Ah, but how exactly did the Nazis reach that point when they didn't have that capability? Perhaps... the things in the video?

Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."

Fascist propaganda needs a foothold. In the US, it's got a step ladder.

Making media != direct control of the media

These days there is social media. Controlled by whom? A handful of billionaires.

What has this to do with one another? This video doesn't advocate for censorship of the media.

I don’t quite follow- could you spell out your argument?

Mind providing a link to the blog post?

These are precisely the kind of posts on HN that get flagged and blackholed. I will eat my hat if it stays on the frontpage.

Except for the endorsement of littering, which fit the time period.

It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).

Is it still true that Americans find it hard to see how this is very clearly propaganda?

Yes, it's anti-Nazi but it's still has very obvious problems.

I think you’re conflating intuitional alarms Gavin de Becker style with treating people as individuals which is two very different things. Racism is about our society treating people of color fairly whereas the other is about maintaining healthy boundaries and respecting your intuition.

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.

I agree with your general premise, in that there are bad actors, and appearance is a powerful classifier, so identifying potential bad actors by appearance is genuinely useful. I think there are many caveats in practice, such as:

  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.

Moreover, learning danger where there is danger is valuable, but so is unlearning danger where there isn't danger. And then there are the errors of learning danger where there isn't danger, and unlearning danger where there is danger. So, I take your point broadly, but there are many demons this way.

To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up stabbing you.

I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.

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.

Jesus H. Christ. Are we now trying to make our racism sound acceptable by sprinkling it with scientific concepts like Bayesian thinking?

that's a pretty divisive thing to say

It could refer to the production date:

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Be_a_Sucker

YouTube description says:

> This item was produced or created: 1945