Hacker News Reader

Comment by oh_sigh | Hacker News Reader

At this late stage, if Moore dropped out(which he won't), he would be handing the election to the other party. It isn't like the republicans can just find an allegation-free drop-in replacement for Moore and get him elected.

My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign, all down to the detail of having Gloria Allred as legal council(a person heavily involved in the DNC - from Gloria's DNC leaks: "We will come together and discuss the upcoming race, and why we as Democrats must do everything we can to ensure a Democrat remains in the White House for the next four years." - any reason to believe she has given up on her mission to ensure democrats succeed over republicans after the 2016 elections?)

View on HN

> My problem with making any kind of decision based on these allegations is that it is impossible to differentiate them from fabrications designed to blow up a campaign

In order to believe this is a conspiracy against Moore, you must also believe that a bunch of teenagers 30 years ago made up stories about Moore, which they told their friends and loved ones at the time, and then waited to use those allegations across all of his political career only to come out now and derail him. Either that, or the conspiracy is so vast as to include 9 accusers, 30 corroborating witnesses, former mall employees, and an ex cop. Many of the accusers are also Republicans and voted for Trump, so you must also believe they are secret Democrats, or at least were somehow bribed by the Democrats to switch sides.

It's either that, or Moore is guilty.

Here's something for you to read. Go ahead and give it a go, and then maybe you can figure out which is more likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Yes, at least one dyed-in-the-wool Democratic operative is now attached to this scandal. And yes, at this late date the only realistic alternative is that the seat goes to a member of the other party. I would hate to be a Republican partisan in Alabama right now, and if I were I'm genuinely not sure how I would choose to vote. That's different, though, than refusing to consider the allegations because they're politically inconvenient. It's possible Roy Moore is a creep. It's also possible half a dozen unrelated people are lying. There's no reason to think those must be equally possible, and there's certainly no reason not to think that one can't make an educated guess as to which is true.

To shift political gears somewhat, our legislature is currently engaged in a debate about tax reform. One party claims the currently proposed plan will cut taxes on the middle class. The other party claims that the plan will raise taxes on the middle class. That's a question of fact, and both positions can't simultaneously be correct. The thought process you engaged in above can be applied equally well to that situation regardless of which party one favors, but it's guaranteed to make at least one party's fans wrong.

When we, as a polity, begin to completely disregard information because it comes from a partisan source or has strong partisan implications then I worry that we lose the idea of a shared reality. We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.

I'm not refusing to consider the allegations, because there is frankly nothing for me to consider besides for the not-under-oath account of someone, and perhaps a yearbook signed by a 'Ray' or 'Roy'.

> We can't convince those who disagree with us, nor allow ourselves to be convinced, if we refuse on general principle to listen to and engage with people who disagree with us.

But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of. There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.

> But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of.

That is true. And by refusing to give the allegations credence you have implicitly decided whose word to take.

> There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer.

Sure there is. You can evaluate the plausibility of each claim. You can verify that the claims are internally consistent. You can ask what motivations each party would have to lie, or what motivations each party would have to tell the truth here and now. None of those will get you to ironclad, unquestionable certainty, but it sounds like you're at ironclad, unquestionable certainty now and I'm not sure logical analysis had much to do with you forming that opinion.

It's fine, really, if you've looked at the evidence and found it unconvincing. It's fine, too, if you've decided it is convincing but that your partisan interests are strong enough that you're willing to overlook them. But it sounds like you're just refusing to engage with them because they're confusing. That's not wisdom. It's anti-intellectual tribalism at it's most raw, and I for one expect better of the commenters at HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com