There was a FOIA-dump of old NSA propaganda posters. The kind they put up around Fort Meade for their own employees.
It started off, in the early-50s, with things like "Remember, Freedom of the Press is one of the most important Freedoms." and "Remember, Freedoms come not from humans, but from nature/God itself."
Then it slowly morphed into "Remember, we practice security so we can defend our liberties: every security breach harms our liberty."
Then is quickly morphed into "Please don't have classified conversations in the carpool."
I watched the film and was surprised when it moved on from gambling and scams. Initially thought it was aimed at avoiding being scammed of your hard earned cash by shysters. I wonder if there is a film produced at the time about that?
It's priming. You have to present very obvious scams, to then conflate the concept of being scammed with political ideology... which doesn't necessarily follow.
Propaganda is really interesting in the way it carries a narrative. It's like a good movie, gives you an idea about what you're going to watch, and then slowly flows to the places you expected it to go to, but it does it in unique and interesting way.
There is certainly something innate in the human mind that loves these predictive narratives.
It is literally propaganda. Very good propaganda with a very good and truthful message. (Except maybe a bit of too much idealizing the US and also the role of the catholic church but the main point is fine.)
I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".
You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".
There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.
Also, something I keep repeating: even the most loathsome propagandists prefer to use the truth, when the truth is on their side. Bad people make good points all the time. Bad people can't succeed without good points, or at the very least technically true points.
As long as you pick one definition and stick with it, you can define propaganda how you want. But this is not what people do. They juggle two definitions of propaganda: one broad where anything used to convince you of something is propaganda, and one narrow where it by definition is deceptive.
It's the original "no true Scotsman": there the broad definition (Scotsman=person from Scotland) is used to argue for the narrow definition ("real" Scotsman=good and upstanding person from Scotland)
The traditional meaning of the phrase is that it is not neccessarily information of a misleading nature but is propagated to advance a particular political aim. In that older definition, propaganda can be true or false, misleading of correct.
The current connotation to me seems a result of propaganda from authoritarian states (nazis in germany, communists in the old communist bloc) and the presupposition that the propaganda they pushed was misleading and/or false.
I am not American, and I am having tremendous difficulty understanding what you are talking about. Nobody in this thread has denied this is propaganda or that it is nationalistic.
It may be nationalist, but not because it's showing American industry and agriculture. All nations have an intrinsic self-interest in such things... there is no nation on Earth now or in the past that would take the stance which you imply is the only acceptable one - a disregard for their own productivity, wealth, and self-sufficiency.
> 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.
I've been thinking about this video for a few months now. I've been telling people to "not be a sucker" referencing it. I haven't re-watched in a few years, though.
The real disservice of this sort of this sort of stuff is how flagrantly obvious they make the bad guy. Yeah, everyone can identify the idiot spouting off about skin color and engaging in an un-obfuscated textbook exercise in divide and conquer as probably not worth listening to. Patting yourself on the back becase you can identify it when it's flagrantly obvious is counterproductive.
The guy in the internet comment section or the Youtube talking head, subtly peddling inequality under the law under the guise of carrot and stick government policy games, he's the real evil. Because letting him guide you at every turn is what incrementally builds the cultural, ideological, political and procedural situation in which it's possible for the "comic book evil" type things to be possible.
The problem is that people are still falling for exactly the same sort of comic-book evil even though it's every bit as obvious. e.g. Haitian's eating dogs, illegal immigrants scamming medical services, stealing high-paying jobs, etc..
A high percentage of people completely lack what Carl Sagan would call a "Baloney detection kit", and the current purveyors of baloney like it that way. That's why they're anti-science and anti-education.
I suspect we're seeing WWII anti-Nazi propaganda being promoted all over social media in an attempt to shock people into a moment of introspection. Someone watching this propaganda piece today doesn't even have to make substitutions. The man on a street-corner ranting about immigrants could be a talking head on certain current "news" programs. However, the shock relies on the viewer's perception of Nazi's as irredeemably evil.
Humans forget, and that happens pretty reliably when something passes out of living memory. There are precious few people left with first-hand memories of Nazi evil or who can remember fighting Hitler. For most living people, Nazi's are just comic-book and Hollywood villains. Comparing oneself to the people in this propaganda reel today undoubtedly has less impact than it did fifty years ago, and that impact will continue to fade. Society in certain countries is now clearly at the stage where painful lessons need to be relearned.
I noticed you didn't include any bipartisan examples. I'll help with that,for example believing Joe Biden was sharp as a tack is more damaging than any examples listed, and is probably the primary factor in Trump's reelection.
> I suspect we're seeing WWII anti-Nazi propaganda being promoted all over social media in an attempt to shock people into a moment of introspection. Someone watching this propaganda piece today doesn't even have to make substitutions. The man on a street-corner ranting about immigrants could be a talking head on certain current "news" programs. However, the shock relies on the viewer's perception of Nazi's as irredeemably evil.
Anti-Nazi propaganda from WWII has been a staple of American and broader Anglosphere culture for the entirety of my life; and so has the counter-phenomenon of people deliberately using Nazi symbols to be shocking or provocative.
Anyway, at the time this film was produced by the US government, legal immigration from foreign countries to the US had been heavily curtailed for a generation by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924, and immigration would not be liberalized until another generation later in the 1960s.
I completely agree with you. Though slightly tangential, what you called out also happens in startups and is a big learning for me. I wanted to fail fast. I thought I got it when read in a blog or a book. Similarly, building an MVP - feels amazing and I thought I understood it. Like you called out, many of the books, blogs or podcasts will present them in a flagrantly obvious way. As a reader, we often think that we understood it.
But in reality, these are very subtle. Understanding that what you are experiencing is a failure or what you are building is feature bloat is extremely hard. These aren't obvious moments. I call these micro signals. The skill is in fact developing the thinking muscle to pick on these micro signals and act on them.
Probably most of the "self help" fall in this category - very obvious when reading, but will fail to identify in reality. Internalizing is about understanding how these would manifest in reality (and be aware that these will be very very tiny signals)
The firm got some good in it, sure. But as I see it, today people could be motivated by a firm of good meanings, then tomorrow a post with bad intentions could swing people the other way just as far.
The firm was produced back in 1945, but we still hearing similar if not exact same racist and xenophobic talk points today across many countries of different backgrounds. This alone is telling.
People don't really care about good or evil, truth or lies, but the message, the story telling, whether someone can make it flip the switches inside their heads, make them subscribe. If you can flip their switches in the exact right way, they'll be your utility.
It turns out, we are, unmistakably, suckers. Just with different arrangement of switches.
People will be more likely to have good intentions if they expect others to have good intentions. If there's a lot of distrust in society good intentioned narratives will lose their power.
I was watching a clip from the The Lost World (1925) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwzrwHnCtk] the other day. I was struck by the silly (to my ears) orchestral fanfare scoring such a dramatic scene, and the fact that almost all of the men are wearing nearly identical outfits. It's still pretty much the same 20 years later in this video. The timbre of the voice of the narrator is another thing, so universal in media from that time and comically foreign today.
Note that the orchestral score on that YouTube video was composed in 2016 by Robert Israel. The original film had no recorded sound; it would have been accompanied on the piano (or, if lucky, pipe organ).
If you get a chance to see a silent film in the theater with live music, don't pass up that chance! I recently went to see "The General" (1926) with semi-improvised music by pianist Ben Model,[1] and (obviously) recommend the experience.
That is interesting that it was actually composed recently, of course he was going for period-accurate and that seems to be his thing. But it's just fascinating to me, the sort of social norms around, and the mood or feelings that are evoked by, that kind of music, compared to a modern "serious" monster movie like Cloverfield or something (of course silent vs. talkie is a bit apples-to-oranges but it just feels culturally worlds apart even though they're kind of going for the same thing).
Their outfits aren't nearly identical, they only look that way to us because we weren't there and don't know the details. It's no different than how classic cars all look close to the same but someone who was there can just tell you at first glance "that one's a <brand>, that one's the top trim, and so on".
Definitely but would you disagree that there is homogeneity to it that would be out of place in say a NYC street scene today? Look up pictures of Straw Hat Day. Just interesting to me given the wide world of fashion choices and styles that developed soon after.
One very interesting aspect is how the Churches are portrayed as "seeking truth" and speaking out in this piece. In the US today it is reversed - in large part due to Baptists. But even in Nazi Germany the relationship between the Church and Hitler was much more complicated than portrayed. For instance, many Catholics supported the NSDAP.
It's the same with Trump. He doesn't care about religion but he'll say and behave in certain ones sometimes to appease the religious base (only until they fall for his scam).
"We must never let ourselves be divided by race or by color or religion. Because, in this country we all belong to minority groups. I was born in Hungary, you are <unclear>. These are minorities. And then you belong to other minority groups too. You are a farmer, you have blue eyes, you go to the Methodist church, your right to belong to these minorities is a precious thing. You have a right to be what you are and to say what you think. Because here we have personal freedom. We have liberty. And these are not just fancy words. This is a practical and priceless way of living. But we must work at it. We must guard everyone's liberties. Or we can lose our own. If we allow any minority to lose it's freedom by persecution or by prejudice, we are threatening our own freedom."
I don't think anyone sees it this way anymore. We are much more "zero-sum," both right and left.
The mistake with ending on that note is that, while 'both right and left' are more zero-sum, only the left gives a shit about the ideals in the actual quote.
To drive the point home, the current crop of Republicans wouldn't take kindly to an immigrant SJW college professor like the character in the film preaching to them about liberal values.
Then again, he is Hungarian like Viktor Orbán, so maybe that would get him in the door.
Unfortunately we are more divided then ever. The algorithms place each of use in its own little echo chamber. And micro targeting makes it easy for people with money to control what each of us is fed in their bubble. Stay united. Don't give up over their perceived power. Don't be a sucker. Easier said, then done.
Is that all you think this is about, being racist and sexist?
I agree with OP, this video shows how easy it can be a sucker. There are two parts to it, one is being the sucker, the other is the specific content and time.
OP is pointing out that the sucker is in every echo chamber because these chambers get filtered to only allow extreme viewpoints thrive.
It would be easier to accept a both-sides argument if there were good examples and counter-examples for what opposing viewpoints are equally reprehensible.
This is important for everyone here to watch. A divided house does not stand, and if you haven't noticed, it's getting more divided every day. Don't be a sucker, don't let them divide us.
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?
I didn't watch this yet but am going to be curious to hear how to not be divided about "we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States.", when some clearly think there are reasons this isn't a problem (or not worth paying attention to).
Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism".
Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal?
You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. It is against the spirit of this nation (or, perversely, you could say it’s the intrinsic spirit of this nation coming out…). There are plenty of things legal which are wrong.
That anyone is defending these actions by claiming to do them “legally” is a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence.
If it were legal for ICE to hold *humans* classified by the state as “illegal migrants” in concentration camps, would you continue to defend that policy as merely enforcing the law?
This is not a humanity issue, this is a legal one. The president ran on removing people from this country who entered the country illegally. He is executing what he ran on and what the people voted for.
I don't personally approve of all the tactics that are being used, however it is clear that some cities are not in favor of these Federal laws at all no mater which tactic is used. I also realize how quickly these conversations turn.
What if immigration courts are also starting to target people who came here legally? (Green card holders)
What if they begin to find “clerical errors” in their applications that suggest their immigration status is “fraudulent and illegal”?
And what if they begin to target naturalized citizens, but only ones who had the misfortune of being born in “terrorists countries” like China and Venezuela and Iran?
At what point would you say that they’ve gone too far?
You have to recognize that the humanity of these people is worth more than their “legal immigration status”. The spirit of this country must continue to be the Statue of Liberty, not devolved into an ICE detention center.
> This is not a humanity issue, this is a legal one.
Its only not a humanity issue if you have no humanity, but, even so, it is also an issue where the President has been violating more than executing the law,
Why does the legality only matter when it applies to a minority we're demonizing?
Trump's current wife very famously entered the US illegally, not to mention the dozens of other crimes trump has publically committed recently.
People in these conversations very frequently bring up laws and legality but fail to recognize that laws only work when they apply to everyone equally.
> Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal?
No, because it does matter.
> You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong.
Please explain why you think it is wrong. Or exactly, where does the wrongness come in?
Is it wrong because they attempt to enforce immigration law? Do you consider it invalid for countries to restrict legal immigration? Why?
Is it wrong because they wear masks? Why?
Is it wrong because they operate "in broad daylight"? Why?
It is definitely not wrong "because they kidnap people", because that is at best circular reasoning. Arrest is a standard tool of law enforcement.
> a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law.
This is incorrect in my case, and frankly insulting. For example, marijuana has been legal here for several years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Canada) and I was in favour of that since long before it changed. I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that.
But national borders are perfectly moral, in my view.
> This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence.
In the broad sense that your argument requires, violence is supposed to be institutionalized. That's what the criminal justice system is. Never mind capital punishment, or corporal punishment (I oppose both of course): apprehending criminals requires force.
That said, I respect that you acknowledge the slippery slope fallacy here. Putting aside that "concentration camp" is not a well defined term (and people have argued since at least the Obama years about the conditions in ICE detainment facilities), that's clearly not where things are headed. Nobody wants to detain the people who are legally not entitled to be in the country. The entire point is to have them not in the country.
Besides, is it any more moral to let employers (who violate laws themselves in this way) hold the threat of deportation over illegal immigrants, to deprive them of workers' rights and fair payment? Of course these employers should also be punished, but that isn't going to stop people from coming.
> I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that.
So you are able to see the injustice of marijuana being illegal to consume but not the injustice of masked anonymous federal (maybe) agents kidnapping people off the street, assaulting people random bystanders and in general attempting to create a culture of terror?
To see injustice in this, it would have to be happening as you describe. I already explained multiple inaccuracies in the description and you have added more.
Some of the people being detained and deported are asylum seekers who came to this country fleeing persecution in their home nation.
They arrived at this country following all the rules provided to them by prior administrations (including the last Trump administration). They have shown up for their court dates. Those that were permitted to work have found ways to contribute to their local economies. They've created homes, found love, and become part of their local communities. Their stories are abundant and well-documented, you can find them trivially.
I think it is wrong to remove peaceful, hard-working people from their present communities, doubly-so if they are asylum-seekers who have already demonstrated an extreme ability to suffer through the hardship of coming here.
The current administration is making a deliberate choice to interpret immigration law in a way that enables them to arbitrarily detain and deport these people, while rhetorically defining them as a violent, criminal invasion by foreign powers. Just because the executive branch has the legal right to treat non-citizens within our borders with impunity, does not make it right to do so.
What part of this picture do you think is right, and why?
Regarding slippery slope fallacy: if a policy choice enables or disables centralized detention and deportation infrastructure, wouldn't you prefer to follow the precautionary principle and avoid inadvertently building the tools of fascism? Even if you think Trump is acting in good faith and with restraint, his successors need not, and will inherit an infrastructure that amplifies their ability to inflict damage up the ladder of minorities.
Also, it's not true that "nobody wants to detain people who are legally not entitled to be in this country". There's a whole cottage industry of facilities popping up around the country that are paid by the inmate-detention-day, who do everything they can to avoid giving people due process so they can maximize their revenue. This industry will be happy to lobby for detention to apply to an ever-increasing circle of people.
Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. While what Trump did is a felony. Do you see masked agents kidnapping Trump without due process in the middle of the night?
How did we go from "in broad daylight" being used for emotional appeal, to using "in the middle of the night" for emotional appeal? If there is not a better time of day at which to take these actions, then adding these phrases is just highlighting the irrationality of the argument.
I already explained why this is definitionally not "kidnapping" nor a violation of due process. Being lawfully apprehended by federal agents is an arrest, which is completely compatible with due process. Due process rights apply after that point: things like not being held indefinitely, having access to legal representation, etc.
Common sense retort (on the level of Asmongold): If you do not agree with a law (on moral grounds or whatever other reason), you do not get to selectively ignore it. Your options in this society are to either put up with it, or lobby to change it.
If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.
I don’t see how this retort applies to this conversation.
Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations?
The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc.
At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
> Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed?
How, when we, the people/country, are not allowed to arrest ice agents and put them on trial? How do you propose we apply legal rules if some people are above them?
> Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
No, because the people involved DON'T GET COURT CASES.
I genuinely do not know if you merely haven't taken in any new information over the last 12 months or are deliberately trying to promote a false agenda.
> Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
If you are genuinely trying to discuss this matter, you can't use deflection tactics like this.
The primary WBEZ source editorialized, and Slate's analysis took it further, such that your one-sentence summary ends up factually incorrect. The direct quote offered by WBEZ:
> “You know, there’s many different factors that go into something like that,” Bovino said. “It would be agent experience, intelligence that indicates there’s illegal aliens in a particular place or location.
> “Then, obviously, the particular characteristics of an individual, how they look. How do they look compared to, say, you?” he said to the reporter, a tall, middle-aged man of Anglo descent.
I disagree with such profiling, generally speaking, but as an objective matter of fact it is not being done "only on race/language". Also, it appears that these "Kavanaugh stops" involve possibly being taken in for questioning, but not any extended detainment.
Further, they did get a 6-3 SCOTUS decision permitting it — a decision that underscores that other factors are being used, not just "race/language". Specifically: "presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like" and "the type of work one does". This is affirmed later: "Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future."
If there is a serious problem, it will end in widespread lawsuits from legal immigrants unjustly detained, or on their behalf. If Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, the system allows for justice to be done. I am not denying this possibility. But as the concurrence notes (omitting references to precedent):
> To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the
United States... a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard... [that] depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs... that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of [them]... come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone
cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient
factors.
Someone else ITT proposed to me that ICE can't be held to account because the people in question "don't get court cases". Thanks for highlighting that they do, in fact.
Slate claims that Kavanaugh's "reasoning crumbled upon scrutiny", but there is nothing official about this — they're just linking some law professor's opinion on Substack. Slate doesn't do a great job of objective journalism in my experience; they routinely present opinion as fact like this.
The "Rhetoric from Trump" names two specific individuals as potentially funding terror groups, who are also known to fund the Democratic party. This is not the same as calling Democrats terrorists. Miller's rhetoric is precisely an example in 'the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists"' that I mentioned. It's him mouthing off on Hannity, not in an official government capacity. And the article doesn't even concretely show what it claims to be showing. It merely alludes to Hannity and Miller "... trying to paint the picture that all political violence occurring in the United States is the result of radical left-wingers incited by Democrats." Which again is not applying the label to Democrats broadly. The only hard evidence provided is linking to a tweet that has screencaps of other tweets from Miller — which are from during Biden's administration.
Off the top of my head, Kilmar Abrego Garcia had a judicial stay against exportation and the administration said his deportation was an error, but he spent weeks in an El Salvadoran prison. And there was the Korean battery factory workers in Georgia.
It is not semantics. They are not doing any such "targeting"; they are using this information among other factors, in a context where it objectively is rational to use that information, and it has already been found in court (hence "Kavanaugh Stops decision") that this is lawful. (Granted, this is only a stay against an injunction.) I gave details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45581400 .
> 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.
An important part missing from your argument is a comparison of how difficult it was to gain citizenship then and now.
No, nothing about the argument considers that comparison relevant. The claim includes a provision that nations are allowed to make the process easier or harder, according to their perceived needs and aims.
i'm fine with upholding laws, but secret police are bullshit. we have a serious problem with police accountability in the USA, they shouldn't be allowed to obscure their badge number and face, as that only encourages bad behavior.
This type of comment is what is increasing division and extremism in the US.
The people defined immigration laws through democracy. Following democracy means following the immigration laws that were defined through democracy, not following what you'd like the law to be.
The opposition of "Rule of Law" is "Rule of Men". If we don't follow the immigration laws defined democratically, it means, by definition, that we would be following some other rules defined arbitrarily by rulers outside of the democratic process. That is very dangerous, because following the democratically defined laws is the Schelling point that typically maintains cohesion of a polity. What incentives do your political opponents have for maintaining cohesion if you simply defect on your theoretical obligations to follow the law that was voted on? Can you really say that doing that would not create more and more division?
You do realize crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor right? Do you see how masked agents violently taking people without due process does not align with the severity of the offense?
The gall to bemoan the "rule of men" when we've got masked paramilitary gangs ransacking apartment buildings in the middle of the night.
The problem isn't that immigration law is being enforced. The problem is the manner in which it is being enforced. Someone breaking the law is not a justification for whatever you want to be done to them. Someone breaking the law is not an excuse to violate other people's constitutional/natural rights by association. And the law not being enforced for a long time is not an excuse to eliminate what little accountability there was for people tasked with enforcing the laws. I hope some day you will realize these things.
You said nothing wrong. Some people just feel embarrassed about being responsible for the current situation by voting for Trump. And they react to that embarrassment by trying to shift blame.
"We need to stop being divided. For perspective, here's a political talking point framed in the most partisan way possible. Edit: why am I being downvoted?"
If by sucker you mean in the context of the film's title, then that fits. If we use a more general definition of sucker, then I guess it depends on if the Trump voter wanted exactly what he is delivering. If they are getting precisely what they wanted, then they aren't really a sucker, they are something else.
A shocking number of people are simply unaware (or worse, don’t care) that the current regime pardoned a thousand insurrectionists either while being nakedly corrupt to the point of taking cash in CAVA bags. The attention simply isn’t there.
Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
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.
It seems to me as though you're reading a lot in to that second paragraph. Are you disputing the basic facts outlined, about "masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight"? Because that is, in fact, a thing that is happening in cities all over the country right now, and simply pointing out that it is happening is not a partisan act.
This is good, in means we have checks and balances. I don't have the details of this particular case, but does it mean every action ICE takes is illegal?
If someone breaks the law ICE or otherwise, there should be enforcement and justice.
I posted a substantial reply to this comment but immediately deleted it. It's impossible honestly to take issue here without crossing into culture war territory.
First of all, half of Americans didn't vote for Trump, at best a fourth. Look up voter turnout and of those that voted. And yes, not voting is legitimate when you believe both parties don't represent you. This idea that half of Americans voted for Trump makes no sense.
Not only that but most people don't approve of his immigration policy.
The guy speaking at 3:35 reminds me of a recent blog post by a certain tech celebrity, where he was recalling his recent visit to London and was unhappy to find less white people that he remembered from his previous visit.
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.
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 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.
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.
If Iryna Zarutska were more Bayesian, the correct prejudice and acceptable amount of racism would have saved her life. Unfortunately for her, her priors were from .ua, not .us.
This is probably the stupidest thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading. In the U.S., most homicide perpetrators are white. And it is extremely rare for a Black person to intentionally kill a white person.
Your own stats actually seems to suggest otherwise, doesn’t it? About 1 in 5 murders of white people are committed by blacks, while about 1 in 10 murders of black people are committed by whites. And in absolute numbers there are slightly more black murderers.
Arguably race is the wrong metric anyway, isn’t it fairly well established that socioeconomic factors play the larger role by far?
The victim was white. Thus the relevant statistic is whether you'd be more likely to be murdered by a white person than a black one. (It's also quite probable that white perpetrators are undercounted, as these are based on conviction rates.)
You can't necessarily see whether someone is wealthy (although poor people tend not to wear expensive clothing or carry expensive items on them). I'm also not aware of a reliable source of statistical information about homicide perpetrators based on the perpetrator's wealth.
Gee it couldn't possibly be because us minorities are made to feel aware of our skin colour everytime we go out in the streets and see someone putting up an English flag, or preach about how their city has too many people that look like us, which means we're hyper aware of our race and it defines our perspective of ourselves. If racism didn't exist, then being asian wouldn't really form an important part of how i think about myself.
The UK has a population of 55 million whites. Bangladesh has a population of 171 million, Pakistan has 241 million, India has 1.4 billion, and China also has 1.4 billion. In the UK, there are more Bangladeshi alone than there are whites (all whites, not just British) in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and China, combined. Yet they are "minorities", while the people that will soon become outnumbered by foreigners in their own country [1] are the "majority".
The reason whites are unaware is because they are propagandized 24/7 to be unaware (including by their own state [2]), while you are encouraged.
[2] Moffat even talks about the idea he mentions above — the excuse of “historical accuracy” that some people often give to justify an all-white cast — “[W]e’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” - https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-on-diversity-in-doctor-...
This film is an attempt to ignore the economic causes of the war and entirely pin them on the population of Germany. This film mostly seeks to reduce the power of American public participation and labor organization by inferring that anyone who engages in the necessary steps to achieve them must be a type of "proto Nazi" to be ignored or feared.
There hasn't been great scholarship on the buildup of Fascism - or at least there are some big missing pieces.
So many records were destroyed, and until very recently, propaganda was still sacrosanct.
In Communist countries, Fascism had to be Capitalist reaction to working class solidarity. In Western Countries, there was more freedom, but there was a strong stigma against any analysis that violated Atlanticist principals. Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" raised too much controversy for claiming Eichmann was just a joiner, not hateful.
Until recently it wasn't just propaganda, but a basic human decency not to ask certain questions too loudly while the survivors of the Holocaust were still alive, and their persecutors lived unpunished.
For example, there's little willingness (in the West) to discuss the role Russian emigres played in supporting Fascism? They were obviously being opportunistic, as were Ukrainians and Finns.
I learned very recently that in late November 1918, weeks after World War I ended, the British told the Germans they could expand Eastward, rearming if necessary, to prevent the Bolsheviks from advancing.
The Germans had already disarmed, and no longer had functional militaries. But they were able to raise self-sustained militias that moved into parts of Poland and Lithuania.
Later on, Nazi propaganda played up this fact, while Allied propgandists chose to ignore it. It likely had a role in convincing Germans they had a "natural" claim to East Europe.
Looking at the news, the German army recently held marches in these places, as a sign of support for NATO against the Russians.
I mean, the previous administration famously pulled strings across Twitter and Facebook to demote right wing media outlets on those platforms. This kind of crap isn’t new, and needs to stop.
The public square is a recognized American institution for political change and messaging. The first amendment covers way more than freedom of the press. This video, to me, seems to deride it.
I don't see any derision of the first amendment or of the public square (not sure which you were referring to as "it" in your last sentence). When we exercise our freedom of expression, we have zero guarantee that we will be listened to, believed, or respected.
The derision I see in this video is directed at visceral belief in whoever is shouting in the public square, especially when their message is so clearly divisive. The discussion between the Freemason and the naturalized citizen is itself a fine example of free expression in the public square.
The US always has failings, but this message is something we can be proud of.
It started off, in the early-50s, with things like "Remember, Freedom of the Press is one of the most important Freedoms." and "Remember, Freedoms come not from humans, but from nature/God itself."
Then it slowly morphed into "Remember, we practice security so we can defend our liberties: every security breach harms our liberty."
Then is quickly morphed into "Please don't have classified conversations in the carpool."
Propaganda is really interesting in the way it carries a narrative. It's like a good movie, gives you an idea about what you're going to watch, and then slowly flows to the places you expected it to go to, but it does it in unique and interesting way.
There is certainly something innate in the human mind that loves these predictive narratives.
Well, that too really. Just a different breed of shyster, but they'll come for your wallet as sure as they will your freedoms.
It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).
Yes, it's anti-Nazi but it's still has very obvious problems.
I guess the confusion is because in Western societies people are used to the doublespeak of only calling something propaganda when it is done by the "other side". The other side is "spreading the narrative" you are "reporting facts".
You use different words to describe the same thing. Like the good guys are "rebels" and the bad guys are "terrorists".
There is nothing wrong with propaganda. It can be used for good or bad. Just don't start falling for your own one.
> information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.
Which I think most people consider bad. If the information is true and not misleading, it would be considered educational or informational.
It's the original "no true Scotsman": there the broad definition (Scotsman=person from Scotland) is used to argue for the narrow definition ("real" Scotsman=good and upstanding person from Scotland)
The bias is what would make somebody consider some propaganda good and others bad.
Like - anti-fascist propaganda is good because it’s biased against an anti-human and oppressive ideology.
The current connotation to me seems a result of propaganda from authoritarian states (nazis in germany, communists in the old communist bloc) and the presupposition that the propaganda they pushed was misleading and/or false.
Of course you're going to get nationalism-tinged anti-fascist propaganda from the US Dept. of the Army in 1945.
There are large voting blocs who need to hear and comprehend the message of this film that happens to be propaganda, right now.
Can you explain, who are the large (how big is large?) voting blocks that need to comprehend the message in the film?
And, why would anyone like it?
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.
https://hnrankings.info/45573025/
My condolences for your hat.
Gradually, then all at once.
> 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
> This item was produced or created: 1945
The guy in the internet comment section or the Youtube talking head, subtly peddling inequality under the law under the guise of carrot and stick government policy games, he's the real evil. Because letting him guide you at every turn is what incrementally builds the cultural, ideological, political and procedural situation in which it's possible for the "comic book evil" type things to be possible.
A high percentage of people completely lack what Carl Sagan would call a "Baloney detection kit", and the current purveyors of baloney like it that way. That's why they're anti-science and anti-education.
I suspect we're seeing WWII anti-Nazi propaganda being promoted all over social media in an attempt to shock people into a moment of introspection. Someone watching this propaganda piece today doesn't even have to make substitutions. The man on a street-corner ranting about immigrants could be a talking head on certain current "news" programs. However, the shock relies on the viewer's perception of Nazi's as irredeemably evil.
Humans forget, and that happens pretty reliably when something passes out of living memory. There are precious few people left with first-hand memories of Nazi evil or who can remember fighting Hitler. For most living people, Nazi's are just comic-book and Hollywood villains. Comparing oneself to the people in this propaganda reel today undoubtedly has less impact than it did fifty years ago, and that impact will continue to fade. Society in certain countries is now clearly at the stage where painful lessons need to be relearned.
The same as the video? Where is this happening and how is it so obvious?
Anti-Nazi propaganda from WWII has been a staple of American and broader Anglosphere culture for the entirety of my life; and so has the counter-phenomenon of people deliberately using Nazi symbols to be shocking or provocative.
Anyway, at the time this film was produced by the US government, legal immigration from foreign countries to the US had been heavily curtailed for a generation by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924, and immigration would not be liberalized until another generation later in the 1960s.
But in reality, these are very subtle. Understanding that what you are experiencing is a failure or what you are building is feature bloat is extremely hard. These aren't obvious moments. I call these micro signals. The skill is in fact developing the thinking muscle to pick on these micro signals and act on them.
Probably most of the "self help" fall in this category - very obvious when reading, but will fail to identify in reality. Internalizing is about understanding how these would manifest in reality (and be aware that these will be very very tiny signals)
The firm was produced back in 1945, but we still hearing similar if not exact same racist and xenophobic talk points today across many countries of different backgrounds. This alone is telling.
People don't really care about good or evil, truth or lies, but the message, the story telling, whether someone can make it flip the switches inside their heads, make them subscribe. If you can flip their switches in the exact right way, they'll be your utility.
It turns out, we are, unmistakably, suckers. Just with different arrangement of switches.
I stopped believing good intentions long ago.
If you get a chance to see a silent film in the theater with live music, don't pass up that chance! I recently went to see "The General" (1926) with semi-improvised music by pianist Ben Model,[1] and (obviously) recommend the experience.
[1] - https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/23
I don't think anyone sees it this way anymore. We are much more "zero-sum," both right and left.
To drive the point home, the current crop of Republicans wouldn't take kindly to an immigrant SJW college professor like the character in the film preaching to them about liberal values.
Then again, he is Hungarian like Viktor Orbán, so maybe that would get him in the door.
https://npr.org/2025/05/29/nx-s1-5399682/hungary-trump-vikto...
Whether criticism will improve anything, or just annoy people, is another story.
There's not likely to be any 'Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?' moment in the current environment, so God help us all.
Some things are zero-sum, and maybe American politics has changed in a way that makes it zero-sum. But that's what it is.
Perhaps our disagreement is whether this generation of Republicans values the quote's ideals or not.
https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-F...
I agree with OP, this video shows how easy it can be a sucker. There are two parts to it, one is being the sucker, the other is the specific content and time.
OP is pointing out that the sucker is in every echo chamber because these chambers get filtered to only allow extreme viewpoints thrive.
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?
Masked men roaming the streets arresting even US citizens without a warrant.
Going into court rooms and houses of worship to do it.
Using violence on unarmed peaceful protesters, regardless of the protest legality.
Combine it with the Republican inability to follow the law and the current rhetoric about “antifa” and how democrats are terrorists.
That’s why this isn’t good and people are scared. It could turn into civil war at this point, with very little spark.
Thankfully you’re from Canada and your stake in the matter is fairly nil.
Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism".
Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. It is against the spirit of this nation (or, perversely, you could say it’s the intrinsic spirit of this nation coming out…). There are plenty of things legal which are wrong.
That anyone is defending these actions by claiming to do them “legally” is a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence.
If it were legal for ICE to hold *humans* classified by the state as “illegal migrants” in concentration camps, would you continue to defend that policy as merely enforcing the law?
I don't personally approve of all the tactics that are being used, however it is clear that some cities are not in favor of these Federal laws at all no mater which tactic is used. I also realize how quickly these conversations turn.
What if they begin to find “clerical errors” in their applications that suggest their immigration status is “fraudulent and illegal”?
And what if they begin to target naturalized citizens, but only ones who had the misfortune of being born in “terrorists countries” like China and Venezuela and Iran?
At what point would you say that they’ve gone too far?
You have to recognize that the humanity of these people is worth more than their “legal immigration status”. The spirit of this country must continue to be the Statue of Liberty, not devolved into an ICE detention center.
Its only not a humanity issue if you have no humanity, but, even so, it is also an issue where the President has been violating more than executing the law,
Why does the legality only matter when it applies to a minority we're demonizing?
Trump's current wife very famously entered the US illegally, not to mention the dozens of other crimes trump has publically committed recently.
People in these conversations very frequently bring up laws and legality but fail to recognize that laws only work when they apply to everyone equally.
No, because it does matter.
> You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong.
Please explain why you think it is wrong. Or exactly, where does the wrongness come in?
Is it wrong because they attempt to enforce immigration law? Do you consider it invalid for countries to restrict legal immigration? Why?
Is it wrong because they wear masks? Why?
Is it wrong because they operate "in broad daylight"? Why?
It is definitely not wrong "because they kidnap people", because that is at best circular reasoning. Arrest is a standard tool of law enforcement.
> a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law.
This is incorrect in my case, and frankly insulting. For example, marijuana has been legal here for several years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Canada) and I was in favour of that since long before it changed. I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that.
But national borders are perfectly moral, in my view.
> This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence.
In the broad sense that your argument requires, violence is supposed to be institutionalized. That's what the criminal justice system is. Never mind capital punishment, or corporal punishment (I oppose both of course): apprehending criminals requires force.
That said, I respect that you acknowledge the slippery slope fallacy here. Putting aside that "concentration camp" is not a well defined term (and people have argued since at least the Obama years about the conditions in ICE detainment facilities), that's clearly not where things are headed. Nobody wants to detain the people who are legally not entitled to be in the country. The entire point is to have them not in the country.
Besides, is it any more moral to let employers (who violate laws themselves in this way) hold the threat of deportation over illegal immigrants, to deprive them of workers' rights and fair payment? Of course these employers should also be punished, but that isn't going to stop people from coming.
So you are able to see the injustice of marijuana being illegal to consume but not the injustice of masked anonymous federal (maybe) agents kidnapping people off the street, assaulting people random bystanders and in general attempting to create a culture of terror?
Fascinating, tell me more.
To see injustice in this, it would have to be happening as you describe. I already explained multiple inaccuracies in the description and you have added more.
They arrived at this country following all the rules provided to them by prior administrations (including the last Trump administration). They have shown up for their court dates. Those that were permitted to work have found ways to contribute to their local economies. They've created homes, found love, and become part of their local communities. Their stories are abundant and well-documented, you can find them trivially.
I think it is wrong to remove peaceful, hard-working people from their present communities, doubly-so if they are asylum-seekers who have already demonstrated an extreme ability to suffer through the hardship of coming here.
The current administration is making a deliberate choice to interpret immigration law in a way that enables them to arbitrarily detain and deport these people, while rhetorically defining them as a violent, criminal invasion by foreign powers. Just because the executive branch has the legal right to treat non-citizens within our borders with impunity, does not make it right to do so.
What part of this picture do you think is right, and why?
Regarding slippery slope fallacy: if a policy choice enables or disables centralized detention and deportation infrastructure, wouldn't you prefer to follow the precautionary principle and avoid inadvertently building the tools of fascism? Even if you think Trump is acting in good faith and with restraint, his successors need not, and will inherit an infrastructure that amplifies their ability to inflict damage up the ladder of minorities.
Also, it's not true that "nobody wants to detain people who are legally not entitled to be in this country". There's a whole cottage industry of facilities popping up around the country that are paid by the inmate-detention-day, who do everything they can to avoid giving people due process so they can maximize their revenue. This industry will be happy to lobby for detention to apply to an ever-increasing circle of people.
I already explained why this is definitionally not "kidnapping" nor a violation of due process. Being lawfully apprehended by federal agents is an arrest, which is completely compatible with due process. Due process rights apply after that point: things like not being held indefinitely, having access to legal representation, etc.
If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.
Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations?
The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc.
At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
How, when we, the people/country, are not allowed to arrest ice agents and put them on trial? How do you propose we apply legal rules if some people are above them?
> Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
No, because the people involved DON'T GET COURT CASES.
I genuinely do not know if you merely haven't taken in any new information over the last 12 months or are deliberately trying to promote a false agenda.
> Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
If you are genuinely trying to discuss this matter, you can't use deflection tactics like this.
Arresting and detaining citizens based only on race/language: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-...
Rhetoric from Donald Trump: - https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-de... - https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-domestic-ne...
Rhetoric from Stephen Miller: https://en.as.com/latest_news/he-can-dish-it-out-but-he-cant...
> “You know, there’s many different factors that go into something like that,” Bovino said. “It would be agent experience, intelligence that indicates there’s illegal aliens in a particular place or location.
> “Then, obviously, the particular characteristics of an individual, how they look. How do they look compared to, say, you?” he said to the reporter, a tall, middle-aged man of Anglo descent.
I disagree with such profiling, generally speaking, but as an objective matter of fact it is not being done "only on race/language". Also, it appears that these "Kavanaugh stops" involve possibly being taken in for questioning, but not any extended detainment.
Further, they did get a 6-3 SCOTUS decision permitting it — a decision that underscores that other factors are being used, not just "race/language". Specifically: "presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like" and "the type of work one does". This is affirmed later: "Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future."
If there is a serious problem, it will end in widespread lawsuits from legal immigrants unjustly detained, or on their behalf. If Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, the system allows for justice to be done. I am not denying this possibility. But as the concurrence notes (omitting references to precedent):
> To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States... a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard... [that] depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs... that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of [them]... come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors.
Someone else ITT proposed to me that ICE can't be held to account because the people in question "don't get court cases". Thanks for highlighting that they do, in fact.
Slate claims that Kavanaugh's "reasoning crumbled upon scrutiny", but there is nothing official about this — they're just linking some law professor's opinion on Substack. Slate doesn't do a great job of objective journalism in my experience; they routinely present opinion as fact like this.
The "Rhetoric from Trump" names two specific individuals as potentially funding terror groups, who are also known to fund the Democratic party. This is not the same as calling Democrats terrorists. Miller's rhetoric is precisely an example in 'the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists"' that I mentioned. It's him mouthing off on Hannity, not in an official government capacity. And the article doesn't even concretely show what it claims to be showing. It merely alludes to Hannity and Miller "... trying to paint the picture that all political violence occurring in the United States is the result of radical left-wingers incited by Democrats." Which again is not applying the label to Democrats broadly. The only hard evidence provided is linking to a tweet that has screencaps of other tweets from Miller — which are from during Biden's administration.
What do you consider to be their basis for such targeting, and what is your evidence for that claim?
There were also more cases in the district court record that led to the Kavanaugh Stops decision: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-...
There have been so many cases documented so thoroughly. All you have to do is believe that it's not impossible and the reporting does the rest.
Thats the issue.
An important part missing from your argument is a comparison of how difficult it was to gain citizenship then and now.
I 100% agree, if an ICE agent breaks the law they should be held accountable just like a local police officer.
This difference matters how exactly?
The people defined immigration laws through democracy. Following democracy means following the immigration laws that were defined through democracy, not following what you'd like the law to be.
The opposition of "Rule of Law" is "Rule of Men". If we don't follow the immigration laws defined democratically, it means, by definition, that we would be following some other rules defined arbitrarily by rulers outside of the democratic process. That is very dangerous, because following the democratically defined laws is the Schelling point that typically maintains cohesion of a polity. What incentives do your political opponents have for maintaining cohesion if you simply defect on your theoretical obligations to follow the law that was voted on? Can you really say that doing that would not create more and more division?
We are advocating for the rule of law to be applied to everyone, not just people who "look foreign".
The problem isn't that immigration law is being enforced. The problem is the manner in which it is being enforced. Someone breaking the law is not a justification for whatever you want to be done to them. Someone breaking the law is not an excuse to violate other people's constitutional/natural rights by association. And the law not being enforced for a long time is not an excuse to eliminate what little accountability there was for people tasked with enforcing the laws. I hope some day you will realize these things.
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
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.
Can you show that the arrests are unlawful? Or else what exactly is your basis for the use of the term "kidnapping"?
https://fox4kc.com/news/federal-judge-rules-ice-arrests-at-l...
If someone breaks the law ICE or otherwise, there should be enforcement and justice.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW...
Not only that but most people don't approve of his immigration policy.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
He is going against the will of the people with unpopular policies
Divisive nonsense belongs in the garbage.
History repeats itself.
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.
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.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Arguably race is the wrong metric anyway, isn’t it fairly well established that socioeconomic factors play the larger role by far?
You can't necessarily see whether someone is wealthy (although poor people tend not to wear expensive clothing or carry expensive items on them). I'm also not aware of a reliable source of statistical information about homicide perpetrators based on the perpetrator's wealth.
The UK has a population of 55 million whites. Bangladesh has a population of 171 million, Pakistan has 241 million, India has 1.4 billion, and China also has 1.4 billion. In the UK, there are more Bangladeshi alone than there are whites (all whites, not just British) in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and China, combined. Yet they are "minorities", while the people that will soon become outnumbered by foreigners in their own country [1] are the "majority".
The reason whites are unaware is because they are propagandized 24/7 to be unaware (including by their own state [2]), while you are encouraged.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/03/white-british-mi...
[2] Moffat even talks about the idea he mentions above — the excuse of “historical accuracy” that some people often give to justify an all-white cast — “[W]e’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” - https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-on-diversity-in-doctor-...
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
Both our statements are true.
What is the ultimate point of burning books? Does it represent the manufacture of media or the control of it?
Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."
The economic crises of the 20s and 30s. This is very well documented.
> Perhaps... the things in the video?
Speeches on street corners? I find that notion absurd. I find the presentation incredibly ignorant and manipulative.
So many records were destroyed, and until very recently, propaganda was still sacrosanct.
In Communist countries, Fascism had to be Capitalist reaction to working class solidarity. In Western Countries, there was more freedom, but there was a strong stigma against any analysis that violated Atlanticist principals. Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" raised too much controversy for claiming Eichmann was just a joiner, not hateful.
Until recently it wasn't just propaganda, but a basic human decency not to ask certain questions too loudly while the survivors of the Holocaust were still alive, and their persecutors lived unpunished.
For example, there's little willingness (in the West) to discuss the role Russian emigres played in supporting Fascism? They were obviously being opportunistic, as were Ukrainians and Finns.
I learned very recently that in late November 1918, weeks after World War I ended, the British told the Germans they could expand Eastward, rearming if necessary, to prevent the Bolsheviks from advancing.
The Germans had already disarmed, and no longer had functional militaries. But they were able to raise self-sustained militias that moved into parts of Poland and Lithuania.
Later on, Nazi propaganda played up this fact, while Allied propgandists chose to ignore it. It likely had a role in convincing Germans they had a "natural" claim to East Europe.
Looking at the news, the German army recently held marches in these places, as a sign of support for NATO against the Russians.
I don't see any derision of the first amendment or of the public square (not sure which you were referring to as "it" in your last sentence). When we exercise our freedom of expression, we have zero guarantee that we will be listened to, believed, or respected.
The derision I see in this video is directed at visceral belief in whoever is shouting in the public square, especially when their message is so clearly divisive. The discussion between the Freemason and the naturalized citizen is itself a fine example of free expression in the public square.