The hugely inflated egos of older women
For various reasons I have been keeping an eye on internet dating sites over the last 3 years. And it has never ceased to astound me to see how highly older women praise themselves on such sites. They seem to see themselves as perfect examples of what a desirable female partner should be. They have a great list of praiseworthy descriptions of themselves. What they describe has no correspondence to actual women of that age whom I know. They are flawless.
I am moved to comment on it by a particularly egregious example of it that I have just encountered on a dating site. It is by a 68 year old Australian woman. I have no idea who she is and certainly do not want to know. She writes::
"I’m quite resilient, confident and strong. Lateral/logical thinking, I can be perceptive, creative & problem-solving. Often quirky and sometimes left-field. Witty, absurd, off-beat comedy is cool. Capable, sometimes passionate/sassy/playful & often resourceful.How could any man find love from someone as deeply in love with herself as that? Who could offer a range of virtues big enough to complement that? Just how did she get so wonderful? She presumably means to impress by her self-description but an inflated ego is the last thing that impresses favourably. Humility is much more attractive.
Notably, I have a soft side where compassion, equality & fairness are highly regarded. I'd like to think I'm otherwise generally agreeable albeit discerning. Open-minded & kind to others, including myself is what I strive to be, along with a good listener. Young-at-heart, fun-loving & not so typical for my age, also describes me.
I’ve a long social sciences career. I mostly live a healthy life, grow food plants & walk or cycle to keep fit & energised. Versatile in interests with a wide range, e.g. art, science, architecture, culture & a great many music types, especially some techno, house & alternative. Ask me more if you like music. Like to experiment with & am currently studying photography at uni, which I really enjoy for a sense of purpose. As I'm curious, like learning & being adventurous, I’ve had my fair share of exploring cultures & remote localities. Have swum with piranhas! Also like city haunts, e.g. funky laneways & quirky places. Would love to share further fun experiences with you, with or without the piranhas! My ultimate goal is for a supportive, committed relationship"
The sad thing is that she presumably believes every word of what she has written about herself. That being so, she would be insufferable company and ultimately very boring. Only a lapdog would suit her as a partner. I wish her the joy of such a partner. Any normal man would run a mile from her.
As women's looks decline, it is understandable that they would want to promote themselves as having other virtues, but, when such promotion degenerates into unbridled self-congratulation, it becomes simply nauseous
*************************************************
A Foolish Generation
How moral relativism, technology, and lockdowns have shaped the behavior of our culture.
No rules, no right and wrong, live your truth, the "me generation": these are all apt descriptions of our modern culture's moral values. Moral relativism along with the infiltration of technology and the boredom of the COVID lockdowns have metastasized into a genuinely heartless generation.
The motto of the era is "you do you," and that is leading to all sorts of chaos. As Federalist writer Maureen Mullarkey points out, we can mark our own cultural decline by the influx of amoral celebrities as the leaders of public voices and by the lack of public intellectuals.
She also throws out this disturbing stat: "The word 'influencer' is no longer an ordinary noun; it has become a career goal. To some 26 percent of today's young people, it eclipses occupational choices that require training and formal qualifications like a college degree. The thrill of online affirmation, measured in followers, crowds out time-honored pride in useful work."
Mullarkey accurately traces the start of this descent into cultural decline with the advent of screens. When this writer was training to be an elementary school teacher, it was common knowledge that screens, particularly personal screens like phones and tablets, were not good for children's brain development. The overstimulation of the blue light alone is rewiring their brains. Now, though, it's not talked about as much because there is a big push in education and really in all spheres of life to modernize with personal screens.
But alas, it is a Faustian bargain, and the trade-off of books for screens is taking its terrible toll.
Besides the warped world of life on screens and through social media, another disturbing aspect appears through our modern notion of dating and relationships. There is the whole kerfuffle of online dating that is more often used for a one-night stand than for finding a serious long-term relationship.
Part of the problem goes back to the moral relativism so celebrated in our culture. It prohibits more serious people from feeling like they can be honest about what they want. It manipulates both men and women into settling for a lifestyle that they really don't want but culture says they should celebrate (hookup culture, ghosting, living with someone before marriage, and other risky behaviors).
No one is happy in the long term, and everyone pursing this is ultimately so lonely. The lack of taking love and relationships seriously is another factor messing with this foolish generation.
Podcaster Matt Walsh in a show this week addressed another interesting aspect that has been exacerbated by the lockdowns: the lack of etiquette people show during performances.
During the COVID pandemic, people got used to doing everything for their social media accounts, including all sorts of behavior that, in a kinder time, would have gotten them kicked out or arrested. These range from the rude (scrolling on their phones during a performance or movie) to disruptive (throwing things at performers on stage). These people are so addicted to their screens and so addicted to propping up their own social media profile that they are willing to do just about anything for clicks.
No such thing as bad publicity, right? Wrong.
The attitude of self-centeredness is not unique to our generation, though the technology certainly is. There is nothing new under the sun. In the Bible, the book of Judges cites over and over again the struggles that God's chosen people had with following him. They were constantly doing "what was right in their own eyes." Pastor John MacArthur called this period of Bible history "an age of absolute moral chaos."
Our foolish generation must abandon moral relativism — which enables and glorifies all atrocity and evil — lest they follow it to its logical, disastrous conclusion. The cure in Judges was total repentance and turning back toward God. That is also the cure for today's moral decay. Let's pray that miracle happens.
**************************************************
Whose Medical Freedom? 11th Circuit Shoots Down Gender Affirming Care for Children
Yesterday wasn’t a good day for transgender advocates in the State of Alabama. A state law that went into effect last April in Alabama banned gender affirming care for children, which includes the use of puberty blockers, hormones or surgery. Legal battles ensued. The plaintiffs in this case, five parents of trans-identified children, a physician and a child psychologist sued and were able to secure a preliminary injunction from Judge Liles C. Buke, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. That ruling effective at least temporarily, afforded the ability of the plaintiffs to continue with gender affirming care in the state. However, on appeal, judges with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the injunction, effectively enforcing the law as is. In Alabama, parents and physicians and other licensed providers may not direct children to gender affirming care if it involves prescriptions for puberty blockers, hormones or surgery.
Statement by the plaintiffs
Appalled by the decision at the appellate level, groups in support of the plaintiffs and generally, advocating for the rights of transgender people included nonprofits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Human Rights Campaign which issued a statement objecting to the ruling.
“Every federal district court that has heard the evidence presented in these cases has come to the same conclusion: these medical treatments are safe, effective and lifesaving for some youth, and there is no legitimate reason to ban them."
The pro-gender affirming care for minors contingent continued making a fundamental medical freedom case:
“We believe that at the end of the day, our nation’s courts will protect these vulnerable youth and block these harmful laws, which serve no purpose other than to prevent parents from obtaining the medical care their children need. Parents, not the government, are best situated to make these medical decisions for their children. These laws are a shocking example of government overreach and a jarring intrusion into private family decisions. This case is far from over, and we will continue to aggressively seek legal protection for these families.”
What’s the state law at issue?
The Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, is a state law establishing gender affirming care for children as a felony. It’s no longer lawful for parents and doctors to direct children to prescriptions such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy or surgery for that matter.
This law extends into the schools. For example, under the Alabama law, school officials may not retain for dissemination select gender-identity information of children secret from their parents.
Governor Kay Ivey signed the legislation into law in April 2022, immediately driving a deeper wedge between conservatives and liberals across the generally conservative state. Drawing opposition in courts, lawsuits ensued, including the present litigation.
Who are the plaintiffs of this case?
The plaintiffs are represented by a group of people including the parents of five transgender identified youth, a doctor and child psychologist.
What is the plaintiff’s argument?
Their argument is that the new Alabama law outright violated the rights of people to direct the medical care of their children, which is a classical medical freedom argument. Additionally, because some puberty blockers and hormones are prescribed to minors for indications such as endocrine disorders, the plaintiffs also contend that because the law excluded gender dysphoria, this represented a fundamental discrimination based on sex.
Did the lower court buy the plaintiff’s argument?
Yes, at least in part. The court issued a preliminary injunction in May of this year, halting enforcement of the law. Specifically, while upholding parts of the law, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Judge Liles C. Buke issued the injunction regardless. Judge Liles, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote:
“Because the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit have made clear that parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children subject to accepted medical standards; and discrimination based on gender-nonconformity equates to sex discrimination, the court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that [the medication portion] of the act is unconstitutional and, thus, enjoins defendants from enforcing that portion of the act pending trial.”
So, the state appealed to the U.S. 11th Circuit—how did the appellate judges rule?
The appellate panel included three Trump appointees including Judges Barbara Lagoa, Andrew Brasher and Jean-Paul “JP” Boulee sitting by designation.”
A member of the conservative-leaning Federalist Society--Barbara Lagoa for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that the provision was only subject to the rational basis review, not a heightened standard of scrutiny as embraced by Judge Liles.
Judge Lagoa wrote:
“The plaintiffs have not presented any authority that supports the existence of a constitutional right to treat [one’s] children with transitioning medications subject to medically accepted standards.”
Importantly, Judge Lagoa continued on precedents identified by the lower court’s judge, “Those decisions applying the fundamental parental right in the context of medical decision-making do not establish that parents have a derivative fundamental right to obtain a particular medical treatment for their children as long as a critical mass of medical professionals approve. Moreover, all of the cases dealing with the fundamental parental right reflect the common thread that states properly may limit the authority of parents where it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child or have a potential for significant social burdens.”
Concurring with his colleague on the circuit court bench as well as recording his own opinion addressing the equal protection claim, yet another Trump appointee Judge Andrew Brasher wrote that “Alabama’s statute does not treat one sex differently than the other.” He continued, “It does not use sex as a proxy for some more germane classification. And it is not based on a sex stereotype. Instead, I think the law is best read to classify — not based on sex — but as between minors who want puberty blockers and hormones to treat ‘a discordance between [their] sex and sense of gender identity,’ and those minors who want these drugs to treat a different condition.”
What did the winning side have to say?
Attorney General for Alabama, Steve Marshall, went on the record with a statement yesterday:
“The Eleventh Circuit reinforced that the state has the authority to safeguard the physical and psychological wellbeing of minors, even if the United States Attorney General and radical interest groups disapprove.”
Marshall continued, “Alabama takes this responsibility seriously by forbidding doctors from prescribing minors sex-modification procedures that have permanent and often irreversible effects. This is a significant victory for our country, for children and for common sense.”
***********************************************
Big Tech, led by Elon Musk, appears to be easing up on fighting "disinformation"
Social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation, abandoning their most aggressive efforts to police online falsehoods in a trend expected to profoundly affect the 2024 US presidential election.
An array of circumstances is fuelling the retreat. Mass layoffs at Meta and other major tech companies have gutted teams dedicated to promoting accurate information online.
An aggressive legal battle over claims that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to silence certain speech has blocked a key path to detecting election interference.
And X CEO Elon Musk has reset industry standards, rolling back strict rules against misinformation on the site formerly known as Twitter. In a sign of Musk’s influence, Meta briefly considered a plan last year to ban all political advertising on Facebook. The company shelved it after Musk announced plans to transform rival Twitter into a haven for free speech, according to two people familiar with the plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive matters.
The retrenchment comes just months ahead of the 2024 primaries, as GOP front-runner Donald Trump continues to rally supporters with false claims that election fraud drove his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Multiple investigations into the election have revealed no evidence of fraud, and Trump now faces federal criminal charges connected to his efforts to overturn the election. Still, YouTube, X and Meta have stopped labelling or removing posts that repeat Trump’s claims, even as voters increasingly get their news on social media.
Trump capitalised on those relaxed standards in his recent interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, hosted by X. The former president punctuated the conversation, which streamed on Wednesday night during the first Republican primary debate of the 2024 campaign, with false claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and that the Democrats had “cheated” in order to elect Biden.
On Thursday night (Friday AEST), Trump posted on X for the first time since he was kicked off the site, then known as Twitter, following the January 6, 2021, assault on the US Capitol. Musk reinstated his account in November. The former president posted his mug shot from Fulton County, Ga., where he was booked Thursday on charges connected to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. “NEVER SURRENDER!” read the caption.
The evolution of the companies’ practices was described by more than a dozen current and former employees, many of them speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer sensitive details. The new approach marks a sharp shift from the 2020 election, when social media companies expanded their efforts to police disinformation. The companies feared a repeat of 2016, when Russian trolls interfered in the US presidential campaign, turning the platforms into tools of political manipulation and division.
These pared-down commitments emerge as covert influence campaigns from Russia and China have grown more aggressive, and advances in generative artificial intelligence have created new tools for misleading voters.
Experts in disinformation say the dynamic headed into 2024 calls for more aggressive efforts to combat it, not less.
“Musk has taken the bar and put it on the floor,” said Emily Bell, a professor at the Tow Centre for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, where she studies the relationship between tech platforms and news publishers. For the 2024 presidential election, misinformation around races is “going to be even worse,” she added.
The social media platforms say they still have tools to prevent the spread of misinformation.
“We remove content that misleads voters on how to vote or encourages interference in the democratic process,” YouTube spokesperson Ivy Choi said in a statement. “Additionally, we connect people to authoritative election news and information through recommendations and information panels.”
Meta spokeswoman Erin McPike said in a statement that “protecting the US 2024 elections is one of our top priorities, and our integrity efforts continue to lead the industry.”
Yet it is already changing what some users see online. Earlier this month, the founder of a musical cruise company posted a screenshot on Facebook appearing to show Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) falsely signing a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to become police officers and sheriff’s deputies. “In Illinois American citizens will be arrested by illegals,” reads the post, which has been shared more than 26o times.
Fact-checkers at USA Today, one of dozens of media organisations Meta pays to debunk viral conspiracies, deemed the post false, and the company labelled it on Facebook as “false information.” But Meta has quietly begun offering users new controls to opt out of the fact-checking program, allowing debunked posts such as the falsified one about Pritzker to spread in participants’ news-feeds with a warning label. Conservatives have long criticised Meta’s fact-checking system, arguing it is biased against them.
Meta Global Affairs President Nick Clegg said the ability to opt out represents a new direction that empowers users and eases scrutiny over the company. “We feel we’ve moved quite dramatically in favour of giving users greater control over even quite controversial sensitive content,” Clegg said. McPike added that the new fact-checking policy comes “in response to users telling us that they want a greater ability to decide what they see”.
YouTube has also backed away from policing misleading claims, announcing in June it would no longer remove videos falsely saying the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump.
Continuing to enforce the ban would curtail political speech without “meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm,” the company argued in a blog post.
These shifts are a reaction from social media executives to being battered by contentious battles over content and concluding there is “no winning,” said Katie Harbath, former director of public policy at Facebook, where she managed the global elections strategy across the company.
“For Democrats, we weren’t taking down enough, and for Republicans we were taking down too much,” she said. The result was an overall sense that “after doing all this, we’re still getting yelled at . . . It’s just not worth it anymore.”
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment