Supreme Court Racist: Free at Last
As he goes off on vacation, perhaps to write the book for which Rupert Murdoch gave him a $1 million advance, Clarence Thomas can take satisfaction in having embarked on his real life’s work–dismantling the progress in race relations since Brown v Board of Education in 1954.
In her syndicated column today, Ellen Goodman points out a significant statement by the usually silent Supreme Court Justice in the decision striking down voluntary integration plans in Seattle and Louisville schools:
“One sentence leaps out of the footnotes: ‘Nothing but an interest in classroom aesthetics and a hypersensitivity to elite sensibilities justifies the school districts’ racial balancing programs.’ He trivialized the values of diversity to a matter of aesthetics and closed with a warning: ‘beware of elites bearing racial theories.’ So much for a half-century of civil rights.â€
With Bush appointees Roberts and Alito enabling a 5-4 conservative majority on the Court, Thomas is, in the words of the man who made it possible for him to pursue his life goal, “free at last†to express his inner disdain for African-Americans without the skills, desire or coldness of heart to Uncle Tom their way to the top as he did.
Thomas didn’t invent the stereotype of a self-hating minority member–Jews have had their share–but he is practicing the art at the highest level ever.
Cross-posted from my blog
70 Responses to “Supreme Court Racist: Free at Last”
Reading this made me feel dirty. Ascribing his ruling to minority self-hatred and
is unconscionable.
So now we have come to the point that opposing forced integration for other than remedial correction of unconstitutional, state-sanctioned segregation, which was what Brown addressed, is a racist position.
Sorry, Thomas was right.
I have to agree with both Bones_708 and AustinRoth.
There are non-racially motivated reasons to be against forced-integration.
‘So now we have come to the point that opposing forced integration for other than remedial correction of unconstitutional, state-sanctioned segregation, which was what Brown addressed, is a racist position.’
Perhaps you want to rephrase that, as it is quite ambiguous.
The problem with busing has always been it has been a symptom of redlining- a far greater problem that still persists. Simply put, many whites (and a good deal of minorities) do not want to integrate. The law needs to enforce those times when folk are refused to integrate, but it cannot force those who do not want to to do so.
But, that’s housing. When that is fixed, busing will be a non-issue. But, the housing point is a GRIEVOUS problem.
Last point. Robert, although I agree with you, that outside perhaps Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas (haunting names) is definitely an Uncle Tom, I think we both risk getting sanctioned by TMV’s policy against name calling.
Do you want the upper or lower bunk, amigo?
Thomas is right, while Stein is not only wrong, but disgusting here.
Well the reason Clarence Thomas is disliked by so many of his race is that he took advantage of affirmative action programs when he was coming up, but denies that hand up to others following him
One thing that bothers me about Thomas, is that he made all of his decisions this session without asking ANY questions of the lawyers presenting cases before the court. Not a single one. To me that is indicative of an incurious mind, and a man whose conservative positions are already carved out in stone.
I, too, think that Thomas’ opinion was wrong and unconscionable, and I think that it is significant that the vast majority of the Black community is against him on this issue. Nonetheless, I think this was too cavalier of a dismissal. I’ve written before of the need to Take Thomas Seriously, and I stand by that claim now.
Well, kritter, it does explain why so many conservatives love him. After all, they adore Bush’s hypocrisy on so many things. What else would excite them but someone just as hypocritical if not more so?
Robert,
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but it’s comments like this that I feel lowers the level of discourse here at TMV.
We ought to be able to criticize people’s points of views without asserting they “disdain” an entire group of people.
In recent years, the term “Uncle Tom” has become a kind of shorthand to demean any African-American who happens to have conservative views–as if they were some of of traitor to their race. But the very use of the term “Uncle Tom” unnecessarily injects race into an issue where it need not apply.
Are the views of Clarence Thomas particularly offensive to you because he happens to be black person arguing conservative views rather than a white person arguing the same conservative views? Or is term “Uncle Tom” meant to imply that Clarence Thomas is a hypocrite–arguing against civil rights laws that he, himself, benefitted from?
Clarence Thomas frustrates me to no end when he takes inconsistent stands with regards to federalism. But he is certainly far more consistent (and libertarian) than Antonin Scalia, who embraces a states’ rights interpretation of the Constitution when it suits him and just as quickly discards it when it doesn’t suit him.
Interesting which words offend different people.
‘Uncle Tom” offends conservatives and is,therefore, unacceptable. Mever mind what it means to Afro-Americans or others.
“Reading this made me feel dirty” is perfectly fine, though.
“…not only wrong, but disgusting here.” ;likewise just fine.
On one side we have ‘Uncle Tom’. On the other side se have ‘dirty’ and ‘disgusting’.
Very interesting, indeed.
As much as I appreciate all the good counsel about moderation, let me fall back on Barry Goldwater’s classic formulation that “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
As someone who rode segregated buses while serving in World II, knew and reported on Martin Luther King, watched the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, who had one year’s judicial experience when nominated and whose total lack of qualification (akin to the Harriet Miers choice by Bush 2) was considered an insult to his race, who watched him cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 decision that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000 and otherwise serve with total lack of distinction, I have to reject–moderately, of course–the censure of those who are offended my language in referring to this blight on the Supreme Court and ask them to forgive me for offending their tender sensibilities.
If you want true moderation in discussing Clarence Thomas, you might try the publisher of the African American magazine that pictured him on the cover as Aunt Jemima.
There’s no excuse for false statements (even dishonesty)and disgusting behavior.
Thomas takes a position that is consistent with conservative ideology, you might disagree with that position but in no way does that make him a self hating Uncle Tom. Stein, however, is just another ranter who can’t state a position without juvenile insults.
I don’t know about the self-hating part- but he is extremely unpopular among blacks. If he had one year of judicial experience before his selection, that is a serious drawback, but means that he should be asking more questions , not fewer than the other justices. That he asks none- tells me he is out of his league intellectually- like Bush himself. I can admire but disagree with a good conservative mind- but where is the evidence that he has one?
Since I’m being quoted I will respond. How is that an attack? Unflattering at the least to be sure, but being as it was a descriptive phrase about my response to an editorial not commenting directly about the article or it’s writer I fail to see how that in anyway corresponds to what is an article that seems mainly a personal attack on Thomas. While I see much lamenting I see no legal analysis, breakdown of issues, or anything of substance. Just a slam at someone who hold a differing opinion and is attacked based on his race. I guess he should know his place, right?
I love how the left of the U.S. has taken th position of Social Engineering Today, Social Engineering Tomorrow, and Social Engineering Forever,
I wonder where the Jews on the court send their children to school. I wonder if they get a diverse experience with the African-American makeup of the class somewhere between the social engineering goal of 15% to 50%.
Why do people attack Thomas for being consistent yet give Ginzberg and Beyer a pass on being such rank hypocrites.
‘We ought to be able to criticize people’s points of views without asserting they “disdain†an entire group of people.’
But, Thomas’s actions clearly demonstrate it. Would this statement be valid if we speak of David Duke. No, he may not be lynching people, but it applies. How about Louis Farrakhan?
And to assert Stein’s views are ‘disgusting’ is absurd. You disagree or dislike them, but disgusting would be if he used a racial slur or a curse word. He did not. He used a term that has a long and useful history in American life.
My point is that these comments about revulsion and he said/she said, are a result of people not feeling comfortable with or gravitating to a more repressive mindset, due to recent TMV policy changes.
As I type, this wd be comment 17, yet only my prior comment deals with the substance of Stein’s post- busing and the forces behind it. The rest is all twaddle.
Robert Stein, like Ellen Goodman, and many others, argues that Thomas is wrong, and not merely wrong, but racist. I agree that Thomas is conservative, but I don’t buy the argument that he is racist. Unless, by racist, one means that Justice Thomas does not subscribe to the social construct of race currently popular with many on the left. Then, perhaps, Justice Thomas qualifies as “racist” because he does not view hiring set asides, affirmative action, gerrymandering and education as social engineering to be constitutional public policy.
Let’s be clear here, the term Uncle Tom is shorthand for “racist black who supports white racists who hate blacks,’ it is not a neutral term, or a particularly factual way of describing conservative blacks. Decrying one’s opponent to be racist or sexist is simply a debating tactic to define the other person as beyond polite society, and therefore beyond the need to respond to substantively. If Justice Thomas is a racist, nothing more needs to be said, right? Wrong. Firstly, many reasonable people disagree with the views of Stein, Goodman, and others. If merely disagreeing with them makes them racists, it is not possible to have much of a conversation. My reading of the US Constitution is that the document calls for a race and gender neutral state, which is what Justice Thomas is arguing. Likewise, where in the constitution is the the notion that ‘diversity’ is a positive good that must be advanced at all costs? I didn’t see anything there, and apparently Justice Thomas did not either. If you disagree with him and that interpretation, that is one thing. But please show where it is that his understanding is wrong. Ex cathedra statements that Thomas is a racist because he doesn’t support a liberal interpretation of the constitution are not what I consider to be reasoned intellectual arguments against his legal views.
I think Stein’s piece is shallow and mean-spirited, especially his follow-up comment about the ‘moderate’ response of a black publication showing Thomas as Aunt Jemima. Which is all the more disappointing coming from one who worked for civil rights. But hey, it’s a free country, and everyone is welcome to an opinion, and I wouldn’t want to deprive Mr. Stein of his right to express his opinion. Ellen Goodman is opinionated, but I’ve never found her particularly convincing.
A lot of conservatives tend to believe that the idea of a race and gender neutral society will be more probable if the government does not continue using race and gender as ways of determining education and employment, and stops trying to promote ‘diversity’ as some kind of constitutionally mandated outcome. A lot of liberals disagree. Stein and Goodman disagree with Thomas’ interpretation of the constitution, but instead of legal or intellectual argument, offer just snide remarks.
grognard, please address issues but do not label posters.
I’m coming in late and will be gone. But a reminder to everyone to read the commenting policy if it gets passionate. The issue IS Justice Thomas and not the writer of the post or that he dares to have a belief. If you don’t agree with him, tell him why he’s wrong and overpower his argument with better arguments or examples of how he’s wrong. Similarly, if someone leaves a comment and you don’t like it, take apart the substance of that comment. I have personally put about 10 posts up on TMV over the past year about comments and don’t often have the time to visit them. But this is a friendly reminder that a)our comment policy is spelled out below and b)our comment policy is also noted in the TMV mission statement which we try to live up to (but like everyone we are human beings and we do slip from time to time).
Orson- Uncle Tom is the racial equivalent of ‘Quisling.’
Thomas benefited from affirmative action, even though- reading his opinions, he is clearly a shallow thinker. Has he ever had an opinion Scalia did not write for him, in substance if not actual words?
A Scalia, as myopic as he is, is far more tolerable because- right or wrong, he alt least has an ability to disseminate his ideas clearly. Thomas does not.
He is not merely a disgrace to his race- the human one, but to the intellectual aspects of it. Manny Hymowitz, janitor at PS 81, could serve more competently on the Supremes.
As for snide remarks, Stein could argue that the point of his dragging Thomas in was his quote of Goodman’s quote of Thomas’s snide, or flippant, remark.
Jason: ‘please address issues but do not characterize posters as persons’
If a poster is not to be characterized as a person, what then? Characterized as a species of fungi?
Joe: ‘The issue IS Justice Thomas and not the writer of the post or that he dares to have a belief.’
I disagree- the issue is Thomas’s opinion on busing, and, again, I’m the only person who has dealt with that issue, and the underlying problems with it.
Orson: ‘But please show where it is that his understanding is wrong. Ex cathedra statements that Thomas is a racist because he doesn’t support a liberal interpretation of the constitution are not what I consider to be reasoned intellectual arguments against his legal views.’
Would not this first be requisite of Thomas, in his dissent?
The crux of Stein’s piece is this: ‘‘Nothing but an interest in classroom aesthetics and a hypersensitivity to elite sensibilities justifies the school districts’ racial balancing programs.’
Since when does anyone’s aesthetics- Thomas’s or a litigant’s, have any place in law? And, elite sensibilities? Is Thomas arguing for schools to be Lowest Common denominator sinkholes.
This is exactly the point. The quoted statement is intellectually vacuous and legally absurd.
Thomas is the one making the claim. The burden of proof, intellectually, is on him, as it would be on claims for God or alien abduction or Bigfoot.
He fails, miserably. One does not want a man qualified only as a janitor on the Supreme Court, anymore than one wants that janitor working as an EMT.
Again, what of the actual substance of the issue- desegregation?
I stand by my claim that we ought to refrain from using such terms as “Uncle Tom” since it is an insult that specifically takes into account the race of the person being insulted.
If Clarence Thomas’s views are offensive, they ought to be offensive regardless of whether he’s black or white.
In the past, we’ve had several commenters accuse others of being racist or anti-semitic, and then when the time has come for the commenters to cite evidence backing up these bold accusations, the evidence has been very weak.
Clarence Thomas’s views do not necessarily arise from disdain for his own race, as Robert has implied.
I think the real question is whether Clarence Thomas has been hypocritical in his views with regards to civil rights laws–that is–has he been a beneficiary of the very civil rights laws that he opposes. This is an argument that can be discussed without accusing someone of being an “Uncle Tom.”
Jason -
Why have you become such a freaking nanny lately?
Nick: I usually agree with you, but when you write, ‘I think the real question is whether Clarence Thomas has been hypocritical in his views with regards to civil rights laws–that is–has he been a beneficiary of the very civil rights laws that he opposes. This is an argument that can be discussed without accusing someone of being an “Uncle Tom.â€, you’ve just well defined the term!
Austin: Where have you been the last few weeks, or have you a cyber-doppelganger?
Wait, doppelganger means I’ve characterized and assumed you were a person. You’re really ether on the wind. Blow, Austin, blow.
“Uncle Tom†is a slur, if you don’t believe me try calling an African American that term to his face. So let me get this straight so I don’t run afoul of the comments policy again. If Michael disagrees with H. Clinton on some subject and refers to her as a ‘self loathing whore“, or if Stein disagrees with a policy of Condi Rice and refers to her as a “self loathing whore†my response should be confined to pointing out that neither of these women were ever charged with prostitution. So in other words people that write a post can engage in any characterization they want but can only be rebutted with facts that show the characterization is wrong. You can run your site in anyway you see fit but I don’t think this type talk furthers the debate, and heaven forbid there should be any policy on posting similar to the one on commenting. One final point, I completely disagree with Thomas on a number of issues, this has nothing to do with defending him.
grognard, austin, cosmo, et al:
The comments policy is not up for debate. It has been around for a long time and, as I will discuss in an upcoming post, we began to pay more attention to it when we were informed by people from left, right, AND center that they were starting to avoid TMV because of the often nasty, personal, or vulgar nature of the comments threads.
Whether you personally agree with the legitimacy of these concerns is beside the point — this is Joe’s site, he set the rules and they are being enforced now. You can say whatever you like in focusing on ISSUES, but you may not attack posters or other commenters as persons using labels, slurs, or whatever, PERIOD.
You may disagree with the comments policy or you may not agree with how I apply it in a particular case, but those concerns should be sent by email and not used to further disrupt comments threads. Please knock it off, as I would prefer not to have to start editing or deleting comments.
As for “Uncle Tom”, what can be said about public figures is often looser than what can be said towards individual commenters or posters. This is similar to the policy used by newspapers (not surprising, since Joe is a journalist). I personally agree with Nick that the term is (at best) inflammatory and unhelpful, but its use towards Justice Thomas is not barred by the comments policy. Its use towards posters or commenters is. Basically, as long as it is not vulgar or grossly offensive, harsh criticism towards public figures is allowed.
grognard, you can certainly state that you believe the language that a poster used was inappropriate or wrong, but you can’t characterize the poster himself as “just a ranter”. Even though I agreed with your criticism of the use of the term “Uncle Tom”, that agreement doesn’t mean that you can attack Robert personally.
Grognard:
Uncle Tom is not a slur, for it is not a racial based slur. It is a term used for the actions of someone who demeans their own ‘people.’ By your logic, ‘Mafioso’ is a slur. It’s not, and it is apt when applied to the John Gottis. As Nick demonstrated, Thomas fits the definition of Uncle Tom.
As proof that it’s not a racial slur is the fact that most blacks have no problem with its application to folks like Thomas. Why? Because race is not its key component.
Jason- again, as pointed out in earlier posts, it’s not Joe’s rules that are in question, but as grognard posits, your unequal application of them, which actually recapitulates the very complaint re: Thomas.
And, in Austin, SteveK, Schraub, and grognard, you seem to be willing to turn people off to TMV because of your behavior.
The question is when will Joe see the problem is not with the posters nor the rules, but with the enforcer!
It’s not the TMV Comment Policy that is being questioned, Jason… It’s YOU and YOUR approach and that’s not been around for a long time… It’s brand new!
The changes that you, and you alone, have made to the face and feel of TMV cannot be missed and should not be overlooked.
Your heavy-handed management style has been called into question by many, many of the regular contributors, your actions questioned far more often than praised. If you were really concerned you might wonder “why?†and the why is quite simple… Your approach is not even-handed and that’s apparent to anyone that regularly reads TMV. Your criticisms, edits and deletions follow the exact path of your political opinion. Those here who agree with you politically have kept quite and those of us have objected hoping that Joe would step in and return consistency to the ‘Hall Monitoring’ process.
Make it even… make it impartial… make it fair and even though I still won’t like it… it will be a less bitter pill to swallow.
A suggestion: When you delete a comment the thread would maintain a smidgen of integrity if you would leave the posters ID, the comment number and position intact.
Now it’s because of “them” eh, Jason? Don’t you think that employing the “George Bushian” technique of citing ‘them’ and ‘they’ as a way to explain policy a bit untimely considering where it’s gotten him?
Ahem- Back to the subject at hand. I do remember when Reagan appointed Thomas. At the time it seemed a special affront to African-Americans because he replaced a renowned civil rights advocate, Thurgood Marshall. That and the fact that 90% of blacks don’t support Thomas’ decisions puts a fly in the ointment.
Does anyone know why he asks no questions during the cases?
Steve, two of the last four people who have received warnings (including the only one on this thread) were people that I agreed with. I don’t know how to be any more “even-handed” than that. I am aware of the perception that warnings or edits could be perceived as ideologically skewed and I promise you that I will do everything I can to be fair in moderating comments. If you think I miss something, please talk to me about specifics in email (so we don’t keep having threads get hijacked), ok?.
And I want it on the record that everything I do is in consultation with Joe. He’s laid out good guidelines on what problems he wants to see addressed and what he wants to let go. I did 15 years in the military and I’m very well accustomed to implementing standards that even I personally might do differently. This isn’t just me running amok on my own like you claim. If it was, don’t you think Joe would step in?
I’ll tell you what, though. Your suggestion on how to make any deletions (of which there have been very few, actually, and none on this thread yet) might help and so I will try that method to see if it works. In response, will you will back off a bit and give me a chance to do my job. Ok?
Also, I’m going to do a post on the new enforcement of the longstanding comments policy. It would be very helpful if anyone with concerns would read what I have to say with an open mind. At that point, everyone can use that comments thread to discuss their concerns and hopefully we can STOP having these threads hijacked by it every time I try to do my job.
I’m old enough to remember Thomas’s confirmation hearings, .They were dominated by charges of secual harassment against Thomas by Prof. Anita Hill
It was he-said vs she-said to the end, but it made people wonder why Thomas was so wanted in spite of the scandal
I was left with the impression that it wasn’t his qualitications that made him appealing to his backcers; it was the political token value of ‘black and conservative’. Otherwise, why not choose another conservative with less scandal-prone baggage?
This was an opinion fairly widely held at the time. From the beginning, Thomas was under suspicion ot being the mole enemy of the civil righats movement.
In those days, most of nation had finally come to acceot the injustice of racism and that it hursts everyonw, not just the immediate victims.
How different the public is today.
Scathing critics don’t stop at critiquing past efforts to correct wrongs, they go on to suggest that it is wrong to try to deal with social problems in the first place. Criticism can be the best way to correct, ammend and improve, but criticiam that kills just kills.
When Thomas was confirmed we were still a nation trying to solve ‘our’ problems.
That’s no longer true, and I’m sorry I have to witness this change in tides.
NOTE: If everyone will just write about the posts and issues there should not be a problem. Comments about comments policy is really off topic. YES I have a comments policy that was put in place after a lot of big problems at the end of the year. When I’ve been around I left warnings and in a very few cases deleted some comments or some language. I think I had to ban one person who would not get back to issues. Please put aside whether you personally like someone who wrote a comment, a post or what they have may said on x, y or z issue.
The best way to hand it if you feel someone on a post did a characterization that is wrong or way out of line is to say it and cite the post. Just name calling in comments whether done by people on the right, left or center is not what works or advances an issue.
Please look at
–the comments policy
–the tmv mission statement.
We have all erred in comments (me too) and in our posts (me too). But you can’t uplift things if you don’t try to start. And I see in this thread a lot of angry people screaming at each other because they’re angry at each other.
Please drop a debate over comments and let’s get back to issues. If it’s on issues, there won’t be any comments problems.
Also: we don’t advertise it (here it comes!) but you note that we DO sometimes run Guest Posts by people who have things to say on issues. If you think we’re way off on an issue and want to do a special guest post send it to me BUT the guest posts are not posts filled with name calling and adjectives.
There’s no way I’m going to spend my time on a blog writing about the process of a blog and comments. There is too much going on the world to be bogged down on THIS.
Can everyone just take a nice, deep yoga breath and move into comment on another post or explain what you like or don’t like about Thomas, why he has been a good, only so so or awful chief justice? How he has helped give the court a different perspective or set it back some years? And why?
Let’s forget about who wrote a post and who wrote such and such a comment…and yes if you look below we do have a comments policy and we may have lost one or two cobloggers on tmv due to problems in comments.
Isn’t it a bit discomfiting to think that blacks should all think the same way, even just about certain issues?
Why is it that the legitimacy of Thomas’ opinions should be judged according to their support or lack thereof among blacks? Are Scalia’s opinions judged by their popularity among Italians? Should they be? Should we start polling women to check for their relative level of support for each of Ginsberg’s positions?
Jason- When you replace a civil rights hero like Thurgood Marshall with another black justice- there is an expectation that the justice you choose won’t be at odds with the black community, and try and undo all that Marshall achieved. Of course Reagan was free to choose whoever he wanted, but it was still a slap in the face.
‘Isn’t it a bit discomfiting to think that blacks should all think the same way, even just about certain issues?’
Yes it is. But to me its more of an indication of how far out of the mainstream Thomas is, than an indication that 90% of blacks shouldn’t think the same way.
We didn’t have Jim Crow laws for Italians and women. Its natural that those who fought for racial equality in the ’50′s and ’60′s (or whose parents fought) would cringe when they think that a member of their own race is reversing their hard-fought gains.
kritter, I understand what you are saying about the jarring ideological transition from Marshall to Thomas. Clearly, the first Bush administration (it wasn’t Reagan) was being clever with the race/ideology matrix.
But I do get queasy at what sometimes seems to amount to an “intellectual plantation” where all blacks are expected to conform to a particular mindset on certain issues or else be deemed to be race traitors or something. As someone who may have been once targeted by the same white supremacist group that killed Alan Berg, I’m at least a little familiar with the surreal and offensive nature of the claim that one’s race carries some kind of moral obligation for intellectual conformity with a predetermined outcome. It seems to me deeply illiberal and just morally wrong.
Whether blacks all should or should not think alike has no bearing here – they simply do,for the most part.
All groups think alike on major issues: Americans that are also Jews, Poles, Irish in origin.
As the most severely repressed group in the USA, blacks have more reason than most to seek power by sticking together on majore issues.
P.S.
I think that group think is a trap tor any group.
I don’t think that a different standard should be applied to balcks than others.
Libertarians, Baptists, Leberals all practice group think to some extent.
Why single out balcks?
doma, even if that is true (which I would question), should it translate into efforts to marginalize or demonize those “minority within a minority” people who dissent?
Thomas doesn’t agree with most other blacks on affirmative action. Ok, we can observe the fact of the matter, but should we imbue it with moral condemnation against Thomas? Or should we evaluate his issues on merits (or lack thereof) that are independent of the advocate’s race?
I strongly prefer the latter.
There is how the world should be, and there is how the world is.
The world should also not be racist, but it is.
How we should judge Thomas can not be taken out the context of all the other shoulds we confront.
Joe:
Jason hijacked the thread in comment 9.
It should be apparent that this is a blog, which means people are typing as talking. Had it not been for Jason’s scold of grognard, no one else would have even commented on it. His point was that insignificant- agree or not.
The only way to keep things point on point is to remove comments totally, then do a he said/she said debate of actual essays- formal structures with beginnings, middles, ends (technically exposition/ meat/ summary). There are blogs- Andrew Sullivan’s comes to mind, that are still popular, w/o comments.
But, I’ve seen what is happening to TMV happen to other blogs. You’ve worked several years to build a core audience, and now a rogue or two is alienating posters, and doing so in an unfair manner. If Right Wingers and Left can agree on that, turning a blind eye to it is exacerbation.
At some point, the destruction of free discourse stops being Jason’s fault, and becomes yours, when you do not respond to legitimate, and manifest concerns. There are people I am almost always disagreeing with (C. Stanley, DLS, Somebody), but I want the option of disagreeing with them in full, not via your or your surrogate’s interpretation.
Take a look at the blog your blog spun off of- Dean’s World. Ever since he started circumscribing comments and commenters, banning dozens of people left and right (despite his claims of a few) his site has become an echo chamber of loyal idiots.
But it had potential. That potential’s loss is his fault, alone. If you follow down his path it will be yours alone. There is the often quoted canard about Godwin’s Law- aka, As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
It’s a bit disingenuous, but often apt. However, let me posit
Schneider’s corollary to Godwin’s Law: The probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler that approaches one, in Godwin’s Law is almost always preceded by a concomitant rise to one in the Fascist behavior of those compared.
Now, that’s not an attack, and I am not saying Jason or Michael will be shoving people into ovens, obviously. But, an objective look at multiple threads will show an increasing, almost glee, at pounding people- even for the use of ‘hell’ in one instance.
That is insane. It is also Immoderate. To be a moderate means toleration of those often immoderate, not acting in even a more immoderate fashion. Worst of all, it makes the very name of the blog hypocritical.
I do not know you, nor any of the posters nor commenters, and likely will never meet you. That’s the way it is. But, while misreads happen, and people get angry, it is FAR worse to try to cull a certain sort of speech pattern, through selective pruning.
I know you’ve had many troubles in recent times, that eats at your time, and I know you are busy with travel and such, but you risk all the above, and strangling your own baby in the process. That would be a shame.
I’ve laid out the solution, and the current ills. Since I’ve done so, it’s only fair that I, who have probably been reading the site longer than most contributors, and all but a literal handful of commenters, try to pinpoint where the problem started.
It was not with Jason, nor the recent spate of intellectual thuggery, or what have you. I think it started with the too rapid expansion and addition of co-bloggers. When it was you, Jack Grant, and 5 or 6 bloggers total, there were less posts, they were more focused, and frankly, better written. They also did not bang the same drum, or beat the same dead horse- choose your preferred metaphor.
The very fact that co-blogger A, C, F, and K will often toss the same Molotov cocktail, has led to more heated discussions, has led to whatever complaints you’ve received- although I would say to them, ‘Democracy’s ugly at time.’
I think that too many of the posts now, vs. 15-18 mos ago, are seen as of the cuff and venting. This post is a good example.
I think Stein is 100% right on Thomas. But, is it flippant? Yes. I would say, so be it, let Stein piss off the ones he has. Let them rip him, let those in opposition rip back, and….it’ll go nowhere. After all, this is a blog. Blogs do not incubate the great ideas for the coming century. They are places where people can cool off after a spat with their wife, boss, or nosy neighbor. If DLS tells a Leftist commenter to go to hell, it’s more likely that he has more courage to do so to an anonymous blip than the boss who could can him.
In that way, the blog serves a purpose. It may not foster the best debate, but it does serve a good.
I am loathed in most arts circles because Cosmoetica takes no prisoners in reviewing a film or poem. I’d like to say it’s popularity is because I write a great review of this or that, but it’s not. When I get countless emails telling me off, I realize it’s not me the folk are angry at, it’s just a release, and perhaps, that 10% or so that LOVE the site will learn, and even a few of the angrier emailers. And yes, there are those who are simply nuts- the cyberstalkers.
I think you are not grasping the purpose TMV or any blog serves, if all you see it as is a place where family friendly civic discussions will take place. I doubt your teen readership ever rises above 1%.
But, blogs can be Whitmanian places where people argue. Just yesterday a literary blog asked me to link to them and for some advice. I told them lit sites last less than 6 mos. on avr. Cosmoetica’s 6.5 yrs old- Paleozoic. Pt 1- know what your aims are. 2- expect no recompense 3) seek quality.
The same applies to all websites, though. 2 you probably get. 3 I know is striven for. But I think #1 is where you have lost some sight.
I do not expect Robert Stein to tellme how to solve the problem of an out of control Supreme Court.
I do not expect Joe Gandelman to teach me the secret to whatever.
But, I have come to expect that TMV is a place where the C Stanleys and DLSs can argue with the Jim Satterfields without goading.
And, whether he realizes it or not, comment 9 was a goad. I.e.- ‘Don’t think of a purple elephant in a pink tutu.’ Doesn’t work, does it?
I hope my legitimate concerns don’t get me banned, but if they do, they do. I have a life outside TMV. I too look here, rather than 1000 other blogs, after a day’s work, to unwind.
That’s a good thing to be. All else is whipped cream. But cream has a short shelf life.
Again, this thread has not really dealt with busing nor segregation. Aside from Thomas, what does anyone else think of those things?
doma,
I agree that racism continues to exist, but I just can’t agree that the appropriate response is to mentally assign all black people to an ideological camp that they are duty-bound to uphold. To me, that seems to entrench racist attitudes rather than decreasing them. To say that “all black people should agree…” creates a permanent separation that makes MLK’s dream of a color-blind assessment of individuals not only unattained, but unattainable.
Thomas’ views on affirmative action or busing might be found to be wrong, but if they are wrong, they should be found wrong regardless of Thomas’ race, no?
Jason,
Consequences are my measure for judging decisions. That includes assessing the timing and sope of a decision, and the reaction to it.
Sudden, far reaching changes lead to instablity and polariztion. That’s why I value precedents, and that’s my most important criticism of this decision.
You are tight. Thomas’s race should not play a role.
But it does, in the minds of most blacks, and Thomas knows that. Without abandoning his ideological principles, he and the other judges could have chosen a more cautious route to change.
They didn’t.
People react in predictable ways.
The ‘shoulds’ don’t help much right now.
My best hope is that out of this will come new, more creative thinking.
My worst fear is, that having had their victogy, too many of the critics will walk completely away from the real issues at the heart of this.
That’s interesting, doma. How would you suggest would have been an alternative approach?
Let’s assume as given that the current majority on the Court (including Thomas) honestly believes that systems using race as a classifier are constitutionally impermissible. How exactly could they have articulated that doctrine differently than they did in a way that would have caused less outcry?
Uncle Ruckus is a much better characterization.
Unbelievable that the comment moderation is an issue – once again. Jason and Joe are much more patient than I am in this regard.
Anyway – I disagree, quite strongly so, that Thomas is an “uncle Tom,” or that he hates “his own race.” David Schraub had a good post up about Thomas a while ago – about Thomas’ ideology. I suggest you read – interesting food for thought.
Jason- I don’t see anything wrong with blacks having a variety of viewpoints. But there’s a difference in just choosing someone who disagrees with his race on a couple of issues and choosing the most conservative black justice available- who seems as doma pointed out to have been chosen for his race and his conservatism not his qualifications as he had only 1 year of experience when he was appointed.
Also, I will repeat that it seems hypocritical to pick someone who got where he was by using affirmative action, but now wants to make sure others can’t follow the same path.
He never asks questions, and his opinions aren’t the nuanced ones of a thoughtful jurist who considers all sides. I respect his right to have different opinions than the majority of his race, but think he was appointed to stick it to blacks and liberals, and reverse a lot of the gains the civil rights movement has made. IMO, he was a terrible choice for the court, and I’m not sure why a Democratic congress would have approved the nomination. I remember vaguely the Anita Hill controversy, but that’s about all.
I think it unlikely that anyone, Republican or Democrat, selects Supreme Court with the idea to “stick it to” some group of people. The idea that some guys went behind a door and found the jurist who would deliberately harm blacks is implausible to me, as is the idea that Thomas would ever hold such an intention.
It seems a fair debate about whether the effects of particular views might be damaging to various individuals or groups, but to elevate claims about effects to claims about intentions doesn’t seem to be a very promising premise for such a debate. It just seems likely to produce a very predictable and sincere defensiveness instead.
For example, I might think that Justices Ginsberg and Stevens hold opinions that might have the effect of damaging free speech rights in critical areas, but I would not claim that their intention is to destroy free speech.
I will be LESS PATIENT HERE now:
99.99 percent of the comments people of the right, left and center leave on TMV are not a problem. I have also dealt with some people in emails and thought this issue was over.
No it is NOT immoderate to say please follow our guidelines.
If someone doesn’t like one coblogger, they might love another. I get emails all the time from people who think X is ruining the site but Y is just great and people who think Y is awful and X is ruining the site. Also: other sites have lots of cobloggers. TMV has a lot of people signed up who don’t post — and some of them will NOT because of comments that have violated the policy you see below.
Our comments policy has been posted since January. I have over the past few months left polite posts reminding people to read it. We are NOT going to have comments turn into angry comments on comments being moderated in a way so it fits out comment policy — a policy, I might add that we adapted from a blog on the left that was nice enough to give it to us, that was adapted from another blog. That blog has a team of people that regularly DELETE comments that violate their policy.
In three words: PLEASE STOP IT and discuss issues.
This is NOT a blog about comment moderation.
We do write about other things.
I-t i-s t-i-m-e t-o m-o-v-e o-n.
Look at those comments above. MOST people are commenting on the issue. Just do that.
Anyone who reads TMV sees we have people of all beliefs not only engaging in spirited discussion but doing Guest Voice posts and writers who reflect varying viewpoints who regularly have their analyses published.
I’m doing any more comments on this anymore myself and no more warnings. Just once again: we invite people to comment on issues and have a spirited conversation. We are not banning people on the right, left and center who don’t agree with posts here. We do NOT require people who sign up for comments to have a certain viewpoint.
We DO require that the guidelines posted below are followed and we will not turn the blog into a blog about comments and the commenting policy that some are not following despite our polite and increasingly less polite requests.
99.99 percent of the people who comment here have not had any problems or been a problem. And that includes people on the right, left and center.