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

Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#161

Post by wredcoll »

zahlman wrote: post #60
ok_dad wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary part is how this is being done, not that immigration laws are being “followed” (they aren’t). 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” an…

Can you show that they have arrested US citizens without reasonable suspicion? Can you otherwise show that law is not being followed? From what I can tell, they are legally allowed to wear masks for this. ICE's webpage also is adamant that they legally do not always require a warrant ( https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked... ), and Snopes agrees ( https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arr…

> 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.

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#162

Post by wredcoll »

gen220 wrote: post #148
bmn__ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We have a president who is famous for not obeying the law and now we are being asked to stop being morally outraged because of some other laws.

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#163

Post by wredcoll »

zahlman wrote: post #153
gen220 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

> 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?

Fascinating, tell me more.

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#164

Post by wredcoll »

zahlman wrote: post #154
pchristensen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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 h…

How does that demonstrate targeting people whose presence is legal?

What a weird attempt at semantics. They "target" people based on skin color/appearance/attitude/language, completely ignoring the legalities.

Thats the issue.

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#165

Post by wredcoll »

mlrtime wrote: post #141
electroglyph wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ICE is not police, they are federal law enforcers. There is a difference. I 100% agree, if an ICE agent breaks the law they should be held accountable just like a local police officer.

> ICE is not police, they are federal law enforcers. There is a difference.

This difference matters how exactly?

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#166

Post by wredcoll »

yes_really wrote: post #107
mempko wrote: post #7

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 wro…

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 wo…

> The opposition of "Rule of Law" is "Rule of Men". If we don't follow the immigration laws defined democratically

We are advocating for the rule of law to be applied to everyone, not just people who "look foreign".

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#167

Post by wredcoll »

themafia wrote: post #67
Terr_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but how exactly did the Nazis reach that point when they didn't have that capability? Perhaps... the things in the video? Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."

> Ah, but how exactly did the Nazis reach that point when they didn't have that capability? 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.

You find the idea that nazis increased their effective political power by giving speeches... absurd? Really? Why?

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#168

Post by wredcoll »

christophilus wrote: post #82
laidoffamazon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve gone from CCP control of the media spigot to pro-US regime billionaires controlling it. One step forward and another step back.

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.

I mean, no they didn't and these kind of lies need to stop.

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#169

Post by like_any_other »

haritha-j wrote: post #125
like_any_other wrote: post #108

[flagged]

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 thi…

> minorities

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-...

Re: Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]

#170

Post by zahlman »

wredcoll wrote: post #163
zahlman wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? Fascinating, tell me more.

> but not the injustice of...

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.

Post reply on HN