SCOTUS Wife Virginia Thomas asks Anita Hill to apologize - WTF?

[Bricker]

@Shot_From_Guns

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.

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

If a statement is not an olive branch, it does not follow that it is “rude, condescending, and insulting.”

[emmaliminal]

@Bricker

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.

It’s the wording of this particular nudge that has me going :dubious:. Or, if you will, its tone. To which Ms. Thomas seems – how might I put this? – somewhat deaf.

[Bricker]

@emmaliminal

It’s the wording of this particular nudge that has me going :dubious:. Or, if you will, its tone. To which Ms. Thomas seems – how might I put this? – somewhat deaf.

Again, I’ll point out that the tone you ascribe to it seems curiously driven by your belief that Hill testified truthfully. I do not believe you’re evaluating the tone through the ears of someone who deliberately lied.

[Hello_Again]

@Bricker

Again, I’ll point out that the tone you ascribe to it seems curiously driven by your belief that Hill testified truthfully. I do not believe you’re evaluating the tone through the ears of someone who deliberately lied.

Someone who deliberately lied on that scale would take it to the grave if they had the slightest sense. I mean, it’s beyond her own perjury - she must have tampered with the witnesses who corroborated her, right?

[Bricker]

@Hello_Again

Someone who deliberately lied on that scale would take it to the grave if they had the slightest sense.

Wow.

Just… wow.

So someone who lied, and then decided they could no longer live with the lie, and confessed… that person would have no sense? That action would be foolish?

You don’t make room for the outdated concept of “doing the right thing?”

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Bricker

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

If a statement is not an olive branch, it does not follow that it is “rude, condescending, and insulting.”

Fallacy of You Didn’t Read My Fucking Post.

I am not saying that *every *statement that is claimed to be an olive branch, but is not, is “rude, condescending, and insulting.” I am saying that this particular statement, claimed to be an olive branch, is “rude, condescending, and insulting”

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Again, I’ll point out that the tone you ascribe to it seems curiously driven by your belief that Hill testified truthfully. I do not believe you’re evaluating the tone through the ears of someone who deliberately lied.

How about evaluating it through the most probable intention of someone who left the message on a machine in an office at 7am on a Saturday? To insist that Mrs. Thomas didn’t think that others might hear that message before Hill did is to insult her intelligence and ours.

[Hello_Again]

@Bricker

Wow.

Just… wow.

So someone who lied, and then decided they could no longer live with the lie, and confessed… that person would have no sense? That action would be foolish?

You don’t make room for the outdated concept of “doing the right thing?”

Well, you don’t make room for Anita Hill doing the right thing before Congress, and telling the truth as she sees it, so apparently anything is possible.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

No other woman said she was sexually harassed by Thomas.

Please. :rolleyes:

As chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden communicated with Wright about possibly giving public testimony. Two individuals, Angela Wright and Rose Jourdain, made statements to Senate staffers in support of Hill, but they did not testify at the hearing.[14][15] Wright, who was another of Thomas’ subordinates, stated that she had also been sexually harassed by him, and Rose Jourdain stated that Wright had been upset at that time about what she had also said was sexual harassment by Thomas.[16]

Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her,[17] told staff of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during an interview that Thomas had repeatedly made comments to her, much like those he allegedly made to Hill, including pressuring her for dates and commenting on her body.[18][19] Wright said that Thomas made comments about her and other women’s anatomy “quite often.”[19] Wright told several senators’ staff that Clarence Thomas asked her the size of her breasts.[18] Wright said that after she turned down Thomas for a date, Thomas began to express discontent with her work and eventually fired her.[18] Thomas said that he fired Wright for poor performance and for using a homophobic epithet.[17]

Rose Jourdain also did not testify[14] but corroborated Wright’s statements, saying Wright had spoken to her about Thomas at the original time of the events.[20] Jourdain spoke of Thomas’s “increasingly aggressive behavior” and Wright’s becoming “increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved.”[20]

Another former Thomas assistant, Sukari Hardnett, made further charges against him. Although Hardnett made it clear she was not accusing Thomas of sexual harassment, she provided the Judiciary Committee with sworn testimony that “if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female.”[21][22][23]

[emmaliminal]

@Bricker

Again, I’ll point out that the tone you ascribe to it seems curiously driven by your belief that Hill testified truthfully. I do not believe you’re evaluating the tone through the ears of someone who deliberately lied.

You are curiously attributing beliefs to me which may more rightfully be ascribed to another poster, as I haven’t espoused them. I firmly believe and am trying to argue that Hill’s truthfulness or truthiness is immaterial in diagnosing Ms. Thomas’ tone deafness. Guilty or innocent, you can’t expect anyone to feel like recanting anything if you approach it like Ms. Thomas did this, and you can’t expect any bystander to applaud your motives.

[Voyager]

@Bricker

I suppose it could be considered naive to imagine someone who had persisted in lying for 20 years to suddenly change their minds in an epiphany brought on by a phone message.

By if one begins with the proposition that everyone is good, deep down, then Thomas might well have imagined that Hill’s conscience continued to bother her. I suppose that’s equally naive, and I’m finding it hard to articulate why I resist the “tone deaf” label for this.

It’s true that tone deaf means that you don’t understand how your message is being seen, and it’s true that naive people don’t usually understand their own naiveté – that being almost a sine qua non of naiveté.

I guess I’m left with the sense simply that a naive message is not fairly described as “tone deaf” for reasons that I can’t yet articulate.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Thomas thinks Prof. Hill was lying. Given that, the alternative to being tone deaf is being condescending. The message can also be read as “Now, now, Anita, we both know you are a lying bitch, so why not come right out and admit it to me - you’ll feel so much better.”
I think tone deafness is a more charitable interpretation myself.

[Tom_Scud]

@Czarcasm

How about evaluating it through the most probable intention of someone who left the message on a machine in an office at 7am on a Saturday? To insist that Mrs. Thomas didn’t think that others might hear that message before Hill did is to insult her intelligence and ours.

Really? People leave messages on my work machine all the time at odd hours of the day (I am often in communication with volunteers who do their work evenings); I don’t believe anyone else ever listens to my messages. Mind, I’m not high enough on the food chain to have a secretary review my messages for me, but still.

[SmellMyWort]

@Bricker

That would change my mind, if true.

About 1:15 into the video on the GMA website.

[elucidator]

I see a very strict definition coming, one that excludes the examples you offer, and therefore renders them non-existent. Call it a hunch.

[Czarcasm]

@Tom_Scud

Really? People leave messages on my work machine all the time at odd hours of the day (I am often in communication with volunteers who do their work evenings); I don’t believe anyone else ever listens to my messages. Mind, I’m not high enough on the food chain to have a secretary review my messages for me, but still.

Italics mine.

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

But - arguendo - Hill knows she fabricated her testimony. If she “thinks she did nothing wrong,” it could not be because she knows she didn’t lie, but because she somehow rationalized that her lying served some higher purpose, some greater good.

If that’s the case, it’s not unreasonable for Virginia to say, in effect, “Look, we both know you lied, and the event is far enough behind us that any greater good in maintaining the lie is past, so how about an apology?”

Or we could assume that Mikhail Gorbachev, committed Communist, aware the Soviet Union was on its last legs, and looking for a way to, hope beyond hope, achieve the success of international Communism, sent out deep-cover moles with the mission to, after 20 years, subvert one of the two major U.S. political parties with a populist movement that would bring American government to gridlock by use of the filibuster, disinformation (Birthers, Truthers, Antivaxers, ACC deniers, etc.) – with the ironic twist that the aforementioned populists would think they are doing it for conservative motives. As American government collapses, ¡Viva la Revolucion!

One assumption is no sillier than the other.

[Bricker]

@Shot_From_Guns

Fallacy of You Didn’t Read My Fucking Post.

I am not saying that *every *statement that is claimed to be an olive branch, but is not, is “rude, condescending, and insulting.” I am saying that this particular statement, claimed to be an olive branch, is “rude, condescending, and insulting”

Ahh. Then Fallacy of TGFA. (The Gratuitous Fucking Assertion).

[Bricker]

@Polycarp

Or we could assume that Mikhail Gorbachev, committed Communist, aware the Soviet Union was on its last legs, and looking for a way to, hope beyond hope, achieve the success of international Communism, sent out deep-cover moles with the mission to, after 20 years, subvert one of the two major U.S. political parties with a populist movement that would bring American government to gridlock by use of the filibuster, disinformation (Birthers, Truthers, Antivaxers, ACC deniers, etc.) – with the ironic twist that the aforementioned populists would think they are doing it for conservative motives. As American government collapses, ¡Viva la Revolucion!

One assumption is no sillier than the other.

Polycarp, read the whole thread.

[Jack_Batty]

Bricker, you’re a horrible person and I hope you get warts.

That being said, me being the bigger person, I’d like to extend the Olive Branch of Peace[sup]TM[/sup] and allow you to apoogize to me for making me think that about you.

[Bricker]

@SmellMyWort

About 1:15 into the video on the GMA website.

Ahhh…

I was picturing an interview with Hill present, where they could know that Hill had heard what they were saying. You meant simply that the Thomases were interviewed.