30 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2019
    1. how many fake accounts did Facebook report being created in Q2 2019?  Only 2.2 billion, with a “B,” which is approximately the same as the number of active users Facebook would like us to believe that it has. A comprehensive look back at Facebook’s disclosures suggests that of the company’s 12 billion total accounts ever created, about 10 billion are fake.  And as many as 1 billion are probably active, if not more. (Facebook says that this estimate is “not based on any facts,” but much like the false statistics it provided to advertisers on video viewership, that too is a lie.)

      I truly wonder how many Facebook accounts are real.

  2. Jun 2019
    1. In Trump’s first TV ad of the presidential primary in 2015, he used an image of a mass of immigrants; fact-checkers revealed the picture was in fact taken in Morocco.

      Yet another example of Trump anchoring himself in lies and disinformation.

    1. Warren’

      I suppose I may be a bit biased, being a "Warren" college student. ; ) In all honesty however it is likely that it is the high profile nature of the claim, and the intense politicization that brings so much publicity to this particular case.

    2. Donald Trump, have mocked the senator’s claims by calling her “Pocahontas.”

      Wow! such a shame :(

    3. Ultimately, the panel expressed hope that instead of continuing to double down on her ancestry claims

      What more can Elizabeth Warren do to placate the Cherokee? It looks like this might seriously hurt her campaign, and if she does become president, then this could simply sour relations between the United States and the Cherokee. Some have accepted her apology, and “understand that she apologized for causing confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and the harm that has resulted,” Julie Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the tribe said. “The chief and secretary of state appreciate that she has reaffirmed that she is not a Cherokee Nation citizen or a citizen of any tribal nation.”

      But others are still not satisfied. “This still isn’t transparent,” said Twila Barnes, a Cherokee genealogist who has been critical of Ms. Warren’s claims of native ancestry since it became national news in 2012. “She needs to go public and say she fully takes responsibility and that the DNA test was ridiculous. There is still something about this that feels off.” It seems that only time will tell in this case. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-cherokee-dna.html

    4. eugenics

      I believe the precise term to be used here is Anthropometry, or human measurement, which was a key aspect of pre-genetic Eugenic ideology, and continues today in genetic biology, under more 'subtle' labels such as euthanizing, sterilizing, or preventing intermarriage between people with 'genetic diseases.' http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/6.html (I mean i'm not saying I am denying genetic disease research and treatment is based on science, but so was eugenics back in the day, it's just science has 'improved' since then... or has it? Maybe, but it is policy that is more important in these regards.)

    5. “Native nations have a fundamental right to weigh in when one makes a claim to kinship.”

      What does this mean exactly? This is extremely important and I don't know exactly what is being articulated here.

    6. ancestry, background, and blood, rather than citizenship, nationhood, and sovereignty, which subtly undermines recognition and the sovereign status of tribal nations.

      This isn't really subtle at all. Most of the public I speak to outside of my family and college seem to view Native Americans as a racial classification that receives certain government benefits as reparations based on past discrimination. Reservations tend to be spoken of as segregated zones, rather than sovereign nations. Public misconceptions by Non-Natives seem to inform the issue.

    7. Warren’s statement betrays a deep misunderstanding of Native nationhood. “Even though histories of colonialism have made our processes of defining citizenship messy, complicated, painful, and even racist,” he said, “Native nations have a fundamental right to weigh in when one makes a claim to kinship.”

      This statement is vague because it does not clarify what the misunderstanding is, and what it means to weigh in, and precisely what kinship means. Ethically, what is the distinction here? Did Warren make an ethical violation when she publicly claimed to have Cherokee ancestry, without first notifying tribal authority? What constitutes as kinship, versus ancestry. It seems to take the power away from individual identity, and grant it to institutions. It is an opportunity cost of self-determination. What would be the proper course of action for Warren to take afterwards? Make a public apology, or publicly make a statement denying kinship?

    8. “I am not enrolled in a tribe, and only tribes determine tribal citizenship. I understand and respect that distinction. But my family history is my family history.”

      Based on this Rhetoric, she sounds sincere, but what is so controversial about this statement? Are there other statements where she made different kind of claims?

    9. “They all descend from full-blooded Cherokee great-grandmothers,”

      Assimilation and 'whitewashing' could indeed produce a large number of un-enrolled people who are of Cherokee descent, and also produce false accounts where people genuinely believe they have some Cherokee ancestry but are mistaken based on an old family story. What is implied here is that there is a malicious, intentional fabrication of Native Ancestry to advance one's own personal agenda. There is a fine line between a claim that should illicit the response, "Really? How neat, what an interesting heritage story," and "I see under race/ethnicity you put down 'Cherokee' on your application. That is very serious claim, do you have any documentation?" I think there is a difference. How harmful is it for someone to claim 'unofficial' or unverifiable ancestry, and what problems does this present? How should these be viewed/enforced differently.

    10. “I Have a Native Ancestor”

      Only a fraction of a percentage of Americans claim to be Cherokee, but high profile cases make a big impact. "In 2000, the federal census reported that 729,533 (0.26%) Americans self-identified as Cherokee. By 2010, that number increased, with the Census Bureau reporting that 819,105 (0.26%) Americans claimed at least one Cherokee ancestor" https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/cherokee-blood-why-do-so-many-americans-believe-they-have-cherokee-ancestry.html

      About 300,000 Cherokee are enrolled, so that is under half of all Americans who claim to be of Cherokee descent. In other words, there is about 3 Americans who claim to be Cherokee for every 2 enrolled Cherokee. It is difficult to say how big of a problem this really is; it could be a minor inconvenience, or it could be a catastrophic threat. It is difficult to say how this should or can be enforced. It could be that a simple fine could dissuade people, or even a public service announcement, or this may be a breach of freedom of speech. Maybe only in instances where fraud is involved, for financial gains or in high profile cases? It is hard to say.

  3. Jan 2019
    1. To read it is co learn how the "humanities crisis" started, how the conception oflanguage as value-free and ideally transparent underwrote the modern world.

      To read it is also to learn how/why we have been lied to and how/why we will continue to lie to ourselves and others.

      ~ shout out to my homie Nietzsche ~

  4. Feb 2018
    1. Trump claimed that the wall would cost only $12 billion, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) internal report in February put the cost at $21.6 billion, but that may be a major underestimate.

      Trump estimated a price that would sound convenient for him to gain support meanwhile the true estimate was far-fetched.

  5. Jun 2017
    1. Fetch the will hither, and we shall determine How to cut off some charge in legacies.

      Mark Antony's speech at the Senate House in Act III Scene II appealed to the values and emotions of the Roman public to ignite a rebellion against the conspirators. A key element of his rhetoric centred on Julius Caesar's will; seventy-five drachmas were to be issued to each citizen. It was the generosity of Caesar that Mark Antony used to persuade a mutiny.

      Ironically, in the privacy of his home, Antony commands Lepidus to "fetch the will" to "determine how to cut off some charge in legacies." He wants to realise the funds in Caesar's will to raise and army against Brutus and Cassius.

      Here Antony is presented as manipulative and avaricious, which contrasts the loyal Tribune the audience was first introduced to. His ascension was made possible by offering to honor Caesar's will, a promise which he obviously has no intention in fulfilling.

      From his speech in the Capitol to the end of the play, Mark Antony is confident, ambitious, successful and ruthless. He displays no concern for the Roman citizens as they suffer in the civil upheaval, he is willing to execute a nephew instead of argue for his life, and he only upholds the bare minimum of Caesar's legacy to maintain totalitarian control over the Roman Empire.

  6. Feb 2017
    1. I mean the doctrine of Usage. The doc-0 trine that there is a right or a good use for every -\+,....+ word and that literary virtue consists in making rtut...;..l. that good use of it

      It feels like we are finally getting to his most important point. This also seems related to Nietzsche, to an extent, in that to claim a "right" or "good" usage implies that we can improve on language by narrowing it, but this sort of view of language ignores that it's all just a system of metaphor.

    1. the liar, whom no one trusts and everyone excludes.

      I wonder what Nietzsche would think about the Trump Administration's rise to power. The "success" of D. Trump and his cronies (Spicer, Conway, etc.), who lie time and time again, seems to contradict this comment?

  7. Jan 2017
    1. greeted by a raucous overflow crowd of some 400-plus CIA employees.

      False. Trump brought a group of supporters to his visit with the CIA. CIA employees were not cheering him. See CBS News, January 23, 2017.

    2. magnetometers

      False. "In fact, a United States Secret Service spokesperson told CNN, no magnetometers were used on the Mall." See CNNMoney, January 21, 2017.

    3. By the way, this applies to any attempts to try to count the number of protestors today in the same fashion.

      False. The women's march in Washington was about 3 times the size of the inauguration, which was close to half a million people. See New York Times, January 22, 2017.

    4. This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe.

      False. 1965 - about 1.2 million people attended Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration; in 2009 an estimated 1.9 million people attended Obama's inauguration; in 2013 about 1 million attended Obama's inauguration. See Washington Post, January 22, 2017.

    5. Secondly, photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall.

      False. There were about 160,000 people in the area of the National Mall leading up to Trump's speech. See New York Times, January 22, 2017.

    6. This was the first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have been used to protect the grass on the Mall.

      "False. Floor coverings were first used in 2013. It’s actually astonishing a White House press secretary would get such a basic fact wrong in a prepared statement from the podium." See Washington Post, January 22, 2017.

    1. “It was a huge crowd, a magnificent crowd. I haven’t seen such a crowd as big as this,” Mr. Hoyer told CNN, quoting Mr. Trump. He added that Mr. Trump did not “spend a lot of time on that, but it was clear that it was still on his mind.”

      Whoa.

  8. Dec 2016
    1. Trump's tweet came just 22 minutes after the Chicago Tribune published comments by Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg, who said he worried that Trump's promises of a more protectionist trade policy could hurt his company, which does robust business with China. Muilenburg told the Tribune that he would urge the president-elect to take a warmer stance toward the kinds of trade deals he railed against on the campaign trail, warning, "If we do not lead when it comes to writing these rules, our competitors will write them for us."

      This is so dangerous, and why isn't this the biggest story of the day?

  9. Oct 2013
    1. THIS WORK NOT INTENDED AS A TREATISE ON RHETORIC

      This class is a lie! However, it seems that we could now break down any type of writing as rhetoric. Even throwing this phrase does not negate the nature of the writing.

  10. Sep 2013
    1. since they pretend to search for truth, but straightway at the beginning of their professions attempt to deceive us with lies

      Seems to state the same ideas as Plato. Truth vs. rhetoric/appearance/deception