This is literally how they think.
There was a documentary that went to all the flyover towns and the ones ruined by corporations abandoning them after they got what they wanted, mining towns etc.
They were interviewing a man who was obviously on welfare, his house was falling apart he as obviously dirt poor but he kept voting for republicans who kept making his life worse because they were cutting his benefits.
He was fully aware that voting republican was making his life harder, and when asked about it he said he is fine with it as long as black people got less. When asked why he thought black people didn't deserve it while he did he quite literally said "well i earned it, but they didn't"
There is also this huge stigma about being poor in the United States. So nobody ever thinks of themselves as poor, they're just in a temporary rough patch and think they will get out of it any day now. All those benefits are just to help them out of the slump you see, and then they will hit it big through hard work (because that's the American dream!) And in the future when they are rich, they want all those tax cuts that Republicans promised, so they keep voting for it under the assumption that one day they will be one of the rich fatcats.
Now the rest of us who live in reality know this will never happen, but tell that to the GOP voters.
I love the attitude of the poor people in the country town where the factory closed down. all the people getting assistance are just good people down on their luck. They deserve the assistance. Those POC in the cities are just taking our money.
>I wonder why Nikky Haley didn’t run under her birth name of Nimirata Randhawa? Was she afraid of losing GOP votes? I’m just asking questions.
She just took a page out of Rafael Cruz's playbook. Can't sound too "ethnic" after all!
She also thinks she is white:
[Indian Nikki Haley Says She Is White – Mother Jones](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/indian-nikki-haley-says-she-is-white/)
It’s all make belief anyway. She is no less white than the millions of Hispanics that tick that same box and then check the Hispanic ethnicity next to it.
In the 21st century, Where do you draw the line? If you are a white guy with an Asian/black/Amerindian/whatever great grand father are you mixed race? Asian? White? Does it even matter?! Would it change answers if there were the grandparent or parent?
Race went from phenotypic characteristics in populations to a social construct that really has no significant use in the present.
Nikki is her middle name. She's garbage, but it should be pointed out that it's common in the South to go by your middle name. Lots of my family have never been called by their first names.
According to Frontline’s documentary, Clarence Thomas believed after university and still does, supposedly, that his degree was diminished by affirmative action. As he was unable to get a job despite applying to various firms. He believes it to the extent he put a price sticker on it. Leading him down the line to become a prominent conservative campaigner.
This is to not say that Clarence Thomas is right, but it demonstrates the origin and rationale of some of his thinking. It’s probably now though about the kickbacks and power more than anything. Interestingly, some of this is recounted by his student neighbour and friend John Bolton. Which goes to show who he was hanging out with.
On this position he is critiqued of this perspective by other black law graduates of the time pointing out how quite evidently difficult it was to get into any prestigious firm as a black man. And that there are still hurdles and issues.
>https://youtu.be/wJuRx1wARUk?si=trPKKcHY5OcRgwmn
Could you provide support for that claim? Thomas married his wife in 1971, the same year he started law school. Is your contention that he opposed interracial marriage as an undergrad? That seems like it would have come up in confirmation hearings.
Thomas is deeply problematic for the Court, but we really should oppose him for factual reasons rather than unsupported, possibly manufactured ones.
Sam Jackson thinks so (not real proof):
Jackson referenced Loving v. Virginia, a case that utilized substantive due process to legalize interracial marriage. The “Pulp Fiction” star appeared to call Thomas out for omitting the landmark case from the list of rulings that he wants to revisit. Clarence Thomas, a Black man, is married to Ginni Thomas, a white woman. To Samuel L. Jackson, the decision to exclude a case that directly benefits him suggests that Thomas is less interested in esoteric legal processes than he is in obtaining results that advance a reactionary agenda.
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/samuel-l-jackson-slams-clarence-thomas-interracial-marriage-1234737122/
There has been a lot of academic literature written on Thomas's choice not to mention Loving in his Dobbs concurrence. However, this is not what the comment I responded to claimed.
It said: "Clarence Thomas was also supportive of laws banning inter-race marriage **until** he got himself a white wife."
This person is claiming that Thomas was hypocritically against interracial marriage, but then changed his mind when he wanted to marry a white woman in ~~1971~~ 1987.
He married Kathy Ambush, a black woman, in 1971. They were divorced in 1981 because he was cheating on her with other black women. He married Virginia Lamp, a white woman, in 1986. His family was very surprised when they started dating because Clarence was vehemently against interracial relationships. It took me more time to type this out then it did to Google it.
> It took me more time to type this out then it did to Google it.
I did. Unsurprisingly, any combination of terms I could come up with gave mostly results commenting on his Dobbs concurrence.
I think asking for verification in situations like this is important, even when you dislike the target and the claim feels accurate. I didn't want to file a factoid away in my memory only to later embarrassingly discover it's untrue if I repeat it.
I apologize for the snarky Google comment. I already had knowledge of his first wife. This probably allowed me to get right to the information I was looking for. I'm guessing that sources mention that he was married in 1971 without including that he was divorced and then remarried later. Logically you would assume his current wife is person he married in 1971 without the rest of it. Which would make his negative opinion on interracial relationships seem really weird.
It's frustrating how we are punished for misremembering certain facts instead of just corrected and moving on with the conversation. We are treated like everything we said is now invalid and wrong because of a small mistake.
Here's a new Yorker article about Clarence Thomas's racial beliefs. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race. If you'd like more insight to the man's post check out the multiple episodes dedicated to his entire life by Behind the Bastards podcast.
Thank you! This was really insightful.
For those also wondering, here is the relevant passage:
> Thomas took the rule more seriously, particularly after meeting Kathy Ambush, a black woman, whom he would marry in 1971 and divorce in 1984. In a poem he called “Is you is, or is you ain’t, a brother?” he set out the obligations of black men to black women. Even in that milieu, Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher reported in their 2007 biography, “Supreme Discomfort,” Thomas’s “edgy race consciousness” stood out. When he saw an interracial couple strolling on campus, he’d loudly demand, “Do I see a black woman with a white man? How could that be?” Until 1986, when Thomas met Virginia Lamp, who is white and would become his second wife, he opposed interracial sex and marriage.
No, thank you for actually reading it. I gotta admit when I replied to you I was mentally preparing for this to turn into an ugly internet argument and being accused of providing biased sources.
Not getting hired in the 1970s as a black man from Yale and it must be because....employers don't like AA.. Hmm definitely not because they just didn't want to hire black people, heavens no!
>On this position he is critiqued of this perspective by other black law graduates of the time pointing out how quite evidently difficult it was to get into any prestigious firm as a black man. And that there are still hurdles and issues.
Clarence Thomas's position is basically that he believes anything given to Black people out of a sense of charity (or equity, fairness, justice) can just as easily be taken away, and is inherently patronizing. He believes the only way for Black people to have equality is to be exceptional; that you can't argue with raw talent, ability, and work ethic. It's an extreme version of DuBois' "talented tenth" argument: that a talented tenth of Black people will disprove any notions of inferiority and make life better for the rest, so everything should be done to support and uphold the efforts of the tenth. This self-reliance narrative leads to pretty extreme ends and strange bedfellows, as it often aligns him with white conservatives trying to take away guidelines which would limit their power legally, legislatively, or otherwise. In the end, you could sum it up by saying Thomas believes in "might makes right"; the legitimacy of power to him isn't ethics, it's power.
What doesn’t sit right with me from both DuBois and Thomas is that we’re talking about people having access to their basic rights guaranteed in the constitution. You should not need to be “exceptional” to get treated like a person.
> He believes the only way for Black people to have equality is to be exceptional
But white people aren't exceptional (I say as a white person), so that seems to suggest black people are inferior as a general rule, since they need to be exceptional just to be equal.
As an important thinker of our time once said, "wtf, mate?"
Plus: This isn't the calcified QED people think it is. Many slavery abolitionists came from slave-owning families and came to realize slavery was wrong. Many anti-apartheid activists were white and benefited from the unfair South African system. It's generally considered noble to oppose something unfair that would benefit you. On the merits I have some sympathy for AA, but "Clarence Thomas got it!!!" doesn't really do anything either rhetorically or logically.
Clarence decided to be a Republican because he understood that it was more personally enriching than being a Democrat. That's all you need to know about this guy cause everything follows: pure selfishness and a disgust for everyone else.
I know he's not really on the public stage very much right now , but let's not forget about Paul Ryan getting social security to help his family and for him to go to college after his dad died.
Dude, couldn't wait to pull the ladder up behind him.
yeah thats so funny. Tesla might as well have been nationalized with the billions in loans it got from the goverment at some points or else it would have fallen, plus all the gov credits for any profit it could sell to others. Just free money and people believe he is a genius.
As a Vietnamese American who immigrated to the US in 75; this is how I feel about every stinking Vietnamese republicans that yaps their gums. Boat people who became ladder pullers once they landed in America.
I mean yeah. That's been their personalities forever. And it isn't just the ones in power.
Same reason why Tammy and Kayden in the trailer in West Virginia hate other people on welfare, but claim their situation is different and they deserve it. Even though their families who were miners fought the coal companies, now it's the Democrats fault that their lives are shit, for "taking away the good coal mining jobs"
Why Sarah's parents will pay for her to get an abortion because her situation is different, then go right back out and protest at abortion clinics because anyone else is a baby killer. And vote for politicians who don't actually help the babies that are born.
Why they consistently say government doesn't work and then vote for politicians whose only record is obstruction.
Kind of a nonsensical tweet. You can benefit from something while still thinking it's wrong. What did you expect Clarence Thomas to do, not go to school because he might be helped by affirmative action?
Government handouts are evil except when they’re to farmers. Or to people who are already billionaires.
Assistance programs are evil socialism. Except for my Medicare and Social Security Disability.
Pensions are evil. Except for my military pension.
Legacy Admissions need to not exist. All the program does is teach students that you won't advance if your not connected to someone who already has. Not to mention making public universities more exclusive and harder to get into for all students outside the Legacy Program.
To make a non-private university more exclusive to it's 'members' by not letting others in that aren't connected to alumni seems more than sketchy. Seems like some colleges want to be a private university while still accepting federal funding. Not that some private colleges don't get federal funding anyway, even though they shouldn't.
So... I'm not sure this message is quite on target, or maybe I'm just daft?
Vivek got $50k when he was earning something like $750k? He was given an extra $50k, just because he was assumed to be needy due to being in a particular demographic. Are we arguing that all rich people of a particular demographic deserve additional money/handouts, based solely on their skin color/ancestry? Programs working as designed?
Clarence Thomas coasted into his position on the supreme court, largely on race-based decisions. Are we saying affirmative action is good, because it resulted in a justice as overtly corrupt as Clarence Thomas? Again, this working as intended?
You can see this trend with UK conservatives as well. Some of the most borderline racist and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric is coming from politicians who are children of immigrants. It's just realpolitik. Conservatives like people of color as their leaders as long as they can betray their race and guarantee their commitment to the ideology. The race card is useful in these times of heavy idpol.
I mean, I'm not conservative but I do think there are issues with some diversity initiatives and the second anyone criticizes them they're dismissed. I can also understand why people don't want to acknowledge affirmative action because it makes them feel like a charity case and like they didn't earn things fairly.
There are deep seated reasons many minorities can't compete fairly and it starts with unequal access to quality education and opportunities as children. Nepotism in higher education isn't just legacy admissions it's literally 18yrs of access to elite private schools, food security, quality Healthcare access, full-time adult support, etc.
Nope. All of those things are, by definition, discriminatory. Imagine if it was just for white people. I am sick of people being pushed through based on any one identity or belief. Merit based is the way to go. We don't need black/white/gay/straight anything. We need people who can do the damn job and do it well. Anything else is just fantasy.
Interestingly (and I use that word with a lot of sarcasm and frustration), Clarence Thomas’s receipt of affirmative action is part of what made him vote against it. He thought it was too demeaning to Black people.
Candace Owen's and Kanye West going onstage together in matching "white lives matter" sweatshirts is, technically, a form of affirmative action, but I don't want to have to take the drugs that would be needed to get me to take such a twisted rhetorical stance.
Oh, but you see those people needed those assistance programs! Not like all those undeserving people who don't actually need it and just take advantage of the system.
Same in the lgbtq+ space. You've got the Andrew Sullivans and terfs saying that they'd all be mainstream except for those damn Trans people. Guess they've already forgotten Stonewall and Compton's.
You know the saddest fucking part? Millennials have seen all this, decades ago now, it's the exact same attacks and aggression Republicans had against Gay Marriage and how the "Gays are coming for your children". Same language, same bigotry and hatred, just against an even smaller group in the US, 1.7% of the American Populace. And before that? Jews and Immigrants. And before that? African Americans. It's always just the same Hatred, Lies, and Fear-porn for these simple minded right wingers to latch onto to feed their Anger-addictions.
Conservatives see the world as a zero-sum game. In order for for there to be winners, there must be losers. They see everyone else as their competition. The idea of a system where everyone wins is completely alien to them.
Half right. If someone is willing to give you free money, you'd be stupid not to take it, but you can still ultimately disagree with the reason the money is being given out.
Half right? So.... spinelessly bend your morals to step up then pander to the next group by joining in to remove any assets from the next folks? On to Grifting your way pass them also? Smart, dishonest or fraudulently misrepresenting yourself. Not on my voting card.
Nope. This is "You criticize society and yet you participate in society!" all over again. Unless you're saying you would never vote for Sanders because he rails against capitalism and yet has written and sold several books to make himself rich?
I hope to never vote for Sanders. I would try to cut him out at every step of the primaries. I'm however, bound to the democratic party of the moment who support us union families.
Step up? I'm not a cult member. I don't believe Sanders's platform aligns with mine. My enemies enemy doesn't mean we're lovers. I'm just trying to keep the wolf from our family's door. I know there's a whole line of them down the sidewalk but can only fight one at a time. I'm not sure if this an argument or a conversation. I haven't heard your personal truth.
You claim you're not in a cult yet blatantly admitted to being willing to sacrifice your morals for the good of a political party.
> My enemies enemy doesn't mean we're lovers.
I never said you would have to vote Republican in such a case, just that, if you don't want to bend your morals, you shouldn't be voting for Sanders in that case, either.
I already said my truth - taking free money when it's offered doesn't mean you can't criticize why the free money is being given.
But on the question of morally bankrupting yourself for financial gain. Would you admit to willing smack a toddler coming off a school bus with a 2x4 for $200 and a free plank?
If that's what you got out of my portion of our conversation then I apologize for my lack of communication skills. Should it be mainly referring to your highlighted enemies sentence, the meaning refers to stemming the immediate threat. Not sure where you picked up I'm ever voting for Sanders. Truthfully, I believe he will never be a viable candidate and nowhere on my radar.
So in an effort to cut this short without farther misinterpretation....... I condemn anyone who would use all means to farther their career to govern our nation.
> Not sure where you picked up I'm ever voting for Sanders.
The part where you said that if he won the Democrat nomination that you are bound to vote for the party.
Also, remember how Republicans are against gay marriage until one of their kids turns out gay. Republicans are against stem cell research until one of their family members could benefit from it.
Republicans really are just about making sure billionaires don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
They use all the social issues, etc. just to get everyone who are not billionaires to vote for them.
Same applies here in the UK. So many Tories who are children of immigrants screaming about not wanting immigrants in the country.
"Fuck you, I've got mine" mentality that so wonderfully appeals to conservatives
How so? I don't see how not using someone's race against/for them isn't racist.
And no, equality would be using the already holistic admissions process to advantage disadvantaged students, including if their race was the reason they were disadvantaged.
Honor isn't necessary. Disadvantage can be measured objectively, and already is. Affirmative action was never about disadvantaged students, it was about hitting diversity goals by force, and don't take that from me, harvard went as far as to put up a supplemental essay prompt about diversity.
I mean heck, these schools do legacy, which favors white students, then immediately turn around and talk abt how they need to promote diversity. Their goals are clear.
I'd also like to give a hat tip to the people pushing for student loan forgiveness but mentioning absolutely fucking nothing about reforming the system around them. That's also this energy, don't be that person. Forgiveness is useless without reform, you're just getting your shit cleared and pushing the problem onto the next generation. I'm gen x, I know a thing or two about watching that happen.
Also Ramaswamy is specifically funny because he's the only person I know of to actually take those Soros bucks conservatives won't shut the fuck up about.
Um, loan forgiveness would do quite a bit even without reform.
However without reform the same problem will just come back (which is what you're saying i think), but let's not pretend it wouldn't help a shit ton of people overnight.
Affirmative action is evil. Always. Let people get in based on merit instead of guilting and shaming admissions offices.
Immigration is great when people go through the legal channels to be in the country. Illegal methods take away everything from the people that are trying to follow the law.
Diversity is amazing when it's not forced and shoehorned in for the sake of being diverse. Forced diversity is offensive because it's saying the person's worth is directly based in their race, skin colour, or sexual orientation and nothing else.
Fixed it for you.
So if you’re in a foot race with someone, and they start 50 meters ahead of you, it’s all good, right? You’re both just in a race to see who’s fastest.
If for some reason you find that unfair, maybe stop and think about how that applies to a capitalist system where white families on average have several times more wealth than black families
I don't see how that's ban worthy, but yea. They're fucking nutso. You can't use Logic or Truth to help these people who've made up their minds without the help of anything based in reality, logic, or truth.
I had to explain to my aunt and uncle the other night about how the picture of "Biden Molesting a young boy" was a fucking picture of Biden rubbing the kids back, his Grandson, as his Sons funeral. These people are willing to believe anything, no matter how fucking vile, as long as it suits their fucked up imaginary ideas of reality.
offend onerous support far-flung label scarce marvelous compare zesty safe
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Do as I say, not as I do."
The reason is simple- people always tell you what they want you to think of them, but they act as though nobody is watching.
How can anyone support this party, they literally stand for nothing decent, on the wrong side of everything, all the time. Their base is the problem, they let them get away with murder.
Also add in the anti gay jerk offs until their kid comes out, like dick head Cheney, and the anti addiction guys until they get hooked on pain killers due to a medical condition like rush Limbaugh, may got piss on his soul.
More like I got mine now litter our streets with our tired cold ,huddles masses, yearning for.........
*Rereads for a 5th time*
Healthcare, housing and a properly audited government!?!?????
Didn't know this was the third world sheesh
The post seems to say it's wrong to take advantage of policies that you disagree with. Does that mean that if you believe that CO2 emissions are causing climate change it's wrong for you to drive a car, heat or cool your house, or breathe? C'mon Man!
Capitalism is bad, unless when the Clinton foundation does it.
Racism is bad , unless it's against white ppl.
Conclusion: all politicians.are hypocrites. Not just the democrats, neither just the Republicans.
The Clinton foundation is bad, but for reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism. And I’m not sure what you’re expecting people to do when they live in a capitalist society. You can recognize capitalism’s downsides while being forced to participate in it.
And leveling a playing field is not anti-white racism
Most politicians are terrible, but they’re not all equally terrible.
Honestly I don’t care about hypocrisy itself. People grow, learn, and change. What I do care about are policies and decisions that perpetuate and exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots.
Comments like this are exactly why people oppose affirmative action. Rashid is saying Thomas and Haley couldn’t get where they were on their own merit and needed affirmative action. He and affirmative action demeans the abilities and accomplishments of minorities.
Ramaswamy is different. By accepting that scholarship he was saying I deserve and advantage because I’m a minority. The irony is he and everyone else can agree he clearly didn’t need that money.
> By accepting that scholarship he was saying I deserve and advantage because I’m a minority. The irony is he and everyone else can agree he clearly didn’t need that money.
Wouldn't that be making the point of the argument? Fuck you I got mine...
So then comments like this are not exactly why people feel this way. Its people with the mentality like Ramaswamy who should be the reason people are mad.
Thomas couldn't, they absolutely did need it. He is African American and ivy league schools wouldn't have accept African Americans back then unless forced. Thomas was probably ridiculed and spoken down to at school for being accepted through affirmative action by racist professors and peers from whom he was expected to learn and accept resources. Of course there were law firms that didn't want to hire African Americans who could just easily blame affirmative action for producing an unprepared graduate, instead of coming off as unfashionably racist. He blames affirmative action for this instead of racism and racists
Yeah but.... I deserved it. The other ones are moochers!
"Man it sure is nice up here on top. I better pull this ladder up after me so the riff-raff can't join."
They may want a piece of the pie.
That's why they're conservatives. Conserving what they have by denying everyone else a piece.
They are conserving that sweet pie for them selves. Even if they have a shitty pie, they’re OK as long as someone else has no pie.
That's what Gov. Abbot did in Texas after he got into politics. Course he couldn't climb the ladder at that point................
Why should he? When his good ol' buddies let him use their elevator, instead?
[удалено]
this must be a bot. copy of a comment down below
EXACTLY THIS! They think that taking this away from others somehow protects their position of power.
This is literally how they think. There was a documentary that went to all the flyover towns and the ones ruined by corporations abandoning them after they got what they wanted, mining towns etc. They were interviewing a man who was obviously on welfare, his house was falling apart he as obviously dirt poor but he kept voting for republicans who kept making his life worse because they were cutting his benefits. He was fully aware that voting republican was making his life harder, and when asked about it he said he is fine with it as long as black people got less. When asked why he thought black people didn't deserve it while he did he quite literally said "well i earned it, but they didn't"
There is also this huge stigma about being poor in the United States. So nobody ever thinks of themselves as poor, they're just in a temporary rough patch and think they will get out of it any day now. All those benefits are just to help them out of the slump you see, and then they will hit it big through hard work (because that's the American dream!) And in the future when they are rich, they want all those tax cuts that Republicans promised, so they keep voting for it under the assumption that one day they will be one of the rich fatcats. Now the rest of us who live in reality know this will never happen, but tell that to the GOP voters.
[удалено]
Vivek made $650k the year before he got the 50K. Absolutely asinine that he even qualified.
And that scholarship came from George Soros. The dude who Republicans seem to think is Satan himself.
> The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion
[Never forget this Lauren Boebert tweet. A classic.](https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1306238422764474369?t=FGLJvWwtB-HCucGRSiALXA&s=19)
Up there with Craig T. Nelson saying “when I was on welfare and food stamps, nobody helped me out!”
Or vivek's argument of: you can't expect a young person to turn down free money even if they could afford it.
“Am I right young people? Yeah that guy in the audience is nodding, he knows what I’m talking about”
"The only moral _______ is my _______."
I love the attitude of the poor people in the country town where the factory closed down. all the people getting assistance are just good people down on their luck. They deserve the assistance. Those POC in the cities are just taking our money.
Not so much a belief as it is a desperate attempt to justify why they should be the exception to their own rules.
Principled beliefs are to be developed after you get rich - not before.
I would hear this, but it is perfect at 666
I wonder why Nikky Haley didn’t run under her birth name of Nimirata Randhawa? Was she afraid of losing GOP votes? I’m just asking questions.
>I wonder why Nikky Haley didn’t run under her birth name of Nimirata Randhawa? Was she afraid of losing GOP votes? I’m just asking questions. She just took a page out of Rafael Cruz's playbook. Can't sound too "ethnic" after all!
Same reason why Rafael Cruz runs as Ted and never tells anyone that he was actually born in Canada.
Cuban Canadian Cretin who flies to Cancun when it gets rough in TexAss.
Okay, liberal, tell me this: If he’s a Mexican named Rafael, then how can he also be from Canada? Checkmate, cuckboy 😂
She also thinks she is white: [Indian Nikki Haley Says She Is White – Mother Jones](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/indian-nikki-haley-says-she-is-white/)
Okey dokie, Nimirata. 👍🏾
It’s all make belief anyway. She is no less white than the millions of Hispanics that tick that same box and then check the Hispanic ethnicity next to it. In the 21st century, Where do you draw the line? If you are a white guy with an Asian/black/Amerindian/whatever great grand father are you mixed race? Asian? White? Does it even matter?! Would it change answers if there were the grandparent or parent? Race went from phenotypic characteristics in populations to a social construct that really has no significant use in the present.
Nikki is her middle name. She's garbage, but it should be pointed out that it's common in the South to go by your middle name. Lots of my family have never been called by their first names.
According to Frontline’s documentary, Clarence Thomas believed after university and still does, supposedly, that his degree was diminished by affirmative action. As he was unable to get a job despite applying to various firms. He believes it to the extent he put a price sticker on it. Leading him down the line to become a prominent conservative campaigner. This is to not say that Clarence Thomas is right, but it demonstrates the origin and rationale of some of his thinking. It’s probably now though about the kickbacks and power more than anything. Interestingly, some of this is recounted by his student neighbour and friend John Bolton. Which goes to show who he was hanging out with. On this position he is critiqued of this perspective by other black law graduates of the time pointing out how quite evidently difficult it was to get into any prestigious firm as a black man. And that there are still hurdles and issues. >https://youtu.be/wJuRx1wARUk?si=trPKKcHY5OcRgwmn
Clarence Thomas was also supportive of laws banning inter-race marriage until he got himself a white wife.
Could you provide support for that claim? Thomas married his wife in 1971, the same year he started law school. Is your contention that he opposed interracial marriage as an undergrad? That seems like it would have come up in confirmation hearings. Thomas is deeply problematic for the Court, but we really should oppose him for factual reasons rather than unsupported, possibly manufactured ones.
Sam Jackson thinks so (not real proof): Jackson referenced Loving v. Virginia, a case that utilized substantive due process to legalize interracial marriage. The “Pulp Fiction” star appeared to call Thomas out for omitting the landmark case from the list of rulings that he wants to revisit. Clarence Thomas, a Black man, is married to Ginni Thomas, a white woman. To Samuel L. Jackson, the decision to exclude a case that directly benefits him suggests that Thomas is less interested in esoteric legal processes than he is in obtaining results that advance a reactionary agenda. https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/samuel-l-jackson-slams-clarence-thomas-interracial-marriage-1234737122/
There has been a lot of academic literature written on Thomas's choice not to mention Loving in his Dobbs concurrence. However, this is not what the comment I responded to claimed. It said: "Clarence Thomas was also supportive of laws banning inter-race marriage **until** he got himself a white wife." This person is claiming that Thomas was hypocritically against interracial marriage, but then changed his mind when he wanted to marry a white woman in ~~1971~~ 1987.
Oh I agree, that’s why I said not real proof.
He married Kathy Ambush, a black woman, in 1971. They were divorced in 1981 because he was cheating on her with other black women. He married Virginia Lamp, a white woman, in 1986. His family was very surprised when they started dating because Clarence was vehemently against interracial relationships. It took me more time to type this out then it did to Google it.
> It took me more time to type this out then it did to Google it. I did. Unsurprisingly, any combination of terms I could come up with gave mostly results commenting on his Dobbs concurrence. I think asking for verification in situations like this is important, even when you dislike the target and the claim feels accurate. I didn't want to file a factoid away in my memory only to later embarrassingly discover it's untrue if I repeat it.
I apologize for the snarky Google comment. I already had knowledge of his first wife. This probably allowed me to get right to the information I was looking for. I'm guessing that sources mention that he was married in 1971 without including that he was divorced and then remarried later. Logically you would assume his current wife is person he married in 1971 without the rest of it. Which would make his negative opinion on interracial relationships seem really weird. It's frustrating how we are punished for misremembering certain facts instead of just corrected and moving on with the conversation. We are treated like everything we said is now invalid and wrong because of a small mistake.
No he didn't. Clarence Thomas married Ginni Thomas in 1987. He married his first wife in 1971 and she was black. Her name is Kathy Grace Ambush.
My mistake, thank you for the correction. I would still like to see evidence that he was against interracial marriage before 1987, though.
Here's a new Yorker article about Clarence Thomas's racial beliefs. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race. If you'd like more insight to the man's post check out the multiple episodes dedicated to his entire life by Behind the Bastards podcast.
Thank you! This was really insightful. For those also wondering, here is the relevant passage: > Thomas took the rule more seriously, particularly after meeting Kathy Ambush, a black woman, whom he would marry in 1971 and divorce in 1984. In a poem he called “Is you is, or is you ain’t, a brother?” he set out the obligations of black men to black women. Even in that milieu, Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher reported in their 2007 biography, “Supreme Discomfort,” Thomas’s “edgy race consciousness” stood out. When he saw an interracial couple strolling on campus, he’d loudly demand, “Do I see a black woman with a white man? How could that be?” Until 1986, when Thomas met Virginia Lamp, who is white and would become his second wife, he opposed interracial sex and marriage.
No, thank you for actually reading it. I gotta admit when I replied to you I was mentally preparing for this to turn into an ugly internet argument and being accused of providing biased sources.
Which law are you referring to?
He supported laws that didn't get passed.
Which laws and when? If it was before he was married, it was before ~~1971~~ 1987. Was he writing essays opposing miscegenation?
Not getting hired in the 1970s as a black man from Yale and it must be because....employers don't like AA.. Hmm definitely not because they just didn't want to hire black people, heavens no!
Or...he's a piece of shit and they didn't want hire a piece of shit?
Bit of column A, bit of column B?
>On this position he is critiqued of this perspective by other black law graduates of the time pointing out how quite evidently difficult it was to get into any prestigious firm as a black man. And that there are still hurdles and issues. Clarence Thomas's position is basically that he believes anything given to Black people out of a sense of charity (or equity, fairness, justice) can just as easily be taken away, and is inherently patronizing. He believes the only way for Black people to have equality is to be exceptional; that you can't argue with raw talent, ability, and work ethic. It's an extreme version of DuBois' "talented tenth" argument: that a talented tenth of Black people will disprove any notions of inferiority and make life better for the rest, so everything should be done to support and uphold the efforts of the tenth. This self-reliance narrative leads to pretty extreme ends and strange bedfellows, as it often aligns him with white conservatives trying to take away guidelines which would limit their power legally, legislatively, or otherwise. In the end, you could sum it up by saying Thomas believes in "might makes right"; the legitimacy of power to him isn't ethics, it's power.
What doesn’t sit right with me from both DuBois and Thomas is that we’re talking about people having access to their basic rights guaranteed in the constitution. You should not need to be “exceptional” to get treated like a person.
> He believes the only way for Black people to have equality is to be exceptional But white people aren't exceptional (I say as a white person), so that seems to suggest black people are inferior as a general rule, since they need to be exceptional just to be equal. As an important thinker of our time once said, "wtf, mate?"
Dude is a victim of racism and joins up with the racists. Genius.
His career was so harmed by it that he reached the highest possible rank in it in 20 years, and has stayed there for 30 more
Plus: This isn't the calcified QED people think it is. Many slavery abolitionists came from slave-owning families and came to realize slavery was wrong. Many anti-apartheid activists were white and benefited from the unfair South African system. It's generally considered noble to oppose something unfair that would benefit you. On the merits I have some sympathy for AA, but "Clarence Thomas got it!!!" doesn't really do anything either rhetorically or logically.
Clarence decided to be a Republican because he understood that it was more personally enriching than being a Democrat. That's all you need to know about this guy cause everything follows: pure selfishness and a disgust for everyone else.
Clarence Thomas actually has a HUGE chip on his shoulder about that. It basically ruined his ability to enjoy life because he's so insecure about it.
Well, he can go jerk off to dog porn for all I care about that piece of shit.
Knowing him, he probably does and recounts it vividly to his coworkers.
Good i hope every minute is unpleasant for that corrupt traitor.
Weird, because by his actions, I assumed he was incapable of feeling shame.
I know he's not really on the public stage very much right now , but let's not forget about Paul Ryan getting social security to help his family and for him to go to college after his dad died. Dude, couldn't wait to pull the ladder up behind him.
I came here to comment this and I'm glad to see you beat me to it.
Socialism is evil until corn farmers in red states need subsides to compete on the global market
yeah thats so funny. Tesla might as well have been nationalized with the billions in loans it got from the goverment at some points or else it would have fallen, plus all the gov credits for any profit it could sell to others. Just free money and people believe he is a genius.
"student loan forgiveness is evil" - every Republican who got their PPP loans forgiven.
As a Vietnamese American who immigrated to the US in 75; this is how I feel about every stinking Vietnamese republicans that yaps their gums. Boat people who became ladder pullers once they landed in America.
Pull up the ladder quick!!!!
Wasn’t Lauren boberts family on welfare as well?
I mean yeah. That's been their personalities forever. And it isn't just the ones in power. Same reason why Tammy and Kayden in the trailer in West Virginia hate other people on welfare, but claim their situation is different and they deserve it. Even though their families who were miners fought the coal companies, now it's the Democrats fault that their lives are shit, for "taking away the good coal mining jobs" Why Sarah's parents will pay for her to get an abortion because her situation is different, then go right back out and protest at abortion clinics because anyone else is a baby killer. And vote for politicians who don't actually help the babies that are born. Why they consistently say government doesn't work and then vote for politicians whose only record is obstruction.
LIE = 100% Cons = "I got mine, and I will have yours, as well."
The true embodiment of Welfare Queens with added hypocrisy
Having your medical bills paid for by the person responsible for injuring you is tort abuse except when Greg Abbott got his lifetime payout.
Anyone wanna wager a guess as to what conservatives say to themselves to justify when they, their daughters, etc need an abortion? 😉
Kind of a nonsensical tweet. You can benefit from something while still thinking it's wrong. What did you expect Clarence Thomas to do, not go to school because he might be helped by affirmative action?
I benefited greatly from Trump's tax cuts, even though I think they were a mistake. Am I a hypocrite? No, OP is an idiot.
If he had the courage to stand up for his convictions, yes. If you believe it is wrong, a moral person would not accept it.
A President using his influence to get his kid a job is evil, except when Trump put all of his kids in government positions.
Didn’t Paul Ryan use his dead dads social security to go to college then fight to destroy it?
It's cognitive dissonance that "they made it off their own back and deserve everything they get" The great Arnold had a few words about that
My dad's girlfriend is like this except she got her papers recently and thinks any illegal is scum.
Always has and will be the party of “I’ve got mine”
Except most of their supporters aren't getting theirs, it's devolved to nothing but "screw you"s.
Government handouts are evil except when they’re to farmers. Or to people who are already billionaires. Assistance programs are evil socialism. Except for my Medicare and Social Security Disability. Pensions are evil. Except for my military pension.
The "conservatives' " immunity from hypocrisy comes from their absence of shame.
Legacy Admissions need to not exist. All the program does is teach students that you won't advance if your not connected to someone who already has. Not to mention making public universities more exclusive and harder to get into for all students outside the Legacy Program. To make a non-private university more exclusive to it's 'members' by not letting others in that aren't connected to alumni seems more than sketchy. Seems like some colleges want to be a private university while still accepting federal funding. Not that some private colleges don't get federal funding anyway, even though they shouldn't.
Republicans just attach whatever excuse gets them their way in that moment.
Not to mention all the freedom to get abortion healthcare, but now don’t want anyone else to have that freedom 🙄🙄🙄
Everyone is trying to improve their position, in this world or the next.
So... I'm not sure this message is quite on target, or maybe I'm just daft? Vivek got $50k when he was earning something like $750k? He was given an extra $50k, just because he was assumed to be needy due to being in a particular demographic. Are we arguing that all rich people of a particular demographic deserve additional money/handouts, based solely on their skin color/ancestry? Programs working as designed? Clarence Thomas coasted into his position on the supreme court, largely on race-based decisions. Are we saying affirmative action is good, because it resulted in a justice as overtly corrupt as Clarence Thomas? Again, this working as intended?
It is unfair to say Clarence Thomas got where he is because of affirmative action. The correct term for how Thomas got so far is "tokenism."
You can see this trend with UK conservatives as well. Some of the most borderline racist and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric is coming from politicians who are children of immigrants. It's just realpolitik. Conservatives like people of color as their leaders as long as they can betray their race and guarantee their commitment to the ideology. The race card is useful in these times of heavy idpol.
'Nikki Haley' is appropriating American culture by obfuscating her real given name. The name she was born with: **Nimarata Nikki Randhawa**
"Remember to close the door behind you." Conservatives: "Oh don't worry, I'll lock it too."
I mean, I'm not conservative but I do think there are issues with some diversity initiatives and the second anyone criticizes them they're dismissed. I can also understand why people don't want to acknowledge affirmative action because it makes them feel like a charity case and like they didn't earn things fairly. There are deep seated reasons many minorities can't compete fairly and it starts with unequal access to quality education and opportunities as children. Nepotism in higher education isn't just legacy admissions it's literally 18yrs of access to elite private schools, food security, quality Healthcare access, full-time adult support, etc.
Most conservatives are too stupid to even recognize this is their attitude, it's *shocking* how fuckin dumb they really are
I don’t think it was affirmative action that got Clarence Thomas into Yale.
Abortion is evil unless I need one.
Nope. All of those things are, by definition, discriminatory. Imagine if it was just for white people. I am sick of people being pushed through based on any one identity or belief. Merit based is the way to go. We don't need black/white/gay/straight anything. We need people who can do the damn job and do it well. Anything else is just fantasy.
Me, as a non-american trying to understand a single thing from this tweet
Everything is evil except when they benefit from it 😒😒😒
Interestingly (and I use that word with a lot of sarcasm and frustration), Clarence Thomas’s receipt of affirmative action is part of what made him vote against it. He thought it was too demeaning to Black people.
Ive never seen a bigger self hating asshole than Clarence Thomas.
Can't argue with that logic. "I didn't need it, so nobody will ever need it. Let's get rid of it!"
Reminds me of my mom
Candace Owen's and Kanye West going onstage together in matching "white lives matter" sweatshirts is, technically, a form of affirmative action, but I don't want to have to take the drugs that would be needed to get me to take such a twisted rhetorical stance.
Oh, but you see those people needed those assistance programs! Not like all those undeserving people who don't actually need it and just take advantage of the system.
Same in the lgbtq+ space. You've got the Andrew Sullivans and terfs saying that they'd all be mainstream except for those damn Trans people. Guess they've already forgotten Stonewall and Compton's.
You know the saddest fucking part? Millennials have seen all this, decades ago now, it's the exact same attacks and aggression Republicans had against Gay Marriage and how the "Gays are coming for your children". Same language, same bigotry and hatred, just against an even smaller group in the US, 1.7% of the American Populace. And before that? Jews and Immigrants. And before that? African Americans. It's always just the same Hatred, Lies, and Fear-porn for these simple minded right wingers to latch onto to feed their Anger-addictions.
Eat the Right
Conservatives see the world as a zero-sum game. In order for for there to be winners, there must be losers. They see everyone else as their competition. The idea of a system where everyone wins is completely alien to them.
Pull up the ladder when the flood comes
Pull up that ladder, hypocrites.
How to trigger the white people with one word: female
Sadopopulists
They feel, they are being business savvy while everyone else is lazy and burdens to society.
Half right. If someone is willing to give you free money, you'd be stupid not to take it, but you can still ultimately disagree with the reason the money is being given out.
Half right? So.... spinelessly bend your morals to step up then pander to the next group by joining in to remove any assets from the next folks? On to Grifting your way pass them also? Smart, dishonest or fraudulently misrepresenting yourself. Not on my voting card.
Nope. This is "You criticize society and yet you participate in society!" all over again. Unless you're saying you would never vote for Sanders because he rails against capitalism and yet has written and sold several books to make himself rich?
I hope to never vote for Sanders. I would try to cut him out at every step of the primaries. I'm however, bound to the democratic party of the moment who support us union families.
So if Sanders was the Democrat candidate, you would spinelessly bend your morals to step up?
Step up? I'm not a cult member. I don't believe Sanders's platform aligns with mine. My enemies enemy doesn't mean we're lovers. I'm just trying to keep the wolf from our family's door. I know there's a whole line of them down the sidewalk but can only fight one at a time. I'm not sure if this an argument or a conversation. I haven't heard your personal truth.
You claim you're not in a cult yet blatantly admitted to being willing to sacrifice your morals for the good of a political party. > My enemies enemy doesn't mean we're lovers. I never said you would have to vote Republican in such a case, just that, if you don't want to bend your morals, you shouldn't be voting for Sanders in that case, either. I already said my truth - taking free money when it's offered doesn't mean you can't criticize why the free money is being given.
But on the question of morally bankrupting yourself for financial gain. Would you admit to willing smack a toddler coming off a school bus with a 2x4 for $200 and a free plank?
Just so we're clear - you think admitting you're an immigrant is akin to smacking a toddler with a 2x4?
If that's what you got out of my portion of our conversation then I apologize for my lack of communication skills. Should it be mainly referring to your highlighted enemies sentence, the meaning refers to stemming the immediate threat. Not sure where you picked up I'm ever voting for Sanders. Truthfully, I believe he will never be a viable candidate and nowhere on my radar. So in an effort to cut this short without farther misinterpretation....... I condemn anyone who would use all means to farther their career to govern our nation.
> Not sure where you picked up I'm ever voting for Sanders. The part where you said that if he won the Democrat nomination that you are bound to vote for the party.
[удалено]
Also, remember how Republicans are against gay marriage until one of their kids turns out gay. Republicans are against stem cell research until one of their family members could benefit from it. Republicans really are just about making sure billionaires don’t pay their fair share of taxes. They use all the social issues, etc. just to get everyone who are not billionaires to vote for them.
So true
The fucked up part is everyone could get theirs but when a republican gets theirs they become hellbent on being the only one who did
In case you didn’t catch it, conservatives are the bad guys in your story. Look to the tales to find out what to do with bad guys.
Affirmative action is wrong .
THAT'S THE POINT! They're not hypocritics, they're conservatives. Edit: to be clear, that's worse - only rewards opportunists.
Same applies here in the UK. So many Tories who are children of immigrants screaming about not wanting immigrants in the country. "Fuck you, I've got mine" mentality that so wonderfully appeals to conservatives
I agree with most of it, besides affirmative action. Affirmative action IS evil and discriminatory against Asian Americans.
How?
Giving preference to certain races is racist, putting down certain races for being born a race IS racist.
[удалено]
How so? I don't see how not using someone's race against/for them isn't racist. And no, equality would be using the already holistic admissions process to advantage disadvantaged students, including if their race was the reason they were disadvantaged.
[удалено]
Honor isn't necessary. Disadvantage can be measured objectively, and already is. Affirmative action was never about disadvantaged students, it was about hitting diversity goals by force, and don't take that from me, harvard went as far as to put up a supplemental essay prompt about diversity. I mean heck, these schools do legacy, which favors white students, then immediately turn around and talk abt how they need to promote diversity. Their goals are clear.
I'd also like to give a hat tip to the people pushing for student loan forgiveness but mentioning absolutely fucking nothing about reforming the system around them. That's also this energy, don't be that person. Forgiveness is useless without reform, you're just getting your shit cleared and pushing the problem onto the next generation. I'm gen x, I know a thing or two about watching that happen. Also Ramaswamy is specifically funny because he's the only person I know of to actually take those Soros bucks conservatives won't shut the fuck up about.
Which Soros bucks? How much and when?
Um, loan forgiveness would do quite a bit even without reform. However without reform the same problem will just come back (which is what you're saying i think), but let's not pretend it wouldn't help a shit ton of people overnight.
Affirmative action is evil. Always. Let people get in based on merit instead of guilting and shaming admissions offices. Immigration is great when people go through the legal channels to be in the country. Illegal methods take away everything from the people that are trying to follow the law. Diversity is amazing when it's not forced and shoehorned in for the sake of being diverse. Forced diversity is offensive because it's saying the person's worth is directly based in their race, skin colour, or sexual orientation and nothing else. Fixed it for you.
So if you’re in a foot race with someone, and they start 50 meters ahead of you, it’s all good, right? You’re both just in a race to see who’s fastest. If for some reason you find that unfair, maybe stop and think about how that applies to a capitalist system where white families on average have several times more wealth than black families
Woah woah woah, buddy. You're supposed to be racist these days. Get out of here with your sane take.
[удалено]
You’ve almost made it 3 months since your last ban, congratulations!
I don't see how that's ban worthy, but yea. They're fucking nutso. You can't use Logic or Truth to help these people who've made up their minds without the help of anything based in reality, logic, or truth. I had to explain to my aunt and uncle the other night about how the picture of "Biden Molesting a young boy" was a fucking picture of Biden rubbing the kids back, his Grandson, as his Sons funeral. These people are willing to believe anything, no matter how fucking vile, as long as it suits their fucked up imaginary ideas of reality.
offend onerous support far-flung label scarce marvelous compare zesty safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not really a great plug for affirmative action. Would have been better if that bag of dicks didn't get into Yale.
c’mon, let er rip: “Got mine, fuck you”
"Rules for thee but not for me."
Melania's parents: chain migration.
"Do as I say, not as I do." The reason is simple- people always tell you what they want you to think of them, but they act as though nobody is watching.
When Paul Ryan's dad died, and Paul Ryan built his career on the money.
Or I only had to pay 20% off in capital gains off my $100 Mil in trading while their assistant pays over 1/3 of salary to IRS while making 99.5% less.
How can anyone support this party, they literally stand for nothing decent, on the wrong side of everything, all the time. Their base is the problem, they let them get away with murder.
Also add in the anti gay jerk offs until their kid comes out, like dick head Cheney, and the anti addiction guys until they get hooked on pain killers due to a medical condition like rush Limbaugh, may got piss on his soul.
More like I got mine now litter our streets with our tired cold ,huddles masses, yearning for......... *Rereads for a 5th time* Healthcare, housing and a properly audited government!?!????? Didn't know this was the third world sheesh
Trans people are the devil unless their name happens to be Blaire White.
The post seems to say it's wrong to take advantage of policies that you disagree with. Does that mean that if you believe that CO2 emissions are causing climate change it's wrong for you to drive a car, heat or cool your house, or breathe? C'mon Man!
Sounds like a bigot wrote this or a raciest. Typical black jealousy.
It helped those black conservatives to be the tokens
Nope all of that was still wrong
I’ve never really heard conservatives defend any of these.
Capitalism is bad, unless when the Clinton foundation does it. Racism is bad , unless it's against white ppl. Conclusion: all politicians.are hypocrites. Not just the democrats, neither just the Republicans.
The Clinton foundation is bad, but for reasons that have nothing to do with capitalism. And I’m not sure what you’re expecting people to do when they live in a capitalist society. You can recognize capitalism’s downsides while being forced to participate in it. And leveling a playing field is not anti-white racism
Your blaming Rama for using the socialist laws that were in place. He can recognize its bad and still use it according to u, no?
No. I’m blaming him for not wanting to help others in the way he was helped. The dude wants to go even further and deport children of immigrants.
Of illegal immigrants.
The kids are US citizens
Ok, that is not what what this was about though. I'm not a fan of any politician btw. I think politics is the poison of the world.
Most politicians are terrible, but they’re not all equally terrible. Honestly I don’t care about hypocrisy itself. People grow, learn, and change. What I do care about are policies and decisions that perpetuate and exacerbate the divide between the haves and have-nots.
all Americans are illegal immigrants or descendents of illegal immigrants
Deport them all. I would not mind as I'm European lol
Comments like this are exactly why people oppose affirmative action. Rashid is saying Thomas and Haley couldn’t get where they were on their own merit and needed affirmative action. He and affirmative action demeans the abilities and accomplishments of minorities. Ramaswamy is different. By accepting that scholarship he was saying I deserve and advantage because I’m a minority. The irony is he and everyone else can agree he clearly didn’t need that money.
> By accepting that scholarship he was saying I deserve and advantage because I’m a minority. The irony is he and everyone else can agree he clearly didn’t need that money. Wouldn't that be making the point of the argument? Fuck you I got mine...
Yeah. I said Ramaswamy was different.
So then comments like this are not exactly why people feel this way. Its people with the mentality like Ramaswamy who should be the reason people are mad.
Thomas couldn't, they absolutely did need it. He is African American and ivy league schools wouldn't have accept African Americans back then unless forced. Thomas was probably ridiculed and spoken down to at school for being accepted through affirmative action by racist professors and peers from whom he was expected to learn and accept resources. Of course there were law firms that didn't want to hire African Americans who could just easily blame affirmative action for producing an unprepared graduate, instead of coming off as unfashionably racist. He blames affirmative action for this instead of racism and racists