<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Anyway, the reason I noticed this article is that I posit that the steely harm reduction approach that was discussed recently is in my mind a form of stoicism. Can one put away their emotional responses and make hard choices based on the greater global good?
If one engages in large intimate social networks, I would say two things are likely to happen: 1) executive decisions become harder because there is diffusion of sensitive information, and thus political complications in making them. Members in the network
may not be sharing the whole factual context (preferring the emotionally laden parts) 2) there are still dominance relations (her language), but they are just manifest in different ways. Namely by being in the center of a social network and slightly censoring
the information that gets passed along.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
As it relates to the subject line, there may be some weak tendency one has to share or not share by default depending on hormones/genetics. </div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus@snoutfarm.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<style type="text/css" style="display:none">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span style="color:rgb(32,31,30); font-size:14.6667px; background-color:rgb(255,255,255); display:inline!important">< So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to detect and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear,
the bad faith actor doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In fact, it's a more canonical case of bad faith if the actor has simply habituated to it.<span> ></span></span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
A contrast she draws is between petulant vulnerability and "real" vulnerability. That it is "scary" and "any less necessary, for men".</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
There's another option which is not to use "the language of vulnerability as a cudgel", but also not engage "the human condition of reliance on others." She is expressing an expectation for high intimacy, and it is implicit that there is something wrong with
keeping your distance. I've seen this false choice portrayed by other so-called feminists. I don't buy it.</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Marcus</div>
<div style=""><font color="#201f1e"><span style="font-size:14.6667px"></span></font></div>
<div id="x_appendonsend"></div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:55 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="x_BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="x_PlainText">What's interesting about that essay is its appeal to character or "virtue ethics", I think. I've tried to address this a few times in past threads, especially when concepts like "bad faith" arise. Rittenhouse' crying looked precisely
like bad faith to me. I get accused of it a lot because I enjoy playing roles and believe playing roles (like Devil's Advocate) facilitates healthy reasoning. (E.g. EricC's accusation of illiberalism on my part when condemning the anti-masker's punching of
the doctor.)<br>
<br>
So, I'd argue against you completely. This essay is talking about how to detect and operate in the presence of bad faith. And, to be clear, the bad faith actor doesn't necessarily *know* that they're acting in bad faith. In fact, it's a more canonical case
of bad faith if the actor has simply habituated to it. Rittenhouse's crying on the stand and Kavanaugh's crying in his confirmation hearings both seem to me to be statements about their *character*. That means whatever ways we have/develop to detect bad faith
can be made reflective ... kinda like the Reddit forum "Am I the Asshole?" 8^D<br>
<br>
I doubt one's oxytocin-laced skepticism over such acting is completely arbitrary ... or even a preference at all.<br>
<br>
On 1/13/22 14:33, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
> Well, now that I've taken one extreme position, let me take the other extreme position! This essay reflects, IMO, an arbitrary preference for social affinities of a certain sort, and it is only one sort of valid class of relationships. Relationships that
have benefits, but also costs. It's not just overbearing on how men should be, but also on how women should be.<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/toxic-masculinity.html</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
glen<br>
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.<br>
<br>
<br>
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives:<br>
5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>