this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
99 points (94.6% liked)
Articles
114 readers
129 users here now
Lemmy community for posting and sharing articles.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This article is a debate-style where they asked people to argue each side.
The person defending Clarence Thomas really stretches in that defense, relying on the fact that he sort of knew him in law school and he was "sweet".
He furthermore relies on it being "travel expenses" with "a close friend" who has no "pending" cases. Those words in quotes do a shitload of heavy lifting.
Thomas didn't just get travel expenses paid. Somebody bought him an RV. This billionaire didn't become "a close friend" until Thomas complained about his pay publicly and acted like he would resign. And for an oligarch, many cases are of interest.
It was a weak argument and the guy obviously knew it. He did his best, but Thomas's actions are really basically indefensible.
I hate that they’re trying to turn into a “both sides are valid!” debate in the first place. It’s framing like this that gives platforms the chance to keep skewing. What’s their next debate topic? Should murder be legal?