Did you lose faith in humanity gradually or all at once? :P
Same as divorce, or bankruptcy.
Gradually, then all at once.
I've been thinking about this video for a few months now. I've been telling people to "not be a sucker" referencing it. I haven't re-watched in a few years, though.
I was watching a clip from the The Lost World (1925) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwzrwHnCtk] the other day. I was struck by the silly (to my ears) orchestral fanfare scoring such a dramatic scene, and the fact that almost all of the men are wearing nearly identical outfits. It's still pretty much the same 20 years later in this video. The timbre of the voice of the narrator is another thing, so universal in media from that time and comically foreign today.
> It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947 release instead of 1945 and 1946.
Should be required watching in public school history classes.
[deleted]
I love this one. Relevant today.
Divisive nonsense belongs in the garbage.
that's a pretty divisive thing to say
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 wrong?
I didn't watch this yet but am going to be curious to hear how to not be divided about "we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States.", when some clearly think there are reasons this isn't a problem (or not worth paying attention to).
By talking to those apathetic and talking to those that think this isn't a problem. There is a war for your mind.
[flagged]
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” and how democrats are terrorists.
That’s why this isn’t good and people are scared. It could turn into civil war at this point, with very little spark.
Thankfully you’re from Canada and your stake in the matter is fairly nil.
Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism".
Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
> An important part of the premise of "Don't Be a Sucker" is that the Hungarian storyteller is an American citizen who followed all the necessary legal processes to gain citizenship.
An important part missing from your argument is a comparison of how difficult it was to gain citizenship then and now.
No, nothing about the argument considers that comparison relevant. The claim includes a provision that nations are allowed to make the process easier or harder, according to their perceived needs and aims.
ICE actively targets and arrests people who are legally staying in the US as well, detaining them for weeks without due process.
What exactly is your evidence for this claim?
What do you consider to be their basis for such targeting, and what is your evidence for that claim?
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.
A shocking number of people are simply unaware (or worse, don’t care) that the current regime pardoned a thousand insurrectionists either while being nakedly corrupt to the point of taking cash in CAVA bags. The attention simply isn’t there.
the people who need to watch this aren't likely on HN or critically thinking about any of this.
The people who need to watch this are precisely the ones on HN, because we have outsized money and power.
Keep in mind it was the tech elite that helped elect Trump. Some of them are here and will see this. Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
The "tech elite" making actual decisions are not reading and commenting on HN. A startup CTO or a Amazon Director is not part of the "elite."
It is fair to assume that some suckers are reading though.
> Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
I wouldn't be surprised if the video disappears too
Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
Your second paragraph is implying that the half of Americans who voted for Trump are "bad Americans". That seems to be sowing the division that your first paragraph warns against (even if it is a reason to dislike Trump).
I don't think either democrats or republicans can claim the moral high ground about sowing division.
It seems to me as though you're reading a lot in to that second paragraph. Are you disputing the basic facts outlined, about "masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight"? Because that is, in fact, a thing that is happening in cities all over the country right now, and simply pointing out that it is happening is not a partisan act.
The partisan act is the description of what is going on.
Can you show that the arrests are unlawful? Or else what exactly is your basis for the use of the term "kidnapping"?
[deleted]
I posted a substantial reply to this comment but immediately deleted it. It's impossible honestly to take issue here without crossing into culture war territory.
[dead]
The guy speaking at 3:35 reminds me of a recent blog post by a certain tech celebrity, where he was recalling his recent visit to London and was unhappy to find less white people that he remembered from his previous visit.
Nazi Germany built it's regime through direct control of the media and censorship of anyone or any idea that challenged their ideology.
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
Making media != direct control of the media
Nazi Party == direct control of the media.
Both our statements are true.
What is the ultimate point of burning books? Does it represent the manufacture of media or the control of it?
I don’t quite follow- could you spell out your argument?
This film is an attempt to ignore the economic causes of the war and entirely pin them on the population of Germany. This film mostly seeks to reduce the power of American public participation and labor organization by inferring that anyone who engages in the necessary steps to achieve them must be a type of "proto Nazi" to be ignored or feared.
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.
What has this to do with one another? This video doesn't advocate for censorship of the media.
These days there is social media. Controlled by whom? A handful of billionaires.
We’ve gone from CCP control of the media spigot to pro-US regime billionaires controlling it. One step forward and another step back.
Fascist propaganda needs a foothold. In the US, it's got a step ladder.
> We must judge each man as an individual, and not by the color of his skin or eyes, ...
As a brown person with brown eyes, I find this line of thinking both beautiful and unfortunately dangerous.
In principle this is absolutely true, but it ignores the historical context in which biases and stereotypes formed. The evolutionary processes that lead to our survival reinforced the idea of Bayesian thinking, which roughly means that you start with a prior belief about someone or something and then keep updating it as you obtain more evidence (for or against it).
Could it be that historically humans learnt that certain groups of people (let's call them group X) are more prone to aggression, theft, etc.? Imagine you're one such human and see a member of group X in a dark alley. Wouldn't you be scared as well? Or would you think "never judge a man based on the color of their skin, everything is fine"?
The thing is, to update our Bayesian prior we must gather evidence, and some evidence is easier obtained than others. Associating someone's behavior with their skin tone is easy, but doing so with their "background and personality as an individual" is hard. Would you, in that dark alley, start to have a deep conversation with the person from group X to form an opinion about them, or would you simply assume you're right about your prejudice and move to a safer place?
I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.
This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).
But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.
To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up stabbing you.
I agree with your general premise, in that there are bad actors, and appearance is a powerful classifier, so identifying potential bad actors by appearance is genuinely useful. I think there are many caveats in practice, such as:
How do I demonstrate that I arrived at a conclusion reasonably, with data?
How do I calibrate my probabilities, instead of a binary "safe or unsafe"?
How do I keep from overanalyzing appearance and making incorrect perceptions?
I think the primary sign of danger in your example is being in a dark alley.
Moreover, learning danger where there is danger is valuable, but so is unlearning danger where there isn't danger. And then there are the errors of learning danger where there isn't danger, and unlearning danger where there is danger. So, I take your point broadly, but there are many demons this way.[deleted]
I think you’re conflating intuitional alarms Gavin de Becker style with treating people as individuals which is two very different things. Racism is about our society treating people of color fairly whereas the other is about maintaining healthy boundaries and respecting your intuition.
I think this is a nuclear bad not only because I think it excuses bad behavior but also because I think it’s just intellectually lazy.
If I’m misinterpreting you please let me know because I hope I’m mistaken.
Jesus H. Christ. Are we now trying to make our racism sound acceptable by sprinkling it with scientific concepts like Bayesian thinking?
I love that this was US propaganda at one point.
The US always has failings, but this message is something we can be proud of.
Except for the endorsement of littering, which fit the time period.
It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).
Italian*
Iron Eyes Cody a.k.a. Espera Oscar DeCorti, parents from Sicily.
Is it still true that Americans find it hard to see how this is very clearly propaganda?
Yes, it's anti-Nazi but it's still has very obvious problems.
My wild guess is that most people who are aware of this film recognize that it's a kind of propaganda.
Of course you're going to get nationalism-tinged anti-fascist propaganda from the US Dept. of the Army in 1945.
There are large voting blocs who need to hear and comprehend this message right now.
What problems?
Well it's massively overtly nationalist for one. There's a hilarious sequence at the beginning that's just shots of American industry and agriculture.
What, by your definition, would not be problematic?
And, why would anyone like it?
Awesome video. So much great content is so easily accessible today. The challenge is discovery!
Grateful HN is a quality “feed” - way better than all the algorithmic feeds..
If something as curated as HN existed & appealed to the masses - even if it was ad funded! - we could live in a different world.
These are precisely the kind of posts on HN that get flagged and blackholed. I will eat my hat if it stays on the frontpage.
The post did dive but it managed to cling to the frontpage.
https://hnrankings.info/45573025/
My condolences for your hat.
Did you lose faith in humanity gradually or all at once? :P
Same as divorce, or bankruptcy.
Gradually, then all at once.
I've been thinking about this video for a few months now. I've been telling people to "not be a sucker" referencing it. I haven't re-watched in a few years, though.
I was watching a clip from the The Lost World (1925) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwzrwHnCtk] the other day. I was struck by the silly (to my ears) orchestral fanfare scoring such a dramatic scene, and the fact that almost all of the men are wearing nearly identical outfits. It's still pretty much the same 20 years later in this video. The timbre of the voice of the narrator is another thing, so universal in media from that time and comically foreign today.
Date must be wrong, because it mentions the end of the war and D-Day. Per this date was 1947: https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
It could refer to the production date:
> It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947 release instead of 1945 and 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Be_a_Sucker
Should be required watching in public school history classes.
I love this one. Relevant today.
Divisive nonsense belongs in the garbage.
that's a pretty divisive thing to say
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 wrong?
I didn't watch this yet but am going to be curious to hear how to not be divided about "we now have masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States.", when some clearly think there are reasons this isn't a problem (or not worth paying attention to).
By talking to those apathetic and talking to those that think this isn't a problem. There is a war for your mind.
[flagged]
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” and how democrats are terrorists.
That’s why this isn’t good and people are scared. It could turn into civil war at this point, with very little spark.
Thankfully you’re from Canada and your stake in the matter is fairly nil.
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-arrest-people-war...).
Entering private property without a warrant does seem like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
Regarding protests and the response, that very much contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists". There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal of countering supposed "fascism".
Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
> An important part of the premise of "Don't Be a Sucker" is that the Hungarian storyteller is an American citizen who followed all the necessary legal processes to gain citizenship.
An important part missing from your argument is a comparison of how difficult it was to gain citizenship then and now.
No, nothing about the argument considers that comparison relevant. The claim includes a provision that nations are allowed to make the process easier or harder, according to their perceived needs and aims.
ICE actively targets and arrests people who are legally staying in the US as well, detaining them for weeks without due process.
What exactly is your evidence for this claim?
What do you consider to be their basis for such targeting, and what is your evidence for that claim?
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.
A shocking number of people are simply unaware (or worse, don’t care) that the current regime pardoned a thousand insurrectionists either while being nakedly corrupt to the point of taking cash in CAVA bags. The attention simply isn’t there.
the people who need to watch this aren't likely on HN or critically thinking about any of this.
The people who need to watch this are precisely the ones on HN, because we have outsized money and power.
Keep in mind it was the tech elite that helped elect Trump. Some of them are here and will see this. Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
The "tech elite" making actual decisions are not reading and commenting on HN. A startup CTO or a Amazon Director is not part of the "elite."
It is fair to assume that some suckers are reading though.
> Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
I wouldn't be surprised if the video disappears too
Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I say is wrong?
Your second paragraph is implying that the half of Americans who voted for Trump are "bad Americans". That seems to be sowing the division that your first paragraph warns against (even if it is a reason to dislike Trump).
I don't think either democrats or republicans can claim the moral high ground about sowing division.
It seems to me as though you're reading a lot in to that second paragraph. Are you disputing the basic facts outlined, about "masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in broad daylight"? Because that is, in fact, a thing that is happening in cities all over the country right now, and simply pointing out that it is happening is not a partisan act.
The partisan act is the description of what is going on.
Can you show that the arrests are unlawful? Or else what exactly is your basis for the use of the term "kidnapping"?
I posted a substantial reply to this comment but immediately deleted it. It's impossible honestly to take issue here without crossing into culture war territory.
[dead]
The guy speaking at 3:35 reminds me of a recent blog post by a certain tech celebrity, where he was recalling his recent visit to London and was unhappy to find less white people that he remembered from his previous visit.
History repeats itself.
Mind providing a link to the blog post?
I believe it's this one: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
[flagged]
Nazi Germany built it's regime through direct control of the media and censorship of anyone or any idea that challenged their ideology.
I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a great idea.
Making media != direct control of the media
Nazi Party == direct control of the media.
Both our statements are true.
What is the ultimate point of burning books? Does it represent the manufacture of media or the control of it?
I don’t quite follow- could you spell out your argument?
This film is an attempt to ignore the economic causes of the war and entirely pin them on the population of Germany. This film mostly seeks to reduce the power of American public participation and labor organization by inferring that anyone who engages in the necessary steps to achieve them must be a type of "proto Nazi" to be ignored or feared.
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.
What has this to do with one another? This video doesn't advocate for censorship of the media.
These days there is social media. Controlled by whom? A handful of billionaires.
We’ve gone from CCP control of the media spigot to pro-US regime billionaires controlling it. One step forward and another step back.
Fascist propaganda needs a foothold. In the US, it's got a step ladder.
> We must judge each man as an individual, and not by the color of his skin or eyes, ...
As a brown person with brown eyes, I find this line of thinking both beautiful and unfortunately dangerous.
In principle this is absolutely true, but it ignores the historical context in which biases and stereotypes formed. The evolutionary processes that lead to our survival reinforced the idea of Bayesian thinking, which roughly means that you start with a prior belief about someone or something and then keep updating it as you obtain more evidence (for or against it).
Could it be that historically humans learnt that certain groups of people (let's call them group X) are more prone to aggression, theft, etc.? Imagine you're one such human and see a member of group X in a dark alley. Wouldn't you be scared as well? Or would you think "never judge a man based on the color of their skin, everything is fine"?
The thing is, to update our Bayesian prior we must gather evidence, and some evidence is easier obtained than others. Associating someone's behavior with their skin tone is easy, but doing so with their "background and personality as an individual" is hard. Would you, in that dark alley, start to have a deep conversation with the person from group X to form an opinion about them, or would you simply assume you're right about your prejudice and move to a safer place?
I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and simpler than the arguments you present.
This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a tribe from 10 km away).
But the thing that has made humans the most successful species on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate at larger and larger scales.
To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up stabbing you.
I agree with your general premise, in that there are bad actors, and appearance is a powerful classifier, so identifying potential bad actors by appearance is genuinely useful. I think there are many caveats in practice, such as:
Moreover, learning danger where there is danger is valuable, but so is unlearning danger where there isn't danger. And then there are the errors of learning danger where there isn't danger, and unlearning danger where there is danger. So, I take your point broadly, but there are many demons this way.I think you’re conflating intuitional alarms Gavin de Becker style with treating people as individuals which is two very different things. Racism is about our society treating people of color fairly whereas the other is about maintaining healthy boundaries and respecting your intuition.
I think this is a nuclear bad not only because I think it excuses bad behavior but also because I think it’s just intellectually lazy.
If I’m misinterpreting you please let me know because I hope I’m mistaken.
Jesus H. Christ. Are we now trying to make our racism sound acceptable by sprinkling it with scientific concepts like Bayesian thinking?
[flagged]
Defending racists is even more disgusting.