Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

[Cabbage]

We know that Warren misrepresented her racial identity.

How do we know this? And don't give me that "she apologized" crap; that's an anachronistic fallacy. How do we know she knew that at the time she filled out the form? As far as I can tell, she actually believed she was Native American at that time.

If I tell you that as far as I remember the admission to Disney World Magic Kingdom is $60 and then I later look it up and it's more like $100, then I was wrong but I'm not a liar. Big Difference.

Are you familiar with Rachel Dolezal? She was the head of an NAACP chapter. She claimed to be African-American. In fact, she's zero percent African-American. And unless she was completely delusional, she knew this. According to you, did she also not lie?

Sure, if she knew she wasn't black, yes, it was absolutely a lie. I don't see how that's relevant, however.

 

[Drewbot]

You do know that the minority directory was the number one tool used for hiring minorities by Law colleges?

 

[Cabbage]

I'm tempted to say a plurality* of your makeup. But that's a complicated question. I'm already on record stating that I'm 1/16 English, and would consider it a lie if I self-identified as English. Certainly more than 1/32 (her makeup as she understood it to be).

Pluralities can be quite small. Mathematically, there's almost nothing prohibiting the plurality of your ethnicity being arbitrarily close to zero.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You do know that the minority directory was the number one tool used for hiring minorities by Law colleges?

How many times was Warren hired based on it?

 

[varwoche]

How do we know this? And don't give me that "she apologized" crap; that's an anachronistic fallacy. How do we know she knew that at the time she filled out the form? As far as I can tell, she actually believed she was Native American at that time.

False. She "knew" (incorrectly) that she was 1/32. We know that because she says so.

If I tell you that as far as I remember the admission to Disney World Magic Kingdom is $60 and then I later look it up and it's more like $100, then I was wrong but I'm not a liar. Big Difference.

Not analogous. Obviously a mistake like that isn't a lie.

Sure, if she knew she wasn't black, yes, it was absolutely a lie. I don't see how that's relevant, however.

See above.

 

[varwoche]

Pluralities can be quite small. Mathematically, there's almost nothing prohibiting the plurality of your ethnicity being arbitrarily close to zero.

Fine. I have no problem with that. It has no bearing on Warren though.

 

[Cavemonster]

You do know that the minority directory was the number one tool used for hiring minorities by Law colleges?

I'm certainly open to arguments that support the contention that Warren's action can most reasonably be viewed as an attempt to advance her career by lying about her background.

But surely you're aware that this being a contentious issue, your assertion by itself doesn't carry much weight.

Do you have a source that isn't an agry partisan blog or fox news that can show that the form she filled out for the Texas bar went to a directory which was used by employers to identify race, and that being listed there would, at that time, give an employment advantage?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think Warren advanced her career about as much as every white guy called out on Twitter for wearing dreadlocks did.

 

[Hellbound]

Seriously? This non-issue is still being argued about?

Frankly, If video came out tomorrow that showed her going to job interviews dressed in buckskins and a feather headdress, doing a rain dance on the interviewer's desk, she'd still be a much better option that the trouser stain that's currently polluting the halls of government.

I just don't really care anymore. It's a non-issue. A mistake was made, she apologized. But we spend pages arguing over the exact taxonomy of the category of mistake, and whether it's bigger or smaller than breadbox.

*sigh*

Sorry, rant over. It just gets to me on occasion.

 

[Cavemonster]

Seriously? This non-issue is still being argued about?

Frankly, If video came out tomorrow that showed her going to job interviews dressed in buckskins and a feather headdress, doing a rain dance on the interviewer's desk, she'd still be a much better option that the trouser stain that's currently polluting the halls of government.

I just don't really care anymore. It's a non-issue. A mistake was made, she apologized. But we spend pages arguing over the exact taxonomy of the category of mistake, and whether it's bigger or smaller than breadbox.

*sigh*

Sorry, rant over. It just gets to me on occasion.

I mean, if the metric is "better than Trump" then there's be no reason to talk about anything about any of the democratic candidates. All of them, and their extended families and their dogs pass.

But we also have to pick which one of them wins the primary. Hopefully we can agree that if Warren dressed in buckskins and a headdress, that would speak to her character in a way that might change how we rank her against the other democratic candidates.

Beyond that, if she does get the nomination. You can be sure that this epsiode will be one of the favorite weapons of the GOP in attacking her. To that end, I think being thoughtful about how we respond to the criticism, whether that's "She ****** up, but she apologized and moved past it" or "She did nothing morally wrong" will matter.

 

[Cabbage]

Fine. I have no problem with that. It has no bearing on Warren though.

Why wouldn't it have a bearing on Warren. 1/32 can be a plurality, how could that not be relevant? And if she identifies with her 1/32 Native American, that's her prerogative; it's certainly not comparable with someone who "identifies" with her 0% black: You're the one bringing up irrelevancies, not me.

 

[smartcooky]

Y'all are arguing about a meaningless form that was filled out over 30 years ago - Warren was then half the age she is now.

1986 was a different time, it was considered cool by some to identify with minorities. I'll bet not one of you would like to be held accountable for things that you did in your 30's that were probably more serious than what Warren did?

 

[Cabbage]

Not analogous. Obviously a mistake like that isn't a lie.

It obviously has the potential to be analogous because no extant evidence convinces me she had a will to deceive by signing off on Native American due to thinking she was 1/32 Native American.

See above

I did. Conclusion: Irrelevant.

 

[Hellbound]

Y'all are arguing about a meaningless form that was filled out 35 years ago - Warren was then half the age she is now.

1982 was a different time, it was considered cool by some to identify with minorities. I'll bet not one of you would like to be held accountable for things that you did in your 30's that were probably more serious than what Warren did?

I have no idea what you're taking about, those seals were like that when I got there!

 

[Cabbage]

Y'all are arguing about a meaningless form that was filled out 35 years ago - Warren was then half the age she is now.

1982 was a different time, it was considered cool by some to identify with minorities. I'll bet not one of you would like to be held accountable for things that you did in your 30's that were probably more serious than what Warren did?

Which makes me wonder why anyone would be so damned adamant about it, claiming it was a lie. That's an absurd level of dogmatism that rubs me the wrong way so, yeah, I'm gonna argue against it.

Oh, and I'm not the one trying to hold Warren accountable for this.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Y'all are arguing about a meaningless form that was filled out 35 years ago - Warren was then half the age she is now.

I'm arguing about a form that would be meaningless if she filled it out now. I don't care in this context if Warren claimed to be 25% Velociraptor and that Blue from Jurassic World was her Otherkin persona.

I care that we live in a world where people were ******** kittens because Johnny Depp played Tonto... and the people who cared about that weren't the Republicans.

One of the main leaders of the Progressive movement doing this isn't something we're just going to pretend doesn't matter.

I don't want to hear a goddamn peep from anyone who is fighting tooth and nail about why this doesn't matter next some yearbook photo from 30 years ago pops up with a Republican wearing something "culturally appropriative."

 

[kellyb]

One of the main leaders of the Progressive movement doing this isn't something we're just going to pretend doesn't matter.

I don't want to hear a goddamn peep from anyone who is fighting tooth and nail about why this doesn't matter next some yearbook photo from 30 years ago pops up with a Republican wearing something "culturally appropriative."

So, it matters in a "exposing the hypocrisy of the left" sort of way to you?

It's the fact that people who are extremists about identity politics support her that's the real, actual problem in your mind?

 

[varwoche]

Seriously? This non-issue is still being argued about?

Frankly, If video came out tomorrow that showed her going to job interviews dressed in buckskins and a feather headdress, doing a rain dance on the interviewer's desk, she'd still be a much better option that the trouser stain that's currently polluting the halls of government.

I just don't really care anymore. It's a non-issue. A mistake was made, she apologized. But we spend pages arguing over the exact taxonomy of the category of mistake, and whether it's bigger or smaller than breadbox.

*sigh*

Sorry, rant over. It just gets to me on occasion.

I agree strongly!

I have no concern about her ability to be POTUS based on this stuff. If she's the candidate, I'll support her without reservation hesitation. Actually, with my #1 choice having departed the scene (that being Jay Inslee), it's possible I'll vote for her in the primary.

What concerns me is the possibility that she has an inner fragility that will contribute to a failed candidacy. The way she let Trump play her doesn't help any.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So, it matters in a "exposing the hypocrisy of the left" sort of way to you?

It's the fact that people who are extremists about identity politics support her that's the real, actual problem in your mind?

*Shrugs* Within the context of this discussion, sure.

I'll still vote for her if she's the Democratic Candidate. I'll support her in every way that actually matters. But yes within this discussion and only this discussion it annoys me. Crucify me. Unless that's cultural appropriation against the Romans then pick whatever execution method you have a "biological right to."

 

[kellyb]

What concerns me is the possibility that she has an inner fragility that will contribute to a failed candidacy. The way she let Trump play her doesn't help any.

I think taking the genetic test and being completely transparent with the results was the smart thing to do. I would have handled it the same way she did, personally.