• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About grego

  • Rank
    The Gadget Play
  • Birthday 05/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    d green!
  • Location
    Germantown, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was at JPRU (also BCCC and Southern MD) in the mid to late 90s and there were a few NOI guys. I became friends with one who I used to tutor. I asked him once what he really thought about me (being a white guy) cuz it was obvious we liked each other. he said you cant help that you're the devil. it was kinda funny. it was also the first time I remember reading propaganda, where a publication (the final call, the NOI newspaper) just lied to their readers about a news story.(I've told this snippet here before about a black female principal being arrested. when I showed him the same story in the Washington post (my girlfriend at the time sent it to me) and it wasn't how the final call had said it happened, I was like why are they not telling you the truth, he was basically like you gotta do what you gotta do. crack a few eggs to make and omelet, etc.
  2. I agree with the idea that peoples attitudes change over time, and had even thought of your same example of gay marriage. while I do believe that that would be a large factor in polling differences of the general population, i'm not sure how much it would change among actual native americans. I wouldn't agree that the Annenberg poll didn't capture how native americans thought about the name, but I would agree with the general finding of the Berkeley study- that the 'more' native one self identifies, the more likely they are to not like the name. this is not unlike the poll published a few years ago that was meant to debunk the Annenberg poll where native American activists (essentially) were surveyed- it matters who, specifically, you are asking. there has been so much dishonest information and so many bad faith arguments put out when it comes to this topic. I can't recall the last article I read concerning the name that didn't contain at least one fake or misleading point, and they rarely concede or mention points in the names favor. this generally leads me to believe that any 'new' information is tainted. I would be interested in an in depth study about native americans attitudes and why they feel the way they do- the latter part being of particular interest to me, in large part because of the aforementioned misinformation. when it comes down to it at this time, I don't have any feeling about the name. not anymore. the only thing I care about is if the arguments for and against are in good faith.
  3. I'm not sure they aren't correct. The man who conducted the annenberg poll doesn't personally like the name, yet stands by the results. That's a hostile witness. So is the Washington Post. I'll take a professional, credible polling company over that Berkeley study unless there is reason to believe the Berkeley study is more accurate.
  4. a point likely lost in this exchange is, why did he feel so confident that his point was correct? it's because virtually all of the information that we consume, however we get our 'news', has been saying this. we have heard native American activists speak on the subject as if natives are of one voice and the topic and it is settled. but they are, in fact, in the vast minority when we look at objective polling data. its a warping of reality thats a result of filter bubbles and people playing loose with the facts for some ideological goal. we would be better off as people if we thought logically and critically about things we think are true rather than emotionally before forming firm opinions. and we modify our opinions based on the new information rather than doubling down.
  5. i'm not sure that's true. this story was broken by glenn greenwald and the intercept. then katie halpern did her interview. rich mchugh and ryan grim were among the first to pursue it. it looks like republicans just jumped on board once the ball got rolling. its dems/biden vs progressives/Bernie backers and republicans on this issue.
  6. forgot to mention- I advocate going to sources you don't normally like (or even trust) because, in these politicized cases, the left is going to report more favorably in cases where their guy is being looked at, and the right is going to report more favorably in cases where their guy is under the microscope. its just the way it is. I want to know the counter arguments to my arguments. that way i'll know of I have a good argument. so the way to do that is to look at what the other side is saying. theres a great saying by john stuart mill that I love - "he who knows only his side of the case knows little of that". that, and 'if you want to truth to stand clear before you, you can be neither for nor against'. isn't it weird how almost all republicans thought blasey ford was lying, while democrats completely believed her? strangely, republicans believe reade, while not too many dems do. and it has little to do with the evidence or lack thereof.
  7. whats being looked at when comparing the veracity of those 2 claims is a lot more than that, though. you can isolate individual parts of a claim, compare and draw conclusions, but they are going to be flawed because they are incomplete- they are smaller parts of a bigger picture. a good chunk of my criminal justice degree (just finished a few months can't see, but this is me patting myself on the back right now ) was looking at cases and why people were convicted, and sometimes why they were later found to be innocent. these cases are maddening to me. they are often led by bad cops, bad attorneys, bad judges, or just bad science. if you want to lose your mind, look at bite mark 'science' from the 90s and how many innocent people that junk put away. so you look at many of these popular or politicized cases - central park 5 is a really good one, west Memphis 3, Amanda Knox, cyntoia brown, every prisoner Km Kardashian tweets about, and look at what people are writing about them- why do they think they are innocent (or guilty). in virtually every case, people are relying on bad or incomplete information. heres an example- you can google 'dna evidence exonerates the central park 5' and find that statement all over the place reported as fact. it's false. that's because people don't know or want to take the time to learn about the case. when it comes to something as difficult to know as these two cases, they way I would look at it, if I were looking for the truth (besides taking a stance of neither for nor against and not looking for what I wanted to be true) I would make a mental list of all of the agreed upon facts about the case. to get this, you probably will have to look at a lot of sources, including sources you don't normally look at. everybodys got an angle. you have to cover all bases. in the cases I mentioned above, you can go straight to the court documents which are pretty much all available online to get the facts. I go down rabbit holes and obsess. there are strong points and weak points to both of those cases but the totality of evidence and whether or not there are reasonable explanations for the weak points help determine how credible they are. (tshile, i'm working on your reply, btw)
  8. Let me re-read up on the actual rewritten or deleted parts tomorrow. I didn't see that it was actual facts that were removed or rewritten (which, if they were wrong, absolutely should be corrected). And, as such, noted in the article that or was edited (which, allegedly it wasn't). My pet peeve is the media, how honest and factual they are, and how things are framed for effect. I shudder at the general thought that a prestigious outlet like the NYT would (allegedly) stealth edit an editor approved article in general- it should be noted somewhere in the article, if it wasn't. I think this may be one of those things that are perceived differently by different people but I could have my facts wrong as well. Appreciate the feedback, though, as always.
  9. oh, no doubt there could be completely legitimate reasons to go back and edit an article after being published. to admit that you changed it after approving it because a presidential hopeful didn't like the way it sounded is, at the very least, a bad look. why is a political campaign telling the biggest, most respected newspaper in the world what to print? it just shouldn't be that way. it didn't used to be that way. not like this.
  10. yep. dean baquet actually admitted it. "Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say."
  11. the new york times is legit as it comes. but if they are stealth editing their stories at the behest of a political campaign, you are opening yourself up to criticism.
  12. re- gillibrand supporting biden. that bothers me. she threw herself behind emma sulkowicz (aka mattress girl)- about as discredited an accusation as as youre likely to find-, but reade's story is beyond the pale? I hate politics.
  13. I noticed that too. I don't know how far back they were filming, but it seemed like quite a long time. there was also footage which looked like cell phone footage, from times like when he the dude (cant recall who it was) and realized he no longer owned his tv show. a week before the fire. I finished the show last night and I really liked it. I wonder, when it comes to these pseudo documentary type shows, if we are getting the whole story. these shows are made to elicit an emotional response to keep you engaged. when making a murderer was on, there was outrage- some of it justified, no doubt, but much of it not. purposely leaving out exculpatory evidence makes it seem like there was this huge injustice. same with 'when they see us'. you will be convinced of someones guilt or innocence based on a completely manufactured, selective, one sided view of events. its essentially rage bait. when it came out that Michael Moore staged the scene in bowling for columbine where he comes out of the bank with the rifle, I felt like I was being manipulated and lied to (because I was). that drives me nuts. I don't mind being told a story, but i'd like to know all of the facts. in Moores case, hell, in steven averys case and the central park 5 case, there are legitimate discussions that can be had. but its counter productive to twist facts and obfuscate the truth.