Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Belz...]

Hmm, sloppy language messed us up before, and it appears to be doing so again. I don't read "Warren is Cherokee" as "Warren has a Cherokee ancestor".

Well since we established it before I didn't think it necessary to write it again. You have to understand how lazy I tend to be.

Depends. Was it something that your first person would never have heard about without your second person? As a real world example, there's a politician in the news because her political opponent made a claim about her. Were it not for the opponent making a claim, there would be no opinion to hold. Holding the same opinion as the opponent who made it, therefore would be impossible had that opponent not made the claim.

Well, that raises an interesting question: where do opinons come from? If I can't have an opinion that agrees with your opponent without being influenced by them, how did _they_ get that opinion? At some point you have to come up with the originator of that opinion, meaning that people can -- shocking, I know -- come up with their own opinions, and this demolishes this entire theory of yours: because if someone can come up with an opinion, it just so happens that they can come up with the same opinions without concerting themselves.

Right?

 

[Belz...]

I hope s/he doesn't. This doesn't sound like it's headed anywhere productive.

More to the point, like the carpenter who only owns a hammer, the way you post your middle ground high horse routine in seemingly every thread is way past expiration date. You did made some good points the first several hundred times though.

Yeah, Joe. Pick a ******* side, already!




I'm sure this isn't what you meant, varwoche, but I'm sure you can understand Joe's frustration with the us-vs-them mentality of a LOT of posters here, and how it makes discussions almost impossible, as demonstrated here.

 

[wareyin]

Well since we established it before I didn't think it necessary to write it again. You have to understand how lazy I tend to be.

In this thread, with TBD and Brooklyn baby? I think we sort of have to be precise.

Well, that raises an interesting question: where do opinons come from? If I can't have an opinion that agrees with your opponent without being influenced by them, how did _they_ get that opinion? At some point you have to come up with the originator of that opinion, meaning that people can -- shocking, I know -- come up with their own opinions, and this demolishes this entire theory of yours: because if someone can come up with an opinion, it just so happens that they can come up with the same opinions without concerting themselves.

Right?

Your claim is now that a reasonable person could have come up with the whole Warren claims NA Ancestry on their own had Brown not made it public knowledge? I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, as it seems to be a huge leap to me

 

[The_Animus]

They aren't going to get it. Their brains have just literally been rewired.

There are only two sides. Even if you aren't on a side, your opinions have to be. Any "neutral" is lying and really a puppet of "the others."

There aren't only two sides but many of the "neutral" claimants are lying. Or maybe they really believe that. But like the two posters who have recently and repeatedly made such a claim, it's easy to tell it's false when they only parrot one sides talking points while ignoring factual evidence they're presented with which contradicts said talking points.

 

[Belz...]

In this thread, with TBD and Brooklyn baby? I think we sort of have to be precise.

I'll redouble my efforts, then.

Your claim is now that a reasonable person could have come up with the whole Warren claims NA Ancestry on their own had Brown not made it public knowledge?

Would it hurt you to respond to what I actually post, please?

 

[carlitos]

You know I'm talking about Teddy and Mary Jo. Why pretend otherwise?

You brought up Ted Kennedy completely out of context in a thread about Elizabeth Warren? Are you kidding me? No, I would not have guessed that. Wow.

 

[Meadmaker]

Tbd,

What's with all the "junk science" talk? These tests are pretty good. Some of the interpretations are oversimplified to the point of absurdity, but the core idea that certain genetic markers can be tied to certain places or populations isn't controversial.


I decided I was going to take one of the cheapo tests myself. If it doesn't come back with a whole lot of Irish, I'll call it junk science.

 

[Belz...]

Tbd,

What's with all the "junk science" talk? These tests are pretty good. Some of the interpretations are oversimplified to the point of absurdity, but the core idea that certain genetic markers can be tied to certain places or populations isn't controversial.

Yeah but they're not 100% certain, so junk science, I guess.

 

[wareyin]

I'll redouble my efforts, then.



Would it hurt you to respond to what I actually post, please?

I'm keeping it on topic by applying what you actually post to the topic of the thread. Or are you making some sort of hypothetical that doesn't relate at all to this thread?

 

[Belz...]

I'm keeping it on topic by applying what you actually post to the topic of the thread.

That's a pretty pathetic dodge.

You know full well that people can come to conclusions independently of one another, and that looking at the results of the DNA test someone could, incorrectly or not, come to the aforementioned conclusion without ever even having read a conservative opinion on the matter. It's patently obvious, but since you committed yourself to the position that all opinions contrary to yours stem from the Republicans, you can't admit to being wrong and back up now.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Tbd,

What's with all the "junk science" talk? These tests are pretty good. Some of the interpretations are oversimplified to the point of absurdity, but the core idea that certain genetic markers can be tied to certain places or populations isn't controversial.


I decided I was going to take one of the cheapo tests myself. If it doesn't come back with a whole lot of Irish, I'll call it junk science.

I'd be more worried about the privacy implications before taking such a test. Remember the rule of the internet: if you aren't paying, you are not the customer, you are the product. It applies here. The cheapness is subsidized by monetizing your data.

 

[carlitos]

Depends. Was it something that your first person would never have heard about without your second person? As a real world example, there's a politician in the news because her political opponent made a claim about her. Were it not for the opponent making a claim, there would be no opinion to hold. Holding the same opinion as the opponent who made it, therefore would be impossible had that opponent not made the claim.

This is interesting. How about -- given that this is in the news, is it possible for a reasonably well-read person to come up with their own opinion on the subject?

Like - I heard about this, did my own research, and came up with my own opinion?

 

[lobosrul5]

I'd be more worried about the privacy implications before taking such a test. Remember the rule of the internet: if you aren't paying, you are not the customer, you are the product. It applies here. The cheapness is subsidized by monetizing your data.

If you could find an anonymous way of making payment and send and receive it through an intermediary (UPS store?) then those concerns could be pretty much neutralized. I couldn't care less if they sell my dna data if there is no way to tie it to me.

 

[Drewbot]

And yet we are left with so little actual evidence of this. Cookbook, mentioning it after being hired and tenured, telling family stories. Surely she played this to some actual advantage at some point in her career. She is a cagey liberal to have hidden the evidence of all the cool stuff she got by beating that Cherokee drum her whole life.

You forgot the part where she put her name in a Minority Law School directory, with the minority status attached to her name.

1986-87 AALS List II, Minority Law Teachers - Univ. of Texas
1994-95 AALS List II, Minority Law Teachers - Pennsylvania

There is no mention of Native American in the list or the Bio... so how did Harvard know she was Native American, if she never told them? Also, how did she think she would meet other people with 'Tribal Roots' if it didn't mention Native American in the Directory?

This looks more and more like she did it to simply gain minority status in her career networking.

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, fending off questions about whether she used her Native American heritage to advance her career, said today she enrolled herself as a minority in law school directories for nearly a decade because she hoped to meet other people with tribal roots.

“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren….

https://www.weeklystandard.com/mich...-native-american-to-get-invited-to-a-luncheon

“Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born,” said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. “These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/node/1061128808/comments


Also note: Professor Bernstein commenting on this in 2012:
From this now, mysteriously archived Boston Herald article http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2012/05/law_prof_elizabeth_warren’s_boast_edge

“In the old days before the Internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people. There are schools that if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority,’ ” said George Mason University Law professor David Bernstein, a former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools.

“Nowadays, if you hear about a candidate who might be available, you just do a Google search and find a resume online,” Bernstein added….

“That appendix strikes me as obviously allowing people to announce themselves as being members of minority groups in case people are looking for such members for whatever reason,” Bernstein said.

The directories were used to hire minority candidates, Harvard hired her, and touted her minority status. Boston Herald actually calling out Harvard.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co...a_minority_hire_really_university_should_have

Harvard Law School officials listed Warren as one of several minority hires in 1996.

“Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic,” then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura told the Harvard Crimson in a 1996 article.

Chmura later told the publication that Warren was the first woman with a minority background to be tenured at HLS.

Harvard University officials have maintained an stony silence when asked about the administration’s decision to promote Warren as a minority hire. A university spokeswoman didn’t respond to additional questions about the issue yesterday.

Harvard wasn’t the only university facing pressure to hire minority faculty. The University of Pennsylvania also reported Warren as a minority hire when she taught there.

TallBear argued yesterday that Harvard erred in accepting Warren’s self-identification as Native American.

“They should look for proof of tribal enrollment, or if you can’t get enrolled, then you might look for a statement of community affiliation.
A statement that they are socially involved in the tribal community somehow,” said TallBear, adding many universities remain clueless about proper Native American identification.

 

[xjx388]

This is interesting. How about -- given that this is in the news, is it possible for a reasonably well-read person to come up with their own opinion on the subject?

Like - I heard about this, did my own research, and came up with my own opinion?

Heresy! Only the propaganda arms of the two sides create opinion and our job is to parrot those opinions. What you are describing sounds like a thoughtcrime to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wareyin]

This is interesting. How about -- given that this is in the news, is it possible for a reasonably well-read person to come up with their own opinion on the subject?

Like - I heard about this, did my own research, and came up with my own opinion?

I'm fairly certain that's how it's happening. The problem that is see is with the "did my own research" part. If one's research consist of reading Breitbart or Fox News or the like, it's pretty silly to then claim to have come up with that Republican talking point one might be repeating all on one's own. Especially in this thread, where evidence that contradicts those talking points has been repeatedly posted. Posted by Conservatives, liberals, Americans and not Americans, I might add to head off the silly "but 2 sides" claim.

 

[Marcus]

I'd be more worried about the privacy implications before taking such a test. Remember the rule of the internet: if you aren't paying, you are not the customer, you are the product. It applies here. The cheapness is subsidized by monetizing your data.

It's not that cheap, the baseline product for both 23andme and Ancestry.com is $99. Perhaps they still use the data for something else, don't know. It's very generalized, though, I doubt it would be much use to marketers.


What Warren did is a different thing . A group of researchers collected dna from people in mexico and canada and performed an in depth comparison, including an analysis of 4.7 million base pairs. This would cost well north of $99, if they charged her, I don't know.

 

[wareyin]

There aren't only two sides but many of the "neutral" claimants are lying. Or maybe they really believe that. But like the two posters who have recently and repeatedly made such a claim, it's easy to tell it's false when they only parrot one sides talking points while ignoring factual evidence they're presented with which contradicts said talking points.

Well stated. I would only add in something about the claim that "reasonable people could have come up with these talking points I'm parroting all on their own" not actually addressing the source of those talking points.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If one's research consist of reading Breitbart or Fox News or the like, it's pretty silly to then claim to have come up with that Republican talking point one might be repeating all on one's own.

Ted: I disagree with you.
Bill: You have to be from the other side.
Ted: No, I'm not.
Bill: Oh well then you've got your opinions from the other side.
Ted: No, I didn't.
Bill: Oh well then you've got to have gotten your opinions from the other side's source.

 

[Belz...]

I'm fairly certain that's how it's happening. The problem that is see is with the "did my own research" part. If one's research consist of reading Breitbart or Fox News or the like, it's pretty silly to then claim to have come up with that Republican talking point one might be repeating all on one's own. Especially in this thread, where evidence that contradicts those talking points has been repeatedly posted. Posted by Conservatives, liberals, Americans and not Americans, I might add to head off the silly "but 2 sides" claim.

Clearly, your own opinions aren't your own, but must come from MSNBC and the left wing.