u/ILikeWwaret — reddlx

Mormons in my country

I live in Brazil. Here, some Mormons have been appearing for some time now. They are very few in number, and most of us are still Catholic and don't pay much attention to them. Why does this happen? Are some young Mormons (mostly Americans, as I see them) simply recruited to go on pilgrimages to other countries? Is the idea simply to spread the idea? Why, for example... At the risk of sounding ignorant and intolerant, but the Mormon religion sounds like charlatanism to me. I mean, man, Christianity has little to nothing to do with the American continent, and Jesus was never even in the USA. To outsiders, it really sounds like charlatanism. Besides, one of the few things I know is that in the past they had a negative image of black people. Why would they come to preach in Brazil, knowing that we are already Catholic, and that 10% of our population is black? (And using the single-drop metric, for Americans we would certainly be more than 50% black.). Furthermore, this business of revolving around the US also makes it seem American-centric. It sounds like neocolonialism. What's going on? Could someone try to change my mind or enlighten me?

reddit.com

u/ILikeWwaret — 3 days ago

▲ 300 r/AskTheWorld

What is the most famous crime involving elite/wealthy people in your country?

Suzane von Richthofen was a wealthy young woman from São Paulo who became nationally known after taking part in the murder of her own parents in 2002. She was 19 years old at the time and was dating Daniel Cravinhos, a relationship her parents strongly disapproved of.

The crime was planned by Suzane, Daniel, and Daniel’s brother, Cristian Cravinhos. While her parents were asleep, the brothers entered the house and killed them by hitting them in the head. Suzane stayed away from the house for a while to help create an alibi, and afterward they tried to make it look like a robbery.

However, the police noticed several inconsistencies in their story, and the truth eventually came out. The case shocked Brazil because people were horrified that a daughter had helped plan and carry out the murder of her own parents, especially in such a cold and calculated way.

In 2006, Suzane and the Cravinhos brothers were convicted. Suzane received a sentence of nearly 40 years in prison. Over the years, she later became eligible for less restrictive prison regimes, which is common in the Brazilian legal system.

Her case became very famous because she was rich and would likely inherit her fortune. She was even renowned, as her Father were German and she claimed descent from the Red Baron.

u/ILikeWwaret — 6 days ago

▲ 214 r/opiniaoimpopular

O cancelamento do Monark foi efetuado de forma perfeita e é uma prova de que cancelamento não é um problema e sim uma solução.

O Monark foi cancelado por culpa do livre mercado que ele mesmo defende, e isso é muito bom.

Ele defende que o livre mercado se auto regula, e quando ele foi cancelado, basicamente foi por que o público fez pressão pros patrocinadores largarem o flow e ele teve que sair pro flow poder respirar.

Isso é excelente, pois, quando tem descontentamento popular em relação a terceiros, um jeito da população mostrar seu descontentamento é fazendo pressão nas companhias, assim, elas ouviram às demandas do mercado e se modificaram pra acompanhar as tendências. Literalmente o que aconteceu com o Monark foi liberalismo econômico, o que ele tanto defende.

E ele ter sido permanentemente banido do YouTube, se for uma escolha da plataforma e não jurídica, faz parte do livre mercado.

O Monark receberia dinheiro do YouTube caso produzisse conteúdo, e o YouTube teria a imagem manchada. Então, a plataforma o bane. Empresas tem o direito de escolher quem contratam, e não querer o Monark produzindo conteúdo seria como não querer um ex criminoso trabalhando na sua loja. Seria como se uma empresa se recusasse a contratar a Suzane von Richthofen. Não tem problema, se a empresa sabe que é prejudicial pra imagem contrata-la, então eles se recusam. Mesmo que ela já tenha cumprido a pena, existe a punição jurídica, e a punição da sociedade. Mesmo que o Monark já tenha sido devidamente punido, os civis tem direito de continuar não gostando e desaprovando ele. E é através do cancelamento que se faz isso. Pra não ter que levar o caso pro âmbito legal, você usa aparatos da sociedade pra tal, e foi o que aconteceu com o Monark. E toda vez que alguém faz merda, tem que acontecer com ela o que aconteceu com o Monark.

O único erro do caso do Monark é que isso de fato foi pro âmbito jurídico. O Monark não devia ter sido punido legalmente por isso, mas aconteceu. Eu concordo que é errado e não é função do estado julgar esse tipo de caso. Mas agora que já aconteceu, mesmo que ele já tenha pagado o que tinha, ele ainda está sofrendo as consequências e é assim que tem que ser.

O único erro do caso Monark foi de fato ele ter sido levado pra esfera legal.

Olha o Zoio, por exemplo. Ele hoje não consegue monetizar os vídeos pois ele fazia conteúdo violento. Como os anunciantes não gostavam, o YouTube começou a punir canais assim, inclusive o do Zoio. Isso literalmente é o livre mercado se auto regulando. Não é sobre se você gosta ou não do Monark, é sobre que deveria sempre que ser assim que esses casos devem ser enxergados. O estado não deve punir, a sociedade tem que fazer, e foi feito, e está sendo feito.

A cultura do cancelamento não deveria ser demonizada, o que deve ser são coisas como cancelar uma pessoa por motivos idiotas ou coisas do tipo, mas a cultura do cancelamento é um exemplo de democracia direta e de livre mercado ao mesmo tempo.

u/ILikeWwaret — 7 days ago

▲ 0 r/AskAnthropology

Ultimately, there are factual differences in mentality and physical appearance. But what line did some peoples used to draw? Or rather, did they used to draw or make this distinction? The idea we have today is "under 18 teenagers, over 18 adults," but this is very recent and also subjective.How did certain cultures create these distinctions?

reddit.com

u/ILikeWwaret — 8 days ago

▲ 13 r/deathnote

Before L's death, he makes his plan clear to the entire team: To test the 13-day rule using a criminal to see if he would die after writing a name in the notebook. If the criminal didn't die, then the rule would be broken and suspicion would fall back on Light. However, he dies before he can carry out the plan; he is killed.

And that's the point. Why didn't the task force test the 13-day rule after L's death?

He said loudly and clearly that this was his plan, everyone heard, and it made sense.It was a very good plan.

Why didn't anyone test it? Of course, Kira takes the lead, so if someone asked him to test it like L wanted, he could simply refuse. But the plan was so good that if he denied it, suspicion would fall back on him, especially since, although there were some naive people on the team, like Matsuda and Light's father, The other investigators were more astute, and if Light denied it, they would simply become very suspicious.

Consider that testing the 13-day rule was very important, simply because, depending on the result, it would change the course of the investigation. Considering that if the 13-day rule wasn't tested, the only one who would benefit would be Kira, Light would have no excuse not to test the rule after L's death, Because L's death alone doesn't justify not testing the plan.

Considering the stage of the game they were at, I don't believe that Light's argument of "we're not going to kill anyone because it's wrong" alone would have worked. Like I said, maybe Matsuda and Light's father would fall for that line, but the others wouldn't. Light would be pressured to test the 13-day rule, especially since L died soon after suggesting it. If he denied it, everyone would wonder why; the excuse of "not killing anyone" wouldn't be enough to justify not doing it, especially since the case would remain stagnant for a long time. And during this period Kira continues killing, so the urgency would also require the team to do something, and testing the 13-day rule as L suggested to change the course of the case would be an alternative. In fact, I would say that it would be the only and most logical alternative. Perhaps even the only path and line of investigation that the team could follow. If Light were to test it, the rule would be disproven and he would once again be the prime suspect. If he refused to test it, he would raise suspicions and lose the support of his own team, who might start plotting against him, just like what happens at the end of the anime.

Did I miss something? Why didn't the team simply try to follow up or just suggest executing L's plan after his death? Does the anime mention this at any point? Is this a plot hole, or did I miss something? I'd like to know.

reddit.com

u/ILikeWwaret — 11 days ago

▲ 26 r/AskTheWorld

This meme is for illustrative purposes only.

In Brazil, both the rich and the poor tend to like the same musical style, for example, and you don't see much difference in tastes. Furthermore, loving football is also universal, regardless of social class.

u/ILikeWwaret — 14 days ago

▲ 46 r/AskTheWorld

It's not exactly a specific technology, but in Brazil, old Volkswagen Beetles are still very common. We call it a "fusca." But I think this is extremely common in Latin America in general. Old cars are quite common, but what would be an example in your country?

Old or traditional technologies that many countries no longer use. Or perhaps it's an ancient and ancestral technology from their culture that is still present today.

u/ILikeWwaret — 17 days ago