And being whatever it is that you are… you don’t have a clue about my opinion of Bricker’s posts. You should just stop behaving in such a childish manner, if you can.
It’s about lot of things. At the moment, it’s about what an idiot you are.
Bricker’s attempt at humour isn’t funny or clever. That doesn’t make you funny or clever by default.
My “margin-lies” pun, however, was both. So there.
On the SDMB< you only get points, apparently, if you’re witty. Right or wrong really doesn’t matter: as long as you’re witty and shallow.
It’s about Clarence Thomas sexually harassing Anita Hill. And Bricker theatened to write a sexually explicit vignette about me, degrading me, because he knew the brave men and women of the SDMB think feminism is a dirty word when applied to people here. I called Bricker out for making his little threat, and people don’t see anything wrong with his slimy little manuever, but think pointing it out for what it is is gauche and too serious. Attacking me for it just makes you as bad as him.
I can only imagine the hilarity on threads that are about rape. Oh, wait, I’ve seen those, too.
It works for me.
Then the stated purpose of this board is a lie and so are any members who advocate that kind of thing: style over substance.
There’s a point system in place? I was misinformed.
And some other stuff about Virginia Thomas, too. And then there was a short and ill-considered foray into the Elizabeth Smart case. Some stuff about the Clintons, too. Now you’re trying to make it about YOU.
Does Bricker even know what gender you are? I don’t.
Not even close. Fact is, he could have delivered unto you the most vile insult imaginable and if you reacted in this manner (like a screaming infant) you’d be deserving of scorn from me regardless of the content of Bricker’s insult or my opinion of it.
Then you have no excuse for your mock-shock reaction. Or you’re just too delicate and should get off this message board before you get the vapours. In either case, no sympathy or further attention from me should be expected.
The argument is not about sexual harassment, but about whether Ginni Thomas was tone deaf. To assess that, we should figure out whether Clarence Thomas told the truth or Anita Hill told the truth, because where you come down on that question colors the conclusion about Ginni Thomas.
But the OP didn’t see it that way. The OP felt that even if you think Hill lied, you still will find Ginni Thomas tone deaf. Since I thought that whether Hill lied or told the truth made a great deal of difference in how we perceive Thomas’ action, I explored the strongest hypothetical:that Hill deliberately lied, deliberately fabricated her testimony.
To date, you haven’t yet comprehended this. You reflexively pigeonhole this as an argument about sexual harrassment; it’s not.
So the problem here is not sexism. It’s that you lack the wit, or the basic analytic ability, to understand the validity – indeed, the necessity – of that assumption in these circumstances.
It’s not sexist to identify you as a knee-jerking fool.
I don’t either, and I stand by my reasons.
Just saying.
If I ever knew, I didn’t remember when I wrote the scene. Notice, in fact, the awkward phrasing I used to avoid a gender specific pronoun:
That really should have been “… with a mad look in his eyes…” or “… with a mad look in her eyes…” but I didn’t know which was appropriate.
Now, though, I have a good guess.
Bricker knows damned well and good that I’m female.
You’re using trivilializing language about a serious problem here on the boards, and saying that sexsm is the way of the board, so fuck off and get out if you don’t like it. Got it. Which is pretty much par for the course here, where people believe in fighting only certain kinds of ignorance.
Right – you feel that she’s tone deaf no matter what you think Hill did.
But you do (I hope) see the necessity of testing the claim of “no matter what you think Hill did” by assuming Hill lied, right? It’s just that you feel that even if we assume Hill lied, even in the best case for Thomas, Thomas is still tone-deaf.
Or am I mistaken about what you’re saying?
Um… no.
It may well have been something that’s come up before, but I don’t have any recollection of learning this. Frankly, and without taking the opportunity for a cheap shot, I really don’t remember much about you.
I wonder what the response would be if a white guy argued that writing a little vignette about his black opponent in a debate that featured condescending use of terms like ‘lazy, shiftless, welfare,’ and other racist dogwhistles as adjectives would dare make that charge. It’s classic sexism defensive manuvering. In fact…i think several of the anti-Anita Hill people whipped out all the same type of things you’re using, which was my point. It’d be funny if you didn’t believe you were somehow different and special.
Please don’t pull a margin on me and jump to an incorrect and self-serving conclusion about my opinions when they’ve been stated clearly. As to “tone deaf”, I said it was a matter of definition. My stance is that Virginia Thomas did something impulsive, ill-considered and counter-productive, though understandable as the act of someone harboring a long-term resentment.
No, I consider that issue irrelevant to an evaluation of Virginia Thomas’s actions, and an accurate quote of the OP is “regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event”. A relevant test is the one I proposed - putting Hillary Clinton in the Virginia Thomas role.
Quite.
The point of whether Hill told the truth is irrelevant to Thomas’s wifes actions. The fact is Clarence told his wife that Hill was lying and she believed it. She is acting like a woman who is sure that her hubby got unfairly slurred long ago. She is acting as expected.
That does not mean he did not lie to her.
Oh, I can be an asshole and you’d still be crazypants. We don’t have to choose. This is America!
You were supposed to know based on the name. If she’d been male, she would have been “gutter.”
Misdirection and lying about his lies is SOP for Shodan. He’s actually pretty good at that. He also accuses others of dishonesty, which is rather rich. Oddly enough, he’s extremely popular amongst conservatives on this board.
They both like him?
No, you’re getting ahead of the flowchart. To “assess that” it is perfectly sufficient to consider whether it is ALWAYS “tone-deaf” for one to ask for an apology. If the answer is “yes,” then tone-deafness is proven regardless of whose report of the subject in question is more accurate. If you believe the answer is “no,” it would be a good idea to defend that position. And you have to flesh out whether it is SOMETIMES tone deaf, or NEVER tone deaf.
I’m an ALWAYS, myself. You haven’t even specified whether you’re an ALWAYS, a SOMETIMES, or a NEVER (although it can plausibly be inferred that you’re not an ALWAYS, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to decline to draw the inference and leave it up to you to place yourself in one of the categories). If you’re a NEVER, then again, the debate is over.
If you’re a SOMETIMES, there’s still debate over whether the specific instance described in the OP is tone deaf. And even then the answer can legitimately be decided irrespective of the truth/falsehood of the statements of Thomas and Hill. You seem to be basing your argument on the presumption that the “SOMETIMES tone deaf” category has already been established as the correct answer.
Or at least that the “ALWAYS tone deaf” category has been established as INcorrect. Either way, that’s begging the question.
This is an extremely cogent analysis.
You’re right – not only am I a “SOMETIMES,” but until this thread developed, I thought the proposition itself was hardly debtable; it seemed obvious that a request for an apology would be tone-deaf or not depending on the underlying circumstances from which the offense allegedly requiring an apology arose.
But the criticism leveled at me was that I chose “Hill lied,” alone as a scenario, and that this choice was not made for necessity of analysis, but for partisan advantage.
Right?
It doesn’t seem likely that the ALWAYS, SOMETIMES, or NEVER choice is driven by partisan politics - does it?
So the essential element remains: was it analytically necessary to test this theory to assume Hill lied, also assuming that asking for an apology is SOMETIMES tone-deaf?