←back to thread

You Are Still Crying Wolf

(slatestarcodex.com)
104 points primodemus | 5 comments | 17 Nov 16 14:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.839s | source
Show context
SamBam ◴[17 Nov 16 15:12 UTC] No.12978054[source]▶
1. Kudos to him for putting in the "Edit" about the inaccuracies in exit-poll data, but it's a really big "Edit" and casts doubt on most of his initial premise.

2. No mention of Bannon? This article was written yesterday, and we knew Trump had chosen Bannon to be his right-hand man long before then.

3. No mention that Trump believes that an American judge of Mexican heritage can't judge him? Of the birther claims? Or of playing to white fears with completely make-believe images of "inner cities" being war zones?

4. The jiu jitsu over saying that banning "All Muslims" from entering the country isn't really racism because "most Muslims are white(ish)" is nonsense.

5. And yes, it is special pleading. The author goes out of his way to explain things in a way that is unique to Trump:

> 15. Don’t we know that Trump supports racist violence because, when some of his supporters beat up a Latino man, he just said they were “passionate”?

> When Trump was asked for comment, he tweeted “Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country”.

> I have no idea how his mind works and am frankly boggled by all of this, but calling violent protesters “passionate” just seems to be a thing of his. I think this is actually a pretty important point. Trump is a weird person.

Oh. Ok. He doesn't support beating up people. He's just "weird."

----

Edit: Also the author seems to have confused two statements of "passion." Trump's tweet about "small groups of protesters" was made just the other day. Instead, after the beating up of the Latino man, he said

"I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate, they love this country, they want this country to be great again."

Note that not only is he calling those men "passionate," he is essentially justifying their actions by bringing up their "love of country," which is particularly telling in the case of men beating up an immigrant.

replies(4): >>12978127 #>>12978225 #>>12978234 #>>12978638 #
1. NhanH ◴[17 Nov 16 15:27 UTC] No.12978234[source]▶
Can you explain the problem with Trump's comment with the judge for me please? Assuming that Trump thinks/ knows he's being offensive to Mexican at large, wouldn't the idea of a judge, even an American one, with some relations to Mexico might not be impartial toward him be a reasonable idea?

Is it the notion of a judge being unprofessional to the point of biased an unacceptable thing to imply?

replies(2): >>12978265 #>>12978547 #
2. SamBam ◴[17 Nov 16 15:31 UTC] No.12978265[source]▶
For the same reason we don't say that a black judge is unqualified to judge on issues regarding race.

Do you agree that such a suggestion in that case would be out of line?

replies(1): >>12978392 #
3. NhanH ◴[17 Nov 16 15:43 UTC] No.12978392[source]▶
I actually didn't know, so I went ahead and did a quick search on your example.

On [0], it does mention a case with that situation.

> In 1974, Federal Judge Leon Higginbotham issued his decision in Comm. of Pa. v. Local 542, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, explaining why he as an African American judge with a history of active involvement in the civil rights struggle was not obligated to recuse himself from presiding over litigation concerning claims of racial discrimination.

Further thought and I agree that the judge should not need to recuse himself from said case (in your question). However, that's a distinction on whether the suggestion itself is out of line. In the quoted snippet, the judge did have to point out an explanation for his sitting it, so at the least, there seems to be some consideration for the suggestion.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

replies(1): >>12978571 #
4. robbiemitchell ◴[17 Nov 16 15:58 UTC] No.12978547[source]▶
In addition to the point raised by another reply, here's a thought exercise: who can stand fit to judge someone who has made defamatory remarks about everyone? Is the way out of a case to simply say something negative about every possible judge?

(No.)

My understanding is that judges, particularly at the higher levels, are assumed to be capable of remaining impartial unless there is a specific conflict of interest. Specific, like "I was involved in this case as a judge at the circuit level" or "I was an investor in this company" etc.

5. SamBam ◴[17 Nov 16 16:01 UTC] No.12978571{3}[source]▶
It is out of line, because the suggestion is only being made to the black (or Mexican, or female, or...) judge.

Has a white judge ever needed to explain why he didn't excuse himself on a case regarding race? Why not? Why is the white judge the default "impartial" judge, and the black (or Mexican) judge the one who is assumed to harbor bias?

(Edit: An in your example, it's really the "active involvement in civil rights struggle" that is more pertinent, not his race. We judge people by what they do, not the color of their skin or the origin of their grandparents.)