Hacker News Reader

Comment by elicash | Hacker News Reader

The irony of doing this while covering their own faces

What's ironic about it? That's like saying it's ironic for soldiers to fire their guns while in a trench. They're doing things unto others that they would not have done unto them.

Except law is not a battle field, otherwise lawyers would decide the victors, or guns the outcomes of trials.

Law is supposed to strive for justice, war is as lawless as it can get away with.

In this case, ICE officer's are being shot at.

It’s ironic that it’s brave to uncover your face, it’s brave to verify your identity, but these officers’ policy actively avoids the brave choice. Then, we’re supposed to accept that they’re operating in war zones like Portland.

> That's like saying it's ironic for soldiers to fire their guns while in a trench.

ICE using military tactics (be it trenches or masks) is the real problem here. ICE aren't soldiers, they're a part of law enforcement.

Unfortunately in the U.S. today we not only do use troops for law enforcement, but we're using law enforcement as troops. Neither is the correct role for those services.

Yes, it's a big problem, and what you're seeing is only the beginning.

Fortunately, the National Guard members have better training than most law enforcement on how to properly interact with civilians (the public).

They're trained how to kill them, and not to do so without orders.

That's one of the more ignorant things I've ever heard.

National guard has duties that go way beyond warfare...

Please stop calling ICE law enforcement, that just gives gives them a veneer of legitimacy. What they enforce is not law, it's the whims of a despot.

The US does in fact have customs and immigration laws; are you claiming that those laws were not properly passed, under some kind of anarchist or Sovereign Citizen kind of theory? Or that the State has not charged ICE with enforcement of them?

are you claiming

No, I'm not.

I think they're saying that while ICE calls themselves law enforcement they're really just (at least acting like) a bunch of thugs. When you give a group this much money and this much power and a bunch of unrealistic goals I can see that happening.

> The irony of doing this while covering their own faces

    It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy 
    as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things 
    they are doing to people were never meant to be 
    equally applied.
    
    It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent
    to the only true fascist value, which is domination.
    
    It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t
    just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or
    an unintended side-effect.
    
    It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself
    the thing you’re able to deny others, because 
    you dominate, is the whole point.
    
    For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue—the greatest.

* https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267

* Via: https://kottke.org/25/03/for-fascists-hypocrisy-is-a-virtue

Or, put more succinctly, Wilhoit’s Law (which is framed as about “conservatism” rather than “fascism”, but the latter can be viewed as, within the context of the description, a complex of ideas which includes the former as its central element):

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There's a similar quote that also fits:

> If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.

> If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.

This is from David Frum, a conservative himself:

> Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.

* https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9077312-maybe-you-do-not-ca...

Another alternative, that any poltical side can use, is to attempt to change the composition of the electorate that votes in the democracy.

With, like, education and nutrition programs?

No, like, with voter restrictions.

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

While pithy, public intellectual/academic conservatives like David Frum and Tom Nichols would disagree, and say the rule of law should apply equally to everyone.

Frum (IIRC, though it may have been Applebaum) wrote articles years ago that the direction of the GOP was going was similar to that of Hungary: using public office to enrich family and friends and not prosecute the same when they broke the law. There have been numerous conservatives aghast at what the GOP was becoming / has now become, and were ringing the alarm for years.

* https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/hu...

This. There's exactly nothing conservative about MAGA. Quite the opposite, it's overtly and proudly radical and extremist, and views actual conservative values with as much contempt as it views actual liberal values.

> There's exactly nothing conservative about MAGA.

Just look at the recent brouhaha about Ontario's televsion ad using Reagan's words against tariffs and the reaction it caused.

That's about as ironic as carrying a gun while wearing a bulletproof vest. If the tech exists and works it changes both defense and offense.

That latter part isn't ironic at all... just because you carry a gun, doesn't mean you aren't going to be shot at.

That's the comparison I was making -- just because you target people with facial recognition, doesn't mean people won't target you with facial recognition. Gangs or Abolish ICE

It's not ironic, it's saying "the rules are for you, not for me, fuck you".

People voted for this...some of them three times...

Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451

That's fine, as long as they aren't making anyone remove face coverings. People are allowed to cover their faces in public places. And we can't tell from this biased article whether they had probable cause to stop anyone that they did.

What they have said previously is that they consider someone looking hispanic as probable cause. I don't see any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

Nahhh… hiding the identities of public officials isn’t ok in my book.

It’s not an “ok for me if it’s ok for you” situation.

Government officials arresting people should be required to positively identify themselves and provide the legal reason they are detaining someone.

Otherwise there is no difference between a kidnapper and ICE agent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com