# SCOTUS Wife Virginia Thomas asks Anita Hill to apologize - WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798 "2010-10-20T16:56:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/101 "2010-10-20T19:15:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Define words to my satisfaction? > > What does “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” mean to you, then? We were discussing the words “tone deaf”. You have substituted a different set of words. The vehicle is not a turnip truck, and I did not just fall off of it. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/102 "2010-10-20T19:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > **Originally Posted by Virginia Thomas to Anita Hill’s answering machine** > Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day. If you look closely at the wording of her quote (notwithstanding the impromptu nature of her message once she reached the answering machine), her request could also be that Hill apologize for coming forth, not necessarily for lying. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/103 "2010-10-20T19:16:35Z")
I remember Ms Thomas being interviewed on CBS’s _Sunday Morning_ show, just after the Supreme Court “settled” the 2000 Presidential election. She went on & on about how things were going to change in Washington. How things would be much more polite, after all the mudslinging of the last few years. She managed to ignore the fact that most of the mudslinging was done by Republicans, trying their best to bring down a Democratic president. The interviewer managed to avoid discussing Ms Thomas’s job at the time. She was at the Heritage Society, checking resumes of possible nominees for the incoming Bush administration. Which she had been doing for some time–since _before_ her hubby cast _his_ vote for President. Crazy Republican Tea-Party Bitch. I’m not pretending to be impartial & above it all here. Nor will I quibble about “tone deafness.” And I haven’t managed to watch the _Sunday Morning_ show since that day. Too bad, I really liked it a lot… ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/104 "2010-10-20T19:17:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The tone deafness I have conceded relates not to the message left for Hill, but to Ms. Thomas’ later characterization of that message as an olive branch. You have convinced me that it’s not fair to call the message an olive branch. > > But as to the message itself, it’s not clear to me that Thomas ever intended the message to become public; it seems pretty clear that it was intended only for Hill’s ears. So we’re back to what I was arguing before: if indeed we start from the assumption that Hill deliberately and consciously lied, what makes that message tone deaf? Your definition of “sound bad to most of the public” is not workable, since the message was intended NOT for the public, but for Hill alone. I’ll grant you that “public” is overspecific – please allow me to amend my definition and swap “public” with “intended or likely audience”. (I must say that Ms. Thomas would have to be unusually naive if she didn’t anticipate the message being more widely heard.) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/105 "2010-10-20T19:17:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > More to the point, the OP explicitly invites us to make that assumption. > > He does not say simply that Ms. Thomas was tone deaf. No, no – he says that no matter what you think about what actually happened, she was tone deaf. It is that assumption I attack. > > The OP should withdraw his claim about “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” Heh. I got here late, and am playing catch-up with the thread, but I was going to suggest the same thing. Way to ninja me, counselor. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/106 "2010-10-20T19:18:28Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Yes he is a Justice. Yes he is very intelligent. And yes he is not Scalia Jr. But he is a **horrible** legal writer. Really? It’s possible I’m the legal equivalent of the guy who likes black velvet Elvis prints, but I find him readable, engaging, and as close to persuasive as one can get while still holding the positions that Justice Thomas espouses. I liked his concurrence in _Frederick v. Morse_, for example. That is, I thought it was well-written and interesting, and I enjoyed using it to frighten my high school students. I’d have been very unhappy if it had been the Court’s opinion (as were my students when I told them it was), but it’s not bad as legal writing. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/107 "2010-10-20T19:19:08Z")
Here, Bricker, I offer you an olive branch : Admit you’re a pedantic, sanctimonious troll. There, now I feel better. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/108 "2010-10-20T19:22:49Z")
Alright, **Bricker** - I agree that you have to be willing to call Ginni Thomas tone deaf even if Anita Hill made the whole thing up, as the OP worded it. You have agreed that it’s not an _olive branch_. Now let’s talk about the meaning of _tone deaf_. \*Tone deaf \*does not mean malicious. It does not mean calculated or self-serving. It means unable to see how insensitive your actions and words are - to not be able to predict social reactions _at all_. She was tone deaf. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/109 "2010-10-20T19:23:00Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I wouldn’t say that. If Anita Hill made everything up from whole cloth (which I don’t believe for one second she did) and has maintained this position for 20 years, then asking her to recant and apologize to a man whose career she would, in essence, have attempted to destroy through falsehoods isn’t tone deaf. Yes it is. If she were coming at this with the best of intentions, it would still be perceived as wrong-headed by the other person - regardless of whether that person believed themselves and/or consciously was trying to malign the person. It’s just bad form. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/110 "2010-10-20T19:23:01Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > This had NOTHING to do with that specific situation or previously-held beliefs about the situation - it is generic. It is still tone deaf. > > We clearly have different definitions of tone deaf. OK, I guess we’re in agree-to-disagree mode. I mean, it’s not like “tone deaf” has some kind of laser-like precision of meaning. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/111 "2010-10-20T19:24:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, I guess we’re in agree-to-disagree mode. I mean, it’s not like “tone deaf” has some kind of laser-like precision of meaning. > [@bup](#): > > \*Tone deaf \*does not mean malicious. It does not mean calculated or self-serving. It means unable to see how insensitive your actions and words are - to not be able to predict social reactions _at all_. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/112 "2010-10-20T19:25:18Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > I remember Ms Thomas being interviewed on CBS’s _Sunday Morning_ show, just after the Supreme Court “settled” the 2000 Presidential election. She went on & on about how things were going to change in Washington. How things would be much more polite, after all the mudslinging of the last few years. She managed to ignore the fact that most of the mudslinging was done by Republicans, trying their best to bring down a Democratic president. Being polite and mudslinging have never been mutually exclusive anyway. “It is not my wish to imply that my esteemed opponent has on more than one occasion dined on small children.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/113 "2010-10-20T19:25:53Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Alright, **Bricker** - I agree that you have to be willing to call Ginni Thomas tone deaf even if Anita Hill made the whole thing up, as the OP worded it. You have agreed that it’s not an _olive branch_. Now let’s talk about the meaning of _tone deaf_. > > \*Tone deaf \*does not mean malicious. It does not mean calculated or self-serving. It means unable to see how insensitive your actions and words are - to not be able to predict social reactions _at all_. > > She was tone deaf. I disagree. She might imagine, especially after all this time, that someone who deliberately lied, and knew she had lied, would have those deceptions weighing on her. It’s not tone deaf to imagine that a private call might elicit a private response, even if not a formal admission of lying, some sort of private gesture that implicitly conceded she had done the Thomases wrong. Why is that impossible? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/114 "2010-10-20T19:26:16Z")
Right, IF one assumes A. Hill is the malicious lying bitch that Bricker’s hypothetical supposes she is (only supposing now), then the message comes across as pathetic and naive, which could hardly be the intended tone. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/115 "2010-10-20T19:28:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. > > She might imagine, especially after all this time, that someone who deliberately lied, and knew she had lied, would have those deceptions weighing on her. It’s not tone deaf to imagine that a private call might elicit a private response, even if not a formal admission of lying, some sort of private gesture that implicitly conceded she had done the Thomases wrong. > > Why is that impossible? > [@](#): > > **Reductio ad absurdum** (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) is a form of argument in which a proposition is attempted to be disproved by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence. Whatever. You are whacking on a silly little tree off to the corner and missing the forest. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/116 "2010-10-20T19:31:28Z")
It’s just a teabagger publicity stunt, and a cowardly one. You don’t call someone’s office phone at 7:30am on a Saturday hoping to speak with them. I’m sure it help raise cash from the mouth-breathers, though. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/117 "2010-10-20T19:32:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me she’s only “tone deaf” if you begin the analysis by assuming Ms. Hill was telling the truth. > > Let’s not. Let assume, instead, that Ms. Hill completely fabricated her accusations, made them up out of whole cloth, in an effort to derail Thomas’ nomination, without caring what effect her lies might have on Thomas personally, or on Thomas’ family. > > And, having failed to prevent Thomas’ confirmation, she has for nearly 20 years refused to acknowledge that her testimony was fabricated. > > Why is it “tone deaf” for Mrs. Thomas to ask for an apology under those circumstances? So, you’re asserting that making the call was an implicit assertion (and, given the recipient of the call, and implicit accusation) that the charges were a pack of lies? No, nothing “tone deaf” there… :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/118 "2010-10-20T19:32:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. > > She might imagine, especially after all this time, that someone who deliberately lied, and knew she had lied, would have those deceptions weighing on her. It’s not tone deaf to imagine that a private call might elicit a private response, even if not a formal admission of lying, some sort of private gesture that implicitly conceded she had done the Thomases wrong. > > Why is that impossible? It’s not impossible that she might imagine that, but it would also be tone deaf. > [@Bricker](#): > > OK, I guess we’re in agree-to-disagree mode. I mean, it’s not like “tone deaf” has some kind of laser-like precision of meaning. Can you at least give us a nice broad floodlight-like hint what you think it means? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/119 "2010-10-20T19:33:03Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Right, IF one assumes A. Hill is the malicious lying bitch that Bricker’s hypothetical supposes she is (only supposing now), then the message comes across as pathetic and naive, which could hardly be the intended tone. I suppose it could be considered naive to imagine someone who had persisted in lying for 20 years to suddenly change their minds in an epiphany brought on by a phone message. By if one begins with the proposition that everyone is good, deep down, then Thomas might well have imagined that Hill’s conscience continued to bother her. I suppose that’s equally naive, and I’m finding it hard to articulate why I resist the “tone deaf” label for this. It’s true that tone deaf means that you don’t understand how your message is being seen, and it’s true that naive people don’t usually understand their own naiveté – that being almost a _sine qua non_ of naiveté. I guess I’m left with the sense simply that a naive message is not fairly described as “tone deaf” for reasons that I can’t yet articulate. ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798/120 "2010-10-20T19:37:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I guess I’m left with the sense simply that a naive message is not fairly described as “tone deaf” for reasons that I can’t yet articulate. If it were_only_ naive, I don’t think it would be so fairly described – but it’s beyond naive to think that particular message, as worded, could EVER be received in a way that would have an effect Ms. Thomas might like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-wife-virginia-thomas-asks-anita-hill-to-apologize-wtf/557798.md?page=7)