At Least They're Honest

About their racism and zenophobia.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hard-right-republicans-forming-new-caucus-protect-anglo-saxon-political-n1264338

It reads like a script treatment for a political satire.

Who TF elects these people? We can call these reps crazy racists but thousands must love their positions. And contribute money.

Even the despised Hawley and Cruz in the Senate are raking it in. 

GL2 said:

Who TF elects these people?

Bad people.

My limited knowledge of English History leads me to believe that there aren't any Anglo-Saxons. I thought the original inhabitants were the Angles who were invaded by the Saxons, who were in turn conquered by the Normans.

I hope someone forms a Visigoth Caucus

All kidding aside -

"Anglo Saxon" is how fans of the antebellum South and the "Lost Cause" describe the white supremacist society that was on the losing end of the War of Treason in Support of Slavery.

.

nohero said:

It reads like a script treatment for a political satire.

 Let me introduce you to the United States in the years 2016 - 2020...

STANV said:

I hope someone forms a Visigoth Caucus

 The Goth Caucus held its first meeting last week.

STANV said:

My limited knowledge of English History leads me to believe that there aren't any Anglo-Saxons. I thought the original inhabitants were the Angles who were invaded by the Saxons, who were in turn conquered by the Normans.

I hope someone forms a Visigoth Caucus

 Original inhabitants were Celts. Angles and Saxons were initially brought in as mercenaries by Romans, then more settled as the Romans retreated, the Celts were mostly forced out of England into Wales. Essex county, interestingly enough, is named after the land of East Sax, as the Saxons settled in south east England. The Angles settled north and east of London, and were simply known as the Folk, and their lands were Norfolk and Suffolk. Further north of that was Danelaw, were settlers from Denmark lived. Then the Normans came. It’s the primary reason why there are so many different regional accents in the UK.

Klinker said:

 The Goth Caucus held its first meeting last week.

 Had to check to see if I know any of them.

Ridski,

Thanks for the history but one of the articles I found by googling said that the term "Celts" did not describe any early group and came into use much later.

“One of the articles I found by googling” is among the funniest lines in fact checking.

In any case, does a later introduction disqualify a term from being meaningful and valid?

DaveSchmidt said:

“One of the articles I found by googling” is among the funniest lines in fact checking.

In any case, does a later introduction disqualify a term from being meaningful and valid?

 While the Public Library is closed on Sunday. I was talking a Wikipedia Article on Anglo-Saxons. Sometimes they are fairly accurate. 

I have no idea if the author of the following is correct but for your consideration an article that argues that the Celts and Anglo-Saxons as ancestors of most in Britain is wrong.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

STANV said:

I have no idea if the author of the following is correct but for your consideration an article that argues that the Celts and Anglo-Saxons as ancestors of most in Britain is wrong.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

 This should be interesting.

STANV said:

DaveSchmidt said:

“One of the articles I found by googling” is among the funniest lines in fact checking.

In any case, does a later introduction disqualify a term from being meaningful and valid?

 While the Public Library is closed on Sunday. I was talking a Wikipedia Article on Anglo-Saxons. Sometimes they are fairly accurate. 

 and the google does link to academic papers, so I'm not sure why finding evidence via online search is so funny.  As with anything, consider the source when you find one, whether it's in the library or on the inter tubes.

DaveSchmidt said:

“One of the articles I found by googling” is among the funniest lines in fact checking.

no it's not.

what do you use, your private card catalog?

I still think it’s funny. Write it off as an inside joke for fact-checkers (I married one), if you wish.

Well, since we all use google as our primary research assistant (except, I guess, for you), it comes off as a pretty snide denigration of our researching techniques.

Don't you think?

DaveSchmidt said:

I still think it’s funny. Write it off as an inside joke for fact-checkers (I married one), if you wish.

 It is funny.  It's another way of saying, "I found it on the internet".

Easy solution is to identify the source that was "found by googling". That's useful information, instead of just how you found it.

drummerboy said:

Well, since we all use google as our primary research assistant (except, I guess, for you), it comes off as a pretty snide denigration of our researching techniques.

Don't you think?

Of course it was a snide denigration, backed up with a genuine laugh. That’s, in part, how fact-checkers maintain their sanity when even professional writers cite, to paraphrase nohero, “something I found on the internet.” (They’ll identify the source, but without verifying its accuracy or chasing down better, primary sources, so it remains no more authoritative than “I found it on the internet.”)

You would deny fact-checkers their sense of humor and their sanity? There aren’t many other rewards.

Do fact checkers never use google?

I'm not getting the joke.

It's one thing to say "I found it on the internet".

It's another to say "I found it on the internet, and here's the link, so that you can judge its veracity".

drummerboy said:

I'm not getting the joke.

It's one thing to say "I found it on the internet".

It's another to say "I found it on the internet, and here's the link, so that you can judge its veracity".

You had to be there.

... one of the articles I found by googling said ...

STANV said:

I have no idea if the author of the following is correct but for your consideration an article that argues that the Celts and Anglo-Saxons as ancestors of most in Britain is wrong.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry

Oppenheimer’s conclusion appears to have been overtaken in the last 14 years, which is a long time in genetic research. If I understand correctly, the current belief is that a Bell Beaker genetic wave from central Europe and the Asian steppes, not from Iberia, left its stamp on most of Britain during the Bronze Age, and that the later Celts, Angles and Saxons who migrated were all congruent with that wave.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

I'm not getting the joke.

It's one thing to say "I found it on the internet".

It's another to say "I found it on the internet, and here's the link, so that you can judge its veracity".

You had to be there.

... one of the articles I found by googling said ...

with jokes like that, fact-checkers conventions must be a laff riot!

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

I'm not getting the joke.

It's one thing to say "I found it on the internet".

It's another to say "I found it on the internet, and here's the link, so that you can judge its veracity".

You had to be there.

... one of the articles I found by googling said ...

with jokes like that, fact-checkers conventions must be a laff riot!

 well, you know how humor can be subjective.

or can it?

ml1 said:

with jokes like that, fact-checkers conventions must be a laff riot!

 Actually, it's a conference, not a convention.

drummerboy said:

I'm not getting the joke.

It's one thing to say "I found it on the internet".

It's another to say "I found it on the internet, and here's the link, so that you can judge its veracity".

Right, and the comment was in response to an example of the former.