To late to add: …on alternate Tuesdays, if you cross the International Date Line.
Do we need to focus on that one scenario for the duration of this thread fercrissake? :smack::smack:
So when I said:
That was true, since you acknowledge that it comes down to the subjective feelings of the individuals.
Right?
Please - this is not the Bricker and Dio* show, okay? Go split hairs somewhere else.
*In case anyone is curious, Bricker is Ren and Dio is Stimpy. ;)
OK, fair enough. I think, as Frank predicted, we’re at an impasse on the use of the phrase “tone deaf.”
I am personally supremely confident that if a news story came up in which Smart mother were revealed to have left such a message for Brian Mitchell, not one person on this board would have chosen to call her action ‘tone deaf’. But your mileage may – obviously does, in fact – vary.
…on alternate Tuesdays, while crossing the International Date Line
So THERE! I’m right and you’re rubber, or glue, or something…
Feel better?
You quit it first.
By that I mean the folks on your side, the monolithic hive mind you invoke when you say “we” (but stubbornly deny exists when called on it) tried to gain a rhetorical advantage in the OP. You tried to do this by saying that Thomas’ action was “tone deaf” regardless of how you feel about what happened in the past. That’s simply not true. It’s certainly tone deaf if you believe Hill was telling the truth, and arguably even if you believe Hill lied about details that she couldn’t remember to bolster the underlying truth of what she did remember.
But if you believe that Hill deliberately lied, deliberately made up, out of whole cloth, her testimony, then “we” (all honest people, that is) know that no one could describe it as tone deaf.
And your pathetic appeal to the hive mind cannot hide that truth.
Golly. What other completely irrelavent to the OP, retardedly hypothetical situations are you supremely confident of, Mr. Bricker.
Gather round, kiddies, it’s story time.
I disagree, if someone lied about my spouse in an attempt to derail her career, I wouldn’t care in the slightest how that person felt about it. The person is a liar and tried to hurt someone I care deeply about. I would be fully justified in requesting an apology and retraction even 20 years down the road. It may not be the smartest of political moves, but there’s nothing inherently wrong headed about it.
Frankly, if the person fabricated their accusation, they’d have to be delusional to honestly feel that they shouldn’t apologize for lying.
No, you only need to focus on it once. Turns out that a lot of folks don’t seem to be giving this scenario any actual thought at all.
Here’s another hypothetical to chew on:
Would Anita Hill have been tone-deaf if she’s the one who left a message on Virginia Thomas’s voicemail requesting an apology for what Clarence did to her 20 years ago?
I felt fine before, and continue to feel fine now. So, no. Not better.
But happy that my battle on this point has gone so well. I made some mistakes, of course – not seeing that the message really wasn’t an olive branch, and thus leaving open the possibility that people might cling to the notion that the “tone deafness” was intended to apply to the olive branch characterization and not the original message. But happily, the herds trampled right past that and continued to futilely insist that even if Hill lied, the message is tone deaf. I love this, because it’s so obviously false and exposes the underlying idiocy.
See, when I make an idiotic mistake (olive branch, or this post where I fell into the same sweeping declaration trap as the OP) I concede the point. Because the bullheaded insistance on a point that’s obviously wrong doesn’t help you one bit.
Then there’s the other tactic: continuing to defend the indefensible whilst whining that it’s nitpicky. Brilliant strategy.
For your opponent.
We don’t know that. It is just as likely that Thomas is lying to his wife, and really did do everything Hill accused him of. Does she deserve an apology from him?
Same analysis: the answer depends on what actually happened twenty years ago. Let’s assume that Thomas knew exactly what he had done, and that Hill’s testimony was if anything too restrained in describing his depravity. Then it’s not tone deaf in the least for her to say, in effect, “Look, nearly twenty years have gone by, and you got your confirmation and can’t possibly lose your job except by 2/3rds of the Senate voting to can you. You’re completely safe, so how about an apology for dragging my name through the mud and calling me a liar in front of the nation?”
That’s perfectly reasonable, and I don’t think anyone on this board would have called it “tone deaf” if she had done that; indeed, I suspect most people on this board actually do believe that set of events or something close to it.
There must be a beautiful sky in your world for you to stay holed up there.
Enjoy.
IF Anita Hill did that, and had NO REASON to believe that the Thomas’ had changed their positions over the past 20 years, then yes, it would’ve been just as tone-deaf for her, too.
Oy.
Yeah, we’re clearly reading some very different meanings into the phrase “tone deaf.”
I’m sure now you’re quite sincere in your original statement, and I apologize for impugning your motives. It seems obvious to me that there’s no particular attempt to gain a rhetorical advantage; it’s just a sense conveyed with the phrase “tone deaf” that I absolutely don’t share.
Fine by me. Please, though: how do YOU define tone-deaf? Again, regardless of motive, correctness of position, etc.
If two people hold opposing points of view, and one asks the other to simply acknowledge they are incorrect out of the blue, how is that anything other than tone-deaf? Note I am NOT commenting on the relative correctness of either position, merely the “social propriety” of engaging someone in that way…
ETA: Okay, actually, I will say this: after all this prattling, all you have is “Oh - you’re sincere; never mind!” ???
He sexually harasses her in the workplace, then publicly denies it, essentially accusing her of lying under oath. I’d say that deserves an apology.
Who deserves an apology depends entirely on who’s side you’re believing.
Post 149, fool.
Care to explain why, or would you rather continue to look foolish?
There was no prattling. It seemed clear to me that tone deafness is measured against the objective correctness of your position – we would never call Galileo “tone deaf” for saying E pur si muove, I thought.
But your take on “tone deaf” is quite different.
So I proceeded on the apparently solid assumption that you had indulged in a bit of unsupported hyperbole, and attacked it. But to you, it’s not hyperbole; you truly do think Galileo was tone deaf to mutter E pur si muove.
The First Rule of Holes, Counselor. :rolleyes:
You pathetic partisan hack.