[HN Gopher] Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]
___________________________________________________________________
Don't Be a Sucker (1943) [video]
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 189 points
Date : 2025-10-13 20:31 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| themafia wrote:
| Nazi Germany built it's regime through direct control of the
| media and censorship of anyone or any idea that challenged their
| ideology.
|
| I'm not sure propaganda that ignores the power of propaganda is a
| great idea.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Ah, but how exactly did the Nazis _reach_ that point when they
| _didn 't_ have that capability? Perhaps... the things in the
| video?
|
| Compare: "This video on pulling weeds is useless, because after
| the tree has grown it has a mighty root-system."
| chb wrote:
| Fascist propaganda needs a foothold. In the US, it's got a step
| ladder.
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| Making media != direct control of the media
| Tepix wrote:
| These days there is social media. Controlled by whom? A handful
| of billionaires.
| laidoffamazon wrote:
| We've gone from CCP control of the media spigot to pro-US
| regime billionaires controlling it. One step forward and
| another step back.
| zaik wrote:
| What has this to do with one another? This video doesn't
| advocate for censorship of the media.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| I don't quite follow- could you spell out your argument?
| mempko wrote:
| This is important for everyone here to watch. A divided house
| does not stand, and if you haven't noticed, it's getting more
| divided every day. Don't be a sucker, don't let them divide us.
|
| For perspective, we now have masked agents roaming the streets
| kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United States. Think
| about how fast this came.
|
| EDIT: Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did
| I say is wrong?
| jorblumesea wrote:
| the people who need to watch this aren't likely on HN or
| critically thinking about any of this.
| mempko wrote:
| The people who need to watch this are precisely the ones on
| HN, because we have outsized money and power.
|
| Keep in mind it was the tech elite that helped elect Trump.
| Some of them are here and will see this. Lets see how long
| until this post is flagged...
| ryandrake wrote:
| The "tech elite" making actual decisions are not reading
| and commenting on HN. A startup CTO or a Amazon Director is
| not part of the "elite."
| alganet wrote:
| It is fair to assume that some suckers are reading
| though.
| blibble wrote:
| > Lets see how long until this post is flagged...
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the video disappears too
| gertlex wrote:
| I didn't watch this yet but am going to be curious to hear how
| to not be divided about "we now have masked agents roaming the
| streets kidnapping people in broad daylight. In the United
| States.", when some clearly think there are reasons this isn't
| a problem (or not worth paying attention to).
| mempko wrote:
| By talking to those apathetic and talking to those that think
| this isn't a problem. There is a war for your mind.
| zahlman wrote:
| I understand that the argument I'm about to make plays
| _extremely_ poorly with about half of Americans, and I 'm
| making it as a Canadian. But I'm going to make it anyway,
| because I think it's easy to understand. I'll just try to
| be careful and precise with the words and steps, lest I be
| accused of objectionable beliefs. (Not that it necessarily
| helps, but.)
|
| So, my outside view: the belief on the other side is not
| exactly that this "isn't a problem", so much as that
|
| > masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in
| broad daylight
|
| is not a fair description of the situation.
|
| An important part of the premise of "Don't Be a Sucker" is
| that the Hungarian storyteller is an American citizen who
| followed all the necessary legal processes to gain
| citizenship. The targets of ICE legally do not have the
| right to be on American soil. They have other rights, of
| course, but I have not seen anyone make a clear arguments
| as to why "protection from being arrested by a federal
| agent" is among them.
|
| ICE claims that the masks protect them from doxxing, and as
| far as I can tell they generally have been legally entitled
| to them. I'm seeing that Newsom has passed law against
| this, but it's unclear to me why federal agents are
| supposed to be bound by that. In particular, I don't
| understand how it's supposed to be compatible with
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause , as
| immigration, naturalization etc. are matters of federal
| concern (e.g. you cannot claim citizenship of a state). It
| stands to reason that someone who immigrates illegally has
| committed a federal crime.
|
| Similarly, citizens in the communities where illegal
| immigrants are housed have quite a few rights; but "freedom
| from feeling fear due to ICE agents trying to arrest the
| illegal immigrants" doesn't appear to be among them. After
| all, they could experience that same fear regardless of how
| (ir)rational it is.
|
| Federal agents generally are granted the right to arrest
| people. They are part of law enforcement (https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the...). It is
| inappropriate to describe a lawful arrest as a
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping, which is
| definitionally unlawful.
|
| It should not be controversial that countries are entitled
| to determine that not everyone has a legal right to be
| there, and to enforce that distinction. I do not expect to
| be able to enter, say, Japan without a visa and stay there
| indefinitely; even if I morally disapproved of the concept
| of "borders", I could not expect that to be a compelling
| legal argument. Even the general good will historically
| associated with the US-Canada border crossing has limits.
| Passports exist for a reason; the concept of citizenship
| exists for a reason. Work visas are explicitly granted for
| a specific duration, and overstay is unlawful, and unfair
| to those who follow or have followed immigration processes
| properly.
|
| People object to the term "illegal immigrant", but it
| fairly describes a person who has entered, or remained in,
| the country in a manner counter to that country's laws. To
| speak of "undocumented" people suggests the possibility of
| a mere clerical error in the case of someone who indeed has
| a legal right to remain; but everyone has already agreed
| that this is not what the debate is about, which makes the
| terminology a euphemism intended to cloud the issue
| emotionally.
|
| Trying to use "Don't Be a Sucker" to make the anti-ICE
| argument requires a conflation of things that many people
| consider to be entirely different. The greatest division I
| see in the USA nowadays is between people who think like
| you and the people you uncharitably characterize.
| blks wrote:
| ICE actively targets and arrests people who are legally
| staying in the US as well, detaining them for weeks
| without due process.
| zahlman wrote:
| What exactly is your evidence for this claim?
|
| What do you consider to be their basis for such
| targeting, and what is your evidence for _that_ claim?
| electroglyph wrote:
| i'm fine with upholding laws, but secret police are
| bullshit. we have a serious problem with police
| accountability in the USA, they shouldn't be allowed to
| obscure their badge number and face, as that only
| encourages bad behavior.
| ok_dad wrote:
| The scary part is how this is being done, not that
| immigration laws are being "followed" (they aren't).
|
| Masked men roaming the streets arresting even US citizens
| without a warrant.
|
| Going into court rooms and houses of worship to do it.
|
| Using violence on unarmed peaceful protesters, regardless
| of the protest legality.
|
| Combine it with the Republican inability to follow the
| law and the current rhetoric about "antifa" and how
| democrats are terrorists.
|
| That's why this isn't good and people are scared. It
| could turn into civil war at this point, with very little
| spark.
|
| Thankfully you're from Canada and your stake in the
| matter is fairly nil.
| zahlman wrote:
| Can you show that they have arrested US citizens without
| reasonable suspicion? Can you otherwise show that law is
| not being followed? From what I can tell, they are
| legally allowed to wear masks for this. ICE's webpage
| also is adamant that they legally do not always require a
| warrant (https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-
| frequently-asked...), and Snopes agrees
| (https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/21/ice-arrest-
| people-war...).
|
| Entering private property without a warrant does seem
| like it would be unlawful, yes. Fourth Amendment, yes? Do
| you know of court cases scheduled to make this argument?
|
| Regarding protests and the response, that very much
| contradicts the video evidence I've seen.
|
| There is no rhetoric, as far as I can tell, about "how
| democrats are terrorists", except in the sense that there
| equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists".
| There is rhetoric about antifa, no quotes, because (among
| other things) of the demonstrable existence of protesters
| using black bloc tactics, explicitly describing
| themselves with that label, and explicitly stating a goal
| of countering supposed "fascism".
|
| Do you otherwise disagree about the general principles of
| setting and enforcing rules for immigration?
| laidoffamazon wrote:
| A shocking number of people are simply unaware (or worse, don't
| care) that the current regime pardoned a thousand
| insurrectionists either while being nakedly corrupt to the
| point of taking cash in CAVA bags. The attention simply isn't
| there.
| jackpirate wrote:
| _Why not have a conversation instead of downvoting. What did I
| say is wrong?_
|
| Your second paragraph is implying that the half of Americans
| who voted for Trump are "bad Americans". That seems to be
| sowing the division that your first paragraph warns against
| (even if it is a reason to dislike Trump).
|
| I don't think either democrats or republicans can claim the
| moral high ground about sowing division.
| stevenbedrick wrote:
| It seems to me as though you're reading a lot in to that
| second paragraph. Are you disputing the basic facts outlined,
| about "masked agents roaming the streets kidnapping people in
| broad daylight"? Because that is, in fact, a thing that is
| happening in cities all over the country right now, and
| simply pointing out that it is happening is not a partisan
| act.
| zahlman wrote:
| The partisan act is the _description_ of what is going on.
|
| Can you show that the arrests are unlawful? Or else what
| exactly is your basis for the use of the term "kidnapping"?
| brokegrammer wrote:
| The guy speaking at 3:35 reminds me of a recent blog post by a
| certain tech celebrity, where he was recalling his recent visit
| to London and was unhappy to find less white people that he
| remembered from his previous visit.
|
| History repeats itself.
| mempko wrote:
| Mind providing a link to the blog post?
| pchristensen wrote:
| I believe it's this one: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-
| remember-london-e7d38e64
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| Awesome video. So much great content is so easily accessible
| today. The challenge is discovery!
|
| Grateful HN is a quality "feed" - way better than all the
| algorithmic feeds..
|
| If something as curated as HN existed & appealed to the masses -
| even if it was ad funded! - we could live in a different world.
| mempko wrote:
| These are precisely the kind of posts on HN that get flagged
| and blackholed. I will eat my hat if it stays on the frontpage.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| Did you lose faith in humanity gradually or all at once? :P
| Grosvenor wrote:
| Same as divorce, or bankruptcy.
|
| Gradually, then all at once.
| asveikau wrote:
| I've been thinking about this video for a few months now. I've
| been telling people to "not be a sucker" referencing it. I
| haven't re-watched in a few years, though.
| neilv wrote:
| I love that this was US propaganda at one point.
|
| The US always has failings, but this message is something we can
| be proud of.
| swed420 wrote:
| Except for the endorsement of littering, which fit the time
| period.
|
| It would be decades before they wheeled out a crying native
| american on TV to make people feel guilty about the matter(s).
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Italian*
| 113 wrote:
| Is it still true that Americans find it hard to see how this is
| very clearly propaganda?
|
| Yes, it's anti-Nazi but it's still has very obvious problems.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What problems?
| 113 wrote:
| Well it's massively overtly nationalist for one. There's a
| hilarious sequence at the beginning that's just shots of
| American industry and agriculture.
| lazide wrote:
| What, by your definition, would not be problematic?
|
| And, why would anyone like it?
| behnamoh wrote:
| > We must judge each man as an individual, and not by the color
| of his skin or eyes, ...
|
| As a brown person with brown eyes, I find this line of thinking
| both beautiful and unfortunately dangerous.
|
| In principle this is absolutely true, but it ignores the
| historical context in which biases and stereotypes formed. The
| evolutionary processes that lead to our survival reinforced the
| idea of Bayesian thinking, which roughly means that you start
| with a prior belief about someone or something and then keep
| updating it as you obtain more evidence (for or against it).
|
| Could it be that historically humans learnt that certain groups
| of people (let's call them group X) are more prone to aggression,
| theft, etc.? Imagine you're one such human and see a member of
| group X in a dark alley. Wouldn't you be scared as well? Or would
| you think "never judge a man based on the color of their skin,
| everything is fine"?
|
| The thing is, to update our Bayesian prior we must gather
| evidence, and some evidence is easier obtained than others.
| Associating someone's behavior with their skin tone is easy, but
| doing so with their "background and personality as an individual"
| is hard. Would you, in that dark alley, start to have a deep
| conversation with the person from group X to form an opinion
| about them, or would you simply assume you're right about your
| prejudice and move to a safer place?
| bryan2 wrote:
| I think you're conflating intuitional alarms Gavin de Becker
| style with treating people as individuals which is two very
| different things. Racism is about our society treating people
| of color fairly whereas the other is about maintaining healthy
| boundaries and respecting your intuition.
|
| I think this is a nuclear bad not only because I think it
| excuses bad behavior but also because I think it's just
| intellectually lazy.
|
| If I'm misinterpreting you please let me know because I hope
| I'm mistaken.
| vacuity wrote:
| I agree with your general premise, in that there are bad
| actors, and appearance is a powerful classifier, so identifying
| potential bad actors by appearance is genuinely useful. I think
| there are many caveats in practice, such as:
| How do I demonstrate that I arrived at a conclusion reasonably,
| with data? How do I calibrate my probabilities, instead
| of a binary "safe or unsafe"? How do I keep from
| overanalyzing appearance and making incorrect perceptions?
| I think the primary sign of danger in your example is being in
| a dark alley.
|
| Moreover, learning danger where there is danger is valuable,
| but so is unlearning danger where there isn't danger. And then
| there are the errors of learning danger where there isn't
| danger, and unlearning danger where there is danger. So, I take
| your point broadly, but there are many demons this way.
| submerge wrote:
| To turn it around, you should assume anyone in the dark alley
| is potentially dangerous, and not allow biases or racism to
| cause you to lower your guard to someone who may end up
| stabbing you.
| solarmist wrote:
| I get it and it does make sense. Humans always consider the
| unfamiliar dangerous by default, but I believe it's deeper and
| simpler than the arguments you present.
|
| This is not a strictly human trait. Anthropologists are pretty
| sure we received this trait from our primate ancestors. It
| evolved out of family groups/tribalism.
|
| Also, a large part of our brains are safety mechanisms. Many
| features are directed at keeping us alive which is why so many
| of our what if scenarios are about the worst happening.
|
| In very tribal environments anyone not in your in-group is
| considered unsafe even if they look exactly like you (i.e. a
| tribe from 10 km away).
|
| But the thing that has made humans the most successful species
| on Earth is our ability to override this behavior to cooperate
| at larger and larger scales.
| otterley wrote:
| Jesus H. Christ. Are we now trying to make our racism sound
| acceptable by sprinkling it with scientific concepts like
| Bayesian thinking?
| anothersucker wrote:
| your aggressive anti intellectual tone is disgusting
| otterley wrote:
| Defending racists is even more disgusting.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| > Could it be that historically humans learnt that certain
| groups of people (let's call them group X) are more prone to
| aggression, theft, etc.? Imagine you're one such human and see
| a member of group X in a dark alley. Wouldn't you be scared as
| well?
|
| Certain groups of people may be more prone to aggression,
| theft, etc, in certain times, places, situations, etc, for many
| historical reasons; but what is relevant for the consideration
| (and what to do about it) will depend on the situation.
| However, if there are strangers in a dark alley then it might
| be safer to move to another place regardless of their skin tone
| (or accent of speech or what language they speak, which might
| be easier to notice if it is dark) though, although none of
| this is a full explanation of the situation, which can vary in
| many ways.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I love this one. Relevant today.
|
| Divisive nonsense belongs in the garbage.
| Urthesucker wrote:
| that's a pretty divisive thing to say
| doitLP wrote:
| Date must be wrong, because it mentions the end of the war and
| D-Day. Per this date was 1947:
| https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
| zaik wrote:
| It could refer to the production date:
|
| > It was said to have been produced in 1945, and Paramount
| Pictures allowed showings for the public "without profit" in
| 1946. 21st century sources describe a 1943 production and 1947
| release instead of 1945 and 1946.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Be_a_Sucker
| evanjrowley wrote:
| Should be required watching in public school history classes.
| jrowen wrote:
| I was watching a clip from the The Lost World (1925)
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chwzrwHnCtk] the other day. I
| was struck by the silly (to my ears) orchestral fanfare scoring
| such a dramatic scene, and the fact that almost all of the men
| are wearing nearly identical outfits. It's still almost exactly
| the same 20 years later in this video. The timbre of the voice of
| the narrator is another thing, so universal in media from that
| time and comically foreign today.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-13 23:00 UTC)