During COVID I would say that governments, school boards, and HR departments were the main instituters of policy. However, there was a veto type power that these all has, as in having either a Dem governor or a Dem school board were enough to get Dem policies in you school. Only universal Republican control got something different than the CDC.
Which brings up something important. The CDC technically didn't have the authority to impose anything (mostly), but it had the MORAL AUTHORITY amongst the actual decision makers such that all of those above entities governors, school boards, HR departments, etc all fell in line unless they were hard right.
Lyons, supposedly in common with Schmitt and Jünger, asks “what one could ‘advise a man, especially a simple man, to do in order to extricate himself from the conformity that is constantly being produced by technology?’” But most people, especially simple people, are natural conformists. Does Lyons suppose that conformism is worse with modern technology than it was in earlier times?
"Anger evolved as a way to get someone else to treat you as important. That is Sell’s theory. Not sure I buy it. Does anger achieve that objective?"
I think anger can do an effective job if done in groups rather than between individuals. Directing anger at someone, with an audience present, based on my experience in all three roles, can raise status.
1) Dishing out anger usually shows up with an argument from authority. If you're an authority, anger can burnish that authority. Status-backed righteous anger is effective at keeping people in line.
2) If you're in the crowd, the authority's anger may seem harsh, but most people quietly roll with the poor behaviour if the angry person already has some status. They may sympathize with the recipient but are very unlikely to react boldly at the time.
3) If you're the recipient of the anger and the crowd doesn't back you up, you'll often just roll over. You might seethe, but unless you're articulate or have equivalent status (in that moment) to back up your anger a counter reaction will fail.
Anger - from stern tone to sound and fury - isn't well defined. (Though Callard has done a good job on it.) Outside WEIRD societies status coupled with anger is starkly effective.
You are probably accurate in this, though not in the White-Knight sense you likely mean it.
Throughout history the vast majority of women (really, both sexes) simply had to, in a word, *settle*. They had to take any offer of marriage from the best person who would make (or agree to) one because social pressure, economic necessity, and physical limitations did not allow a perpetual search for Mr/Miss Perfectly Right as opposed to Mr/Miss Right Here And Now. Sexual activity outside of a (reasonably) committed relationship was simply too risky in terms of unintended pregnancy, and without children and a long-term partner old age would be an even more miserable prospect. Birth control and abortion have largely eliminated the first pressure towards marriage and the modern welfare state put a big dent in the second (at least compared to the majority of history) as well as enabling many women to become Mothers while mated to The State. Throw the 'Have It All' mythology of feminism into the mix and you have a real toxic stew that is making both sexes miserable.
During COVID I would say that governments, school boards, and HR departments were the main instituters of policy. However, there was a veto type power that these all has, as in having either a Dem governor or a Dem school board were enough to get Dem policies in you school. Only universal Republican control got something different than the CDC.
Which brings up something important. The CDC technically didn't have the authority to impose anything (mostly), but it had the MORAL AUTHORITY amongst the actual decision makers such that all of those above entities governors, school boards, HR departments, etc all fell in line unless they were hard right.
Lyons, supposedly in common with Schmitt and Jünger, asks “what one could ‘advise a man, especially a simple man, to do in order to extricate himself from the conformity that is constantly being produced by technology?’” But most people, especially simple people, are natural conformists. Does Lyons suppose that conformism is worse with modern technology than it was in earlier times?
"Anger evolved as a way to get someone else to treat you as important. That is Sell’s theory. Not sure I buy it. Does anger achieve that objective?"
I think anger can do an effective job if done in groups rather than between individuals. Directing anger at someone, with an audience present, based on my experience in all three roles, can raise status.
1) Dishing out anger usually shows up with an argument from authority. If you're an authority, anger can burnish that authority. Status-backed righteous anger is effective at keeping people in line.
2) If you're in the crowd, the authority's anger may seem harsh, but most people quietly roll with the poor behaviour if the angry person already has some status. They may sympathize with the recipient but are very unlikely to react boldly at the time.
3) If you're the recipient of the anger and the crowd doesn't back you up, you'll often just roll over. You might seethe, but unless you're articulate or have equivalent status (in that moment) to back up your anger a counter reaction will fail.
Anger - from stern tone to sound and fury - isn't well defined. (Though Callard has done a good job on it.) Outside WEIRD societies status coupled with anger is starkly effective.
Peterson: Isn't the problem that too few Maidens can find mates worthy of becoming a Mother with?
You are probably accurate in this, though not in the White-Knight sense you likely mean it.
Throughout history the vast majority of women (really, both sexes) simply had to, in a word, *settle*. They had to take any offer of marriage from the best person who would make (or agree to) one because social pressure, economic necessity, and physical limitations did not allow a perpetual search for Mr/Miss Perfectly Right as opposed to Mr/Miss Right Here And Now. Sexual activity outside of a (reasonably) committed relationship was simply too risky in terms of unintended pregnancy, and without children and a long-term partner old age would be an even more miserable prospect. Birth control and abortion have largely eliminated the first pressure towards marriage and the modern welfare state put a big dent in the second (at least compared to the majority of history) as well as enabling many women to become Mothers while mated to The State. Throw the 'Have It All' mythology of feminism into the mix and you have a real toxic stew that is making both sexes miserable.