Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

amny.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#91

Post by PhineasRex »

talmand wrote: post #76
_delirium wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a much older fight in NYC than Uber. They're probably involved in a good number of the cars in question in recent years, but a back-and-forth over to what extent to tolerate vs. crack down on unlicensed taxi services has been going on for decades. The general category is often called by the somewhat racist term "gypsy cabs".

Why is that a racist term? To be honest, I had never heard the term until recently when I heard it used on a TV show.

"gypsy" is an ethnic slur that refers to the Romani people.

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#92

Post by c22 »

ricksplat wrote: post #83
marincounty wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, but it just getting old? I'm glad someone finally said something. Think of it this way, you loose your residence, and job. In turn, I tell you, "Well, nature is beautiful?". And yes, we can all find grammatical mistakes. Now, producing something worth reading is another story?

Yeah it is just getting old. A pedant picks up on a single spelling mistake in three paragraphs of perfectly fine text, and it's a matter worthy of commentary. No matter how politely it's phrased, or how elegantly the correction presented, that's just plain ignorant. The fact that it got upvoted too just illustrates the commentariat are more interested in style over substance.

I agree, which is why I virtually never make comments about minor errors in execution and why I felt compelled to add a disclaimer to this one. I just find that this particular error is very subtle and trips a lot of people up so thought it might be helpful to highlight in case it was not a simple typo. I never expected it to garner this much diversive conversation.

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#93

Post by scott_karana »

liquidise wrote: post #39
mtgx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason, Courts so far have agreed to buy the government's whole twisted logic that "things can be guilty of crimes", and under that twisted logic it seems to make sense to do that.

Very true. I am still awaiting the day this is extrapolated to gun rights and watch the hypocrisies rain.

> I am still awaiting the day this is extrapolated to gun rights and watch the hypocrisies rain.

Are you saying that all gun owners are also supporters of civil forfeiture?... Or have I misunderstood?

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#94

Post by talmand »

PhineasRex wrote: post #91
talmand wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a racist term? To be honest, I had never heard the term until recently when I heard it used on a TV show.

"gypsy" is an ethnic slur that refers to the Romani people.

Interesting. From my quick reading I can see why some would disagree with the usage.

Although, I also find it interesting that, apparently, in English law it refers to a nomadic person regardless of race or origin. Which is a use of "gypsy" that I was familiar with.

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#95

Post by talmand »

logfromblammo wrote: post #87
DanBC wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I agree with your first point.) > As I asked elsewhere, how is this term racist and derogatory? Gypsy is a racially problematic term. Using that term to refer to unlicensed cabs links travellers (who may or may not be Roma) to crime and dangerousness. If you care about this kind of stuff it's probably a good idea to move to phrases like "unlicensed cabs". You get some benefit it's more useful for an international au…

"Gypsy" may also refer to Irish Travellers (Pavees), and possibly even to other insular nomadic cultures, not just Roma. I wouldn't be surprised if a travelling carnival worker had ever been called a gypsy. The term itself is derived from E gyp tian, which just goes to show how little people care about actual facts when labeling outsider groups. And if you really want to be politically neutral as well as culturally n…

As I responded in the other post where I asked the question, under English law that is the definition of which is the version I was familiar with. Referring to nomadic person regardless of race or origin. I've never understood it to reference a particular race. Hence my confusion on why it would be a racist term. Derogatory I could understand, but not racist.

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#96

Post by dang »

c22 wrote: post #49

This is a stupid grammar nitpick I only offer in the hopes that you find it useful for your writing. No dismissal of your arguments or denigration of your character is intended. I think you want the word "affected" in your second paragraph. Effects are the result of causation, whereas affect refers to the causation. The citizens were affected by the effects of this policy.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384716 and marked it off-topic.

(As often happens, the root comment wasn't so bad, but the subthread is terrible.)

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#97

Post by ricksplat »

c22 wrote: post #92
ricksplat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it is just getting old. A pedant picks up on a single spelling mistake in three paragraphs of perfectly fine text, and it's a matter worthy of commentary. No matter how politely it's phrased, or how elegantly the correction presented, that's just plain ignorant. The fact that it got upvoted too just illustrates the commentariat are more interested in style over substance.

I agree, which is why I virtually never make comments about minor errors in execution and why I felt compelled to add a disclaimer to this one. I just find that this particular error is very subtle and trips a lot of people up so thought it might be helpful to highlight in case it was not a simple typo. I never expected it to garner this much diversive conversation.

I was surprised that your comment got voted to the top of the pile, and that any chastisement on that got flagged and downvoted.

Unreal.

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#98

Post by PhantomGremlin »

mfoy_ wrote: post #80
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

casual old-fashioned ethnic slur It's not a slur. Why does everything need to be so PC these days? The term may have originated in NYC, home of much colorful language. Here's a Village Voice article that provides a lot of background and that quotes illegal cab drivers referring to themselves that way: once a gypsy, always a gypsy http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-some-illegal-taxi-drive...

>referring to themselves that way Apply this logic to any other ethnic slur and see how well it works out for you.

First, the drivers aren't even Romani. Second, the NY Times has used the phrase, quite often. Granted, with a quick Google I couldn't find a more recent NYT reference than 2008, so maybe they changed their mind.

Pulitzer Prize winning columnist William Safire, perhaps best known as a long-time syndicated political columnist for the New York Times and the author of "On Language" in the New York Times Magazine, a column on popular etymology, new or unusual usages, and other language-related topics[1], explains in the NY Times:

   Just because some people take offense
   at a word, however, does not automatically
   banish the word from the English language.
   ...
   it is hypersensitive to take it as a slur
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/23/magazine/on-language-gyppi...

Here the NY Times mentions that a politician was a former driver: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/nyregion/16rivera.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_safire

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#99

Post by mfoy_ »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #98
mfoy_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>referring to themselves that way Apply this logic to any other ethnic slur and see how well it works out for you.

First, the drivers aren't even Romani. Second, the NY Times has used the phrase, quite often. Granted, with a quick Google I couldn't find a more recent NYT reference than 2008, so maybe they changed their mind. Pulitzer Prize winning columnist William Safire, perhaps best known as a long-time syndicated political columnist for the New York Times and the author of "On Language" in the New York Times Magazine, a colum…

>First, the drivers aren't even Romani.

This makes your argument worse, not better. The term "gypsy cab" derives from a racist stereotype of the Romani[1]. How can a term with a racist etymology not be racist?

Imagine any group of people appropriating traditionally-derogatory ethnic slurs for another group to describe themselves. How is that okay?

As for the Pullitzer Prize winner, that article is from 1986, more than a bit out-dated. Bizarrely, the author even defends the verb "to gyp" as not being racist because it's only one syllable. Imagine the sheer outrage if the verb "to nig" came into popular usage and referred to a negative stereotypical activity.

Why am I even arguing this? The fact that the term "gypsy cab" uses the name of an ethnic group to refer to a stereotypically negative trait of that group should completely and utterly speak for itself.

It's not "too PC".

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gypsy_cab

Re: Judge: NYC Seizing Thousands of Cars Without Warrants Is Unconstitutional

#100

Post by studentrob »

briandear wrote: post #51

Has anyone ever died because of an unlicensed limo? Is it really a threat to public safety? If consenting adults agree to a transaction, I am not sure how that's the government's business. However, if an unlicensed vehicle was portraying itself as a licensed vehicle, then you have a fraud issue, not a public safety one.

Marvin in pulp fiction maybe? Just kidding.

Who knows. It does seem like an easy way to get away with such a crime. In the past it may have been a legit safety concern.

Now with uber it seems safe. Police can track the location of the car, driver and passenger.

Probably has something to do with collecting tax money too. Licensed means it is easier to track taxes. Uber doesn't need the traditional licenses for reporting taxes

Post reply on HN