First they came for the Iranians • Hacker News Board

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#261

Post by guildwriter » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:12 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #253

guildwriter wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 imag…

If he adds more, then that's a different situation. Right now is all I know. I'm not going to assume the worst until Trump actually displays a pattern of behavior.

One of the things I noticed is you passed over the people who are responsible for implementing and reporting to the President on this: Tillerson and Mattis. Neither of these men is anything remotely close to a Nazi. Mattis has far too much integrity, Tillerson as well.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21711926-rex-til...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-mattis-...

Mattis is unlikely to support a full ban on all Muslims as he is on record saying that we need our Middle Eastern allies. It's one of the reasons he's against the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Tillerson strikes me as far too ethical a player to subscribe to the notion that we need such an approach. If he's that fair minded at Exxon Mobile, I doubt much will change when he's SecState. Remember he's backed by people like Condaleeza Rice, someone I hardly consider a Nazi.

If you're worried about Trump deciding to just add all the countries, I doubt he will. Trump is known for not being a deep policy wonk (unlike Obama and W) and mostly an instinctual leader. He can get away with this because he relies heavily on his subordinates for advice and gives them a large amount of leeway. This is not necessarily a bad leadership style and in this case, I think we're pretty safe considering the people who need to make these decisions.

Should Trump add every majority Muslim country in the world to the banned travel list, or it extends for a period of time that is significantly longer than he initially established, I think going nuts is probably warranted. That would be a single incident worse than this. There's four years of Trump, if you don't agree with him it might be best to not exhaust your people too early. Remember what Kasparov said:

"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth."

https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/808750564284702720?lan...

Mostly that list reads as countries full of people that probably don't like us much and have reason to for better or for worse:

"What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing — or has bombed in the recent past — six of them. The U.S. has not bombed Iran, but has a long history of intervention including a recent cyberattack."

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigratio...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#262

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:12 PM UTC

dummkopf99 wrote: post #188

mistermann wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the world would like like if western nations hadn't meddled so much in other's affairs. That would actually make a really good TV series: "What the World Would Have Looked Like - Episode 3: Germany Wins World War 2". Of course there are numerous theories for each, but that's ok, just state that at the beginning and say this is just one of many possible theories, it's just for fun. I'd watch that type of…

Germany is a western country.

As is Sweden.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#263

Post by D_Alex » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:13 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #238

tallanvor wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'll be honest, I think Trump is going to cost universities, labs, and businesses a lot of very smart people This is absolutely terrible for the OP, but is there really a shortage of smart and skilled people? Given the low pay for many scientific positions and notoriously awful conditions for postgrads and the like working in labs, I have my doubts. Maybe the upside is that with the tap of smart people turned down…

>is there really a shortage of smart and skilled people?

Hell yes, and there always will be, for the right values of "smart" and "skilled".

>Given the low pay for many scientific positions... etc

The sad fact is that the low pay you mention causes so many really smart people to turn away from science as a career.

>Maybe the upside is that with the tap of smart people turned down a little, conditions will improve for the people who are left.

If you turn down the tap for the smart people going into science and non-zero-sum businesses (like stock trading etc), I am certain the conditions "for people who are left" will become worse than they would have been. Absolutely certain.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#264

Post by matt4077 » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

tiatia wrote: post #246

matt4077 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merkel was acting on what she believed to be a moral imperative: that those fleeing danger have a right to asylum. All her decisions follow logically if you accept that premise. I. e. it would make no sense to make such a right dependent on the total number of refugees. In the specific moment you're alluding to she made the decision to suspend the Dublin rules because they were clearly failing (i. e. refugees were cl…

"In the specific moment you're alluding to she made the decision to suspend the Dublin rules because they were clearly failing" The problem with "making the decision" is that there is no executive order for the German chancellor, as apposed to the US president in the German constitution. Ruling by chancellor decree had fallen out of favor in Germany in the last 70 years. Ms. Merkel with her dubious past with East Ger…

I'll probably be unable to convince you with legal arguments, so maybe you should file a criminal complaint (which is easy and free) and let actual legal professionals make that determination.

And before you accuse the system of justice of just being part of some sort of conspiracy, I'll add that there are plenty of examples of courts disagreeing with the administrations. Most recent examples I can think of is the failed bid to ban the right-wing NPD, and their verdict regarding the ban of muslim headdresses.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#265

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

guildwriter wrote: post #232

fdschoeneman wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To take the metaphor further, the really strong antibiotics have a chance to destroy the kidneys, making you a permanent dialysis case.

Which relates to the original point how? If you protest too much, your country will end up needing permanent aid from other countries in order to even stay together?

I feel that people shouldn't be extending an analogy without being clear on how it relates to the original point.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#266

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:22 PM UTC

guildwriter wrote: post #261

StavrosK wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 imag…

If he adds more, then that's a different situation. Right now is all I know. I'm not going to assume the worst until Trump actually displays a pattern of behavior. One of the things I noticed is you passed over the people who are responsible for implementing and reporting to the President on this: Tillerson and Mattis. Neither of these men is anything remotely close to a Nazi. Mattis has far too much integrity, Tille…

> If you're worried about Trump deciding to just add all the countries, I doubt he will

I hope you're right.

> That would be a single incident worse than this.

You're assuming he wouldn't be adding them little by little, which would be many small incidents, each about as bad as this one.

> There's four years of Trump, if you don't agree with him it might be best to not exhaust your people too early.

Yes, but you also need to take care to not wait too long before you act. I'd err on the side of protesting on this one.

> Mostly that list reads as countries full of people that probably don't like us much

I'm not sure many countries in the world are crazy about the US right now. Unfortunately (or fortunately), we don't ban travel based on who likes whom. There haven't been any US terrorists who came from Iran, so what's Trump's intention with this move?

> What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing — or has bombed in the recent past — six of them.

This move isn't going to mend any fences either.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#267

Post by intended » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #235

apatters wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of the articles that have been posted to HN about how people make worse decisions when they're under financial stress? I think it's true and can explain behavior that is both self-destructive and selfish. To solve the problem you have to figure out how someone like that can get themselves out of the vicious cycle. Even if they are morally deaf I don't think much gets accomplished by focusing on that…

What do you think of the articles that have been posted to HN about how people make worse decisions when they're under financial stress? I think they fail to explain the majority of the behavioral differences. Specifically, they fail to explain: 1) why the children of upper class parents do not start behaving like poor people when they are broke (e.g. during college or grad school). 2) why Mexicans make good choices…

The Indian and Chinese ones are easy to explain - you get the best of those countries. Those countries in turn have suffered from brain drain for the past several decades.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#268

Post by guildwriter » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #256

guildwriter wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have been screaming that the Republican party is the Nazi party since the days of Reagan. So far history has held this up to be absolutely not true. Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous and give Trump the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.

Here's another way to look at it:

"I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy."

-Moneyball

I don't understand how people who can understand and believe in things like quantum and multiple realities think that the only outcomes our world are strictly binary: Nazism or Progressive Liberalism.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#269

Post by Amezarak » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

D_Alex wrote: post #263

Amezarak wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll be honest, I think Trump is going to cost universities, labs, and businesses a lot of very smart people This is absolutely terrible for the OP, but is there really a shortage of smart and skilled people? Given the low pay for many scientific positions and notoriously awful conditions for postgrads and the like working in labs, I have my doubts. Maybe the upside is that with the tap of smart people turned down…

>is there really a shortage of smart and skilled people? Hell yes, and there always will be, for the right values of "smart" and "skilled". >Given the low pay for many scientific positions... etc The sad fact is that the low pay you mention causes so many really smart people to turn away from science as a career. >Maybe the upside is that with the tap of smart people turned down a little, conditions will improve for…

If there is a shortage, then why aren't they paid more highly and treated better?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#270

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:41 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #267

yummyfajitas wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of the articles that have been posted to HN about how people make worse decisions when they're under financial stress? I think they fail to explain the majority of the behavioral differences. Specifically, they fail to explain: 1) why the children of upper class parents do not start behaving like poor people when they are broke (e.g. during college or grad school). 2) why Mexicans make good choices…

The Indian and Chinese ones are easy to explain - you get the best of those countries. Those countries in turn have suffered from brain drain for the past several decades.

You seem to be suggesting humans have an intrinsic quality - some are the "best", others are the presumably the worst. This intrinsic quality is then what drives behavior.

Of course, if people internationally can be "the best", then perhaps domestically people can be "the best" (or not) as well. For example, perhaps bad inner cities and Trump-voting rust belt regions are full of people who are very much NOT the best.

I think you're agreeing with me.