hope to have put as many good points as I could towards the following of tradition and customs, it's advantages and it's disadvantages. I also hope that it made clear how I support an adaptive instance, instead of a fully rigid one. Like I repeat it constantly, I consider it to be very important to weight each point and make a good decision with the most information available. I already said to believe that it must always come down to each person to make their decisions, based on the unique situations that they face. It's each person's choice to do whatever they prefer at any given second and their decisions will have consequences that they will be forced to deal with by however means they deem the best available.
I am just sitting hereAwaiting for the time of my deathI am just sitting hereAwaiting for the time of my demiseI am just sitting hereEnjoying life to it's fullestI am just sitting hereEnjoying each moment I can getI am just sitting hereAwaiting for the time of my endI am just sitting hereMaking what I can of this lifeI am just sitting hereAppreciating each second I surviveI am just sitting hereLiving my own lifeI am just sitting hereTrying to be happyI am just sitting hereWatching life go past meI am just sitting hereIn my own little worldI am just sitting hereUnknown to anyoneI am just sitting hereAwaiting for the time of my deathI am just sitting hereAwaiting for the time of my demise I usually see a lot of people blaming the poorer, illiterate classes to current problems faced by several nations which declare themselves democratic and hold general elections. After all, "they voted for them". Well, I can't speak for every country. But I can speak for the country where I was brought up in, Brazil. And I think it's a fallacy, to which even I am guilty of, to blame lower classes for electing bad leaders. Not to mention it's being monochromatic about it. We can't ignore all the problems and say it's all due to poor leadership.Putting the blame solely on the lower classes and their lack of education is a big mistake. It's mainly the sort of propaganda that the higher classes disseminated to wash their hands of guilty and gain support during election years.The systems put in place ever since the Portuguese arrived here have always been the same establishment higher classes focused thing. It's always about maintaining the status quo and exploring the lower classes.When the politicians from rich families blame the poorer parcels of society for their lack of proper education, they are trying to say that they know better and present themselves as saviors of the fatherland.But, the thing is, the general public is only in this situation because the ancestors of such politicians intentionally kept and still keep both knowledge and political power from them.Expecting people who have been intentionally left out of the power and drained of knowledge to make good decisions is quite the optimistic view. Not to mention that such models put in place make sure to take the most of the decisions away from the public and contradict the few left to them.The elections, per example, are presented to be a democratic contest where everyone has equal power. But the only way to candidate yourself is to be part of a political party. Political parties need the avail of the current ones to exist and their numbers is about to be limited.Also, even if you managed to create a party and candidate yourself, the lack of financial and political support from the richer and powerful classes would overshadow your candidacy.So, it's quite over-simplistic to think that a change of attitude would reform the country. It would most definitely work. But even then it would take years of continuous popular pressure
to change the current scenario.By that I mean that ignoring the general problems and putting blame on lower classes, or any specific class, is counterproductive to the general society. As in any society I have heard of, there are many problems and much to be solved. Separating the people and blaming key sectors of society for all the problems is hypocrisy. I admit it's easier, I am guilty of doing it myself when stressed, but it's not really productive.Dividing the lower classes, draining their joint motivation and power of change, only benefits the higher classes, benefited by the systems put in place by them. It's natural for them to incentivize breaks among the lower classes and slowly drain their power away while pretending to still keep this power. Basically, creating a seemly democratic society where the lower classes wield no real power and are constantly divided into smaller groups. Sort of like a late medieval or imperial system of old where the people think they actually have the final say on the matters of state but barely have any in their own lives.So, like the title says, blaming the lower/weaker classes for maintenance of the status quo, ultimately, only benefits the higher classes which desire no change. Criticism, like everything else in life, has a blurry line between healthy and counterproductive.Em portugues, idolatrar outras nacoes e ignorar os problemas que elas apresentam e contraprodutivo. Assim como tentar descarregar a responsabilidades pelos problemas de uma sociedade em setores chaves. Especificamente, quando esses setores sao os que menos tem poder e quando outros setores tambem apresentam serios problemas e ineficiencias.Acredito que a situacao brasileira e muito mais complexa do que uma mudanca de atitude mudaria por si so e que precisamos sermos realistas. De nada adianta pessimismo ou otimismo em excessos. E de nada adianta que as classes mais baixas se dividam e digladiem enquanto as classes mais altas cometem erros macroscopicos tentando ignorar sua propria responsabilidade.Os brasileiros precisam de um Brasil melhor? Ou e o Brasil que precisa de brasileiros melhores? Eu digo que ambos influenciam um ao outro. O ser e produto da sociedade em que existe e por si ele tende a modifica-la de acordo com o que conhece. E um balanco dificil de ser modificado. O natural e a manutencao do status quo ate que a situacao se torne insustentavel e force mudanca. Enquanto os sistemas em lugar mantiverem o minimo de legitimidade e funcionalidade, contrabalanceando a vontade e o poder de mudanca dos prejudicados, o sistema permanece em aequilibrium. Ou seja, enquanto os prejudicados permanecerem fora do poder e nao se unirem em uma acao de mudanca, nada mudara.Eu sempre achei isso o mais obvio do mundo. Sem vontade e poder o suficiente para a mudanca, nao ha mudanca. E drenar o poder das classes mais baixas as mantem sem a capacidade de mudar nada por si so. Dividindo-as e desmotivando-as a mudar, se torna um desejo natural das classes mais altas. Nesse modelo, a unica esperanca de mudanca e que os sistemas e as relacoes de poder estabelecidos
se quebrem a tal ponto que parcelas o suficiente da populacao, capazes de manejar poder o suficiente, decidam que e hora de mudar. E completamente natural e obvio em praticamente todas as macro-sociedades humanas que eu ja estudei e conheci.Sendo assim, culpar as classes mais baixas, desfavorecidas e com menos poder em geral, pelos erros macroscopicos e gerais acaba, por fim, a beneficiar somente as classes mais altas e poderosas, beneficiadas pelos atuais modelos e que nao desejam modifica-los. Ou seja, e contraprodutivo culpar em demasiado aqueles que fazem parte das classes com menos poder, especialmente quando o orador faz parte da mesma classe.Criticismo, assim como tudo mais na vida, tem uma linha tenue entre algo saudavel e contraprodutivo.
After a post about both the final candidates for the USA presidential elections of 2016, I thought that my view on the matter was quite well explained. But, the hyper-polarized political environment around it made a lot of people misinterpret my points about it. So, after a lot of similar discussions, I decided to once again gather some thoughts about it. This time, mostly defending my already made point of why I would have rather seen the USA's elect Hillary Clinton as their president than Donald Trump. Although, by my countries voting system and my view on democracy, I do feel like she should have been awarded the office due to receiving more votes than her adversary... That is another subject that I already talk about as well and I don't feel like touching right now. I don't even think there is much merit bringing it up when I believe to have better points to bring up.Firstly, Hillary seems to be a corrupt politician, deep in the pockets of her campaign donors and not afraid of back room meetings. She had several proven ties with bankers and Wall Street figures. She has shown all the marks of a "mainstream politician", even proudly taking credit for toppling foreign governments. I already knew that, it's pretty much public information. It's no surprise, the wealthy have been using their financial power to elected friendly figures and cement their power through politics since the foundation of the US and since the start of times. Hell, I doubt a single President of the United States of North America since Nixon hasn't been intentionally, practically semi publicly, doing deals with bankers and pretending not to. It's already accepted as the nature of the system. The class of politicians born from this systems is also well known by anyone who lives in the countries directly influenced by the USA.As well as that, Clinton has been linked to financial fraud on the Clinton Organization's actions in Haiti and beyond. I never found actual proof of Hillary's actual involvement in it. But I am prone to believe on the basis that she has been proved to be lying many times before and that wouldn't surprise me. Using false philanthropy to launder money is a tactic so widespread, I don't doubt she and/or her associates do it.I also know Clinton participated in the toppling down of Lybia's government. Albeit a dictatorship, it was their government and they decided to topple it down for their own interests. But, quite frankly, that is quite tame when I think about US's governments and presidents. I mean, USA's history really has a lot of bombing, pillaging and organizing coups. Ever since the start of the XX (20th) century, the USA has been organizing coups and even outright invasions of Latin American countries. Through using the Monroe Doctrine and the excuse of "liberation", they actually supported coups against democracies. I know it's a very used argument of mine by now, but I always mention the Operation Condor. Mainly because it directly affected my family's and my own
life. After all, by the words of the 45th POTUS, Donald Trump: "You think our country[USA] is so innocent?". Even he seems aware of how many times US governments took down governments to avoid possible rivals.Therefore, I really don't see Clinton as different from the usual politicians. And, although I don't like the current sociol-political caste formed by politicians in most western nations, I think they aren't the worst thing possible. I don't like the corrupt models instituted by them, but I understand their minds and I see them as usually less risky to me and my family. In other words, I don't like politicians. But an usual politician is less risky than an unpredictable real state billionaire with populist and retrograde rhetoric.Even though both have a proven past of outright enrichment through conning and abusing other people. Both are predictably seeking power for themselves. But one seemed qualified to administrate a nation and maintain world peace. The other is clearly seeking more power and shaping things to his liking and opinions. By that I mean that I believe Hillary Clinton knows how to operate such a big machine and would do it better than Donald Trump.So, I am not talking about pussies and Trump's behavior regarding women. During elections, I am not interested solely in the morality of the candidates. I am interested in who I believe is capable of using their desired roles to what I believe to be closer to my ideal of a world and society. Trump doesn't seem like the candidate I would trust to do anything but work for himself. His whole life has been an egoistic life. And I am talking about enriching himself through the exploration of cheap labor and false advertisement to the point of practically lying to others. Which, to be fair, Clinton has been proven to do too. I also can't judge, I am a very proud egocentric and hedonistic person myself.But I feel like, between Clinton's life long career and politics and Trumps life of luxury and real state business, you could at least fantom that the US had something to gain out of her actions. That her actions were of a nation's leader, morally ambiguous but with a reason. After all, she had to at least work well enough to not break down the country. Also, in a Machiavellian train of thought, I consider the leaders should not always be judged on the same balance as normal citizens. Their decisions carry more weight and aren't so simple. It doesn't completely justify any action, just makes her actions more understandable to me than his.From what I know, Trump also committed questionable actions. All of that when he wasn't even president either. And he seemly did it all for his own benefit. Trump University, failed casinos, tax evasion, hostile take over property, false advertisement. All of that seems unnecessary and unjustifiable, it seems like pure greedy and disregard for others. His life was never set to be a good leader or worrying about the losses. That is why I believe he
doesn't even really care if he does an horrible job as president. Just competing and being elected was already a good investment for him. And he has already shown that he didn't really prepare for winning and what to do now that he is elected. From now on, he is probably going to push harder to gain more. It doesn't matter if he doesn't succeeds, he won't suffer any consequence by himself. He is old and rich, not much to lose and incredible power on his hands. This is not the type of man I like seeing with access to so much power, specially military power. This is why I rather see a predictably corrupt politician, who at least shows some basic lines of control, than someone who lives only for himself. Honestly, it's a purely and recognized egoistic and subjective view of mine. I don't like the USA and am also proud of it. I honestly hope to see their natural, hopefully peaceful, decline happen in my lifetime. I already stated that many times. But I feel like a man like Donald Trump and his administration have shown to be a risk to everything I envision of a better world in many different levels. He is clearly not worried about causing wars and wrecking the whole world. Be it on climate change or international relations, he has shown to not be worried about long term consequences, he is just out for himself. That became a risk to everyone in this world when he received power over one of, if not the, most powerful country in the current world.Ideally, as a center left liberal, I would have really liked to see the Democrat Party pre candidate Bernie Sanders to be elected. But, once that hope was smothered by both parties, I sincerely just hoped that no one "too bad" took the slot. Unfortunately, through populism and reaching out to the disenfranchised, a man who showed no regard even for his own people took charge. Now I just hope that his administration is well recorded, as an example of the pros and cons of having someone like him having so much power. And I hope that these records are used to develop a better sociopolitical society.
They cry for the kids at Manchester But let the kids in Rio and in Mosul dieOh, for the losses in Manchester they rallyBut for the losses in the "third world"For those, they merely dallyBombs and bullets fly around the worldBut to the victims of Manchester are nice ceremonies and tombstones doneThousands die every day around the globeBut the kids at Manchester are the ones who the media really cares forEvery day, a different slaughter for kids of every creed, age, nationality and even heightBut only for the kids at Manchester their flags ever cease to fly highEvery year, millions are mowed and forgottenInto mere statistics they turn, lives to the wind thrownBut only the kids in Manchester are so many honors bestowedMen and women, parents and children From violence, bullets and bombs they dieTheir lives and bodies torned from family and EarthBut only for Manchester the media mournedEvery day, thousands dieInnocent kids and adults alikeBut only for Manchester the media cries Hip hip hurray for Prostitution! And that is all you need to know about what I think about the subject... lol Seriously, though. I understand the social and even pragmatic pressures that made reproduction very important. Wars demanded soldiers, men demanded heirs and lords needed serfs. They needed more people making babies, while giving no worry about their happiness and desires. It was easier to just portray anything else as bad. There also existed the social hierarchy and everything else. So, prostitution ended up outlawed, together with homosexuality and even anal/oral sex.Don't get me wrong, I am not against monogamy or anything. I am no extreme liberal, asking for the end of historical coupling that has been going on for ages. But, history has shown that it was very common for the same authorities, who proclaimed to be pious and against sex, to be the ones most prone to use their authority to indulge in the pleasures of the flesh. Not always sex, but pleasures nonetheless. Like drinking, overeating and even inflicting pain or suffering upon others.Also considering how we already have 7 billion mouths to feed. I say we can indulge ourselves in such "carnal pleasures". Sex is good and it helps to ease tensions. It's more natural than any drug and it's just another natural instinct of our mammal bodies.So, I am glad that prostitution is a legalized industry where I live. It's a great, clean and easy way for relieving sexual tension. It helps the economy and the workers have the same rights as everyone else. In some part, I admit, it has a dark underbelly, with exploration and sometimes disease spread. Still, that is usually product of people not being open about it. After all, doing business in the dark only leads to all sorts of problems. And the sex industry is just that, another branch of the entertainment industry. Regulation works better than prohibition. It helps everyone and it diminishes any possible harm. So, hurray openly regulated prostitution once again! So, I was watching an Japanese animated series and a constant theme came up. The