Hey @excecutive, I went to the link and my norton anti-virus shot back with the following warning:
Your welcome
Your welcome
Accordung to this article are you taking the concept of symbols perhaps a bit far? See link. Is all life sciences really just symbolic?
This seems similar to IT following Marcuseian leap that since atoms combine to form molecules that humans should live in collective hives.
@FermentedAgave Excellent choice of reference to highlight the current controversy dividing biosemiotic theory.
There is an ongoing debate in biosemiotic theory between the code interpretation versus the Peircean. The code interpretation is favored by Marcello Barbieri, and the Biosemiotics journal was established by him, if memory serves me correctly. I’ve had a couple of articles rejected because they too abruptly challenge the code interpretation.
Barbieri used to be among my list of followers, but I see he’s no longer there. Yup, the split is difficult to reconcile.
But the choice is yours. You might prefer the code interpretation of Marcello Barbieri, but I don’t think that’s the way to go.
I can post my latest submission that was rejected by the Biosemiotics journal, if anyone is interested. Its title is PLASTICITY AND IMITATION, THE NEGLECTED AXIOMS. I might even post a copy of it on my academia.edu account this afternoon. It’s an article that explains my position very clearly and succinctly.
… Link to my unpublished article inserted…
As promised, I’ve uploaded my article, and here’s a link to it. It’s a brief, easy read, though it references other much more detailed work. The concept is basic… Charles Darwin got it right the first time. The current neo-Darwinian, mutation-based interpretation has never been substantiated, and is responsible for much of our contemporary crises. Rolling back to the original Darwin and then building on him with Peirce is, imho, the way to go:
oh what a coincidence, @FermentedAgave … I’ve just noticed that the article you referenced is by none other than Marcello Barbieri! No wonder you’re skeptical!
The code interpretation of biosemiotic theory, if I recall correctly, relies heavily on mutations to account for variations. Whilst I accept that mutations will always occur, and may even in rare instances be beneficial, I do not regard them as fundamental to the evolutionary process. Life is not that dumb. We really are meant to be here.
1 Like
This is an interesting questioning.
While it wont be desired by big tech, media, and those that utilize to influence the population, what I personnally want is my own curation and annotation solution taking control of the Cloud somewhat.
As an example, IL provides some of this for me. The RealClear sites are some of the better curating and aggregation “algorithms” that I have found.
LaWanna’s TheConversation has some much higher quality journalism albiet decidely Leftist Academy by design.
What are evreyone’s go to aggregation- curating sites?
I think it’s because it was not a secure link because it was http:// not https://nhbwebhosting.com/covid-employer-questionaire.pdf
Here is what I copy and pasted from the PDF typos are evident
NOTE TO EMPLOYER: As your employee, I am requesting that you review this document, provide the
requisite information, and sign the form, in regards to your requirement that employees get a Covid19 emergency use authorization (EUA) investigational vaccine.
-
If I agree to receive an EUA Covid-19 injection, does my employee health insurance plan provide
complete coverage should I experience an adverse event, or even death? -
As an employee, does my life insurance policy provide any coverage in the event that I die from
receiving an EUA Covid-19 injection? -
As an employee, will you be providing Workers’ Compensation, disability insurance, or other
resources if I have an adverse event to an EUA Covid-19 injection and am unable to come to work for
days, weeks, or months, or if I am disabled for life? -
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that EUA vaccine recipients be provided with
certain vaccine-specific information to help them make an informed decision about vaccination.
The EUA fact sheets that must be provided are specific to each authorized Covid-19 injection and are developed by the manufacturers of the injections (Pzer/BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen). The fact sheets must provide the most current and up-to-date information on the injections, and vaccine recipients must also receive information about adverse events. Have you read, understood, and provided me (and all other employees) with these fact sheets and with current information on adverse events so that I/we can make an educated decision? -
Have you reviewed the available databases of material adverse events reported to date for
people who have received Covid-19 injecons?9,10,11,12 Potential and reported adverse events include death, anaphylaxis, neurological disorders, autoimmune disorders, other long-term chronic diseases, blindness and deafness, infertility, fetal damage, miscarriage, and stillbirth. -
The FDA’s guidance13 on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to
“ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances… that they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product….” Are you aware of this statement? Have you informed all employees that they have the option to refuse? -
With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, Title 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III)14 reiterates that individuals be informed of “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, [and] of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.” If EUA Covid-19 investigational vaccines are ever approved by the FDA, state legislation would be required to allow companies to mandate the Covid-19 injections. Are you aware of these facts? -
EUA products are unapproved, unlicensed, and experimental. Under the Nuremberg Code—the
foundation of ethical medicine—no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. The individual’s consent is absolutely essential. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine. In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003)15, a federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines for soldiers: “… The United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs” (Id. at 135). Are you aware of this? -
The United States Code of Federal Regulaons16 and the FDA require the informed consent of
human subjects for medical research. The EUA Covid-19 injections are unapproved, unlicensed,
investigational vaccines that are still in their experimental stage. It is unlawful to conduct medical
research on a human being, even in the event of an emergency, unless steps are taken to secure the informed consent of all participants. Are you aware of this? -
According to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Guidelines17 and the FTC’s “Truth In Advertising,”18 promotional material—and especially material involving health-related products—cannot mislead consumers, omit important information, or express claims. All of this falls under the rubric of “deceptive advertising” (whereby a company is providing or endorsing a product), whether presented in the form of an ad, on a website, through email, on a poster, or in the mail. For example, statements such as “all employees are required to get the Covid-19 vaccine to make the workspace safe” or “it’s safe and effective” leave out critical information. Critical information includes the facts that Covid-19 injections are unapproved EUA vaccines that “may” or “may not” prevent Covid, won’t necessarily make the workspace safer, and could in fact cause harm. Not providing links or attachments of the manufacturers’ fact sheets and current information on adverse events is omitting safety information. Are you aware of this?
-
Since the Covid lockdowns began over one year ago, there have been over 178 reported breaches of unsecured protected health information (PHI), incidents investigated by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). These breaches exposed millions of people’s personal health information. Although many of these incidents were attributed to hacking, some of the breaches to PHI fell directly under the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), such as sharing a patient’s or person’s information with an unauthorized individual or incorrectly handling PHI.19 Can you please explain your obligations to me, under HIPAA law, and how you are going to protect my personal information - both with respect to your requirement that I receive this injection?
-
Whereas pharmaceutical companies that manufacture EUA vaccines have been protected from
liability related to injuries or deaths caused by experimental agents since the PREP Act1 was enacted in 2005, companies and all other institutions or individuals who mandate experimental vaccines on
any human being are not protected from liability. Are you aware that you do not enjoy such liability
protection? -
Are you aware that employees could file a civil suit against you should they suffer an adverse
event, death, or termination from their place of employment?
Endnotes:
- Congressional Research Service. The PREP Act and COVID-19: Liming Liability for Medical Countermeasures. Updated Mar. 19,
- hJps://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443.
- Del Bigtree interviews 3 medical professionals incapacitated by Covid injecons. The Highwire, Apr. 29, 2021.
hJps://www.bitchute.com/video/A4d8FB2cIBTc/. - America’s Frontline Doctors. Vaccines & the law. hJps://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/legal/vaccines-the-law.
- Layton, Catharine. Forced to get the COVID vaccine? ICAN may be able to help. The Defender, Jan. 29, 2021.
hJps://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/forced-to-get-covid-vaccine-ican-may-be-able-to-help/. - hJps://uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/,les/Vaccine%20AJorneys.pdf.
- The Solari Report. Family Financial Disclosure Form for Covid-19 injecons. Mar. 1, 2021. hJps://pandemic.solari.com/family-
,nancial-disclosure-form-for-covid-19-injecons/. - The Solari Report. Form for Students AJending Colleges or Universies Requiring Covid-19 Injecons. May 3, 2021.
hJps://pandemic.solari.com/form-for-students-aJending-colleges-or-universies-requiring-covid-19-injecons/ - Centers for Disease Control and Prevenon. COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorizaon (EUA) Fact Sheets for Recipients
and Caregivers. hJps://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/eua/index.html. - UK Medical Freedom Alliance. COVID-19 Vaccine Info. hJps://www.ukmedfreedom.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-info.
- Vaccine Adverse Event Reporng System. hJps://vaers.hhs.gov.
- CDC WONDER. About the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporng System (VAERS). hJps://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html.
- Naonal Vaccine Informaon Center. Search the U.S. Government’s VAERS Data. hJps://www.medalerts.org/.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Emergency Use Authorizaon of Medical Products and Related Authories:
Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders. January 2017. hJps://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download. - 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorizaon for medical products for use in emergencies.
hJps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3. - Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (2003). hJps://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2326816/doe-v-rumsfeld/.
- hJps://www.govregs.com/regulaons/expand/tle21_chapterI_part50_subpartB_secon50.24#regulaon_2.
- Federal Trade Commission. Adversing FAQ’s: A Guide for Small Business.
hJps://www.Yc.gov/ps-advice/business-center/guidance/adversing-faqs-guide-small-business. - Federal Trade Commission. Truth in Adversing. hJps://www.Yc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-adversing.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ONce for Civil Rights. Breach Portal: Noce to the Secretary of HHS Breach of
Unsecured Protected Health Informaon.
hJps://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/breach/breach_report.jsf;jsessionid=618E88DD94EE65D46D5785CB2A643553.
@steljarkos So beyond me in most ways, still a few things popped as well as a my remaining question. Thanks for posting. Note that the Barbieri link was shear luck on my part, or perhaps proves I am an amazingly unaware internet sleuth.
I still have my original question, but perhaps am refining a bit. With our modern/postmodern deconstruction/reconstruction methods, I think there are chasms we deconstruct / reconstruct across that might break an otherwise sound argument. I’ll have to sort through your work, but as a fundamental question I still haven’t bought in to the justification that an elite-lead collectivist global hierarchy is “higher” and “better”. Perhaps I’ll matrix some of the pro’s and con’s of “distributed decision making, control, management” and the popular “collectivist” models. Here is a link that articulates from the UK perspective impacts of our several decades of profit worship at the demise of citizens local stoopid, state bad, nation bad, region bad, globalization great paradigm led by centralized planners (gov, corp) after our “shocking unforeseen consequences” (#pandemic #supplychain #notsofairafterall). This seems hardly different than the classic centralized vs distributed systems studies.
From your paper -
"The ability of complexity to persist across time is a critical concern that has been neglected in the life sciences. Complexity is one thing. Complexity that persists despite the entropy that assails it from every angle is quite another. And one neglect begets another. The neglect of plasticity and the neglect of imitation."
Apprehending the Transcendent (linked, about 1/4 way in I think) states exactly the same regarding our civilization as viewed by modern/postmodern which in essence claims that this society that we enjoy and works beautifully 99.999% was created out of malignant, evil, intentions and only runs by the same dark forces is intellectual absurdity.
On the issue of Curation:
In my Political Science 101 class we learned that in the 1990’s the media could not choose what opinion you had on a topic, but they could choose which topics you have an opinion about.
I see this has become more refined over the next 30 years so that now media are not just in control of the topics covered, but they have also gained the ability to formulate the question.
The great big pink elephant in the room in 2021 is that a society cannot continue to exist if it flip flops on the very foundation of its structures and the policies that are informed by these structures every 4-8 years. We can have chaos and the deterioration of a society, but not a civilization. I’m actually ok with chaos, by the way.
All through the 20th Century we had two parties. One was in favor of change and the other was against change.
What we are experiencing from 2012 to present is the party that was formerly the foundation, anchor and roots of our society that kept our civilization connected to our past and traditions has become the agent of chaos acting to tear down those structures.
The United States no longer has a Conservative party. It has a progressive party and opposed to the progressives is the party of populists. Progressives are viewed as the establishment and the newly emerged populist party is going all out to destroy what the populists see as the “Liberal establishment”. Meanwhile, the few remaining conservatives are completely unable to deal with such a fundamental shift in the system and have no idea what to do. Populism is the opposite of conservativism and true conservatives have a hard time processing that the party they spent their lives supporting is now the opposite of what they believe, but in a two party system, they have to chose to either ignore this or join their progressive enemy.
The real Coup took place in 2016 when one half of a two-party system allowed itself to be taken over by populism. When that happened, there was no longer a party to advocate for the foundations of our 250 year old civilization.
Progressives are wanting to rebuild the house while the populists don’t like the blueprints they see, so they are destroying the foundations upon which any such new house can be built.
It’s no longer a choice to make if our 250 years of American Culture is going to be ended or continue. We have already made our decision as a society. All we can do now is understand that decision and figure out how we are going to live in the new civilization that will be built (or perhaps more accurately the results of the unwinding of civilization in our lifetime).
My position on Covid is summed up in my reply to a tweet that suggested that those who do not get vaccinated are foolish:
I’d rather take my chances with real covid, satisfied in the knowledge that the natural immunity that I acquire will be more robust than manufactured immunity, w their periodic booster shots.
Nothing foolish about my stance at all.
At least we agree on civil liberties, tho.
The covid-employer questionnaire is perhaps a start, but it’s sad that we’ve had to descend to this level of absurdity. Perhaps an item that can be included on the questionnaire: “You realize that you, the Employer, are denying me my natural right to choose the more robust natural immunity that can only come with catching real covid.”
There is a great deal to unpack, and it’s difficult to know where to start. But beginning at 21:42, where I happened to stumble into Sir Roger Scruton’s lead into the question “why we seek out the oppressor.” He conjectures that for some reason it seems that when we lose sight of the transcendental, we descend into this pit of wanting to reveal the oppressor. He frames this in the context of feminism and the patriarchal oppression of women by men.
Here’s how I see it. As I’ve mentioned before in this forum, there is no such thing as one-way (unilateral) oppression of one gender by another. I can summarize the main cognitive elements behind the feminist obsession with “patriarchal oppression” very easily:
- Hypergamy: Women only notice successful, powerful men (as per the “Pareto principle”, the upper 20%). All other men (the remaining 80%) are invisible to women. Do these successful men really oppress women? Or are they just more passionate and competitive in everything that they do, by virtue of their career-based priorities? Are the remaining 80% of men really oppressors? You know, the janitors, the tradesmen, the plodders, the earners, the soldiers that we send off to die in wars, the gender whose suicide rate is four times higher… are they really all oppressors? What is it about the remaining 80% of men that women don’t notice and don’t care about?
- Projection: Much of the feminist agenda can be understood from the perspective of projection. “This is what I would be thinking if I was doing what these successful men (the only men that I notice) are doing.” Hence feminist envy at those evil oppressors. Female bullies at heart know how male bullies act out. And male bullies are hot, baby. Hence the female attraction for exciting bad-boy stereotypes;
- Neo-Darwinism: My pet topic du jour. Our personalities do not come solely from the bottom-up, from the inside-out. They come from the top-down, from the outside-in… and I argue, this is the more influential flow of determinism. The outside-in begins under the influence of the primary nurturer, especially during the first 4 years of an infant’s rapidly developing neuroplastic brain. The top-down continues throughout life, with culture providing the options from which we choose. This is why I center on the importance of getting our paradigm right. The time to throw out neo-Darwinian, because-genes bullshit is long overdue.
These same basic elements can be extend to all the other dysfunctional things going on in culture:
- Hypergamy - pragmatism: Pragmatism is an extension of Peirce’s theory about how we define the things that matter. Where women only notice successful, powerful men, everyone else is doing much the same kind of thing. They are seeing the world from their own levels, from the perspective of their own priorities. They’ve lost the ability to empathize, to try and see the world from other perspectives;
- Projection - revealling the inner self: Again, more generally, “This is what I would be thinking if I was doing what Person X is doing.” Anti-white racists are still racists, because they are making assumptions about what I’m thinking, based on what they would be thinking if they were in my shoes. Bigots masquerading as anti-bigots are still bigots, because they have failed to liberate themselves from the original sin that is their culture. Virtue-signaling scolds are no different to their former incarnation as puritan, pitchfork-wielding fundamentalists;
- Neo-Darwinism - No, there is no such thing as an oppression gene. There is an oppression context, and mothers abusing their children begins a cycle of abuse that expresses itself throughout, and higher up, for example, men abusing women. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. Once again, this time with effect: there is no such thing as unilateral, one-way abuse of one gender by another. To suggest otherwise, as feminists are wont to do, is to disempower women, to enfeeble women, portray them as ineffectual imbeciles. They are not. Matriarchal authority is an authority to be reckoned with.
The bottom line, as I see it, is this. Our paradigm is broken. We don’t have a clue. We don’t see the extent to which we are products of our culture. We assume our culture to be “real”, but it’s all a collective hallucination. And all this is unravelling, expressing itself in the shifting politicizations, where once it was the Left against globalization, and now it’s the Right’s turn. They are shifting their stance based on their shifting priorities. When globalization was a corporate business agenda, the Left opposed it. When globalization became an authoritarian left agenda (as coporations aggregated and collectivised), the Right came to oppose it. None of this surprises me. Indeed, I expected it, and I expect it will get much worse. We can’t trust our leaders anymore. The Constitution? It doesn’t mean anything anymore. Our judiciary are joke, as are our other leaders. There’s no-one to respect anymore. This is Clown World, and everybody is a clown now.
So getting back to Scruton’s conjecture. Why is it that when we lose sight of the transcendental, we should descend to this oppression narrative? Answer… all of the above. 1) Seeing the world from our own level, from the perspective of personal priorities. 2) Projection, and the failure to see culture’s impact on our natures, the failure to empathize. 3) Neo-Darwinism, no our natures are not programmed into our genes, our natures are inextricably interconnected with culture. Do we see how leaning towards the Transcendental can ameliorate such impulses?
All terribly stream-of-consciousness… hope it’s not too rambling, it’s difficult nailing specifics on sweeping, big-picture topics like this, and it’s getting late in this part of the Eurozone 
As an employer (hypothetically - I’m not actually an employer) I would say “No, I am not denying you anything. You can choose to live your life according to how you see fit. But I won’t pay you to do that. If you have value on the labor market you should be able to quickly get a new job at similar rate of pay at another company that falls in line with your political views. Or, you can choose to go out and get COVID post-haste - and take any resulting sick days without pay because this company does not offer paid sick leave.”
I’m all in favor of employee rights, but I think we have to be intellectually consistent and not just suddenly change 100 years of labor laws and overturn 100 years of employer vs employee court cases just because some people don’t want to get a COVID vaccine.
Honestly, if an employee brings an employer a form like @excecutive linked - he better be VERY valuable to the company so as to be irreplaceable (hint - nobody’s irreplaceable).
There are a lot of variables. Is the employee interacting with the public in the course of their duties? Are they preparing food?
Most of our laws and legal precedents place the benefits of the company over those of the employee unless we are talking about a protected class of rights. Freedom to practice religion in the workplace is one of those things that has been fought in the courts. The freedom to practice religious beliefs is not an absolute right in the workplace, and employers can place limitations (which have been hammered out in the courts).
An example is freedom from random drug tests. Private employers have the right to conduct random drug testing and if the employee refuses they can be fired. You can’t just one day say it violates your religion if someone takes your pee. I personally agree it is an invasive practice and refuse to work for an employer who would require me to submit urine samples regularly. Many people tried to fight in court the right to take religious or sacramental substances that are also illegal - an they have been unsuccessful in the courts. Even if someone claims to be a Rastafarian, they can be choose to submit to random drug tests or be fired.
That’s just one example. The right to wear religious symbols has also been fought out, and many other cases.
@raybennett
I think the underlying difference of thinking is Individual Rights (personal or religious or whatever) vs Employer Rights vs Federal Mandates. Could this be the fundamental rub between Leftists demanding centralization of decision making and control vs Righties demanding individual decision making?
Case in point is everyone I know that is “Anti-Mandate” has also been vaccinated, yet feels strongly that Federally Mandated Vaccinations for COVID19 is Federalization creep that is unacceptable.
.
Some might call this “Anti Authority” with the most righteous going so far as attempting to completely discounting others concerns with a characterization of “shadows within their Upper Left quadrant that must be eradicated for the survival of humanity” existential FUD.
I joined a COVID trial program this weekend by attending a football game with 100,000 humans in attendance - packed house - lots of shouting, high fiving, back slapping and general elbow rubbing. There were no “vaccine passport” checks nor “enforced mask wearing”. I would estimate less than 5% of the 100,000 were masked.
We should expect to see infections spike, deaths spike, ER bed shortages,and need for another economic shutdown according to “the science”, right? I’ll track and keep everyone posted.
According to Scurton and Peterson, the postmodern existential sky is falling just might be something that we stop trying to find a compromise with and realize our a vast swath of society has fallen prey to a infection of a pathological ideology that has led then down a path of intellectual psychosis.
it’s as if we’re dealing with high school seniors that refused to take the “oppressively hard” classes and now can’t score a 1200 on the “systematically racist” SAT so therefore will not be getting the full-ride law school scholarship after all. So now they want to destroy society and culture so their Underwater Basket Weaving major now does lead to a tenure track professorship in the newly created Underwater Basket Weaving Department.
What if this attempt to compromise suddenly ends. This “bothsidering” stops, and the discussions get called for what they are - a complete waste of time and money and a destructive drain on humanity?
This doesn’t hold water when as I specifically pointed out the “Right” has been consistently against employees having freedom of choice in the workplace.
That’s the disconnect that you don’t seem to get - employee rights has not been a conservative priority until all of a sudden in 2021. I even quoted the Republican nominated Chief Justice who formed the basis of the next 100 years of Conservative policy on the issue.
The rest is all just a shell game.
Indeed, but the place to look is more inwardly instead of rationalizing all one’s problems are cause by other people. Nobody can force you into psychosis. If anyone is there, it is all on their shoulders. The amazing thing about Jordan Peterson is that he is so blind to his own victim mentality, and that he is popular mostly because men feed off of this to legitimize their own feelings as victims.
Indeed again - What happens if you realize your attempts are a complete waste of time? What happens if you instead just stop inventing ways to feel you have been wronged and then no longer have a need to defend then retaliate against being wronged? Yes, do stop bothsidering. You will be much better off. Stop making up the one side and then making up the retaliation against it.
@steljarkos
I’ll never write a book, but if I did my first one would be “Who Stole My Balls” - a parable of a little mouse who wakes up missing his balls and can only find them by negotiating a maze filled with big wet hairy monsters and their fanatical feminist drones. Most of the book would describe in graphic detail how he slays them with pathological glee in a gory bloody carnage. The ending would be modeled after “The Wasp Factory” by Ian Banks. The mouse discovers he never had balls to begin with, and in fact wasn’t even a mouse, but is instead a beautiful female guinea pig.
Here is an excerpt from the book:
‘My greatest enemies are Women and the Sea. These things I hate. Women because they are weak and stupid and live in the shadow of men and are nothing compared to them, and the Sea because it has always frustrated me, destroying what I have built, washing away what I have left, wiping clean the marks I have made.’
You do realize, don’t you @raybennett , that feminism assumes women to be “weak and stupid and live in the shadow of men and are nothing compared to them”, don’t you? That’s why feminists assume that women are victims who need protection, freebies and concessions, how could it be otherwise? And by extension, anyone who endorses feminism does the same. And male feminists are the worst, they are the galahads, eager to serve and protect, laying down their jackets over puddles so the li’l ladies won’t get their dainty feet wet. Chivalry… same as it ever was. And male feminists think they have balls? They’re just opportunists seeking the favor of women.
Chivalry before feminism: Opening car doors for the li’l ladies because they are too dainty to open car doors themselves. Remember that? Feminism is just a contemporary incarnation of the same, old same-old.
Gender roles are real because of biology. Different cultures have different ways of expressing them, though. In some cultures the dynamic, in mutual respect with men and women working together, is a delight to behold. In others, cringe. I’ve always found the anglosphere’s chivalry narrative irritating; women are just not that stupid. But at least it makes weak men feel useful and “manly”.
The old mind-body problem of cartesian dualism continues to haunt us. In reality, there is a direct relationship between mind and body, and in this, it is not possible to escape gender predispositions. Men’s and women’s bodies are predisposed to intercepting different cultural priorities. And the more things change, the more they stay the same (for example, equality-obsessed Sweden discovering that men and women continue to migrate to sex-defined roles, despite all their best efforts at “equality”). More feminism, more chivalry. Culture’s original sin remains firmly entrenched, regardless of how hard they might try to expunge it. And the harder they try, the more exaggerated it becomes, the more it becomes a caricature of itself.
What I found powerful about the questionnaire was the liability said business owner undertakes by mandating EUA vaccinations. A liability the drug company’s do not shoulder. The topic of getting vaccinated is a personal choice … mandating EUA vaccines seems very authoritarian.
Imagine if Trump were President forcing this mandate. I think we would see a lot of people on both sides take different stands. Those with passionate views are usually cult-like followers lining up in lock-step with an ideological fervor.
The integral independent thinkers see the disconnects and dangers in ideological blind obedience on either side.
A lot of strong judgements and confident conclusions in your comment. Curious if there is any middle ground in your perspective @steljarkos?
Respect for woman and respect for the elderly was the wisdom of the ages that led to civilized societies. Do you really want the strongest most powerful youthful men to rule the world? A strong view of knowing you are right, is a common trait among the youth, not common among the wise.
Those confident in “their truth” are a danger to everyone who disagrees. Do we really want to promote these base animalistic energies? There is a lot of complexity and nuance that seems to be missing in your comment that may leave you vulnerable to misinterpretation.
And rarely is the half-way in the middle compromise the right answer.