Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 864

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2018/10/11/shorewood-high-cancels-mockingbird-over-n-word-protest/1605307002/

Idiots initially succeed in a disgusting fascistic attempt to censor a production of To Kill a Mockingbird. These people should have been ignored. I hate it when stupid people are allowed to participate in discourse and I hate even more when they’re allowed to ruin things for decent people.

Thankfully, the school made the right decision in the end and didn’t bow down to the idiots demanding censorship of one of the greatest stories of the 20th century:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2018/10/14/shorewood-reversal-mockingbird-dialogue-race/1617169002/

Frank your Majesty said:

Mrebo said:

For whatever reason people are misunderstanding the Warb. It wasn’t just that a woman leads a show. He didn’t like that a sociopolitical agenda was, at least in part, deciding the future of the show. And to be sure such an agenda was partly behind the gender switch. He’s been thus far happy the show isn’t making a big deal about it. Although, not making a fuss about it easily falls into the category of feminist agenda. Also, the show has been dominated by sociopolitical agendas for awhile now, so it’s rather late to complain overmuch about it.

To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

There is still a difference between making the protagonist a devoted Christian and making them a person that appeals to Christians (i.e. having strong family values). Likewise, having a female lead is something that appeals to feminists, but that doesn’t mean the main character has to be overly feminist.

Sure, and Warb has recognized the distinction you draw. It was that recognition by him that led to the current discussion.

Constructing an apt and non-controversial analogy is nigh impossible, but there are choices Christian showrunners could make that would create consternation depending on the previous characterization of a protagonist. Having a Christian character is no guarantee the show will portray Christian values either.

I agree that a woman doctor is not the sine qua non of a feminist agenda and as I said the show has already displayed a feminist agenda.

https://www.businessinsider.com/young-voters-dont-know-where-to-buy-stamps-for-absentee-ballots-2018-9

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/protester-national-anthem-dallas-urges-fans-vote-republican-221825956.html

As I feared someone else has used the national anthem as a time for protest.

No one cares about this country’s stupid anthem.

Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean nobody does.

Right, but nobody should.

If you say so.

If I weren’t so cowardly I would sit for the anthem, but I don’t want to get murdered by morons that pretend to love America by worshipping the flag.

As far as I know, there have been no acts of violence committed against those that protested during the anthem.

I’m paranoid. I wouldn’t be surprised if some douchebag sitting next to me decided to throw a punch at me in honor of the flag.

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Mrebo said:

For whatever reason people are misunderstanding the Warb. It wasn’t just that a woman leads a show. He didn’t like that a sociopolitical agenda was, at least in part, deciding the future of the show. And to be sure such an agenda was partly behind the gender switch. He’s been thus far happy the show isn’t making a big deal about it. Although, not making a fuss about it easily falls into the category of feminist agenda. Also, the show has been dominated by sociopolitical agendas for awhile now, so it’s rather late to complain overmuch about it.

To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

There is still a difference between making the protagonist a devoted Christian and making them a person that appeals to Christians (i.e. having strong family values). Likewise, having a female lead is something that appeals to feminists, but that doesn’t mean the main character has to be overly feminist.

Sure, and Warb has recognized the distinction you draw. It was that recognition by him that led to the current discussion.

Constructing an apt and non-controversial analogy is nigh impossible, but there are choices Christian showrunners could make that would create consternation depending on the previous characterization of a protagonist. Having a Christian character is no guarantee the show will portray Christian values either.

I agree that a woman doctor is not the sine qua non of a feminist agenda and as I said the show has already displayed a feminist agenda.

are you warbs spokesperson?

Thank you for your interest. Here at Warb Inc., we strive to provide excellent customer service and effective communications strategies. While your resume shows you have participated in communication campaigns in the past we are looking for someone who can generate original content. We wish you the best in your future endeavors.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Mrebo said:

For whatever reason people are misunderstanding the Warb. It wasn’t just that a woman leads a show. He didn’t like that a sociopolitical agenda was, at least in part, deciding the future of the show. And to be sure such an agenda was partly behind the gender switch. He’s been thus far happy the show isn’t making a big deal about it. Although, not making a fuss about it easily falls into the category of feminist agenda. Also, the show has been dominated by sociopolitical agendas for awhile now, so it’s rather late to complain overmuch about it.

To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

There is still a difference between making the protagonist a devoted Christian and making them a person that appeals to Christians (i.e. having strong family values). Likewise, having a female lead is something that appeals to feminists, but that doesn’t mean the main character has to be overly feminist.

Sure, and Warb has recognized the distinction you draw. It was that recognition by him that led to the current discussion.

Constructing an apt and non-controversial analogy is nigh impossible, but there are choices Christian showrunners could make that would create consternation depending on the previous characterization of a protagonist. Having a Christian character is no guarantee the show will portray Christian values either.

I agree that a woman doctor is not the sine qua non of a feminist agenda and as I said the show has already displayed a feminist agenda.

are you warbs spokesperson?

Thank you for your interest. Here at Warb Inc., we strive to provide excellent customer service and effective communications strategies. While your resume shows you have participated in communication campaigns in the past we are looking for someone who can generate original content. We wish you the best in your future endeavors.

So how did Dek get in the door?

Ooh, burn! 😁

Ultimately this doesn’t matter at all. It merely proves that an old family story (which are often untrue) turns out to be supported by evidence in this particular case. Or at least as much as it can be with today’s genetics testing. And not a cheap 23andme genetics-mill test either, but a genuine blind test by an expert at Stanford.

But it is interesting in this context:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/05/trump_offers_1_million_for_pocahontas_elizabeth_warren_to_take_dna_test.html

Trump’s response? “I didn’t say that. You better read it again.”

Here’s what he literally said: “I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.” And here’s how you can parse those words to avoid payment – the test merely proved that the genetic evidence is consistent with everything Warren’s parents told her. But it does not prove she’s genetically 100% from the geographic area currently comprised of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh – to the contrary, there’s no evidence of East Indian background at all. So there, he doesn’t have to pay, nyaa nyaa and so on. That’s some expert-level reneging there.

But maybe he’ll sent a crack team of investigators to Hawaii, because I hear that’s an effective way to counter this sort of thing. Oh, and I’m absolutely certain people will continue to make fun of her heritage, because it was always about her politics and making fun of Native Americans and was never really about the truth of the story her parents told her.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Mrebo said:

For whatever reason people are misunderstanding the Warb. It wasn’t just that a woman leads a show. He didn’t like that a sociopolitical agenda was, at least in part, deciding the future of the show. And to be sure such an agenda was partly behind the gender switch. He’s been thus far happy the show isn’t making a big deal about it. Although, not making a fuss about it easily falls into the category of feminist agenda. Also, the show has been dominated by sociopolitical agendas for awhile now, so it’s rather late to complain overmuch about it.

To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

There is still a difference between making the protagonist a devoted Christian and making them a person that appeals to Christians (i.e. having strong family values). Likewise, having a female lead is something that appeals to feminists, but that doesn’t mean the main character has to be overly feminist.

Sure, and Warb has recognized the distinction you draw. It was that recognition by him that led to the current discussion.

Constructing an apt and non-controversial analogy is nigh impossible, but there are choices Christian showrunners could make that would create consternation depending on the previous characterization of a protagonist. Having a Christian character is no guarantee the show will portray Christian values either.

I agree that a woman doctor is not the sine qua non of a feminist agenda and as I said the show has already displayed a feminist agenda.

are you warbs spokesperson?

Thank you for your interest. Here at Warb Inc., we strive to provide excellent customer service and effective communications strategies. While your resume shows you have participated in communication campaigns in the past we are looking for someone who can generate original content. We wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Warb Inc.? I do not recall opening a company by that name. I do remember having a company by the name of WARBLER.,INC.™©®, but that company has long since closed.

Warbler did you just make a wisecrack? There might be some hope for you yet!

I too was impressed!!

CatBus said:

Ultimately this doesn’t matter at all. It merely proves that an old family story (which are often untrue) turns out to be supported by evidence in this particular case. Or at least as much as it can be with today’s genetics testing. And not a cheap 23andme genetics-mill test either, but a genuine blind test by an expert at Stanford.

But it is interesting in this context:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/05/trump_offers_1_million_for_pocahontas_elizabeth_warren_to_take_dna_test.html

Trump’s response? “I didn’t say that. You better read it again.”

Here’s what he literally said: “I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian.” And here’s how you can parse those words to avoid payment – the test merely proved that the genetic evidence is consistent with everything Warren’s parents told her. But it does not prove she’s genetically 100% from the geographic area currently comprised of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh – to the contrary, there’s no evidence of East Indian background at all. So there, he doesn’t have to pay, nyaa nyaa and so on. That’s some expert-level reneging there.

But maybe he’ll sent a crack team of investigators to Hawaii, because I hear that’s an effective way to counter this sort of thing. Oh, and I’m absolutely certain people will continue to make fun of her heritage, because it was always about her politics and making fun of Native Americans and was never really about the truth of the story her parents told her.

Parsing Trump’s words to deny payment is more straightforward than that.

If Warren took a DNA test and the results showed Native American then Trump would pay. If the results came back with 0.0% (as I wager occurred) he would not. Warren went to an expert to conduct a separate test on the raw data, which Trump could reasonably object is a step beyond and highly questionable. His words you quote are, “if you take the test and it shows…”

If the expert’s analysis is accurate, it doesn’t comport with representing herself as Native American. That is the gist of the brouhaha.

As I’ve said before, I think it was an honest mistake on her part based on family stories. I have similar stories in my family and family members who have embraced Native American cultural identities to some extent.

The bend-over-backwards efforts to defend her mistake are about as silly as criticism of it.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

The bend-over-backwards efforts to defend Trump are beyond silly.

Indeed.

Masculist agenda!

Mrebo said:

Parsing Trump’s words to deny payment is more straightforward than that.

If Warren took a DNA test and the results showed Native American then Trump would pay. If the results came back with 0.0% (as I wager occurred) he would not.

Let’s not deal with hypotheticals. Here’s what the actual DNA test showed:

A pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree in the range of 6-10 generations ago.

Warren went to an expert to conduct a separate test on the raw data, which Trump could reasonably object is a step beyond and highly questionable. His words you quote are, “if you take the test and it shows…”

So going out of the way to get a high quality test was questionable. But getting some quick and cheap genetic test would have been beyond reproach? I’m not buying it. How many quick and cheap tests even attempt to reach conclusions about percentages as small as Warren was claiming?

If the expert’s analysis is accurate, it doesn’t comport with representing herself as Native American.

Certainly not full-blooded, but that’s not what she’s claimed. Specifically, what she claimed was that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. The expert analysis is consistent with Warren’s claim.

As I’ve said before, I think it was an honest mistake on her part based on family stories.

I also believed it could have been an honest mistake. But every now and then family stories are true. This appears to be what happened here.

The bend-over-backwards efforts to defend her mistake are about as silly as criticism of it.

Without evidence, any claims are suspect. Now we’re past that point.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Parsing Trump’s words to deny payment is more straightforward than that.

If Warren took a DNA test and the results showed Native American then Trump would pay. If the results came back with 0.0% (as I wager occurred) he would not.

Let’s not deal with hypotheticals. Here’s what the actual DNA test showed:

A pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree in the range of 6-10 generations ago.

Warren went to an expert to conduct a separate test on the raw data, which Trump could reasonably object is a step beyond and highly questionable. His words you quote are, “if you take the test and it shows…”

So going out of the way to get a high quality test was questionable. But getting some quick and cheap genetic test would have been beyond reproach? I’m not buying it.

If the expert’s analysis is accurate, it doesn’t comport with representing herself as Native American.

Certainly not full-blooded, but that’s not what she’s claimed. Specifically, what she claimed was that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. The expert analysis is consistent with Warren’s claim.

As I’ve said before, I think it was an honest mistake on her part based on family stories.

I also believed it could have been an honest mistake. But every now and then family stories are true. This appears to be what happened here.

The bend-over-backwards efforts to defend her mistake are about as silly as criticism of it.

Without evidence, any claims are suspect. Now we’re past that point.

What you refer to the “actual DNA test,” isn’t. Whether the analysis is more accurate or “high quality” as you say, is beyond our expertise I’m sure. Thus I am not discussing possible errors in methodology being raised in articles online. For the purpose of our discussion, I’m taking the analysis as accurate, but let’s not pretend we know it.

The Warren family story and the amount of DNA are possibly connected or possibly coincidental. We don’t know.

Straightforward reading of Trump’s words as contractual language reasonably excludes the kind of ad hoc analysis done here. I see the contrary argument, so you need not belabor the point, but the limited reading based on the precise words you quote is reasonable.

Ultimately there’s little point in talking about it because Trump and his idiot followers won’t be convinced, nor do they care because they’re douchebags.

Mrebo said:
To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

That is a terrible analogy. Being Christian is a philosophical choice. Being a female isn’t. Thus, having the doctor convert to Christianity would mean the show was making a social statement, by associating the wise sage with Christianity. By contrast, for decades many Who fans have mused whether it might be fun/interesting if the doctor were a woman. Totally different scenario.

Other examples (similar to the doctor being a woman) would be if the doctor were: black, Asian, overweight, blind, some other non-humanoid species, etc.

Other examples (like yours) would be if the doctor were: Democrat, Republican, Nazi, Jewish, Pastaferian, etc.

See the difference? That’s why screaming “feminist agenda!” every time someone brings up something good about a woman gets tiresome after a while. It ascribes philosophical choice to something that is a simple biological trait for half of the human population.

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Mrebo said:

For whatever reason people are misunderstanding the Warb. It wasn’t just that a woman leads a show. He didn’t like that a sociopolitical agenda was, at least in part, deciding the future of the show. And to be sure such an agenda was partly behind the gender switch. He’s been thus far happy the show isn’t making a big deal about it. Although, not making a fuss about it easily falls into the category of feminist agenda. Also, the show has been dominated by sociopolitical agendas for awhile now, so it’s rather late to complain overmuch about it.

To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.

There is still a difference between making the protagonist a devoted Christian and making them a person that appeals to Christians (i.e. having strong family values). Likewise, having a female lead is something that appeals to feminists, but that doesn’t mean the main character has to be overly feminist.

Sure, and Warb has recognized the distinction you draw. It was that recognition by him that led to the current discussion.

Constructing an apt and non-controversial analogy is nigh impossible, but there are choices Christian showrunners could make that would create consternation depending on the previous characterization of a protagonist. Having a Christian character is no guarantee the show will portray Christian values either.

I agree that a woman doctor is not the sine qua non of a feminist agenda and as I said the show has already displayed a feminist agenda.

are you warbs spokesperson?

Thank you for your interest. Here at Warb Inc., we strive to provide excellent customer service and effective communications strategies. While your resume shows you have participated in communication campaigns in the past we are looking for someone who can generate original content. We wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Warb Inc.? I do not recall opening a company by that name. I do remember having a company by the name of WARBLER.,INC.™©®, but that company has long since closed.

Warbler did you just make a wisecrack? There might be some hope for you yet!

I too was impressed!!

Except you can’t copyright a name.

There’s an opening in the legal department, welcome. In addition to your previously demonstrated skill, we require only that you occasionally use proper capitalization/ punctuation and conceal boatloads of money.

moviefreakedmind said:
I’m paranoid. I wouldn’t be surprised if some douchebag sitting next to me decided to throw a punch at me in honor of the flag.

Especially since Trump has already said he would pay the legal fees for people using violence towards such aims.