Sastra

@JamesCantorPhD “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard P. Feynman

@LivingRoomExped @newstart_2024 You too - thank you for the interesting discussion.

@St_Equanimity Vielen Dank für deine klare Rückmeldung – ich sehe, dass du den Punkt der Wahrheit ernst nimmst, und genau da liegen wir gar nicht so weit auseinander. Niemand kann ernsthaft leugnen, dass der Glaube an etwas Höheres messbare Vorteile mit sich bringt: mehr innere Festigkeit, echte Gemeinschaft, Resilienz und ein tiefes Gefühl von Sinn. Das ist durch zahlreiche Studien und historische Beobachtungen hinreichend erwiesen. Du hast zu Beginn selbst geschrieben, es sei gefährlich, dabei die Wahrheit zu umgehen. Genau dort setzt meine Argumentationskette an: Im Christentum ist die objektive Wahrheit kein nettes Beiwerk oder optionaler Lifestyle-Hack, sondern das absolute Kernelement. Hier unterscheidet sich das philosophische Gerüst dieser Religion fundamental von allen anderen.Das bestätigt sich in der Heiligen Schrift selbst, die an mehreren zentralen Stellen die Wahrheit als wesentliches Ziel hervorhebt. Das Christentum steht oder fällt mit der Wahrheit – nicht mit nützlichen Gefühlen oder sozialen Vorteilen. Zum Vergleich: Im Islam ist das Lügen unter bestimmten Umständen (Taqiyya) nicht nur erlaubt, sondern kann sogar geboten sein, um den Glauben zu schützen. Ein völlig anderer Umgang mit der Wahrheit. Und genau deshalb kann die Wahrheit weder allein aus Athen noch allein aus Jerusalem kommen. Athen (die reine Vernunft, Philosophie und Wissenschaft) ohne Jerusalem führt letztlich in Skeptizismus oder Nihilismus – sie kann letzte Fragen nach Sinn, Moral und dem Warum des Seins nicht tragfähig begründen. Jerusalem (die göttliche Offenbarung) ohne Athen wiederum würde die von Gott geschenkte Vernunft verachten und in Irrationalität oder Fanatismus abgleiten. Das Besondere am Christentum ist, dass es beide in einer tiefen Einheit verbindet: Der Logos (Johannes 1:1 setzt die Wahrheit als absoluten Anfang), der Fleisch geworden ist, ist sowohl die göttliche Wahrheit als auch das vernünftige Prinzip, das der gesamten Schöpfung zugrunde liegt. Deshalb konnte die moderne Wissenschaft gerade im christlichen Kulturkreis entstehen – weil man überzeugt war, dass ein rationaler Gott eine rationale Welt geschaffen hat. Die echten, tiefen Benefits sind keine separaten „Verkaufsargumente“. Sie sind die natürliche Frucht, wenn man diese Wahrheit wirklich annimmt. Ich glaube allerdings, wir sind etwas von der ursprünglichen Fragestellung abgedriftet. Ich danke dir für den interessanten Austausch und wünsche dir von Herzen alles Gute!

Religious kids used to be noticeably happier than secular ones. After 2012, that gap exploded. Jonathan Haidt dropped this on The Daily Show: Religious children have built-in community, rituals, and traditions that anchor them. Secular kids, especially those handed phones and iPads early, are left floating without real roots. Haidt (who’s an atheist) says non-religious parents now have to work much harder to intentionally create stable social connections, because a network of strangers, bots, and algorithms is not a community — it’s crazy-making. In the smartphone era, the protective effect of community and ritual has weakened dramatically for everyone, but especially for kids growing up without traditional anchors. We traded thick, real-world belonging for thin digital freedom — and we’re watching a generation pay the price in anxiety and meaninglessness. Do you think religious community still gives kids a real advantage in 2025, or can intentional secular parents create equally strong roots without it? What’s worked (or failed) in your experience?

UCLA Law has threatened its @FedSoc chapter with punishment if it publicly identifies students seen on video disrupting last week’s viral campus event with a Department of Homeland Security lawyer. But when protesters named chapter members online? No signs of concern from @UCLA_law. This double standard is striking and sounds First Amendment alarms. The First Amendment protects students’ right to share truthful information about a public event, including the names of students who disrupted it, especially where attendees were informed in advance that the event would be recorded. UCLA must make clear that no Fed Soc student member will face discipline for protected speech. Stop picking favorites, UCLA. Correct this immediately.

THE GIRLS WON! Big settlement to punish the school who punished the kids! You ask why girls don’t just refuse to play when a team sneaks a boy on it? Well, this school did. They even gave up their basketball playoffs. They sat out. But the state punished them severely. The principal’s association banned the entire school from any athletic competitions in the whole state. No team. Nothing. Not even spelling bees or science fairs. When the hammer of this ideology comes down it comes down hard. Any kid who might be facing a college scholarship for sports? Banned. Shut out. They did this to make an example of the school and terrify any other girls from refusing to participate. These were high school girls, children really, and the state made them pariahs in the school. Imagine how much guff they got from everyone else. Well, last year an appeals court told the school they couldn’t do that. But that was 2 years later. 2 years of banishment. The state just settled a lawsuit against it and thank goodness they won! Of course, it won’t cost the people anything who did this to high school kids. No, it will be taxpayers who pay. Ultimately, the families of the kids who got shatter. There is a lot of power behind this movement. Power, and bitterness, and abuse.

I still see a contradiction. First, many religions which you don’t think are true have benefits. If well-done surveys showed that ppl in another religion measure overall as happier, more ethical, more resilient, etc., you wouldn’t say that was a point in favor of the truth of those religious beliefs and against the truth of Christianity. You‘d quickly pivot to arguing truth over benefits. If Christianity lead to more difficult, painful lives and communal strife, you would still believe it is true. You can’t proselytize with “look at how nice it makes things — but to get them you have to believe” when truth is the real starting point. Christianity doesn’t have a truth-seeking foundation: it has a God-seeking foundation. That’s not the same thing. I disagree then with Jordan. In religion, faith is a virtue; in science, faith is a vice. It came out of Athens, not Jerusalem.

@St_Equanimity Danke für die Klarstellung – war meinerseits auch nicht böse gemeint. Kurz zu dem Punkt, den du möglicherweise als Widerspruch siehst: Ich habe die Benefits (Gemeinschaft, Sinn, innere Festigkeit) nicht als separates „Verkaufsprodukt“ angepriesen. Ich habe sie genau deshalb genannt, weil sie die natürliche Frucht der Wahrheit sind, die im Zentrum des Christentums steht. Deshalb meine Kette: 1. Die Benefits sind real und historisch sichtbar → sprechen für eine Rückbesinnung. 2. Aber man bekommt sie nur, wenn man die faktische Wahrheit der Doktrin annimmt (kein Lifestyle-Hack). 3. Früchte ohne Wurzel = spiritueller Konsum, der nicht hält. Das ist für mich kein Widerspruch, sondern die logische Konsequenz: Weil es wahr ist, wirken die Benefits tief und dauerhaft. Wer nur die Früchte will, ohne die Wurzel, verwechselt Ursache und Wirkung. Die Aussage, dass das Christentum ein wahrheitssuchendes Fundament hat und eine Ausrichtung, die zur Wahrheit verpflichtet, war in meinen Augen implizit die ganze Zeit enthalten. Jordan B. Peterson beschreibt diesen Auftrag zur Suche nach der objektiven Wahrheit im Christentum als das Fundament moderner Wissenschaft. Was denkst du?

@HJoyceGender They have children together and are buying a house - but marriage is too much of a commitment? Sometimes I wonder whether the cultural assumption that everyone should have a big, flashy, expensive, wedding is having a discouraging effect on couples.

If you want to be married, get married. States shouldn't be assuming people have entered contracts they have not, in fact, entered. Whatever happened to freedom and responsibility?

If you say it's kind to call men women, you're saying you know it's not true.

@CrunchAlias Exactly. “Be kind to me and let me use women spaces” is asking for accommodation. If TWAW, they don’t need to ask - they belong by right.

Yes, we should allow that viewpoint in our institutions, in part because we need to understand it in order to argue against it. It’s a common view. Even wrong or immoral views deserve to be expressed. Could we imagine an extreme and desperate situation where political violence is appropriate- maybe an uprising in a Polish ghetto in WWII or something like that? Perhaps. Now the argument would be how and why THIS situation isn’t like THAT.

@glukianoff @TheFIREorg What if the viewpoint is "political violence is sometimes appropriate"? Should we accept that in our institutions?

I’ve been asked many times how an institution stays genuinely nonpartisan in a hyperpartisan age. @TheFIREorg's answer? Protect real viewpoint diversity inside the institution itself.

I apologize if I sounded hostile; it was not my intent. Above you said it was time for people to once again embrace Christianity because it is “the foundation on which the West has been able to stand, spiritually, culturally, and socially.” Presumably if Islam, Buddhism, paganism, or humanism could claim the same benefits, then everyone should live the way they advocate. Except you reject that framework: Christianity, you insist, isn’t a way of life, but a claim for truth. Okay. I see this as a contradiction. “It will fulfill our needs on earth” vs “that’s irrelevant, don’t seek that.”

@St_Equanimity @newstart_2024 Man kann die Früchte nicht pflücken, ohne die Wurzel zu akzeptieren. Alles andere ist spiritueller Konsum – und der hält selten lang. Es gibt nichts zu verkaufen Ich weiß nicht was deinen feindseligen Ton ausgelöst hat, aber ich war es sicher nicht.

@LivingRoomExped @newstart_2024 Then stop waxing eloquent on Christianity‘s historical, cultural, social, and personal merits and benefits as if these are selling points for a product.

Aus meiner Sicht ja. Nur das Christentum (eventuell das Judentum) stellt Wahrheitssuche ins Zentrum seiner Doktrin. Du kannst die christlichen „Benefits“ (Gemeinschaft, Rituale, Sinn, Glück) nicht ohne die faktische Wahrheit der Doktrinen haben. Jesus sagt es selbst: „Ich bin … die Wahrheit“ (Joh 14,6). Paulus macht es noch klarer: „Ist Christus nicht auferstanden, dann ist euer Glaube nichtig“ (1Kor 15,17) – dann sind Predigt, Rituale und Gemeinde wertlos. Das Christentum ist kein Lifestyle-Hack oder nützliche Fiktion. Es steht oder fällt mit der Wahrheit. Wer nur die Vorteile will, ohne die zentrale Behauptung (Auferstehung, Christus als einziger Weg) für wahr zu halten, betreibt keine christliche Praxis, sondern ein spirituelles Placebo. Wahrheit ist hier nicht verhandelbar – das sagt nicht nur die Bibel, das sagt das Christentum über sich selbst. Punkt.

Thinking that insisting humans can’t change sex is a psychosis is a relatively small shift from thinking that insisting humans can’t change sex is a phobia. Both make no sense. Even if someone considered sex change in humans is the correct position, it’s not so obvious that the only way to account for disagreement is mental illness.

@EssencePetunia Yes! But he thinks that insisting humans can't change sex is the psychosis.

About a decade ago, I had a conversation with a friend about a TV program saying experts were only "waiting" for the first global psychosis caused by the internet. They were sure it would happen, but not what form it would take. He now believes humans can change sex.

This comment is a masterclass in linguistic persuasion tactics disguised as common sense. First comes the decoy analogy: “A man can’t be a frog.” That sounds clever, but it distracts from the real issue. Nobody claims humans can become another species. The comparison is there to make the listener feel the speaker has already won before the real discussion even starts. Then comes frame control. They shift the conversation away from sex and into gender, because sex is concrete, measurable, and biologically relevant, while gender is often defined in vague, flexible, self-referential ways. When you can move the debate onto softer ground, you gain rhetorical advantage. Next is semantic drift. They use the word woman after redefining it. Historically, woman referred to the female sex class. Now the term is quietly swapped to mean identity, while still borrowing the emotional, political, and legal significance attached to the original meaning. That leads to borrowed moral capital. Women have faced oppression, exclusion, reproductive control, violence, legal inequality, and systemic barriers across cultures for thousands of years because they were female. That history belongs to the female sex class. If you redefine woman while keeping all that historical weight attached, you are inheriting a struggle built on sex while denying sex matters. Then we get presupposition. “Sex is different than gender” is presented as settled fact rather than a contested framework. Saying something confidently does not make it universally agreed upon. Then comes category collapse. Gender roles, stereotypes, clothing norms, and personality traits are mixed together with the category woman itself. But rejecting stereotypes does not change your sex. A woman who hates dresses is still a woman. A man who loves makeup is still a man. Then there is false consensus language. Statements like “No trans person is saying…” attempt to speak for an entire population and close off examples that contradict the claim. Then social proof through vagueness. “Gender has changed throughout history” sounds deep, but usually refers to changing expectations and norms, not literal changes in who is male or female. The clean distinction is simple: Gender roles can change. Fashion norms can change. Personality expression can change. Stereotypes can change. But women were historically oppressed on the basis of sex, not identity. Words matter because categories matter. If language becomes infinitely flexible, protections, data, fairness, and reality become infinitely negotiable.

@LivingRoomExped @newstart_2024 Would someone have to believe in the specific religious claims in order to follow it? Would it matter if those religious claims were true or not?

Es ist kein Zufall, dass der christliche Glaube über Jahrhunderte hinweg ganze Generationen mit innerer Festigkeit, echter Gemeinschaft und tiefem Sinn versorgt hat. Er gibt nicht nur private Frömmigkeit – er schenkt unserer Gesellschaft Wurzeln, Rituale, Geschichten von Würde, Vergebung und Erlösung, die dem Leben Richtung und Heimat geben. In einer Zeit, in der so viele junge Menschen in Leere, Angst und Entwurzelung versinken, wird eines immer offensichtlicher: Wir brauchen keine kalten, künstlichen Ersatzkonstrukte und schon gar keine atheistischen Notlösungen. Wir brauchen eine mutige, ehrliche Rückbesinnung auf die lebendigen Quellen unserer eigenen westlichen Zivilisation. Der christliche Glaube war und ist nicht nur ein Relikt – er ist das Fundament, auf dem der Westen seelisch, kulturell und gesellschaftlich stehen konnte. Zeit, diese Quelle nicht länger zu verleugnen, sondern sie wieder mutig zu öffnen. Für unsere Kinder. Für unsere Kultur. Für die Zukunft. Was meinst du – ist es nicht längst überfällig, dass wir als Westen genau dorthin zurückkehren?

There are young women out there who say they wouldn’t be at all bothered by communal showers. Men, like women, just want to clean themselves off and it’s no big deal unless you make it one, they claim. Unisex it is. I’m not sure if these women are very bold, very naive, or some combination of both, but most of the women who are ever so happy to casually share women’s spaces with transwomen would draw the line here - even if it potentially makes them sound uncool and prudish in comparison to those uninhibited women who consent. They do get the point.

Taking to my daughters friends who are in their 20s about the fact I’m a despicable TERF. Them: “I work with a transwoman and don’t care if they use the same change room and toilet as me!” Me: You can’t consent for other women though! Should women who are disabled or elderly be able to request a female carer to shower them and do their intimate care? Them: “Of course!” Me: Should male rapists be sent to female prisons? Them: “No” Me: Congratulations you are all TERFs!

@Liaanna_M @Hush9Hush @salltweets Hypotheticals are often extreme because they’re designed to separate our basic beliefs out from a lot of noise.

@St_Equanimity @Hush9Hush @salltweets Also, it's a silly question. You don't go to bed a woman and wake up a man.

Gender ideology made some people just completely turn off their brains & accept a most ridiculous claim for no good reason.

They used to ask women a question: “if you woke up tomorrow and discovered that your body had magically changed into a male body - would you now be a man or a woman?” They confidently expected the answer to be “I’d still be a woman of course” and would then go into some tedious spiel about how we all know our gender on the inside, not the outside, etc. But apparently too many women said “if my body was male I’d be a man” because I don’t see that question anymore.

@salltweets The day a trans person can explain what attitudes, feelings, beliefs, attributes, abilities or experiences they have that supports them being/should have been, the opposite sex, and not just how they look or dress, then I will believe in it.

There’s no doubt that far-left rhetoric is extreme and dangerous. The attempts to assassinate the president and the riots of 2020 are vivid examples of where it can lead. But it is also true that the Epstein/pedophile theme is a thing now only because MAGA influencers whipped people into a frenzy about it for years. What the Democrats are now cynically exploiting is a weapon created by right-wingers and which has now boomeranged on them. (I’m not suggesting that Gerald Posner would deny this, by the way, but just using his post as a springboard to make a different point.) Moreover, the Capitol riot of January 2021 was also a product of overheated rhetoric. The court packing proposals pushed by some Democrats are lawless, but Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results was also lawless. The lawfare the Democrats pursued against Trump was wrong, but so is the lawfare Trump has engaged in as payback against his enemies. Both right-wingers (such as Charlie Kirk and Steve Scalise) and left-wingers (such as Gabby Giffords, Paul and Nancy Pelosi, and three Minnesota legislators in 2025) have been the targets of assassinations or attempted assassinations. Left-wing political violence goes back at least to the 1960s, and right-wing political violence back at least to Timothy McVeigh. These are facts, and dismissing them as “both-sidesism” is just partisan cope. People can argue about who started it and which side is worse. But what matters is that extremism, lawlessness, and violence do exist on both sides. Those who use the excesses of their political opponents as an excuse to downplay or rationalize the excesses of their own side are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They contribute to the death spiral of our polity. Saving it requires resisting these demagogues, and insisting on leadership committed to halting and reversing this cycle of extremism rather than pushing it further.

I’m old enough to remember that “safe spaces” may have started with schools giving parents little notices they could put by their front doors letting children know that if a strange man in a black van was following them (or something similar) they could run to this house and be safe. Someone else’s Mom would protect them. It then expanded to teachers or other authority figures being official safe spaces to tell about physical or sexual abuse. This then expanded to include verbal abuse, or even someone saying something mean or distressing. Kids grew up, thought they still needed it.

Decades ago the whole 'safe space' nonsense started. What it meant was that people needed a "safe" zone, away from speech that made them simply uncomfortable. Words could not be withstood. Words were just to harmful. Suddenly, everything was bullying. A look, a word, a question that anyone found unpleasant to hear. That was bullying. That was punishable. Then speech became tantamount to violence. Then it was speech is actual violence. Then it was Trump is actual Hitler. Then it was words are actual genocide. Saying men cannot be women became actual genocide. Saying schools should open during covid -- actual genocide. Murder. I was a murderer. How can you not cancel someone who murders people? This thought process, this language, was all from one direction - the left. They equated words with murder and warfare and mass annihilation. They continue. Is it any wonder that they feel justified in committing violence? Celebrate attempted assassinations? Cheer actual assassinations? Champion actual murderers like Luigi Mangione? It was the inevitable outcome - to fight perceived violence with actual violence. And to feel just and heroic in doing so. All I know is that the answer is not to be silent. It is to be louder. It is to speak more. Just do it - you have to. Speak up. 🇺🇸 Don't stop.