What “fascism” are we talking about here? A company pulling tampons from men’s rooms? Companies scaling down DEI departments that advocated (probably illegally) in favor of gender and race-based discrimination?
Or are you speaking more broadly about the U.S.? Is it fascist to revert to a sane border policy that’s aligned with what most U.S. citizens and legal immigrants want? Or an executive branch that’s actually run by a democratically-elected individual, instead a non-elected shadow government that governed on behalf of a dementia-afflicted president whose condition was hidden from the American public for years? The same government that censored the media? Or the tech companies that willingly obliged with the government censorship? The same tech companies that fired employees for expressing opinions that differed from those held by the liberal establishment?
Sorry, I’m getting very confused if we’re turning into the fascism or finally turning away from it.
It is fascism to create a false narrative that all of our problems are caused by people with a different skin color, country of origin, gender identity, etc., and that it justifies setting up an authoritarian government that unjustly persecutes those groups and anyone that disagrees or tries to stop them.
Immigrants are welcome in America, but we do not have an open border. We have an immigration process that must be followed, just like every other country on Earth.
Violating the immigration process is breaking the law. Enforcing our laws is not “unjustly persecuting” people.
If you can’t be intellectually honest and distinguish between illegal and legal immigration, or the fact that the U.S. does not have an open border and US citizens overwhelmingly do not want an open border with the rest of the world, there’s no basis for a conversation.
It is unreasonable to pretend this movement in the USA is even remotely content with strictly enforcing current immigration law, or welcoming to legal immigrants. The foundation of the movement is based on fundamentally dehumanizing and hating immigrants- with blatantly dishonest rhetoric like “they’re eating our pets” and discussion of how to revoke 100% legal full US citizenship by widespread denaturalization under dishonest and fabricated accusations. Just yesterday there was an unconstitutional executive order with a motivated misinterpretation of the law that aims to deny citizenship to US born children.
I am an academic scientist and many of my coworkers are foreign born and all here legally with green cards or visas. These are brilliant people with PhDs developing tech that is massively stimulating the US economy. Every single one of them knows they are unwanted by this current administration and political movement and is making family preparations for forced deportation. I noticed about half of our foreign postdocs suddenly needed to “visit home” this month, and I expect many are terrified and don’t plan to return. A similar terror to what trans people are facing, as discussed here. New hires have been refusing prestigious job offers for lesser offers in other countries.
The core of the movement is driven by hatred and dehumanization of specific groups of people- any particular immigration policy is only secondary and a first step.
Focusing on the immigrant aspect alone is also not appropriate here, when they are systematically implementing the entire philosophy and systems of fascism in all other aspects as well.
Who “vilifies immigrants”? President Trump is married to an immigrant, as is Vice President Vance. And many of Trumps advisors are immigrants. And he has repeatedly said he wants America to attract the best people from around the world. You mean he vilified illegal immigrants specifically. That’s fair, he did. But he’s not obligated to speak kindly about people who flout our laws.
> Is the republican party full of bright young twenty year olds?
An absurd question, especially when outgoing Democratic president is a senile octogenarian. Twenty year olds traditionally favor Democrats, (although many shifted towards Trump in this election) but how is that evidence of fascism?
> Can you post “cis” on twitter?
Could you speak freely about Covid-19’s origins on Facebook? Is censorship only fascism when you don’t like it?
He's not obligated to do anything, man, but I can point at what he does and call it fascism.
I know you may struggle with this because the American education system is awful, but if you pay a tiny fraction of attention to what American senators are like, you'll come to know that in a fistfight or a battle of the wits there is a non-zero number of senators that Biden could beat. This is not a Red vs Blue issue, as simple as that might be for you.
You're claiming America is "turning away from fascism" because of free-er speech. Citation needed. The Christian right is famously book-ban happy, my friend.
The parent comment you responded to was respectful and thoughtful, progressing the conversation in accordance to HN guidelines.
> I know you may struggle with this because the American education system is awful
This part undermines your whole comment by coming across as an insult rather than contributing meaningfully to the conversation. This is interpreted that the parent commenter lacks intelligence due to their awful American education, which is not productive at all.
While I understand that topics like this one can be emotionally charged, I encourage you to communicate in a more respectful manner in the future. It will help your perspective be heard more clearly.
What checks remain to counter this power? Impeachment? Constitutional amendment? As I understand it, if the president chooses not to enforce a law, then the only real recourse Congress has is a massive escalation that requires an extremely high level of cooperation. I'm not sure it was ever intended for the executive branch to simply ignore the other two branches and unilaterally decide how to run things. Personally I think willfully refusing to enforce the law of the land should be an impeachable offense but I guess that's not how it works.
The judicial and executive branches are checks on the legislative branch. The entire point of a check is that it can't be overridden. If the judicial branch determines that a law is unconstitutional or the executive branch determines that it should not be enforced, than that's it; it's dead.
The legislative branch can try again with another law, but if it doesn't change whatever made the law unconstitutional or detrimental to enforce, than the relevant branch will keep it dead.
The only condition in which the judicial branch regularly forces the executive branch to enforce laws is when the executive branch tries to legislate through selective enforcement; then the judicial branch will give an all-or-nothing ultimatum, but even then not enforcing is an option, just not selective enforcement.
The comparison here is a slot machine: you pay a a few to play, you pull the lever to play, you win a prize.
Here, the payment is your attention, you swipe to the next video to play the game, and the prize if you land on a good video is a small hit of dopamine.
I can only speak from personal experience, but since about 4 years ago, every candidate I’ve been asked to interview for a software engineering position has been Black, Hispanic, South Asian or East Asian. Not a single white American.
Are there no white people studying CS anymore or looking for jobs? Did they all stop applying?
Again, it’s only from personal experience. I never asked any of my coworkers a “hey, do you ever interview white people?”, so it could be a coincidence that I was never matched with any. But I don’t think that’s the most likely explanation…
Your experience is very different from mine. I rarely interviewed white candidates, but they were still more common than Hispanic and Black ones. The majority of the candidates were Asian.
If you don't take them can you please forward me their resumes? It's extremely hard for me to find a candidate who isn't a 20s-30s white male named Chad.
My understanding is there’s a lot of outreach at HBCUs, so you may try that. Also H-1Bs.
The joke that white men are all named “Chad” is tired. You’ll notice I didn’t say everyone I interviewed was name DeShawn or whatever. Let’s move past that.
When I started out, I did read code top-to-bottom. I was mostly self-taught and didn't have a mental model yet of how code was structured, so I relied on this "brute force" method to familiarize myself.
I suppose it's not safe to assume that everyone started out like this. But advael is guilty of assuming that nobody started out like this. And on top of that, conveying it in a very negative and critical way. Don't get discouraged.
This discussion is about junior professionals, not zero experience programmers. If a junior professional programmer is still starting at the top of files instead of at the entry points to the program or the points of interest, then they had a very poor education.
Some humans can do it consistently, other humans can't.
Versus how no publicly-available AI can do it consistently (yet). Although it seems like a matter of time at this point, and then work as we know it changes dramatically.
I'm not sure if X actually caused that, given that even 4 years ago people were suggesting dementia in both Biden and Trump, and that Harris was kinda just parachuted in rapidly and without sufficient preparation when the fear about Biden having dementia got too loud to ignore.
And also that X was never as popular as Facebook.
On the other hand, the polls seemed pretty close, so perhaps it made enough of a difference on the margin.
> As for integration, I don't see why people who are judgmental.
People are judgmental because mass migration from high-crime countries transformed Sweden from one of the world's safest countries to having the highest rate of gun violence in the EU, and Sweden has been increasingly transparent about the situation.
Because of the political climate in most Western countries today, we can't have a rational discussion about negative effects of mass migration, or consider scenarios where the negative impact might outweigh the benefits. It's just a conversation we can't have without shallow knee-jerk accusations of racism and fascism and Nazism and so on.
> shallow knee-jerk accusations of racism and fascism and Nazism and so on
It's important to understand that, particularly in Sweden, it was actually neo-nazis who opposed immigration for a long time.
This probably isn't the case anymore, but it's hard to convince people who remember and were there that it isn't the case. It doesn't help when people don't bring numbers to the table (or the numbers that matter). Some incredibly stupid people feel compelled to bring race or ethnicity to the conversation and that can be very tainting. There doesn't need to be a lot of them, just a few can discredit.
I heard that some years ago a Swedish professorin who published some crime statistics got in trouble because the statistics showed that some subgroups are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime; however, some did not like this getting published because it show how bad some subgroups are within society --probably the same group would not have the same reaction if the statistics showed some other subgroup was being disproportionately reactionary.
The problem with such data is that it can be used to draw incorrect and incredibly racist conclusions.
The obvious conclusion is that those subgroups are particularly disenfranchised. Meaning they're more likely to be impoverished, earn less on average on a household basis, are more likely to be discriminated against, are more likely to live in high-crime areas, etc.
But if you don't include those statistics alongside the one you have, then you give the impression that some subgroup is just "magically" pre-disposed to crime. uh oh. Now you'll have people saying darker skin colored people are more animalistic in nature, their blood tainted. And now we've gone to Eugenics and before you know it, we're in Nazi land.
So you do have to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions. And, if those conclusions COULD be drawn, you have to nip it in the bud. The absolute last thing neo-nazis need is fuel.
I'm not sure that this approach works. I think on some level trying to "hide" the data or whatever you want to call this process kind of validates a lot of neo-nazi beliefs
It's complicated and hard to tell. One should, at the very least, include other relevant data. That could very well be better than hiding. The problem is statistics can, and are, cherry picked constantly.
I think there's an opportunity here for some neo-nazi belief systems to get credibility from large organizations.
I think the bigger problem was how revelatory it was. You certainly could compare people at similar socioeconomic levels one native and the other immigrant and then make some conclusions. It's not a surprise that if you bring in people who are unproductive in your society that they will be problematic. It seems the establishment does not want to admit this is so and want to hide it to minimize the pushback. It's not that different from instead of low skilled immigrants you decide to release native criminal offenders early and then try to hide any recidivism figures. It's dishonest and does not allow the population to make a democratic decision for themselves.
I'm of the belief that if a law exists but isn't being enforced, the only correct course of action is to eliminate the law or start enforcing it. Otherwise, you enforce the law inconsistently, and you reinforce the notion that laws don't need to be followed.
Technology can help with consistent enforcement. Stop light cameras, in my experience, are more impartial and objective than police officers.
Where I live in the U.S., crime is prevalent. Many laws are flouted by criminals and rarely enforced by the police or district attorneys. The system has become a farce. It's better to enforce the laws consistently, or if they're not needed, to eliminate them.
Doesn't really scale well. What you're looking for is community-led policing combined with sensible, few surprises, high community-visibility and -participation legislative processes rather than revenue-led or self-led policing.
I'm familiar. Completely transformed New York City in the 1990s for the better.
But I'm not suggesting that every law is good. If a law is not enforceable or not a net positive for the community, change it or get rid of it. But don't enforce it inconsistently, and don't apply it to certain people and not others depending on the whims of the police and the district attorneys and their personal predilections and politics.
Or are you speaking more broadly about the U.S.? Is it fascist to revert to a sane border policy that’s aligned with what most U.S. citizens and legal immigrants want? Or an executive branch that’s actually run by a democratically-elected individual, instead a non-elected shadow government that governed on behalf of a dementia-afflicted president whose condition was hidden from the American public for years? The same government that censored the media? Or the tech companies that willingly obliged with the government censorship? The same tech companies that fired employees for expressing opinions that differed from those held by the liberal establishment?
Sorry, I’m getting very confused if we’re turning into the fascism or finally turning away from it.