Great. Thanks.
Now catch up to the current posture of the thread, where the Olive Branch has been repeatedly conceded by me to be not present in the message.
I’m going to re-answer this.
If Anita Hill’s testimony was an entire fabrication, that means she
- Lied to the FBI in 1981, to corroborate a story she planned to tell when Clarence Thomas got nominated to the Supreme Court ten years later.
- Invented the story from whole cloth
- Convinced her coworkers to corroborate her story, perjuring theselves before Congress, and somehow ensured they would never recant.
- Convinced Angela Wright to also perjure herself, although not in hearing testominy, and somehow ensured she would never recant.
Do you believe that a person capable of such detailed social engineering in order to acheive her unlikely goal of preventing a black man from getting on the Supreme Court is likely to be swayed by mere remorse, ever? Is not the person described above diabolocal in the extreme?
And if she had an attack of remorse, why would she apologize to Clarence Thomas’s wife. Anita Hill didn’t do shit to Ms. Thomas except upset her, while Mr. Thomas’s confirmation became a rather close thing. The person deserving of an apology, if anyone, is Clarence Thomas. And if he wanted an apology, it seems to me, he is capable of asking for it without sending wifey to do his errand.
Sorry. I was busy all afternoon.
But … why are you not conceding the tone-deafness? One goes hand in hand with the other. Thomas herself claimed she was offing an olive branch. If we can all agree she was full of shit with that statement … how is she not “tone-deaf” in offereing the request for an apology at all?
And I officially hope you don’t get warts anymore.
I wasn’t trying to imply that, but I can see how it comes across that way.
I don’t think it matters, though. It’s the perception of Ms. Thomas that we’re interested in here, and she certainly remembers that she asked for an apology a few years ago (and presumably didn’t get it). Maybe she thinks Ms. Hill didn’t see the interview…? Maybe she’ll wait a few more years and ask again? Maybe Ms. Hill will have come around by then.:dubious:
I could buy that Virginia Thomas sincerely believes Hill committed perjury, but it’s rather dim of her not to realize that asking Hill to apologize (or, if one wishes to be hyper-literal, expressing the belief that Hill should consider apologizing) only dredges up the past and introduces it to a younger generation that wasn’t alive or aware in 1991 but now may be amused or intrigued by a sex scandal involving the Supreme Court.
This lack of realization might qualify as tone-deaf, though it would represent deafness to the modern nature of communications rather than to Hill’s feelings. If I may wildly speculate, Clarence did something that annoyed her and rather than come to the conclusion that he’s a bit of a jerk, Virginia figures he must be that way because of the trauma of Hill’s 1991 testimony.
If it was a “he said she said” with only the truth known between the two, why does Mrs Thomas
take it upon herself to get all olive branchy?
Hill should reply, “Yes I am sorry, Mrs Thomas…sorry you not only believe that lying sack of shit,
but that you ended up marrying him and are now having to justify that to yourself”
This just in: I can’t spell the word “offering” … two different ways.
Perhaps she should reply, "I realize that the vast majority of Americans believed him (Thomas) over me (Hill)) at the time. (cite previously provided)
Would this thread be three pages shorter (and the nation better for it) if the OP had just admitted early on that by disregarding what actually happened he could no longer conclusively establish that Virginia Thomas (who is by all appearances tone-deaf) was not being tone deaf when we in fact have every reason to belive that’s exactly what she was being? Instead, we get the Bricker Show (a wonky, boring counterpart to the Dio Show and the Stoid Show) and instead of laughing at a woman who is clearly disconnected from reality, we have three pages of bickering over dumb-ass hypos. Seriously, nothing is lost by conceding to Bricker that yes, if we remove the discussions to the land where fairies ride unicorns, then Virginia Thomas is right as the mail.
What does what the vast majority of Americans believe have to do with the perceived veracity of Hill’s testimony to the Senate Committee (which connection you alluded to earlier), or what does whether they believe Thomas over Hill in the wake of Hill’s sworn testimony have to do with the framing of any hypothetical Hill apology, sarcastic or otherwise?
My reply was in response to the post rock party made, not the discussion in general. I should have clarified that.
Hey, I kinda like the Bricker show. Honestly it’s like Twelve Angry Men except you don’t know which way it’s gonna go in the final act.
Regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event, Virginia Thomas should have apologized to Hill for Clarence calling her a liar.
It’s an offer of peace and good will between two conflicting parties, usually extended as an indication that the conflict will not be resolved. Sort of a “let bygones be bygones” kind of thing. Asking Hill to concede every major point in the conflict as a condition of the olive branch is stupid and borderline offensive, IMO, especially considering that Mrs. Thomas was not a party to the conflict.
She has no reason to believe that Hill saw the interview, so she didn’t “ask for it” in a meaningful way.
Seriously. You can’t read?
The assumption that Hill is lying arises in my discussion not from any extrinsic evidence at all, but from the OP’s statement: “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…”
I thought you might have picked up on that, since I have quoted the line in excess of a dozen times.
I do have some rebuttal to your argument, but it has nothing to do with what I’m discussing now. The claim is that regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event, her actions must be seen the same way. To test this, we are entitled to assume that Hill deliberately lied, and proceed from there.
OK?
I contend that Thomas had no intention of the message becoming public.
But not the contrary assumption. And you still don’t get why that’s a problem for the credibility of whatever argument you may base on that single, unsupported assumption.
Irrelevant, unless you’re also assuming she wants Hill’s apology to be private. Whether Hill publicly apologizes as a result of Virginia’s prodding or as a spontaneous gesture, the net effect is to acquaint or re-acquaint the public with something best left faded into history, and it’s not like Hill herself is going out of her way to keep the issue alive.
I agree that she was tone deaf, because the reaction was extremely predictable regardless of whether Hill was lying initially. Even if she truly was ready to apologize, it wouldn’t be based on a sanctimonious message of this sort.
[FTR, I think - similar to the point someone else made earlier in this thread - Hill was probably lying in that she made up details that she had forgotten, and she likely exaggerated in the process, but Thomas probably did harrass her to some minor degree. This seems to account for all the evidence on both sides. FWIW, I also think he should have been confirmed despite the harrassment.]