A Scourge Against Justice

[Tiassa]

​

Even the Supreme Court can start to sound like an internet argument. Attorney Marc Elias↱ spends some words trying to observe a basic distinction:

In 1992, after twelve consecutive years of Republican presidents, the Supreme Court heard a sweeping abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Though many expected the conservative majority to overturn Roe, a conservative plurality backed away. Justice David Souter explained the reason from the bench:

The promise of constancy, once given, binds the Court for as long as the power to standby the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally is to render that commitment obsolete.

A willing breach of it would be nothing less than a breach of faith and no Court that broke its faith with the people could sensibly expect credit for principle in the decision by which it did that.​

Roberts is a brilliant jurist. He is an astute observer of politics and public sentiment. He knew the risk of overturning Roe last year. He was warned of the consequences for the Court as an institution. But for him, and the other conservative members of the Court, overturning Roe was worth it. It was, after all, the reason most of them were nominated in the first place. The announcement of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization last year was the equivalent of hanging a "mission accomplished" sign across the front steps of the Court.

That is why I was surprised when I read that Roberts was "disturbed" by the criticism the Court now routinely receives for politicized decisions. I had assumed that Roberts knew that overturning prior Supreme Court affirmative action jurisprudence and using a made-up doctrine to strike down student debt relief was going to harm the Court's public standing — even among people who are otherwise skeptical of both programs. I believed that he must have realized that allowing a made-up, contrived case to proceed to the nation's highest court solely to belittle gay marriage would reflect poorly on the Court.

I believed that Roberts knew better until I read his last words of the term in which he blamed the dissent for the Court's current predicament. Now I worry that he didn't know the damage he and the other conservatives were doing. I fear he still doesn't.

The alternative is that the chief is fully aware of the damage the conservatives are doing to the Court, but he finds it easier to give them a pass and blame the liberals.​

But that's the thing. It's the twentieth paragraph when Elias gets to the part about how he "believed that Roberts knew better". As it is, what he believed, and what he fears, and the implicit alternative only take nineteen paragraphs to set up because it is the kind of distinction no attorney or historian should ever need to explain.

Still, it is also worth observing that Elias' telling runs through familiar territory. And if something unfamiliar is a chief justice expressing concerns that "seemed unusually defensive for a chief justice who stands solidly in the center of a right-lurching Court", our familiarity is with that context. "Attacking the Court for overstepping its limited judicial role," Elias reminds, "was a hallmark of the conservative legal movement for the 50 years before former President Donald Trump … solidified a hard-right 6-3 majority." This was the infamous lamentation against, "Judicial activism, as it was called … the right-wing’s primary critique of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court." And if this complaint "was at the core of the conservative attack on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe v. Wade (1973)", and the "main weapon Justice Antonin Scalia and other conservative justices wielded", it only took the very judicial activism conservatives had decried to slash away at Roe and threaten Griswold.

Such an easy breach of faith, so willing and even anxious, and for Chief Justice Roberts it seems the way to repair the damage is simply to pretend it never happened.

So we might think back on those decades of rightist whining about judicial activism, and recognize that part of the reason such outcomes as the Roberts Court has inflicted are only any sort of surprise because decency would have pretended it inappropriate to suggest such low behavior. And the Chief Justice would seem to maintain that expectation.

Still, should John Roberts pretend to worry about "misperception" that might be "harmful" to Court and nation, the most obvious retort is to remind of standards pertaining to the mere appearance of impropriety, and that the "institution and our country" would be better off if the majority stopped showing off its appearances of impropriety.

And the proverbial everyone else, without whom such expectations have no sway, have failed to learn the lesson for so long that it is worth wondering if it's not really a point of learning, but what they're willing to trade in order to feel like they are part of something. There really isn't any point in wondering what the hell they were thinking, since they didn't care, either.
____________________

Notes:

Elias, Marc. "John Roberts' Last Word Is Not the Final Say". Democracy Docket. 6 July 2023. DemocracyDocket.com. 24 July 2023. https://bit.ly/43EJAkj

 

[Tiassa]

Invalidation | Affirmation

Alito on Dobbs: Jon Richards, 25 June 2022​

There is this:

By shielding Donald Trump from standing trial before a jury in two of his felony cases, Trump's three appointments to the Supreme Court, along with the even more MAGA Justices Alito and Thomas and Judge Aileen Cannon, have already irreparably interfered in the 2024 election. Most importantly, when we finally do get the immunity ruling in the days or more likely weeks ahead, it will set the stage for a historic crisis. We will face an irreconcilable showdown between the normal operation of the criminal justice system (which should find Trump in pretrial and trial proceedings for his January 6th crimes over the next five months) and the normal functioning of presidential elections (which should find him campaigning full-time during those months).

Furthermore, proceeding with Trump's trial in a timely fashion would supercharge pre- and post-election claims that the election was not free and fair. Yet not holding the trial before the election would surrender the imperative for voters to know the full extent of Trump's legal accountability for the insurrection. Indeed, if you watch focus groups, or talk to voters who don't live in our 24-7 political news ecosystem, you will find that (1) they take Trump's criminal conviction for 2016 election interference extremely seriously; (2) conversely, many have internalized the failure to hold Trump accountable for the insurrection as evidence that his crimes there were not as serious as they appeared, and (3) many believe Democrats bear responsibility for the failure to hold him accountable for the attempted coup.

It didn't have to be this way: had the Republican majority on the Court not intervened at the last minute, we would already have a verdict in the case. We would also have a verdict if they had not rejected Jack Smith when he asked them to decide the same issues last December.​

An omitted footnote simply establishes that Michael Podhorzer↱ does not expect the Supreme Court will award Donald Trump the immunity he seeks. It's actually the beginning of a fairly long blog post; the blog itself is called Weekend Reading, so, yeah. But it runs through what ought to be familiar territory, such as the "Brooks Brothers Riot" of 2000, the role of the Federalist Society in promoting a conservative judiciary, but also some of the narrative detail we don't often consider. And while soem of the themes are difficult to suss out from half a world away↗, they're also hard to explain to many Americans simply because they presume, as an article of faith, we are above such affairs. Well, sort of. They are happy to imagine all sorts of evil women, nonwhite infidels constantly about some intricately dysfunctional scheme, but the clownish simplicity of buying off Clarence Thomas, for instance, or even his wife, is a two-strike pitch: Strike one, Americans are above all that; strike two, I mean, c'mon, even still, how ridiculous does this kind of clownish caricature plot sound?

But the result, over time:

When SCOTUS made elections more democratic it was by large majorities, and almost exclusively by the Warren Court. However, Republican-appointed majorities have made our elections less democratic on a straight partisan basis repeatedly over the last 24 years. Beginning with Bush v. Gore, on at least a dozen occasions, SCOTUS has radically altered election law on a partisan 5-4 or 6-3 basis – often overriding bipartisan legislation enacted by Congress, and often relying on spurious facts or questions not even presented in the cases.

The following is based on the 30 most important election-related cases decided by SCOTUS, beginning with the Warren Court, and relies on the authoritative Supreme Court Database which indicates whether a ruling was “liberal” or “conservative.”

All six such decisions made by the Warren Court consistently made elections more democratic, establishing principles like “one person, one vote.” All of them were consensus decisions, by which I mean they were made by justices appointed by both parties. That shifted a bit in the Burger court, with about half of the cases deemed conservative and half liberal, but nearly all were consensus decisions.

But then the Rehnquist and Roberts courts, in nearly every instance on a straight party-line vote, completely remade federal elections to advantage Republican interests .... And, remember, all but one of the Roberts Court's 6-3 decisions came after Barrett joined the Court. The only other one was when Justice John Paul Stevens voted with the Republican appointees to sustain a state voter ID law, a decision he subsequently came to regret publicly.​

One thing that is difficult to distill is the manner in which certain conservatives ought to be particularly aghast, and perhaps even ashamed; it has to do with an old discussion called "liberal judicial activism", which accused "legislating from the bench". Podhorzer recalls that the Court, "Using shamelessly spurious reasoning, as if to taunt us with their naked power, the majority literally invented the 'doctrine of equal [state] sovereignty'", and that is the kind of judicial activism Republicans so frequently accused, twenty to thirty years ago.

(It also happened in Dobbs, when the Court invoked the Major Questions Doctrine; cf., Deacon and Litman, 2023↱, "After the Supreme Court's October term 2021, the 'new' major questions doctrine operates as a clear statement rule that directs courts not to discern the plain meaning of a statute using the normal tools of statutory interpretation …". While Podhorzer's focus is on the judiciary, voting, and democracy, the abortion example reminds the degree to which conservative judicial activism now shapes American law and policy.)​

The conservative Court can be seen as humiliating its conservative advocates, except here we encounter a question of stratification: Conservative elite are not humiliated, because this was the grift; the question falls, then, to the rank and file, the average joe on Main Street in Flyover, Middle America. Maybe they really are just a bunch of suckers, or perhaps the judicial activism pitch was the kind of thing they were happy to hear because it's what they wanted to hear; it's not impossible they might think they're in on the grift.

Or there is another way of looking at it: We've kind of known, the whole time; the Safford and Ricci were controversial carveout↗ decisions that marked Chief Justice Roberts' first term. Political agendas are what they are, but the Chief Justice's first concern is the prestige and power of the Supreme Court, and throughout his tenure he has managed to denigrate and diminish the conservative pretense against judicial activism. And maybe that seems like a small thing, but it had much influence, inflicted much harm, and was likely never true.

It's one of the details that can be hard to perceive in the ping-pong back and forth↗ of superficial politics: The current Supreme Court majority has achieved powerful results, but in doing so invalidated the politic that advanced it to power.
____________________

Notes:

Deacon, Daniel T. and Leah M. Litman. "The New Major Questions Doctrine". Virginia Law Review, v.109, n.5. 8 September 2023. VirginiaLawReview.org. 19 June 2024. https://bit.ly/4co6e5k

Podhorzer, Michael. "Tipping the Scales: The MAGA Justices Have Already Interfered with the 2024 Elections". Weekend Reading. 19 June 2024. WeekendReading.net. 19 June 2024. https://bit.ly/4eu4WHM

 

[Seattle]

Preaching to the choir (awkwardly) and adding nothing of substance...

 

[Tiassa]

#EnduringAppeal | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

You were warned: Mr. Fish, Clowncrack, 2014↱​

Lisa Needham↱, for Public Notice:

Those nationwide injunctions stopped Trump from stripping citizenship from babies, even in states that were eager to let him do so. But the conservatives on the Court didn't feel like grappling with whether Trump's executive order was unconstitutional ....

.... Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent calls this exactly what it is:

「The Executive has not asked this Court to determine whether Executive Order No. 14160 complies with the Constitution. Rather, it has come to us seeking the right to continue enforcing that order regardless-i.e., even though six courts have now said the order is likely unconstitutional. What the Executive wants, in effect, is for this Court to bless and facilitate its desire to operate in two different zones moving forward: one in which it is required to follow the law (because a particular plaintiff has secured a personal injunction prohibiting its unlawful conduct), and another in which it can choose to violate the law with respect to certain people (those who have yet to sue)」 ....​

.... As the party asking for a stay of the lower court injunctions, the administration had to show it would suffer irreparable harm if it was not allowed to immediately start enforcing the executive order. That harm is also supposed to be weighed against the harm to the plaintiffs. The Court blows this off, basically saying that the plaintiffs in the case won't be harmed because they would be protected by a narrower injunction. But that's disingenuous and the conservative justices know it. The issue isn't whether the specific plaintiffs are protected, but what harms all people affected by the policy will suffer if Trump is allowed to proceed.

This is not a functioning judiciary. It's unsustainable to have the nation's highest court routinely undermine the lower courts in the service of Trump's agenda. It's also unsustainable to have the nation's highest court so resolutely committed to dragging us into the past, of reversing the civil rights gains of the last several decades.

When future historians grapple with how Trump managed to so quickly and so thoroughly dismantle American democracy, the role of the Roberts Court cannot be overstated. It's not just that the Court's conservatives have blessed Trump's worst efforts, though that certainly has contributed to Trump's success. It's also that the Court's conservatives share Trump's deep disdain for immigrants, for people of color, for trans kids, and are in no way interested in pushing back on his attacks on them.​

The thing about what they voted for is that defenders of Trump voters, who are themselves not supporters of Trump but just can't stand to see Trump voters criticized in certain ways, insisted people look away from the obvious, even into the 2024 election cycle. Like the conservative columnist for New York Times who didn't want Trump to win, and we know this because he told us himself, wagging that liberals needed↗ to "think a little more deeply about the enduring sources of his appeal".

But the thing about insisting that the majority of Trump supporters or Republican voters, &c., have other priorities than supremacism and cruelty is that it's not just Trump voters. Look at how Needham puts it, "how Trump managed to so quickly and so thoroughly", and "the role of the Roberts Court". And then consider that the Roberts Court is twenty years old, dating back to the Bush Jr. administration. What we see happening, now, is a durable conservative value, one of the enduring sources of conservative appeal. That's why it's not just a question of Trump voters↗: The question of Trumpism is one of brand popularity; the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace even after the last trumpence is spent. Any pretense that a majority of Trump voters actually had other reasons and priorities ought to have died during his first presidency, but those either gullible enough to hold out or shameless enough to insist despite knowing otherwise have been as roundly and thoroughly humiliated, these last five months, as can be.

To the other, that would presume they are capable of countnenancing reality.

For instance, we're back to birthright citizenship, and maybe we could have told you it would go this way, say, over fifteen years ago when conservatives were hollering about the Fourteenth¹, except we really weren't supposed to think so poorly of people just for being Republicans, or making ignorant excuses for supremacism.

If your best answer was that someone shouldn't call it supremacism just because it disagrees with them, maybe it really was supremacism. If identifying supremacism and injustice is some manner of condescension that forces people to vote for supremacists, maybe the problem really is supremacism. If it doesn't make a difference to you because both sides are the same, maybe the problem is you.

It's not so much that the early months of the second Trump presidency have somehow humiliated naïveté, but, rather, in its triumphal bacchanal shown the true character of American conservatism everyone has kind of known all along.

We didn't call them racists just because they disagreed with us; that canard has long been a tell. Rather, we called them racists because that is how they behaved, and what they preserve and advance. Same reason we call misogyny by its name. Same reason we call supremacism by its name.

The same reason we call it hatred.

And, don't take me wrongly; we get it: You weren't supremacists, and you certainly don't support it, but you just can't stand the people who actually oppose it.

The past is the past, and can't be changed. But we can leave markers for the future↗: When are people going to learn, this is what it gets them? You can't just dabble↗ in it; if the trade is worth it, you probably weren't a dabbler↗.

Even then, it was kind of hard to miss, even from half a world away. This is what those middling excuses defended.
____________________

Notes:

¹ 2007↗, and another↗, and again↗, and, oh, hey, another↗ and another↗, and again↗, and again↗, and yet another↗, and that was just May and June. We heard about it again↗ a couple more times↗ before the year was out. Oh, hey, that's right, 2007:

• 「Remember that the border crisis Republicans complain about not only dates back to Boehner, over a decade ago, but actually reaches back to conservative refusal of President Bush's bill in 2007. Democrats, in the seventeen years since, have literally been unable to give Republicans the bills Republicans demand, because Republicans end up killing the bills.」 (July, 2024↗)

• 「DACA—the "Dreamers"—were originally a Bush administration proposal, and those extreme leftist Democrats have been begging for a chance to compromise and pass GOP border bills, now, for over seventeen years.」 (February, 2025↗)

• 「Democrats have been begging for a chance to compromise with Republicans and pass a shitty GOP border bill for over seventeen years, now. The problem is, Republicans can't seem to come up with a bill racist enough to satisfy Republicans.」 (May, 2025↗)​

But, yeah, 2007. 2008↗ opened on a familiar theme, and persisted↗. Came up in 2009↗, and in 2010↗, because↗ it must↗; indeed, it was kind of a popular↗ subject↗ among rightists↗; even had play among crossovers↗. In 2011↗, it was wrapped in Birtherism, and by 2015↗ was part of Donald Trump's first presidential campaign.​

Needham, Lisa. "A corrupted Supreme Court sinks to new lows". Public Notice. 1 July 2025. PublicNotice.co. 1 July 2025. https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-casa-scotus-birthright-citizenship-ruling

 

[TheVat]

Calls to mind the famous quote from French revolutionary Antoine de Saint Just -

"Those who make revolution halfway only dig their own graves."

 

[foghorn]

Notes:

¹ 2007↗, and another↗, and again↗, and, oh, hey, another↗ and another↗, and again↗, and again↗, and yet another↗, and that was just May and June. We heard about it again↗ a couple more times↗ before the year was out. Oh, hey, that's right, 2007:

• 「Remember that the border crisis Republicans complain about not only dates back to Boehner, over a decade ago, but actually reaches back to conservative refusal of President Bush's bill in 2007. Democrats, in the seventeen years since, have literally been unable to give Republicans the bills Republicans demand, because Republicans end up killing the bills.」 (July, 2024↗)

• 「DACA—the "Dreamers"—were originally a Bush administration proposal, and those extreme leftist Democrats have been begging for a chance to compromise and pass GOP border bills, now, for over seventeen years.」 (February, 2025↗)

• 「Democrats have been begging for a chance to compromise with Republicans and pass a shitty GOP border bill for over seventeen years, now. The problem is, Republicans can't seem to come up with a bill racist enough to satisfy Republicans.」 (May, 2025↗)​

But, yeah, 2007. 2008↗ opened on a familiar theme, and persisted↗. Came up in 2009↗, and in 2010↗, because↗ it must↗; indeed, it was kind of a popular↗ subject↗ among rightists↗; even had play among crossovers↗. In 2011↗, it was wrapped in Birtherism, and by 2015↗ was part of Donald Trump's first presidential campaign.​

Needham, Lisa. "A corrupted Supreme Court sinks to new lows". Public Notice. 1 July 2025. PublicNotice.co. 1 July 2025. https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-casa-scotus-birthright-citizenship-ruling

OMG these links are going back to members 2007
Tiassa has flipped big time.
Let it go Tiassa, some of these people are now probably dead.

 

[Sarkus]

OMG these links are going back to members 2007
Tiassa has flipped big time.
Let it go Tiassa, some of these people are now probably dead.

??? He's not linking the past discussions to have a go at those people, but to evidence that the discussions were had that long ago on these very forums, and to let people have a look. So it makes no difference whether those individuals are still here, banned, deceased, or whatever.
Tiassa made the point that the same issues were discussed 15+ years ago, and how back then such views were mostly just given an eye-roll. And comparing that to the current state of affairs. When you have the backdrop of Project 2025, for example, such policies come across somewhat different, don't you think? So, yeah, if he has access to evidence that supports the claim (that the discussions were had back then), why not provide it, so that people can actually see what he's referring to?

But, if that's what you want to take away from his post, sure.

 

[foghorn]

But, if that's what you want to take away from his post, sure.

??? Post?
Glad you enjoyed his blog.

 

[Sarkus]

??? Post?
Glad you enjoyed his blog.

Even accepting your premise, surely you must know that entries of a blog are still "posted" and thus are considered "posts"?

 

[parmalee]

??? He's not linking the past discussions to have a go at those people, but to evidence that the discussions were had that long ago on these very forums, and to let people have a look. So it makes no difference whether those individuals are still here, banned, deceased, or whatever.
Tiassa made the point that the same issues were discussed 15+ years ago, and how back then such views were mostly just given an eye-roll. And comparing that to the current state of affairs. When you have the backdrop of Project 2025, for example, such policies come across somewhat different, don't you think? So, yeah, if he has access to evidence that supports the claim (that the discussions were had back then), why not provide it, so that people can actually see what he's referring to?

But, if that's what you want to take away from his post, sure.

Keep in mind here that you;'re addressing someone who can't distinguish identifying antisemitic content from calling someone an antisemite--and who apparently believes that because members of group X appear in certain content, such content cannot be in any sense anti-X (like, for instance, Birth of a Nation clearly cannot be a racist film, cuz there's actual Black people in it). Actually, a lot of people seem to "struggle" with that one, for some incomprehensible reason.

"History" is a rather advanced, and inscrutable, concept for such persons.

 

[parmalee]

Tiassa made the point that the same issues were discussed 15+ years ago, and how back then such views were mostly just given an eye-roll. And comparing that to the current state of affairs. When you have the backdrop of Project 2025, for example, such policies come across somewhat different, don't you think?

It doesn't really give me any pleasure to have been "right" about Trump supporters all along--how (despite being tuned in to him like 24/7 apparently) they supposedly missed a lot of the more heinously awful shit, how they wouldn't really be on board with all that if they actually knew about it (turns out, they do and they did), etc.

A lot of factors behind apologetics, but I think a lot of people just really aren't that comfortable with acknowledging that their "neighbor", who seems a decent sort in many respects, is really, in fact, just kind of a piece of shit. Something about "politeness" and obscuring one's hatred and vitriol in coded, socially acceptable language and all that goes here, I suppose.

There's a luxury (and privilege) in that, to which many seem painfully unaware. I don't know if one has to be of a marginalized group, or to be intimately familiar with such persons, or what, but it's both baffling and vexing.

 

[foghorn]

Keep in mind here that you;'re addressing someone who can't distinguish identifying antisemitic content from calling someone an antisemite--and who apparently believes that because members of group X appear in certain content, such content cannot be in any sense anti-X (like, for instance, Birth of a Nation clearly cannot be a racist film, cuz there's actual Black people in it).

Since you bring that up, then....

In the 1968 film Oliver, Ron Moody (Jewish) was happy to play the ‘trope’.

Ron Moody played Fagin.

Ron had a little song and dance. He wasn't giving the image he was being forced to star in the film.
The same for Al Jolson (Jewish) was making a living at playing the black trope.

Now, according to to Parmalee they were not racists, is that right?
And the black slave connection comes in where?
Is Parmalee trying to cancel me with this black slave stuff?

 

[parmalee]

Ron Moody played Fagin.



Now, according to to Parmalee they were not racists, is that right?
And the black slave connection comes in where?
Is Parmalee trying to cancel me.

???

Not that you'll understand this, but I'll simply repeat what I've already stated quite plainly:

...Because members of group X appear in certain content, such content cannot be in any sense
anti-X (like, for instance, Birth of a Nation clearly cannot be a racist film, cuz there's actual Black people in it). *

Care to explain what any of that nonsense you just spewed above has to do with anything that I have just said? The issue is not whether or not Moody was racist--who cares? It's got nothing to do with what I was even talking about--can you even comprehend this?

This is fucking ridiculous.

I'd recommend that perhaps you peruse David Baddiel's Jews Don't Count, but a quick search revealed that you struggle to comprehend anything that that guy has to say, as well, so... I don't know.

* Please note, that was sarcasm; though I suspect it's pointless trying to explain that to you.

 

[foghorn]

???

Not that you'll understand this, but I'll simply repeat what I've already stated quite plainly:

...Because members of group X appear in certain content, such content cannot be in any sense
anti-X * (like, for instance, Birth of a Nation clearly cannot be a racist film, cuz there's actual Black people in it).

Care to explain what any of that nonsense you just spewed above has to do with anything that I have just said? The issue is not whether or not Moody was racist--can you even comprehend this?

This is fucking ridiculous.

I'd recommend that perhaps you peruse David Baddiel's Jews Don't Count, but a quick search revealed that you struggle to comprehend anything that that guy has to say, as well, so... I don't know.

* Please note, that was sarcasm; though I suspect it's pointless trying to explain that to you.

Now, according to to Parmalee they were not racists, is that right? Please answer.

 

[parmalee]

Now, according to to Parmalee they were not racists, is that right? Please answer.

I said absolutely nothing with respect to either Moody or Jolson being racist, and I have no intention to weigh in upon that--because it has NOTHING to do with what I even said.

Seriously, get an education. Learn how to read.

 

[foghorn]

You know, slaves were known to sing songs whilst toiling in the fields--clearly no coercion there, right? (And that's not really a rhetorical question, given your thoughts on the subject of teaching that slavery provided "personal benefits" to Black people.)

That was your reply to my post below:

Ron had a little song and dance. He wasn't giving the image he was being forced to star in the film.

****************************************
Where is the Black slave connection to Ron Moody.


https://www.sciforums.com/threads/m...-potter-books-antisemitic.166887/post-3759814
******************************************
Why the connection to Ron Moody and black slaves, was Ron a slave?

 

[parmalee]

In your reply to my post below:

Where is the Black slave connection to Ron Moody.
View attachment 6922
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/m...-potter-books-antisemitic.166887/post-3759814
Why the connection to Ron Moody and black slaves, was Ron a slave?

Anyone else care to field this one? Most here seem to have a bit more patience when it comes to dealing with... well, people who are seemingly incapable of understanding plain English.

I'll give it one last go:

Bigotries are not unrelated, yes? There is commonality between racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, yes?

Now, if you accept those premises, consider this:

A film can be made in which, say, Black people appear. The Black people appear to be present willingly--that is to say, it doesn't look like anyone is pointing a gun at their heads, right? And yet, such a film can still be racist, or filled with racist content, as is the case with the classic example, Birth of a Nation. An overtly racist film in which many Black people appear.

And so, the mere presence of Blacks, women, gays, Jews, et al, within a film does in no way render such film absent of racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, etc. Understand?

 

[James R]

Anyone else care to field this one?

Seeing as you're extending the invitation... okay, I'll give it a go.

Most here seem to have a bit more patience when it comes to dealing with... well, people who are seemingly incapable of understanding plain English.

Have you considered that maybe you're not expressing yourself as clearly as you think you are?

Bigotries are not unrelated, yes? There is commonality between racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, yes?

If you're claiming that a racist is necessarily also a homophobe, an anti-semite and a misogynist, I don't think that necessarily follows.

If, on the other hand, you're merely pointing out that racism, misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism are all forms of bigotry, then I agree with you. But that's kind of obvious, is it not?

A film can be made in which, say, Black people appear. The Black people appear to be present willingly--that is to say, it doesn't look like anyone is pointing a gun at their heads, right? And yet, such a film can still be racist, or filled with racist content, as is the case with the classic example, Birth of a Nation. An overtly racist film in which many Black people appear.

I'm not very familiar with the film to which you refer. If I understand it correctly, the film was made at a time where racial prejudices in the United States were more overt and perhaps more widespread than they are now. I believe that opportunities for black actors to work in film were much more limited than they are now. Since people need to work to earn a living, I would not be blaming black people for agreeing to take on roles in films that were written with implicit racial stereotypes in mind.

Actually, I just looked it up. The film to which you refer was made in 1915, more than 100 years ago. From what I've read, it features white actors in blackface. Were there black people who appeared willingly in it? From a cursory investigation, I don't know if there were. The film was criticised at the time of its release for its positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, apparently. I think it would be fair to conclude that the film was "overtly racist", then.

How much do you know about the circumstances in which black people appeared in the film? How much "willingness" was there? Do you just mean they wanted some money to earn a living, or are you claiming that they were sympathetic to the racism in it?

And so, the mere presence of Blacks, women, gays, Jews, et al, within a film does in no way render such film absent of racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, etc. Understand?

That sounds like a reasonable conclusion.

What is the relevance of this film from 1915 to racism in the current era?

 

[parmalee]

If you're claiming that a racist is necessarily also a homophobe, an anti-semite and a misogynist, I don't think that necessarily follows.

Have you considered that maybe you're not thinking all that clearly? Why would someone even suggest such a thing? It's certainly possible, often likely, but, no, it does not necessarily follow. So why assume that that's what I was suggesting?

If, on the other hand, you're merely pointing out that racism, misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism are all forms of bigotry, then I agree with you. But that's kind of obvious, is it not?

Obvious to most, yes. Clearly not so obvious to foghorn, yes?

I'm not very familiar with the film to which you refer. If I understand it correctly, the film was made at a time where racial prejudices in the United States were more overt and perhaps more widespread than they are now. I believe that opportunities for black actors to work in film were much more limited than they are now. Since people need to work to earn a living, I would not be blaming black people for agreeing to take on roles in films that were written with implicit racial stereotypes in mind.

The primary actors were whites in blackface, but there were also a considerable number of Black people who appeared in minor roles. This was already covered in a thread which you claim to have read, but whatever. People "claim" things all the time; doesn't mean they're necessarily true.

Who said anything about "blaming (B)lack people"? I certainly didn't. Rather I suggested that the presence of Black people within the film, of their own volition--you're aware that slavery had ended some 50 years prior, yes?--does not automatically render a film free of racist content. As foghorn has suggested elsewhere, several times, again, in a thread which you claim to have read.

Actually, I just looked it up. The film to which you refer was made in 1915, more than 100 years ago. From what I've read, it features white actors in blackface. Were there black people who appeared willingly in it? From a cursory investigation, I don't know if there were. The film was criticised at the time of its release for its positive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, apparently. I think it would be fair to conclude that the film was "overtly racist", then.

Likewise, plenty of films made over the ensuing several decades were quite overtly racist, yet also featured a number of Black actors--Gone with the Wind, for instance. How exactly are you defining "willingly" here? The actors were not compelled to appear in such films, though financial circumstances would likely have made doing such a prudent decision.

Nevertheless, you seem to be overlooking the fundamental point here--that films in which members of group X willingly appear are in no sense necessarily free of overtly anti-X content or sentiments. Why is that? Can you perhaps try sticking to the topic and addressing the actual points being made, rather than engaging in all this baseless speculation?

How much do you know about the circumstances in which black people appeared in the film? How much "willingness" was there? Do you just mean they wanted some money to earn a living, or are you claiming that they were sympathetic to the racism in it?

Not bothering with your baseless assumptions. Try to address what is actually written, rather than speculating baselessly upon what a person might mean.

That sounds like a reasonable conclusion.

What is the relevance of this film from 1915 to racism in the current era?

It goes towards the point I was making--are you truly this dense?

 

[James R]

parmalee:

Have you considered that maybe you're not thinking all that clearly?

Always. Haven't noticed a problem here, with that, so far.

Why would someone even suggest such a thing?

I don't know. Why did you suggest it? Or didn't you mean that? Here's what you wrote (remember?):

"Bigotries are not unrelated, yes? There is commonality between racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, yes?"

Now, I assume you had something in mind when you mentioned relatedness and commonalities. But you didn't specify what the commonalities were that you were trying to get at. So I asked you. But, so far, you still haven't answered. Why is that? I even helped you by asking you about two possible interpretations of what you wrote.

It's certainly possible, often likely, but, no, it does not necessarily follow. So why assume that that's what I was suggesting?

I assumed nothing. Why do we have to do this every time we converse, parmalee? I have to explain to you, again, that when I end a sentence with a question mark, it means I'm asking you a question. A question is not an assumption, parmalee. It is an inquiry - in this case a query about what you think. I invited you, several times in my previous post, to elaborate on and to clarify what you posted previously. You seem reluctant to do that, or to answer simple questions. Why is that? Do you actually have trouble identifying questions, or telling the difference between questions and statements, even when there are handy hints, such as question marks? (That's a question, parmalee, by the way, in case it's not clear to you.)

Obvious to most, yes. Clearly not so obvious to foghorn, yes?

I wouldn't presume to speak for foghorn. If you have questions for him, you should ask him directly.

The primary actors were whites in blackface, but there were also a considerable number of Black people who appeared in minor roles. This was already covered in a thread which you claim to have read, but whatever.

Which thread did I claim to have read, which covered this? Where did I make the claim that I had read about this?

People "claim" things all the time; doesn't mean they're necessarily true.

I'm so glad we can agree on that much.

Who said anything about "blaming (B)lack people"? I certainly didn't.

I did. I wrote "Since people need to work to earn a living, I would not be blaming black people for agreeing to take on roles in films that were written with implicit racial stereotypes in mind."

Try to keep up, parmalee. It makes for a difficult discussion if you can't even remember who said what, from one post to the next.

Rather I suggested that the presence of Black people within the film, of their own volition does not automatically render a film free of racist content.

And I agreed with you. So, all good. Right?

--you're aware that slavery had ended some 50 years prior, yes?-

Slavery hasn't ended, parmalee. But I understand what you mean, about the American civil war and such. I'm aware of that.

Why is this relevant to our discussion about a 1915 film?

Likewise, plenty of films made over the ensuing several decades were quite overtly racist, yet also featured a number of Black actors--Gone with the Wind, for instance. How exactly are you defining "willingly" here?

How am I defining "willingly"?

I was going with your definition, that you posted just a couple of posts earlier in this very thread. Did you forget? Here is the quote from you:

"A film can be made in which, say, Black people appear. The Black people appear to be present willingly--that is to say, it doesn't look like anyone is pointing a gun at their heads, right?"

So, you can assume I'm defining "willingly" as "it doesn't look like anyone is pointing a gun at their heads, right?", for the purposes of this discussion. Clear enough for you?

The actors were not compelled to appear in such films, though financial circumstances would likely have made doing such a prudent decision.

As I pointed out.

Nevertheless, you seem to be overlooking the fundamental point here--that films in which members of group X willingly appear are in no sense necessarily free of overtly anti-X content or sentiments.

I addressed that point in the post I made just prior to this one, did I not? How can you be under the impression that I am overlooking it? Maybe try reading slower and more carefully.

Can you perhaps try sticking to the topic and addressing the actual points being made, rather than engaging in all this baseless speculation?

Well, you brought it up. Moreover, you issued a direct invitation for people other than foghorn and yourself to discuss the content of your post with you. If you now want to stop with your "baseless speculation", that's fine with me.

Not bothering with your baseless assumptions.

This was in reply to three questions I asked you, parmalee. Really, what is your problem with questions? Can't you identify them as such? (That's a question, parmalee. I can point it out explicitly each time, like this, if there's going to be an ongoing blind spot with you about questions. Do you need me to do that for you? (That's a question.))

Try to address what is actually written, rather than speculating baselessly upon what a person might mean.

Good advice. But here I have mostly avoided speculating about what you might mean and have, instead, asked you what you mean, using questions with question marks at the end to indicate that they are, in fact, questions.

You might want to apply that good advice to your analysis of JK Rowling in the thread about her. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you? (No need to answer that question; that's rhetorical.)

It goes towards the point I was making--are you truly this dense?

Are you insulting me, parmalee? Why is that?