Dubious comparison:

Serena Williams' husband says it's "bulls---t" that his wife was held to a higher standard to keep her emotions in check than Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

His comments on Twitter came after Democratic candidate for Alabama's State Senate Deborah Barros tweeted "it's funny how a black female tennis player is held to a higher standard to keep her emotions in check than a Supreme Court nominee."

https://www.thisisinsider.com/alexis-oh ... buffer-art

whataboutism

Only if the point was made by someone trying to defend Williams' actions, rather than by someone commenting on the inappropriateness of giving Kavanaugh a pass on his emotional outburst, or merely noting the double standard.

Williams was not given a code violation for being emotional, she was given three separate code violations for breaking the rules, including threatening to get the umpire fired.

You can't give people code violations in a senate hearing. It is unclear what would have happened had Kavanaugh started throwing objects to the floor and breaking them and threatening to get people fired.

Perjury is a code violation, but Mr Whitebread judge wasn't called on it by his Mr Whitebread umpires.

Edited to add: ... and Kavanaugh accused some of his umpires (the Democratic senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee) of being thieves conspiring to steal his nomination - the one he ended up not having taken from him.

Thommo wrote:Williams was not given a code violation for being emotional, she was given three separate code violations for breaking the rules, including threatening to get the umpire fired.

You can't give people code violations in a senate hearing. It is unclear what would have happened had Kavanaugh started throwing objects to the floor and breaking them and threatening to get people fired.

The original offences are not comparable, of course but the emotional reactions can be compared and those are a large part of the heat Williams took. That was the whole point of the infamous cartoon.

Kavanaugh didn't throw/break physical objects, but he did throw petulant and damaging accusations. He could just as well have been depicted as an angry ogre jumping up and down next to a baby's dummy. The impact of his statements have far greater implications than anything Williams said.


But then there is this, which could be seen as balance, or similar commentary on dual standards:



http://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.ph ... g-moments/

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:Williams was not given a code violation for being emotional, she was given three separate code violations for breaking the rules, including threatening to get the umpire fired.

You can't give people code violations in a senate hearing. It is unclear what would have happened had Kavanaugh started throwing objects to the floor and breaking them and threatening to get people fired.

The original offences are not comparable, of course but the emotional reactions can be compared and those are a large part of the heat Williams took. That was the whole point of the infamous cartoon.

Kavanaugh didn't throw/break physical objects, but he did throw petulant and damaging accusations. He could just as well have been depicted as an angry ogre jumping up and down next to a baby's dummy. The impact of his statements have far greater implications than anything Williams said.


But then there is this, which could be seen as balance:

knec180928.gif

http://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.ph ... g-moments/

He lied, which is the tennis equivalent of punching the umpire in the face.

Pretty sure the equivalent of lying is lying. Feels like you're channeling jonno on that one.

Thommo wrote:Pretty sure the equivalent of lying is lying. Feels like you're channeling jonno on that one.

There's perjury and there's lying.

Thommo wrote:Pretty sure the equivalent of lying is lying. Feels like you're channeling jonno on that one.

I think lying is far more serious in the context of testimony given under oath during a hearing to determine a lifetime appointment to a job where integrity is the highest requirement. That should be as instantly disqualifying as a tennis player assaulting an umpire would be. It's a felony, for fuck's sake. The level of crime many states won't even let you vote after committing.

There seems to be a trail of lies from Kavenagugh.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/all-the-t ... th-2018-10
Williams got upset and ranted at the umpire but it's not clear she lied.

But lies or not are beside the point. Their various crimes or misdemeanors are beside the point. The comparison was of reactions to emotional outbursts from Williams and kavenaugh.

maybe she should join the GOP then.

OlivierK wrote:

Thommo wrote:Pretty sure the equivalent of lying is lying. Feels like you're channeling jonno on that one.

I think lying is far more serious in the context of testimony given under oath during a hearing to determine a lifetime appointment to a job where integrity is the highest requirement. That should be as instantly disqualifying as a tennis player assaulting an umpire would be. It's a felony, for fuck's sake. The level of crime many states won't even let you vote after committing.

A lifetime position in the highest court of the land and there, affecting the lives of 350 million people nationally and possibly 7 billion globally. Nobody gives a shit about tennis in this context except to point out how something as inconsequential as tennis was so over blown and that a lying, attempted rapist accused by multiple women is now sat on the supreme court for life and there appears to be nothing wrong with that.