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

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#561

Post by comex »

pdeuchler wrote: post #532
muninn_ wrote: 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…

Probably because top SV companies recruit PHDs from the Levant at an order of magnitude more than they recruit from inner city Chicago? How is this not obvious to the people here on HN? How do the people on here who constantly get holier than thou about demographics in tech not see the obvious machinations? Seriously, look around your office right now and then ask yourself again why top tech companies care more about…

> What do you think is more likely, that Google genuinely cares about the immigration of farmers from Libya, or that they have a couple physics PHDs from Iran driving huge amounts of search revenue?

Why not both? If Sergey Brin joining the airport protest is any indication, the leadership genuinely cares about the injustice of the ban - but they're more inclined to act when issues affect them directly.

Nonetheless, Google did support Black Lives Matter, if not quite as loudly. For example, in November 2015, Google.org donated $2 million in grants for racial justice, part of which was supposed to "fund a tech-savvy, grassroots solution to end police violence against communities of color":

http://ellabakercenter.org/in-the-news/googleorg-invests-235...

Also, @google tweeted in support:

https://www.twitter.com/google/status/751174648855928834

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#562

Post by ernestipark »

treehau5 wrote: post #246
CydeWeys wrote: post #11

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 don't donate to the ACLU because I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside. Is there a similar organization I can donate to?

That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#563

Post by freehunter »

wtvanhest wrote: post #533
freehunter wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supporting civil rights is not taking a "highly liberal stand". Just because American politics has shifted to the extreme right doesn't mean everyone needs to shift with it or that people who were moderates yesterday are now extreme liberals. I would be very afraid of anyone who thinks that protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution is "highly liberal". You do realize that the ACUL has been known to defend…

I'm a supporter of the ACLU, my cousin even worked there for a bit. Regardless of your personal beliefs, it is clear that YC's involvement with the ACLU is a political decision which does not match their business model. They are even referencing the recent election and republican party's decisions as the reason they are doing it. There were lots of civil liberties eroded during Obama's presidency, but YC & Sam Altman…

YC is a business. They're a tech company, really. And like most tech companies, they employ a lot of immigrants. It's not hard to imagine they've been impacted by the president's recent policies. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Reddit, Uber, Lyft, Netflix, Slack, Facebook, and a ton more have directly spoken out against Trump's order. It has a pretty major impact. Are all of those companies shameless liberals, too? Just playing politics? Or are they speaking out against something that will directly hurt their business?

Donald Trump's order is not conservative, and opposing it is not liberal. The order is authoritarian. This is not a conservative vs liberal fight in any way and the ACLU is not a liberal organization. If you want to be cynical about it, this is a business move. They didn't stand up in the past because Obama's policies didn't threaten their business model like Trump's do.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#564

Post by yessql »

savagej wrote: post #543
eddieroger wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does. What do you mean by your comment?

People who have never been to America are not Americans.

You could understand it as Civil Liberties in America. When the USA grants you permission to live here, and then takes it away midflight, then that's a problem with America, even if it is not a problem for "Americans".

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#565

Post by nkurz »

aeturnum wrote: post #436
ihsw wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers.

I think it would be more exact to say that the writers believe some self-identified Muslims are sufficiently dangerous that it justifies temporarily banning anyone associated with certain Muslim-majority countries from coming into the US until we can distinguish those who wish to cause harm from those who do not. And since it's difficult to imagine how one could ever distinguish between these groups perfectly, and since other countries can be added to the list, it seems possible that this will lead to a permanent ban on Muslims entering the US.

I find their precept reasonable: there are individuals from these countries who claim to be Muslim and who intend to enter the US and cause us harm --- possibly because we bombed their cousin's wedding, killing half their relatives and maiming half the rest. It seems likely that our current approach to immigration is not sufficient to prevent these harmful individuals from entering the US.

So what should we do? Personally, I think we should stop killing people with drones, since I can't see how this is actually helping the situation. But given that previous administrations have killed a lot of people, and given that some of their surviving relatives are likely to seek revenge, is there anything we can do to protect ourselves? Or is the threat overblown, and any attempt at mitigation is worse than the damage the these (potentially non-existent) terrorists can do to us?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#566

Post by tim333 »

asveikau wrote: post #505

Pre-inauguration, discussion of Trump's immigration policies and their logical conclusion would have been shut down under the "no politics" rule. Seems it only takes ~10 days of this stuff being real for folks here to admit that politics affects everybody and is a valid topic of discussion.

Guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."

I think this counts as an interesting new phenomenon.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#567

Post by davidw »

sidlls wrote: post #484
davidw wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU is not a partisan group. They've criticized Obama where they felt it appropriate: https://action.aclu.org/secure/president_obama_deportations

I wasn't calling out the ACLU. I am rather skeptical of the commitment of certain folks who are just now finding their voice. This is from long experience, at least on the left end of the pond, where the mainstream Democratic partisans attempt to shout down any protest when Democratic politicians do something but encourage it when Republicans do equivalent things.

> I am rather skeptical of the commitment of certain folks who are just now finding their voice.

Who cares. "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now".

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#568

Post by rattray »

vedranm wrote: post #520
rqebmm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's because he's publicly backed Trump, who is as un-libertarian as you can get.

That is being thrown around a lot and actually isn't true. Thiel did not accidentally back Trump and backing Trump isn't contradictory with being a libertarian. (However, claiming that Trump is perfectly adheres to libertarian principles would be.) Compare Donald Trump to Ron and Rand Paul, which are the prime examples of what libertarianism is (unlike Gary Johnson), there is a lot of overlap: free market healthcare,…

Upvoted, thanks for a sensible statement (though I disagree, mostly on the basis of the free trade and police-state points which you rightly mentioned).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#569

Post by coldpie »

CydeWeys wrote: post #379
marcelluspye wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the poster above you, but the ACLU is pro-choice, and the comment you replied to sounds to be pro-life.

To really spell it out, as these "pro-life/pro-choice" terms are somewhat esoteric and not always understood by foreign speakers, the ACLU is in favor of abortion rights and many conservatives are against abortion rights.

The terms I usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Everyone on the planet is "pro-life" and thinks abortion is a bad thing, the question is whether outlawing abortion results in better outcomes than allowing it. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement, though legally speaking it's largely a settled issue.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#570

Post by mulmen »

jMyles wrote: post #230
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU has been fighting the good fight for impoverished black people as well. They happen to be in the spotlight at the moment due to the Trump immigration executive order, but it's not as though 100% of the funds raised by YC will go towards fighting the immigration ban. It will support their countless other ongoing legal battles as well. They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization that is deservin…

> They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization The ACLU is wonderful, no doubt about that. But I think some people do put an asterisk next to the group because of their (obviously somewhat strange) categorization of the protections of the 2nd amendment as outside the scope of American civil liberties.

While I value my second amendment rights I will not allow that to prevent me from supporting the ACLU. I also can't stomach supporting the NRA. It's a challenging position to be in because I do care about my rights but I'm not sure where to turn to support my second amendment rights specifically.
Post reply on HN