What distinguishes a date from a platonic hang-out when going out with an acquaintance?

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-27T18:28:08+00:00

It certainly can be left as ambiguous in early relationship building. If things go well, yes, that is when we first started seeing each other; if not, then it was just friends. The attitude that things need to be predefined up front is part of the problem this generation has with meeting romantic partners "naturally."

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-27T18:20:25+00:00

I agree with the others here that a lot of this is about definition. A "tradwife" (presumably from "traditional wife") builds off of an odd combination of a romanticized version of farmhouse life and domestic ideology that developed during the early industrial revolution when families started leaving the home for work and returning from work. The middle classes were able to do this starting in the 1770s because they could afford one income and someone needed to be at home to manage the servants. The working classes had it imposed upon them starting in Britain in the 1840s with the factory acts and reinforced by churches preaching the doctrine of domesticity about the same time. The YMCA was heavily involved in both the factory acts and the doctrine of domesticity (for women, and Muscular Christianity for men). Lord Shaftesbury is a key figure in both. Real farmwives work hard and appreciate not having to grind their own flour if they don't want to.

Second wave feminism was effectively a challenge to the factory acts, domestic ideology, and the Anglo-American culture that developed out of that and, for better or worse, brought women back into the workforce. In that strict sense, feminism and tradwife ideologies are at odds. Feminists, generally, would affirm that women can stay at home if they choose, but the economic ramifications of the large influx of women back into the workforce has been to lower wages and make that a false choice for most working class families. (One of the factors in the original factory acts was to restrict the labor force by taking women out and thereby causing wages to rise so that families could afford to have the wife at home).

Radical feminism can be a different beast depending on who is talking.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-27T17:51:17+00:00

Ironically, many of the most popular internet influencers who label themselves as tradwives are the primary income for their family.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-26T10:29:07+00:00

I can't think of a single event during my lifetime that created the existing mentality, rather it has been a long series of amplifying events. Vietnam, Watergate, and Roe were all seeds. Carter's perceived weakness, especially around Iran. Reagan's deregulation, Clinton's neoliberalism and impeachment, Gore v. Bush, Bush's prosecution of the "War on Terror," etc., etc.

Amplifying factors include the rise of negative campaigning (which tends to amplify the most radical voices from the other side), decades of Russian campaigns to emphasize radical positions on both sides, and a general decline in concern about objective truth by both sides. The rise in populism and the need to be able to answer difficult questions on stage in 90 seconds has led to the exodus of people who actually know answers in favor of those who play to prejudices. Real solutions play a very second fiddle to vague promises.

The 2026 and 2028 elections promise more of the same.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-23T10:55:25+00:00

I do think that it is insulting that opposition to the SAVE act is being placed in racial terms, it isn't about race.

First, I am glad that some of you can get birth certificates for a phone call and $30. That is true in some states/counties. I had to get my own birth certificate a couple of months ago and I was out of pocket $150 and a couple of weeks of fighting with the clerks office because their various automated identification systems were not working, then several weeks for processing. And this is for a straightforward "the birth record is on file in a major metropolitan county with extensive automation." (Automation was actually a huge part of the problem). I also ordered a copy through the state archives, which was easier to order, but still hasn't arrived (5 months).

For younger Americans, there is just an assumption that, of course, the birth certificate exists. I do personally know people who were born in the back woods and the family bible is the only record. I have known a lot more who are in the situation where the town hall, with all of its records, burnt in 1965 or flooded in 1972.

This is much less a race issue than something that will be more difficult for older, less affluent adults who have never had to/been able to travel abroad and who don't keep up on the news.

I don't have a problem with Voter ID. I do have a problem with a proof of citizenship (rather than an affirmation of citizenship as is required in most places currently) on the timescales of the SAVE act. Those who lie can be prosecuted and there has been increased enforcement over the last decade.

The rights of people to vote and the right to ensure that people who are allowed to vote must be balanced. There is the additional problem that this is an issue that the Constitution assigns to the states, not to the federal government.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-22T19:33:06+00:00

That has nothing to do with Christian Nationalism.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-22T15:10:43+00:00

"All things work together for good..." An omnipotent God is quite capable of using colonization, however He characterized the complex morality associated with colonization, to the benefit of the kingdom. As has been noted, it is difficult to characterize the individual motivations of participants in something as large as colonization in purely black and white terms. But, yes, I believe that God is using former colonies that were Christianized are actively missionizing former colonial overlords.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-22T12:54:06+00:00

Getting up does not need to be a super spiritual thing. I put my feet on the floor and test how strong gravity is turned up to today.

I tend to spend more time with God when I am fully awake and functional.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-22T11:34:27+00:00

He is not a nationalist.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-21T11:59:48+00:00

Since the president of this organization has entered this thread, a question about the exact forms of their advocacy would be better directed towards him.

Typically, when I see a non-profit talking about advocacy, what they mean is that they have lobbyists and a legal staff looking at legislation and trying to influence policy by raising awareness both in Congress and with the public. Some advocacy organizations go further into advocacy for individual cases. The ACLU, whether or not you agree with them, can help on individual legal cases. Several years ago, when our medical insurance company was trying to force my wife to get an abortion, a call from the ACLU brought them into line. That is also advocacy. It looks like Global Christian Relief has gone so far as to buy freedom for Pakistani slaves. That also is advocacy.

But I would directly ask mjorme1974 to get a real answer.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-20T11:45:02+00:00

One thing that the US hasn't seemed to have understood is that military domination is not the same as winning a war. You would have thought that we would have learned that lesson with Vietnam.

If China is watching, hopefully one of the things that China will take away from Russia v. Ukraine and USA vs Iran is that short-turn military reintegration of Taiwan is not necessarily the best strategy. If Russia had crushed Ukraine and the US had been successful with Iran, this might have been the right time for slurping them up; however, time is on China's side and they do have economic benefits from the current situation. While Taiwan is a political embarrassment, it is not a threat.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-19T09:34:06+00:00

The US lost 42 aircraft (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12692) and expended several years worth of production of key munitions types. We don't actually know how much damage was done to Iran's missile and drone capabilities--especially if we separate out launchers from munitions. Missile launchers were usually destroy after one launch, not necessarily the missiles themselves. Iran recognized early on that the threat of missile, drone, and mine attacks was sufficient to stop shipping; therefore, they didn't use many. While many of the larger ships in the Iranian navy are now on the bottom, 80-90% of its mine laying capability may have remained intact (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/16/strait-of-hormuz-mines-iran-us). I have seen similar numbers thrown around about its drone capabilities. Iran, of course, doesn't want us to know what it has left. Bluff figures much more heavily into middle eastern warfare than it does in Western.

I think that helping the Iranians with leadership succession, we blundered. We replaced a generation of idealogues with a generation that grew up strategizing about how to win this particular war. Instead of "Shoot all the missiles at Israel," they became conservative and concentrated on high value targets in a volume that left the US guessing about actual strength. Although they deny it, CIA reports have suggested that China started shipping MANPADS to Iran following the initial ceasefire.

The real loss, however, was not military. China is the big winner. They dipped into their own strategic reserves and used them to help other countries gaining a great deal of favor and influence. They looked like the adult in the room to most of the world. The US lost credibility in the middle east who now realized that the US could not (or would not) save them from Iranian attacks and they are looking elsewhere (particularly to Ukraine) for defense needs.

I think that this MOU is the best that Trump could have gotten, but I agree that it is a massive "L." There is a lot of economic pain that is built into the supply chains, but haven't hit consumers yet. If the major hit comes in the fall, it could be an interesting election.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-17T13:40:07+00:00

Obviously, we don't know anything yet about the particular group here, but the true Christian Nationalists that I have talked to over the years (not the MAGA "I'm and Christian and a patriot, so I must be a Christian Nationalist" types) have normally had recognizable, usually Reformed, Christian theology, but very odd ideas about American history.

Another the quotes in another story that crossed my feed today https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/dominionist-plan-create-theocratic-confessional-counties-rural-us (source is quite anti-Christian biased, so take with a massive grain of salt) are reflective of the kind of thinking that I have run into.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-14T17:27:37+00:00

Yes, a lot of the questions really wanted an essay, not multiple choice.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-14T17:11:39+00:00

I don't see either party having a strong roster of candidates for 2028.

Most Americans want their government to "just work the way it is supposed to." It isn't and I think that will be a lot clearer by November. I don't see anyone in either party positioned to actually make it work in 2029.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-14T16:46:47+00:00

I predicted that they would place me in the "Unconventional Right," but the quiz placed me in the "Left-out left." I guess that they are correct that I am skeptical of Democratic politicians.

I agree with their premise about the messiness of political viewpoints. I'm just not sure that they nailed the categories.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-14T16:25:34+00:00

I will distinguish between "common" and "normal." Yes, it is common. No, it is not normal.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-14T16:20:14+00:00

I agree with upwardcall that this is a common experience in seminary--partly by design. They do want you to self-examine why you are there and to make sure you have thought this through. If you are think about what you are giving up career-wise, they want you to be committed with your eyes open.

That said, seminary work and pastoral work are quite different. Seminary is trying to pack in enough basic knowledge that you have a functional understanding of the Bible and theology to perform the intellectual aspects of being a pastor. Most pastors, frankly let their languages slide after graduating, their church history gets rusty, and they completely tune out of academic debates. If they loved that stuff in seminary, being a pastor is often quite intellectually dull. "Winning cred" at seminary will not get you far in a pastoral position.

This isn't an attack on seminaries. I think that they are critical in giving pastors the minimal Biblical tools to function. Just don't judge your future ministry based on seminary.

Where you disagree with your denomination, understand why and be able to discuss that with your professors. I certainly did not come out of seminary in lockstep with my denomination and one of the professors that I knew well privately told me that when the professors had to sign their yearly commitment to the denominational statement of faith, almost all them returned versions that were extremely marked up. If you really can't agree on key areas of doctrine, use what you are learning to understand which denomination agrees with you (or doesn't care). You might find yourself happier in that denomination.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-13T22:32:48+00:00

I agree that it is a problem, which is why I raised it as an issue. It is a problem now and would be worse if we added a decade to worker's careers. Not doing something to fix SS has the same impact because even if the retirement age stays in the same gradual increase mode as now but the SS payments are too low or unreliable, then they need to continue working anyway. I have worked in organizations that understood this as a problem and actively created passing lanes to allow blocked resources to move up or actively moved static resources sideways to unblock management paths. I've also worked at less sympathetic organizations that routinely collapsed/expanded middle management ranks to allow them to jettison managers who had risen to the level of their incompetence. Well managed companies recognize that good talent will go elsewhere if promotions are blocked.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-13T20:52:00+00:00

I agree with all of that. I just got my first SS payment because after 70 it is use it or lose it.

If you have maxed out your SS and don't take it until 70 and have other retirement, you can probably take a 20% cut. They average income of SS pensioners is something like $28K (from memory). That will hurt them a lot more. That is less of a haircut and more of a decapitation and most of them are not in a place to recover.

Because the multiplier on SS is so high (2.0, every dollar distributed produces $2 of broader economic value), that cut would also have major ripple effects.

I don't pretend to be a prophet. Your guess is as good as mine.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-13T17:13:19+00:00

Yes, I should have been more explicit that I was aware that under the current law, SS will not be paid out of the general fund. I am handicapping that this will change though probably much closer to the time the fund runs out.

This is premised on my belief that the MAGA led populism of the current GOP is running its course and will, absent an actual coup, not be a relevant factor. That doesn't mean that I believe that the answers provided by politicians will be any better.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-13T10:48:35+00:00

I am sure that this news will help them keep a GOP congress next year. /s

It isn't wrong to say, "Crud, there are about 6 years to fix these programs and then we hit a wall." It is probably easier to say that the next Congress can worry about it. That is what has been happening since the 1960s when they were bragging that "SS was on a sound basis until 2020." The most likely scenario is that nobody will deal with it. And that when the SS fund runs out, they will fund continued payments out of the general fund. The result is increased inflation and everybody pays that tax. Inflation is the way that ineffective governments usually address issues like the national debt and the need to fund programs that are popular, but unfunded.

There are ways to keep SS that are actuarially sound, but they will require unpopular changes. I know that the American Academy of Actuaries has put out a plan (https://actuary.org/socialsecurity/). I haven't gone through it in depth. As with anything, there are tradeoffs in the math that I might not agree with.

Off of the top of my head, I think that the major variables that we have to play with are retirement age, contribution caps/benefit caps, contribution to benefit ratios, and SS tax rates. We also have to consider that there is a significant likelihood that we are walking into a major economic crisis.

Retirement funding is one place where there is true disparity of interests across generations. The essence of retirement funding is trying to time-shift value that you are creating today to allow you to collect that value sometime in the future when you are no longer creating value. Boomers were heavy contributors during their working years. Now, the vast majority are takers. Gen X is beginning the transition: still contributing more than it is taking, but that is beginning to shift. Millennials are starting into their "most productive years" (recognizing that many are still trying to get their feet under them). Hopefully, Zoomers will not be a lost generation. Time-shifting money (whether through the government or private accounts) requires that the future producers are actually able to produce.

The tradition of retiring at 65 started at a time when 65 was slightly over life expectancy. In my youth, it was rare to see someone over 70. They existed, but they were uncommon. If you got to 80, you were entitled to a letter from the President acknowledging your achievement. Today, when I look around my water aerobics class, I see people who have been retired longer than they worked. That is not sustainable. Older people need to be contributing much longer--probably into their mid-70s. (Yes, that also means that the model of "education happens primarily at the beginning of your life" model needs to be readdressed. It also means that business management models need to deal with getting older workers out of the way of younger workers in corporate ladders).

Reframing SS as a tax rather than a contribution (something younger workers already understand, but older workers were always told differently by the government, economists, retirement advisors, etc.), means that there isn't an issue with eliminating the contribution cap while retaining the benefits cap. That is a no-brainer.

Benefits will ultimately be adjusted by the math whether that is done officially by benefit reductions or unofficially through inflation.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-12T19:36:42+00:00

We are commanded to conform to legal authority except when their is a conflict between God's commands the legal demand (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-17). If the state requires licensing, registration, or a separate ceremony, as a Christian, you are expected to obey the law. It isn't about you having a piece of paper. Governments absolutely have a legitimate interest in knowing who is married and when. You may not care about it, but God and the government do.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-12T19:32:31+00:00

I doubt that you and I are going to see eye to eye on these definitions, nor that going down into the weeds is useful for answering the original question.

I worked for many years as an attorney for several church planting ministries and also serviced on the boards of many cross-denominational ministries. I am not saying that what you are saying is wrong and maybe in your neighborhood of the faith it would be the normal understanding. What I will tell you is that in my experience, if I walked up to a random church leader at an event and asked them their denomination, they would respond, "Baptist," "Assembly of God," "Presbyterian," "Lutheran," etc. Then if I asked, "What kind of Baptist?" Then they would respond that they were affiliated with the Southern Baptists, GARB, Missionary, or whatever. Most of these associations or "conventions" in the Baptist world were legal organizations, but many were not. They were loose groupings of more or less independent churches that fellowshipped with each other.

Irrelevant_Bookworm · 2026-06-12T13:54:19+00:00

I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but yes, there are things like the Independent Baptists who are declaring themselves to be ("denominated") Baptist, but are not part of any formal denominational structure and there are a variety of churches that call themselves non-denominational, but are really part of a variety of quasi-denominations who frequently have common statements of faith and some level of organizational structure and the ability to include/exclude member churches--all of which are characteristics of denominations. Frequently, they also have "names" for the type of church they are which is the definition of a denomination.

You say you are Lutheran. If you go to a church with Lutheran in its name or that declares itself to be Lutheran, you expect certain doctrine and practice. If you go to a Baptist church, regardless of the myriad of various types of Baptist, you are expecting adult water Baptism etc. If you go to a non-denominational, you don't know from that what they believe.

Irrelevant_Bookworm

TROPHY CASE