Clarence Thomas Just Set Civil Rights Back 70 Years
Clarence Thomas Just Set Civil Rights Back 70 Years
Although we shouldn't be surprised, the conservative Justice shares a con
You're viewing a single thread.
“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.
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.
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?
He could have used the word "but" BUT, my English teacher always told me never to use it. So a semicolon it is.
Only isn't a preposition, it's an adverb. It's modifying the 'is.'
If it walks like a duck.....
He's arguing against what you seem to think he's arguing fot.
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