[periodjet]

Why have we all lost the ability to think in a nuanced way? It’s very disturbing to witness, particularly on a forum like HN, ostensibly populated by smart people.

It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.

It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.

Etcetera, etcetera.

You don’t HAVE to dedicate yourself to a fully polarized set of beliefs. Nuance is possible. What the hell is causing us to lose our minds like this? Is it really just social media? So frustrating to witness.

[datsci_est_2015]

Unfortunately while proselytizing about nuance, the side with the power and the guns is working overtime to make it so there is only one valid set of beliefs, and those beliefs are “American”. This is no longer a symmetric conflict of ideologies, I’m not sure what it’s going to take for people to realize this. A tidal wave of blue in the midterms I think is the only hope a lot of us have left. Maybe if that doesn’t come to fruition, either legitimately or illegitimately, despondent Russian literature will start to resonate much more strongly for us.

[dragonwriter]

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.

Yes, that it is a set of things that it is possible one could believe.

That is not an argument for it being a set of things that one ought to believe, as opposed to that ICE has a legal mandate that it isn't actually pursuing, and the mandate which it is pursuing is both intentionally murky, unethical to the extent that evidence suggests what it is, and also pursued by methods that are illegal and inhumane even irrespective of the bad ends that they are directed at.

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.

Again, that it is certainly a set of things it is possible to believe, but it seems pretty silly to believe. A queue is at best an undesirable consequences of particular choices about how to manage concerns about quantitative levels of immigration and particular impacts those levels might have, not an ideal to be pursued.

> Nuance is possible.

“X is possible” is not an argument is that X is, factually or morally as appropriate to the shape of the proposition at issue, justified. And an extended argument that sets of beliefs are possible is something people only engage in when they recognize that they are unable to make the case that they are justified, but nevertheless want to suggest that people are bad for failing to adopt them.

[senordevnyc]

A queue is at best an undesirable consequences of particular choices about how to manage concerns about quantitative levels of immigration and particular impacts those levels might have, not an ideal to be pursued.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[falloutx]

> believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.

Honestly, There is no queue for poor people, this is their only way, most of these people aren't even eligible for farm worker temp visa. US has created bureaucracy over the years in such a way that these people can never become legal. They are not skipping the line and taking some tech worker's spot or anything.

[juggerl3]

They're still illegal. You can and should defend yourself from poor strangers who view their circumstances as justification to infringe upon you. You can and should enforce your border.

[smokel]

The core issue is not that people cannot think with nuance, but that nuance is costly and poorly rewarded.

[periodjet]

I fear you may be right…

[sleekest]

Could it just be that people with views at each end of spectrum see posts this like as part of a battleground, and everyone else stays clear of battlegrounds?

[mmsimanga]

Another nuance I would like to add, being an immigrant myself, not in the US. There should be more discussion about fixing the source of the migrants, the countries people are running away from. What is it that makes people leave their families behind and how can it be fixed. I know it isn't up to the US to fix other countries but it should be a point of nuanced discussion. We cannot all end up in the US.

[Altern4tiveAcc]

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate

... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.

The existence of that app is an abomination; the fact tax payer money is being allocated to it is tragicomic. Not spending it and just giving it as tax returns to the population would be so much better than kidnapping people over being born in the wrong place.

[tick_tock_tick]

> ... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.

I mean sure but you have to acknowledge that is an extremely fringe belief that basically no one in the USA supports. The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.

[HumblyTossed]

> particularly on a forum like HN, ostensibly populated by smart people.

Even smart people are capable of hate.

[bl_valance]

Because people get blinded by dogmatic ideologies that chastise them for going against and/or questioning any position held by given side.

It's all or nothing.

[insane_dreamer]

Because the use of ICE and its actions has become so extreme that it can’t be simply “moderated”. The Trump Admin is pushing it to extreme action. So unless that is removed the only possible response is a strong reaction. ICE gutted its own nuance.

[innagadadavida]

I feel that the mob doesn't understand nuance and right now that mob is fighting for control for definitions of words and what is moral and ethical without giving you the freedom to choose for yourself and accepting it without malice. It's vicious and tiring and definitly not productive.

[R_D_Olivaw]

Yes yes, shoot mothers in the face in her car.

Grab human beings from their homes and detain them thousands of miles away with no due process.

Send human beings to detention camps in another country NOT the one they are from

Please, people, have some decency and maintain the nuance. We're not barbarians here! Sheesh.

[mft_]

I'm neutral here, but I think the person you're replying to already covered your points when they wrote

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.

[Atomic_Torrfisk]

I blame infiltration by bots slowly shifting the Overton window. Did this site not get "weird" in the last few years?

Not to think to highly of ourselves, I for one am a genuine idiot, but the crowed here likely has more influence than a lot of other online forums. Making it a worthwhile target, especially on the AI front. Plus the site is an easy to integrate into a bots with the minimal website and all.

[headsman771]

HN got a lot of refugees from Twitter and Reddit the past few years as well.

[greekrich92]

ICE Was created by an illegitimate president who murdered a million people in Iraq under false pretenses. It has no ethical mandate.

[Paraesthetic]

Illegitimate, you're hilarious

[basch]

nuance exists plenty it just doesnt float to the top.

by definition, groupthink will get more upvotes than mishmashthink.

[vitaflo]

Companies have advertising to sell. Nuance doesn’t sell very well.

[potsandpans]

That's enough concern trolling out of you.

[xiphias2]

It's because there is extremism both on the left and right: the left thinks that the right wants a power grab to stop left from coming back, and the right thinks that if they don't keep their power now, the left will take it and keep it using immigrants.

Both of them are right: unless there's a civil war or moderate president (which probably needs ranked choice voting) the most probable scenario is that one of the 2 extremes succeeds.

I also miss the old HN btw and wish that there wouldn't be any right/left politics, just the old classic libertarian property/privacy/opennes right debates, but it looks like those days are gone.

[afavour]

This is peak “both sides”. Just today Trump said he thinks there shouldn’t be any midterms. No Democrat is saying anything remotely like that.

[hairofadog]

> the left thinks that the right wants a power grab to stop left from coming back

It would probably help if Trump didn't fantasize about this publicly all the time

> the right thinks that if they don't keep their power now, the left will take it and keep it using immigrants

The left will "take it" by being elected, if they are in fact elected. That's the extremist threat the right is worried about?

What does "keep it using immigrants" mean?

[therobots927]

Yeah, remember when Biden deployed a personal army on red states and threatened to cancel the election?

What world do you live in where you would expect equally extreme behavior from a democrat president?

[tonymet]

Sophisticated and nuanced opinions are an embellishment . A badge worn at cocktail parties .

Cleaning up a mess is 1000x messier than making it .

No one will ever care or remember your sophisticated opinion.

That’s why it may be possible to have nuance but it’s just a peacocks feather