Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered"

[Derec]

Wrong again. The Boston Globe did not confuse correlation with causation - they have statements from the actual decision-makers that refute your "inference".

They don't refute anything, since they are not disinterested witnesses.

The fact Harvard Law School (which is not Harvard University)

The former is a part of the latter. The law school is not an independent entity.

was eager to hire a minority woman law professor and ended up hiring a minority woman law professor

You mean, they hired a woman who claimed to be "minority" but ended up being just another white woman?

does not mean that she was hired because she was a minority and a woman.

There is certainly a theoretical possibility that despite Harvard Law School's eagerness to hire a "woman of color" a woman who claimed to be "of color" was the best candidate. But how likely is that? If you admit to racial preferences, the reasonable conclusion is that these racial preferences do affect hiring outcomes.

When the decision-makers who recommended her hire say that they did not know she was a minority and when the hirers also say that, unless you have evidence they are either delusional or lying, then your claim is unconvincing.

Again, the evidence is that a) Warren went by "American Indian" not only with her family and in her social life but also in her professional life and b) that Harvard Law School wanted to hire a "woman of color". That is evidence. Is it absolute proof? No, but it is unreasonable to expect such. What would you accept anyway? A clandestine recording of the hiring committee deliberations? That is unreasonable.

The fact you cling to it despite the evidence it is not true indicates that it is more faith-based than reason-driven.

Again, I have evidence. As much evidence as can reasonably be expected in this case. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but then again, I am not seeking to prosecute anybody criminally. It is certainly more evidence than that Kavenaugh raped Blasey-Ford 40 years ago.

The Boston Globe article with its statements from the decision-makers demonstrates it is false.

It does not. Decision makers can lie. In fact, they have every reason to in this case. They would not want to admit that they got taken by Elizabeth "Whitey McWhiteface" Warren's claim that she is "American Indian". That Boston Globe took their statements at face value doesn't speak well for their investigative prowess. Woodward and Bernstein they are not!

A lie requires intent to deceive. Another example is the term libel (see below).

We cannot read minds to directly access these two women's intention, but since they had to know they were writing falsehoods (both are lawyers after all, and one is a former prosecutor for fuck's sake) I do not see any other explanation than intentional deception.

Wrong again. There is no proof she lied, hence the printed claim that she lied is libel.

We already know you would not accept anything as "proof" anyway. But it is well known that objectively Michael Brown's killing was not murder, Elizabeth Warren had to know that, and she also (due to her legal training) had to know the definition of "murder". Therefore, she lied, she knew she was lying, and I think Wilson should sue her (and Harris) for libel.
Regular people getting falsely accused of murder by powerful politicians (both are not only running for president but are also sitting senators) is a terrible precedent to set.

 

[Derec]

Clearly you do not. This was not an open faculty position where adverts are placed to search for appropriate candidates. This was a particular position for which Warren was specifically recruited. Of all the faculty who could possibly have been on the committee to hire her, only one said that they did not know if her heritage came up. The others clearly stated that it was never brought up, nor was it used in any hiring decisions.

If she was "specifically recruited" don't you think they'd research her background, which means her self-identification as "American Indian" would be known to them.
I do not buy their professions of ignorance. They have every reason to lie here. For one, Harvard is in the middle of a racial discrimination lawsuit and second, the recruiters would not want to admit they got taken by that paleface's claims that she was Indian (maybe the Wannabe Tribe?)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Following Derec logic, which he alleges is not bigoted, every minority at an American university was accepted because of their race, not qualifications.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I've seen this kind of treatment of white people with a tiny bit of Native American ancestry a lot actually. Vitriolic dismissiveness from various white people AND even some Native Americans as well as nonacceptance as equals by racial purists. It reminds me of a more contemporary, less violent form of how both sides treated what racists called "half breeds." Does anyone stop to think how Warren was born this way-she's just part NA-and anyone who is a tiny bit NA like her will have family stories. But bigots will just keep being bigots.

 

[laughing dog]

They don't refute anything, since they are not disinterested witnesses.

WTF are you babbling about?

The former is a part of the latter. The law school is not an independent entity.

You really don't know what you are talking about. It is basically autonomous.

There is certainly a theoretical possibility that despite Harvard Law School's eagerness to hire a "woman of color" a woman who claimed to be "of color" was the best candidate. But how likely is that? If you admit to racial preferences, the reasonable conclusion is that these racial preferences do affect hiring outcomes.

Except when the decision makers indicate they did not know her race. Duh.

Again, the evidence is that a) Warren went by "American Indian" not only with her family and in her social life but also in her professional life and b) that Harvard Law School wanted to hire a "woman of color". That is evidence. Is it absolute proof? No, but it is unreasonable to expect such. What would you accept anyway? A clandestine recording of the hiring committee deliberations? That is unreasonable.

A simple No would suffice. All you have is correlation = causation.

Again, I have evidence. As much evidence as can reasonably be expected in this case...

If YECers have what they consider to be reasonable evidence.

It does not. Decision makers can lie. In fact, they have every reason to in this case...

Of course they can lie. And misogynistic bigots can use faith-based correlation = causation to perpetrate their bile. While you do not have to believe them, you have no evidence - your unfounded suspicions are not evidence.

We cannot read minds to directly access these two women's intention, but since they had to know they were writing falsehoods (both are lawyers after all, and one is a former prosecutor for fuck's sake) I do not see any other explanation than intentional deception.

Of course you don't.

We already know you would not accept anything as "proof" anyway.

You really don't know much.

But it is well known that objectively Michael Brown's killing was not murder, Elizabeth Warren had to know that, and she also (due to her legal training) had to know the definition of "murder". Therefore, she lied, she knew she was lying, and I think Wilson should sue her (and Harris) for libel.

Oh, because you know what she had to know and believe. You have to know that you cannot know what other people know for sure. Which means that using your standard, you had to know you are lying about this. Fortunately, I know your standard is stupid and unreasonable, so I believe you are not lying.

Regular people getting falsely accused of murder by powerful politicians (both are not only running for president but are also sitting senators) is a terrible precedent to set.

I already said that they had no business bringing this up, because it serves no useful purpose. But that does not mean they are liars.

 

[Derec]

I've seen this kind of treatment of white people with a tiny bit of Native American ancestry a lot actually. Vitriolic dismissiveness from various white people AND even some Native Americans as well as nonacceptance as equals by racial purists.

Actually the frustration with "Wannabe" Indians is strongest from legit American Indians. White people just tend to be amused at the wannabes.

It reminds me of a more contemporary, less violent form of how both sides treated what racists called "half breeds." Does anyone stop to think how Warren was born this way-she's just part NA-and anyone who is a tiny bit NA like her will have family stories. But bigots will just keep being bigots.

Actually it is the exact opposite of what you allege. I have nothing against racial mixing. What I have against is erasing the white part of somebody's ancestry using the racist "one drop" rule. If somebody is mixed white and X, they are not just X. If somebody is 90% white and 10% something else, is it not racist to round it up to "something else" as if the white part of the ancestry doesn't matter.

Warren herself is only ~0.1% Indian. How to you round that up for her to call herself "American Indian"?

 

[Derec]

WTF are you babbling about?

What are you babbling about? Somebody denying something is not in itself a refutation.

Except when the decision makers indicate they did not know her race. Duh.

Which is not a credible denial, as I have explained.

A simple No would suffice. All you have is correlation = causation.

Wrong.

If YECers have what they consider to be reasonable evidence.

Your position is like unto the YECs.

While you do not have to believe them, you have no evidence - your unfounded suspicions are not evidence.

I have shown you the evidence. You keep ignoring it.

We cannot read minds to directly access these two women's intention, but since they had to know they were writing falsehoods (both are lawyers after all, and one is a former prosecutor for fuck's sake) I do not see any other explanation than intentional deception.

Of course you don't.

Oh, because you know what she had to know and believe.

Both of them are lawyers. Both of them know full well how murder is defined and that the justified shooting of Michael Brown doesn't qualify.

I already said that they had no business bringing this up, because it serves no useful purpose. But that does not mean they are liars.

I disagree. They are lying liars who lie.

 

[Derec]

Following Derec logic, which he alleges is not bigoted, every minority at an American university was accepted because of their race, not qualifications.

That is indeed a possibility under a system of racial preferences. The so-called affirmative action is doubly perverse. For one, it discriminates against certain applicants because of race and gender. But more insidious perversion is that it casts suspicion on members of those groups it discriminates in favor of, because of the distinct possibility that somebody was admitted and hired because of race and gender.

 

[laughing dog]

What are you babbling about? Somebody denying something is not in itself a refutation.

More babbling.

Which is not a credible denial, as I have explained.

Your explanation is solely based on your suspicions and nothing else. It is not a credible explanation.

Wrong.

All you have is "They were looking for a minority woman. They hired a minority woman. Ergo, she was hired because she was a minority woman." Basic reasoning shows that is confusing correlation with causation.

Your position is like unto the YECs.

A pathetic "no u r".

I have shown you the evidence. You keep ignoring it.

Your suspicions are not evidence that the decision makers are liars. Either you do not understand what the word"evidence" or the concept of "evidence" or your ideology is blinding your reason.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I've seen this kind of treatment of white people with a tiny bit of Native American ancestry a lot actually. Vitriolic dismissiveness from various white people AND even some Native Americans as well as nonacceptance as equals by racial purists.

Actually the frustration with "Wannabe" Indians is strongest from legit American Indians. White people just tend to be amused at the wannabes.

It reminds me of a more contemporary, less violent form of how both sides treated what racists called "half breeds." Does anyone stop to think how Warren was born this way-she's just part NA-and anyone who is a tiny bit NA like her will have family stories. But bigots will just keep being bigots.

Actually it is the exact opposite of what you allege. I have nothing against racial mixing. What I have against is erasing the white part of somebody's ancestry using the racist "one drop" rule. If somebody is mixed white and X, they are not just X. If somebody is 90% white and 10% something else, is it not racist to round it up to "something else" as if the white part of the ancestry doesn't matter.

Warren herself is only ~0.1% Indian. How to you round that up for her to call herself "American Indian"?

She could be more. The .1% is merely what is uniquely recognized as NA in an algorithm with not enough NA data. Most of the human genome is not unique and much of the "NA genome" is unknown. Moreover, your continued use of wannabe indian is bigoted and mean-spirited.

 

[Arctish]

I've seen this kind of treatment of white people with a tiny bit of Native American ancestry a lot actually. Vitriolic dismissiveness from various white people AND even some Native Americans as well as nonacceptance as equals by racial purists. It reminds me of a more contemporary, less violent form of how both sides treated what racists called "half breeds." Does anyone stop to think how Warren was born this way-she's just part NA-and anyone who is a tiny bit NA like her will have family stories. But bigots will just keep being bigots.

Actually the frustration with "Wannabe" Indians is strongest from legit American Indians. White people just tend to be amused at the wannabes.

Actually it is the exact opposite of what you allege. I have nothing against racial mixing. What I have against is erasing the white part of somebody's ancestry using the racist "one drop" rule. If somebody is mixed white and X, they are not just X. If somebody is 90% white and 10% something else, is it not racist to round it up to "something else" as if the white part of the ancestry doesn't matter.

Warren herself is only ~0.1% Indian. How to you round that up for her to call herself "American Indian"?

She could be more. The .1% is merely what is uniquely recognized as NA in an algorithm with not enough NA data. Most of the human genome is not unique and much of the "NA genome" is unknown. Moreover, your continued use of wannabe indian is bigoted and mean-spirited.

I think we're seeing two sides of the same coin: on one side is white supremacy trying to shame Warren for referring to her Native American ancestry in an unashamed manner, because her being unashamed and successful directly refutes their argument that having mixed or non-white ancestry makes one inferior.

On the other side are racial separatists getting all pissy that there's something noteworthy and maybe even beneficial to being of mixed ancestry that racial purists can't have, because it makes the choice to stay separate a foolish one.