briar patch

[temporal1]

.. If India's Prime Minister were a white American,
or over half of the people running for PM were white Americans or white American-Indians whose parents had migrated to India,
the CEOs of many Indian businesses ranging from equivalents of IBM to Google to Microsoft,

then similar questions probably would be being asked - and should be being asked. ..

(for me) .. this paints the present picture.

however, in long history, the vast majority has been ruled by a tiny powerful minority, no matter color, culture, geography,
that’s how life on earth usually works. money+power. not all kings were/are white!

many enjoyed a crazy anomaly for a period when there was an important middle-class. it’s unlikely to be sustained, maybe not to return. loads of people are convinced into voting it away. they can’t give it away fast enough.

so, what can be done? like U.S. founders said, “it’s a republic - IF - you can keep it.”
they knew the odds were against it. human nature is persistent.

academia is far too bedazzled by raw flat simple numbers. this has been going on ALL my life.
of course, they’re never held accountable for their mistakes. tenure!

[Ken]

There are currently 5 members of Congress that are of Indian descent out of 535 members of Congress. That is 0.9%

According to the 2020 Census there are approximately 4.4 million Americans of Indian descent out of 330 million which is 1.3%

Seems to me that Indian-Americans are slightly under-represented in politics.

They tend to have their the on the top job like President, or perhaps Senate or governor, not some lower level thing like Congress.

That 535 number includes both the House and Senate. There are no Senators of Indian heritage, only Congressmen and women. And I don't think there are any governors either since Nikki Haley left. So at present, the top Indian-Americans in government are in the House and not Senate or governor.

[Josh]

There are currently 5 members of Congress that are of Indian descent out of 535 members of Congress. That is 0.9%

According to the 2020 Census there are approximately 4.4 million Americans of Indian descent out of 330 million which is 1.3%

Seems to me that Indian-Americans are slightly under-represented in politics.

They tend to have their the on the top job like President, or perhaps Senate or governor, not some lower level thing like Congress.

That 535 number includes both the House and Senate. There are no Senators of Indian heritage, only Congressmen and women. And I don't think there are any governors either since Nikki Haley left. So at present, the top Indian-Americans in government are in the House and not Senate or governor.

There's been Nimrata Haley and Piyush Jindal so far, so that's 2 Indian governors elected.

Meanwhile, America has had 3 black governors elected, ever. Why are Indians so over-represented?

[Bootstrap]

It seems clear to me that you assumed I hadn't read the entire pamphlet, going as far as telling me "When you have read the pamphlet...". These kinds of assumptions and habits get quite tiring and make having productive conversations quite difficult.

At the end of page 6, you said you had not read the pamphlet that this thread is about. That was Wednesday afternoon. I assumed you were telling the truth, and asked people to read the pamphlet before participating in this thread. If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so.

I did precisely what you asked and read it and referenced the pamphlet twice in my response to you. I think anyone reading my response would have concluded that I had read it. And now it's this: "If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so." That's pretty much saying it was my fault that you either assumed wrongly that I hadn't read it or that you overlooked the references to the pamphlet in my response.

I looked back in the original thread to see if you told everyone that you had read the pamphlet and you didn't that I could find. But I think it was clear to everyone by your first post in that thread that you had read it. It would be nice to have the same courtesy extended to others that are extended to you.

Gary, I really would like to discuss the pamphlet in that thread. I am responding here in Briar Patch because this really does feel like a fight to me. Responding in the original thread would just prolong the fight, and I am not interested in that.

Two days ago, you had not read the pamphlet. When I realized that, I asked people to please read the pamphlet, since the thread was about the pamphlet. I am not a mind reader, I had no way of knowing that you have now read the pamphlet.

You are not a mind reader either. When you tell me what my assumptions are, insist on discussing your assumptions about my assumptions rather than the topic, and then tell me the conversation is tiring and productive conversation is quite difficult ... I agree. But this is a direction you insist on taking the conversation. I don't think I am the person who is doing that. I suspect you would find it offensive if I did that to you.

[ken_sylvania]

At the end of page 6, you said you had not read the pamphlet that this thread is about. That was Wednesday afternoon. I assumed you were telling the truth, and asked people to read the pamphlet before participating in this thread. If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so.

I did precisely what you asked and read it and referenced the pamphlet twice in my response to you. I think anyone reading my response would have concluded that I had read it. And now it's this: "If you want people to know you have now read the pamphlet, you could simply say so." That's pretty much saying it was my fault that you either assumed wrongly that I hadn't read it or that you overlooked the references to the pamphlet in my response.

I looked back in the original thread to see if you told everyone that you had read the pamphlet and you didn't that I could find. But I think it was clear to everyone by your first post in that thread that you had read it. It would be nice to have the same courtesy extended to others that are extended to you.

Gary, I really would like to discuss the pamphlet in that thread. I am responding here in Briar Patch because this really does feel like a fight to me. Responding in the original thread would just prolong the fight, and I am not interested in that.

Two days ago, you had not read the pamphlet. When I realized that, I asked people to please read the pamphlet, since the thread was about the pamphlet. I am not a mind reader, I had no way of knowing that you have now read the pamphlet.

You asked people to read the pamphlet before continuing to post in that thread. Did you really think Gary was simply ignoring your request? It seems quite logical to assume that he did exactly what you asked him to do, especially since his comment included commentary on what John D. wrote. Your comments indicate quite clearly that you instead chose to assume that he had ignored your request.

Perhaps this thread can simply be locked, then? I see no need to continue here.

What exactly is the point of trying to get the thread locked now? Is it to prevent Bootstrap from posting in it, or is it a way to control other people and prevent them from posting in it? Why does it matter to you if other people want to keep posting in that thread?

[Bootstrap]

You asked people to read the pamphlet before continuing to post in that thread. Did you really think Gary was simply ignoring your request? It seems quite logical to assume that he did exactly what you asked him to do, especially since his comment included commentary on what John D. wrote. Your comments indicate quite clearly that you instead chose to assume that he had ignored your request.

And that would be a big deal that requires the entire focus of the thread to be about that, instead of discussing the topic? Several other posts in that thread took offense, suggested I think this or that, and made those things the topic. Hard to actually discuss any topic like that.

You and others talk a lot about control issues. I think giving and taking offense and projecting motives can be ways to control a conversation, steering away from actually discussing the topic. And some people do that kind of a lot. I think that was happening in the thread, projecting motives and assumptions onto me, then taking offense at them.

To me, this is always a helpful guide: are we discussing the subject, or are we discussing something else?

Perhaps this thread can simply be locked, then? I see no need to continue here.

What exactly is the point of trying to get the thread locked now? Is it to prevent Bootstrap from posting in it, or is it a way to control other people and prevent them from posting in it? Why does it matter to you if other people want to keep posting in that thread?

You and Gary drew me out on a comment I had made in Ernie's thread. I had not planned to expand on that comment. In response to your questions, I did, but I don't think either of you understood what I was saying. I assumed it was because you had not read the pamphlet. Now Gary has read the pamphlet, but I don't sense any real desire to discuss what I have said. The thread has devolved into what feels like a stupid fight. I doubt that anyone is being edified by that.

If I were to continue in that thread, I would address the most recent remarks, addressing the control issues in giving and taking offense and projecting motives, and I would assume there is really no hope of actually discussing the things I was saying in that thread. But would anyone find that useful and valuable? Or would everyone simply feel insulted and convinced that they are without blame?

If these themes are worth discussing, it's probably better to discuss them in a different context, not as a critique of Martin's pamphlet, and perhaps not as directly associated with plain Mennonites as this pamphlet is. But is this something you want to continue discussing with me? If so, let's find a better way to do so.

[ken_sylvania]

I agree. Somehow all the disclaimers don't mean anything if a person has tunnel vision on one particular thing.

And in defense of John, he has spent most of his life doing expositional teaching from the New Testament. And I don't know that I have ever heard giving the impression that "the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers." He has begun talk about this the last decade as a side topic on occasion, but this side topic is not what he focuses on.

This pamphlet is not important to me. I was interested, when you started the original thread. I read it, I responded in that thread. I did not start the side threads (though it looks like it, since the first post in this thread was moved from another thread where it was not the first one).

But this is important to me: I did not intend to insult or offend plain people or John Martin in this thread or any other, and I apologize for that. There are some issues here that are clearly sensitive - I suspect a lot of what happened here is about those sensitivities. My interactions with plain people have been mostly positive, and I do respect your tradition.

I certainly wasn't insulted or offended and I would be highly surprised if GaryK was. I think you grossly misrepresented John D's teaching and focus but I doubt even he would be offended by that. I am actually somewhat impressed how you were able to turn a purported apology into a barbed comment about how this whole kerfuffle was caused by other people being super-touchy!

[GaryK]

I agree. Somehow all the disclaimers don't mean anything if a person has tunnel vision on one particular thing.

And in defense of John, he has spent most of his life doing expositional teaching from the New Testament. And I don't know that I have ever heard giving the impression that "the New Testament is largely about creating an externally visible culture based on outside-the-cup cultural markers." He has begun talk about this the last decade as a side topic on occasion, but this side topic is not what he focuses on.

This pamphlet is not important to me. I was interested, when you started the original thread. I read it, I responded in that thread. I did not start the side threads (though it looks like it, since the first post in this thread was moved from another thread where it was not the first one).

But this is important to me: I did not intend to insult or offend plain people or John Martin in this thread or any other, and I apologize for that. There are some issues here that are clearly sensitive - I suspect a lot of what happened here is about those sensitivities. My interactions with plain people have been mostly positive, and I do respect your tradition.

I certainly wasn't insulted or offended and I would be highly surprised if GaryK was. I think you grossly misrepresented John D's teaching and focus but I doubt even he would be offended by that. I am actually somewhat impressed how you were able to turn a purported apology into a barbed comment about how this whole kerfuffle was caused by other people being super-touchy!

I was not insulted or offended in the least, which is why I downloaded a Kindle version of the pamphlet, read it, and responded to a point Boot was making about the pamphlet that I felt mischaracterized what John D said.

[ken_sylvania]

This pamphlet is not important to me. I was interested, when you started the original thread. I read it, I responded in that thread. I did not start the side threads (though it looks like it, since the first post in this thread was moved from another thread where it was not the first one).

But this is important to me: I did not intend to insult or offend plain people or John Martin in this thread or any other, and I apologize for that. There are some issues here that are clearly sensitive - I suspect a lot of what happened here is about those sensitivities. My interactions with plain people have been mostly positive, and I do respect your tradition.

I certainly wasn't insulted or offended and I would be highly surprised if GaryK was. I think you grossly misrepresented John D's teaching and focus but I doubt even he would be offended by that. I am actually somewhat impressed how you were able to turn a purported apology into a barbed comment about how this whole kerfuffle was caused by other people being super-touchy!

It felt like more than a kerfuffle to me.
And no, that was not a barbed comment about people being super-touchy. But I think you illustrate something here - in this thread, there's a lot of projecting ugly thoughts onto me, thoughts that I do not have. Like this one. Suppose I were to treat you or Gary that way. How would you feel? How would you respond?

I think what you are doing is what some people call gaslighting.

You have never been shy about calling Gary or me out for things that we said or even things we didn't say that you thought were inaccurate. For instance, even in just this comment right here, you are literally accusing Gary and me of having ugly thoughts and projecting them onto you (that is literally the definition of "projection" in this kind of context).

Here's why my apology was a little vague. I can't find specific things to apologize for here, and I don't want to apologize dishonestly. I don't think it was wrong to ask people to read the pamphlet. I don't think it was wrong to assume that Gary had not read the pamphlet in the 89 minutes between my request and the time he posted. If I misunderstood something in the pamphlet, we could have discussed what the pamphlet says and straighten it out, or decide we have different understandings, or whatever. If there is something that I should apologize for, what is it?

If you had nothing to apologize for, why apologize? Read what you wrote carefully. Pretty much what you said was that you are sorry people got offended, but that the reason they got offended was because there are issues that these people are "clearly sensitive" about and that what happened was about those "sensitivities." How can that possibly be interpreted as anything other than a claim that the "fight" (if you want to call it that) happened because some people were too touchy?

People were responding in ways that people often respond when they are offended. If people were not offended, I have a hard time understanding some of the responses to me. From your perspective, what do you think the conflict was? Or am I the only person who thinks there was uncomfortable conflict in this thread?

It is, of course, very probable that I have a blind spot when it comes to my own responses, but in this thread I decided to just tell you what I thought about various claims and assumptions you were making. It's almost impossible for me to get offended about what someone says or thinks about if I don't know the person, and I wasn't in any way offended in this conversation.

I think the conflict was that you made some errors in your assumptions and when they were pointed out, you doubled down defending your assumptions, exhibiting your classic control patterns along the way. Most times I don't take the time to push back, but this time I decided to engage - by all indications a waste of my time.

[eccentric_rambler]

I think what you are doing is what some people call gaslighting.

Gaslighting isn't real, you're just imagining it.