Wow - you just can’t let go of a rhetorical nitpick, can you? Pretty funny.
Okay - I’ll play. No. Galileo was protesting based on case he built on scientific fact against a case already-by-then known to be based on religious doctrine in contradiction to the known facts - the “social peccadillo” aspect of his situation was waaaay down the list of things to worry about.
In this case, at its essence, it is about a social peccadillo.
At the point Galileo supposed uttered his famous denial, he was literally mumbling – he had already been found guilty of heresy and sentenced to imprisonment. There was essentially no chance he would persuade anyone by his statement, nor that his statement would change religious doctrine or provide any additional evidence for his case of scientific fact. It was, in short, merely an act of social defiance.
Does that, or does that not, precisely fit into your claimed arena of “tone deaf?”
No - an act of social defiance is not concerned about tone deafness. That would be like Rosa Parks worrying about offending the bus driver while sitting down to take a stand. Completely different levels of interaction.
Ms. Thomas said she “meant no offense” - if she was taking a stand of social defiance, she would have rightly said “I mean offense - I want the darn apology.” But BECAUSE she said she thought it was reasonable and meant no offense, SHE is the one who kept this in the realm of social peccadillo - and was tone deaf.
Hey, hey! That’s the way it was done in those days! Putting a few of your pubes on a coke can was the next evolutionary step from braining a woman with your club and dragging her back to your cave!
Don’t hate the player, hate the game!
I think that’s pretty disingenuous, but whatever. Plus, you’re wrong. Anita Hill did see it, and issued a statment.
Cite.
For the record, That Galileo line, as cool as it is, is totally apocryphal. In reality he knuckled under completely. No defiance.
Understood and thank you for that. Back to the OP.
Correct me if I’m missing it, but that statement seems to be in response to Justice Thomas’ book, and not the interview.
I agree there is no contemporary evidence for it, but the claim that it first appeared over a hundred years later is also false. It appeared in a painting done of the trial only ten years later.
I would say simply that there’s no contemporary evidence for the claim.
WHAT?
Now we’re back to considering the extrinsic statement about the statement?
She didn’t say, in the phone call, that she meant no offense. She said:
When asked about the message, she said she meant no offense.
What, pray tell, is the nitpicky rhetorical difference?
Because I have already acknowledged that her statements ABOUT the message can fairly be called tone deaf.
I made no such claim.
And what, dare I ask, is the difference between her statements ABOUT vs. the ACTUAL statement? Both come from the same tone-deaf place in her head…
Dio: please settle down. No one cares. This thread is not about Galileo, nor is it about the precise wording of your post on Galileo. Demonstrate maturity and let it go, okay?
This is the Pit.
Seriously. What the hell was I thinking?? ;)
I’m kinda new at this - this is the first runaway Pit thread I’ve tried to navigate…
Would you call Galileo tone deaf for drawing the pope into his book as Simplicitico, the foolish person whose arguments get mocked? I probably would.
This thread isn’t about Elizabeth Smart either, but we had to spend three pages knocking that bullshit around. I can’t wait to see the next analogy. I’m just shocked the fucking Nazis haven’t come into play yet.
I should probably concede that this looks an awful lot like moving the goalposts.
But it isn’t.
When the spectre of a previous interview was raised, I pictured a face-to-face confrontation. A refusal to apologize then, a mere three years ago, would certainly support an inference of tone deafness now.
This cite makes clear that, although Hill did see the Thomas’ TV interview, and in response offered up her interview, we don’t know how and under what circumstances Ginni saw Hill’s response.
The cite makes plain, in other words, what was missing form the first claim:
So my fault for not making clear what I was thinking, but as it turns out, this does not change my mind.