Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.
only state-enforced segregation is.
And what would you call racial Gerrymandering if not state-enforced segregation, Clarence? I mean, apart from voter manipulation and disenfranchisement, that is.
After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks.
No, the idea that separation is harmful doesn't presuppose the reason being that black people are inferior. It is harmful because black people are often treated as inferior and are not given equal treatment, resources, and opportunity. Black schools in the Jim Crow south weren't worse because they were full of and run by black people. They were worse because they were fucking broke. Schools are largely funded by property taxes. And black home ownership has always been lower than white home ownership, and the value of those homes (and thus their property taxes) has always been lower on average. That means less money going to black schools per capita. Less money means fewer resources and opportunities. It's pretty fucking simple, Clarence.
I'm sure your next question is why black families owned fewer and cheaper homes. Well, the first and most obvious reason is that black families started with a handicap. They came from poor slaves who had nothing and had to start completely from scratch. White Americans had control of industry, agriculture, commerce, and government. Black Americans had to play catch up once freed.
Then, when the GI benefits of the returning soldiers of WWII helped millions of white families buy their first homes, those benefit weren't honored for black soldiers. When new valuable homes and nice schools were being built in the suburbs, those neighborhoods were red-lined, preventing black families from buying these valuable properties even when they had the finances to do so. When new highways and industrial works were being put in, things that bring pollution and drop property values, those things were intentionally built in and around black neighborhoods, robbing the existing black home owners of long term wealth. Do those things still happen now? Mostly no, and never explicitly racially biased. But this is not ancient history. This is in your life time, Clarence. It's effects are still seen today and black people are still poorer, own fewer homes and less expensive homes as a result of generations of oppressive and unequal treatment. It's absurd to equate acknowledging black poverty with deeming blacks inferior. This state was inflicted in them, not their fault.
Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.
If black people had been left to their own, they wouldn't have been slaves, wouldn't have been screwed out of their benefits they earned fighting for this country that hated them, wouldn't have been forbidden from moving into white neighborhoods, and wouldn't have had their homes tainted against their will by industry and transport that enriched white people. Let's also not discount the effects of unequal treatment under the law, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal justice for crimes against them. Let's also not forget that at the time the Brown decision was made, black people were still being FUCKING LYNCHED, CLARENCE. This fallacy of "separate but equal" has no legs to stand on. It never existed. Fuck all the way off, Clarence, you fucking sell out self-hating prick.
You know what's really sad? How events like this are/were not taught in history classes. Or at least not properly. I had never heard about the Tulsa Massacre until I was an adult. And you know where I first heard about it? The fucking Watchmen TV series in 2019. I did research on it and was mystified that it was not only a real event, but that I had never so much as heard it mentioned before. I did finally learn about it through formal education, but only as an elective course in college about the history of American racial biases. Smh.
And it's history like this that is explicitly being filtered out by laws to protect white students from feeling uncomfortable. No student in Florida will ever learn about Tulsa now until those laws are repealed. For the record, I'm white. I think I should have learned about this in high school at minimum.
Did you happen upon the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898? I grew up in NC and it was never mentioned in NC history classes. I was in college before I heard about it.
I had not. I'm no longer shocked though.
When people like Ron De Santis talks a "war against woke!", he's talking about a war on things that make privileged people uncomfortable and poor people pissed off.
They know that if more "woke" gets out there, it'll result in the rich potentially having to share.
Well spoken
Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.
It depends. If we think about Middle-Eastern and Balkan stuff, physical separation may really be better than mixed living which may turn into a mutual slaughter any day. That would be because cultural isolation doesn't require physical separation, and other things.
If we think about poorer and richer layers of the same general culture, with the poorer layers having more people with African ancestry - then yes.
You're not allowed to tell Americans that how they want the world to be isn't exactly correct.
Americans even inherently understand this by their nature of forming into their chosen tribes rather than their more historically convenient ones. You see this for left right divide, the rich poor divide along with every other divide in American society.
Ah yes, the chosen tribes of rich and poor. Good thing I chose rich!
? You think you get to independently choose your group? You don't, even among the most progressive.
You kinda sorta need to be welcome in the group whatever that group is.
Poor Confederate soldiers sort of did.
It's a problem with any group of humans really - the majority always thinks that one size fits all, and that their situation and the appropriate solutions are the same everywhere.
“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.
Says a well educated black man sitting on the supreme Court of the United States only because of brown v. Board.
I don't know if calling this man an Uncle Tom is appropriate so I won't. But man it sure does feel like he is.
I don’t know if calling this man an Uncle Tom is appropriate so I won’t.
"Pick-me" seems to be the going term these days. I just refer to them as bog-standard right-wing grifters.
Pick-Me sounds cringe as fuck, I'm just sticking with Uncle Tom
I've been calling him Uncle Thomas.
If you think a historically oppressed racial minority can't raise the funds to build a parallel society equal to an established and segregated majority, then you are the real racist.
Thats basically what it says. Why the fuck is this guy still on the SC?
This is gonna be a wild thread of unintentional racism by well meaning people unaware how superior they sound.
I think he's basically saying that it's racist to "artificially" integrate communities, because (I think he's saying) if they need to be integrated, then that's the same as saying that black folks are necessarily inferior. I don't think he's trying to say they're inferior, but that laws forcing integration are based on that assumption. So he can be well educated and successful because he isn't inherently inferior, therefore there is no need for forced integration.
... Which is such a weird stretch of naturalism in a direction I wasn't ready for. Naturalist BS is usually, "X deserves fewer rights because they are naturally inferior", whereas this is "We should ignore historical circumstances because X is not naturally inferior".
Start a game of monopoly after three other players have already gone around the board 10 times and created lots of rules explicitly preventing you from playing how they did and see how much the argument of "well, to give you any kind of advantage here would just be stating you're inferior, and we can't do that."
Man probably got angry at his golf handicap making him feel inferior and took things too far. Among other things.
Honestly I think his core argument is an overly worded "pull yourself up by your boot straps" crap.
Correct, he's being an idiot.
He's intentionally conflating disenfranchisement with inferiority.
I listened to a guy on a podcast saying that Clarence Thomas was in the Black Power movement when he was young, and that kinda informs his decisions now. Thomas is very pessimistic about black Americans ever gaining equal power in American politics, and thinks black people should focus on things they can control instead (family, business, etc). I guess it's kinda like an ethnic/right-wing version of "dual-power." Also, like a lot of leftists I see on here that seem to have given up on electoral politics.
Should that semicolon be there if the word 'only' serves to link the clauses?
Only isn't a preposition, it's an adverb. It's modifying the 'is.'
He could have used the word "but" BUT, my English teacher always told me never to use it. So a semicolon it is.
Says a well educated black man sitting on the supreme Court of the United States only because of brown v. Board.
His point is that the harm of segregation is that it simply blocks Black people from accessing society’s resources, which he experienced directly as a child being forced to use a segregated library until he was 13. What he’s arguing against is the idea that Black children need white children around them in the classroom in order to achieve.
He was born in a literal shack to a family descended from slaves. The theory that he needed more than just having the door unlocked for him is what is so deeply offensive to him.
The ruling in Brown is essentially that "separate but equal" public services and facilities are impossible in practice. I'm other words, his "point" has been very specifically considered by a past Supreme Court, and explicitly rejected. Educate yourself on history before defending that asshole.
I’m not defending “separate but equal” and I think you’re wrong if you think he is. He’s saying it’s a harm if Black people are prevented from attending Harvard by law. Same goes for any of society’s resources. It’s a matter of locked doors.
What he’s arguing against is the theory that Black children need help from their non-Black peers to succeed in school. He’s correct when he states that this theory is founded in an ideology of racial inferiority. His experience growing up in a family of grinding poverty and rising to the highest court in the country is proof against that. It’s easy to see why he would be deeply offended by any theory which invalidates his accomplishments.
I’m not defending him as a person though. He has some serious issues with conflicts of interest that are deeply undermining the judicial independence of SCOTUS. But the idea that he somehow lucked out and got a free ride through life is preposterous and demonstrably false.
He's incorrect because it's not founded in racial inferiority, it's grounded in unequal access to resources and opportunities.
By denying racist policies being in place to create and maintain inequality he helps ensuring the kids can't escape racism.
These people are arguing it's racist to acknowledge reality, centering the logic around denying that their racist policies have any racist outcomes, and accusing the kids of being at fault for circumstances outside their control.
These same people would never agree that nepotism driven preferential access for rich white kids is a sign of "racism of low expectations", but when the kids are poor they will scream that same argument at the top of their lungs.
Ah yes, because the separate but equal worked out so fine in the past. This splitting hairs nonsense is what leads people to believe it was state rights that caused the civil war.
No, segregation was the problem just like slavery was the problem. Thomas is riding the coattails of all the people who fought for his rights and then spitting in their face.
That he lucked out, betrayed his own kind, and became a Supreme Court Justice is not some dramatic success story. He was put their to prove a point. And the point is monied interests win over everything.
Here is a man who could care less for anyone less fortunate than himself proving that corruption is color blind. A man who fashions himself as self made who relied on society every step of the way.
A man who is so hypocritical that he is unable to comprehend how far he is denigrated his position. Or perhaps he does and that is the whole point
He was put their to prove a point
So you’re telling me there was a grand conspiracy to secretly tutor and groom Thomas through elementary school and high school, through university, law school, and his whole legal career in order to install him in the Supreme Court in order to prove a point… what point is that exactly?
Why the crazed conspiracy nonsense when a simple explanation will suffice. He was pushed through the ranks by Reagan and then nominated by Bush for his ideology not for his experience. The anti-thesis to Thurgood Marshall if you will.
The point is money and power win.
None of that explains how he got through elementary school, high school, and college.
Yeah, black kids don't need the help of white kids to succeed. They need their schools funded as if rich white children went to them though.
Also, school isn't just about success, it's about learning to live in a society, one which isn't just a monoculture. Hard to learn to live together (for all kinds of races & identities) spending entire childhoods separated.
Clarence knows this, he's just throwing out bullshit hoping someone will bite.
Not really appropriate but you can call him a house
I’d say your term is more PC
The problem with his logic is that it ignores that people are bad
If it walks like a duck.....
He's arguing against what you seem to think he's arguing fot.
seem to think he's arguing for
No... The point they were making is that he's arguing against something that he directly benefited from.
Oh look, a racist telling me he's a racist without telling me he's a racist. Right wing blacks bring that out so fucking fast its like progressives are literally retarded, or at least without any self reflection/contemplation abilities.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you know how to read?
Clarence Thomas isn't blind. He's a house negro — a full blown race (and justice) traitor. He knows he's a corrupt piece of shit sociopath and he revels in it.
The ridiculous part is that Americans still consider this court legitimate, when it is ruled by treasonous domestic terrorists.
The people's opinion of the court doesn't really matter. They can't do anything about it. Impeachment may exist, but only technically. We only have a real effect on the next court.
He lives somewhere. He shouldn't ever be comfortable
Republicans will expand it even if Democrats don't.
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.
... again.
How is someone so astoundingly against people with his own skin color?!
You should listen to behind the bastards eps about him and you'll understand why.
Yep. That's some fucked up shit they will listen to.
$$$
My name is Uncle Ruckus, no relation.
This dude is both openly corrupt, and an uncle Ruckus. What a disgusting human being.
Drawing political districts is a task for politicians
Ah, so he is a complete moron. I suppose next he’ll say that the presidential candidates will count their own votes?
For him, the corruption is a feature, not a bug. Just ask Nazi memorabilia enthusiast and his billionaire sugar daddy Harlan Crow.
When the current election cycle is done, there needs to be a concerted effort to legislate term limits for supreme court justices. Having a permanent placement for any single branch of government is simply not workable moving forward.
The cynic in me is hoping a Loving vs. VA challenge gets to the Supreme Court because I know he's going to overturn it without a doubt... while the pragmatist really just hopes the whole Supreme Court goes on a five year vacation so our rights stop getting eroded.
Even if that's overturned they'll never prosecute him for it. He's rich and so above the law.
I didn't think the Supreme Court would go this far. We knew they would be bad, that's why they were appointed, but they've tried and succeeded at making themselves so completely illegitimate, so completely out of touch with what the American public needs. And that only pushes people towards significantly more activism. Who do they hate? Who don't they respect? Women, ethnic minorities, librarians, anyone who isn't rich.
I didn't think the Supreme Court would go this far.
Why ever not? They fully showed us their hand when they overturned Roe.
I wonder what kind of deep self-hate and hate for others lives inside this man, but don't dare to even try to imagine it.
he's rich, the whole racism bit was always nothing but a ploy to keep poor people divided, a lot of people fell for it, but the rich don't care, the rich don't affiliate with "white" or "black" groups, they just care about money, and if pumping racism into society to keep their slaves was useful, then the black man just had to suffer.
Remember, at least in the American concept, anti-capitalism is anti-racism (this does not apply to all people or regions of the world)
As he was always intended to do. Mission Accomplished.
Oh I wish it were mission accomplished. He’s got a lot more to do on his agenda
Shouldn’t he have cancer by now?
He is the cancer
And sadly, it's inoperable. Take whichever meaning you like. They all fit.
The cancers like "oh fuck, we can't do anything to this guy"
Damnit, saw his name in the headline and had a brief moment of hope that he had Scaliaed himself out of this world. 😑
Sorry, the headline said “back” not “forwards”
This is what happens when you let Stephen Warren become a judge.
You know... For a second when he was talking about Brown V Board of Education I wondered if he maybe he was actually going to refer to some of the major desegregation issues. Like how a lot of quality education was actually negatively impacted because the way it was handled. Desegregation caused a massive firing of black teachers because parents of white kids coming into previously black only schools pulled all manner of nonsense like "Well what if my sparkling white menstruating girl child has to share a room with a male black teacher.. That's just wrong! " (yup... That was a 'legit' concern from white parents of the time) or how sudden staff redundancies would two teachers one from the black school and the other from the white to be considered and the one chosen to stay was damn near always from the white school despite the teachers being both very qualified. The narrative of "well the black schools were impoverished with budget staff and students had sub par outcomes so we should choose the 'most qualified' candidate " was a lot of the justification used at the time and a lot of it was blatantly untrue... The black schools may have seen less infrastructure funding but the teachers were just as good. That lack of black teachers also spiraled into a lot of biases on behalf of the sudden white dominant teacher population that turned black students into "problem children" amd second class citizens in schools where they had once been absolutely comfortable causing a lot of issues to domino out from that move.
I doubt that's his reasons because it seems like Clarence Thomas is well bought and paid for....But... Maybe it's coming from a genuine place? He's old enough to have seen that change happen first hand and be very negatively effected... If so maybe he does fondly remember an all black school? His takeway may be influenced by that kind of rosy nostalgic lens.
But for you? I’m sure Biden also stubbed your toe.
some people don't know what is in their own interest.
So the sore-loser wannabe dictator is the answer? We are between a rock and a fascist place. I vote rock.
from my perspective it's two fascists. i'm not voting for either of them.
So young and naive. Unfortunately your opportunity to influence the process was in the primary.
you do t know anything about my identity, and I'm not naive at all: I know what fascism is. its capitulating to the military industrial complex and jailing or killing anyone who threatens the states power.
Well then I guess the choice in your mind is:
dude not openly making public statements on how president's can do whatever and not go to jail.
or
dude actively and openly trying to do opposite of option 1
I know what my choice would be. If you are in a battle ground state please vote.
he's not trying to do the opposite, he's trying to keep himself in power.
Sure biden wants to stay president after he claimed he was a 1 term president. I think issue there was presidential incumbent has higher chance of success than challenger and DNC doesn't want to take risks with Trump.
Trump is literally talking about president killing rivals and getting away with it and Reichs. I never heard Biden say anything at that level openly.
And yet you accuse Anita Hill, someone you know nothing about, that she's voting against her own interests and didn't know what she wants.
The hypocrisy and stupidity is strong with this one.
I'm saying she may not know. it's not an accusation.
Your identity is apparent in your naivety.
Good job kiddo. What other words have you looked up today?
your condescension is inappropriate
Wah.
You not understanding how the election works is inappropriate.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
that's not what anyone here said
And what, right now, is in our own interest?
I don't presume to know. I am only saying we can't assume anyone is actually acting in their own rational self interest since we know people so often do not. Anita Hill is no exception.
I'm sure I don't need to point out the irony here, right?
I do want to point out that if no one can be trusted to act in their own self-interest, who then should act on their behalf?
you don't seem to be very good at handling nuance, and i don't feel qualified to help you understand this.
on Lemmy for a single day, proceeds to only post biden whataboutism bullshit. gtfo troll
calling me names doesn't change whether my concerns are legitimate
I think the issue here is you didn't actually voice any of your concerns until much later in the conversation. The equivalent of "Lol Biden bad" isn't very helpful or bound to be well received unless either the content being commented informs the statement or you care to explain yourself.
i think the issue is the personal attacks that persist against anyone who dares challenge the orthodoxy. i think a civil discussion could have been had, with no need for name-calling, or poisoning the well about the age of my account or teh topics that interest me.
That's understandable, I agree with your point. We DO get a ton of trolls on new accounts fomenting trouble for kicks, but people ought to hold themselves to a higher standard and at least wait for trolls to prove themselves to be trolls instead of acting on assumptions.
That was quite the read. However, why don't you give us your take on the events and why this is seemingly all Biden's fault. I don't want to make any assumptions.
Oh, I didn't know Joe Biden packed the court with fashy theocrats. I thought it was Trump, and these fashy theocrats just waited until Trump lost to make Joe Biden look bad by undermining his governance.
tell any story you like. the story I know has Biden in DC for 50 years, even serving on the judiciary committee. I hold him at least partly responsible for Trump's election in 2016, and will blame him for in 2024, too. he laid the groundwork for fascism to flourish.
You're blaming Biden in particular for Thomas and Trump? He's not blameless for confirming Clarence. Though, of course, he is one of many responsible there and a conservative judge like Clarence was a forgone conclusion under the Bush 1 administration. And I can't imagine how you justify blaming Biden for Trump's first presidency. Because he didn't run for president in 2016? Because he was a part of the Obama administration that led to the Trump administration? Either way, his responsibility is so marginal as to be confusing to even consider him culpable.
There's plenty to be dissatisfied or angry about with Biden that are directly and primarily or solely his fault. So why are you singling him out for those two things that are barely his responsibility at all, if at all?
why are you singling him out
he's asking for my vote. his supporters are demanding my vote. i'm not singling him out, he is a part of the zeitgeist, and due criticism til he leaves it.
I can’t imagine how you justify blaming Biden for Trump’s first presidency
he spent 50 years shaping the political landscape. the rise of fascism didn't happen because donald trump ran for president. his run was made possible by the rising fascism.
Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.
And what would you call racial Gerrymandering if not state-enforced segregation, Clarence? I mean, apart from voter manipulation and disenfranchisement, that is.
No, the idea that separation is harmful doesn't presuppose the reason being that black people are inferior. It is harmful because black people are often treated as inferior and are not given equal treatment, resources, and opportunity. Black schools in the Jim Crow south weren't worse because they were full of and run by black people. They were worse because they were fucking broke. Schools are largely funded by property taxes. And black home ownership has always been lower than white home ownership, and the value of those homes (and thus their property taxes) has always been lower on average. That means less money going to black schools per capita. Less money means fewer resources and opportunities. It's pretty fucking simple, Clarence.
I'm sure your next question is why black families owned fewer and cheaper homes. Well, the first and most obvious reason is that black families started with a handicap. They came from poor slaves who had nothing and had to start completely from scratch. White Americans had control of industry, agriculture, commerce, and government. Black Americans had to play catch up once freed.
Then, when the GI benefits of the returning soldiers of WWII helped millions of white families buy their first homes, those benefit weren't honored for black soldiers. When new valuable homes and nice schools were being built in the suburbs, those neighborhoods were red-lined, preventing black families from buying these valuable properties even when they had the finances to do so. When new highways and industrial works were being put in, things that bring pollution and drop property values, those things were intentionally built in and around black neighborhoods, robbing the existing black home owners of long term wealth. Do those things still happen now? Mostly no, and never explicitly racially biased. But this is not ancient history. This is in your life time, Clarence. It's effects are still seen today and black people are still poorer, own fewer homes and less expensive homes as a result of generations of oppressive and unequal treatment. It's absurd to equate acknowledging black poverty with deeming blacks inferior. This state was inflicted in them, not their fault.
If black people had been left to their own, they wouldn't have been slaves, wouldn't have been screwed out of their benefits they earned fighting for this country that hated them, wouldn't have been forbidden from moving into white neighborhoods, and wouldn't have had their homes tainted against their will by industry and transport that enriched white people. Let's also not discount the effects of unequal treatment under the law, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal justice for crimes against them. Let's also not forget that at the time the Brown decision was made, black people were still being FUCKING LYNCHED, CLARENCE. This fallacy of "separate but equal" has no legs to stand on. It never existed. Fuck all the way off, Clarence, you fucking sell out self-hating prick.
Also when black people were successful financially, society tended to destroy their businesses.
You know what's really sad? How events like this are/were not taught in history classes. Or at least not properly. I had never heard about the Tulsa Massacre until I was an adult. And you know where I first heard about it? The fucking Watchmen TV series in 2019. I did research on it and was mystified that it was not only a real event, but that I had never so much as heard it mentioned before. I did finally learn about it through formal education, but only as an elective course in college about the history of American racial biases. Smh.
And it's history like this that is explicitly being filtered out by laws to protect white students from feeling uncomfortable. No student in Florida will ever learn about Tulsa now until those laws are repealed. For the record, I'm white. I think I should have learned about this in high school at minimum.
Did you happen upon the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898? I grew up in NC and it was never mentioned in NC history classes. I was in college before I heard about it.
I had not. I'm no longer shocked though.
When people like Ron De Santis talks a "war against woke!", he's talking about a war on things that make privileged people uncomfortable and poor people pissed off.
They know that if more "woke" gets out there, it'll result in the rich potentially having to share.
Well spoken
It depends. If we think about Middle-Eastern and Balkan stuff, physical separation may really be better than mixed living which may turn into a mutual slaughter any day. That would be because cultural isolation doesn't require physical separation, and other things.
If we think about poorer and richer layers of the same general culture, with the poorer layers having more people with African ancestry - then yes.
You're not allowed to tell Americans that how they want the world to be isn't exactly correct.
Americans even inherently understand this by their nature of forming into their chosen tribes rather than their more historically convenient ones. You see this for left right divide, the rich poor divide along with every other divide in American society.
Ah yes, the chosen tribes of rich and poor. Good thing I chose rich!
? You think you get to independently choose your group? You don't, even among the most progressive.
You kinda sorta need to be welcome in the group whatever that group is.
Poor Confederate soldiers sort of did.
It's a problem with any group of humans really - the majority always thinks that one size fits all, and that their situation and the appropriate solutions are the same everywhere.
Says a well educated black man sitting on the supreme Court of the United States only because of brown v. Board.
I don't know if calling this man an Uncle Tom is appropriate so I won't. But man it sure does feel like he is.
"Pick-me" seems to be the going term these days. I just refer to them as bog-standard right-wing grifters.
Pick-Me sounds cringe as fuck, I'm just sticking with Uncle Tom
I've been calling him Uncle Thomas.
If you think a historically oppressed racial minority can't raise the funds to build a parallel society equal to an established and segregated majority, then you are the real racist.
Thats basically what it says. Why the fuck is this guy still on the SC?
This is gonna be a wild thread of unintentional racism by well meaning people unaware how superior they sound.
I think he's basically saying that it's racist to "artificially" integrate communities, because (I think he's saying) if they need to be integrated, then that's the same as saying that black folks are necessarily inferior. I don't think he's trying to say they're inferior, but that laws forcing integration are based on that assumption. So he can be well educated and successful because he isn't inherently inferior, therefore there is no need for forced integration.
... Which is such a weird stretch of naturalism in a direction I wasn't ready for. Naturalist BS is usually, "X deserves fewer rights because they are naturally inferior", whereas this is "We should ignore historical circumstances because X is not naturally inferior".
Start a game of monopoly after three other players have already gone around the board 10 times and created lots of rules explicitly preventing you from playing how they did and see how much the argument of "well, to give you any kind of advantage here would just be stating you're inferior, and we can't do that."
Man probably got angry at his golf handicap making him feel inferior and took things too far. Among other things.
Honestly I think his core argument is an overly worded "pull yourself up by your boot straps" crap.
Correct, he's being an idiot.
He's intentionally conflating disenfranchisement with inferiority.
I listened to a guy on a podcast saying that Clarence Thomas was in the Black Power movement when he was young, and that kinda informs his decisions now. Thomas is very pessimistic about black Americans ever gaining equal power in American politics, and thinks black people should focus on things they can control instead (family, business, etc). I guess it's kinda like an ethnic/right-wing version of "dual-power." Also, like a lot of leftists I see on here that seem to have given up on electoral politics.
Should that semicolon be there if the word 'only' serves to link the clauses?
Only isn't a preposition, it's an adverb. It's modifying the 'is.'
He could have used the word "but" BUT, my English teacher always told me never to use it. So a semicolon it is.
His point is that the harm of segregation is that it simply blocks Black people from accessing society’s resources, which he experienced directly as a child being forced to use a segregated library until he was 13. What he’s arguing against is the idea that Black children need white children around them in the classroom in order to achieve.
He was born in a literal shack to a family descended from slaves. The theory that he needed more than just having the door unlocked for him is what is so deeply offensive to him.
The ruling in Brown is essentially that "separate but equal" public services and facilities are impossible in practice. I'm other words, his "point" has been very specifically considered by a past Supreme Court, and explicitly rejected. Educate yourself on history before defending that asshole.
I’m not defending “separate but equal” and I think you’re wrong if you think he is. He’s saying it’s a harm if Black people are prevented from attending Harvard by law. Same goes for any of society’s resources. It’s a matter of locked doors.
What he’s arguing against is the theory that Black children need help from their non-Black peers to succeed in school. He’s correct when he states that this theory is founded in an ideology of racial inferiority. His experience growing up in a family of grinding poverty and rising to the highest court in the country is proof against that. It’s easy to see why he would be deeply offended by any theory which invalidates his accomplishments.
I’m not defending him as a person though. He has some serious issues with conflicts of interest that are deeply undermining the judicial independence of SCOTUS. But the idea that he somehow lucked out and got a free ride through life is preposterous and demonstrably false.
He's incorrect because it's not founded in racial inferiority, it's grounded in unequal access to resources and opportunities.
By denying racist policies being in place to create and maintain inequality he helps ensuring the kids can't escape racism.
These people are arguing it's racist to acknowledge reality, centering the logic around denying that their racist policies have any racist outcomes, and accusing the kids of being at fault for circumstances outside their control.
These same people would never agree that nepotism driven preferential access for rich white kids is a sign of "racism of low expectations", but when the kids are poor they will scream that same argument at the top of their lungs.
Ah yes, because the separate but equal worked out so fine in the past. This splitting hairs nonsense is what leads people to believe it was state rights that caused the civil war.
No, segregation was the problem just like slavery was the problem. Thomas is riding the coattails of all the people who fought for his rights and then spitting in their face.
That he lucked out, betrayed his own kind, and became a Supreme Court Justice is not some dramatic success story. He was put their to prove a point. And the point is monied interests win over everything.
Here is a man who could care less for anyone less fortunate than himself proving that corruption is color blind. A man who fashions himself as self made who relied on society every step of the way.
A man who is so hypocritical that he is unable to comprehend how far he is denigrated his position. Or perhaps he does and that is the whole point
So you’re telling me there was a grand conspiracy to secretly tutor and groom Thomas through elementary school and high school, through university, law school, and his whole legal career in order to install him in the Supreme Court in order to prove a point… what point is that exactly?
Why the crazed conspiracy nonsense when a simple explanation will suffice. He was pushed through the ranks by Reagan and then nominated by Bush for his ideology not for his experience. The anti-thesis to Thurgood Marshall if you will.
The point is money and power win.
None of that explains how he got through elementary school, high school, and college.
Yeah, black kids don't need the help of white kids to succeed. They need their schools funded as if rich white children went to them though.
Also, school isn't just about success, it's about learning to live in a society, one which isn't just a monoculture. Hard to learn to live together (for all kinds of races & identities) spending entire childhoods separated.
Clarence knows this, he's just throwing out bullshit hoping someone will bite.
Not really appropriate but you can call him a house
I’d say your term is more PC
The problem with his logic is that it ignores that people are bad
If it walks like a duck.....
He's arguing against what you seem to think he's arguing fot.
No... The point they were making is that he's arguing against something that he directly benefited from.
Oh look, a racist telling me he's a racist without telling me he's a racist. Right wing blacks bring that out so fucking fast its like progressives are literally retarded, or at least without any self reflection/contemplation abilities.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you know how to read?
One of us don't.
Doesn't* congrats, it's you.
Clarence Thomas isn't blind. He's a house negro — a full blown race (and justice) traitor. He knows he's a corrupt piece of shit sociopath and he revels in it.
The ridiculous part is that Americans still consider this court legitimate, when it is ruled by treasonous domestic terrorists.
The people's opinion of the court doesn't really matter. They can't do anything about it. Impeachment may exist, but only technically. We only have a real effect on the next court.
He lives somewhere. He shouldn't ever be comfortable
Republicans will expand it even if Democrats don't.
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.
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.
... again.
How is someone so astoundingly against people with his own skin color?!
You should listen to behind the bastards eps about him and you'll understand why.
Yep. That's some fucked up shit they will listen to.
$$$
My name is Uncle Ruckus, no relation.
This dude is both openly corrupt, and an uncle Ruckus. What a disgusting human being.
Ah, so he is a complete moron. I suppose next he’ll say that the presidential candidates will count their own votes?
For him, the corruption is a feature, not a bug. Just ask Nazi memorabilia enthusiast and his billionaire sugar daddy Harlan Crow.
When the current election cycle is done, there needs to be a concerted effort to legislate term limits for supreme court justices. Having a permanent placement for any single branch of government is simply not workable moving forward.
The cynic in me is hoping a Loving vs. VA challenge gets to the Supreme Court because I know he's going to overturn it without a doubt... while the pragmatist really just hopes the whole Supreme Court goes on a five year vacation so our rights stop getting eroded.
Even if that's overturned they'll never prosecute him for it. He's rich and so above the law.
He will be grandfathered in.
Uncle ruckus at it again.
No relation.
I didn't think the Supreme Court would go this far. We knew they would be bad, that's why they were appointed, but they've tried and succeeded at making themselves so completely illegitimate, so completely out of touch with what the American public needs. And that only pushes people towards significantly more activism. Who do they hate? Who don't they respect? Women, ethnic minorities, librarians, anyone who isn't rich.
Why ever not? They fully showed us their hand when they overturned Roe.
I wonder what kind of deep self-hate and hate for others lives inside this man, but don't dare to even try to imagine it.
he's rich, the whole racism bit was always nothing but a ploy to keep poor people divided, a lot of people fell for it, but the rich don't care, the rich don't affiliate with "white" or "black" groups, they just care about money, and if pumping racism into society to keep their slaves was useful, then the black man just had to suffer.
Remember, at least in the American concept, anti-capitalism is anti-racism (this does not apply to all people or regions of the world)
As he was always intended to do. Mission Accomplished.
Oh I wish it were mission accomplished. He’s got a lot more to do on his agenda
Shouldn’t he have cancer by now?
He is the cancer
And sadly, it's inoperable. Take whichever meaning you like. They all fit.
The cancers like "oh fuck, we can't do anything to this guy"
Damnit, saw his name in the headline and had a brief moment of hope that he had Scaliaed himself out of this world. 😑
Sorry, the headline said “back” not “forwards”
This is what happens when you let Stephen Warren become a judge.
You know... For a second when he was talking about Brown V Board of Education I wondered if he maybe he was actually going to refer to some of the major desegregation issues. Like how a lot of quality education was actually negatively impacted because the way it was handled. Desegregation caused a massive firing of black teachers because parents of white kids coming into previously black only schools pulled all manner of nonsense like "Well what if my sparkling white menstruating girl child has to share a room with a male black teacher.. That's just wrong! " (yup... That was a 'legit' concern from white parents of the time) or how sudden staff redundancies would two teachers one from the black school and the other from the white to be considered and the one chosen to stay was damn near always from the white school despite the teachers being both very qualified. The narrative of "well the black schools were impoverished with budget staff and students had sub par outcomes so we should choose the 'most qualified' candidate " was a lot of the justification used at the time and a lot of it was blatantly untrue... The black schools may have seen less infrastructure funding but the teachers were just as good. That lack of black teachers also spiraled into a lot of biases on behalf of the sudden white dominant teacher population that turned black students into "problem children" amd second class citizens in schools where they had once been absolutely comfortable causing a lot of issues to domino out from that move.
I doubt that's his reasons because it seems like Clarence Thomas is well bought and paid for....But... Maybe it's coming from a genuine place? He's old enough to have seen that change happen first hand and be very negatively effected... If so maybe he does fondly remember an all black school? His takeway may be influenced by that kind of rosy nostalgic lens.
this is what Joe Biden gives us
It’s not even an issue for her.
ANITA HILL VOTED FOR BIDEN.
But for you? I’m sure Biden also stubbed your toe.
some people don't know what is in their own interest.
So the sore-loser wannabe dictator is the answer? We are between a rock and a fascist place. I vote rock.
from my perspective it's two fascists. i'm not voting for either of them.
So young and naive. Unfortunately your opportunity to influence the process was in the primary.
you do t know anything about my identity, and I'm not naive at all: I know what fascism is. its capitulating to the military industrial complex and jailing or killing anyone who threatens the states power.
Well then I guess the choice in your mind is:
I know what my choice would be. If you are in a battle ground state please vote.
he's not trying to do the opposite, he's trying to keep himself in power.
Sure biden wants to stay president after he claimed he was a 1 term president. I think issue there was presidential incumbent has higher chance of success than challenger and DNC doesn't want to take risks with Trump.
Trump is literally talking about president killing rivals and getting away with it and Reichs. I never heard Biden say anything at that level openly.
And yet you accuse Anita Hill, someone you know nothing about, that she's voting against her own interests and didn't know what she wants.
The hypocrisy and stupidity is strong with this one.
I'm saying she may not know. it's not an accusation.
Your identity is apparent in your naivety.
Good job kiddo. What other words have you looked up today?
your condescension is inappropriate
Wah.
You not understanding how the election works is inappropriate.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
that's not what anyone here said
And what, right now, is in our own interest?
I don't presume to know. I am only saying we can't assume anyone is actually acting in their own rational self interest since we know people so often do not. Anita Hill is no exception.
I'm sure I don't need to point out the irony here, right?
I do want to point out that if no one can be trusted to act in their own self-interest, who then should act on their behalf?
you don't seem to be very good at handling nuance, and i don't feel qualified to help you understand this.
on Lemmy for a single day, proceeds to only post biden whataboutism bullshit. gtfo troll
calling me names doesn't change whether my concerns are legitimate
I think the issue here is you didn't actually voice any of your concerns until much later in the conversation. The equivalent of "Lol Biden bad" isn't very helpful or bound to be well received unless either the content being commented informs the statement or you care to explain yourself.
i think the issue is the personal attacks that persist against anyone who dares challenge the orthodoxy. i think a civil discussion could have been had, with no need for name-calling, or poisoning the well about the age of my account or teh topics that interest me.
That's understandable, I agree with your point. We DO get a ton of trolls on new accounts fomenting trouble for kicks, but people ought to hold themselves to a higher standard and at least wait for trolls to prove themselves to be trolls instead of acting on assumptions.
How so?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill
That was quite the read. However, why don't you give us your take on the events and why this is seemingly all Biden's fault. I don't want to make any assumptions.
Oh, I didn't know Joe Biden packed the court with fashy theocrats. I thought it was Trump, and these fashy theocrats just waited until Trump lost to make Joe Biden look bad by undermining his governance.
tell any story you like. the story I know has Biden in DC for 50 years, even serving on the judiciary committee. I hold him at least partly responsible for Trump's election in 2016, and will blame him for in 2024, too. he laid the groundwork for fascism to flourish.
You're blaming Biden in particular for Thomas and Trump? He's not blameless for confirming Clarence. Though, of course, he is one of many responsible there and a conservative judge like Clarence was a forgone conclusion under the Bush 1 administration. And I can't imagine how you justify blaming Biden for Trump's first presidency. Because he didn't run for president in 2016? Because he was a part of the Obama administration that led to the Trump administration? Either way, his responsibility is so marginal as to be confusing to even consider him culpable.
There's plenty to be dissatisfied or angry about with Biden that are directly and primarily or solely his fault. So why are you singling him out for those two things that are barely his responsibility at all, if at all?
he's asking for my vote. his supporters are demanding my vote. i'm not singling him out, he is a part of the zeitgeist, and due criticism til he leaves it.
he spent 50 years shaping the political landscape. the rise of fascism didn't happen because donald trump ran for president. his run was made possible by the rising fascism.