The Robot Judge

The Robot Judge | Scott Adams Blog:
"If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot.
His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case.
Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades.
But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. 
It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. 
Ergo, he must be a robot.
Anyway, lots of folks on Twitter are asking me why Trump would accuse the robot judge of being “Mexican” when that is obviously a racist thing to say.
Did Trump make a huge mistake, or is it some sort of clever persuasion thing?
Let’s dig into that.
For starters, it isn’t appropriate to label people – or robots – “Mexicans” if those people or robots are created in America. 
For example, I have an American friend with Italian heritage who often refers to herself as “Italian,” and obviously that is a case of self-racism.
I find it offensive.
This problem isn’t limited to my one friend.
I also know an American who calls herself Croatian and another American who calls himself Indian. I can barely stand to be in the same room with those racists.
Worse yet, they seem unclear about the distinction between their ethnicity and the country where their parents grew up.
It isn’t the same thing, people!
But right-and-wrong aside, is it a good legal strategy for Trump to sow doubts about the objectivity of the robot judge? 
It seems to me that the trial can go one of two ways.
1. Trump wins in court, in which case, Trump wins.
2. Trump loses in court, in which case, Trump says Democrats rigged the system to give him an unfair trial. We’re already primed to believe it.
From a legal perspective, race is not a reason to remove a judge.
I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise.
But from a persuasion perspective, Trump is setting the stage for whatever is to come.
So yes, it is smart, albeit offensive.
Some have asked why Trump’s legal team hasn’t asked for the judge to be replaced. My guess is that they want to keep him because they expect to lose the case and they plan to pin it on the judge.
That’s how I would play it..."