Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First they came for the Iranians

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 460 posts

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#251

Post by StavrosK »

fdschoeneman wrote: post #217
StavrosK wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the Nazi comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a country that actively opposes US interests. It does neither. Warning that "that's how Germany started" doesn't mean that banning visas is as severe as burning people, or saying that trump will burn people. It means that one should be careful because these ar…

Meh. Hyperbole bothers me. But as long as you're using a healthcare analogy, allow me to suggest the possibility of negative side effects to the strong medicine. For example it is widely accepted that antibiotics are currently overprescribed, making them less of a strong and powerful weapon against disease over time.

What are the negative side effects to protesting policies like this?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#252

Post by yummyfajitas »

guildwriter wrote: post #244
yummyfajitas wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reasoning fails at (1). The money spent purchasing a home is sunk cost. It's gone. It's never coming back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_th... Furthermore, I claim it does not require us to be "moral superpeople" to get past this situation. There are many populations with vastly worse problems than (1) who don't turn to drugs, unplanned pregnancy, abandoning their wives and refusing t…

You realize that the sunk cost fallacy proves what I'm trying to say? Most people really struggle with that sort of thing. It's one of the reasons why behavioral economics has taken off in recent history. People are not perfect actors. Of course there are people with problems who don't turn to drugs that are also poor. The point I'm trying to make is that saying the best and only solution isn't necessarily to say tha…

...the cost of living they are willing to put up with, and the work they are willing to do...people in America are not willing to do backbreaking labor like picking fruit?

Yes, Mexicans are willing to do what it takes, while many Trump voters prefer to sit at home refusing to work and doing meth.

I was making the following core points: 1) the Trump voters apatters was defending suffer mainly from self-inflicted problems and b) Trump is exploiting their desire to blame others for their own bad choices in order to take power.

You haven't disagreed with me at all on this point. All you've said is that this behavior is somewhat predictable. I agree, it can be predicted. So what?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#253

Post by StavrosK »

guildwriter wrote: post #218
StavrosK wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We will continue to do everything we can to fight this policy and others like it. You say that, but I'm afraid the implication might be "short of doing anything that matters". Where are the protests? Why aren't people in the streets? Don't make the same mistake Germans did under Hitler. The government relies on each step affecting few enough people that nobody will be bothered enough to march, and after a thousand…

There were already many different large scale protests across the nation several days ago. Those took months to organize and set up. Logistics alone makes another immediate large scale protest unlikely. The exception is unless there is clear and demonstrable malfeasance like in the case of S. Korea's president. If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of all Muslims" then I have no doub…

> If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of all Muslims" then I have no doubts people would start protesting immediately.

That's why it doesn't say that. You start with seven countries, then add five more ("I didn't protest the first seven, why would I protest five?") then a few more, and pretty soon, you got all Muslim countries. It's barely been a week and it's already seven, I imagine the entire set of Muslim countries can't take more than a month or two.

> The ban on entry from these countries is 30 days to "reduce investigative burdens".

For now, yes. That gives the government a month to extend the duration, if they want to.

> After that point all countries on that list need to provide additional screening info in order for visas to be accepted.

It takes months to organize a protest, how long do you think it will take a country to institute "additional screening" for the single other special snowflake country that demands it? Meanwhile, none of those countries' residents can travel (or return) to the US.

> If the countries do not agree to provide said info after 60 days from notification, all nationals from that country will not be allowed entry unless under certain circumstances.

And that doesn't bother you?

> Instead of losing your mind over everything objectionable that Trump does, it might be best to conserve your strength

Conserve your strength for what? There won't be a single incident that's worse than this. Germany didn't go from Socialist utopia to Kristallnacht in a day.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#254

Post by StavrosK »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #213
StavrosK wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We will continue to do everything we can to fight this policy and others like it. You say that, but I'm afraid the implication might be "short of doing anything that matters". Where are the protests? Why aren't people in the streets? Don't make the same mistake Germans did under Hitler. The government relies on each step affecting few enough people that nobody will be bothered enough to march, and after a thousand…

There are fairly large and violent protests against Trump. His supporters are regularly attacked. This has been true ever since he was a serious candidate. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/riots-break-out-wash... http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/inauguration-2017/anti-trum... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/hillary-supporters-c... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/0... In addit…

> Do these things count as "anything that matters"?

No. Those aren't protests, they're vigilantism.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#255

Post by matt4077 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #234
fdschoeneman wrote: post #195

It's unclear what Trump is trying to accomplish here. It seems stupid and I feel bad for the people whose lives it diverts or puts in hold. But the Nazi comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a country that actively opposes US interests. There are plenty of countries that suspend student visas without going on to…

The language neither trivializes the Holocaust nor does it unfairly hitlerizes Trump. It describes what is going on in a way more of the general population can understand. There have been many populist governments around the world over time. Hitler wasn't the first to do that sort of thing. Unfortunately, not everyone remembers all the names or knows the history - so comparing him to a lesser-known leader (which he m…

There's a german saying: "It did happen and therefore it can happen again". That could be extended to "It did happen, and therefore it could happen anywhere".

I'm also reminded of Hannah Arendt's theory of the "banality of evil". She basically warned against considering the Holocaust as the result of a singular set of circumstances, describing it instead as a process of many steps, by many (often unremarkable) people, with each step small enough not to trigger significant reactions.

The US is obviously still far, far away from death camps. But the changes in what is politically accepted are already gigantic if you step back. That's a process that has been going on since long before Trump, maybe since Nixon or at the very least GWB. And it includes not just the federal government but also, for example, recent developments in North Carolina.

As a somewhat tangential factoid, that may help to break the shell of the Nazi-cliche and give it back some meaning: I was recently at a festival in Poland and, in the midst of the usual atmosphere created by the beats of electronic music and the somewhat unusual diet that goes with it, I stumbled upon a plaque commemorating the place as the site of "a concentration camp for children aged 6 to 12". You really start to wonder: how much has to happen to a person until they get to the thought, "yeah, those 6 to 12 year olds, we really need to do something about them"?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#256

Post by DanBC »

guildwriter wrote: post #218
StavrosK wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We will continue to do everything we can to fight this policy and others like it. You say that, but I'm afraid the implication might be "short of doing anything that matters". Where are the protests? Why aren't people in the streets? Don't make the same mistake Germans did under Hitler. The government relies on each step affecting few enough people that nobody will be bothered enough to march, and after a thousand…

There were already many different large scale protests across the nation several days ago. Those took months to organize and set up. Logistics alone makes another immediate large scale protest unlikely. The exception is unless there is clear and demonstrable malfeasance like in the case of S. Korea's president. If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of all Muslims" then I have no doub…

> If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of all Muslims" then I have no doubts people would start protesting immediately.

It's useful to look at what Hannah Arendt said about the Nazis.

https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/824551572520796161

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CykynrCXEAAJOSE.jpg:large

Trump is saying what he needs to be true for him to start building his walls; deporting people; etc.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#257

Post by mabbo »

throwaway2131 wrote: post #27

I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future…

As many others have said: come to Canada! We would love to welcome you here.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#258

Post by semi-extrinsic »

coldtea wrote: post #96
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more interesting wrt. most 9/11 hijackers being Saudis: I think it's pretty much confirmed at this point that it was a deliberate choice by al Qaida, attempting to deteriorate US-Saudi relations. But as long as Saudis are omitted from this regulation, it's pretty ineffective. Then again, how much of "terrorism legislation" is actually preventing terrorism, as opposed to extending the powers of police and p…

> It's a bit more interesting wrt. most 9/11 hijackers being Saudis: I think it's pretty much confirmed at this point that it was a deliberate choice by al Qaida, attempting to deteriorate US-Saudi relations. Saudis have a looooong history of funding all kinds of terrorist groups across the whole muslim world.

Sure. They basically created and funded al Qaida in the 1980s to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then bin Laden came back to Saudi Arabia and offered to help against Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and the Saudis told him to go away. After that they became more enemies than friends, but with the weird twist that the Saudi government wants to appear ideologically relatively aligned with al Qaida, such that al Qaida has little support for overthrowing the house of Saud.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#259

Post by mabbo »

throwaway99oi9 wrote: post #61
throwaway2131 wrote: post #27

I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future…

I'm an immigrant too - I've been here 9 years, but now I'm getting out. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are viable options for me, and I've already been invited by 2 of these countries. Don't be disheartened. You're smart (you got a fully funded PhD), and the world is very big, with many opportunities. Good luck!

Come check Toronto. Very immigrant-rich city, very welcoming and very multicultural.

The winters sometimes suck, but I find that brings us all together because nobody likes -10C.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#260

Post by libeclipse »

tallanvor wrote: post #109
throwaway2131 wrote: post #27

I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future…

I can't say much more than I'm sorry. Remember: Donald Trump does not represent the will of the American people. He won the electoral college, but around 2.8 million more people voted for Clinton than voted for him. He does not represent our values, our morals, or our view of where the country should be going. He represents those straight white males who don't want to adapt to the future, who don't want to give up th…

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't see why you had to bring sexuality and ethnic background into it. I myself don't fit into the group that you specified, but I can still see that it is a stupid classification. Our opinions and beliefs are not reliant on what group we are categorised into.

Edit: I'm not a trump supporter.

Post reply on HN