Case A: “I am extending an olive branch to you by asking you to repudiate the true and honest statements you made twenty years ago.”
Case B: “I am extending an olive branch to you by asking you to repudiate the sincere but mistaken assertions you made twenty years ago.”
Case C: “I am extending an olive branch to you by asking you to fess up to the pack of lies you told twenty years ago.”
That covers the gamut of possibilities, and in each case the tone-deafness of describing the situation as the extension of an olive branch is plain on the face of it.
I generally adopt your definition: unable to predict that this will sound bad to your intended audience, and therefore have the opposite result to what was apparently intended.
Well, that, plus
[ul][li]Hill’s testimony conflicted in several places with the known facts, including a time line that made it impossible for Thomas to have committed the acts of which she accused him.[/li][li]A complete lack of any corroboration of sexual harassment by Thomas of Anita Hill or any one else[/li][li]the fact that every other person who ever worked with Thomas, from the beginning of his career to the present, believed Thomas and not Hill[/li][li]the fact that Anita Hill’s behavior was much more characteristic of a woman scorned than of the victim of a harasser[/li][li]that Hill had opportunities to avoid the behavior she alleged was so unwelcome by doing nothing. Instead, she chose to follow her alleged harasser from job to job and maintained contact.[/li][li]that Anita Hill had made other, unsubstantiated charges of sexual harassment previously[/li][li]that Anita Hill attempted to make her accusation anonymously, so as to avoid the consequences of false accusation[/li][li]that, far from courageously speaking the truth to power, she was forced into public testimony by Nina Totenberg - another woman who lied about being sexually harassed to cover up her (Totenberg’s) failure - in Totenberg’s case, an ethical failure (plagiarism) - and/or by Sen. Paul Simon or one of his staffers, who committed a felony in doing so.[/li][/ul]Although at this late date, it is probably too much to expect that Hill would come clean about her false testimony. Her whole career is based on not doing so. So it is not much of an olive branch.
Nope. It I randomly accuse someone of being the murderer of Jimmy Hoffa, the act is no less obnoxious if it later turns out that evidence (that I had no inkling of at the time of the accusation) surfaces that the person in question did in fact do that deed.
I can only imagine that you have lived a very clean life, and thus never had a weighty matter on your conscience. I can’t think of another reason you’d completely discount the idea that her deception weighed heavily on her and this nudge would cause her to unburden herself.
All of these would be pertinent if they were true.
But what is actually pertinent and true is that other women have said they were sexually harassed by Thomas in the same manner that Hill described. And Hill’s testimony was corroborated by other witnesses.
It’s easy to see why women are reluctant to step forward and say they’ve been the victims of sexual harassment. Look at what happened to Hill. Twenty years later and the criminal is still free and Hill has somehow become the guilty person who’s supposed to apologize.
I’m pretty sure the Thomases asked Ms. Hill to apologize a couple years ago in an interview. Obviously she didn’t or Ms. Thomas wouldn’t be asking again. I vote Tone Deaf.
Nope. You yourself have now conceded that the words cannot be considered an olive branch. So, when someone makes a statement that they believe (or claim to believe) is polite, friendly, and conducive to mending bridges, which instead is rude, condescending, and insulting, it’s safe to say that that person is (a) engaging in disingenuous shit-stirring or (b) tone deaf as hell, i.e., completely unable to predict how anyone who is not themself will interpret their words.
Tea party tardation.
What if Anita Hill had raped Clarence Thomas with a strap-on in front of a live studio audience while it was broadcast into millions of more homes, and then we’d all just decided not to talk about it? :rolleyes:
If such evidence existed, it would have accompanied the voicemail. Since it did not, we can clearly see that Tone Deaf Bitch has *exactly the same evidence *available to her as the rest of us do, and thus, no more or less reason to believe that Hill was lying, other than that she has a personal investment in her hubby not being a douche.
Well, that’s basically true. I never have had a weighty matter on my conscience as you say (and hope to keep it that way). However, it seems to me, that if I did, I would apologize for my own reasons, and not because someone oh-so-graciously gave me permission. It seems to me, that many people inclined to apologize in those circumstances, might actually change their mind after receiving such a dismissive missive (heh).
