Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[Meadmaker]

How do you like this response I induced from ChatGPT?

Fascinating.

And once again, chatGPT's response is mostly accurate.

If the headline you picked as your last example is misleading and/or stupid... why can't you just link to a countervailing example, a media article that has an entirely different take on Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP" than the article you took issue with?

How about this one?

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thoma ... es-1904117 (The URL contains the exact headline, so there's no need to click if you are not inclined.)
ETA: The URL gotabbreviated in the display The headline is:
Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Stop Deciding Certain Cases

[President Bush]

How do you like this response I induced from ChatGPT?

Why did Justice Thomas criticize Brown vs board of education
ChatGPT
Justice Clarence Thomas has criticized the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled against racial segregation in public schools, for a few reasons. Thomas believes that the decision led to unintended consequences, including the erosion of community support for black schools and the rise of forced busing to achieve integration. He has argued that the decision led to a focus on racial balance rather than educational quality and that it undermined the principles of local control and parental choice in education. Additionally, Thomas has expressed skepticism about using the courts to address social and political issues, preferring instead to rely on legislative solutions.

Fascinating.

And once again, chatGPT's response is mostly accurate.

I like the blue part. You know, the part where Chat GPT refers to Justice Clarence Thomas criticizing the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, and why.

If the headline you picked as your last example is misleading and/or stupid... why can't you just link to a countervailing example, a media article that has an entirely different take on Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP" than the article you took issue with?

How about this one?

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thoma ... es-1904117 (The URL contains the exact headline, so there's no need to click if you are not inclined.)
ETA: The URL gotabbreviated in the display The headline is:
Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Stop Deciding Certain Cases

Oh, okay.

Unfortunately, there was no such reference, no evaluation, no defense, no analysis, pretty much nothing concerning Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

Wasn't what Justice Thomas wrote the issue?

[Meadmaker]

Unfortunately, there was no such reference, no evaluation, no defense, no analysis, pretty much nothing concerning Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

Well, there are quite a few quotes of Thomas' words from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP". I reckon the rest of the stuff in the article is a bunch of other folks talking about what he said.

[President Bush]

Unfortunately, there was no such reference, no evaluation, no defense, no analysis, pretty much nothing concerning Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

Well, there are quite a few quotes of Thomas' words from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP". I reckon the rest of the stuff in the article is a bunch of other folks talking about what he said.

That was insightful. But I wanted to ask Chat GPT again what its interpretation of the situation was...

did Justice Clarence Thomas disparage Brown vs the Board of Education in his concurring opinion to Alexander vs South Carolina NAACP?

ChatGPT
In his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," Justice Clarence Thomas did express criticism of the legal framework established by the landmark Supreme Court case "Brown v. Board of Education." In particular, he questioned the use of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as a basis for the Court's decisions in cases related to racial segregation in public schools.

Thomas argued that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, as intended by its framers, did not prohibit segregated schools. He believed that the amendment was primarily aimed at ensuring equal rights for African Americans in civil and political matters, rather than specifically addressing issues of segregation.

While Justice Thomas did not explicitly disparage "Brown v. Board of Education," his criticism of the legal reasoning behind it and his assertion of an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment diverged from the principles underlying the Brown decision, which held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

Funny, that kinda reminds me a little of something somebody else wrote:

The Supreme Court voted unanimously in Brown vs Board of Education that segregated schools deprived black schoolchildren of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment though they couldn't conclusively decide whether the framers of the 14th Amendment had intended to ban racially segregated schools.

Instead their ruling was centered on the importance of education to success in life, saying that to separate elementary and secondary pupils “from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

Judge Clarence Thomas has had a history of saying that this basis for the Brown ruling lacked a fundamental rooting in constitutional law. By ruling on the basis that they did in Brown rather than on a basis fundamentally grounded in the Constitution the Court overly expanded its power says he.

Far as I can tell Justice Thomas is saying that courts ruling racial segregation to be unconstitutional... is unconstitutional.

Have a nice thread.

[Meadmaker]

That was insightful. But I wanted to ask Chat GPT again what its interpretation of the situation was...

did Justice Clarence Thomas disparage Brown vs the Board of Education in his concurring opinion to Alexander vs South Carolina NAACP?

ChatGPT
In his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP," Justice Clarence Thomas did express criticism of the legal framework established by the landmark Supreme Court case "Brown v. Board of Education." In particular, he questioned the use of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as a basis for the Court's decisions in cases related to racial segregation in public schools.

....

Again, I find that fascinating, because in this case chatGPT did what it is famous for. It provided an answer that sounded lucid and competent, but was utterly wrong.

Just in case anyone forgets, my intention in quoting chatGPT was not to claim that my arguments must be good because chatGPT agreed with them. I was just find it amazing that that program could even produce that sort of output. However, I did note when I posted it that, based on my existing knowledge, I knew that it was right, in that case. I had gone there in the first place because sometimes I can find sources through chatGPT that I can't find with a pure keyword search, as in by google, but when it spit out that answer I thought it was cool. I think the above answer is also cool, but it' is wrong.

Anyway.....

The headline I started with is originally from Axios, but in the subsequent days I've seen the meme repreated in many, many, sources. It falls into the same category that so many obviously misleading headlines fall into. It's a "My ideological opponents just did something unbelievably evil or stupid." headline.

A lot of people disagree with Thomas' approach to racial issues. He's one of the advocates of "color blind law", who finds any legal distinction between races to be unconstituional or at best suspicious. That's why he supports Brown, and cases like it that have arisen subsequently, but opposes affirmative action or anything like it. By contrast, the headline makes the reader believe that somehow he opposed the fundamental ruling in Brown, as opposed to quibbling with some of the language in it, or even moreso in Brown II, because that language led to what he sees as abuse of power by the courts.

[President Bush]

A lot of people disagree with Thomas' approach to racial issues. He's one of the advocates of "color blind law", who finds any legal distinction between races to be unconstituional or at best suspicious. That's why he supports Brown, and cases like it that have arisen subsequently, but opposes affirmative action or anything like it. By contrast, the headline makes the reader believe that somehow he opposed the fundamental ruling in Brown, as opposed to quibbling with some of the language in it, or even moreso in Brown II, because that language led to what he sees as abuse of power by the courts.

Look, Meadmaker, another meme!

... It soon becomes clear, however, that Thomas's real target is not the lower court, but one of the landmark decisions of the Court on which Thomas now sits: the 1954 opinion issued in Brown v. Board of Education. Although he directs his attention to what he describes as the trial court's "misreading of our earliest school desegregation case," Thomas leaves no doubt about his contempt for the justification Earl Warren offered for the Supreme Court's judgment in Brown. One passage in particular warrants special attention. In Brown, observes Thomas:

[T]he Court noted several psychological and sociological studies purporting to show that de jure segregation harmed black students by generating "a feeling of inferiority" in them. Seizing upon this passage in Brown, the District Court asserted that "forced segregation ruins attitudes and is inherently unequal." . . . The District Court suggested that this inequality continues in full force even after the end of de jure segregation [and] seemed to believe that black students in the [Kansas City Metropolitan School District] would continue to receive an 'inferior education' despite the end of de jure segregation, as long as de facto segregation persisted .... Such assumptions and any social science research upon which they rely certainly cannot form the basis upon which we decide matters of constitutional principle.

After dropping a long footnote to the "harsh criticism" scholars have directed against the studies the Court cited in Brown, Thomas returns to his main task- the ideological demolition of Brown itself:

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated
blacks and provided them with superior education resources- making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools- would violate the
Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are
reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant to the question whether state actors have engaged in intentional discrimination- the critical inquiry for ascertaining violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The judiciary is fully competent to make independent determinations concerning the existence of state action without the unnecessary and misleading assistance of the social sciences.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cg ... cholarship

[President Bush]

... one of the most powerful indictments of Brown’s integrationist zeal was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in the 1996 Missouri v. Jenkins decision. In Jenkins, Justice Thomas complained that “it never ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior.”

Justice Thomas’s criticism of Brown is memorable. “Mere de facto segregation (unaccompanied by discriminatory inequalities in educational resources) does not constitute a continuing harm after the end of de jure segregation,” he wrote.

“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority.

Thomas took explicit aim at the widespread belief, one directly rooted in some of Brown’s own language, that “black students suffer an unspecified psychological harm from segregation that retards their mental and educational development.” Instead, he asserted, “there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment.”

Justice Thomas’s argument may resonate far more positively among African Americans than his personal detractors would like to acknowledge. But Thomas’s analytical goal with regard to Brown is one almost all constitutional conservatives now share: to embrace the famous ruling as a guidepost on the road to a “color blind” America, rather than wrestle with its integrationist assumptions. Judicial conservatives may still oppose most other constitutional innovations of the past fifty years, but ever since the civil rights revolution climaxed in 1964–1965, they have ardently insisted that Brown’s correct legacy entails eliminating all racial distinctions from government programs and policies.

Wanting to be on the “right side of history” may help explain judicial conservatives’ change of tune on Brown. When combined with liberal disappointment and frustration, however, the result is a complete turnabout: conservatives now champion the quintessential “activist” decision, while liberals derogate and discount it.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... r04_brown/

[Meadmaker]

Look, Meadmaker, another meme!

... It soon becomes clear, however, that Thomas's real target is not the lower court, but one of the landmark decisions of the Court on which Thomas now sits: the 1954 opinion issued in Brown v. Board of Education.

{snipped)


https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cg ... cholarship

Hmmm....Columbia. It used to have a great reputation. It still does, sort of, but both Columbia and Harvard have gotten a whole lot of bad press in recent years. Even moreso since October 7.

Anyway......

I like to discuss law, but I'm not sure anyone else does. This back and forth with President Bush is barely a discussion.

Nevertheless, in case anyone is interested, I'll share my thoughts. The worst that can happen is I talk to the wind, but the great thing about the internet is that you can feel like you have an audence, even if you don't, really.

Thomas consistently draws attention to "de jure" segregation, and "de facto" segregation. Segregation by law, or segregation in fact. He has consistently held that laws or policies which contain "de jure" segregation are unconstitutional. On the other hand, he has been nearly as consistent in saying that courts have no power to correct de facto segregation.

In other words, my suburb is almost entirely white. The neighboring suburb is very heavily black, and the schools are almost entirely black. (i.e. almost all of the white people in that suburb either don't have kids, or send their kids to private schools.) Thomas would say that's fine. There's no de jure segregation, only de facto segregation. Some judges would try to use government power to correct the de facto segregation. Thomas would object.

Brown was an instance of de jure segregation. Thomas says that sort of segregation was, and is, unconstitutional. He supports what happened in Brown, and isn't taking aim at it, no matter what the distinguished professor from Columbia says.

ETA: I actually clicked on the link. If you want to understand why Columbia's reputation has been tarnished, that link is a nice resource. It's from 2004. My guess is that things have gotten even worse since then, but that's speculation on my part.

[stanky]

race is such an arbitrary, superficial trait to garner such emotional attention.
in it's early days, it likely meant more as per differences in people from different places and degrees of modernity.
as per social castes, there seems to be little to no racism towards wealthy and famous blacks among elite whites.
There, the white racist with money is likelier to discriminate against the lower class white trash than a rich Afro-American.

adopting a surrogate prejudice might be fun...like, discrimination based on astrological signs.
just pick one sign to hate; out of a hat. Suddenly, you get to hate 1/12th of the people, for no fault of their own.
(I think that's a healthy amount)

how about Taurus?

As per Clarence T., do we think he has any depth of character? Principles?

Does the supreme court get points for progressiveness by way of a negro like him?
We're toyed with by way of our innate primitive feelings.
we struggle to dislike Clarence for being a white supremacist, because he's black.

how about that legalese? rooting out the intent behind the words reminds me of being covered in sticky mud.

[Meadmaker]

how about Taurus?

Oh man. You aren't even pretending to hide your Scorpio privilege.