I think this belongs on hacker news (and unflagged) mainly because of who Tim Bray is. Notably co-inventor of XML, worked on a bunch of web standards etc.
Whether you agree or disagree with non-US citizens coming to America to engage in the advancement of technology, the important thing is to have discourse on the topic. That is in line with aims and goals of this site. This story is much less politics and much more about the impact of social policy on technologists.
As a non-US citizen myself but who has lived there for some time, I find that having and expressing an opinion on things like this is difficult due to the danger of such retaliation mentioned during border crossings and my daily life.
As another non-US citizen I feel similar. My profile as a maker and software dev with extensive infrastructure knowledge should be exactly what the US is looking for, but I already decided the US isn't a country I am going to police my own speech for.
First watching the tearing up of the societal contract in the US over the past decades turned this into a country that feels like it is on the brink of a collapse. No longer can regular Americans rely that working hard will give them a good or even decent life. This means intense pressures are at work with some very desperate people, bringing out the ugliest (but also sometimes the most beautiful) bits of humanity, all while you have richer folks at the top who act like how their country operates at large is none of their business as long as there is a cut in it for them. Why should I care about the US if you guys don't even care about it yourselves?
Second the US is highly unreliable. Laws, democracy, human rights, treaties, consumer rights — all are treated as negotiable, optional things that you use against your enemies and ignore when it affects your own. With enough money everything can be bent around. There are no principles at work that one could rely on and that is no foundation to build a life on unless you are literally ready to join the ranks of people acting like cartoon villains — something only people do who have no self-respect for their limited time on earth.
Yeah, I don't see myself even visiting the US in my lifetime.
> First watching the tearing up of the societal contract in the US over the past decades turned this into a country that feels like it is on the brink of a collapse.
Hehe, reminds me about a video I saw some years ago.
They asked ordinary citizens what a reasonable distribution of wealth should be. Like the share of overall wealth owned by the richest 10% (or 1% or whatever), vs wealth owned by the rest of the population. Let's call this ratio "X".
Then those citizens were asked what they thought the wealth distribution was actually like (let's call that "Y"). No surprise: people thought wealth was much more UNevenly distributed than it should be.
Then they showed what the distribution was like in reality (let's call that "Z"): way more extreme.
So, wealth distributed way more uneven than people thought, and that in turn way more uneven than what people thought it should be.
That alone explains a lot of what's wrong with the US imho: broken/corrupt politics, outsized influence of tech bros (including outside US), a health problem bankrupting people, people turning to drugs, a militarized police force, incarceration ratios, homeless epidemic, etc etc.
Especially in a highly developed country where total wealth is enough to have everybody live comfortably & care-free.
As opposed to some poor war-torn country where wealth is also unevenly distributed, but it's obvious and everybody knows it. And overall wealth is a lot less to begin with (so people being desperate isn't surprising).
US' downfall turning it into a banana republic, its erosion of democratic institutions, human rights etc, is a logical result from the above. I'm not expecting that to improve sadly :-(. Things will probably get worse & there will be blood in the streets.
I spoke to a few HNers who I know flagged this post. They mentioned that they flagged it because it goes against the HN guidelines - a holy grail of sorts - and that the post does not invite "curious discussion". When prompted, they mentioned they would much rather read about pro-Musk technological exploits than anything against the US.
Unfortunately, flagging is heavily abused here on HN. Criticism of adtech and attempts to defend privacy laws will bring out flagging in droves; almost as if some HN'ers salaries are dependent on opposing such laws!
Some sort of meta-moderation system to prevent abuse of flagging would be welcome.
Unfortunately HN is likely astroturfed just as much as any other forum, despite the otherwise seemingly substantiveness of HN compared to sites like Reddit. And unfortunately there's no way to cancel out bad faith flagging and downvoting the same way you can reply to bad faith commenting. It's more invisible and easier to abuse (once the karma thresholds have been reached, which isn't hard).
there are tons of posts on HN that don't invite "curious discussion"
this is one that would actually invite curious discussion if some people weren't clutching onto their "God Bless America (We're #1!)" pearls quite so tightly
More and more I'm finding that the most interesting conversation about America isn't coming from Americans anymore.
There was a time where I was quite interested in listening to people from America talk about their fascinating and crazy sounding country, but as time goes on I find that to be much more repetitive and not insightful.
Now I'm more interested in what people from other countries have to say about America, and I find it fascinating how Americans online find this unsettling and sometimes get snippy about it really weird ways.
Sometimes I wonder what political threads on HN would be like if Americans weren't allowed to participate in them. For the people in the crowd who take things more literally in know this isn't possible, it's just an interesting thought experiment.
Would that result in more 'creative' conversation?
Maybe for a while until new patterns/tropes/memes were built up by the users that could comment on them. Maybe the issue with the political discussions that too often the people talking about them are too close to them, too immersed in them?
> A vouch option for Flagged submissions would be appreciated.
AFAIK, upvoting a flagged submission cancels out the flagging to some extent. I don’t know the internals of how this process works. I’ve upvoted the submission in an effort to get it unflagged (it still may not get to the front page or may rapidly drop down though).
There used to be a time when it was just accepted that most of the good conferences/gatherings would be in the US, and it would either be important to go to, or be relatively straightforward to reach and attend (especially for Canadians), and nobody would think twice about it.
Now you have some very talented/consequential people just refusing to visit the country. Regardless of any qualms about the "content and logic", this should set off alarm bells for any American. Plus, this would've been a whine if he'd complained and had gone anyway. But he is not going, and has explained his decision. That makes it more of a statement.
I think the title is appropriate and is probably meant as a double entendre. The US does seem to be declining in many ways. Personally, visiting the US under the present government just feels too risky, they seem really hostile to foreigners.
I'd like to say that as an American to your north, I think you're right to not come? Things are weird here presently, so I suspect you probably made the right call for a wide variety of reasons.
But also, I tire of the nationalist rhetoric wherever I see it. I'm tired of this idea that countries are anything more than a shared historical hallucination, and that we're all somehow different from one another. Or as my father often put it, "we all bleed red and we all shit brown." I never chose to be born here, and because I am sick (through no fault of my own) so called tolerant countries wouldn't have me. So I am stuck here.
Regardless, I get why you didn't come, I can't say I blame you, but I also am sick of these damn countries ruining things. Perhaps we should abandon the idea entirely and replace it with the spirit of brotherhood and respect for one's fellow human.
Have you spent any serious time with other cultures? Yes, we all have the same colored blood and excrement, and we have a lot of similarities. Yet at the same time, we are very different. England's traditional dignity culture (the virtuous man can overlook slights) is very different than Africa's honor culture (honor is zero-sum, and you must fight to maintain it), for instance. Japanese values and American values are frequently opposite (Japan values group membership, America values individuality; Japan honors someone by setting them apart, America honors someone by engaging with them.)
In an ideal world we could celebrate each other's differences. But trying to get rid of conflict by getting rid of national borders is naive. Why are the borders where they are? Generally because those are ethno-cultural boundaries. Nations that encompass multiple ethno-cultural groups tend to be somewhat unstable: for instance, Yugoslavia broke up violently, and Iraq has conflict between the Kurds and the rest.
This is not a support of nationalism (although I encourage patriotism, which is different), but "countries are [nothing] more than a shared historical hallucination" is just incorrect.
> Nations that encompass multiple ethno-cultural groups tend to be somewhat unstable
The US has been remarkably stable for a nation that encompasses multiple ethno-cultural groups. It may not continue to be so, but historically it has been a counterexample.
> England's traditional dignity culture (the virtuous man can overlook slights)
i’m english and i have no idea what you’re on about there mate.
are you talking about having basic tolerance for other people? that’s a pretty universal skill not exclusive to england.
> but "countries are [nothing] more than a shared historical hallucination" is just incorrect.
countries are mostly lines drawn on a map.
cultures, which i think is what you’re trying to get at in your post generally, differ everywhere to varying degrees.
dundee (where i currently am) has a different culture to glasgow, which has a different culture to edinburgh, which has a different culture to york, which has a different culture to liverpool, which has a different culture to manchester, which has a different culture to leeds leeds leeds, which has a different culture to oxford, which has a different culture to reading, which has …
the lines are imaginary.
(although yes i live on a massive island so there is a non-imaginary physical boundary where you have to get on a boat or a plane or a train to travel to here).
> are you talking about having basic tolerance for other people? that’s a pretty universal skill not exclusive to england.
You'd be surprised how it's not the case in most of the world. Heck, India has a caste system that Indians have now exported to areas where they're in numbers like California. Arabs have a tribal system that makes them suspicious of anyone not from the in-group. Russian Muscovites treat all of their fellow non-Muscovite countrymen like shit.
You're making rather sweeping generalizations. "Arabs" have, for most of the last 1400 years, been part of 3 MASSIVE states, which spanned from the farthest Atlantic coast of Africa to parts of what is now Pakistan. Not alliances. Actual single states.
Thats the very opposite of parochialism, xenophobia, suspicion or inward societal thinking (however one wants to describe it)
Amidst the destruction of all that SHARED history, and the arbitrary Sykes-Picot jigsaw imposed on "the Arab world", falling back to more local structures is an obvious, and in the grand scheme of things, temporary, defensive mechanism.
The very fact that despite 100 years of Western imposed Sykes-Picot madness, West Asia is still an intricate mosaic of multiple groups - that shows that traditionally the Arabs are WELL CAPABLE of working with those not in their, as you put it, "in group".
The Indian caste system, aka apartheid on steroids, is a horrid example which makes your point. You should have stopped there
"Thats the very opposite of parochialism, xenophobia, suspicion or inward societal thinking (however one wants to describe it)"
Though I am not an expert in Arabic history, Arab culture spreat through colonialism, had an extensive slave system, denied basic rights to religious minorities and the Islam religion feels superior to non - Islamic religion and atheism.
Many Arabs dont want to admit these problems which IMHO is the reason for their long term decline.
Oh come on. Now you're just parroting ignorant tropes. Actual students of history will inform you that, especially per the standards of the day (as any state should be judged), Arab Muslim states were probably THE MOST tolerant of their time.
As evidenced by how many different Christian denominations (more than in Europe) still existed throughout West Asia, under direct Arab Muslim rule, for over a MILLENIA.
Denied basic rights? Basic rights to minority Christian, Jewish & Zoroastrian groups was ENSHRINED in the very makeup of these states. Leaders of these communities had official roles & responsibilities reserved for them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're taking a modern day story about "Arabs" & "Muslims", which is predominantly the result of 100 years of subjugation & being broken up by the West (& having Western vassals & elites imposed as ruling classes), added to the need to create unsavory impressions of them amongst Western populations in order to justify that.
And you're taking this mess & overlaying it over the previous 1300 years, without a single regard for the truth. Seriously, go get a genuine history book, or talk to a history professor who knows about the Arab & Muslim world, and then curl up in embarrassment...
"
Oh come on. Now you're just parroting ignorant tropes. Actual students of history will inform you that, especially per the standards of the day (as any state should be judged), Arab Muslim states were probably THE MOST tolerant of their time.
"
Ehm sorry as tolerant as e.g in India? Even in Europe Netherlands and Poland - Lithuania were very tolerant to religious freedom. But the Dhimmi system might be historically tolerant - Today is a oppressive system and orthogonal to religious freedom, as practiced by many Muslim and Islamist states.
"Denied basic rights? Basic rights to minority Christian, Jewish & Zoroastrian groups "
Maybe you just talked to Iranian Christians, Iranian Jewish or Atheist from Arabic countries. They might give a different clue.
" 100 years of subjugation & being broken up by the West (& having Western vassals & elites imposed as ruling classes),"
That's an excuse. No Western power force the Mullah regime to be so Islamist or the Islamic state to genocide Kurdish people. It stilled happened.
"you're taking this mess & overlaying it over the previous 1300 years, without a single regard for the truth. Seriously, go get a genuine history book, or talk to a history professor who knows about the Arab & Muslim world, and then curl up in embarrassment..."
Living in Berlin the city is fueled with people escaping from Islamic States. I take their word genuine.
But thank for the insight. In my opinion you can see a declining area how to react to critism. Many Americans deny their homes problem. So you do about the problems in Islam. But you what? There is a growing secular and anti islam movement in the Arabic world. Looks some people are smarter than you.
In any debate or discussion, if someone discusses historical behaviour stretching back a thousand odd years then that isn't refuted by only talking about contemporary anecdata.
OK, the usual half-baked Islamophobic propaganda, with all the usual dog whistles of that fake bandwagon. So drearily predictable. Keep on shouting at the wall.
I'd bet money I have more experience in this than you. Culture shock is very real (I've lived it), but culture's ain't countries and hell, I get culture shock when I go to the south here in America. It's just some old timey 1940s "we gotta keep these different cultures separated" nonsense. It's nationalism and racism (though it purports to be otherwise).
Things don't have to be this way, we choose them to and I'm getting awful tired of people keeping making the same choices over and over again because they think an imaginary line is somehow sacrosanct.
> I get culture shock when I go to the south here in America.
Or even from urban to rural areas.
> It's just some old timey 1940s "we gotta keep these different cultures separated" nonsense.
That's a huge mistake right there. Those who want to keep their culture should be free to do so, as long as they don't try to force theirs on others - that's a common and traditional American value which is now being attacked by both extremist segregationists and extremist pot-melters.
> It's nationalism and racism (though it purports to be otherwise).
You should learn what these words mean and stop purporting they mean something else.
> It's all made up. Even culture.
Bro, not only culture, the entire human civilization is made up. The issue is to make it good, not bad, but you seem to be all confused about it.
No, it's racism, because 9/10 times when someone says, "well these cultural differences are so vast" they really mean "I don't like people from that culture" which becomes "I don't like people from that country or who look like that."
Almost always. It's always the same thing. Fear of the outsiders and disdain for change. I'm not going to debate you on it, I'm just tired of hearing it.
Naive. Countries are collections of different values. I don't, for example, want to enslave non-believers, nor do I want to own my wife, or have a government take everything I own. I don't want to live in a "theocracy" because those people are crazy.
I select where I live based on those values. Thinking, because we all "bleed red" that we're all the same is a recipe for loss.
Probably. As an American, I have to agree with you -- it's been the case for many years (WAY before Trump) that within 50 miles of our border, your rights go to wherever last year's snow went.
It's too bad so few people can say "My country, if right to be supported, if wrong to be corrected."
I think its funny that the top comment on the blog from ConcernedCitizen is a half troll, half serious, in exactly the same way Trump approaches everything.
Do you think they are trying to do a Trump voice as a joke? I can't even tell anymore.
Not really, it's pretty ridiculous. Unless you have a solid history of strongly supporting terrorist groups or plan to violate immigration law there's really no precedence to assume you would have any issues visiting the US. Literally millions of people do so each month without problems.
We here in America have Fox News that drums up scary boogeymen to keep people fearing liberal California. The rest of the world has their equivalents, but instead of crime in California, it’s “you will be shot on sight at the airport when you enter the US”.
Not shot on sight but e.g. "being declined entry because you refused to unlock your smartphone to the customs officer". And then you have to fly back over the ocean.
America isn't special here, I guess every country treats non-citizens worse than citizens. But at least the trip back is usually shorter
I think you've misunderstood the idea. Tim Bray and the OP of this thread aren't afraid to visit the US; the key phrase used in the post is "as a matter of principle".
>there’s a significant risk of an extremely negative outcome. I have a family to support and really can’t afford that risk.
I can understand the principles and the bit of Canadian pride, but ultimately it's rather hyperbolic. Even on principle, the fact is Canada and the US are strong and long lasting allies with a very obvious power imbalance, and this sort of pouting over commentary is more fitting to members of an elementary school kickball team than a professional organization on the cutting edge of technology.
> the fact is Canada and the US are strong and long lasting allies
As historical fact, yes; but this is degrading in real time. As a Canadian, I can’t name a single family member, friend, peer or acquaintance who regards the U.S. as an ally. And on an official level, our PM has given multiple speeches, at Davos and elsewhere outlining Canada’s new status with respect to the U.S. In that void, Carney is actively seeking new economic and defence partnerships with Europe and others to replace the relationship that Canada and the U.S. previously enjoyed.
When one powerful neighbouring country repeatedly threatens your sovereignty it does predictable things to the ability to call yourselves “allies.”
How would US citizens feel about Mexico if it had 3 billion people, 20x the military size, a history of annexations, and a deranged president joking about annexing the US? Still funny?
This is a naive response to the concerns Tim has expressed, and displays a deep lack of critical thinking around how the decline of the US' status in the world is impacting it's role as the home of "cutting edge technology".
> But there’s also the issue of entering the US; if I roll up at the border and am asked to disclose my social media output, there’s a significant risk of an extremely negative outcome.
Its no longer the question of supporting "terrorists", we have seen what people can critcizing Trump, the dear leader, might have to go through.
Trump is are destroying American credibility all over the world and its others who are being hyperbolic?
Your naivete is the reason America will decline. You guys, well-intentioned and optimistic as you all are, are the frogs in the boiling pot, unaware of how much America has declined in the global eye. Fun fact, America ranks below China and even Russia in the latest perception polls.
Without you guys taking action in your country, there is no hope for America.
Clever.Concise.Spoken like a true Canadian.
As someone with dual Canadian/US citizenship, I cant imagine going to the US anymore, the politics and foriegn policy/wars were never good, but a lot of Americans are good and knew how to have fun, which now seems to be lost under domestic problems and a burgeoning police state.
That in this case Tim Bray is declining is a red flag, as he is of the type who could be held up as an emblamatic Canadian, a person, like many others, who carrys the quiet authority of a stable civilisation with them, but rather than this bieng something welcomed by ALL who encounter this, it is now a liability, someone for an armed "agent" to target, humiliate and if possible, reduce or eliminate as an example of there absolute authority in great united states.
The election outcome itself was the consequence of gross, systemic failure throughout the entirety of the United States' citizenry, society, institutions, and government.
The best thing for the States to do at this point would be to hold a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the government of the United States as unfit for any purpose, after which their citizens can decide how they wish to proceed.
Have you seen countries without a government? The US government is definitely fit for purpose. It successfully keeps order, for one thing. The government in a representative government isn't the problem, the people are the problem. In this case we have an intransigent Left and an incompetent Right wanting not-Left. Both sides want to "win", and in that situation, everybody loses. I think the ancient Greeks called this "stasis", and if the polis couldn't get out of stasis, the state failed. I believe the failure modes were either getting conquered or getting a tyrant. But we could choose to work together.
The United States have governments. Fifty of them, plus various territorial and tribal governments. The States have already successfully done away with failing higher government twice before, and can do so again.
The issue is entirely om the right side here. This is simply not both side issu. America has far right party and center party. It keeps to blame left whenever its far right push for own goals.
The anti democratic and heavily corrup republicam goverment is product of right wing bubble. It has little to do with left.
I mean the US republican party is the biggest problem, but the democratic party is far from blameless and are happy to go along with many of the republicans worst policies, so long as they are able to try and shift blame back when people complain.
They try a little more maybe, but are still completely insulated from and out of touch with average citizens. But they don't care because they have money and most US problems are only problems for people without money to spare.
We're off-topic but it's genuinely interesting that you see these as "leftist" beliefs about men. Isn't this mostly the set of views on masculinity in the "manosphere" which is very much aligned with "rightist" beliefs?
I agree there is an apparent tone of misandry in some of the rhetoric of the left but the actual beliefs you cite are (with the exception of a few) things men on the right say about other men.
This is "identity politics leftism", which is an incredibly useful (to political donors) distraction from economic leftism. Economic leftism is not what the donors want, hence the center party with added idpol bullshit distraction and the right wing party.
Almost all of your points are right wing manosphere points. Most, but not all are moderate conservative opinions - you literally find those points in books written by mainstream non extremist conservatives. You are literally blaming the left for opinions and positions conservatives actively propagate and push for. Frankly, issue here is that you have no idea about what left says or do, but you do project everything you dislike on the left.
You know who run on identity politics? It was the republicans.
> A lot of men aren't really right-wing, rather, they're in left-wing exile.
A lot of men are left. And a lot of men are explicitly openly right wing.
Somehow, there is no talking point about men exiting conservativism because of active push for the above look at masculinity. The opposition toward the above view is supposed to manifest exclusively by moving toward people who super actively promote it.
Yeah, I don't agree with a single point. I know we're all in our bubbles, but none of what OP listed seems left-wing to me. I know I've never thought these things to be true.
If anything, the left-wing promotes men to be vulnerable and seek help if they need it. At least where I'm from that's the case. I'm stumped how different our views are on this.
Where does this idea that the right is saying that men are good come from? They hate most men for not being white, and they consider white men that don't follow their chauvanistic methods as being weak cuckolds.
I dont know why people keep repeating this. The US Democrats pursue left wing policy. Not left wing policy in America, left wing policy period. The US is behind other countries so the fights are taking place on battles that have already been won in other places but that doesnt make them a center party. We could use that logic to undermine any left wing government in the world.
That was essentially the advice given by Benjamin Franklin, although he suggested turning it off and then on again before a Despot appears otherwise it would be inevitable that a Despot would appear.
Going back to the drawing board after watching some major issues break the country is how we got this constitution in the first (second) place. The founders clearly suggested this as an intentional pressure valve to avoid the terrible catastrophe that is civil war or the dissolution of the union.
When values diverge in such extreme ways (values, not politics or preferences) it is very hard to continue to see each other as fellow citizens working toward some shared future. Mix in severe inequality and a broken, corrupt justice system and there is a very real sense of impending escalation. With the failure of the judicial and legislative branches to control corruption, we might be risking everything by NOT trying to find new middle ground.
There was a pew research poll in March [0] showing half of Americans think people in the opposing political party are morally bad people, not just people with different views or priorities. People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US spend tax money helping illegal immigrants in any way" or "should trans people have the same rights as they were born with" or "should the government protect known pedophiles from consequences" or "should women have to put their life on the line carrying a rape pregnancy to full term" or "should there be investigations when protesters are shot and killed by immigration agents" or "should the president be above the law". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil.
Last time values diverged until the breaking point was because a huge chunk of people were willing to die in order to keep owning other people and another huge chunk of people were willing to die to prevent it. The resulting war caused more American deaths than all the others combined. Despite this, plenty of people still proudly fly the rebel flag today.
Another continental Congress to reauthor (renegotiate?) the Union is a monumental undertaking that is extremely dangerous for the stability of the country so it shouldn't be considered lightly. Civil war is far worse though so hopefully we can collectively navigate our way back to calmer waters.
Even your framing people disagree with. Imagine if it was this spin instead:
People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US import millions of illegal immigrants and provide for them over it's own citizens" or "should I be forced to deny biological realities around trans people" or "should the government protect known criminal illegals from consequences" or "should men have to put their life on the line for a country that hates them" or "should there be investigations when protesters are violently disrupting ICE operations" or "should we ignore SCOTUS rulings we don't like". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil.
Dissolving the Constitutional government isn't a "middle ground". Rather it's exactly what the big-money supporters behind Trump have wanted from the start - whether it's big tech looking to become the domestic government, or other countries looking to take the US down a few pegs.
I agree that we likely need a few Constitutional amendments, but that is a far cry from dissolution.
The amendments I believe we need:
1. Ranked Pairs voting to break out of this lesser of two evils race to the bottom. Get rid of the Electoral College merely because it's straightforward rather than quibbling about out how it could work with non-plurality voting.
2. Independent executive agencies chartered by Congress. Heads of which are independent executives elected just like the President.
3. Triple the number of senators (reducing this effect of moribund "senior" senators that benfit their state due to pull). National elections run every year (we shouldn't have to wait until "midterms" to course correct, and would also diminish the stark divide between "election promises" and "results")
4. Repudiation of Citizens United, and this general nonsense that corpos possess the natural rights of individuals. (something similar might happen at the state level, as states are actually the governments that charter corpos to exist/operate in the first place)
5. Repudiation of Wickard v Filburn and followup decisions that have allowed the federal government to characterize everything as interstate commerce. The federal government should only be able to get involved when states have a disagreement.
The first two are the critical foundation. Note that the overall effect is for an individual's vote to be more than a single bit of information. The last three might not be strictly necessary, but relieve the pressure from the path dependence of where we're at.
All of those sound like helpful changes. There are plenty more that could push the system back toward supporting citizens and fairness and limited government power.
It sounds like the point here is "all we need is an honest and earnest legislative branch" and, yes, I agree that would help us get on the right track. Similarly, a judicial branch change of heart in the same way would really help relieve the anger and hopelessness people are feeling.
If you have ideas for how to actually make either of those happen they would be worth sharing and pushing forward.
I don't really get the gist of your response. Yes, if we had a more honest legislative, judicial, OR executive branch then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead we've got the very best politicians money can buy.
The same problem applies to picking drafters/representatives/etc for any Constitutional amendments. But I'd hope with the utter breakdown we're facing, there might be enough political will, plus amendments have to be short, plus making the issues meta enough that entrenched interests can't straightforwardly lobby loopholes into them, that maybe the barriers could be overcome.
My point is that we don't need to be talking about a wholesale dissolution of the government and rewrite of the Constitution when we can focus on some powerful meta-issues that have led us to this place. In fact I'd expect such a process to be much more beholden to the sway of corpo lobbyists as making a new system from whole cloth would have much more complexity for such things to hide.
Honestly, the worst case scenario I see is Grump becomes a lame duck after midterms, leaves office in Jan 2029, and then the entrenched Democrats go back to uninspired milquetoast business as usual.
Even not participating in elections have consecuences, at least for proper democratic countries.
But in countries where participation is mandatory, at least you can say that most of the (national) negatively affected people got what they voted for.
For improper "democratic" countries where elections are rigged or participation is biased towards some population sectors in a way or another, they are not really elections by the population.
yes and the results and actions taken after the Nov 6 US elections may undo some of the damage. But no other country will ever trust the foreign policy of the US no matter what happens.
There is the military saying "Once is an accident, twice is an attack", this is how a lot of folks see it.
I think it is deeper, that these actions were taken at the top and a sizable amount of the people sided with them, that sends the message that the US cannot be trusted long term, it has become cultural. I get that it isnt a majority of people but it is big enough that it cannot be ignored.
> yes and the results and actions taken after the Nov 6 US elections may undo some of the damage
You're assuming that 1) the elections will actually occur on Nov 6, 2) the elections will be fair, and 3) that the winners of said elections would take action and actually enforce the rule of law.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Many are hoping that there is a very strong turn out for the Democrat's so that any rigging cannot over come it, but this sounds like fan fiction to me. That said Trump hitting Iran may be the single biggest blunder of his political career, media influence can only go so far when there is a direct impact on all prices and potential stock availability in the coming months.
Hopefully a lot of the fears don't pan out but we won't know until it gets closer.
I'm not saying that there aren't better options but both major parties are complicit in how the system is organised. The US electoral system gets ever more distorted with every minor adjustment in the hopes of swinging various seats in their favour and now it just looks ridiculous.
This is the crux. Trump is simultaneously a wholesale departure from political norms, but also merely a culmination of decades of reactionary talk radio preaching "Death to America" but then backing it off just enough for people to go to the polls and vote for "their" candidate.
Trump's second term should be the end of the Republican party. But if Bush II is an indication, the pattern was that while people gradually came around to seeing what a bad idea the Iraq War was and whatnot, they merely cooled off for a few years but then were right back at it getting fooled again a slightly different way. How much of the support for Trump was basically recycled criticism of the Iraq War (ie of the Republican establishment) ? And yet here we are now, with a nice shiny new quagmire (assuming it isn't an outright loss).
fwiw I'm a libertarian so while I actually agree with much of the criticism, it galls me even more how people can start with very individual-liberty-centric criticisms, but then somehow gleefully jump behind supporting authoritarianism when it can be their turn at the trough.
I have regrets when I say something dumb or drive through an intersection on a not-quite-yellow light.
Innocent people, including children, are dead. Republicans have done irreparable harm to this country on every imaginable level: civil liberties, trade, global power, economics. Open and naked corruption is so off the charts it can only be described with comparisons to the post-Soviet era.
What exactly do they have deep regrets about, though? Do they regret voting for someone with his style? Do they regret empowering an obvious corrupt liar? Do they regret supporting someone who focuses on who to blame and hurt, rather than on things that might actually help (albeit in regrettably marginal ways in all three cases)?
Or do they just regret that they were fooled by this guy, specifically? That he's not accomplishing his stated goals, whether or not he is taking his promised actions? If it's this one, then it's only a matter of time before another charlatan does the same thing better.
I don't disagree. The Democrats believed their "permanent Democratic majority" schtick, and enacted a bunch of things that much of the country deeply disagreed with.
But we also need a national reckoning on ICE's excessive use of force, DOGE, using the DOJ to prosecute political opponents, the financial irresponsibility of the "Big Beautiful Bill", the attack on the Capitol, the rest of the attempt to undermine the results of the 2020 elections, the tariffs by executive order, the threats to Canada and Greenland...
Through selfless deeds, hard work and admitting their failures to the fullest, for generations till now. Somehow I don't see that happening easily with american ego
They didn't tho. West Germany was still governed by ex Nazi politicians and bureaucrats after the war. This was the primary reason that the Red Army Faction formed and carried out its attacks.
The Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) was staffed by many ex SS officers.
Nuremberg Trails are continuously trotted out as an example of a system that works, but 200k people are estimated to have participated in crimes against humanity, of which only around 6700 were convicted, or 3.3%.
It is wild seeing the elctorial maps of Germany and you can almost exactly recreate the East-West split. Decades later and it is coming back to haunt them.
Tbf, the east/west split is the one part that wasn’t the Nazis’ fault unless indirectly as a consequence of starting and losing a second World War in a row.
I don’t think November 6 is going to be a reprieve. They have rigged the system so much that I don’t think it’s actually possible for the Democrats to make a comeback.
Even if the Democrats do make a comeback, they have spent half a century demonstrating that they are an, at best, an inadequate counter to America's awful political tendencies.
I actually like what they have done in the past, they’re level headed and reasonable. What I can’t stand and it makes my blood boil that they are completely ineffective without a political mandate. It’s a bunch of career politician cowards that may do well when everything is by the book but they remain completely emasculated when it comes to getting their agenda through. The Republicans even without a mandate will shuck and jive their way into getting their way.
If they lose it will be because they don’t track unfavorabilty ratings for your democrats as much as they do the current admin. It’s not enough (for moderates) to just say you hate the other guy.
> Like Italy, Germany, Japan, etc can be trusted but after, I'm not even sure what exactly, the US is fully and forever untrustworthy??
It took two generations and a new constitution for Germans to regain trust again.
You cannot trust the current generation of U.S. Americans, and the U.S. Constitution certainly does not alleviate that concern. They elect a god-king like president who seemingly has unlimited authority. Why would you trust such a country for more than four years?
Edit:
> but after, I'm not even sure what exactly
Killing people outside the USA left and right without due process? Starting a war and thinking that it is fun while the whole world is suffering because of that war? Kidnapping a head of state? Cosying up to the enemy of your allies during a war? Threatening allies? Declaring parts of an allied country as your own? Supporting Nazis in allied countries? Supporting separatism in a province of your neighbor (and until recently your closest ally)? Proudly telling the world what country the USA will assault next? ...
It is a combination of moving fast and slow. A lot of Canadians now avoid purchasing products from the US were possible. Mean while their government while still dependent on the US is making the moves that will minimise their dependence on them over the coming decades.
I am seeing similar positions in other countries now.
This story is that of Netflix' Chaos Monkey attacking the state most rhetorically aligned/proud of The Rule Of Law and showing in myriad ways how absolutely hollow that pride was and how vulnerable The Law is.
Are these bugs that get fixed or...if that was The Last Election, maybe not.
no one thought the consequences would include giving 1.8 billion dollars of American taxes to the people who tried to violently overthrow the government and to those who are successfully leading a bloodless coupe.
Yep. If you want foreigners to contribute to your country, you may wanna avoid electing a known geriatric narcissist that has the impulse control of an angry toddler and creates a huge cloud of unpredictablity.
Not that US borders were predictable before that men came into office. But when I enter the EU or Japan for example I have fundamental trust in the fact that even if I was not a citizen, my rights would be clear and not violated by some lunatic border officer that had a bad day. Being expected to disclose your social media accounts while them potentially holding you for weeks without any reason? Nah thanks.
When I was traveling on the Balkans a decade ago I also had weird border encounters, with Serbian officers expecting bribes. I felt safer there than the expectation of crossing into the US makes me feel. Don't eant people with half a brain coming over? Then we don't. Your choice.
The comments on this HN post nicely color the problem Tim points out, from the comments that assume the exceptionalism of the USA, to comments that say “stay in Canada”, to comments that call the post “moral preening”.
I grew up in a very conservative household, and until the tea party/Trumpian alliance would have called myself a small-l libertarian.
Now? I won’t vote republican for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it rhymes with the worst parts of the political parties we destroyed in world wars.
There’s something new almost every day that should, in a sane culture, cause folks to abandon the Republican Party en masse. Today’s example? The 1.776 Billion “anti-weaponization” fund that is a slush fund for Trump and his allies, including folks that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The grift of this administration is shocking, but the fact that rank-and-file conservatives aren’t abandoning it by the millions gives away the game. It isn’t about principles, it’s about one party winning, no matter what.
We used to fight for what’s right, but we have become the villain. Tim is right about the declination of America (realizing his title is a double-entendre), and I can’t help but wonder if there is even a line that Trump could cross to the modern “Republican” party.
> I won’t vote republican for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it rhymes with the worst parts of the political parties we destroyed in world wars.
As a former right winger, now recovering conservative, I'm inclined to agree. The greater issue for me is the right became every single thing they accused the left of (being easily hurt, mandated viewpoints, group think).
Yeah, setting policies and even cultural differences aside, the level of blatant corruption in this administration is simply beyond the pale. In any other western country, this admin would have been gone by now.
And there's so much of it that it's almost become the norm. It's shocking that anyone -- no matter their political views -- can continue to support that.
We literally went from "drain the swamp" to "fill the swamp"
I honestly do not want my kids to grow up in this country. Which is too bad because it has a lot going for it otherwise. I'm actively looking for an exit strategy.
I said in another response, Trump has shown the cards to world that there is a sizable portion of the country that can not be trusted. Other nations have realised this is an embedded problem and cannot be fixed with another election. At least not on a long scale.
The one truly astonishing aspect in US politics for my european mind is the degree to which many US voters appear to have given up their agency in favour of party loyalty.
Some may think supporting their own party no matter what is a smart move that will let them win, but the only thing it achieves is that the party can now stop representing your interest. One of the few levers you have as a voter is the threat of not voting for a party or even voting against them. By swearing blind loyalty no matter what, you're giving up that single lever you had. The power of a voter isn't to vote people into office, it is to vote them out of it.
Trump has seen time and time again that he can promise X and then get away with doing the polar opposite of X, just because Republican representatives and voters think towing the line is more important than everything else.
In an actual democracy the politicians are afraid of the voters, not the other way around.
As a Canadian / American who now lives in Europe: IMHO the two-party system and current constitutional structure in the US is an unfortunate local maximum.
It was very definitely better than the centuries of militaristic monarchic feudalism Europe waded through from medieval times until the mid-1900s. It is very definitely worse than modern pluralistic coalition-based democracies with proportional representation, which offer a wider range of choices to voters, and make it possible to launch competing parties / movements to counter institutional stagnation.
Until recently, the one counterargument I would hear to this second assertion is "but coalition governments have a hard time getting anything done". Now that we see a prime example of a government that alternates between a) not getting anything done and b) getting things done that belong somewhere in a timeframe from the 1890s to the 1940s, I no longer hear people making that counterargument.
Re: constitutional structure, one Irish friend I have made an interesting point: in his lifetime, there have been many changes and amendments to the Irish constitution. This is next to impossible in the US system, both because of the party loyalty dynamic mentioned above _and_ because of the incredibly high procedural bar to doing so. (And not least because of the current predominance of originalist thinking in the judicial branch, as though the constitution were an infallible document handed down from gods among men, eternally to be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended back over 200 years ago in a completely different social, political, and technological context.)
EU equities outperformed US in 2025. The Iran war will probably shift this back to the US but launching a new poorly defined war (and arguably losing it) is also a pretty good indicator of decline.
People - Canadians included - have literally been sent to a gulag at the border crossing, for social media posts and otherwise. Can you really not see why that would cause someone to not want to enter?
Moreover, he literally said he continues to be a supporter of that org.
“The French researcher in question was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a nondisclosure agreement — something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal,”
Terrance McKenna once said something like "The worst government is the one in power, regardless of the time."
Essentially, regardless of who is in, they rarely teardown the injustices of the past but merely build on them. They will rip out like 20% of things that are socially changing but after that it is a ratchet upwards on things that cement in further power.
Huh. You read that as whataboutism. I just saw "this is also bad, let's list the offenders". Not an excuse or normalization, but an expansion of scope. It may not be terribly useful or relevant in this instance, but I tend to lean towards wholistic examination of issues, which must include all the places and forms where they appear.
Then again, maybe I'm just bad at recognizing intent from such small pieces of writing.
To add my voice to the choir: fuck all the governments pushing this nonsense. It causes harm with no measurable, justifiable benefit.
> "I won't engage with interesting people in a country whose leadership I don't like"
I dont know where you got that quote from, but it doesnt occur in the submitted blog post.
It seems to me that the important actual quote is:
"I’m Canadian and as a matter of principle feeling negative about visiting a neighboring country whose leader has repeatedly threatened our sovereignty and shown massive disrespect for our nationhood."
I live in Europe and I agree with the author's misgivings.
> Effective March 30, the Department of State will expand online presence review to include applicants in the following additional nonimmigrant visa classifications [...] To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for A-3, C-3 (if a domestic worker), G-5, H-3, H-4 dependents of H-3, K-1, K-2, K-3, Q, R-1, R-2, S, T, U, H-1B, H-4, F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas are instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to “public” or “open.”
> A French scientist was denied entry to the US this month after immigration officers at an airport searched his phone and found messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump administration, said a French minister. [...]
> The same source said that messages discussing the Trump administration’s treatment of scientists had been found. The researcher was reportedly then accused of writings “that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”.
> An Australian man who was detained upon arrival at Los Angeles airport and deported back to Melbourne says United States border officials told him it was due to his writing on pro-Palestine protests by university students.
The only evidence we have it was fake news is a statement from the Department of Homeland Security itself - a department which has been repeatedly caught lying in courts of law under this administration.
But I'm sure the statement they gave to a journalist, which hasn't been confirmed by any third-party reporting, was absolutely factual.
Whether it would happen or not is immaterial. The perceived threat is enough. I've been here on a green card since 2016 and haven't left the country since his second term since I share the exact same fears.
1) I use "socials" anonymously. Have anon accounts on X, IG, FB. If asked to disclose them at the border (am US citizen, but it's happening to them too), do I disclose the anon accounts?
2) Nothing too controversial in my "socials" (I'm careful), but there's still stuff there that could embarrass me (e.g. mocking or abusing people on X). What would happen if I scrubbed my socials before a trip? Would they be able to find out that I scrubbed, and then construe something about me?
3) Relatedly, is there a recommended way to scrub one's socials?
4) Is something like HN considered part of "socials"? I assume Reddit is. So HN must be too? I've had multiple accounts on HN over the years (been serially banned until I stopped leaving controversial comments). What am I expected to do in such an instance? Do I disclose all the HN accounts?
5) Relatedly, I have multiple X accounts (squatting on usernames). Do I disclose all the accounts?
No, if they ask just give them the handle of any accounts that are currently on your phone. Just remove anything from your phone or computer if you think it might be an issue, like if you are sharing ISIS videos and stuff. As a citizen you don't have to do anything, but if they ask and you don't let them look at a device they can keep it to inspect it and let you go.
1. If you don't and they find out, then you committed an felony. It is the same as the "Are you an terrorist?" questions. Once they want you for more serious stuff like blasphemy against king donald, then they can pull out the convicted felon card and increase the sentence.
2. + 4. It depends
3. If you plan to go to the us while Trump and his chronies are in an position of power, then the best way to scrub them is not to post it.
5. See 1. if you don't disclose all, they can pull the lie on a form card
My understanding is (1) yes. (2) maybe, maybe no, depends on if they're looking up people tagging you in threads? If there's signs you're scrubbing yourself out of politically controversial threads that might become problematic. (4) yes, yes, yes. (5) yes.
I think this belongs on hacker news (and unflagged) mainly because of who Tim Bray is. Notably co-inventor of XML, worked on a bunch of web standards etc.
Whether you agree or disagree with non-US citizens coming to America to engage in the advancement of technology, the important thing is to have discourse on the topic. That is in line with aims and goals of this site. This story is much less politics and much more about the impact of social policy on technologists.
As a non-US citizen myself but who has lived there for some time, I find that having and expressing an opinion on things like this is difficult due to the danger of such retaliation mentioned during border crossings and my daily life.
As another non-US citizen I feel similar. My profile as a maker and software dev with extensive infrastructure knowledge should be exactly what the US is looking for, but I already decided the US isn't a country I am going to police my own speech for.
First watching the tearing up of the societal contract in the US over the past decades turned this into a country that feels like it is on the brink of a collapse. No longer can regular Americans rely that working hard will give them a good or even decent life. This means intense pressures are at work with some very desperate people, bringing out the ugliest (but also sometimes the most beautiful) bits of humanity, all while you have richer folks at the top who act like how their country operates at large is none of their business as long as there is a cut in it for them. Why should I care about the US if you guys don't even care about it yourselves?
Second the US is highly unreliable. Laws, democracy, human rights, treaties, consumer rights — all are treated as negotiable, optional things that you use against your enemies and ignore when it affects your own. With enough money everything can be bent around. There are no principles at work that one could rely on and that is no foundation to build a life on unless you are literally ready to join the ranks of people acting like cartoon villains — something only people do who have no self-respect for their limited time on earth.
Yeah, I don't see myself even visiting the US in my lifetime.
> First watching the tearing up of the societal contract in the US over the past decades turned this into a country that feels like it is on the brink of a collapse.
Hehe, reminds me about a video I saw some years ago.
They asked ordinary citizens what a reasonable distribution of wealth should be. Like the share of overall wealth owned by the richest 10% (or 1% or whatever), vs wealth owned by the rest of the population. Let's call this ratio "X".
Then those citizens were asked what they thought the wealth distribution was actually like (let's call that "Y"). No surprise: people thought wealth was much more UNevenly distributed than it should be.
Then they showed what the distribution was like in reality (let's call that "Z"): way more extreme.
So, wealth distributed way more uneven than people thought, and that in turn way more uneven than what people thought it should be.
That alone explains a lot of what's wrong with the US imho: broken/corrupt politics, outsized influence of tech bros (including outside US), a health problem bankrupting people, people turning to drugs, a militarized police force, incarceration ratios, homeless epidemic, etc etc.
Especially in a highly developed country where total wealth is enough to have everybody live comfortably & care-free.
As opposed to some poor war-torn country where wealth is also unevenly distributed, but it's obvious and everybody knows it. And overall wealth is a lot less to begin with (so people being desperate isn't surprising).
US' downfall turning it into a banana republic, its erosion of democratic institutions, human rights etc, is a logical result from the above. I'm not expecting that to improve sadly :-(. Things will probably get worse & there will be blood in the streets.
> I think this belongs on hacker news (and unflagged) mainly because of who Tim Bray is.
A vouch option for Flagged submissions would be appreciated. I wonder if it used to be there but was removed.
I spoke to a few HNers who I know flagged this post. They mentioned that they flagged it because it goes against the HN guidelines - a holy grail of sorts - and that the post does not invite "curious discussion". When prompted, they mentioned they would much rather read about pro-Musk technological exploits than anything against the US.
Unfortunately, flagging is heavily abused here on HN. Criticism of adtech and attempts to defend privacy laws will bring out flagging in droves; almost as if some HN'ers salaries are dependent on opposing such laws!
Some sort of meta-moderation system to prevent abuse of flagging would be welcome.
Unfortunately HN is likely astroturfed just as much as any other forum, despite the otherwise seemingly substantiveness of HN compared to sites like Reddit. And unfortunately there's no way to cancel out bad faith flagging and downvoting the same way you can reply to bad faith commenting. It's more invisible and easier to abuse (once the karma thresholds have been reached, which isn't hard).
The mitigation mechanism is moderators like dang who manually intervene
It's not perfect, but it ain't nothing
there are tons of posts on HN that don't invite "curious discussion"
this is one that would actually invite curious discussion if some people weren't clutching onto their "God Bless America (We're #1!)" pearls quite so tightly
More and more I'm finding that the most interesting conversation about America isn't coming from Americans anymore.
There was a time where I was quite interested in listening to people from America talk about their fascinating and crazy sounding country, but as time goes on I find that to be much more repetitive and not insightful.
Now I'm more interested in what people from other countries have to say about America, and I find it fascinating how Americans online find this unsettling and sometimes get snippy about it really weird ways.
Sometimes I wonder what political threads on HN would be like if Americans weren't allowed to participate in them. For the people in the crowd who take things more literally in know this isn't possible, it's just an interesting thought experiment.
Would that result in more 'creative' conversation?
Maybe for a while until new patterns/tropes/memes were built up by the users that could comment on them. Maybe the issue with the political discussions that too often the people talking about them are too close to them, too immersed in them?
> A vouch option for Flagged submissions would be appreciated.
AFAIK, upvoting a flagged submission cancels out the flagging to some extent. I don’t know the internals of how this process works. I’ve upvoted the submission in an effort to get it unflagged (it still may not get to the front page or may rapidly drop down though).
[flagged]
[flagged]
There used to be a time when it was just accepted that most of the good conferences/gatherings would be in the US, and it would either be important to go to, or be relatively straightforward to reach and attend (especially for Canadians), and nobody would think twice about it.
Now you have some very talented/consequential people just refusing to visit the country. Regardless of any qualms about the "content and logic", this should set off alarm bells for any American. Plus, this would've been a whine if he'd complained and had gone anyway. But he is not going, and has explained his decision. That makes it more of a statement.
I think the title is appropriate and is probably meant as a double entendre. The US does seem to be declining in many ways. Personally, visiting the US under the present government just feels too risky, they seem really hostile to foreigners.
The whining you hear is you.
Its pretty clear that "declining" has two different and, I would agree, apposite meanings.
Can't believe this is flagged. As a USer, it is the letter I would advise anyone outside the US to write. It is the only rational response.
THIS IS NOT A PLACE OF HONOR.
My pieces usually get flagged. Presumably I have annoyed some of the wrong people.
I'd like to say that as an American to your north, I think you're right to not come? Things are weird here presently, so I suspect you probably made the right call for a wide variety of reasons.
But also, I tire of the nationalist rhetoric wherever I see it. I'm tired of this idea that countries are anything more than a shared historical hallucination, and that we're all somehow different from one another. Or as my father often put it, "we all bleed red and we all shit brown." I never chose to be born here, and because I am sick (through no fault of my own) so called tolerant countries wouldn't have me. So I am stuck here.
Regardless, I get why you didn't come, I can't say I blame you, but I also am sick of these damn countries ruining things. Perhaps we should abandon the idea entirely and replace it with the spirit of brotherhood and respect for one's fellow human.
Have you spent any serious time with other cultures? Yes, we all have the same colored blood and excrement, and we have a lot of similarities. Yet at the same time, we are very different. England's traditional dignity culture (the virtuous man can overlook slights) is very different than Africa's honor culture (honor is zero-sum, and you must fight to maintain it), for instance. Japanese values and American values are frequently opposite (Japan values group membership, America values individuality; Japan honors someone by setting them apart, America honors someone by engaging with them.)
In an ideal world we could celebrate each other's differences. But trying to get rid of conflict by getting rid of national borders is naive. Why are the borders where they are? Generally because those are ethno-cultural boundaries. Nations that encompass multiple ethno-cultural groups tend to be somewhat unstable: for instance, Yugoslavia broke up violently, and Iraq has conflict between the Kurds and the rest.
This is not a support of nationalism (although I encourage patriotism, which is different), but "countries are [nothing] more than a shared historical hallucination" is just incorrect.
> Nations that encompass multiple ethno-cultural groups tend to be somewhat unstable
The US has been remarkably stable for a nation that encompasses multiple ethno-cultural groups. It may not continue to be so, but historically it has been a counterexample.
what do you think counterexample means? if i say most days it is sunny, is a rainy day a counterexample? please learn how words in sequence work.
> England's traditional dignity culture (the virtuous man can overlook slights)
i’m english and i have no idea what you’re on about there mate.
are you talking about having basic tolerance for other people? that’s a pretty universal skill not exclusive to england.
> but "countries are [nothing] more than a shared historical hallucination" is just incorrect.
countries are mostly lines drawn on a map.
cultures, which i think is what you’re trying to get at in your post generally, differ everywhere to varying degrees.
dundee (where i currently am) has a different culture to glasgow, which has a different culture to edinburgh, which has a different culture to york, which has a different culture to liverpool, which has a different culture to manchester, which has a different culture to leeds leeds leeds, which has a different culture to oxford, which has a different culture to reading, which has …
the lines are imaginary.
(although yes i live on a massive island so there is a non-imaginary physical boundary where you have to get on a boat or a plane or a train to travel to here).
> are you talking about having basic tolerance for other people? that’s a pretty universal skill not exclusive to england.
You'd be surprised how it's not the case in most of the world. Heck, India has a caste system that Indians have now exported to areas where they're in numbers like California. Arabs have a tribal system that makes them suspicious of anyone not from the in-group. Russian Muscovites treat all of their fellow non-Muscovite countrymen like shit.
> You'd be surprised how it's not the case in most of the world.
What you listed isn't "most of the world". And the exceptions do not make a rule.
India + Africa + South East Asia + China & Japan + Middle East (ex-Iran) + Russia = More than 60% of the global population.
You're making rather sweeping generalizations. "Arabs" have, for most of the last 1400 years, been part of 3 MASSIVE states, which spanned from the farthest Atlantic coast of Africa to parts of what is now Pakistan. Not alliances. Actual single states.
Thats the very opposite of parochialism, xenophobia, suspicion or inward societal thinking (however one wants to describe it)
Amidst the destruction of all that SHARED history, and the arbitrary Sykes-Picot jigsaw imposed on "the Arab world", falling back to more local structures is an obvious, and in the grand scheme of things, temporary, defensive mechanism.
The very fact that despite 100 years of Western imposed Sykes-Picot madness, West Asia is still an intricate mosaic of multiple groups - that shows that traditionally the Arabs are WELL CAPABLE of working with those not in their, as you put it, "in group".
The Indian caste system, aka apartheid on steroids, is a horrid example which makes your point. You should have stopped there
"Thats the very opposite of parochialism, xenophobia, suspicion or inward societal thinking (however one wants to describe it)"
Though I am not an expert in Arabic history, Arab culture spreat through colonialism, had an extensive slave system, denied basic rights to religious minorities and the Islam religion feels superior to non - Islamic religion and atheism.
Many Arabs dont want to admit these problems which IMHO is the reason for their long term decline.
Oh come on. Now you're just parroting ignorant tropes. Actual students of history will inform you that, especially per the standards of the day (as any state should be judged), Arab Muslim states were probably THE MOST tolerant of their time.
As evidenced by how many different Christian denominations (more than in Europe) still existed throughout West Asia, under direct Arab Muslim rule, for over a MILLENIA.
Denied basic rights? Basic rights to minority Christian, Jewish & Zoroastrian groups was ENSHRINED in the very makeup of these states. Leaders of these communities had official roles & responsibilities reserved for them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're taking a modern day story about "Arabs" & "Muslims", which is predominantly the result of 100 years of subjugation & being broken up by the West (& having Western vassals & elites imposed as ruling classes), added to the need to create unsavory impressions of them amongst Western populations in order to justify that.
And you're taking this mess & overlaying it over the previous 1300 years, without a single regard for the truth. Seriously, go get a genuine history book, or talk to a history professor who knows about the Arab & Muslim world, and then curl up in embarrassment...
" Oh come on. Now you're just parroting ignorant tropes. Actual students of history will inform you that, especially per the standards of the day (as any state should be judged), Arab Muslim states were probably THE MOST tolerant of their time. " Ehm sorry as tolerant as e.g in India? Even in Europe Netherlands and Poland - Lithuania were very tolerant to religious freedom. But the Dhimmi system might be historically tolerant - Today is a oppressive system and orthogonal to religious freedom, as practiced by many Muslim and Islamist states.
"Denied basic rights? Basic rights to minority Christian, Jewish & Zoroastrian groups "
Maybe you just talked to Iranian Christians, Iranian Jewish or Atheist from Arabic countries. They might give a different clue.
" 100 years of subjugation & being broken up by the West (& having Western vassals & elites imposed as ruling classes),"
That's an excuse. No Western power force the Mullah regime to be so Islamist or the Islamic state to genocide Kurdish people. It stilled happened.
"you're taking this mess & overlaying it over the previous 1300 years, without a single regard for the truth. Seriously, go get a genuine history book, or talk to a history professor who knows about the Arab & Muslim world, and then curl up in embarrassment..."
Living in Berlin the city is fueled with people escaping from Islamic States. I take their word genuine.
But thank for the insight. In my opinion you can see a declining area how to react to critism. Many Americans deny their homes problem. So you do about the problems in Islam. But you what? There is a growing secular and anti islam movement in the Arabic world. Looks some people are smarter than you.
In any debate or discussion, if someone discusses historical behaviour stretching back a thousand odd years then that isn't refuted by only talking about contemporary anecdata.
You are right.
I know by intuition the place is of course way more complicated.
It's just a growing frustration based on Wikipedia pages, the homophobia made by Muslim refugees, talking with Atheist by these areas...
I guess the fact that Islam sees itself as a purer version and successor religion of Christianity doesn't help inner self criticism.
By the way we can see the same behaviour of Americans.
OK, the usual half-baked Islamophobic propaganda, with all the usual dog whistles of that fake bandwagon. So drearily predictable. Keep on shouting at the wall.
Ehm complaining about religious freedom of Atheist in Islamic states is dog whistle (for whom?)?
I'd like to know more.
thank you for putting it this succinctly
[flagged]
I have spent a lot of time in other cultures, I’ve lived overseas as ann exchange student and speak 3 languages.
Countries are bullshit and the belief that people are that intrinsically different is silly. Go back to 1940 with that noise.
he literally says people are intrinsically the same, but extrinsically different (due to culture)
why are you misrepresenting what he says?
In a student or IT worker bubble, countries are very similar. When one steps out, they’re going to get a rude awakening.
Culture shock is a real phenomenon.
I'd bet money I have more experience in this than you. Culture shock is very real (I've lived it), but culture's ain't countries and hell, I get culture shock when I go to the south here in America. It's just some old timey 1940s "we gotta keep these different cultures separated" nonsense. It's nationalism and racism (though it purports to be otherwise).
Things don't have to be this way, we choose them to and I'm getting awful tired of people keeping making the same choices over and over again because they think an imaginary line is somehow sacrosanct.
It's all made up. Even culture.
> I get culture shock when I go to the south here in America.
Or even from urban to rural areas.
> It's just some old timey 1940s "we gotta keep these different cultures separated" nonsense.
That's a huge mistake right there. Those who want to keep their culture should be free to do so, as long as they don't try to force theirs on others - that's a common and traditional American value which is now being attacked by both extremist segregationists and extremist pot-melters.
> It's nationalism and racism (though it purports to be otherwise).
You should learn what these words mean and stop purporting they mean something else.
> It's all made up. Even culture.
Bro, not only culture, the entire human civilization is made up. The issue is to make it good, not bad, but you seem to be all confused about it.
No, it's racism, because 9/10 times when someone says, "well these cultural differences are so vast" they really mean "I don't like people from that culture" which becomes "I don't like people from that country or who look like that."
Almost always. It's always the same thing. Fear of the outsiders and disdain for change. I'm not going to debate you on it, I'm just tired of hearing it.
Naive. Countries are collections of different values. I don't, for example, want to enslave non-believers, nor do I want to own my wife, or have a government take everything I own. I don't want to live in a "theocracy" because those people are crazy. I select where I live based on those values. Thinking, because we all "bleed red" that we're all the same is a recipe for loss.
Nobody selected where they were born. We are all the same.
Probably. As an American, I have to agree with you -- it's been the case for many years (WAY before Trump) that within 50 miles of our border, your rights go to wherever last year's snow went.
It's too bad so few people can say "My country, if right to be supported, if wrong to be corrected."
I think its funny that the top comment on the blog from ConcernedCitizen is a half troll, half serious, in exactly the same way Trump approaches everything.
Do you think they are trying to do a Trump voice as a joke? I can't even tell anymore.
On the Internet, you never know who's just joking and who is in fact an idiot.
Good line to save for the epitaph shortlist.
Keep at it.
> Can't believe this is flagged.
On Hacker News? I can. I'm surprised it got unflagged.
> As a USer, it is the letter I would advise anyone outside the US to write. It is the only rational response.
Seconded.
I'm a US citizen and fully support any person of any country that protests the Trump administration in any form.
Not really, it's pretty ridiculous. Unless you have a solid history of strongly supporting terrorist groups or plan to violate immigration law there's really no precedence to assume you would have any issues visiting the US. Literally millions of people do so each month without problems.
We here in America have Fox News that drums up scary boogeymen to keep people fearing liberal California. The rest of the world has their equivalents, but instead of crime in California, it’s “you will be shot on sight at the airport when you enter the US”.
Not shot on sight but e.g. "being declined entry because you refused to unlock your smartphone to the customs officer". And then you have to fly back over the ocean.
America isn't special here, I guess every country treats non-citizens worse than citizens. But at least the trip back is usually shorter
I think you've misunderstood the idea. Tim Bray and the OP of this thread aren't afraid to visit the US; the key phrase used in the post is "as a matter of principle".
>there’s a significant risk of an extremely negative outcome. I have a family to support and really can’t afford that risk.
I can understand the principles and the bit of Canadian pride, but ultimately it's rather hyperbolic. Even on principle, the fact is Canada and the US are strong and long lasting allies with a very obvious power imbalance, and this sort of pouting over commentary is more fitting to members of an elementary school kickball team than a professional organization on the cutting edge of technology.
> the fact is Canada and the US are strong and long lasting allies
As historical fact, yes; but this is degrading in real time. As a Canadian, I can’t name a single family member, friend, peer or acquaintance who regards the U.S. as an ally. And on an official level, our PM has given multiple speeches, at Davos and elsewhere outlining Canada’s new status with respect to the U.S. In that void, Carney is actively seeking new economic and defence partnerships with Europe and others to replace the relationship that Canada and the U.S. previously enjoyed.
When one powerful neighbouring country repeatedly threatens your sovereignty it does predictable things to the ability to call yourselves “allies.”
How would US citizens feel about Mexico if it had 3 billion people, 20x the military size, a history of annexations, and a deranged president joking about annexing the US? Still funny?
This is a naive response to the concerns Tim has expressed, and displays a deep lack of critical thinking around how the decline of the US' status in the world is impacting it's role as the home of "cutting edge technology".
US and Canada are not strong allies anymore. They are former allies with ongoing hostility between them.
As an example, US walked away from joint defense board just few days ago.
Canadians on the internet point out that many American don't understand the severe damage Trump has done. Your post is a great example for this.
Did you miss the point above that?
> But there’s also the issue of entering the US; if I roll up at the border and am asked to disclose my social media output, there’s a significant risk of an extremely negative outcome.
Its no longer the question of supporting "terrorists", we have seen what people can critcizing Trump, the dear leader, might have to go through.
Trump is are destroying American credibility all over the world and its others who are being hyperbolic?
Your naivete is the reason America will decline. You guys, well-intentioned and optimistic as you all are, are the frogs in the boiling pot, unaware of how much America has declined in the global eye. Fun fact, America ranks below China and even Russia in the latest perception polls.
Without you guys taking action in your country, there is no hope for America.
Clever.Concise.Spoken like a true Canadian. As someone with dual Canadian/US citizenship, I cant imagine going to the US anymore, the politics and foriegn policy/wars were never good, but a lot of Americans are good and knew how to have fun, which now seems to be lost under domestic problems and a burgeoning police state. That in this case Tim Bray is declining is a red flag, as he is of the type who could be held up as an emblamatic Canadian, a person, like many others, who carrys the quiet authority of a stable civilisation with them, but rather than this bieng something welcomed by ALL who encounter this, it is now a liability, someone for an armed "agent" to target, humiliate and if possible, reduce or eliminate as an example of there absolute authority in great united states.
Elections have consequences.
The election outcome itself was the consequence of gross, systemic failure throughout the entirety of the United States' citizenry, society, institutions, and government.
The best thing for the States to do at this point would be to hold a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the government of the United States as unfit for any purpose, after which their citizens can decide how they wish to proceed.
Have you seen countries without a government? The US government is definitely fit for purpose. It successfully keeps order, for one thing. The government in a representative government isn't the problem, the people are the problem. In this case we have an intransigent Left and an incompetent Right wanting not-Left. Both sides want to "win", and in that situation, everybody loses. I think the ancient Greeks called this "stasis", and if the polis couldn't get out of stasis, the state failed. I believe the failure modes were either getting conquered or getting a tyrant. But we could choose to work together.
The United States have governments. Fifty of them, plus various territorial and tribal governments. The States have already successfully done away with failing higher government twice before, and can do so again.
The issue is entirely om the right side here. This is simply not both side issu. America has far right party and center party. It keeps to blame left whenever its far right push for own goals.
The anti democratic and heavily corrup republicam goverment is product of right wing bubble. It has little to do with left.
>America has far right party and center party. It keeps to blame left whenever its far right push for own goals.
The American left is not center. Open borders, DEI/wokeism, etc. is not a center party platform. Do you have any study that states otherwise?
I mean the US republican party is the biggest problem, but the democratic party is far from blameless and are happy to go along with many of the republicans worst policies, so long as they are able to try and shift blame back when people complain.
They try a little more maybe, but are still completely insulated from and out of touch with average citizens. But they don't care because they have money and most US problems are only problems for people without money to spare.
[flagged]
[flagged]
We're off-topic but it's genuinely interesting that you see these as "leftist" beliefs about men. Isn't this mostly the set of views on masculinity in the "manosphere" which is very much aligned with "rightist" beliefs?
I agree there is an apparent tone of misandry in some of the rhetoric of the left but the actual beliefs you cite are (with the exception of a few) things men on the right say about other men.
This is "identity politics leftism", which is an incredibly useful (to political donors) distraction from economic leftism. Economic leftism is not what the donors want, hence the center party with added idpol bullshit distraction and the right wing party.
Almost all of your points are right wing manosphere points. Most, but not all are moderate conservative opinions - you literally find those points in books written by mainstream non extremist conservatives. You are literally blaming the left for opinions and positions conservatives actively propagate and push for. Frankly, issue here is that you have no idea about what left says or do, but you do project everything you dislike on the left.
You know who run on identity politics? It was the republicans.
> A lot of men aren't really right-wing, rather, they're in left-wing exile.
A lot of men are left. And a lot of men are explicitly openly right wing.
Somehow, there is no talking point about men exiting conservativism because of active push for the above look at masculinity. The opposition toward the above view is supposed to manifest exclusively by moving toward people who super actively promote it.
Yeah, I don't agree with a single point. I know we're all in our bubbles, but none of what OP listed seems left-wing to me. I know I've never thought these things to be true.
If anything, the left-wing promotes men to be vulnerable and seek help if they need it. At least where I'm from that's the case. I'm stumped how different our views are on this.
New/idpol Left: Men need to perform and they are bad people
Right: Men need to perform and they are good people
Gee, why are men voting right? Can you figure it out?
I mean this as an encouragement to fix leftism, not to vote for the other guys.
Where does this idea that the right is saying that men are good come from? They hate most men for not being white, and they consider white men that don't follow their chauvanistic methods as being weak cuckolds.
They hate some men, but not just for being men. You are just muddying the waters.
I dont know why people keep repeating this. The US Democrats pursue left wing policy. Not left wing policy in America, left wing policy period. The US is behind other countries so the fights are taking place on battles that have already been won in other places but that doesnt make them a center party. We could use that logic to undermine any left wing government in the world.
Not an easy idea when about ten states have enough nuclear weapons to glass the earth.
Damn, a few years of Trump and your solution is to dissolve the US? Really?
That was essentially the advice given by Benjamin Franklin, although he suggested turning it off and then on again before a Despot appears otherwise it would be inevitable that a Despot would appear.
Ah, good old Benjamin "Fake News" Franklin, or should I say SILENCE DOGOOD.
Certainly had more of interest to say than John Barron ever did.
Really.
Going back to the drawing board after watching some major issues break the country is how we got this constitution in the first (second) place. The founders clearly suggested this as an intentional pressure valve to avoid the terrible catastrophe that is civil war or the dissolution of the union.
When values diverge in such extreme ways (values, not politics or preferences) it is very hard to continue to see each other as fellow citizens working toward some shared future. Mix in severe inequality and a broken, corrupt justice system and there is a very real sense of impending escalation. With the failure of the judicial and legislative branches to control corruption, we might be risking everything by NOT trying to find new middle ground.
There was a pew research poll in March [0] showing half of Americans think people in the opposing political party are morally bad people, not just people with different views or priorities. People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US spend tax money helping illegal immigrants in any way" or "should trans people have the same rights as they were born with" or "should the government protect known pedophiles from consequences" or "should women have to put their life on the line carrying a rape pregnancy to full term" or "should there be investigations when protesters are shot and killed by immigration agents" or "should the president be above the law". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil.
Last time values diverged until the breaking point was because a huge chunk of people were willing to die in order to keep owning other people and another huge chunk of people were willing to die to prevent it. The resulting war caused more American deaths than all the others combined. Despite this, plenty of people still proudly fly the rebel flag today.
Another continental Congress to reauthor (renegotiate?) the Union is a monumental undertaking that is extremely dangerous for the stability of the country so it shouldn't be considered lightly. Civil war is far worse though so hopefully we can collectively navigate our way back to calmer waters.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...
Even your framing people disagree with. Imagine if it was this spin instead:
People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US import millions of illegal immigrants and provide for them over it's own citizens" or "should I be forced to deny biological realities around trans people" or "should the government protect known criminal illegals from consequences" or "should men have to put their life on the line for a country that hates them" or "should there be investigations when protesters are violently disrupting ICE operations" or "should we ignore SCOTUS rulings we don't like". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil.
Dissolving the Constitutional government isn't a "middle ground". Rather it's exactly what the big-money supporters behind Trump have wanted from the start - whether it's big tech looking to become the domestic government, or other countries looking to take the US down a few pegs.
I agree that we likely need a few Constitutional amendments, but that is a far cry from dissolution.
The amendments I believe we need:
1. Ranked Pairs voting to break out of this lesser of two evils race to the bottom. Get rid of the Electoral College merely because it's straightforward rather than quibbling about out how it could work with non-plurality voting.
2. Independent executive agencies chartered by Congress. Heads of which are independent executives elected just like the President.
3. Triple the number of senators (reducing this effect of moribund "senior" senators that benfit their state due to pull). National elections run every year (we shouldn't have to wait until "midterms" to course correct, and would also diminish the stark divide between "election promises" and "results")
4. Repudiation of Citizens United, and this general nonsense that corpos possess the natural rights of individuals. (something similar might happen at the state level, as states are actually the governments that charter corpos to exist/operate in the first place)
5. Repudiation of Wickard v Filburn and followup decisions that have allowed the federal government to characterize everything as interstate commerce. The federal government should only be able to get involved when states have a disagreement.
The first two are the critical foundation. Note that the overall effect is for an individual's vote to be more than a single bit of information. The last three might not be strictly necessary, but relieve the pressure from the path dependence of where we're at.
All of those sound like helpful changes. There are plenty more that could push the system back toward supporting citizens and fairness and limited government power.
It sounds like the point here is "all we need is an honest and earnest legislative branch" and, yes, I agree that would help us get on the right track. Similarly, a judicial branch change of heart in the same way would really help relieve the anger and hopelessness people are feeling.
If you have ideas for how to actually make either of those happen they would be worth sharing and pushing forward.
I don't really get the gist of your response. Yes, if we had a more honest legislative, judicial, OR executive branch then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead we've got the very best politicians money can buy.
The same problem applies to picking drafters/representatives/etc for any Constitutional amendments. But I'd hope with the utter breakdown we're facing, there might be enough political will, plus amendments have to be short, plus making the issues meta enough that entrenched interests can't straightforwardly lobby loopholes into them, that maybe the barriers could be overcome.
My point is that we don't need to be talking about a wholesale dissolution of the government and rewrite of the Constitution when we can focus on some powerful meta-issues that have led us to this place. In fact I'd expect such a process to be much more beholden to the sway of corpo lobbyists as making a new system from whole cloth would have much more complexity for such things to hide.
Honestly, the worst case scenario I see is Grump becomes a lame duck after midterms, leaves office in Jan 2029, and then the entrenched Democrats go back to uninspired milquetoast business as usual.
Even not participating in elections have consecuences, at least for proper democratic countries.
But in countries where participation is mandatory, at least you can say that most of the (national) negatively affected people got what they voted for.
For improper "democratic" countries where elections are rigged or participation is biased towards some population sectors in a way or another, they are not really elections by the population.
yes and the results and actions taken after the Nov 6 US elections may undo some of the damage. But no other country will ever trust the foreign policy of the US no matter what happens.
There is the military saying "Once is an accident, twice is an attack", this is how a lot of folks see it.
I think it is deeper, that these actions were taken at the top and a sizable amount of the people sided with them, that sends the message that the US cannot be trusted long term, it has become cultural. I get that it isnt a majority of people but it is big enough that it cannot be ignored.
"We cannot leave the security of Europe in the hands of voters in Wisconsin every four years."
Not trusting the Americans was a French thing ever since De Gaulle. It just took the rest of the Europeans 50 years after his death to pick up on it.
That is a brilliant line. And yes Emanuel Macron has been taking this treat seriously as he is very well versed on Da Gaulle.
He might not have the best domestic moves but when it comes to Geopolitics, he is all over it.
> yes and the results and actions taken after the Nov 6 US elections may undo some of the damage
You're assuming that 1) the elections will actually occur on Nov 6, 2) the elections will be fair, and 3) that the winners of said elections would take action and actually enforce the rule of law.
I'm not confident in any of those.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Many are hoping that there is a very strong turn out for the Democrat's so that any rigging cannot over come it, but this sounds like fan fiction to me. That said Trump hitting Iran may be the single biggest blunder of his political career, media influence can only go so far when there is a direct impact on all prices and potential stock availability in the coming months.
Hopefully a lot of the fears don't pan out but we won't know until it gets closer.
I'm not saying that there aren't better options but both major parties are complicit in how the system is organised. The US electoral system gets ever more distorted with every minor adjustment in the hopes of swinging various seats in their favour and now it just looks ridiculous.
Never say never.
Germany seems to have recovered quite a lot of trust following World War 2, to provide an extreme example of bad foreign policy.
Do you think the US is going to have Nuremberg trials? Do you think there will be a deep national reckoning about what happened?
Never say never.
> Do you think there will be a deep national reckoning about what happened?
About half of the people I know who voted for Trump this past election have deep regrets.
Do they regret voting Republican, or do they regret voting for this particular Republican candidate?
This is the crux. Trump is simultaneously a wholesale departure from political norms, but also merely a culmination of decades of reactionary talk radio preaching "Death to America" but then backing it off just enough for people to go to the polls and vote for "their" candidate.
Trump's second term should be the end of the Republican party. But if Bush II is an indication, the pattern was that while people gradually came around to seeing what a bad idea the Iraq War was and whatnot, they merely cooled off for a few years but then were right back at it getting fooled again a slightly different way. How much of the support for Trump was basically recycled criticism of the Iraq War (ie of the Republican establishment) ? And yet here we are now, with a nice shiny new quagmire (assuming it isn't an outright loss).
fwiw I'm a libertarian so while I actually agree with much of the criticism, it galls me even more how people can start with very individual-liberty-centric criticisms, but then somehow gleefully jump behind supporting authoritarianism when it can be their turn at the trough.
I have regrets when I say something dumb or drive through an intersection on a not-quite-yellow light.
Innocent people, including children, are dead. Republicans have done irreparable harm to this country on every imaginable level: civil liberties, trade, global power, economics. Open and naked corruption is so off the charts it can only be described with comparisons to the post-Soviet era.
"Regret" is, quite frankly, insulting.
I hope they are suffering deeply for it. They got exactly what they voted for.
"Deep regrets"
L-fucking-O-L
What did they expect?
What exactly do they have deep regrets about, though? Do they regret voting for someone with his style? Do they regret empowering an obvious corrupt liar? Do they regret supporting someone who focuses on who to blame and hurt, rather than on things that might actually help (albeit in regrettably marginal ways in all three cases)?
Or do they just regret that they were fooled by this guy, specifically? That he's not accomplishing his stated goals, whether or not he is taking his promised actions? If it's this one, then it's only a matter of time before another charlatan does the same thing better.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I don't disagree. The Democrats believed their "permanent Democratic majority" schtick, and enacted a bunch of things that much of the country deeply disagreed with.
But we also need a national reckoning on ICE's excessive use of force, DOGE, using the DOJ to prosecute political opponents, the financial irresponsibility of the "Big Beautiful Bill", the attack on the Capitol, the rest of the attempt to undermine the results of the 2020 elections, the tariffs by executive order, the threats to Canada and Greenland...
I also don't disagree, we need a national reckoning on all the things!
This is my now flagged original comment. Upset some people:
>Do you think there will be a deep national reckoning about what happened?
You're witnessing one. This is the national reckoning on open borders, DEI/wokeism, etc.
[flagged]
Through selfless deeds, hard work and admitting their failures to the fullest, for generations till now. Somehow I don't see that happening easily with american ego
They didn't tho. West Germany was still governed by ex Nazi politicians and bureaucrats after the war. This was the primary reason that the Red Army Faction formed and carried out its attacks.
The Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) was staffed by many ex SS officers.
Nuremberg Trails are continuously trotted out as an example of a system that works, but 200k people are estimated to have participated in crimes against humanity, of which only around 6700 were convicted, or 3.3%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_Saevecke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dickopf
https://www.waz.de/politik/article4512500/die-braunen-jahre-...
https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/history-research-third-reich-...
https://www.jvl.levit.dev/the-prosecution-of-war-criminals
https://us.cnn.com/2018/12/14/europe/germany-nazi-war-trials...
they're also on the cusp of throwing it all away, again.
It is wild seeing the elctorial maps of Germany and you can almost exactly recreate the East-West split. Decades later and it is coming back to haunt them.
tbf the east-west split never really stopped haunting Germany. its not like it came suddenly. there are a lot of systemic errors that lead to this.
Tbf, the east/west split is the one part that wasn’t the Nazis’ fault unless indirectly as a consequence of starting and losing a second World War in a row.
I don’t think November 6 is going to be a reprieve. They have rigged the system so much that I don’t think it’s actually possible for the Democrats to make a comeback.
Even if the Democrats do make a comeback, they have spent half a century demonstrating that they are an, at best, an inadequate counter to America's awful political tendencies.
I actually like what they have done in the past, they’re level headed and reasonable. What I can’t stand and it makes my blood boil that they are completely ineffective without a political mandate. It’s a bunch of career politician cowards that may do well when everything is by the book but they remain completely emasculated when it comes to getting their agenda through. The Republicans even without a mandate will shuck and jive their way into getting their way.
If they lose it will be because they don’t track unfavorabilty ratings for your democrats as much as they do the current admin. It’s not enough (for moderates) to just say you hate the other guy.
The thing is a lot of people hate the other guy. It’s just that all this rigging just means they’re going to be disenfranchised.
This. Once bitten, twice shy
Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again.
Really? Like Italy, Germany, Japan, etc can be trusted but after, I'm not even sure what exactly, the US is fully and forever untrustworthy??
> Like Italy, Germany, Japan, etc can be trusted but after, I'm not even sure what exactly, the US is fully and forever untrustworthy??
It took two generations and a new constitution for Germans to regain trust again.
You cannot trust the current generation of U.S. Americans, and the U.S. Constitution certainly does not alleviate that concern. They elect a god-king like president who seemingly has unlimited authority. Why would you trust such a country for more than four years?
Edit:
> but after, I'm not even sure what exactly
Killing people outside the USA left and right without due process? Starting a war and thinking that it is fun while the whole world is suffering because of that war? Kidnapping a head of state? Cosying up to the enemy of your allies during a war? Threatening allies? Declaring parts of an allied country as your own? Supporting Nazis in allied countries? Supporting separatism in a province of your neighbor (and until recently your closest ally)? Proudly telling the world what country the USA will assault next? ...
[flagged]
Oh, don't worry, the way it's going other countries will be fast motivated to defend themselves from said foreign policy...or perish.
US protection can be valuable, but US dependence is dangerous.
The world is moving on.
It is a combination of moving fast and slow. A lot of Canadians now avoid purchasing products from the US were possible. Mean while their government while still dependent on the US is making the moves that will minimise their dependence on them over the coming decades.
I am seeing similar positions in other countries now.
It's absolutely shocking how many people believe other countries lack the means to defend themselves.
No, not this story.
This story is that of Netflix' Chaos Monkey attacking the state most rhetorically aligned/proud of The Rule Of Law and showing in myriad ways how absolutely hollow that pride was and how vulnerable The Law is.
Are these bugs that get fixed or...if that was The Last Election, maybe not.
no one thought the consequences would include giving 1.8 billion dollars of American taxes to the people who tried to violently overthrow the government and to those who are successfully leading a bloodless coupe.
Well, most people, obviously.
[flagged]
It was a multi part scheme to steal the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
Trump and all his appointees still refuse to say that Trump lost.
[he did nazi that coming]
Pushing an unpopular platform loss after loss also has consequencess.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Then enumerate them.
[flagged]
But not too scared to import Chinese EVs, apparently. Maybe a trade agreement would be a better coercive tool?
damn, the rhetoric in this thread put out by (I presume) Americans is like in 2006 when I got my first Neostrada and I first joined Mac vs PC wars
dont mean to offend, just didnt realize things were this rabid over the big pond
have you seen our leadership?
Yep. If you want foreigners to contribute to your country, you may wanna avoid electing a known geriatric narcissist that has the impulse control of an angry toddler and creates a huge cloud of unpredictablity.
Not that US borders were predictable before that men came into office. But when I enter the EU or Japan for example I have fundamental trust in the fact that even if I was not a citizen, my rights would be clear and not violated by some lunatic border officer that had a bad day. Being expected to disclose your social media accounts while them potentially holding you for weeks without any reason? Nah thanks.
When I was traveling on the Balkans a decade ago I also had weird border encounters, with Serbian officers expecting bribes. I felt safer there than the expectation of crossing into the US makes me feel. Don't eant people with half a brain coming over? Then we don't. Your choice.
It would appear rage has well and truly been bated. My word.
Yeah I usually expect better of the comments here but it looks like a nerve has been hit.
Bated means the opposite of what you mean.
The comments on this HN post nicely color the problem Tim points out, from the comments that assume the exceptionalism of the USA, to comments that say “stay in Canada”, to comments that call the post “moral preening”.
I grew up in a very conservative household, and until the tea party/Trumpian alliance would have called myself a small-l libertarian.
Now? I won’t vote republican for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it rhymes with the worst parts of the political parties we destroyed in world wars.
There’s something new almost every day that should, in a sane culture, cause folks to abandon the Republican Party en masse. Today’s example? The 1.776 Billion “anti-weaponization” fund that is a slush fund for Trump and his allies, including folks that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The grift of this administration is shocking, but the fact that rank-and-file conservatives aren’t abandoning it by the millions gives away the game. It isn’t about principles, it’s about one party winning, no matter what.
We used to fight for what’s right, but we have become the villain. Tim is right about the declination of America (realizing his title is a double-entendre), and I can’t help but wonder if there is even a line that Trump could cross to the modern “Republican” party.
> I won’t vote republican for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it rhymes with the worst parts of the political parties we destroyed in world wars.
As a former right winger, now recovering conservative, I'm inclined to agree. The greater issue for me is the right became every single thing they accused the left of (being easily hurt, mandated viewpoints, group think).
It's all the natural progression of the animosity campaigns Newt Gingrich launched a generation ago. ref: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/662/where-there-is-a-will/a...
Yeah, setting policies and even cultural differences aside, the level of blatant corruption in this administration is simply beyond the pale. In any other western country, this admin would have been gone by now.
And there's so much of it that it's almost become the norm. It's shocking that anyone -- no matter their political views -- can continue to support that.
We literally went from "drain the swamp" to "fill the swamp"
I honestly do not want my kids to grow up in this country. Which is too bad because it has a lot going for it otherwise. I'm actively looking for an exit strategy.
I said in another response, Trump has shown the cards to world that there is a sizable portion of the country that can not be trusted. Other nations have realised this is an embedded problem and cannot be fixed with another election. At least not on a long scale.
Not a dissimilar state of affairs from the 1820s. It took 40 years more for that disagreement to come to a head.
The one truly astonishing aspect in US politics for my european mind is the degree to which many US voters appear to have given up their agency in favour of party loyalty.
Some may think supporting their own party no matter what is a smart move that will let them win, but the only thing it achieves is that the party can now stop representing your interest. One of the few levers you have as a voter is the threat of not voting for a party or even voting against them. By swearing blind loyalty no matter what, you're giving up that single lever you had. The power of a voter isn't to vote people into office, it is to vote them out of it.
Trump has seen time and time again that he can promise X and then get away with doing the polar opposite of X, just because Republican representatives and voters think towing the line is more important than everything else.
In an actual democracy the politicians are afraid of the voters, not the other way around.
As a Canadian / American who now lives in Europe: IMHO the two-party system and current constitutional structure in the US is an unfortunate local maximum.
It was very definitely better than the centuries of militaristic monarchic feudalism Europe waded through from medieval times until the mid-1900s. It is very definitely worse than modern pluralistic coalition-based democracies with proportional representation, which offer a wider range of choices to voters, and make it possible to launch competing parties / movements to counter institutional stagnation.
Until recently, the one counterargument I would hear to this second assertion is "but coalition governments have a hard time getting anything done". Now that we see a prime example of a government that alternates between a) not getting anything done and b) getting things done that belong somewhere in a timeframe from the 1890s to the 1940s, I no longer hear people making that counterargument.
Re: constitutional structure, one Irish friend I have made an interesting point: in his lifetime, there have been many changes and amendments to the Irish constitution. This is next to impossible in the US system, both because of the party loyalty dynamic mentioned above _and_ because of the incredibly high procedural bar to doing so. (And not least because of the current predominance of originalist thinking in the judicial branch, as though the constitution were an infallible document handed down from gods among men, eternally to be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended back over 200 years ago in a completely different social, political, and technological context.)
[flagged]
Use your main account. Go on.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
EU equities outperformed US in 2025. The Iran war will probably shift this back to the US but launching a new poorly defined war (and arguably losing it) is also a pretty good indicator of decline.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
People - Canadians included - have literally been sent to a gulag at the border crossing, for social media posts and otherwise. Can you really not see why that would cause someone to not want to enter?
Moreover, he literally said he continues to be a supporter of that org.
That was fake news.
“The French researcher in question was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a nondisclosure agreement — something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal,”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/world/europe/us-france-sc...
[flagged]
People have been sent to the gulag by the Canadian government as well, not too long ago. Governments are disgusting.
Terrance McKenna once said something like "The worst government is the one in power, regardless of the time."
Essentially, regardless of who is in, they rarely teardown the injustices of the past but merely build on them. They will rip out like 20% of things that are socially changing but after that it is a ratchet upwards on things that cement in further power.
Have a link to share about it?
I believe the UK is doing a similar thing with regards to social media posts.
How is that relevant? He wasn't invited to an unconference in the UK.
If 'WhatAboutism' is your best defence, then you are in a desperate place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Huh. You read that as whataboutism. I just saw "this is also bad, let's list the offenders". Not an excuse or normalization, but an expansion of scope. It may not be terribly useful or relevant in this instance, but I tend to lean towards wholistic examination of issues, which must include all the places and forms where they appear.
Then again, maybe I'm just bad at recognizing intent from such small pieces of writing.
To add my voice to the choir: fuck all the governments pushing this nonsense. It causes harm with no measurable, justifiable benefit.
People have already been harassed for social media posts and citizens have been murdered in broad daylight simply for observing law enforcement.
Don't be ridiculous. The US operates gulags in other countries, so that they don't have to pretend to follow our own laws.
> "I won't engage with interesting people in a country whose leadership I don't like"
I dont know where you got that quote from, but it doesnt occur in the submitted blog post.
It seems to me that the important actual quote is:
"I’m Canadian and as a matter of principle feeling negative about visiting a neighboring country whose leader has repeatedly threatened our sovereignty and shown massive disrespect for our nationhood."
I live in Europe and I agree with the author's misgivings.
> Also love he thinks his social media posts will cause him to be sent to a gulag at the border crossing.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/a...
> Effective March 30, the Department of State will expand online presence review to include applicants in the following additional nonimmigrant visa classifications [...] To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for A-3, C-3 (if a domestic worker), G-5, H-3, H-4 dependents of H-3, K-1, K-2, K-3, Q, R-1, R-2, S, T, U, H-1B, H-4, F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas are instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to “public” or “open.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-f...
> A French scientist was denied entry to the US this month after immigration officers at an airport searched his phone and found messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump administration, said a French minister. [...]
> The same source said that messages discussing the Trump administration’s treatment of scientists had been found. The researcher was reportedly then accused of writings “that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/15/austr...
> An Australian man who was detained upon arrival at Los Angeles airport and deported back to Melbourne says United States border officials told him it was due to his writing on pro-Palestine protests by university students.
[flagged]
The only evidence we have it was fake news is a statement from the Department of Homeland Security itself - a department which has been repeatedly caught lying in courts of law under this administration.
But I'm sure the statement they gave to a journalist, which hasn't been confirmed by any third-party reporting, was absolutely factual.
[flagged]
I think you think that was clever.
You thinking that I think that was clever is telling.
If he was in possession of confidential information why didn't they charge him?
Charge him with what? Violating NDAs is civil, not criminal. You know what else is typically civil, not criminal? Immigration.
Whether it would happen or not is immaterial. The perceived threat is enough. I've been here on a green card since 2016 and haven't left the country since his second term since I share the exact same fears.
Plenty of people have had their social media posts result in extended detention by our border security.
TIL a new word - "boosterism"
Serious questions:
1) I use "socials" anonymously. Have anon accounts on X, IG, FB. If asked to disclose them at the border (am US citizen, but it's happening to them too), do I disclose the anon accounts?
2) Nothing too controversial in my "socials" (I'm careful), but there's still stuff there that could embarrass me (e.g. mocking or abusing people on X). What would happen if I scrubbed my socials before a trip? Would they be able to find out that I scrubbed, and then construe something about me?
3) Relatedly, is there a recommended way to scrub one's socials?
4) Is something like HN considered part of "socials"? I assume Reddit is. So HN must be too? I've had multiple accounts on HN over the years (been serially banned until I stopped leaving controversial comments). What am I expected to do in such an instance? Do I disclose all the HN accounts?
5) Relatedly, I have multiple X accounts (squatting on usernames). Do I disclose all the accounts?
No, if they ask just give them the handle of any accounts that are currently on your phone. Just remove anything from your phone or computer if you think it might be an issue, like if you are sharing ISIS videos and stuff. As a citizen you don't have to do anything, but if they ask and you don't let them look at a device they can keep it to inspect it and let you go.
> Just remove anything from your phone or computer if you think it might be an issue,
Read this line back to yourself a few times.
Now tell me where your democracy went.
1. If you don't and they find out, then you committed an felony. It is the same as the "Are you an terrorist?" questions. Once they want you for more serious stuff like blasphemy against king donald, then they can pull out the convicted felon card and increase the sentence.
2. + 4. It depends
3. If you plan to go to the us while Trump and his chronies are in an position of power, then the best way to scrub them is not to post it.
5. See 1. if you don't disclose all, they can pull the lie on a form card
"anonymous" should be quoted too, unless you're a flawless security expert?
Have you only ever logged onto them on burner devices / qubes and over eg Tor?
My understanding is (1) yes. (2) maybe, maybe no, depends on if they're looking up people tagging you in threads? If there's signs you're scrubbing yourself out of politically controversial threads that might become problematic. (4) yes, yes, yes. (5) yes.
Assuming they do ask in the first place.