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

331–340 of 460 posts

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#331

Post by pm90 »

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…

Well 1) is easy to explain: children of upper class parents get supported financially; they also have a social safety net, so if they are out of work, their social circle will help them get one.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#332

Post by coredog64 »

matthewbauer wrote: post #91
_m8fo wrote: post #12

I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me: > To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first. I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of…

This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).

There was plenty of time to do something about it. We've been slouching into an imperial presidency for a long time. Democrats could have trimmed it back when they held Congress and the White House. Instead they cheered when Obama said "I have a phone and a pen."

They dismantled checks and balances for temporary tactical advantage because they thought their opponents were a "rump party, mainly confined to the South".

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#333

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

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 recommend revolution against the mullahs.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#334

Post by coredog64 »

moomin wrote: post #164
jasonmp85 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That penultimate paragraph. Jesus Christ.

I'm reminded of something I read by people who were in the cultural revolution. They always convinced themselves that Mao had bad advisers and they'd get purged soon. Took decades to twig that the problem was Mao himself.

It isn't just Mao. "If only Stalin knew" was a popular refrain.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#335

Post by akssri »

This is just too sad. Iranians at grad school often struck me as incredibly smart - be it students or faculty.

The recent breakthrough in TSP approximation was due to an Iranian; the woman who won the Field's prize earlier was one too! They are a tiny nation but are very well represented.

They were already at the receiving end of the stick under Obama, having to deal with the sanction and single entry student visas.

These policies make no sense considering their distinctions as immigrants; it's an affront to one's humanity TBH.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#336

Post by coredog64 »

csomar wrote: post #301

Wow. This is more hostile than I ever imagined. Banning 70 million people from Iran when there is no terrorism link for the country is, at best, idiotic. (Iran is anti-ISIS and apart from its conflict with the US has no precedent of terrorism) I'm really speechless.

Other than them supporting the Iraqi insurgency and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, right?

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/201...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#337

Post by akhilcacharya »

helpfulanon wrote: post #35

What's more worrisome is how fervently anti-science the new administration is. Academics may eventually be persecuted in the US across the board - as they are already at the EPA, USDA etc - and regardless of citizenship. I firmly believe anyone with a brain should begin making contingency plans to regroup somewhere like Australia or Japan, outside of the reaches of far-right populism. An Erdogan-style academic purge…

Australia and Japan aren't fantastic examples. Canada works better.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#338

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

maxerickson wrote: post #279
yummyfajitas wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm pretty sure Spencer got punched in the face because he's a Nazi. As for the rest of it, it's a little hilarious to act like the non violent protests aren't the majority of activity. Just the Women's marches (which aren't just about Trump but are obviously responsive to his presidency) were more in number, both location wise and participation wise, than any violent actions that have happened. If you want to limit…

You can't just punch people in the face because they're Nazis. There's no way to do that that doesn't lead to an escalating violence cycle.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#339

Post by camus2 »

refurb wrote: post #126
EGreg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to have a democracy until they tried to nationalize their oil industry. Then the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup and installed a Shah that gave good oil prices. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

Jesus Christ. This comes up every time. Read up on Mossadegh. He would have been overthrown regardless of what the UK or US did. He was seriously unpopular at the time. "Engineered a coup" was more like Diem in Vietnam. Tacit approval more than orchestrating something that would otherwise never would have happened.

> Jesus Christ. This comes up every time. Read up on Mossadegh. He would have been overthrown regardless of what the UK or US did. He was seriously unpopular at the time.

Just like the leader of Congo was unpopular before the CIA decided to overthrow him? just like the leader of Guatemala was unpopular before the CIA decided to overthrow him? just like many many more? Read up all these :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castillo_Armas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko

All these creeps came into power thank to the CIA, and so did Pahlavi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Yes, indeed, "Jesus Christ"...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#340

Post by csomar »

coredog64 wrote: post #336
csomar wrote: post #301

Wow. This is more hostile than I ever imagined. Banning 70 million people from Iran when there is no terrorism link for the country is, at best, idiotic. (Iran is anti-ISIS and apart from its conflict with the US has no precedent of terrorism) I'm really speechless.

Other than them supporting the Iraqi insurgency and being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, right? http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/201...

That's definitively an act of war but I would not call that a terrorist act. I think to qualify as a terrorist act it needs to be directed at: 1. Civilians and 2. Time of peace.
Post reply on HN