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

351–360 of 460 posts

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#351

Post by maxerickson »

AlgorithmicTime wrote: post #338
maxerickson wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My comment is an analysis of the motivation for the punch not an analysis of punching as a tactic.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#352

Post by mikeash »

justacat wrote: post #344
mikeash wrote: post #300

Holy shit: > U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United States may be barred from reentry. That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts. There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for d…

I was confused as to where this quote was coming from at first, but figured it out: https://www.niacaction.org/what-does-trumps-ban-on-iranians-...

Right, sorry, it's linked from the article posted here.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#353

Post by yummyfajitas »

alphakappa wrote: post #283
yummyfajitas wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Your conclusion does not logically follow. Sure, some people may not be "the best", but that does not mean that an entire group of people (your "bad inner cities and Trump-voting rust belt regions") can be grouped into best or not-best. There will be a ranking of people (based on any criteria) in any region.

A charitable interpretation of both my comment and the comment I'm replying to is that the groups we are describing have a higher/lower proportion of people who are "the best" and "the worst".

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#354

Post by ascagnel_ »

HeavenBanned wrote: post #2

My father successfully brought over two of our relatives from Iran during the Obama presidency (thanks Obama). They were a doctor and a professional soccer player. However, the other application for his older sister and my mother's brother has been processing for nearly 20 years. She's nearing her 70s. And my mother's brother has all but lost hope. Looks like it's not going to ever happen under Mr. Trump. Oh well. I…

One of the strangest moves during the election was that Trump stopped by Edison, NJ, to deliver a stump speech. Edison has a very heavy immigrant population, particularly from from south-east Asia. Which makes no sense, since the organization he was stumping for (an explicitly Hindu organization) would likely be very adversely affected by his immigration changes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/trump-modi-in...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#355

Post by gspetr »

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…

> 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.

Without further evidence that this is a stable pattern, you appear to be succumbing to this: https://www.xkcd.com/605/

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#356

Post by cylinder »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #312
mikeash wrote: post #300

Holy shit: > U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United States may be barred from reentry. That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts. There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for d…

But this is not new. If you leave the US for more than 6 months, you can potentially lose your green card at the discretion of CBP regardless of where you're from.

Wrong. That is not the issue here. In the draft which leaked, it clearly suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant entry to nationals of the listed countries. According to this, a US green card holder who is an Iranian citizen cannot travel back to the US after, say, vacationing in London.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3415909/Draft-Exe...

In addition, due to the suspension of Visa Waiver Program to nationals of these countries last year, an Iranian-Australian, (or Iranian-German, etc.), living in and a citizen of Australia for 30+ years and hasn't even visited Iran in that period, cannot visit the US visa-free any longer. So that means they need a B-2 tourist visa. Problem is, this E.O. suspends issuance of nonimmigrant visas to these people, so they now no longer have a way to enter the US.

Will he actually sign this E.O.? Apparently it was supposed to be signed yesterday, but didn't happen. He is in Philly right now so I'm not sure if this one's going to happen or not.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#357

Post by gspetr »

thweerty wrote: post #350
edmccard wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. That's a bit of a strawman, I think; no-one I've heard of, who thinks Trump is a fascist, arrived at that conclusion by saying "well he's not a progressive liberal so all that's left is nazi". It's been more like (whet…

Trump was a master manipulator. He barely had a policy dirrction. Ironically it's conservatism that loses in the long run. Be in no doubt that such missteps will form the hadokens by which conservatism's will be k.o ed by the libs.

Sure. All the KO's in the House[0] Senate[1] and gubernatorial[2] elections have them shaking in their boots.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gubernatorial_el...

Have you seen the 2018 Senate elections map in particular?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#358

Post by majos »

_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…

Re: #1, both of my senators' numbers terminate in a recording that asks me to leave a message with my contact information. I have a hard time believing anybody listens to these. Am I wrong?

More broadly, I talked to one person at the office of one my state's reps. I complained about this order and said I hoped the rep would voice his opposition, and the person said the rep would. But how much does that matter, especially since the rep is in a heavily Democrat district already? Is targeting swing Republicans a better idea?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#359

Post by gspetr »

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…

Millions of people showed up to supposedly protest Trump, yet Hillary Clinton couldn't consistently rally even a thousand people without help from A-rank celebrities.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#360

Post by EdHominem »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #32
EdHominem wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did that come from? Who's a threat? If there really was a threat it would be reasonable for you to want less immigrants. But there isn't, that's straight up racism. You might as well say you don't want a jew stealing your baby.

Who decides for me what's a threat and what is not? Isn't there the same sort of people who during Communism decided whether I need any sausage or can go without?

Reality. I'm not saying the threat is low and you should suck it up, I'm saying the threat is nonexistent.
Post reply on HN