President of Spokane NAACP Misrepresenting her Race?

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

in order asked...

1. Everywhere I've played spades, in all/predominately black settings, they're called "books," but in all/predominately white settings, they're called "tricks." One exception: white high school athletes who learned spades from black guys tended to call them "books."

2. Using the jokers is also mostly a black thing.

3. In mostly black settings, the order is High Joker, Low Joker, Deuce of Diamonds, Deuce Of Spades, Ace of Spades, King, etc. (Sometimes the deuces are reversed in order.)

4. I agree on the black/red/black/red sorting. i don't know what 'hood that pic is from, but that foolishness would have been unacceptable in East Urban Heights.

Only thing I would add is growing up, jokers were thrown in when playing 2 or 4 handed. If it was 3 handed, jokers in, red deuces out.

They are called books when it is a sure thing in spades (so most wouldn't count the 3 of spades as a sure thing).

[AENeuman]

I think this story going to go from amusimg to sad very soon.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think this story going to go from amusimg to sad very soon.

I still converse with a bunch of people from college. Granted it's been like 20 years but we're all like "that doesn't sound like Josh". Who knows though. Maybe he's some pedo creeper.

[Grover]

HooBoy: Rachel Dolezal Sued Howard University for Discrimination in 2002

This story is a gift and it keeps on giving.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Grover

This story is a gift and it keeps on giving.

And more, add plagiarism.

Rachel Dolezal's Artwork Is Not Only Problematic, It Might Be Plagiarized

Aside from the glaring issues of cultural appropriation and deceit rooted in the images, there also appears to be some plagiarism involved. Twitter user Jolie Adams recently juxtaposed one of Dolezal's acrylic paintings titled "The Shape of Our Kind" with J.M.W. Turner's 1840 work "The Slave Ship." As you can see, the works are nearly identical.

Dolezal's version of the image constitutes the middle panel of a triptych, accompanied by the poetry of her biological brother and published writer Josh Dolezal. She makes no mention of Turner's work, although commenters on her blog certainly do. The first comment, posted by user isabelleduvall, reads: "No shoutouts to JMW Turner?" and others quickly follow suit.

As of publication of this post, over 2,000 Twitter users have accused Dolezal of plagiarism.

[Dutch]

Glorious. Well...good news...she won the law-suit now, bitches!!!

[JPhillips]

As of publication of this post, over 2,000 Twitter users have accused Dolezal of plagiarism.

Why is this at all relevant?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

in order asked...

1. Everywhere I've played spades, in all/predominately black settings, they're called "books," but in all/predominately white settings, they're called "tricks." One exception: white high school athletes who learned spades from black guys tended to call them "books."

2. Using the jokers is also mostly a black thing.

3. In mostly black settings, the order is High Joker, Low Joker, Deuce of Diamonds, Deuce Of Spades, Ace of Spades, King, etc. (Sometimes the deuces are reversed in order.)

4. I agree on the black/red/black/red sorting. i don't know what 'hood that pic is from, but that foolishness would have been unacceptable in East Urban Heights.

This is funny.

[Young Drachma]

Dola:

Rachel Dolezal To Give First Exclusive Interview on ‘Today’ Show | Variety

Following her interview with Matt Lauer on “Today,” Dolezal will also give separate interviews with NBC News and MSNBC, sitting down with Savannah Guthrie on “NBC Nightly News” and Melissa Harris-Perry for MSNBC and NBCBLK, NBCNews.com’s African-American vertical

So umm..yeah. I wonder what they paid her and when the book deal is going to be announced.

[Schmidty]

I'm so tired of this world. Why can't people not just be nice, honest and kind without an agenda? Is that too much to ask?

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I'm so tired of this world. Why can't people not just be nice, honest and kind without an agenda? Is that too much to ask?

You silly

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

You silly

I know. That's why I rarely see the sun anymore. There's no point.

Is it really that hard for people to just love everyone else? I don't get it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Is it really that hard for people to just love everyone else? I don't get it.

An incredible amount of incredibly unlovable people wandering around.

Hell, no shortage of folks that would tell you I'm one of 'em.

So, uh, yeah ... it really IS that hard.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

An incredible amount of incredibly unlovable people wandering around.

Hell, no shortage of folks that would tell you I'm one of 'em.

So, uh, yeah ... it really IS that hard.

I still love ya.

[Suicane75]

[RainMaker]

How is this story so big? A narcissist involved jn activism is par for the course even if her nuttiness goes a little deeper.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How is this story so big? A narcissist involved jn activism is par for the course even if her nuttiness goes a little deeper.

no one wants to miss out on the thrill of an awesome public shaming

[Ben E Lou]

Rachel Dolezal speaks on TODAY Show to Matt Lauer after NAACP resignation - TODAY.com

[ColtCrazy]

Surely there's bigger issues to worry about. The media have already given her more fame than she deserves. Obscurity is the best punishment for her.

[molson]

This is all a weird merging of social media and news. It's something I'd read about at /r/quityourbullshit - a very entertaining sub-reddit in which people confront others who make bullshit claims on facebook, etc. (Like people who post a vacation or girlfriend photo that's clearly just something they found on Google images, or a photoshopped photo with them and a celebrity, etc.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Surely there's bigger issues to worry about. The media have already given her more fame than she deserves. Obscurity is the best punishment for her.

Bigger issues are frequently not nearly as interesting/entertaining as utter trainwrecks.

If an in-depth look at the global economy falls in the forest ...

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bigger issues are frequently not nearly as interesting/entertaining as utter trainwrecks.

If an in-depth look at the global economy falls in the forest ...

True true.


This is a local news issue that we've spent waaay too much time talking about. I so don't care.

[Edward64]

Saw some snippets of her interviews. Pathological liar, doubling down even though she's been caught.

[Apathetic Lurker]

+1

[Edward64]

Here's a consolidation of her statements. Should just stop her interviews and be quiet.

16 Key Takeaways From Rachel Dolezal's Interview With Melissa Harris-Perry

In an interview with NBC's Savannah Guthrie on Tuesday, Dolezal said: "There's no biological proof that Larry and Ruthanne are my parents."

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

no one wants to miss out on the thrill of an awesome public shaming

I think it's more than that. It's not just the fun of watching a public trainwreck and seeing someone who has built a life based on lies have those lies collapse on them in a spectacular way; it's also brought up an interesting and valuable discussion on what exactly "race" means.

Clearly Dolezal feels like race is malleable enough that she has the right to identify as black. And given her history, she probably has more right to claim that status than most white folks.

But just as clearly there are many black folks that feel outrage at this, that there's no way she has had the depth of experience that blacks have had to justify claiming that status, that it's just another example of cultural appropriation. Dolezal can bronze her skin and kink her hair all she wants - there's no way she's had the kind of experiences that a darker skinned woman with a true afro has had, because the outside world sees them differently. At best Dolezal has passed in recent years as a very light-skinned mulatto woman.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

it's also brought up an interesting and valuable discussion on what exactly "race" means.

Not to mention further highlighting the tragic absurdity of just how close common sense is to extinction in this country.

I'll buy that someone can experience a sort of cultural transference. Genetics, however, those aren't a "however I feel today" thing.

[Young Drachma]

She is going to ride this thing to a book deal and maybe a reality show come hell or high water. She is capitalizing on the timing of Caitlyn Jenner's announcement to play right into her audience. She is loving this moment as it validates her 20 years of delusions and finally she's getting the attention she wanted from suing Howard, to marrying and divorcing a black guy, to having her own black kids, to moving to the NW hinterlands claiming hate crimes to teaching Africana studies and heading an NAACP chapter.

She's going to parlay this into a book deal and speaking engagements. This is hilarious but I was wrong when I thought she had an agent. She's not listening to anybody right now, this is her playing from her own playbook.

[Solecismic]

OK. So she's mentally ill. At what point do we stop picking apart the story of a mentally ill woman and focus our blame on a media that has lost sight of what journalism is supposed to mean to a country starving for integrity?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

... to a country starving for integrity?

Not sure whether "malnourished" and "hungry" are the same thing :/

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

OK. So she's mentally ill. At what point do we stop picking apart the story of a mentally ill woman and focus our blame on a media that has lost sight of what journalism is supposed to mean to a country starving for integrity?

part duex:

Media reflects the public, it doesn't create it.

There's articles about "the changing meaning of race" because the lunacy of optional genetics exists, it doesn't exist because there's an article.

[AlexB]

You have to have certain amount of admiration for anyone who can admit to lying but at the same time makes it sound as if she wasn't:

Some of it has kind of a little bit of creative non-fiction with regards to what happened

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

OK. So she's mentally ill. At what point do we stop picking apart the story of a mentally ill woman and focus our blame on a media that has lost sight of what journalism is supposed to mean to a country starving for integrity?

Not in a world driven by clicks. When the hell did the media care about integrity?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Not in a world driven by clicks. When the hell did the media care about integrity?

Before it was a world driven by clicks.

All the President's Men is a wonderful book, and the movie did a good job with it as well.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

part deux:

Media reflects the public, it doesn't create it.

There's articles about "the changing meaning of race" because the lunacy of optional genetics exists, it doesn't exist because there's an article.

The Caitlyn Jenner argument isn't one for the media to decide. There are scientists who argue that there is such a thing as a female or male brain that can be in conflict with the 23rd chromosome pair. As such, and given Jenner's Olympic history and reality television show history, it's a story.

Media doesn't reflect the public these days, it tries to shape the public. In this case, it's trying to shape Dolezal into something she isn't to suit a political agenda that serves no one but the reporters themselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Before it was a world driven by clicks.

You're kidding yourself.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're kidding yourself.

There was a heyday in there when editors had ethics and demanded that reporters do their best to examine all sides of a story.

The descent from that heyday has been so fast and so thorough that I can understand why we've forgotten that journalism ever even existed as a social science.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Media doesn't reflect the public these days

On that point we disagree utterly & completely. We are, socially, every bit as f'ed up as the media.

it tries to shape the public

The two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll buy that someone can experience a sort of cultural transference. Genetics, however, those aren't a "however I feel today" thing.

Sure, but it's not really genetics that drives "race" other than those that drive appearance. I don't think it goes beyond superficial physical characteristics. I think the argument is that race is really about things like culture and perception, namely how others perceive you based on your race and how that shapes you.

That said, I think we're getting to the same position on this - no amount of identifying with and immersing herself in black culture can make up for not being born with the genetic characteristics associated with what we call "black" and thus not having that experience for much of her life as being perceived by others as black.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

There was a heyday in there when editors had ethics and demanded that reporters do their best to examine all sides of a story.

Up to the point it served their interests. Whether those interests were social, political or monetary or a combination.

Whether that's the yellow journalism that sparked the rise in popularity of (then) mass media or as simple as a guy in a small town rewriting the phrases "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" to be "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" at every opportunity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There's a whole other factor to this mess as well: whether she's simply nuts OR if she's simply a con artist from the get go. Again, not necessarily mutually exclusive options.

The same comment I made about Jenner could easily be made here: that it's among the most damning & blatant examples of exploiting the mentally ill the world has ever seen.

I feel largely the same way about this ... EXCEPT that there's a legitimate chance that this gal ain't straight up nuts, she's just incredibly devious.

[jeff061]

Rachel Dolezal was in a SEX TAPE when ex-husband forced her to perform 'sex acts' | Daily Mail Online

This whole thing is just entertaining for so many reasons.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Up to the point it served their interests. Whether those interests were social, political or monetary or a combination.

Whether that's the yellow journalism that sparked the rise in popularity of (then) mass media or as simple as a guy in a small town rewriting the phrases "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" to be "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" at every opportunity.

These days, I understand the criticisms and largely agree with them. And certainly, journalism has its roots in propaganda.

But there was an underlying theory that was practiced at daily newspapers for a time. I have a master's degree in journalism, believe it or not. We had required courses in ethics, in law, taught by professionals who understood these issues at a level far beyond anything we see today (our law course was taught at the Michigan Law School, under their standards).

In reporting classes, we were taught the importance of fact-checking (how to do it properly), and how to source material, and, only in extreme cases, to use "unnamed sources." Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee comprised a prime example.

Back then, editors built a wall between sales/subscriptions and the newsroom. Adjectives were all but banned. They lead to the biases you describe. Editorials were clearly marked and reporters reported. The idea that reporters have an obligation to guide their readers was considered heresy. Write top-down, let the editors decide where to cut it.

It really was a social science for a time. And then, the business model started collapsing. Around the time I finished my master's, newspapers were already condensing. CNN was the beginning of the end. Now, today, with even the cable news networks in a death spiral (they've gone to all opinion, all the time) and the internet rewarding speed over substance, reporting as a science is long gone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But there was an underlying theory that was practiced at daily newspapers for a time. I have a master's degree in journalism, believe it or not. We had required courses in ethics, in law, taught by professionals who understood these issues at a level far beyond anything we see today (our law course was taught at the Michigan Law School, under their standards).

And after spending more than a decade as a journalist in the field (2-time AP Stringer of the Year for Georgia, among other things) I know that very little of what's taught in the classroom translates into reality ... especially ethics courses.

There's theory ... and there's practice.

Don't get me wrong, pretty much all journalists try to apply whatever personal ethics they have to their work. But they're also all human, and the notion that they somehow mystically followed this hypothetical "code" barely resembles any reality I ever saw.

In reporting classes, we were taught the importance of fact-checking (how to do it properly), and how to source material, and, only in extreme cases, to use "unnamed sources."

Yep, that's still taught in practical fashion as well (afaik) ... except it's motivated not by ethics but by the litigious nature of society.

Write top-down, let the editors decide where to cut it.

We'll likely both agree that the shortage of editors these days -- actually honest-to-goodness working editors -- instead of spellcheck makes that pretty much a moot point today.

reporting as a science is long gone.

This comes back to the core of our disagreement. It was, perhaps, a science. There's certainly a best-practices model of doing most tasks, certainly a blend of art & science goes into doing it well. But I'd argue that it was never about "science for science' sake" but rather it virtually always applied, from the highest echelon to the lowliest scribe, to some personal end. Whether that was financial, philosophical, personal (ego), whatever it was.

Just as "all stories are local' so too "all motivations are ultimately personal".

[RainMaker]

I don't think journalism has gotten worse. I think we just have more people out there who can fact check things thanks to technology advances. Journalistic dishonesty is being called out more frequently.

In the past, the NY Times could defend Stalin's policies and downplay his actions and the deaths it led to. Now we'd have photos on Twitter of mass graves, people starving to death in cities, and first hand accounts all over the internet. You couldn't get away with it now, you could back then.

Clickbait isn't something new. Papers had to do unscrupulous things to increase subscriber numbers. There were always journalists with agendas trying to sway public opinion. It's just now it's easier to see how dishonest the industry has always been.

[EagleFan]

I have lost all respect for the world. This nutjob is being offered a reality show (and apparently a porn role was offered as well but that always happens when crazies come out of the woodwork).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I have lost all respect for the world. This nutjob is being offered a reality show (and apparently a porn role was offered as well but that always happens when crazies come out of the woodwork).

Is transracial porn an actual category?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This comes back to the core of our disagreement. It was, perhaps, a science. There's certainly a best-practices model of doing most tasks, certainly a blend of art & science goes into doing it well. But I'd argue that it was never about "science for science' sake" but rather it virtually always applied, from the highest echelon to the lowliest scribe, to some personal end. Whether that was financial, philosophical, personal (ego), whatever it was.

Just as "all stories are local' so too "all motivations are ultimately personal".

Meh. I generally agree with you, Jon, but as, like you, a former working journalist, I can tell you there were plenty of stories when it was "just a job" and I didn't care about the outcome. Just held to the same kinds of principles Solecismic is talking about, wanting only to get the story right.

Of course, I worked in a full newspaper structure, with copy editors and editors, and I generally worked city, fire and police, which is fairly straight forward. What you're saying definitely more applies to the Internet reporting of today, where as you say speed and impact are emphasized over accuracy, and editing is a long-lost theory of past practices.

But, fact is, I couldn't care less about those local stories I wrote, and I didn't have an agenda besides getting it right (and on deadline lol).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But, fact is, I couldn't care less about those local stories I wrote, and I didn't have an agenda besides getting it right (and on deadline lol).

Remember, I did say Whether that was financial, philosophical, personal (ego), whatever it was.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Remember, I did say Whether that was financial, philosophical, personal (ego), whatever it was.

Haha for what I was getting paid, it was barely even financial.