Mrebo

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

honest question: can any of the mods be banned? can jay be banned?

Stop being an ass Collipso.

I like the lack of comma.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

wed the rules!

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Problem for your claim of accuracy is you don’t know if any particular g-g-g gma had NA ancestry. You don’t know which ancestor.

Sure, her family story could have been wrong in part. It could have been her great-great-great grandfather, but the evidence does support the claim she made, down to the ethnicity and approximate number of generations back she specified, which lends the entire family story some credibility. But yes, which g-g-g grandparent may have been off, that is true.

I’m giving “substantial” a meaning of “sufficiently high enough to claim identity as a member of that minority.” I’m not sure what that amount is, but if you have to go 6-10 generations back to maybe find one ancestor, I don’t buy it.

See, that’s actually a point of agreement hiding in here, and why I like arguing with you. We actually do agree about stuff from time to time and it feels like a revelation every time it happens. We’re pretty polar opposite but we don’t just go to our respective corners and throw spitballs.

When you’re filling out a form and there’s checkboxes that say “check all that apply”, and you know for certain that you have approx 1/32nd ancestry from one of the listed groups, I can understand that you might want to check the corresponding box. Because you were instructed to “check all that apply” and it does apply. And the most charitable interpretation of checking that box under those circumstances is that you were being a little too literal with your instructions, without taking into account the larger context of why the boxes are there in the first place. If you recognized that there was a limit to the statistical value of particular parts of your ancestry, you would (and should) leave those boxes unchecked. You are not disavowing your ancestors, you are providing more useful data. Swallow the guilt and leave them out. Otherwise everyone would mark African because that’s where humanity started and we all have ancestors from there, right? Where that limit should be is up for some debate, and possibly a bit dependent on the purpose for which the data is being gathered, but I’d certainly place the bar higher than a single individual five generations back in almost all cases.

The less charitable interpretation involves embracing the exotic as a means to make your life’s story more interesting than it really is.

Those who write the questions probably don’t consider that anyone will answer for any percentage less than 1/8th. It’s unusual for people to go around knowing that they’re 1/32nd Native American. But with genetic testing becoming more commonplace, it’s increasingly normal. I’d suggest that people who write those questions suggest what a “significant portion” is, rather than leaving it as an exercise for the reader.

Similarly, it’s far too easy outside the checkbox scenario for people to throw around tiny fractional ancestries as if they mean something.

Nevertheless, she didn’t make it up. She and her family may be guilty of romanticizing or exoticizing, overstating the relevance of the native ancestry, but there is no indication that they were mistaken about, or lied about, or even exaggerated, the basic facts of their ancestry. This is what she was accused of, and she just shut down that line of criticism with evidence supporting her family story, exactly as it was told to her. Which is why the criticism is now moving on to other angles. And some of those new criticisms may very well be valid, and perhaps they are the criticisms that should have been made all along, but that’s another argument.

You’re right the arguments seem to shift. There appear to be three main arguments/ criticisms that should be disentangled; I will take each in turn.

1. Whether Warren has a Native American ancestor, regardless the correlation with family history.

Accepting the DNA analysis as true, the answer is yes. This is relevant to Trump’s offer, though as discussed there is a reason he could plausibly deny payment. But this is far from the controversy about her lineage. It wasn’t actually about whether she happens to have some Native ancestor, which is all that the analysis demonstrates.

2. Whether Warren’s family history is accurate.

I looked back at older articles and the lore wasn’t simply that there was a g-g-g gma who was part NA. Apparently there is dispute in the family but there were statements that two of Warren’s grandparents were part NA, one to an unknown but notable degree. Based on the renditions of family lore I find in older articles, Warren holding herself out as part Native American makes decent sense. But you say she knew she was AT BEST 1/32 and that she was just confused when checking boxes. The DNA doesn’t help this argument. It merely shows that some version of her family lore could be right. That members of her family told stories about NA ancestors hasn’t been in dispute, however.

3. Whether Warren properly held herself out as Native American.

According to your telling, no it was not. You say she was just mixed up about what it meant to identify as NA. The DNA analysis makes the representation really embarrassing. Does not help at all. Any ancestor could have been maybe 10 ancestors back, making even her g-g-g gma’s claim to be NA ancestry potentially embarrassing.

I think her family stories exaggerated the amount of NA ancestry and Warren innocently (for lack of a better word) believed it. On that you’re right there are glimmers of agreement between us. I disagree she was merely confused when holding herself out as NA. I think she was mistaken about the amount (and significance) of ancestry she had.

You’ve probably made the best argument that can be made about the DNA analysis, but it just doesn’t connect to the central criticism in a meaningful way.

The chief (punintended) value of the analysis is as a piece of paper to waive around in front of people who think it’s about whether she happened to have a NA ancestor. There is the potential to reframe the debate along those lines. When people get confused about what an issue is even about, having a piece of paper declaring a supposed fact does much work.

As I said, I think this was a shrewd political move. I’ve second-guessed that a bit after there has been criticism from actual NAs about the analysis. There is the cultural appropriation angle as Warren continues to beat the drum (I could help myself, if I wanted) about possible NA ancestry.

Filet mignon, medium, with truffle fries. Preceded by duck, followed by chocolate soufflé. Also, dying.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus, your descriptions of facts can be so off-center I don’t know what to make of it. You say “Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down” as if she scribbled it on the margin of a notebook one time. She was listed as a minority/Native American in academic publications and openly represented herself as part Native American.

What I meant was: She ran for US Senate and she didn’t bring it up in any public context until asked specifically about it – but neither was it a hidden family secret she kept locked away and never spoke of. She believed the family story was as true as it ultimately turned out to be. Her fault was that she believed it based solely on the word of her family, instead of seeking a second opinion, for too long.

Okay but I don’t think Brown bringing it up is remarkable.

That’s separate from whether it was dishonest or boosted her career or is terribly serious. I mainatain it was most likely an honest mistake (believing she had substantial Native ancestry) and probably only had marginally helped her career if at all.

On the subject of descriptions of facts:

You say “mistake”, I say “unsubstantiated at the time, and would have been understandable as a mistake, if it weren’t later supported by the evidence”. Both could be considered true, but mine’s more accurate.

You say “believing she had substantial Native ancestry”, I say “believing her great, great, great grandmother was at least partially Native American”. Both could be considered true, but mine’s more accurate.

Problem for your claim of accuracy is you don’t know if any particular g-g-g gma had NA ancestry. You don’t know which ancestor. I’m giving “substantial” a meaning of “sufficiently high enough to claim identity as a member of that minority.” I’m not sure what that amount is, but if you have to go 6-10 generations back to maybe find one ancestor, I don’t buy it.

And conflating that with security mismanagement at a diplomatic outpost or security mismanagement of government documents and email…not good.

You left out birth certificates. Maybe that comparison seemed a better match in your mind?

Yes, that is on the same planet. But not at all the same as security mismanagement as a public official.

CatBus, your descriptions of facts can be so off-center I don’t know what to make of it. You say “Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down” as if she scribbled it on the margin of a notebook one time. She was listed as a minority/Native American in academic publications and openly represented herself as part Native American.

That’s separate from whether it was dishonest or boosted her career or is terribly serious. I mainatain it was most likely an honest mistake (believing she had substantial Native ancestry) and probably only had marginally helped her career if at all.

And conflating that with security mismanagement at a diplomatic outpost or security mismanagement of government documents and email…not good.

Handman said:

Mrebo said:

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

I know people love to say that people who say “kids today are lazy” are out-of-touch… but… this is just a Google search away. And you can buy them everywhere. And you can ask literally anybody. I never had a problem figuring this out with my absentee-ballot.

I’m surprised requiring a stamp is tolerated. I’d expect shrieking about poll taxes and racism. Would think postage would be prepaid, but I’ve only ever voted in person.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

To follow-up… I can certainly understand someone deciding it’s no big deal (Warren’s questionable claims of NA heritage). But I REALLY don’t understand certain media outlets heralding that these latest DNA results prove that she was right, because they most certainly do not. Quite the contrary.

I hate left-leaning fake stuff even worse than right-leaning fake stuff, because I would like to think that the left holds itself to a higher standard.

Good to have agreement and hope others might recognize this non-partisan view. As for news outlets parroting the story, they might claim ignorance. So many erroneous law and science stories, for example, have been printed based on little more than one person’s statement or misreading of it. News outlets don’t demonstrate critical thinking skills.

I also think it’s a story many outlets want to believe for partisan reasons.

I agree this isn’t something to oppose her for. Doing this DNA thing and supporting a Native casino are silly/craven/ugly political maneuvers but she wants to get this story behind her and show she’s a fighter. That’s not going to play with everyone, but you got to do different things for different constituencies.

I’ve watched Republicans eat their own too and it’s frustrating. On the other side of the coin is engaging in apologetics and ignoring bad and stupid things done by favored politicians. Hard line to walk and not appear hypocritical.

There are many good reasons to oppose Warren, including her feminist agenda, if you know what I mean.

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.

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.

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.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

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

Indeed.

Masculist agenda!

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.

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!!

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! 😁

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.

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

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.

Handman said:

Very much agreed, Anchorhead.

This next episode will be a true test. They’re going to go visit Rosa Parks. Will they be historically accurate, or will there be a lot of revisionism? I’m going to guess a bit of revisionism.

I get what you mean. Yet she may end up being an alien. While the show started out as an educational endeavor, that agenda faded long ago.

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.

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.

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.

Ooh, I hope Doctor Who becomes Christian in his/her next life.

Jay, as for that last part I think Frink is saying there are people with a modicum of intelligence who don’t only and always bemoan Trump as the worst thing since sliced bread. Thus you proved his point so to speak.

I applaud your wading in, as you rightly recognize some people find it fruitless to speak up.