Clarence Thomas Just Set Civil Rights Back 70 Years

jeffw@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 480 points –
Clarence Thomas Just Set Civil Rights Back 70 Years
theroot.com
126

You are viewing a single comment

Hollywood lied to me. Growing up, if I see a gray-haired black judge, I would assume he/she is the most trustworthy person who's wholeheartedly devoted to justice.

Imagine the shock when I heard about Clarence Thomas.

Huh I guess you can't just assume what type of person someone is based upon appearances, who could've guessed

Dunno, looking at Ursula von der Leyen and her style in clothing, Dolores Umbridge comes to mind instantaneously, and that seems to be the right impression.

Or a few other known politicians, one looks like a provincial mafia boss and behaves like that, relatively good things included, and that seems right. Another looks like a kid who tortured animals in their childhood and grew up without picking up any skills outside of that general direction, and that seems right. There's one who looks like an assassin turned alcoholic whose current job is to say and sign whatever he's given, and that seems right. There's one who looks like a coward who stole a chair and is now terribly afraid of losing it, and that is about right.

If you mean black skin + senior age, then yeah.

That’s called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. focussing on proof that you’re right at using a false equivalent. In this case appearance = personality.

You’re counting the ones you’ve so called ‘gotten right’ because people who are negative are drawn to the negative and count only the negatives to support their theories. The ones you claim to have gotten right seem wrong btw. An assassin isn’t the same as an alcoholic. One is an intentional line of work. The other is a disease. That is inception level of more than one false equivalence there.

I think you should re-read your own comment and look for fallacies there, TBH.

Which is a false equivalent for Hollywood stereotypes and which isn't here is about me guessing what the author meant. Guessing because they are not sufficiently specific. If you have a better source, like reading minds or contacting God, let me know.

"Seem wrong" - OK.

An assassin can be an alcoholic. Nobody made a 1-to-1 association.

This comment isn't hostile, but you didn't find any fallacies.

And here you are attempting to read minds yourself. You literally listed assassin for an alcoholic and made that line all on your own. So yeah, it is fallacy. That is Exactly false attribute fallacy.

You literally listed assassin for an alcoholic and made that line all on your own.

English is not my first language. That said, I think you've read "assassin turned alcoholic" wrong for a few times by now.

Just reading your own mistake back to you.

Sigh. How does saying that a certain assassin has turned alcoholic make a one-to-one association between assassin and alcoholic?

Also technically "assassin" is a bastardization of "hashshasheen" or something meaning "hashish smokers", which was a slur for members of Nizari-Ismaili sect, which is funny in the context of your claim.

Could you help me out and tell me the names to your descriptions? I'm curious

These were Erdogan, Aliyev, Putin and Pashinyan in the same order.

I only read news for Armenia-related stuff, TBH.

Guess skin color isn't something you should use to judge people by.

This sounds like something Michael Scott from the Office would say.