Live data from Hacker News

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#431
post #41

Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly valuable and I'm glad they have a lot more money now to fight for the American people, I'm questioning all of this. Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Wh…

Nice concern trolling. The answer, as I'm sure you well know since you're arguing in bad faith, is that now is always the right time to do something good (like provide financial assistance to the ACLU). The argument that a good deed shouldn't be done now because it should have been done earlier instead is a ridiculous non sequitur.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They defend every part of the Constitution except the Second Amendment. That hypocrisy is why the ACLU will never see a penny from me.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just their point of view on the 2nd amendment differs from your view. ACLU position: Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

It's the ACLU's position that the Supreme Court is wrong.

It's my position that that ACLU is wrong and will never see a penny from me.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right. They have stood up for 2A rights in the past, but compared to the NRA and other 2A advocates, they have very limited resources, so they let the NRA / et. al. handle them.

> The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right To be specific - they disagree with one specific SCOTUS ruling that is less than a decade old ( DC v. Heller ). They do agree with the pro-gun arguments put forth by US v. Miller . They have devoted (to my knowledge) no material resources towards fighting DC v. Heller despite their disagreement…

Actually, the NRA themselves didn't want pursue Heller in the SCOTUS. They are not an effective watchdog.

They are, IMHO, far more interested in pursuing their own agenda, which only partially intersects with the right to self defense. More important to them, it seems, is acting as stooges for the GOP. I came to that conclusion after a local election in which the NRA endorsed the GOP candidate, who had a C rating, as I recall, while turning up their noses at his challenger who was an A.

I believe that their reticence to litigate Heller was for their own self-preservation. They can make a better case for donation when they're able to sow FUD about taking away our guns. Having a definitive answer to the question from Heller (and later McDonald, to get it incorporated under the 14th Amendment) impairs how much fear they can inspire in gun owners.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#434
post #41

Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly valuable and I'm glad they have a lot more money now to fight for the American people, I'm questioning all of this. Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Wh…

Not only that but these companies could provide vocational training to adult poor, as well as a conduit to tech education for both poor young blacks as well as poor whites as well as other poor Americans, but that's not sexy. However it is a very big problem for people who earn minimum wage or thereabouts and the unemployed.

If only they got as much enthusiastic and monetary support, we'd be a little more equal amongst ourselves.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#435
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right-wing trolls all hang out in the same subreddits and /pol/ threads, so they have a common set of talking points which inevitably take on a "flavor of the week".

Yes, anyone who calls out moral grandstanding is a right-wing troll.

The top comment at the moment calls out the grandstanding without making false claims about the nature of the executive order, or using terms that have no purpose except a. shutting down discussion of the complex motivations of such actions, and b. identifying you as a right-winger to other right-wingers (wait, isn't that a definition of virtue signaling?)

Also, please don't edit your parent comment so much. I believe this is the third time it was completely replaced. It makes the thread harder to follow, and is a common tactic of trolls who want to confuse and anger rather than discuss.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#436
post #50

Peter Thiel insists that the immigration EO is does not constitute a religious ban [1], but Rudy Giuliani says this is exactly what the President asked for [2] (Also, we heard him say as much many, many times). [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2017/01/28/peter-thiel-s... [2] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...

It's not just Peter Thiel but anyone of sound mind -- the top 5 countries by Muslim-majority population are not included. * Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%) * Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%) * India 172,245,158 (14.2%) * Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%) * Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%) If Indonesia suddenly became plagued by radical Islamic terrorism then it would be on the list too. The seven countries targeted by the immigration…

I think it's correct to say this executive order is not a, "global Muslim ban," but it's clearly focused on specifically stopping Muslims from coming to the US.

The "logic" for the countries selected is that they were already "countries of concern." [1] However, the executive order is written in such a way as to allow religious minorities in, even though they're from a "country of concern." The implication is that what makes the countries, "of concern," is their Muslim majorities. Otherwise, it would be unsafe to let in other religious groups as well.

There are all kinds of explanations for this, of course. The administration may have wanted to ban everyone, but didn't want the heat from the Christian right. They may have wanted to specify Christians instead of minorities, but they would look even more anti-semitic than they already do [2]. They may have written a sloppy executive order and not forseen how it would play.

They may also have used a list of countries from the Obama era as cover and written the order such that it would focus on Muslims with plausible deniability about that focus. They've already said they can add more countries to the list.

I think pointing out that the executive order could have banned more Muslims is worth saying but somewhat misses the point. The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers. The fact that most Muslims can still get to the US does not change the nature of the order.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adminis... [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/team_trump...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#437
post #50

Peter Thiel insists that the immigration EO is does not constitute a religious ban [1], but Rudy Giuliani says this is exactly what the President asked for [2] (Also, we heard him say as much many, many times). [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2017/01/28/peter-thiel-s... [2] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...

It's not just Peter Thiel but anyone of sound mind -- the top 5 countries by Muslim-majority population are not included. * Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%) * Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%) * India 172,245,158 (14.2%) * Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%) * Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%) If Indonesia suddenly became plagued by radical Islamic terrorism then it would be on the list too. The seven countries targeted by the immigration…

"...have kept a lid on their populace..."

Did you really mean to say that?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unfortunate thing is that the ACLU should be non-partisan and only fighting for those who are having their rights threatened. It just so happens that in the last week or so, it was Conservatives doing the threatening. There aren't a lot of incidents in recent memory of liberals taking away rights from folks, so you get a slant of ACLU vs Conservatives. The irony of wanting a small government I guess.

Yes I agree the ACLU should be (and IMHO is) non-partisan. It's just that if YC appears to fund and partner with the ACLU only when conservatives gain power, that will be negative for YC.

Not if there is some inciting incident that coincided with conservatives gaining power, like, say, a partial Muslim ban. In that case it wouldn't be an attack on conservatism as an "identity" but against certain specific policies that are being carried out by conservatives.

Some good evidence against your interpretation of YC's actions here as simple partisan attack:

* YC did not partner with the ACLU on election day, or on inauguration day, but only after a partial Muslim ban became the law of the land.

* YC quasi-defended Peter Thiel and allowed him to remain as a partner in the face of pretty strong pushback from the left.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#439

I don't know exactly what this means, as the implementation details are hazy, but if this entails substantial support to the ACLU (in terms of lawyers, money, or both), then that is awesome. I donated to the ACLU yesterday and I'm encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

I would caution people about how they donate to the ACLU. I made a donation last year and since then have been awash in solicitations for donations from SCLC, Planned Parenthood, Grean Peace, PETA, and other leftist organizations. While I don't object to many of these organizations, I take my privacy very seriously and I wasn't aware when I donated that my personal information would be given/sold out the way it has b…

If you check out the donation form, people are opted-out of that by default now. (Not sure how it was previously.)

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#440
post #359
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be cynical about us bringing in the ACLU, but in the words of Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

In that case, I fully expect to see continued activity on this front even after the next Democratic adminstration and congress continues the Bush-Obama-Trump programs that are (finally) meeting resistance. I won't hold my breath waiting for that, though. Usually what happens is that when one's favored party regains power the criticism suddenly disappears.

Yes, Obama did some bad stuff, and organizations like the ACLU and EFF did push back on it — you can Google "ACLU slams Obama" for a few examples — but Trump is shaping up to be way past the norm, so you shouldn't expect just a normal amount of resistance.
Post reply on HN