For perspective, we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States. Think about how fast this came.
EDIT: Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
Keep in mind it was the tech elite that helped elect Trump. Some of them are here and will see this. Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
I wouldn't be surprised if the video disappears too
So, my outside view: the belief on the other side is not exactly that this "isn't a problem", so much as that
> masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight
is not a fair description of the situation.
An important part of the premise of "Don't Be a Sucker" is that the Hungarian storyteller is an American citizen who followed all the necessary legal processes to gain citizenship. The targets of ICE legally do not have the right to be on American soil. They have other rights, of course, but I have not seen anyone make a clear arguments as to why "protection from being arrested by a federal agent" is among them.
ICE claims that the masks protect them from doxxing, and as far as I can tell they generally have been legally entitled to them. I'm seeing that Newsom has passed law against this, but it's unclear to me why federal agents are supposed to be bound by that. In particular, I don't understand how it's supposed to be compatible with https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause , as immigration, naturalization etc. are matters of federal concern (e.g. you cannot claim citizenship of a state). It stands to reason that someone who immigrates illegally has committed a federal crime.
Similarly, citizens in the communities where illegal immigrants are housed have quite a few rights; but "freedom from feeling fear due to ICE agents trying to arrest the illegal immigrants" doesn't appear to be among them. After all, they could experience that same fear regardless of how (ir)rational it is.
Federal agents generally are granted the right to arrest people. They are part of law enforcement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the...). It is inappropriate to describe a lawful arrest as a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping, which is definitionally unlawful.
It should not be controversial that countries are entitled to determine that not everyone has a legal right to be there, and to enforce that distinction. I do not expect to be able to enter, say, Japan without a visa and stay there indefinitely; even if I morally disapproved of the concept of "borders", I could not expect that to be a compelling legal argument. Even the general good will historically associated with the US-Canada border crossing has limits. Passports exist for a reason; the concept of citizenship exists for a reason. Work visas are explicitly granted for a specific duration, and overstay is unlawful, and unfair to those who follow or have followed immigration processes properly.
People object to the term "illegal immigrant", but it fairly describes a person who has entered, or remained in, the country in a manner counter to that country's laws. To speak of "undocumented" people suggests the possibility of a mere clerical error in the case of someone who indeed has a legal right to remain; but everyone has already agreed that this is not what the debate is about, which makes the terminology a euphemism intended to cloud the issue emotionally.
Trying to use "Don't Be a Sucker" to make the anti-ICE argument requires a conflation of things that many people consider to be entirely different. The greatest division I see in the USA nowadays is between people who think like you and the people you uncharitably characterize.
Your second paragraph is implying that the half of Americans who voted for Trump are "bad Americans". That seems to be sowing the division that your first paragraph warns against (even if it is a reason to dislike Trump).
I don't think either democrats or republicans can claim the moral high ground about sowing division.
History repeats itself.
Grateful HN is a quality “feed” - way better than all the algorithmic feeds..
If something as curated as HN existed & appealed to the masses - even if it was ad funded! - we could live in a different world.
Gradually, then all at once.
The US always has failings, but this message is something we can be proud of.
It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).
As a brown person with brown eyes, I find this line of thinking both beautiful and unfortunately dangerous.
In principle this is absolutely true, but it ignores the historical context in which biases and stereotypes formed. The evolutionary processes that lead to our survival reinforced the idea of Bayesian thinking, which roughly means that you start with a prior belief about someone or something and then keep updating it as you obtain more evidence (for or against it).
Could it be that historically humans learnt that certain groups of people (let's call them group X) are more prone to aggression, theft, etc.? Imagine you're one such human and see a member of group X in a dark alley. Wouldn't you be scared as well? Or would you think "never judge a man based on the color of their skin, everything is fine"?
The thing is, to update our Bayesian prior we must gather evidence, and some evidence is easier obtained than others. Associating someone's behavior with their skin tone is easy, but doing so with their "background and personality as an individual" is hard. Would you, in that dark alley, start to have a deep conversation with the person from group X to form an opinion about them, or would you simply assume you're right about your prejudice and move to a safer place?
I think this is a nuclear bad not only because I think it excuses bad behavior but also because I think it’s just intellectually lazy.
If I’m misinterpreting you please let me know because I hope I’m mistaken.
How do I demonstrate that I arrived at a conclusion reasonably, with data?
How do I calibrate my probabilities, instead of a binary "safe or unsafe"?
How do I keep from overanalyzing appearance and making incorrect perceptions?
I think the primary sign of danger in your example is being in a dark alley.
This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).
But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.
Certain groups of people may be more prone to aggression, theft, etc, in certain times, places, situations, etc, for many historical reasons; but what is relevant for the consideration (and what to do about it) will depend on the situation (e.g. it does not usually justify attacking). However, if there are strangers in a dark alley then it might be safer to move to another place regardless of their skin tone (or accent of speech or what language they speak, which might be easier to notice if it is dark) though, although none of this is a full explanation of the situation, which can vary in many ways.
Divisive nonsense belongs in the garbage.
> It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947 release instead of 1945 and 1946.
themafia•1h ago
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
Terr_•1h ago
Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."
chb•1h ago
DeepYogurt•1h ago
Tepix•55m ago
laidoffamazon•43m ago
zaik•51m ago
QuadmasterXLII•44m ago