"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
Centuries or all white all male cabinets: NOT CLIENTISM. 3 Jews appeared? REAL ****!
Very hard to take otherwise sensible posts seriously when they contain howlers like this. "Race" based slavery is embedded in the constitution through the 3/5ths compromise and other issues. Tammany Hall was "race" based clientism of the most organised, anti-democratic (so pure Democrat) sort. there are endless examples in US history that even an ignorant foreigner like me has at the tip of their tongue, and not all of them from the party of Bill Clinton and Boss Hogg.
"Race" is central to understand US politics since before the revolution, the Democrats did not introduce it. They formerly were the party of segregation and the Lost Cause, now they cynically pretend JFK ranks with MLK. The republicans have played in the same mud, maybe not as long or as cynically but they are all in it up to body parts above the knees.
There was a truly braindead talking point during the Obama administration that "there wasn't any racism until Obama became president", didn't really catch on but IIRC it even made an appearance on these boards. This statement is about as stupid as that idiotic spin.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
I almost feel like there's an element of society having to go through this period of discovering a new societal equilibrium. New norms have to be tested and pushed to breaking point to find the appropriate societal balance.
Society was once heavily biased, both legally and culturally against non-white-male identity groups. In order for society to change from this paradigm, a new balance that is acceptable to the broadest coalition of identities has to be found. Changing laws addresses the legal aspect of historic biases, but it doesn't directly address the cultural aspect. Feelings of righteous dominance, or of victimisation don't just go away because a piece of paper is signed. They stay with people for life. This can only be addressed over a longer time periods as new members of the broad coalition of formerly-biased-against identities grows up to feel included, and those who grew and developed in a dominant demographic adjust their cognitive world view towards equality. My father still jokes about women in a way that isn't funny to anyone that isn't a white man even though he has started taking on formerly female roles within the household. Cultural change takes time.
Because we're talking about emotional states and feelings of individual acceptance in individual circumstances, the end point of this process can not be arbitrarily assigned or prescribed - and certainly it cant be by people who fit the formerly dominant identity group - it has to be tested again and again over generations as the formerly dominant identity group comes to accept their equality, and as the long term consequences of former biases are chipped away at.
For us, we are so close in time from a period when non-white-males were both legally and culturally biased against, testing cultural norms is an ongoing process. As the saying goes... You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, and you have to break a few egos to reshape culture. From the perspective of those people in formerly-biased-against identity groups, that bias has meant in the past that they were unable to reach the potential level of competence that is required to compete equally in a workplace, again, not just legally, but culturally. Addressing the cultural part of this bias takes a long time and as those formerly-biased-against groups gain competence, they're going to become increasingly aware of their systemic handicap. So ironically, the closer we get to equilibrium, the more acute the historic biases will seem, even as they are actually falling away. This does mean that people who used to belong to a dominant demographic will also feel increasing relative victimhood, as they perceive those who they used to have subconscious privilege over put more and more pressure on them. As formerly-biased-against identity groups get closer and closer in competence to the former dominants, in some few cases that sense of new victimhood will be justified, and some who would have succeeded in life through privilege, will now no longer be relatively competent enough to succeed, and will fail. But a new equilibrium will eventually establish.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM
*Clientelism. Also, the 3/5ths compromise hasn’t been part of the constitution for over 150 years now. Very hard to take posts seriously when they rely on howlers about TV characters and miscellaneous historical figures that have nothing to do with what they claim to address.
Heavy on rationalizations. Light on substance. If you’re going to predicate nebulous group behaviors on perceived bias, the onus is on those making such claims to establish them. There is no “equilibrium” to establish against emotional grievance narratives marketed by those who stand to gain from them.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
If anything, Republicans discussing their migrant heritages and black employment figures evidences the opposite conclusion than the party is indulging white Americans.
It is also worth pointing out that black, Hispanic and Asian Americans were, on average, substantially more committed to voting for the Democratic candidate in the presidential election than were white Americans committed to voting for the GOP candidate. Men and women were split on the question.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
There is also evidence to show that black, Hispanic and Asian Americans exhibit greater in-group preferences than white Americans. White liberals actually demonstrated a bias against their own racial group (the only group to do so).
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So we're sticking with "Democrats introduced pandering to "race" based clients as of what...five minutes ago"? Weak argument is weak.
Your posts seem to lean toward a weird revision where [CurrentlyNotMyParty] started all the bad things that didn't exist when [Idealised Past].
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
What “argument” are you referring to? You ostensibly responded to a post discussing various racial identity groups demanding representation by a member of their racial group in the incoming administration; this amid a narrative where supporters from specific racial groups have openly demanded payback to said groups for support of said incoming administration (aka racial clientelism). That’s not an argument. It’s a fact.
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; November 25, 2020 at 07:10 PM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Trump has granted his former national security adviser Michael Flynn a full pardon.
Obviously no collusion of interests.^^
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
That's not a fact it looks likes lazy, lame, cookie cutter spin.
First up how do you know this is permanent? Secondly, in what way is this new to the mainstream?
Back to the other post, you want to exclude TV characters from the discussion when 45 is literally a TV character? And you are nitpicking clientism/clientelism when OED shows they are synonyms with the same definition...I guess any straw when you're building a strawman?
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
Exactly which rhetorical question are you trying to turn into a red herring claim here? Am I to believe you’ve conceded the point of the post you responded to vis a vis racial clientelism, but that you’re merely taking issue with word choice here? Or are you trying to make the same false equivalences others have in order to detract from the point via whataboutism?
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Do either of you have a point about the politics? Or do you just want to banter on about the election that's been at least halfway certified?
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
I'll repeat it.
1. First up how do you know this (Racial Clientism (word first attested c.1799), or if you prefer your newfangled derivative, Clientelism (first used 1912, honestly the diction of the post-Edwardians is less satisfying than the real Georgian period)) is permanent?
2. Secondly, in what way is this (Racial Clientism, a slightly awkward term but one you can be forgiven for using, new sounding words are so intriguing to young ears-or of course, if, as even younger ears sometimes do, you prefer an even more over-elaborate term like clientelism) new to the mainstream?
Take your time if you need to re-read the question. For variant spellings of any other interesting words check OED.com.
Look there's no embarrassment to be felt for your ignorance that clientism is a synonym for clientelism. Maybe English isn't your first language, maybe you're young, it would be against the ToS for me to speculate so I won't do so. I've made plenty of typos in my time, and if I make a mistake and get caught I try to thank the person (they have after all done me a service): not telling you what to do of course.
It would be lazy to use this ignorance or haste or inexperience or whatever as a gotcha, but it in no way deflects my questions. Boss Hogg is relevant too if you think about it: take your time, breath deeply.
No whataboutism (in fact I've included juicy examples of Democrats in there too, honestly they do corruption with so much more style than than Republicans, and those Civil War uniforms...), I have called your silly statement as trite spin. Your trite responses have fallen flat. The questions are not answered, but here's your chance to show your quality.
Of course dodging the question, attempting evasion with a cloud of pedantry (even when the evasion falls flat through insufficient experience at pedantry to make it stick) and answering straight up questions with off topic questions of ones own are often taken as concession on line.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
If I am a slave, I stand to gain from being given an extra meal a day. That doesn't mean I am free. Relative is the key word here.
I'm just theorising, so I don't have to provide any basis for my discussion. You're welcome to disagree with my theorising, and because it's abstract discussion, your perspective is also valid without going away and digging up evidence.
However, a quick google finds a great many peer reviewed and journal published studies into perceived workplace bias and discrimination in the US. I don't think we want for evidence or data in this area. One solution to this ongoing discrimination seems to be what you're taking offence at - the deliberate promotion or enfranchisement of formerly prejudiced identity groups. Perhaps you wouldn't have this problem if the afore mentioned workplace discriminations and biases didn't exist in a cultural context (as they no longer do in a legal framework). If people didn't discriminate, then there would be no perceived need to get into quotas, what you see as "clientism" and all those other heavy handed techniques.
I think that you perceive this "clientelism" as a threat to your status quo, and I think it isn't hard to argue that it is a threat. I am not theorising against that. However, as I said, I think the threat you perceive is a symptom of the closing of discrimination and bias gaps - not that they are already closed and that the pendulum is now swinging against those who were formerly legally and culturally dominant.
Last edited by antaeus; November 25, 2020 at 11:53 PM.
No evidence of election voter fraud?
Pennsylvania senate holds hearing on 2020 election fraud. Looks like 700,000 more mail-in ballots were received that were actually sent out:
https://www.oann.com/pa-state-senate...lection-fraud/
If you have reason to believe the way things are will change (and thus not be permanent), feel free to impart unto me your wisdom.
This is your talking point. What I said is pretty clear:2. Secondly, in what way is this (Racial Clientism, a slightly awkward term but one you can be forgiven for using, new sounding words are so intriguing to young ears-or of course, if, as even younger ears sometimes do, you prefer an even more over-elaborate term like clientelism) new to the mainstream?
“The Democrats have brought racial clientelism into the mainstream, permanently.....Left wing identity politics have become racial clientelism within the Dem Party and anything they are involved in from a leadership or political narrative standpoint.” You’ll need to break out your etymological encyclopedia and recalibrate.
Projecting is a poor deflection from your own lack of an argument, or a point, for that matter. Your penchant for regaling your interlocutors with etymological condescension in place of substance has no more relevance to the post you responded to than the rhetorical questions you’ve repeated here in an attempt to shift the discussion yet again. First, diving even further into semantics is an interesting, if predictable tactic:Take your time if you need to re-read the question. For variant spellings of any other interesting words check OED.com.
Look there's no embarrassment to be felt for your ignorance that clientism is a synonym for clientelism. Maybe English isn't your first language, maybe you're young, it would be against the ToS for me to speculate so I won't do so. I've made plenty of typos in my time, and if I make a mistake and get caught I try to thank the person (they have after all done me a service): not telling you what to do of course.
It would be lazy to use this ignorance or haste or inexperience or whatever as a gotcha, but it in no way deflects my questions. Boss Hogg is relevant too if you think about it: take your time, breath deeply.
No whataboutism (in fact I've included juicy examples of Democrats in there too, honestly they do corruption with so much more style than than Republicans, and those Civil War uniforms...), I have called your silly statement as trite spin. Your trite responses have fallen flat. The questions are not answered, but here's your chance to show your quality.
Of course dodging the question, attempting evasion with a cloud of pedantry (even when the evasion falls flat through insufficient experience at pedantry to make it stick) and answering straight up questions with off topic questions of ones own are often taken as concession on line.
Second:
Definition of clientelism
: a political or social system based on the relation of client to patron with the client giving political or financial support to a patron (as in the form of votes) in exchange for some special privilege or benefit
So again, am I to believe you’ve conceded the point of the post you responded to vis a vis racial clientelism, but that you’re merely taking issue with word choice here? Because you haven’t commented at all so far on the substance of what I said (which I suppose is why you selectively quoted it to make some disingenuous semantic argument):
Given you haven’t disputed the fact that members of certain racial groups demanding payback from the incoming administration to said groups for their support of said administration is an example of racial clientelism, your alleged concern for its longevity or exact timing of arrival to the political mainstream can be dismissed as the disingenuous deflection that it is.
That’s an awful lot of theorizing for someone who’s convinced I’m the one who’s triggered. While at it you can theorize how your status threat narrative applies to non white people like me.
Last edited by pacifism; November 27, 2020 at 02:54 AM. Reason: personal references removed
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Was it something Rudy Giuliani claimed? Or there is actually some substance to back it out? Also, Pennsylvania senate? Or Pennsylvania Republican senate members hosting a conference for Rudy Giuliani in Wyndham Hotel? Meanwhile, earlier Pennsylvanian federal court dismissed his lawsuit to stop certification of Pennsylvanian election results where the judge cited lack of evidence. When all of this blows over all we're gonna remember is how pathetic Republicans have been about this election.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
In law, 'guilt has to be proven' is the antithesis to the default 'presumed innocence'. This debate has no such default position that does not require argument. You're as much under an obligation to come up with explanations for de facto racial inequality as anyone else.
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
It's just Trump supporters being gullible and/or lying:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/6191399002/
Donald Trump is poison and America has made that clear.
So Democratic voters see their politicians as public servants and expect those same politicians to work for them? Do Republican voters see their politicians the same way, or as divinely-appointed rulers owed their fealty?
Last edited by Coughdrop addict; November 26, 2020 at 04:00 AM.
Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII