Ah ... the Trump rigged election playbook. I see that Bolsonaro has been setting that narrative like Trump did. If you don't have any proof of election fraud, as Trump didn't have, including that in the political discourse is only a means to undermine the democratic process. Extremely dangerous and malicious. And no, I am not PT. It's a fukin shame Brazilians will have to choose between such 2 bad candidates.
No, you are incorrect. The mutations are relevant because by the time the vaccine was rolled out, the original strain had mutated into Delta and later, Omicron arose. The vaccines addressed the original strain. We were told repeatedly the vaccines were safe and effective at preventing transmission and symptoms and disease and death. None of that is true. The CDC director said it herself. Minus for the elderly, and even then only temporarily (booster shot), the vaccine provides no permanent health benefit while carrying substantial risks. Even the Biden administration is now moving to define and to distinguish being hospitalized WITH Covid-19 as opposed to BECAUSE of Covid-19. Many state governments refused to provide this data down to this level of granularity, and this resulted in distorted numbers. One case included someone who overdosed on heroin and yet whose death was counted as a Covid-19 death because he tested positive 3 months before dying. By the way, your wording - "Covid complications" - is clever, but it doesn't help your argument. The media and the press and the Democrats insisted it was, during 2020, President Trump's fault 500k died due to Covid-19. You Celito may say it was "complications," whatever you think that means, but 94% of them had other contributing conditions listed on their certificates. This means Covid-19 pushed already severely weakened people, the elderly, the morbidly obese, etc., over the edge. Biden said he'd shut down the virus. Now he said there's no federal solution. And if the official numbers (500k under Trump, which is bull, but let's say it's true) are factually correct, then more people have now died under Biden than under Trump - WITH a vaccine. Why? Fauci et al stated what they stated in simple terms, providing the perception they worked (or didn't); he then went to two masks or even more. I'm just quoting the guy, and he's been wrong repeatedly. You can say anything, but it's basic: trap people indoors, sick with non-sick, do the non-sick get sick? And deprive them of Vitamin D (sunlight), and what happens to their immune systems? Lockdowns not only did not help, but they contributed to major spikes in child abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, divorces, and suicides. Whatever net benefit physical health-wise the lockdowns had (read: none), it was negated by all this other damage. Why 3? Why not 4? When does it end? Why does the definition of "fully vaccinated" change? These vaccines don't work. Celito, what's the absolute risk reduction and the relative risk reduction? I'll tell you. On December 8, 2020, BBC stated that the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe and effective, giving good protection, researchers have confirmed,”the actual Lancet study mentioned by BBC states: “Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, both developing mRNA vaccines, have reported initial efficacy results of 95% in their primary analysis (Pfizer/BioNTech) and 94·5% in an interim analysis (Moderna).” But a paper on it stated that it was relative risk reduction which were 95.1% and 94.1% respectively. You wanna talk about absolutes? Absolute risk reduction was 0.7% and 1.1% respectively. These vaccines do nothing to prevent contracting the virus; they do nothing to stop spread thereof; they don't stop the development of symptoms, and they carry a litany of potential side effects which are irreversible and for which the pharmaceutical companies have full liability. Fauci said in the February 26, 2020 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine, an article named "Navigating the Uncharted" that On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively. This pandemic is a gigantic hoax and it's been exploited to make people submit to tyrannical mandates by petty wanna-be dictators. Ask yourself why Sweden, which never shut down, has had mortality rates lower than all the countries in Europe which did lock down. Ask yourself why England and Denmark are discarding restrictions. Ask yourself why the German public received televised apologies by people who said "we lied to you when we said you might kill grandma." Ask yourself why FL and South Dakota and TX, which either never closed down or reopened early, haven't seen stratospheric fatality rates. Fauci, ever the liar, when asked on this, said "lag." Viruses lag? Trump tried doing what he could to keep the economy open, but he was worked against by Fauci and governors who claimed he did nothing yet he gave state governors such as NY's, CA's, etc., everything they wanted. The media and the Democrats painted him as a mass murderer and used that to hurt his re-election chances. If you don't see that's what happened and if you don't see they're doing the same to Bolsonaro, then I don't know what to tell you. I think I did a good job refuting what you wrote.
or maybe a means to improve it? Bolsonaro had bill last year to update the e ballots to 4th generation machines. It didn’t come to pass because bizarrely enough (but par for the course in Brazil) the e-ballots are tied to a constitutional law. The bill still won the simple majority of votes in congress but it didn’t reach the 2/3rds necessary to amend the constitution after the Supreme Court (again, strangely enough) made a public manifest and a number of congressmen turned against it after that. If they are trying to avert a January 6th in Brazil (and the horrors of having dudes in Viking costume taking selfies around the presidential palace), why be against upgrading the ballots? Make it safer , and Bolsonaro would have no leg to stand on if he loses.
Yeah, everyone outside of Brazil framing it as that but it's not the same. It can definitely be used that way, but it's not a forbidden word as it is in the US. It depends on the context.
It's not the n word, but it's racist. If I had to translate it, considering the context I'd probably use "boy" at least for an American English translation, because that achieves the same sort of dismissiveness and is also racist in such a context.
I haven't looked into it ... but improve something that is not broken ? It's rethoric to undermine the process and stir up anger. It's what Trump did. I find it funny making slight of Jan 6th. Just a bunch of nice folks breaking into the Capitol to disrupt the Democratic process while the people with Trump's ear trying to find ways to overturn the election. Yeah ... that's healthy for the country.
Everyone who uses language knows that this is a dishonest question. That means you know it too, even if it wasn't intentional and even if you can't figure out why. Language is all about context. I'm all for serious discussions, but a question framed like that doesn't lead to one.
Well it is an honest question, is the word neguinho used in Brasil have the same context as the word n**** used in the US by an American white person as the American media has portrayed it to be ? Of course not, but as I said, everything today in this increasingly cancel culture WOKE society we live in, injects racism into everything we do, and everybody. Hell I was accused of being a racist for complaining that gang bangers were coming into our neighborhood from the south side and beating up and stealing from our women residents. I am 100% for punishing racists making racists gestures in our stadiums but it is going too far.
Considering everyone in the thread thinks it is NOT the same I don't know why you felt this needed to be said. We don't have to inject racism in everything we do, it's already there. We're much better at understanding it today and much likelier to call it out. Language like gangbanger is loaded language too, so yeah, it can be racist to say that, in fact it usually is used in racist contexts.
- Awesome, glad everybody agrees. - Racism is not in everything we do, it’s put out there by a liberal WOKE society to feel fashionable and show superiority over everybody. Just like the BS “white supremacy” crap you have been hearing. - Members of a gang that travel our city creating mayhem are gangbangers. There is no other word for it. This is not racist. And when these gangbangers drive into my neighborhood, one jumps out of the car and beats the living shit out of my 71 year old neighbor, puts a gun to her head and steals her goods, jumps back in the car driving away, and then these people on social media feel sympathy for these gangbangers and showing zero compassion for the victim by calling me a racist, then so be it. But again, I do agree that blatant racial slurs and actions in stadiums world wide must be severely punished.
Sure, we agree on this and the first point, not the others. (Well, I agree your third point is a problem, but not your understanding of language and the factors that go into the context you described but I'm not interested in a discussion of these things here).
So .. I took the time to look at the seconds before and after that snippet of the interview because you know, people just love taking shit out of context and sometimes twist things. The first thing is that the conversation is actually about Senna's accident with Prost (2nd one) and the interviewer compares that accident to one between Lewis and Verstappen. Piquet isn't exactly defending Lewis, but he calls his accident one of "gentlemen" (even if sacanagem) and Senna's actions reckless because it was high speed and life threatening. The 2nd thing I noticed is that a lot of people on social media (and even some journalists) seemed to say that Piquet called Verstappen by name in the same breath when he called Lewis "neguinho". This is actually a lie. He calls Verstappen as "the other one" twice. Not only that, after the clip was edited, Piquet does call Lewis by his name. That just seemed a bit malicious as to prove Piquet's racist intent. I honestly don't know if Piquet had any intent or not. I think this can range from him just using a very informal tone after 90 mins of interview, to being a bit disrespectful, to some racist intent (conscious or subconscious). I think it's fine for people to discuss if the "saying" (under the context) by todays standards falls under racist speak (at least from an undertone perspective) or not, but going at him for intent is probably a bit much IMO. Even if he is often a bit of a dick (can't forget his tasteless joke about Senna's death in an interview with him and Mansell). I think a political party was opening a legal process against him. That's just absurd. Even if it's probably just a political stunt.
The usage doesn't require intent to be racist, so I would not argue intent. I do think that going into the details of how that works is not likely to be productive here though. What you bring up here is really interesting to me and applies to soccer in Brazil as well. While it's important to me to recognize racist speech as potentially criminal, like we do in Brazil (and contrary to the US), there is a problem that comes with addressing those crimes. Even arresting soccer fans, whether foreigners or Brazilian, for racism is too often done more as a weapon against your opponent than as a tool to address racism. It feels like the idea of categorizing racist speech as a crime is advanced in some ways, but the society itself is not sufficiently advanced to handle addressing the crime in any way other than with blunt force. Anyways, I have a lot of thoughts about this, I prefer this to the absolute free speech model, but I don't think Brazil is the best example of how to handle it once you decide it's a crime.
As a supporter of Jair Bolsonaro (whom I hope dearly for Brazil's sake wins over Lula) and of Donald Trump (whom I voted for twice and will vote for a 3rd time should the occasion arise), I do agree more with @IVO ! based on the posts in this thread. There is much I could say on "wokeness" and on the example of gangbangers which IVO ! mentioned, but I don't want to risk my post being deleted or a moderator reaching out to me privately. I'll just say this, though: I'm beyond sick and tired of repeated accusations of racism here in the U.S. - if it did happen, they yes, let's forcefully address it. But I refer to cases when people just want to whine and claim racism happened when it didn't. America continues to draw millions of nonwhite people every year (and Biden being the clown that he is, leaving the Texas/Mexico border up for grabs as cartels make a killing - literally and figuratively, isn't helping the situation); racism in the U.S. isn't dead, but it's definitely on the retreat. Some say it's on life support. It is undeniable that the circumstances and contexts here in the U.S. are not the same as those in Brazil. Living in the U.S. permanently (and however much I absolutely love visiting Brazil, I have no plans to resettle there in my final years), I need to deal with what I view as an extremely annoying, irritating, intellectual vacuous, and increasingly shrill radical left which sees racism under every stone and which thinks "woke" is cool when it's unintelligent. I would also like to say that I agree with Brazilian police arresting foreign fans who commit racist acts on Brazilian soil. Whether or not the laws on the books are archaic or need revision is not the point. The fans who have been arrested (most recently at Arena Corinthians) do that to provoke Brazilians with the intent of being hurtful. I don't care if in their country racism isn't as taboo or if they simply don't know that what they're doing is inappropriate. Last week, some jackass did the Nazi salute. In Germany, he'd go to prison.