Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
7-Dec-2018
Posts
3,316

Post History

Post
#1248917
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

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.

Puggo, that ignores the particular nature of the character at issue here: perpetually a man. It’s not just that some lead character in some show is a woman. Obviously that is not Warb’s objection. He was concerned that the precedent breaking choice to make the Doc a woman was motivated by, and heralded, a feminist agenda. I certainly think making the Doc a woman was partly based on a feminist view. I don’t know why recognition of that is so controversial.

Post
#1248909
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248905
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248887
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248886
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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!!

Post
#1248875
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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! 😁

Post
#1248869
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248860
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248828
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248822
Topic
Going away? Post so here!
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m not doing too bad actually, I’m just extremely busy because I just started a good job that I actually like, but since it’s entirely on a computer I don’t really feel like spending my free time online anymore. I also now no longer have a job where I can constantly be online wasting time, which is a big reason why I spent so much time here over the years.

Great to hear.

Post
#1248761
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Very nice title sequence, I like how the music matches so well, folding in on itself. The episode was alright, I like the lowkey feel, though needs much more fleshing out. The Doctor hasn’t really defined herself, which is either good or bad this early. Central part of Tardis I like, the walls less so.

Post
#1248122
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

flametitan said:

WTF USA Today?

I mean, I guess they just wanted the ad revenue from having both the op-ed and the rebuttal. Or the Op-Ed process is looser than I thought. Still doesn’t sit right to have a sitting president write an op-ed to slam his political opponents.

USAToday tries to be non-partisan. They took lots of flak for an article suggesting Kabanaugh can’t be trusted around teen girls. Wouldn’t be surprised if running the editorial was done to try to make piece with done readers.