She wasn’t requesting an admission of the truth. She was requesting an admission that events played out the way she believed them to have played out.
Accusing someone else of lying is not “extending an olive branch.”
If Cindy Sheehan left a message on George Bush’s answering machine inviting him to admit that he lied about going into Iraq and inviting him to apologize to her, would you think this is equally reasonable? How about a Swift Boater asking John Kerry to admit he lied about his war record?
Mrs. Thomas’ knowledge and state of mind is what is at issue here, not the truth or falsity of the claim. Unless she has a smoking gun, as it were, there is no reason for her to think Dr. Hill will apologize or change her story - no matter if it is wrong or right.
OK, you’re right about that. Even “I called to say that I would forgive you for lying all those years ago if only you told the truth now,” would qualify. But you’re right - she didn’t actually offer forgiveness or the hint of it.
I agree that her message is not fairly described as an olive branch.
And thus, to the extent that the OP meant Ms. Thomas was tone deaf to describe it as an olive branch, I have to acknowledge that’s correct, “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…”
I wouldn’t call either of those “tone deaf.”
Of much greater concern should be Ms. Thomas’ partisan activism and how that might affect her husband’s decisionmaking. Has he ever recused himself from any decision in which his party’s fortunes might be affected? Should he?
“consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did to my husband”. That is an olive branch? Bull. it accuses her of lying in public and says her husband deserves an apology for her lies. That is an insult. That is saying you are a liar and lied in front of congress about my porn loving husband.
Hill did the right thing, but should have expressed the insult more firmly.
I don’t see an offer of peace. I don’t see an offer of anything in return, not even a kind word. Just a passive-aggressive (and really snotty) accusation and demand.
I also think you know good and well that your hypothesis that Anita Hill completely fabricated this is wildly implausible. I know you’re trying to create an alternative theory for the jury, but this juror isn’t buying it.
Trouble with that answer, as with so many of your answers, is your faith in the power of positive parsing, your inclination to define words to your own satisfaction. If not “tone deaf”, then what, perzackly?
Would you call it “showboating” or “political grandstanding”, considering that the outcome is designed to do nothing but further publicity?
Sorry, but I disagree with you here.
By the end of the hearings, polls showed the vast majority of Americans believed Thomas and disbelieved Hill.
Does it really matter? It’s not like he’s a swing vote or anything. You can pretty much guarantee he’s going to come down on the batshit crazy conservative side of any issue anyway, with or without his batshit crazy wife.
Good. Please pass it along to Justice Thomas should you happen to run into him.
OK; how do you define"tone deaf" in this colloquial sense, then? I think of it as meaning something like “unable to predict that this will sound bad to most of the public, and therefore have the opposite result to what was apparently intended.” Which I *would *call this.
Antics with semantics. Sorry I didn’t allow for your *reductio ad absurdem *scenario. My conclusion stands.
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.
Semantics is the study of the meaning and significance of words. It is rather odd that you hand-have away my point as “semantics” and fail to acknowledge that the problem arises because the OP tried to gain a rhetorical advantage by claiming this belief would be shared “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” In fact, that’s not true.
I don’t agree the message is meant for publicity at all.
Define words to my satisfaction?
What does “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” mean to you, then?
Well, of course not! Why would anyone imagine that such a communication between two private citizens of no particular notoriety would ever become a public matter?
No, we are apparently choosing to disagree. I assert that even within your reductio ad absurdem scenario, her actions would still be tone deaf. You disagree. Upthread (Post #84) you also state that you wouldn’t find those situations tone deaf, either.
I will repeat what I posted in Post #20 - and which you did not previously address, near as I can tell:
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.