if you read this New Yorker piece:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race

He echoes a lot of radical black nationalism that I heard a lot growing up. Like my dad was very critical of a core premise of integration and brown v board, which is black kids needed to be around white kids to get a good education.

Anyway, I also agree with the idea that racism is permanent but I don't think that means you can't do anything about it. That is, we need programs like Affirmative Action because we know racism is real and permanant.

I call bullshit on Clarence Thomas because there is an underlying inferiority complex that pervades his thinking. I just don't see a love for his people in his thinking.

Anyway, dude is hella angry and I wish people didn't call him ABC, cause we paying for that billying with Supreme Court decisions.

It's a good read, check it out and let's discuss.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>if you read this New Yorker piece:
>
>https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race
>
>He echoes a lot of radical black nationalism that I heard a
>lot growing up. Like my dad was very critical of a core
>premise of integration and brown v board, which is black kids
>needed to be around white kids to get a good education.

I always understood it as black folks needed access to the resources that white kids had in order to compete. And in those days, the quickest way to get those resources was by getting into white institutions. Just being around the white kids wasn't it.

When I get a free minute, I'll check out this article.

'separate but equal'.

which the court found unconstitutional under the equal protections clause because segregated schools were found to be inherently unequal.

its not that black kids cant hypothetically get the same quality service/resources as white kids. its that things obviously dont play out that way in real life (by design).

just look at the modern trend/uptick of white schools seceding/splintering from school districts that largely serve non-white/poor students.

------------------
One Hundred.

*agreed with.
His words hold zero meaning.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Evolution of society and power structures form without government intervention.
He’s triple distilled Ayn Rand
I use those quotation marks because real life isn’t the sims. There is no neutrality or natural in a world built upon the exploitation of people and resources. And those that wish to remove the guard rails of government to achieve a more “pure” evolution are dumb.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2011/7/5/991585/-

And a news article that it was written from

Each summer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas invites his four new law clerks to his home to watch a movie.
Not just any movie, but the 1949 film version of the classic of libertarian conservatism, Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-jul-02-la-na-clarence-thomas-20110703-story.html

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is -- Hands off!

"Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's. . . . Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy."



———


And this is the due north of Clarence Thomas’ moral compass

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

He feels that government intervention is the worst thing to ever happen to man. So he dedicates his life to dismantling the leverages and guardrails of the state from within the government, all while taking an unfireable government role, being actively involved with his wife’s foray into government, collecting government health insurance, and will one day have a nice government pension, as he’s gotten rich off government salary and ethical black holes that he’s helped open within the government

Fuck every word that he ever spews.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

I think the dailykos link is not working.

---------------------------
Signature

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2011/7/5/991585/-

Worked when I clicked

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

n/m

---------------------------
Signature

Like I understand how Rich Guys love Ann Rynd. They want to justify their greed and and even use their greed as a sign of their greatness.

I even understand Ayn Rand's hate for the state, she grew up under an oppressive state.

But I don't understand Clarence Thomas's commitment to Objectivism. What can possibly be in it for him or black people (assuming he sincerely believes it will help black people).



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Why won’t Bezos delegate the many businesses
Why did Steyer just run for president
Why does anyone run for president
Or strive to be the leader/ceo. They think they know better.


Clarence Thomas ... more than ANY other justice does not pay attention to previous court rulings and delegates his “thinking” if you can call it that, to the imagined logic of the white male enslaves that wrote the constitution in the 1700s. Amendments hold no sway to him, cultural change neither, nor modern times. He’s dogmatic in his views of the constitution being above everything. Much like a religious fanatic is tied to a literal reading of the Bible, he’s the same for the constitution.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

He is just using them as a means to achieve his Objectivist vision for America?

_______________________________________

Because I’m not reading an unfiltered Clarence Thomas interview. He writes plenty in his dissents and concurrences.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

.

_______________________________________

Clarence Thomas exists as a disingenuous force, what he says in an interview is not to he taken apart from him as a person. And because he drips in and exists solely as a bad faith actor, my thoughts on ANYTHING that he says are that they’re irrelevant outside of a means to further pursue his goals.


Put differently, nigga just says shit because he has an agenda and if he’s saying anything in print it’s to further his agenda. Don’t matter what he’s saying.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

So we can't ignore them.


>Clarence Thomas exists as a disingenuous force, what he says
>in an interview is not to he taken apart from him as a person.
>And because he drips in and exists solely as a bad faith
>actor, my thoughts on ANYTHING that he says are that they’re
>irrelevant outside of a means to further pursue his goals.
>
>
>Put differently, nigga just says shit because he has an agenda
>and if he’s saying anything in print it’s to further his
>agenda. Don’t matter what he’s saying.


I get he may be disingenuous but I am still trying to figure out what exactly is his agenda. Punish black people? Seems too mustache-twirling villianous to me.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

He literally contradicts himself and his previous opinions when it fits him.

And I answered your question in post 9
Provided links and information in 10 and 111
Then added my take in 12

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

smh

---------------------------
Signature

He’s still trash.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

My family is from Savannah & my grandfather knew Clarence's grandfather in some capacity. Having spent a lot of time there and hearing stories from my family about the old days, I always wondered how Clarence ended up where he did (philosophically).

I think in this article I found myself agreeing with a basic premise he would put out. But as he would start to expound, he would go wayyyyyyy out in left field and completely lose me.

I really found these 2 paragraphs interesting and it's something I'm gonna have to bounce around in my head for a while:

Thomas also dissented in Grutter. But his dissent focussed, uniquely, not on Grutter or other putative white victims but on what the law school’s affirmative-action program revealed about its creators. The leading interest of the school, he wrote, was to be “elite.” Affirmative action reflected that élitism. The simplest, most effective way for the Law School to diversify itself would be to become less selective. It could accept anyone who completed a certified program. It could stop relying on the LSAT, which, Thomas insisted and the Law School admitted, is an “imperfect” diagnostic tool. But the school refused to adopt such inclusive measures, not because it was committed to meritocracy—policies such as “legacy preferences” proved otherwise—but because exclusivity was its central objective.

For Thomas, affirmative action is merely a “solution to the self-inflicted wounds of elitist admissions policy.” If a school insists upon maintaining “an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results,” the only way to diversify itself is to rely on measures that maximize its discretion regarding race. Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality; it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites, allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few lucky African-Americans. Thomas does not believe this to be a constitutional value, much less one the Court should honor.

If the school wants to have a more diverse population, why don't they adjust their admission criteria so that more diverse people qualify. Then they can select from that larger, more diverse pool.

What's so difficult about that if diversity is truly a goal that the school wants to achieve?


>
>I really found these 2 paragraphs interesting and it's
>something I'm gonna have to bounce around in my head for a
>while:
>
> Thomas also dissented in Grutter. But his dissent focussed,
>uniquely, not on Grutter or other putative white victims but
>on what the law school’s affirmative-action program revealed
>about its creators. The leading interest of the school, he
>wrote, was to be “elite.” Affirmative action reflected
>that élitism. The simplest, most effective way for the Law
>School to diversify itself would be to become less selective.
>It could accept anyone who completed a certified program. It
>could stop relying on the LSAT, which, Thomas insisted and the
>Law School admitted, is an “imperfect” diagnostic tool.
>But the school refused to adopt such inclusive measures, not
>because it was committed to meritocracy—policies such as
>“legacy preferences” proved otherwise—but because
>exclusivity was its central objective.
>
> For Thomas, affirmative action is merely a “solution to
>the self-inflicted wounds of elitist admissions
>policy.” If a school insists upon maintaining “an
>exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially
>disproportionate results,” the only way to diversify itself
>is to rely on measures that maximize its discretion regarding
>race. Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality;
>it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites,
>allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few
>lucky African-Americans. Thomas does not believe this to be a
>constitutional value, much less one the Court should honor.

_______________________________________

But yes, let’s default to the musings of a person that neither does the work nor research and in fact benefited directly from the same practice the he now denounces.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

_______________________________________

The stigma that comes with it and what the policy implies or symbolizes.
I can't say I disagree with him much on these points. But there is the issue of outcomes. Does affirmative action produce better outcomes for blacks? Does it allow us to overcome a structural hindrance? That needs to be consider as well.


On the stigma of Affirmative Action: How can a black person demonstrate the his/her accomplishment is real? That they succeeded on their own merits? As a black person in an AA world, there will be doubts that you are as good as your white peers, even if you truly are better. How he views his experience at Yale illustrates this:

"At Yale, some of Thomas’s classmates would query the absence of class rankings and grades. “You do not separate cream from cream,” a professor responded. “It is your fate as a Yale Law School student to become one of the leaders in the legal profession. It will happen, not because of you personally, but because you are here. That is what happens to Yale Law School students.” But Yale’s black students were separated from the cream; indeed, the absence of rankings was used to effect that separation. As he approached graduation, Thomas tried to secure a position at an élite law firm in Atlanta, which had no black associates. One of the marks against him was that he had no grades. Even if he came from Yale, how could his prospective employers know how good he was?"



An on what Affirmative Action symbolizes: that whites view blacks as inferior. Some quotes for the article regarding this.


"According to Thomas, affirmative action is the most recent attempt by white people to brand and belittle black people as inferior. Affirmative action does not formally mirror the tools of white supremacy; for Thomas, it is the literal continuation of white supremacy."

"...affirmative action reinforces the stigma that shadows African-Americans. Among many whites, blackness signals a deficit of intellect, talent, and skill. Even Supreme Court Justices, Thomas wrote in one opinion, “assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior.” When the state and social institutions identify African-Americans as beings in need of help, they reinforce that stigma. It doesn’t matter if some African-Americans succeed without affirmative action. In the same way that enslavement marked all black people, free or slave, as inferior, affirmative action—here Thomas borrows directly from the language of Plessy v. Ferguson—stamps all African-Americans with “a badge of inferiority.”

"In keeping with his conservative black nationalism, Thomas sees in such integration real harm to black people. In 1995, after a lower court argued that “racial isolation” in education—that is, continuing segregation of black and white schools, without formal state compulsion—was a constitutional injury to black schoolchildren, Thomas took offense. “If separation itself is a harm,” he wrote, “and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks.” For Thomas, seemingly egalitarian policies like integration thus become evidence of racial paternalism."


An finally his views on the goals of Affirmative Action:



"The second way affirmative action continues white supremacy is by elevating whites to the status of benefactors, doling out scarce privileges to those black people they deem worthy. The most remarkable element of Thomas’s affirmative-action jurisprudence, and what makes it unlike that of any other Justice on the Supreme Court, is how much attention he devotes to whites, not as victims but as perpetrators, the lead actors in a racial drama of their own imagination. Put simply, Thomas believes that affirmative action is a white program for white people."

"Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality; it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites, allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few lucky African-Americans."

_______________________________________

>The stigma that comes with it and what the policy implies or
>symbolizes.
>I can't say I disagree with him much on these points. But
>there is the issue of outcomes. Does affirmative action
>produce better outcomes for blacks? Does it allow us to
>overcome a structural hindrance? That needs to be consider as
>well.
>
>
>On the stigma of Affirmative Action: How can a black person
>demonstrate the his/her accomplishment is real? That they
>succeeded on their own merits? As a black person in an AA
>world, there will be doubts that you are as good as your white
>peers, even if you truly are better. How he views his
>experience at Yale illustrates this:
>
>"At Yale, some of Thomas’s classmates would query the
>absence of class rankings and grades. “You do not separate
>cream from cream,” a professor responded. “It is your fate
>as a Yale Law School student to become one of the leaders in
>the legal profession. It will happen, not because of you
>personally, but because you are here. That is what happens to
>Yale Law School students.” But Yale’s black students were
>separated from the cream; indeed, the absence of rankings was
>used to effect that separation. As he approached graduation,
>Thomas tried to secure a position at an élite law firm in
>Atlanta, which had no black associates. One of the marks
>against him was that he had no grades. Even if he came from
>Yale, how could his prospective employers know how good he
>was?"

SO dude was mad that he didn't the fancy law firm job that he initially wanted but his white peers got. Yeah that sucks. But then what happened? He got a government job, yada yada yada, then became a Supreme Court Judge!!! All of that wouldn't have been possible without Yale and AA. SO yeah he can say his Yale degree is only worth 15 cents but it made him who he is today.

I've been there at some point worried about white counterparts not thinking you earned your spot but once you are there you got to show and prove just like everyone else. That goes for school and work. If you got the chops to do the work, youll be fine.



>
>
>
>An on what Affirmative Action symbolizes: that whites view
>blacks as inferior. Some quotes for the article regarding
>this.
>
>
>"According to Thomas, affirmative action is the most recent
>attempt by white people to brand and belittle black people as
>inferior. Affirmative action does not formally mirror the
>tools of white supremacy; for Thomas, it is the literal
>continuation of white supremacy."
>
>"...affirmative action reinforces the stigma that shadows
>African-Americans. Among many whites, blackness signals a
>deficit of intellect, talent, and skill. Even Supreme Court
>Justices, Thomas wrote in one opinion, “assume that anything
>that is predominantly black must be inferior.” When the
>state and social institutions identify African-Americans as
>beings in need of help, they reinforce that stigma. It
>doesn’t matter if some African-Americans succeed without
>affirmative action. In the same way that enslavement marked
>all black people, free

Not if folks recognize that black people are in need of help because of what white people have done to black people. Black people don't need help because we are inferior, we need helped because we have been systematically fucked over by the system that benefits white people to this day.



or slave, as inferior, affirmative
>action—here Thomas borrows directly from the language of
>Plessy v. Ferguson—stamps all African-Americans with “a
>badge of inferiority.”
>
>"In keeping with his conservative black nationalism, Thomas
>sees in such integration real harm to black people. In 1995,
>after a lower court argued that “racial isolation” in
>education—that is, continuing segregation of black and white
>schools, without formal state compulsion—was a
>constitutional injury to black schoolchildren, Thomas took
>offense. “If separation itself is a harm,” he wrote,
>“and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks
>can receive a proper education, then there must be something
>inferior about blacks.” For Thomas, seemingly egalitarian
>policies like integration thus become evidence of racial
>paternalism."
>

I do agree with this. The revisionist history podcast on this is so good.

>
>An finally his views on the goals of Affirmative Action:
>
>
>
>"The second way affirmative action continues white supremacy
>is by elevating whites to the status of benefactors, doling
>out scarce privileges to those black people they deem worthy.
>The most remarkable element of Thomas’s affirmative-action
>jurisprudence, and what makes it unlike that of any other
>Justice on the Supreme Court, is how much attention he devotes
>to whites, not as victims but as perpetrators, the lead actors
>in a racial drama of their own imagination. Put simply, Thomas
>believes that affirmative action is a white program for white
>people."
>
>"Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality;
>it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites,
>allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few
>lucky African-Americans."

I mean you can frame it that way if you want. It's just a super cynical point of view.


>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/13-miss-buchanans-period-of-adjustment

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

They are still classifying blacks as inferior (today) and in need of assistance. That parallels the narrative of white supremacists.


>>
>>
>>An on what Affirmative Action symbolizes: that whites view
>>blacks as inferior. Some quotes for the article regarding
>>this.
>>
>>
>>"According to Thomas, affirmative action is the most recent
>>attempt by white people to brand and belittle black people
>as
>>inferior. Affirmative action does not formally mirror the
>>tools of white supremacy; for Thomas, it is the literal
>>continuation of white supremacy."
>>
>>"...affirmative action reinforces the stigma that shadows
>>African-Americans. Among many whites, blackness signals a
>>deficit of intellect, talent, and skill. Even Supreme Court
>>Justices, Thomas wrote in one opinion, “assume that
>anything
>>that is predominantly black must be inferior.” When the
>>state and social institutions identify African-Americans as
>>beings in need of help, they reinforce that stigma. It
>>doesn’t matter if some African-Americans succeed without
>>affirmative action. In the same way that enslavement marked
>>all black people, free
>



>Not if folks recognize that black people are in need of help
>because of what white people have done to black people.
>Black people don't need help because we are inferior, we need
>helped because we have been systematically fucked over by the
>system that benefits white people to this day.
>

_______________________________________

>They are still classifying blacks as inferior (today) and in
>need of assistance. That parallels the narrative of white
>supremacists.


yea, hopefully they concede the underlying biological/social right to equality; and there is some portion who understands AA as a sort of reparations lite, at least an attempt to level some systemic realities. the danger is the portion of those same folks willfully mischaracterizing it as a crutch.

i dont think the stigma of aa outweighs the potential reward for the many recipients. especially in a biased system thats not really in a super hurry to find a solution itself.

Fuck them... most of them ain’t work “hard” to get their spots.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

thankfully it was early in the article i aint finish ha. but i thought the Atlantic reference was interesting/ironic given his thought similarities to Coates: 1. the way race (and specifically black race) permeates in (all?) aspects of america and 2. the common early leanings to black nationalism.

i started to think of what a present day Coates would do on the bench. maybe he'd say separate institutions were too impractical. though its not hard to believe his honor may have seen some wild shit comin up that may be framing the distinctions/solutions between their general agreement of the race constant.

To justify their existence or identity

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

The majority of "white" people definitely need to identify as white

I'm not sure those of us who are identified or who self identity as black desire something more accurate in how it describes us

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus