Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Dr. Keith]

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

You mean after she was a tenured law professor at one of the best law schools in the country? No, I covered that.

Yeah, her career was going nowhere until she mentioned that she was Native American.

The schools may have benefitted but I see no evidence of that, or that she did.

 

[Belz...]

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"

Of course if you assume they're parroting it, it's not their own. But why would you do that, unless you were committed to believing that they parroted it?

See, this is the issue, here: same opinion, same source. That's what you started with, and you'll die on that hill if you have to.

 

[wareyin]

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.

Ted:Warren shouldn't have claimed to be a member of the Cherokee tribe!
Bill: Warren didn't claim that. Republicans claimed that she claimed that but they're wrong.
Ted: I've never heard of Republicans and totally came up with the idea on my own!
Bill: Right, Ted. I can see your TV tuned to Fox News right now...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ted:Warren shouldn't have claimed to be a member of the Cherokee tribe!
Bill: Warren didn't claim that. Republicans claimed that she claimed that but they're wrong.
Ted: I've never heard of Republicans and totally came up with the idea on my own!
Bill: Right, Ted. I can see your TV tuned to Fox News right now...

Not even trying to hide it.

Again you are literally saying "You disagree me, therefore the only possible solution is the other side via some means."

 

[wareyin]

Of course if you assume they're parroting it, it's not their own. But why would you do that, unless you were committed to believing that they parroted it?

See, this is the issue, here: same opinion, same source. That's what you started with, and you'll die on that hill if you have to.

I get that you think you (or a reasonable person) could have all on their own come up with the idea that Warren was wrong to have done something that she didn't do but that Republicans accused her of. I don't get why you think you think it's believable, though. Without the accusation, there would have been no opinion either way.

 

[Drewbot]

You mean after she was a tenured law professor at one of the best law schools in the country? No, I covered that.

Yeah, her career was going nowhere until she mentioned that she was Native American.

The schools may have benefitted but I see no evidence of that, or that she did.

No, I mean when she was at Texas, and then at Penn. She didn't do it after she was hired at Harvard, where she was tenured.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

|￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣|
JUNK SCIENCE
|＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿|
\ (•◡•) /
\ /
|
|

|​

 

[wareyin]

Not even trying to hide it.

Again you are literally saying "You disagree me, therefore the only possible solution is the other side via some means."

Nope. You're fixated on two sides. Try reading it without that filter.

 

[Drewbot]

Who do you think told Harvard she was Native American?

Native American wasn't listed in the Texas/ Penn directories.
And she was only in those directories to get invited to parties, which never happened.
So someone told Harvard she was native american, and they listed her as a minority hire.

How do you think that happened?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I get that you think you (or a reasonable person) could have all aon their own come up with the idea that Warren was wrong to have done something that she didn't do but that Republicans accused her of. I don't get why you think you think it's believable, though. Without the accusation, there would have been no opinion either way.

There's a difference between "We wouldn't have heard about this without the political brouhaha" and "The fact that putting the information out there was politically motivated makes all opinions on it politically motivated."

"I would never have formed an opinion about this if the Republicans hadn't brought it up just because I wouldn't have known about enough to care, if at all" has some validity to it.

"Now that it is in the public discourse the only allowed opinions are 100% Democratic or 100% Republican" does not.

 

[Belz...]

Ted:Warren shouldn't have claimed to be a member of the Cherokee tribe!Bill: Warren didn't claim that. Republicans claimed that she claimed that but they're wrong.
Ted: I've never heard of Republicans and totally came up with the idea on my own!
Bill: Right, Ted. I can see your TV tuned to Fox News right now...

Wow, that's a pretty blatant lie, Wareyin. Your mask of fact-based rationality is slipping. Remember earlier today when we both made clear that we're talking about ancestry, not tribal membership?

Inconvenient to your narrative?

I get that you think you (or a reasonable person) could have all on their own come up with the idea that Warren was wrong to have done something that she didn't do but that Republicans accused her of. I don't get why you think you think it's believable, though. Without the accusation, there would have been no opinion either way.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Even if all the news you consume is from Vox and The Guardian, you could come to the (erroneous) conclusion that her claim of Cherokee ancestry was wrong.

You're fixated on two sides.

 

[carlitos]

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.

On this subject, I have indicated my agreement with Belz...' list of A-F, and I have certainly not informed myself from Fox News or Breitbart. So is my opinion my own, or am I a parrot for media that I didn't consume?

 

[wareyin]

There's a difference between "We wouldn't have heard about this without the political brouhaha" and "The fact that putting the information out there was politically motivated makes all opinions on it politically motivated."

"I would never have formed an opinion about this if the Republicans hadn't brought it up just because I wouldn't have known about enough to care, if at all" has some validity to it.

"Now that it is in the public discourse the only allowed opinions are 100% Democratic or 100% Republican" does not.

Again, you are fixated on 2 sides. You can be a Libertarian or a Green Party, but still see that an opinion that Warren was wrong to do what she didn't actually do but was only accused of having done by Republicans (whew, that's a mouthful!) is by necessity influenced by that Republican accusation.

 

[Belz...]

On this subject, I have indicated my agreement with Belz...' list of A-F, and I have certainly not informed myself from Fox News or Breitbart. So is my opinion my own, or am I a parrot for media that I didn't consume?

Sorry, man. You've disagreed with Wareyin, and he definitely, absolutely only has face-based, not-influenced-by-his-tribe opinions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again, you are fixated on 2 sides. You can be a Libertarian or a Green Party, but still see that an opinion that Warren was wrong to do what she didn't actually do but was only accused of having done by Republicans (whew, that's a mouthful!) is by necessity influenced by that Republican accusation.

So basically an absolute, across the board rejection of any possibility that any disagreement, no matter how small, with how Elizabeth Warren associated herself with Native American culture and heritage you reject as obviously Republican in nature, Republican backed, or Republican influenced is the hill you're gonna die defending.

That's a brick wall. That's impossible to argue against.

The saddest part is you have a lot of company on that hill. I hope the victory of holding that hill is worth the loss of the war of... ever having meaningful political discourse ever in any context.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, I mean when she was at Texas, and then at Penn. She didn't do it after she was hired at Harvard, where she was tenured.

She was tenured at UH and then moved to UT. While UH is merely a decent law school (Top 50ish, IIRC), UT is typically regarded as one of the top law schools in the country (Top 14, yes that is really a thing among law schools) while also working at Michigan (another Top 14 law school), but not likely having tenure there as a visiting professor. I'm making an assumption that she maintained her tenured status in the move to UT, as that is my experience with other academics and law professors, but I'd be open to any correction.

My point being that her career was taking off, she was well respected by her peers and working at the top law schools in the country. She was not hired to UT or Michigan based on her claims of NA ancestry. She was hired based on her work.

Surely there would be some evidence if this was not the case. And yet all we get are innuendo. And cookbooks.

 

[wareyin]

Wow, that's a pretty blatant lie, Wareyin. Your mask of fact-based rationality is slipping. Remember earlier today when we both made clear that we're talking about ancestry, not tribal membership?

Inconvenient to your narrative?

No, responding to a different poster about a different claim. Do keep up, please.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Even if all the news you consume is from Vox and The Guardian, you could come to the (erroneous) conclusion that her claim of Cherokee ancestry was wrong.

If I read news that is one step removed from the original claimant, I'm not being influenced by the original claimant? Ok....

No, really. How would a position that the Republican accusations are incorrect be different if it were coming from a Green Party member? Libertarian? Etc? It's you and Joe who are hammering everyone else into the 100% Republican or 100% Democratic box.

 

[Belz...]

No, responding to a different poster about a different claim. Do keep up, please.

Pull the other one.

If I read news that is one step removed from the original claimant, I'm not being influenced by the original claimant? Ok....

You're not even trying to respond to my points anymore. You're completely retreated into your alternate reality.

 

[wareyin]

So basically an absolute, across the board rejection of any possibility that any disagreement, no matter how small, with how Elizabeth Warren associated herself with Native American culture and heritage you reject as obviously Republican in nature, Republican backed, or Republican influenced is the hill you're gonna die defending.

That's a brick wall. That's impossible to argue against.

The saddest part is you have a lot of company on that hill. I hope the victory of holding that hill is worth the loss of the war of... ever having meaningful political discourse ever in any context.

So basically a strawman of other's posts in order to dismiss them? I can't say I'm shocked.

 

[Belz...]

So basically a strawman of other's posts in order to dismiss them?

You've lost the benefit of the doubt, Wareyin. We've given you more than ample opportunity to accept and admit that an opinion held by one person can be held by another without the two people being connected in any way. You've just refused to do that because... I guess because you see it as tantamount to breaking your own ideology to pieces.