I hear this so often, and the response is always the same: By his own words, he's WORSE. He isn't the outsider black horse you think he is, at best he's a scummy businessman and reality TV mook who saw an opportunity to get desperate people like you to project your desires onto a nebulous non-platform full of rhetoric and dog whistles.
> Why can't you give this man a chance?
Breitbart.com editor for cabinet, his biggest supporter and rabble-rouser during the election. Nice tit for tat there, coming from the 'less corrupt' candidate. Racist piece of human garbage.
"Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG."
If he were going to be given a chance, I think he's communicated his intent in actions as well as the previous hedged words at this point.
This is why Clinton lost the election. Most people don't buy this hyperbole anymore. Even 1/3rd of Clinton voters don't believe the media anymore.
> "Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG."
My understanding is that Sessions worked to ensure that a KKK leader, who kidnapped and murdered a black teenager, received the death penalty instead of a life sentence. Isn't this counter-evidence to the assertion that he's a racist?
But I guess it's hard to reason when you've made up your mind that your opponents are "human garbage."
> Even 1/3rd of Clinton voters don't believe the media anymore.
What's "the media," exactly? Would it include the most watched cable network? Because no, I don't believe Fox News blindly, but let's not pretend there's a monolithic single mainstream there. Even it is certainly more accurate than the shit you'll find online most places.
It's evidence that prosecutors are motivated primarily by the scorekeeping of their professions: convictions and successfully-sold sentences. Successfully convicting a KKK leader is also politically expedient for a prosecutor who plans on higher elected office. And, finally, the country is full of virulent racists who nonetheless feel like the KKK is a bunch of toothless goobers. See, for instance, the "Concerned Citizens Council" movement.
Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives).
> It's evidence that prosecutors are motivated primarily by the scorekeeping of their professions: convictions and successfully-sold sentences.
There's surely some truth to that, but it doesn't justify dismissing it as counter-evidence. You could just as easily rationalize any other vague, unsubstantiated reason to do so, such as claiming that there was some entirely personal grudge that Sessions was holding against him. People act on a variety of motivations. Selectively dismissing evidence based upon one hypothesized motivation is intellectually dishonest.
> Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives).
This is not a logical argument. You are taking evidence counter to your assertion and twisting it into a counter-attack in which, by even uttering it, a person proves himself wrong. This has been dubbed a Kafkatrap. It begs the question and is a bare attempt at emotional manipulation.
That was not the trap. The trap was 1) dismissing with prejudice the evidence that was counter to his claim, 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim, while also 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling"). That is the Kafkatrap.
> 1) dismissing with prejudice the evidence that was counter to his claim
He had already evaluated that evidence and found it weak and unconvincing.
> 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim
This did not happen.
> 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling").
He's using a simple argument. A) When people are trying to be convincing, they usually use some of the better evidence they have. B) He asserts that X and Y are weak and unconvincing evidence, based on previous evaluation.
This leads to a very simple conclusion: Someone pulling out X and Y as their main line of argument probably has no good evidence. This is not kafkaesque. He gave you a genuine opportunity to provide good evidence.
The only 'telling' is of lacking good evidence, not malfeasance.
-
In other words, he's not trying to take your evidence and turn it backwards. He's saying that the use of weak evidence as the core of your argument implies that you don't have good evidence. Weak evidence is better than nothing, but he has evidence of his own on the other side, so weak evidence is not enough in this case.
Please don't post any more comments like this to HN. We're trying to avoid flamewars. About three notches of irritability ago is when you should have stopped posting. (I don't mean you personally; this applies to all of us.)
Also, HN is not a site for political and ideological battle, which you've been doing quite a bit of. Please do that elsewhere, not here.
Not my intention to have a flamewar with anyone, just a discussion. I've seen tptacek make some very inflammatory posts and claims lately about political issues, and it seemed fair to respond with the opposing view. Of course, he is one of the upper-class of users here, so forgive me for feeling like he gets away with things that "nobodies" like myself cannot.
> Also, HN is not a site for political and ideological battle, which you've been doing quite a bit of. Please do that elsewhere, not here.
That's one of the reasons I visit HN more than other such sites nowadays (e.g. many years ago I was a Slashdot regular). I have a healthy interest in politics, but I much prefer technical discussions where I learn things and discover things I can use.
So I will gladly refrain from political discussion here. I just ask that you ask all users to do so in the same way you have asked me, because, as I said, it seems that certain prominent users are somewhat above the rules. (This is not a slight or accusation against you or sctb, etc, just my impression.)
Thanks.
P.S. Dan, I'm curious about how this comment gets downvoted. The original story is 2 days old, and this comment is in a subthread under a flagged (therefore invisible) comment. No one should even be seeing this comment except you and me. Is there any way that this is not evidence of, shall we say, vendetta voting, i.e. someone going through my comments page and downvoting because they generally disagree with me? If it is, I wish that HN would crack down on it. Disagreement-without-discussion-downvoting is enough of a problem here without blanket, systematic brigading against individual users. No wonder I've been seeing so many throwaway accounts lately. It's practically "unsafe" (karma-wise) to express unpopular opinions around here. :/
> Why can't you give this man a chance?
Breitbart.com editor for cabinet, his biggest supporter and rabble-rouser during the election. Nice tit for tat there, coming from the 'less corrupt' candidate. Racist piece of human garbage.
"Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG."
If he were going to be given a chance, I think he's communicated his intent in actions as well as the previous hedged words at this point.