WAR ROOM LOUNGE V21: ♫♪ Tom Lehrer Awareness Week ♪♫

[HomerThompson]

What strategies do you use when someone obfuscates the discussion and avoids conclusions by making vague allegations? You're leaving me little choice when you can't agree to an inch of common ground. I'm forced to dumb shit down to square one.

The cookbook stuff is here. I see nothing when I search for her denying it was her. Make of it what you will, as it's simply more evidence of what already exists in your link showing she had UPenn list her as a minority.

This dispute is what I say it is because I'm the guy disputing shit. Here it is again. You said Warren never made any claims that amounted to more than having a distant Native American ancestor. I'm saying that claiming to be a Native American is a greater claim than simply having that component to a small degree. This is more of an exercise in linguistics and a demonstration of your tribalism creating bad-faith arguments than it is anything to do with Warren.




Between the rings and the well-documented respect of his peers, your metrics are of little consequence.

3 of those rings are Shaq's.

 

[HomerThompson]

Very nice. Such profound conviction constricts the body nicely when in turbulent motion... How often do you shower Mr. Thompson?

 

[Fawlty]

Between the rings and the well-documented respect of his peers, your metrics are of little consequence.

Easily rephrased as "People tend to remain willfully ignorant, favoring their emotions in the face of conclusive evidence."

 

[senri]

You can't escape it Mr. Thompson. Your health is of primary concern to you alone...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

"Power grab"?

Anyways, he's the best basketball player my adult lifetime, but I recall the facts against Bryant being substantial.

Give me another option that makes sense and don't say justice. Kobe and the aggrieved settled shit 15 years ago.

The facts were that he fucked her and she had Caucasian semen in her rape kit panties. After that it's all speculation. I think it was also the case that it wasn't her job to take him up to his room but she chose to.

 

[senri]

Lost a roast battle because dude wasn't feeding me comebacks and threw me off and now I want to break some shit.

How could you not taste his poetry? This is your calling Mr. Agony...

 

[Trotsky]

First: The invisible and the non-existent look alike so fair point. But given the work that has been done, I think we can affirmatively state that the effect can't be large if it does exist.

It's something similar to pornography for me: you know it when you see it. Growing up watching the Kings, the team had a lot of great players who weren't clutch: Peja Stojakovic, Chris Webber, Ron Artest, Brad Miller, etc. The first two were at one time legitimate candidates for league MVP, but never really entered the discussion of players like Kobe (or Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, etc.) because of that factor, among others.

Second: You're missing out, bro.

Meh, in evaluating professional players' legacies, I don't think metrics are very helpful, important, or attractive to me personally. I like advanced metrics for evaluating collegiate talent (I'm an NFL draft nerd) and figuring out how my board would fall, what players I want my team to pick, etc. But with professional sports, especially with how quickly it evolves, I don't think analytics are nearly as helpful.

Being a baseball fan, I would understand why you would be less averse to them: American professional baseball has been by far the most successful, or rather the most considerate, at retaining its history and making modern rules and regulation, and statistical production accordingly, comparable to those from 100 years ago.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

3 of those rings are Shaq's.

Those of us who watched the team all year and not just in the finals know better. Never ceases to amaze me how people fail to factor in everything that came before. Shaq was clearly the beast on the first run. Less so on the second. By the third Kobe was every bit the player. Once Shaq won that ring and MVP he became more and more spotty, while Kobe was murdering dudes and offense and shutting the opposition down on defense.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's something similar to pornography for me: you know it when you see it. Growing up watching the Kings, the team had a lot of great players who weren't clutch: Peja Stojakovic, Chris Webber, Ron Artest, Brad Miller, etc. The first two were at one time legitimate candidates for league MVP, but never really entered the discussion of players like Kobe (or Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, etc.) because of that factor, among others.

I think we talked about this and I told you I have lots of respect for those Kings teams with Webber and Vlade. Which is pretty good coming from me since they never prevailed in the playoffs. At the time I would have loved Doug Christie back on LA.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What strategies do you use when someone obfuscates the discussion and avoids conclusions by making vague allegations? You're leaving me little choice when you can't agree to an inch of common ground. I'm forced to dumb shit down to square one.

What do you want conceded? I've already noted from the start that we're not arguing about the facts. She said she had a distant NA ancestor. She signed off as being NA on that basis. You're insisting that there is a contradiction there and that it is a grave matter, while my thinking is that given that she said that the basis for the call was that distant ancestor, there's no contradiction, and I think the "issue" is an obvious attempt at partisan smearing.

This dispute is what I say it is because I'm the guy disputing shit. Here it is again. You said Warren never made any claims that amounted to more than having a distant Native American ancestor.

That's not in doubt, though. She didn't.

I'm saying that claiming to be a Native American is a greater claim than simply having that component to a small degree.

But the basis for her claim to be a NA *was* the story about having a distant ancestor. It's hard to proceed when you won't even acknowledge that indisputable fact.

This is more of an exercise in linguistics and a demonstration of your tribalism creating bad-faith arguments than it is anything to do with Warren.

Isn't this just a pathetic attempt at rubber-glueing? Like, we know that she only ever claimed to be a very small part NA, right? You're just mad that based on that, she was registered as a "minority." OK. Your view is noted. As long as the facts are right, I don't see why it matters.

Between the rings and the well-documented respect of his peers, your metrics are of little consequence.

Stats are a big factor in the respect of his peers, and traditional ones are misleading. Also note that advanced metrics still show him as a top-20ish all-time player, which is pretty damned great and something that would inspire respect from peers (and a borderline top-20 player would clearly move his team toward rings, especially if he wasn't even the best player on the team).

I'm not disputing the research on "clutch" performance, but don't the results imply that elevated adrenaline in high-pressure athletic situations has essentially no effect on performance? That seems so strange.

Could be. Or could be that it doesn't affect people differently. Or could be that objective differences in game conditions don't necessarily result in different subjective experiences. Or that a lot of performance is just trained reflexes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Being a baseball fan, I would understand why you would be less averse to them: American professional baseball has been by far the most successful, or rather the most considerate, at retaining its history and making modern rules and regulation, and statistical production accordingly, comparable to those from 100 years ago.

Stats have always been a bigger part of baseball, but other sports are getting into it just as seriously now, in part because it's been hard (which means that teams that do it right get a bigger edge). I'm pretty sure no team would actually allow a belief in clutchness be a factor in any decision-making these days.

 

[Trotsky]

I think we talked about this and I told you I have lots of respect for those Kings teams with Webber and Vlade. Which is pretty good coming from me since they never prevailed in the playoffs. At the time I would have loved Doug Christie back on LA.

Just an insanely talented squad and fun team to watch.

During that 2002 WCF Game 6, this was my expression for the entire second half:

Stats have always been a bigger part of baseball, but other sports are getting into it just as seriously now, in part because it's been hard (which means that teams that do it right get a bigger edge). I'm pretty sure no team would actually allow a belief in clutchness be a factor in any decision-making these days.

Whoa, either general management in MLB is light years better than it is in the NFL, or you're hugely overestimating the objectivity, sophistication, and overall competence of front offices. Every year, millions of dollars and years of franchise opportunity are spent on the basis of illusory considerations and against the weight of statistical analysis.

Most recently, the Buffalo Bills trading up to select Josh Allen was a huge statistical boner. Similarly, in 2014, the Bills trading two years of first round picks for Sammy Watkins was another statistical boner, as he was at best the second rated receiver in the class.

Likewise, there are millions of dollars spent on players who do check the right boxes in terms of statistical analysis but who are clearly not as good as the stats lead on for obvious reasons (Demarco Murray in 2015, Matt Flynn in 2012).

But, even more than that, I would certainly insist that in basketball and football clutchness is absolutely a consideration, whether outright or just due to the fact that it correlates with previous success and with popularity with fans. A good example of this would be the absurd over-valuing of Green Bay Packers receiver Randall Cobb by the NFL free agent market in 2015. Cobb was a very average player by every possible metric, from rudimentary measures like height/weight/speed to more sophisticated measures like yards-per-target and average route separation, yet his production combined with his repeatedly demonstrated clutchness (he's probably the most clutch receiver I've ever personally seen) made for a big pay day.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But the basis for her claim to be a NA *was* the story about having a distant ancestor. It's hard to proceed when you won't even acknowledge that indisputable fact.

I've both never denied that and have incorporated that stipulation all along the way. It's hard to proceed when your substitute inaccurate characterizations for focusing on actual debate. I'm once again acknowledging it. Somehow I doubt that stops you from refusing to find common ground and obfuscating.

Isn't this just a pathetic attempt at rubber-glueing?

No. It's me having a disagreement with you over the philosophy of language. And instead of believing you're not bright enough to grasp the nuance between her various documented claims, I'm accusing you of intellectual dishonesty spawned by partisanship.

Stats are a big factor in the respect of his peers,

I'm assuming the multitude of his peers that have come out saying he's the most revered of his generation have taken stats into account.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

During that 2002 WCF Game 6, this was my expression for the entire second half:
JagsKiddingMe

If you're alluding to officiating I generally avoid scapegoating them, win or lose. Outside the '86 (I think) World Series between the Cards and Royals, I can't think of any instances where I 100% blame officiating for the outcome. It was only game six, but the winning out was made and it was fucking obvious to everyone.

 

[Trotsky]

@Jack V Savage Also, here's a baseball reference for you. The only baseball players that I ever saw that I would consider clutch is David Eckstein. That dude had ice in his veins.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Let's say, in all its ambiguity, that's a fact. What guidance does it really offer in the here and now (as it pertains to there being a difference between claiming to be part something and claiming to be something)?

Do you agree that one distant Native American ancestor makes her a minority, in spite of her genetics and cultural upbringing being overwhelmingly white?

If she's under the impression that she has Native American blood and is brought up with that fact as relevant then I can understand her claiming it. You can't really point to her genetics because it seems she had that test done recently, before she was claiming it in school.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If she's under the impression that she has Native American blood...

What's at issue is how much, and your summation is immediately glossing it over.

You can't really point to her genetics because it seems she had that test done recently, before she was claiming it in school.

Yes, we can exclude the DNA test evidence. But we can acknowledge that many genetic traits are observable and that those we can see are Whitey through and through. Same with the relatives she was surrounded by. So let's try again.

Do you agree that one distant Native American ancestor makes her a minority, in spite of her (and her identifiable family's) known ancestry, physical traits, and cultural upbringing being overwhelmingly white?

 

[Trotsky]

Easily rephrased as "People tend to remain willfully ignorant, favoring their emotions in the face of conclusive evidence."

Please explain the "conclusive evidence." There is nothing conclusive about considering two obscure statistical metrics and discounting much more widely accepted professional metrics. Your post would also seem to be extremely condescending and willfully ignorant in its own right.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What's at issue is how much, and your summation is immediately glossing it over.



Yes, we can exclude the DNA test evidence. But we can acknowledge that many genetic traits are observable and that those we can see are Whitey through and through. Same with the relatives she was surrounded by. So let's try again.

Do you agree that one distant Native American ancestor makes her a minority, in spite of her (and her identifiable family's) known ancestry, physical traits, and cultural upbringing being overwhelmingly white?

Apparently she said she was Native on both sides though right? From different tribes? At that point I could see her somewhat reasonably embracing that as part of her identity, especially if she was raised by parents who did. Her mom claims to have been discriminated against because of her Native ancestry, growing up around stories like that could reasonably impart identification with that identity.

In Brazil they have a more fluid understanding of race where people are more willing to admit mixed ancestry but in the US we tend to definitely pick one or other race so I can understand why she might've been led to embrace a Native identity.

 

[Prokofievian]

Lol Trotsky bringing the Cint.