Sign In

Warbler

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
7-May-2003
Last activity
16-Dec-2018
Posts
27665

Post History

Post
#1249225
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Back to politics… A Cherokee Nation official says Sen. Elizabeth Warren “is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” While I still consider her actions bizarrely disingenuous, I also have to admit that the right’s actions obstructing native American vote is substantively worse.

I very much agree with this statement – the concept of tribal membership has a fraught history. A Cherokee chief (Wilma Mankiller) once said: “An Indian is an Indian regardless of the degree of Indian blood or which little government card they do or do not possess.” There’s a long history of non-Native people telling Native Americans that they’re not real Indians (Sharice Davids, for a current example) because they don’t fit whatever image they had in their head. There are entire tribes still fighting today for formal recognition as “legitimate Indians”. Issues of tribal membership are and should be very much the exclusive purview of the tribes. So on issues of tribal membership, I defer to the tribes. A genetic test cannot support claims of specific tribal membership, only Native ancestry in a general sense.

While clearly Warren’s family history was largely correct, and she never claimed more than the tiny fractional ancestry that she recently found evidence to support, I think her family was far enough removed from tribal politics that they didn’t recognize the implications of naming a specific tribe. It’s likely that her Native American ancestor did speak Cherokee, which is why she was identified as such by Warren’s family, but that’s not the same thing at all as being a member of the Cherokee Nation. Warren conflated those concepts and should not have, and in doing so stepped over the line of tribal sovereignty. The Cherokee Nation is rightly aggrieved. Warren’s Native American ancestor may have spoken Cherokee, but she was not Cherokee. Needless generalizations help no one.

I don’t understand, how do we know Warren’s Native American ancestor wasn’t Cherokee? We don’t know anything about her. If she spoke Cherokee, isn’t that a good indication that she came from the Cherokee tribe?

Post
#1249156
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

LordZerome1080 said:

Handman said:

LordZerome1080 said:

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.

What do you mean?

I’m guessing the show will greatly simplify the situation, playing into the great myth you’re taught in elementary school. The great Rosa Parks was the one who said no on a whim, and it is all because of her that buses were integrated here in the US. The historical context is a lot more complex and complicated, and interesting. I’m assuming the episode will have the Doctor try to convince her to go through with it, with no mention of those more interesting elements as they go against the prevailing legend.

Really, if we’re going to have an episode where Rosa Parks is hesitant to go through with it, I want a dialogue like this:

Rosa: “Well, they don’t need me, there are others–”
Doctor: “Yes, there are others, and there have been others. But your actions here will reach beyond them. Someone as well liked, someone so innocent, to go through the horrors of your society, will resonate far beyond Alabama. No one else will look as righteous to the nation.”

Or something to that effect. Basically I want there to be some recognition that Rosa Parks was not the only one who was courageous in that situation, that she did not do it on a whim (She and Colvin were both active members of the NAACP), and that the black leadership in Montgomery, Alabama wanted her to do it for the reasons stated above, as they would not be able to gain the sympathies of the courts, whites, and the middle class with Colvin, a poor, pregnant teenager. This in no way minimizes the bravery and injustice Parks endured, but it is the way it happened.

“I’m not disappointed,” Colvin said. “Let the people know Rosa Parks was the right person for the boycott. But also let them know that the attorneys took four other women to the Supreme Court to challenge the law that led to the end of segregation.”

But maybe this is too much to ask for from Doctor Who.

So much for giving it a chance eh Warbler, Handman and co?

If you are referring to Jodie Whittaker, I agree she has done well in the role so far. If you are referring to the season isn’t bad either so far. As for the episode with Rosa Parks, the only thing I have said is that I don’t think they will make her an alien and that I think they will be very careful to not offend and be very respectful to her.

If that means I am not giving any of the above a fair chance, I don’t know what to say.

Post
#1249155
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

There was no point to argue in his post. The entire point was to act like an ass.

  1. Are you certain that was really his point?

  2. If I had thought that about someone’s post and called them an ass, wouldn’t I get a warning from one of the mods or maybe some sort of ban?

Post
#1249064
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Cool

Contribute meaningfully or don’t post at all.

It was a meaningful response. What was he supposed to say?

“Cool” is a meaningful response? It was dismissive and lacked any substance.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

I’d say they couldn’t do any worse, but I suppose anything is possible.

It sounds to me like the could do a lot worse. They could actually do all of the things that your favorite rightwing Youtube channels have told you that they’re doing.

Whatever man. I’m glad your inability to see what’s going on lends you some comfort. Stay angry, though. Seems to be a winning strategy for the left so far.

Handman said:

I’d say Bernie was as popular as he was precisely because he wasn’t your typical Democrat.

Anyone read this?

NPR – With Voters Sour On Major Parties, Group Recruits ‘None Of The Above’ Candidates

The effort comes at a time when voters are dissatisfied with both major political parties. Nearly 70 percent of voters say Republicans and Democrats fail to adequately represent the American people, according to a recent survey from the nonpartisan Democracy Fund.
Politics

A Colorado-based group called Unite America is trying to use that dissatisfaction to elect more independent candidates to office nationwide. They have endorsed 29 unaffiliated candidates running for all levels of office from across the country.

Among the statewide candidates with the group’s support are Gov. Bill Walker of Alaska, the country’s only unaffiliated governor, and Greg Orman, who’s running for governor in Kansas.

In Colorado, they’ve helped five state legislative candidates qualify for the ballot, campaign, and get their names out with promotional videos.

When the time comes, vote them out.

Yes. No more party-line votes. No more pity votes. Kick out all these partisans and get some sensible people in there who won’t cater to the worst at the extremes.

Every time someone tells you that not voting Democrat is effectively voting for a Republican, let them know that they’re the problem, not you. Repeated emotional votes in favor of blind nationalism on the right and divisive identity bullshit on the left has put us on the road to mediocrity. Maybe the tens of millions who skip voting might be inspired to take part if their best option wasn’t always the slightly better one between two trash choices.

So I take you are either voting third party or write-in, in the next the election?

Post
#1249002
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Although I’m a very liberal democrat who generally supports Warren’s views, I find her ongoing claim of having Native American heritage to be an embarrassment at best, and outright fraud at worst. Six-to-ten generations back? Give me a break! Nearly everyone who has ancestors in North America can make that claim WITH substantiation from Ancestry.com. It sounds like she has LESS N.A. blood than the average American. She needs to drop it and apologize. Efforts towards equal opportunity are severely damaged when people - especially those for whom they were not intended - lie and abuse them.

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

I guess I’m not seeing this. She spends her whole life until 2012 AFAICT barely mentioning her family history – it’s unclear to me if she mentioned it in public at all. Then Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down, calls her a liar about it, and suddenly she’s answering for it in public.

Do we know exactly where she wrote it down?

It seems that faulting Warren for fixating on her relatively inconsequential Native American family history is a lot like faulting Hillary for fixating on her e-mails and Benghazi, or Obama’s weird fixation on his birth certificate. I agree with DominicCobb it’s a strategic failing to let your opponents decide what you’re talking about.

Don’t know, I’ve a lot of times where politician A will accuse politician B of thing X, and then politician B will refuse to talk about thing X, it can make it looking like politician B is hiding something about thing X.

Post
#1249001
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

We can only vote for the choices we are given. Forget Trump, would you really vote for someone like Paul Ryan over her?

Hmm, you’re not making this easy. Time might temper my views. We’ll see what plays out going forwards, and whether this is an isolated thing. At this moment I find it embarrassing and wrong.

Not that they are necessarily related, but in Rachel Dolezal’s case, it appears to have been a part of a much larger pattern of fraudulent behaviors.

On the flip side, there was a famous singer for Duke Ellington named Herb Jeffries who was white, but passed as black and claimed to be one-half black. He even accepted movie roles in westerns as the “bronze buckaroo”. I played in a backup band for him in one festival about 25 years ago - really nice guy, and later in life he admitted that he was 100% white.

You played in a backup band for a guy that sang with Duke Ellington? Wow! I am impressed.

Post
#1248997
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I mean either way, it’s no wonder we can’t win shit in elections. We eat our own over things like this.

You’ve summed up the entirety of the modern left and its identity politics platform in two sentences.

Democrats would have to run an as-yet-unnamed rock star in 2020 for me to give them my vote. Hillary was the last pity vote they’re getting from me. They need another beating at the ballot box and some more soul-searching.

So are you going to vote for Trump or third party or write-in?

Post
#1248995
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Yeah, all you have to do is search online for the nearest post office. I guarantee you that they have stamps.

Post
#1248993
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

We can only vote for the choices we are given. Forget Trump, would you really vote for someone like Paul Ryan over her?

I might. I would certainly vote for Paul Ryan over Trump in a Republican Primary. However if it were Trump vs. Warren, I would be forced to vote for Warren.

“Wouldn’t it be nice” isn’t very practical in politics.

Actually, I think it would be very practical to have someone more likable. One of the many reason Hillary lost was because people didn’t like her.

Also, I’d to be able to vote for someone in the General Election that I actually want to be the President.

Post
#1248878
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248863
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1248837
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Mrebo said:

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.

I doubt very much they would make Rosa Parks an alien. I would think they will pay a lot of respect to Rosa Parks. 1. Because they should. 2. They don’t want to offend and piss people off. I could easily see NAACP and other groups getting upset and offended at making Rosa Parks an alien. I guarantee you they are not going to take the risk of that. I know I wouldn’t if I were them.

Post
#1248833
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

Warbler, how would you feel if every time a TV show had a married couple in them, people complained about a “Christian agenda” being shoved down their throats?

  1. that would be illogical since not are marriages are Christians. Many different religions include marriage. People of no faith get married.

  2. I would have to see the show itself to see if there is indeed a "Christian agenda’ being shoved down throats. I would to see if it is my kind of Christianity(I doubt it would be since I don’t believe in shoving down other peoples’ throats) or someone else’s version.

Wouldn’t you say it’s ridiculous to think that such a big group could have one big overarching agenda?

While different factions within the big group might have differing agendas(again be they good or bad), they are might have some agenda items in common.

And wouldn’t you be annoyed if the most extreme religious zealots were constantly depicted as stereotypes for all of Christianity?

That happens already.

It’s pretty much the same with feminism.

Except if you did it here, you get wisecracks from Frink and criticism from other members. If one complains of the same thing in regards to Christianity, you laughed at by the same people.

Post
#1248831
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

Perhaps the way I used it maybe. But I do think the term can be used in a way that doesn’t imply that it should be fought against.

It really can’t in this context.

In what context? The context I was using it in? If so, ok. But the wording of Frink’s post implied a problem with the words themselves and not just in the context that I used them.

Remember an agenda isn’t always bad.

Again, context. No one uses phrases like “feminist agenda” or “gay agenda” in any other context than antagonistic toward the group with said “agenda.”

Perhaps it rarely happens, but no one?

If you look in up in a dictionary the word “agenda”, it neither implies negative or positive connotation.

Post
#1248825
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

So, what is wrong with mentioning the words “feminist agenda”? I think we have to agree that whether the agenda is good or bad, right or wrong, Feminists do have agenda. I think even feminists themselves would agree that they have an agenda. So why does using the words “feminist agenda” = “saying stupid shit”?

It’s stupid because you think that having a female lead is the equivalent of having a feminist agenda.

Nope, that is not what I think.

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.