LiberalRetvrn
they don't understand the things i say on twitter.
User ID: 1892
LiberalRetvrn
1mo ago
Well it depends how far back you go. White Americans came from somewhere, and there were plenty of European traditions before Christianity displaced or co-opted them. Returning to the "tradition" of Christianity seems a little unsatisfying, considering that it's really a generic set of traditions that are practiced by Christians all over the world, rather than something unique and local to a particular culture. It seems like the idea of traditionalism is that "our ancestors were right." Christianity says that our ancestors were all wrong, for thousands of years, and then a guy in the middle east figured out the truth, and from that point on it's been a steady march toward enlightenment as the Truth is spread throughout the world. That seems like the antithesis of tradition.
LiberalRetvrn
1mo ago
I find myself questioning 40 years of staunch atheism by the fruits it's bore
What fruits did you expect not believing in a god to bear? This seems like a strange reason to change one's belief in the nature of reality. I don't think god exists, but I don't expect to gain anything from that belief. I just know that life is meaningless and we're all just atoms, and nothing happens after we die. Whether I benefit from that or not is irrelevant, it's just how I think things are.
ready to try to retvrn and believe in Christ
Since you're choosing to believe, why not retvrn a little farther and believe in your culture's traditional religions? Unless you're actually from the middle east, that is.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Does that include the freedom to describe the world accurately, for example, by describing the Wachowski brothers as brothers?
Yes, that would be free speech.
Or the freedom for a woman to get undressed without a man watching?
I think we should try to arrange things so that everyone can have privacy when getting undressed. So yes, I agree with this as a special case of a general policy.
The freedom for women to compete in sporting competitions amongst themselves without being outcompeted by physically superior men.
Well, people should be able to freely associate, meaning that if they want to hold a sports event for only biological females, that should be allowed. I don't think they should necessarily receive federal funding for events that discriminate based on sex, however. If the government is going to fund sports, I think everyone should have an equal chance to participate. Which obviously does not mean that everyone will have an equal chance at winning. Sports are not fair, and being female is just one of the many ways someone can be disadvantaged. Why should that be singled out?
and to dress as the opposite sex if they wanted
Not always, there have been laws against crossdressing in many countries. The US has progressed past this, but some countries still haven't.
surely we should weigh the freedom of the majority more
I view freedom as absolute, so there should be no weighing involved. I would only describe something as a freedom if everyone can have an absolute right to it. Everyone can have an absolute right to free speech, but it's not possible for everyone to have an absolute right to food or healthcare.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Well I believe that everyone should have absolute free speech and absolute bodily autonomy. What rights am I infringing on by wanting the government not to give people with certain chromosomes special privileges?
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
The words woman and man have always meant male and female adults
Well that's fine, but I'm talking about how things should be, not how they are. People should be allowed to choose their gender, because more freedom is better than less freedom. Having separate words for talking about biological sex and gender is useful.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Well as a white middle class progressive living in coastal north America, I primarily care about how this issue affects that demographic. Lower class black regressive muslims living in the desert can define gender however they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. Then everyone can decide which culture they would rather live in, and everyone can be happy.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Defining the word "woman" based on biological sex is just redundant and makes it harder to discuss things. We already have the words "female" and "male" to describe biological sex. If the government insists on giving special privileges to "women", then anyone should be able to identify as a "woman" if they want to. In fact, I think feminists use the word "woman" instead of "female" to somewhat soften their policy positions. Giving special quotas and handouts to females would be more blatantly discriminatory, since natal sex is an inherent characteristic. And saying that "males are trash" would be a lot more obviously hateful than "men are trash", since the word "man" refers more to an abstract social construct than something people are born with.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Of course cutting Medicare would be a terrible idea, the point is that you can't cut the federal budget significantly by only going after things nobody cares about. The republicans have been doing this exercise of thinking up some ridiculous thing the government is tangentially "funding" (sex change surgeries for underwater feminist studies basket weavers in Burundi) for as long as I can remember. It's a silly talking point and everyone should see though it. But at least the Tea Party republicans didn't follow through by indiscriminately cutting everything. They had the decency to lie to their voters and maintain the status quo once they reached office.
No, they were explicitly what the people asked for - an end to stupid frivolous spending.
Not all the people. I proudly made the correct vote in 2024. I warned my coworkers and anyone who would listen that tariffs would be a disaster. It's not our fault that 51% of the people in certain states made a dumb choice.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
What is the argument for the need to make a choice?
I think setting a precedent against hostage-taking and indiscriminate killing at music festivals is a good idea. I don't necessarily think the US should take sides in the object-level issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I don't like Palestine getting away with doing a terrorist attack and then successfully reframing itself as the victim within a matter of days, like what seemed to happen after October 7th. Obviously what's happening to the Palestinians now is awful, but they brought it upon themselves. It's a natural consequence of their actions in choosing Hamas as their government. If someone is going to suffer for that choice, it should be the Palestinians, not people in surrounding countries.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Judges should always be have the authority to override the government in favor of individual freedoms. A few gang members being on the loose is nothing compared to the threat of a tyrannical government. Far from a blackpill, rulings like this give me some hope that checks and balances will actually work in practice.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Israel is a racial supremacist national socialist theocratic state, but they are still better than the palestinians. It's not an issue I particularly care about in either direction, but I don't understand people who aren't willing to choose the lesser of two evils. Any reasonable country in Israel's position would react similarly. If a neighboring country sent terrorists into my country, indiscriminately killed 1000 innocent people and took hostages, I would want them flattened. Israel has held back to an impressive degree. I think the fact that these attacks have been a net positive for Palestine's image is very scary. I don't want to see their behavior rewarded.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
The analogy to diversity and equity programs is a very good one. Tariffs are basically affirmative action for American companies to compete with foreign ones. Why we would want to compete with China in industries like textile manufacturing and lithium mining is beyond me, but it's clear that deviating from the natural order of things under free trade is going to lower the total efficiency of the market, in exchange for whatever intangible value we place in having American-made goods.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
I admit, I put as little effort into coming up with that number as Trump did when deciding the tariff rates. I'm not sure anyone can predict all the feedback loops and unexpected incentives that will be created by such extreme meddling in the economy. Regardless of the exact numbers, we are doomed. It's over.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Our best hope is for congress to come together and pass a bill that takes the power to impose tariffs away from the president. This actually seems plausible now, since if the tariffs stay in place the democrats will obviously win landslide elections in 2026 and 2028. Republicans no longer have to worry about fitting into the Trump brand.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Right, and if we wait for them to reach our doorstep, they will be much more powerful and our soldiers will have to do the fighting, rather than Ukrainians. All we have to do right now is spend a few tens of billions and let Ukrainian heroes on the other side of the world do the dirty work for us. It's a huge bargain.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
No diplomatic effort could have prevented a Russian invasion. Nobody is choosing to be in a proxy war with Russia, we are at war with them whether we like it or not. We can either put in the (extremely minimal) effort required to defeat them now, or fight them later after they've seized more territory.
Either way, it's laughable that we're talking about an issue that has literally zero effect on the average American in the same context as tariffs that will raise prices on everything by at least 30%.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
Was the price of goods not one of the most important issues in the 2024 election? Proles voted overwhelmingly in favor of lower prices.
But they're also not stupid, so using that fact to extort them into annihilation is not going to work.
They absolutely are stupid. Proles are the people who walk into Best Buy and drop $900 on a brand new laptop with a Celeron and 720p screen, split into 96 monthly payments with 10% interest from Affirm. Proles buy a $70,000 truck that gets 15 mpg and then complain about gas prices. Proles see lower prices as the solution to all their problems, because they can't imagine not consuming every dollar they earn on stupid crap. And the lower prices are, the more crap they can consume. They are attempting to vote in their own interests, they just don't understand what their interests are.
PMCs need to take a hard look at themselves and understand that it is they who want cheaper goods
No, we don't. I want to protect the environment, even if it raises prices. I want $10/gallon gas. As a PMC, I'm willing to pay more because the amount I consume now is already well within my budget.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
But all of this could be avoided by just ensuring due process before anyone is deported. Why would we intentionally give the federal government this kind of power that could easily be abused? It serves no purpose other than removing a miniscule number of illegal immigrants who have no real effect on anything.
LiberalRetvrn
2mo ago
I don't see how that's hard to believe at all. I trust Biden with the nuclear football infinitely more than Hegseth, Trump, Vance, or any of the people in that group chat. Biden may have dementia, but at least he was competent at one point, and at least he's aware of his limitations and would surround himself with advisers who can help him make the right decisions. I am genuinely and deeply concerned that immediate national security issues are being discussed in a group chat where random people are invited.
LiberalRetvrn
3mo ago
Maybe it's impossible, but I don't see the downside of trying. Even if Ukraine loses the war, funding them just means it will take longer and Russia's resources will be more depleted. If Russia is going to end up with more territory, at least we should make them suffer as much as possible for it.
LiberalRetvrn
3mo ago
How much aid would you provide? Weapons? Money?
I would continue the amount we've been providing for the last few years, since that appears to be working fairly well. I think spending $50 billion per year to kick commie ass with no risk to our own troops, and the opportunity to test out new weapons and strategies in modern warfare is a great deal for us.
No-Fly Zone? Air support? Troops on the ground? Nuclear umbrella?
Of course not. Any risk to our troops would negate all the advantages of the current situation.
What is the end-state your policy is aiming for?
To punish Russia for this invasion, and deter future invasions by Russia and China. I think the bare minimum is to prevent Russia from being rewarded for their aggression. They should not receive any territory, and if possible they should lose territory. Ideally they should also be economically and militarily crippled, so we have one fewer adversary to deal with.
Putin deposed?
That would be great, but I don't think it's likely.
Another way of putting it is, do you think your views on the Ukraine war are falsifiable, and if so, what evidence would be sufficient for you to consider it falsified?
Well I guess if Putin suddenly came to his senses, apologized, gave back the territory he stole, and submitted himself to a warcrime tribunal, maybe I would support a ceasefire. Or if the Ukrainian people decided they no longer wanted to fight. Otherwise, I don't see why anything should suddenly change.
LiberalRetvrn
3mo ago
Except that nobody has suggested sending American soldiers to Ukraine. Trump is the one planning to send Americans to disarm every land mine in Gaza.
LiberalRetvrn
3mo ago
Well I didn't say you should care, just that I don't understand how Americans can care about Ukraine less than Israel or other countries that we spend billions defending. Obviously I don't expect religious red tribers to agree with my anti-religious views, but it seems like there should be some common ground in not wanting Europe to be overrun. As much as I'm frustrated by some of Europe's anti-free speech laws, it's still my ancestral homeland.
LiberalRetvrn
3mo ago
You hate people like me. You'll harm us if you can.
Not at all. I do believe in religious freedom. I just don't want to be governed by religious values, especially ones from outside my culture. I take issue with the way Christianity spread throughout the world, often by force, and displaced traditional European religions and atheism, but I don't blame individual christians for that.
So our ancestors who believed in multiple gods weren't wrong?
More options
Context Copy link