I love how you pull shit from your ass and call it chocolate frosting. Do provide a cite for any of this. At least a few of those bullshit accusations can be blown out o the water by Strange Justice.
Anybody who seriously cites ‘scorned woman’ as an attack on a women is living in the Seventeenth Century, from which the line and the play it’s from came: The Mourning Bride by Congreve. The scorned woman in the play committed suicide instead of acting more like a scorned man, which no one seems to want to talk about much.
Why? Just because? Because every thing since then indicates you’re wrong. I’d be interested in knowing why you are willing to take complicated assumptions rather than the simple truth.
OFFS. Gee, Bricker, I’m sure it has nothing to do with sexism or anything like that that you choose a hypothetical in this thread that damns a woman as a lying bitch and then you pick a case where the victim is a rape victim. You are in fact comparing a genuine rape victim to Virginia Thomas, a woman whose husband serially harassed women while he was in charge of the very organization that was designed to fight and punish sexual harassment. Where does a harassment victim go when her boss is the one to whom she’s supposed to report sexual harassment? The Supreme Court, mayb—Oh, wait. Or the President—who nominated him.
If the OP says that a particular characterization can be safely made no matter whether you assume Hill was lying or telling the truth, why are you furious at my testing that statement by assuming Hill was lying?
I do love the way Bricker holds forth as if he is the most august and impartial person ever, yet his hypotheticals contain certain beliefs built in, and he never takes the other side, as such a person would do, if in fact he were fair and neutral and all that.
Read the thread, dolt. There are several times in which I pose the opposite hypothetical or acknowledge when someone else does that it changes things dramatically.
But the OP said, “… regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…”
He bears no resemblance to fair, neutral, or impartial, but the hypothetical makes sense as a hypothetical. I think it demonstrates the opposite point from what he wanted it to demonstrate, but your complaint is off base in this instance.
What if, hypothetically, Hillary Clinton called up Monica Lewinsky and hinted that an apology was in order? Assume further that there was no physical evidence of Lewinsky’s various claims (if it can be waved away in the Smart case, I see no reason to do otherwise). There’s your test of impartiality, assuming you dislike Thomas for being a conservative and like Clinton for not being one, however one defines “conservative”. The truth of the allegations doesn’t really matter; the hypothetical is to see if one will treat a noted political conservative differently from a noted political liberal out of personal bias.
Surely this is a more on-point hypothetical than the Smart case, or if it isn’t, I eagerly wait for someone to explain why not.
Do my or your personal beliefs alter what Ms Hill believes? No.
Has Ms Hill given any indication that she does not believe her own testimony? No.
Unless Ms Thomas answers yes to the second question, then she is not behaving rationally unless it is a tactical maneuver with some other goal in mind.
Paula Jones? Sure, why not? The point being to pick out a prominent liberal (presumably as far from Thomas’s politics as feasible) who had a woman accusing him of sexual impropriety and general skeevitude. Is Mrs. Thomas more deserving of an apology than Mrs. Clinton? Less? Is Mrs. Thomas’ request more reasonable (or less “tone deaf” or whatever) than the hypothetical equivalent from Mrs. Clinton? Less?
Why would Hill lie? did she make money off of it? Did she improve her position?
Actually she is a law professor at a small college. She did not attempt to sell her testimony. She did not go on TV shows touting a new book. She did not use her new found fame for any gain. She did not go on speaking junkets for money. She did not crank out a book for quick profit.
What she did do was act like a person who did her duty would act. She acted like a person who just told the truth because she knew Thomas was a pig and was lying . She quietly and calmly went back to her life staying out of the limelight.
I think my reaction would be exactly the same: eye-rolling disbelief that someone was that arrogant and tone-deaf coupled with eye-rolling disbelief that someone just hasn’t gotten the fuck over it already.
I do think Hillary Clinton provides a good counter to Virginia Thomas. Good call.
Personally, I think Ms. Thomas believed every word and wanted to be talked out of it.
“Anita Hill, this is Ginni Thomas, and 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.”
Her use of the word with instead of to implies she feels something mutual went on, at least on a subconscious level. Anyone else find that choice of words to be an interesting Freudian slip?
Oh, heck, that’s not a Freudian slip! I called home, my Mom answers and I’m gonna say “Hi, Mom, is Dad there?” But instead I say “You still got the shattered remains of my father there, you ball busting bitch!?!”
So you use “Bayesian based” analysis, also! I guess that makes your opinion BS just like mine.
I’ve listened to otherwise-intelligent engineers think that the odds for any binary choice are 50-50. The right-wingers(*) defending Thomas seem to fall into that fallacy, refusing to actually (gasp!) assess the probabilities of motives, etc. Or ask why a normal person would suddenly transmogrify into a motiveless psychopathic perjurer for a week, then go back to being normal!
This is a good example. (Not Lewinsky, because we have physical evidence that corroborates her story, but Jones or Willey are excellent examples. So, let’s assume that Hillary Clinton is revealed to have called up Paula Jones and said, in effect, “You should apologize for the lies you told about my husband.” And let’s assume that someone here posted a thread that said, “Wow – regardless of your politics or how you feel personally about which way those events actually happened, that was pretty tone deaf of Ms. Clinton.”
I don’t think there would be universal agreement. People would assume, as they should, that Jones deliberately lied and that Clinton knew Jones deliberately lied. Why is it tone deaf to request an apology from someone whose deliberate lie caused your husband to make history as the second-ever impeached president? It’s outrageous.
Because it revives the issue in the public consciousness and makes you look like a petty grudge-holder. Even if you’re clearly in the right, it’s a bad idea to start people talking about it again.
Personally I think Ginny Thomas ought to thank Anita Hill - while everyone was talking about hairy Coke cans, nobody was looking at Clarence Thomas’ relatively weak jurisprudence credentials. Never mind Anita Hill bringing charges; I kept hoping for the corpse of Thurgood Marshall to shamble into the proceedings, point his decaying finger at the Senate panel and shout “J’accuse!”.
)