5 ms·

> Racist piece of human garbage. This is why Clinton lost the election. Most people don't buy this hyperbole anymore. Even 1/3rd of Clinton voters don't beli

> Racist piece of human garbage. 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."

tptacek 10y ago
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).
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > 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.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    "X argument is trash, and just in case you try Y, it's also trash" is not a trap, it's an attempt at efficiency.
    - WaxProlix 10y ago
      The mental gymnastics these people go through in order to retain some sort of high ground in the face of overwhelming evidence is pretty nuts.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        Yes, his twisting simple facts, which are counter-evidence to his claim, into a Kafkatrap against me is quite some mental gymnastics. Or would you care to refute the logical fallacies I pointed out in his claims? I guess probably not. After all, I'm just one of "these people" who are "pretty nuts." It still hasn't sunk in: this hubris of yours is why Clinton lost the election. Be careful looking down your nose all the time--you might walk into something.
        dang 10y ago
        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.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        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. :/
majormajor 10y ago
> 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.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  I'm referring to a poll which asked Clinton voters whether they "trust the media." Take it for whatever it's worth to you. :)

tptacek 10y ago

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).

alphapapa 10y ago
> 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.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  "X argument is trash, and just in case you try Y, it's also trash" is not a trap, it's an attempt at efficiency.
  - WaxProlix 10y ago
    The mental gymnastics these people go through in order to retain some sort of high ground in the face of overwhelming evidence is pretty nuts.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      Yes, his twisting simple facts, which are counter-evidence to his claim, into a Kafkatrap against me is quite some mental gymnastics. Or would you care to refute the logical fallacies I pointed out in his claims? I guess probably not. After all, I'm just one of "these people" who are "pretty nuts." It still hasn't sunk in: this hubris of yours is why Clinton lost the election. Be careful looking down your nose all the time--you might walk into something.
      - dang 10y ago
        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.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        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. :/

majormajor 10y ago

> 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.

alphapapa 10y ago
I'm referring to a poll which asked Clinton voters whether they "trust the media." Take it for whatever it's worth to you. :)