Looking at Breitbart, it's just the first (or second) Globe correction. They later corrected their correction (again?) to between 1/64 and 1/1024 or something.
-
-
Replying to @mr_archenemy
Yes, it's (w/high probability) between 1/64 and 1/1024. Which isn't the same as 1/1024. Most probable is 1/256 just from the longest segment, and (w/lesser probability) a bit more from other pieces. Which is consistent with having an admixed Cherokee ancestor more recently.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @mr_archenemy
Every fucking idiot decided this meant 1/1024 because, well, tribalism and lulz and people are fucking idiots.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
and to be further fair to them, i imagine some of them tweeted the 1024 number because that was the only number in one of the Globe's corrections (I think?). a later correction introduced a range?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mr_archenemy
Globe reported 1/32 to 1/512 because they're innumerate; correction fixed the 1/512 but mysteriously didn't mention the 1/32, a bunch of idiots jumped on the corrected 1/1024 as if it were the only number because fuckers don't read.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @mr_archenemy
To some extent, you're falling for the Trump gambit: stake out an extreme position; have someone 'objective' publicly correct it to a factual but still terrible point. 1/256 is about as insignificant an ancestry as 1/1024.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fche @mr_archenemy
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 Retweeted St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 added,
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 @St_RevReplying to @mr_archenemyIt's consistent with an (ethnically) Cherokee great-great-grandmother (4 generations back), which is what she always claimed IIRC. eg: John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee in the mid-19th century, was 7/8th white. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ross_(Cherokee_chief) …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The main problem for her is normal people are never going to look at her and think any sort of claim to heritage even approaches validity. Pat Buchanan would be more convincing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sure, but that's not the claim I'm addressing (nor the one she made, IIRC). She may have *allowed people to think* she was 'Cherokee' in more senses than she actually claimed to be -- that's a slippery slope, and has to be a huge temptation for an ambitious academic.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
well, sure - your point that virtually everyone here is an illiterate and innumerate moron is well-taken, but the controversy that's attracting them is one of perception, based on warren's behavior (her opportunistic interaction with a corrupt system) than the actual math.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
People are getting the math, and the facts, wrong. I'm addressing specific lies. I have already disclaimed that I don't care about the other issues.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.