Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
I suppose if we use the word to mean minority of power, or something to that effect, it makes sense. But that's not how I understand the term.
Click to expand...


Yes. Because there is only one possible common meaning for any common term.

Outside the hallowed halls of Internet Pedantry™, though, there is often more than one common usage for common terms, such usage generally quite easily discerned through context.

Since you have been somehow left bereft of the knowledge, here is a wiki article which may be of help.
 
Vixen said:
She is the author of her own disparagement.
Click to expand...

Nope. That goes to to her senatorial rival in 2012 who decided to dredge up a decades old claim in order to disparage her. According to Politifact:

Warren's heritage wasn't something she brought up during her 2012 Senate run against Republican Scott Brown.
Click to expand...

Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984

There is no dispute that Warren formally notified officials at the University of Pennsylvania and then Harvard claiming NA heritage after she was hired.
Click to expand...

....there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career.
Click to expand...

You, however, have disparaged Warren over a silly decades old and totally unimportant ticking of a box that gave her no special advantages. You've claimed she has lied about her parents' elopement, her paternal grandparents' bigotry, claimed she was Andrew Jackson's descendant and, when proved wrong, you jumped on another ancestor's actions as if somehow that's relevant and disparaged her every way you can.
 
quadraginta said:
It's a myth that people were largely ignorant of FDR's disability. It was relatively common knowledge.

What he did do was try and minimize the extent of his disability, and among the ways he did that was to avoid being obviously disabled while there were cameras and the public around, so that part is correct.

But the fact of his disability was no particular secret to the public.
Click to expand...


I'll believe you. I'm no historian.

Thanks.
 
quadraginta said:
If you understood how he meant it, why on Earth are you bothering to be pedantic about it?

What purpose does that serve?
Click to expand...

The word "minority" does have a literal meaning, after all.

That's all. Literally speaking, women may be underrepresented in various ways, but not a minority.
 
Vixen said:
Yeah, after twenty years of earning $300K pa from Harvard as its token ethnic minority.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that Warren, one of the most distinguished experts in her field of economic law, was only hired by Harvard to be their "token ethnic minority"?
Can you stoop any lower?
 
smartcooky said:
Racism is subjective, and as such, most of us are not really intersted in your links to sites that you have cherry picked to support your claims. I can cherry pick sites that will support my claim too; neitehr will move us forward.

What you need to do is tell us why YOU think what she did is racist, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, not ones that you are parroting or plagiarizing from one of your cherry picked web links.
Click to expand...

I love it how you're getting all picky and tentative now about what is racist, after this whopper of a post.
 
phiwum said:
The word "minority" does have a literal meaning, after all.
Click to expand...


When used in the context of minority group it has a noticeably different meaning. A quite common and well recognized one. Even you recognized it without any difficulty.

Language can be like that.

That's all. Literally speaking, women may be underrepresented in various ways, but not a minority.
Click to expand...


Not a minority, but a minority group.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
You, however, have disparaged Warren over a silly decades old and totally unimportant ticking of a box that gave her no special advantages. You've claimed she has lied about her parents' elopement, her paternal grandparents' bigotry, claimed she was Andrew Jackson's descendant and, when proved wrong, you jumped on another ancestor's actions as if somehow that's relevant and disparaged her every way you can.
Click to expand...


Yup... Vixen just keeps doubling down on the false claims and lies.

Perhaps we should come up with a new term for that... ah yes... "Foxplaining", or perhaps even better "Fauxplaining"
 
quadraginta said:
When used in the context of minority group it has a noticeably different meaning. A quite common and well recognized one. Even you recognized it without any difficulty.

Language can be like that.




Not a minority, but a minority group.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

Far as I'm concerned, the meaning of the word "minority" is clear, whether or not the word "group" follows. But there's no reason to quibble over mere semantics.
 
If I have a bowl of candy and most of it is licorice with a lesser amount of butterscotch, I don’t think you could say that the licorice is a minority group just because no one wants to eat it. It’s gustatorily disadvantaged, perhaps...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In the '80s I worked as a "loaner" to the USA Today editorial board and it was someone's job to rustle up 4 opinion pieces each day to go with the staff editorial and a cartoon. What drew me to that department was the commitment to getting a lot of opinions on an issue. So in those days someone would have been assigned to find a Native American writer who thought was Elizabeth Warren did was racist. That doesn't mean the opinion was insincere or uninformed, but it does mean it was likely solicited to fill a certain slot on the opinion page. There was probably a countervailing opinion to the contrary. I'm not up for researching that right now, just wanted to say that about the process.
 
Minoosh said:
In the '80s I worked as a "loaner" to the USA Today editorial board and it was someone's job to rustle up 4 opinion pieces each day to go with the staff editorial and a cartoon. What drew me to that department was the commitment to getting a lot of opinions on an issue. So in those days someone would have been assigned to find a Native American writer who thought was Elizabeth Warren did was racist. That doesn't mean the opinion was insincere or uninformed, but it does mean it was likely solicited to fill a certain slot on the opinion page. There was probably a countervailing opinion to the contrary. I'm not up for researching that right now, just wanted to say that about the process.
Click to expand...

I think Sabrina Erdely's recent work for Rolling Stone tells us everything we need to know about the journalistic process of looking for people who will tell you the story you've already decided to write.
 
theprestige said:
I think Sabrina Erdely's recent work for Rolling Stone tells us everything we need to know about the journalistic process of looking for people who will tell you the story you've already decided to write.
Click to expand...
Now where the hell did that come from? You looked for knowledgeable people who could give informed opinions. Across the spectrum. We certainly didn't write those pieces. This had nothing to do with running fictitious articles. If you stopped and thought about it for 20 seconds you would realize that this is a standard practice across the entire media industry, Fox News included. I can't really think what other way you'd present coverage of a controversial issue. You ask experts for their take. Usually you did have some idea of what they were going to say but there were sometimes surprises.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think so. Even in the absence of this most recent silliness the GOP has had their hate machine churning out lies and innuendo about Warren for too many years. They've built up a huge head start of fabricated disinformation. All they have to do is fan it a little here and there. It's already embedded in the public psyche. That's the same thing they had done to Hillary.

And aside from that I'd like to see someone younger. If she won in 2020 she'd be 71 when she took office.

Maybe it's ageist of me (although I turned 64 last month, so I'm pretty much in the age group I'm criticizing), but I think we need to see some younger perspective in the White House.
Click to expand...

Whoah, whoah, whoah! Look, just because the GOP has been churning out this stuff for years doesn't mean that someone who pays attention to US Politics and has heard that stuff repeated year after year didn't come up with it all on their own! Why I've been assured by some people in this thread that it's entirely possible to independently come up with the same slogans and talking points one has been saturated in, so there is absolutely no reason to accuse the GOP of propaganda, or the reasonable people who repeat that propaganda of being influenced by it!
 
carlitos said:
No. It's like a kid criticizing Smoke on the Water because it's lame, and you telling that kid that he only thinks that because he read it in Rolling Stone or Spin.
Click to expand...

(Sorry to bounce back so far - fast thread)

I think a better musical example would be a kid hearing someone playing the sax part from 'Baker Street' and saying "They aren't as good as Bob Holness".

Wareyin's point, if I understand it correctly, is not that you can't form your own opinion , but rather that if your opinion is about an incorrect piece of data that the source of that incorrect data can be traced as it's unlikely to have arisen independently multiple times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom