@Tanista's banner p

Tanista


				

				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 11:38:24 UTC

				

User ID: 537

Tanista


				
				
				

				
6 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 11:38:24 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 537

I get the theory. It's clearly just not playing out that way.

The fewer white people there are the more various goals conflict because you can't just take it all from them. Asians want meritocracy in education which squeezes out other groups besides whites, attempts to come up with some anti-crime measures that also don't annoy blacks lead to disorder that harms everyone, Latinos simply don't seem to be that interested in being auxiliaries in white progressives' fight against other whites if it comes at the expense of the economy or themselves and the in-group favoritism for random illegals is vastly overstated.

cities across the US are controlled by people who govern badly, let crime and other scams run rampant and, whether this is intentional or not, the result of this is they keep normal, functional Americans out of those cities which protects the machine politics of those cities

That part might be true but this isn't actually helping the electoral chances of Democrats or blacks as a whole. If anything, emigration to red states because of the disorder weakens their voting power and the most famous and wealthy liberal cities being basket cases just undermines the very idea of government competence.

This is basically what the Abundance turn of the party is about.

Do the people opposing ICE really believe that large scale unregulated immigration from Latin America will actually benefit the US?

Forget the US. What benefit do blacks like Johnson specifically get?

They compete with blacks for jobs (or spending in the case of cities with right to shelter) and now there's not even a pretense that they'll be a permanent Democratic client base like them to push for policies African-Americans would want. Clearly the emerging Democratic majority with a bunch of minorities all loyal to one another is not going to happen.

Hell, insofar as they do join up they dilute AA's hold on the party. And, because they're not fully captured there's more of an incentive to pander to them. As Biden said: unlike the black community Latinos are diverse.

Anyways...the bronze age, amirite?

Funny thing is the Joseph story may actually be relatively young as Genesis stories go, possibly post-Exilic. I don't know if that's better or worse since the later it is the more "Jew" becomes an accurate descriptor of the writers. If it was earlier you could maybe see it as an attempt to ride off the coattails of the Semitic Hyksos (who were also allegedly driven out and destroyed) and claim their blood made it into Israel.

Interesting conjecture:

According to Römer, Joseph in this passage could be loosely based on a governor named Cleomenes who ruled part of Egypt under Alexander the Great:

…Joseph, in this passage, also somewhat resembles Cleomenes of Naucratis, an administrator of Alexander’s, the builder of Alexandria, and the originator of a mint in Egypt. In fact, it was he who, until his dismissal, held power in Egypt. While famine raged in the Mediterranean basin, he first prohibited the export of Egyptian wheat, and then greatly increased taxes on it in 329 BC. In a certain way, he obtained a sort of monopoly of wheat, which he would buy for 10 drachmas and sell for 32 drachmas. He inaugurated the control of the wheat trade by the Ptolemies. Cleomenes also seems to have been in conflict with the priests over the question of the maintenance of the temples.

Many such cases in the Bible. Maybe the biggest sin of the writers is taking credit for shit they didn't do (like the supposed genocide of the Canaanites).

I don't see it as directly insulting as the hard R so much as...patronizing? Juvenile?

It's just a weird way for supposedly adult political consultants to talk consistently about a group they need to pander to. Trying to think of a parallel and blanking.

There's also just a lot of hypocrisy. I can't know for sure but I suspect things would be better if the same people wagging their finger didn't support their favored groups being assholes all the time in the exact ways they attack. The system might have at least been stable without that.

It's less a church lady enforcing the rules with an iron fist on everyone and more that teacher who clearly has a favorite and is doing such a bad job hiding it that they've emboldened their worst instincts.

It becomes hard when people begin to worry that your kindness is really about giving yourself license to attack the people you claim are stopping you from being kind.

I think part of the problem is that the pro-illegal lean of the party leads to them treating all citizens the way they treated Republicans who complained about being kind and nobody much liked it. The stories of Chicago and NY spending on migrants and the general "deal with it" attitude seemed to trigger black Democrats just as welfare queen stories triggered others.

It doesn't seem baffling to me. The message from Klein, Thompson and Dunkleman is that an entire branch of left-wing progressivism ( the side whose instinct to devolve responsibility and attack concentrations of power like corporations as opposed to the equally progressive tendency to make them partners in regulation and social engineering) didn't just fail, it won and then failed and is costing Democrats.

Their general argument is that systems in place that, for example, allow left-wing advocacy groups to sue and stop nearly all infrastructure or home building, are bad. Obviously some people like those systems and consider them a triumph of leftism (cynically: since they know how to use them better than the people who don't have houses or aren't educated enough to use environmental protection law to their advantage)

It's a clear broadside against an entire set of Democratic anti-monopoly, anti-government, pro-lawsuit activists.

Finally, all wordcels have is how many people value what they say. Klein is the Drake of the Democratic party: a whole bunch of people believe "They" made him successful because he's a capitalist bootlicker because it's easier than admitting that people simply prefer him. There seems to be a clear element of professional envy here. If the Zephyr Teachout's of the world were actually indigent, they'd have an incentive to listen to a criticism of their policies. But they aren't so it's all status games. It's just rappers jumping on a more successful rapper in the hopes of getting their name out/taking their place.

Thanks, actually pretty funny. I hope it takes off like The Chosen.

Some of these are amazing, thanks!

Religious movies just never capture reverence or awe well.

I truly wonder if this is it. My thinking is that the Jesus story is just...difficult in its totality if you don't already believe. Individual story beats can make great stories but the totality of the god-man and what he has to do is just...odd (the closer we get to suicide by cop the less interested I was in The Chosen). It is, after all, consciously a subversion of expectations

I guess I'll have to find some Old Testament films to compare.

The answer is as simple as it is impossible for the current left to even fake.

Stop using the term "white dudes" -> 50 state sweep.

I'm only half-joking. Why is it always "white dudes"?

The gays that won't just go along with the ideology are themselves being pushed out/see no reason to participate anymore?

Some Democrats have explicitly said they don't want black faces that don't want to toe the line. Why would gay men be any different?

Just finished Passion of the Christ after attempting, and failing, to get back into the Chosen. Something about the story just doesn't click for me.

Recommendations for good Jesus-centered visual media?

I don't believe people want to game or watch TV endlessly on repeat though, I certainly don't.

The fanfic industry gives the lie to this. Many of us do indeed want endless streams the same media with a few changes and wrinkles thrown in. Most of these fics are very derivative even for an inherently derivative art form even where it doesn't make sense - see Stations of Canon - and many are just bad yet we slog through them hoping to find the few that let us recapture the same feeling we got consuming the original work.

most notably in "black folks vs. niggas"

Rock stopped performing that joke

"I think a lot of people were thinking in those terms and hadn't been able to say it. By the way, I've never done that joke again, ever, and I probably never will," says Rock. "'Cause some people that were racist thought they had license to say n-----. So, I'm done with that routine."

That might be the difference. Rock was able to publicly acknowledge the issues making these sorts of jokes and how others could use them and toe the line of offering well-meaning criticism instead of validating racists

Cosby was apparently unapologetic, and was constantly lecturing black Americans despite the mother of logs in his own eye up until he was cancelled.

The audience is primed to just not be outraged when they hear claims about American racism. They are not primed to behave this way when faced with attacks on this allied group. That's all there is to it.

And yes, it is an attack. Being vague about it won't change it.

Even if they were ignorant of it, there's an entire other side of the political spectrum that reacts very badly to these sorts of claims. They just don't care (or even enjoy their outrage). The same dynamics aren't at play here.

Three is related to two, and it's that there was an OBVIOUS deflection RIGHT THERE! Just say that Pete polled poorly with blacks - which is a bloc we need to keep heavily shifted in our favor - for a variety of reasons.

Lol, lmao even. The point is to accuse the American people as such of racism and sexism and homophobia, precisely because it's broad enough that anyone can duck the charge and it'll likely be read as an attack on your enemies.

The point is very much not to accuse a loyal - the most loyal - voting bloc of the same even if you could objectively prove it. That way has its risks (Dan Savage iirc got a ton of shit for basically stating the point out loud and criticizing black homophobia).

This is all progressive stack thinking: Kamala cannot fail so we'll say that the audience failed her due to bigotry. By the same logic black women cannot fail the Democrats.

It also just doesn't work for the Veep to be the driving personality.

It's one thing if she was some grey eminence but she had a mediocre time as Senator, an awful time as a campaigner in 2020 and her record as a prosecutor was of dubious value. What does she bring then to balance the impression that her Veep should be President instead?

She basically hid from the public and she had no iconic or easy-to-understand policy goals.

All of these things were baked in by that point. Kamala had no policy because as VP she couldn't walk away from Biden, especially taking his people and endorsement. She had no policy because she ran away from the only thing she could have been said to be successful at (being a prosecutor) due to George Floyd and she couldn't flip flop again. She couldn't escape the things she did in that time like the quote that gave us the they/them ad.

She was simply an awful candidate, notwithstanding her (justified imo) insecurity and incompetence in the social realm.

Kamala may have been polite in public and even funny and personable in her best moments but I don't know about kind.

I think even in the primary there was criticism of her treatment of staff.

Cops are not just blamed for cases where there's misconduct. People of a certain ideological stripe assume there is misconduct in situations like the OP because of cops' failure to maintain equitable arrest records or to fix the underlying problems of those they police.

Teachers similarly get criticism for the state of students despite not having control of their lives for the majority of their time. The school might get leaned on for disciplinary gaps (as Obama did) or apparent bias, teachers might get blamed for being lazy or unmotivated due to the outcomes of some group of students and so on.

It's also just that government officials are easy to blame while parents are at least technically your customers. On schooling this flips and the liberals are the ones defending schoolteachers and their unions from criticism for failing kids. You get it on both sides.

I am not black, I did not grow up as a black child in a black household, so I don't know first hand what they are taught. But it seems to be some combination of "the police are dangerous and will shoot you, they are your enemy" and "a real man fights their enemies instead of submitting to them like a weakling." Which even if taught as separate messages, and the latter is implicit in the culture rather than explicit, combine to create this sort of behavior.

Seems like there're three groups we discuss here when one of these cases pop off: simply mentally ill people who can't help themselves, underclass blacks who seem to have a reckless attitude towards what they may rightly see as their enemies if they're caught up in crime, and well-off blacks who fear being harmed less, despite all of the stuff about "The Talk", and so feel justified in making it an issue then and there. I suppose we can say the general PMC/celebrity disdain for being told what to do by a working class rando mixing explosively with the general sense that authority is racist.

I don't think these groups are the same or have the same motives. Henry Louis Gates and Tyreek Hill are closer to Karens than someone like Michael Brown.

Meaning scripture isn't telling you to meekly submit, but instead 'If someone seeks to enslave you, force them to break the law'.

Striking someone just once isn't a violation of the law?

Cancel culture was always a thing, but it became a Thing with the emergence of a faction of illiberal progressives that had the clout to actually apply pressure and a desire to do so. This inversion of the 'proper' order of things was deeply upsetting to the many conservatives who saw themselves as rightful hegemons of American culture.

Losing hegemony was being mocked on every late night show as the party of schoolmarms and people who hated the poor. Utterly losing swathes of the academy and other important cultural institutions. Decisively losing a cultural issue like gay marriage and so on. It wasn't fun and people did complain.

When you declare such and such is beyond the pale and is not even to be seen let alone heard you're not denying them hegemony. You are denying that they should even have the same stake in the country and where its discourse goes.

This might be a small scale question itself but wasn't it about non-resistance to active persecution in the original text?

How did "if someone slaps you turn the other cheek to also be slapped" turn into "oh, I forgive you, but I make no promises for that judge over there or that cop I just called"?