The Political Satire/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 13,619 comments
  • 720,070 views

Michelle Obama's shared genes with Melvinia would be tiny. Basically no more than a 2nd or 3rd cousin after 5 generations. Michele would have 32 ancestors 5 generations back. To claim that this is "their story" or "their family's story" or has some other kind of meaning because a tiny sliver of genetic information can be traced across 5 generations is drastically overstating the importance of family lineage. Even apart from getting into what it means to have shared "genes".

Malvinia's story is a tragedy. Michelle doesn't change it any more than she changed the story for all slaves, simply because we can guess that if Michelle could be transported back to their time she'd be a slave (in some states).
 
Michelle Obama's shared genes with Melvinia would be tiny. Basically no more than a 2nd or 3rd cousin after 5 generations. Michele would have 32 ancestors 5 generations back. To claim that this is "their story" or "their family's story" or has some other kind of meaning because a tiny sliver of genetic information can be traced across 5 generations is drastically overstating the importance of family lineage. Even apart from getting into what it means to have shared "genes".

Malvinia's story is a tragedy. Michelle doesn't change it any more than she changed the story for all slaves, simply because we can guess that if Michelle could be transported back to their time she'd be a slave (in some states).
I wondered what kind of reaction I'd get to this photo.

If Michelle can claim Malvinia as an ancestor then surely Malvinia's family can claim Michelle as a descendant of hers as they so chose on her gravestone. You can downplay it if you like but I don't think many people would agree with you and the family certainly wouldn't. It's like saying that Roots was meaningless. An opinion on minorities that would appear to be a minority opinion judging by the runaway success of the book and TV series at the time.
 
Last edited:
I wondered what kind of reaction I'd get to this photo.

If Michelle can claim Malvinia as an ancestor then surely Malvinia's family can claim Michelle as a descendant of hers as they so chose on her gravestone. You can downplay it if you like but I don't think many people would agree with you and they certainly wouldn't. It's like saying that Roots was meaningless. An opinion on minorities that would appear to be a minority opinion judging by the runaway success of the book and TV series at the time.

Yes, people think family lineage is super important. They're wrong. Most of those same people understand that it is not important once a family member becomes abusive or starts doing horrible things. People wouldn't generally assume that a descendant of Adolph Hitler (if that exists) is also a horrible person or guilty of Adolph's crimes. But then we'd like to claim it the other way, and that's nonsense.

Family lineage is a lot like racism, they share much of the same arguments.
 
Can you explain why it's meaningful? I explained why it's not.
I can't explain why it's meaningful to individuals. They have to make that decision on their own. But I suspect genealogy is a thing because people want to impose a narrative structure on their genetic history rather than just throw it out after a set number of generations.

As to your edit I find it hard to accept that family lineage has harmed as many people as has racism over the years so conflating the two is probably not super-helpful.
 
Last edited:
I can't explain why it's meaningful to individuals. They have to make that decision on their own. But I suspect genealogy is a thing because people want to impose a narrative structure on their genetic history rather than just throw it out after a set number of generations.

Racism is a thing for similar reasons.
 
The Washington Post fact checks Trump.
EbhrCZnVcAE75mb

:lol::lol::lol::lol:👍

From Birth of a Nation
EbiSEBnXkAIyBDg

Democrat president Woodrow Wilson

In the 1920's the KKK was the violent wing of the Democrat party. In the 2020's Antifa has taken up that role.

 
Don't Democrats run the vast majority of cities though? Who runs the 20 safest cities in America? Are they mostly Republican run?

It's sort of hard to say because if you look at the safest cities in America, their populations are fairly low and they're almost always in a wealthy area. This is the best I could find for cities with metro areas.

1. Virginia Beach, VA - Mayor Bobby Dryer (R)
2. Honolulu, HI - Mayor Kirk Caldwell (D)
3. Lexington, KY - Mayor Linda Gorton (R)
4. Anaheim, CA - Mayor Harry Sidhu (D)
5. San Diego, CA - Kevin Faulconer (R)
6. El Paso, TX - Mayor Dee Margo (R)
7. San Jose, CA - Mayor Sam Liccardo (D)
8. Austin, TX - Mayor Steve Adler (D)
9. Mesa, AZ - John Giles (R)
10. Tampa, FL - Jane Castor (D)

So split 50/50, but this is just one list. You could easily search and find a different list of ten cities claiming to be the safest. One I found didn't have a single city with more than 19,000 people in it, that's not exactly a major city in my opinion, but I'd be willing to bet they're all Republican ran.
 
Michelle Obama's shared genes with Melvinia would be tiny. Basically no more than a 2nd or 3rd cousin after 5 generations. Michele would have 32 ancestors 5 generations back. To claim that this is "their story" or "their family's story" or has some other kind of meaning because a tiny sliver of genetic information can be traced across 5 generations is drastically overstating the importance of family lineage. Even apart from getting into what it means to have shared "genes".

Malvinia's story is a tragedy. Michelle doesn't change it any more than she changed the story for all slaves, simply because we can guess that if Michelle could be transported back to their time she'd be a slave (in some states).

It's a bit of a stretch to call it tiny when considering it's possible for 2nd cousins to share as much as 760 cMs and the average for 1st cousins is around 850 cMs.
 
It's sort of hard to say because if you look at the safest cities in America, their populations are fairly low and they're almost always in a wealthy area. This is the best I could find for cities with metro areas.

1. Virginia Beach, VA - Mayor Bobby Dryer (R)
2. Honolulu, HI - Mayor Kirk Caldwell (D)
3. Lexington, KY - Mayor Linda Gorton (R)
4. Anaheim, CA - Mayor Harry Sidhu (D)
5. San Diego, CA - Kevin Faulconer (R)
6. El Paso, TX - Mayor Dee Margo (R)
7. San Jose, CA - Mayor Sam Liccardo (D)
8. Austin, TX - Mayor Steve Adler (D)
9. Mesa, AZ - John Giles (R)
10. Tampa, FL - Jane Castor (D)

So split 50/50, but this is just one list. You could easily search and find a different list of ten cities claiming to be the safest. One I found didn't have a single city with more than 19,000 people in it, that's not exactly a major city in my opinion, but I'd be willing to bet they're all Republican ran.
So the less people per locale/settlement/whatever, the less person-on-person crime? That sounds like a vaguely unfair criterion to me as that doesn't make the crime sound like a result of Democrat policies but of the higher population.
 
But a lot less benign. I can't see ancestry.com going the way of the KKK any time soon.
Maybe we've been better at getting over lineage than race. In the past discrimination by lineage was certainly a societal norm in some places with royal blood lines and the like.
 
:lol:

...I'm not the biggest REM fan in the world, but had a soft spot for their single "Losing my religion." Now I won't be able to listen to it without recalling this little piece of brilliance.

[Warning: includes an F-bomb]

 
Perhaps he could do "Shiny Trumpy People Holding Hands" as a follow up...

Maybe we've been better at getting over lineage than race. In the past discrimination by lineage was certainly a societal norm in some places with royal blood lines and the like.
I'm not actually sure what this even means and don't think people'll be "getting over" racism any time soon while other people continue to use it as an excuse to infringe upon their human rights.
 
I'm not actually sure what this even means and don't think people'll be "getting over" racism any time soon while other people continue to use it as an excuse to infringe upon their human rights.
What I took from your post is that it's less likely for people to discriminate using lineage than race. I was wondering if that's an absolute or only something applicable to the present and not necessarily the past or future.
 
So the less people per locale/settlement/whatever, the less person-on-person crime? That sounds like a vaguely unfair criterion to me as that doesn't make the crime sound like a result of Democrat policies but of the higher population.

Exactly, the more dense the population and the more people come in contact with each other, the more there will be an opportunity for crime. Of course Trump being Trump will say it's the demogorgons again, can't run their cities. He'll take any correlation he comes across to use against them.
 
So the less people per locale/settlement/whatever, the less person-on-person crime? That sounds like a vaguely unfair criterion to me as that doesn't make the crime sound like a result of Democrat policies but of the higher population.

Pretty much. Scale up the population and poof, you have more crime because there are more people. While there are certainly some Democrat or Republican policies that lead to crime, it's not the sole reason. If anything I'd say the Republican stance on drugs leads to the most crime. Legalize drugs or, at the very least quit fighting a war on them, and crime will go down.
 
What did they save it from?
I don't know.
It's just a crowd of strangers from a protest movement in a country where similar protesters are known for looting and attacking the police. They are trespassing on a property and they know that its owners are lawyers defending police officers.

What can possibly go wrong?
Mark McCloskey told KMOV-TV that a mob rushed toward the home as the family was having dinner and “put us in fear of our lives.”

“This is all private property. There are no public sidewalks or public streets. We were told that we would be killed, our home burned and our dog killed. We were all alone facing an angry mob,” McCloskey said.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/midw...0200629-rlyrtkk7avcwbeos47gidmv34u-story.html
 
I don't know.
It's just a crowd of strangers from a protest movement in a country where similar protesters are known for looting and attacking the police. They are trespassing on a property and they know that its owners are lawyers defending police officers.

What can possibly go wrong?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/midw...0200629-rlyrtkk7avcwbeos47gidmv34u-story.html
We know what they told the press.

Seems like this might be better off on the America thread where these points have already been discussed at length.
 
I don't know.
It's just a crowd of strangers from a protest movement in a country where similar protesters are known for looting and attacking the police. They are trespassing on a property and they know that its owners are lawyers defending police officers.

What can possibly go wrong?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/midw...0200629-rlyrtkk7avcwbeos47gidmv34u-story.html

We know what they told the press.

Seems like this might be better off on the America thread where these points have already been discussed at length.

Early post on the subject. A couple pages of discussion follow.
 

Latest Posts

Back