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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#641

Post by kafkaesq »

giardini wrote: post #633
kafkaesq wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why has this been posted here? Because it relates to the public doings of YC, which are always on-topic (overriding the "no politics per se" rule).

Indeed? The logic of your well-thought out and ponderous argument is utterly overwhelming. Might have as well said "Because we can!"

The logic of your well-thought out and ponderous argument is utterly overwhelming.

Actually it's a pretty straightforward consequence of the HN guidelines, which clearly do not forbid all political discussion; just "politics for its own sake", i.e. political talk not strongly anchored in some other intrinsically legitimate topic.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#642

Post by ohitsdom »

treehau5 wrote: post #609
ohitsdom wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they mentioned the womb, I'm assuming this person is pro-life. The ACLU is decidedly not pro-life. https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion

Not so much pro life, as I like to disassociate myself from that hypocritical stance, but I like to call myself "whole life" or basically pro life for the whole life, from beginning to end.

Same, but I still use the term "pro-life". It's my attempt to take back the term :)

I'm a strange mix of conservative and liberal views, but I find myself strongly agreeing with "whole life" groups like Democrats for Life of America.

https://www.facebook.com/Dems4Life/

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#643

Post by makomk »

saosebastiao wrote: post #244
striking wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a list inherited from the Obama administration. The best time to argue about whether this list stands up to scrutiny or not was years ago. Edit: I'm not making comments about Trump's actions (specifically, I'm not defending what he did). As for whether this particular list stands up to scrutiny, that question should have been asked a long time ago.

The list was for increased border scrutiny and travel restrictions, created by a republican congress and passed as a string attached to a much larger bill. It was not an outright ban. And especially not a ban whose appeal priority would go to christians. Bannon is a genius. The fact that he can co-opt partisans in the deflection of criticism with facile ideas like "Obama did it" is terrifying.

Half the entries on the list are from Congress, the other half were added by the Obama administration which was given the power to add to the list as it saw fit. Any strange omissions are therefore entirely on Obama's head. Also, if I'm reading the congressional record correctly the original, non-consolidated version that was not attached to anything else passed the House of Representatives with a substantial bipartisan majority, 407-19 - see https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158/...

One reason this is interesting is that there there were some very widely-circulated - and of course false - claims on social media that the choice of countries was somehow influenced by Trump's business interests, and that the fact no-one from countries on the list had killed in the US proved Trump was inspired by racism or even an outright fascist. https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/825473088758374400 was typical of the genre. Snopes decided to show an uncharacteristic lack of interest in online rumours by not mentioning them. Naturally, the same people who were spreading those claims are now spreading the debunkings about how no, Trump's ban is nothing like Obama's.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#644

Post by DashRattlesnake »

alanh wrote: post #590
joshfraser wrote: post #427

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of t…

A long time ago, during the GWB administration, I donated to the ACLU and got placed on the postal mailing lists of innumerable unrelated Democratic-leaning activist organizations. I was disappointed by that, since the partisan association cheapens their work and opens them up to attack.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#645

Post by morgante »

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…

You're committing the classic fallacy of castigating people for trying to fix a problem when they don't fix all problems.

Would you prefer that the wealthy tech companies didn't donate to the ACLU? That they refused to ever support any good causes?

This is a pernicious idea and should be put to death. Trying to step up and do something should not make you a target. Reserve your wrath for the many billionaires who don't do anything about any issue.

I read an article about this phenomenon a while ago, but I can't find the link. It's essentially the fallacy that trying to fix a problem makes you responsible for it—so if you can't completely fix it, you shouldn't try at all.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#646

Post by sueders101 »

deeth_starr wrote: post #447
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…

Why don't you google "black lives matter ACLU". They have fought data collection about BLM protesters as well as defended people unlawfully detained at protests. And we have been funding the ACLU individually. I like that YCombinator is now trying to help them as a org. This comment is unpopular because you're just being a troll. Edit: I get you are complaining about the recent swell of funding. And YCombinator proba…

In response to your second edit; the vast majority of black voters voted for Hillary, a significantly greater proportion than any other race. Hillary ended up with 88%[1] of the black vote. Furthermore turnout was down across all demographics in 2016.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#647

Post by zardeh »

fareesh wrote: post #443
enraged_camel wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep bringing up the Obama thing in response to the immigration ban. Obama suspended visas from Iraq for six months, and gave plenty of warning beforehand so people could prepare. Trump suspended all immigration from seven countries on a Friday without warning, ordered the detention of people from those countries at the border, prevented them from seeking legal representation, and deported some of them. Includ…

I have a couple of questions here if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate. 1) Given that what Trump is doing is allowed by law - what circumstances can one imagine in which this kind of travel ban would be okay (since it's legal) or is the law itself a problem? 2) I'm curious about (1) because there are legitimate reasons why Trump's ban is more draconian than Obama's, all of which are rooted in various screw-ups…

>Last year, the vetting process somehow managed to grant visas to 9500 terror linked individuals, all of whom are missing. When the visas were revoked, there was no way to locate them. (Source: House oversight committee hearings & Mainstream media ~ 2015 / 2016)

No, since 2001, 9500 "terror linked individuals" were given visas. Unfortunately, I can't find any explanation of what "terror linked" means in this context. Each year, the US grants approximately 8-9 million visas. So, in 15 years, across over 100 million issued visas, approximately 10,000 may have been given to individuals who were "terror linked", where that could mean "confirmed terrorist", or it could mean "their uncle once went to a market that we believe is a known terrorist hotspot". Again, there's no explanation, anywhere, of what "terror linked individual" means in this context.

Please stop editorializing.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#648

Post by RileyKyeden »

giardini wrote: post #612

Why, oh why, has this been posted here? Is there possibly a single institution that serves as more of a lightning rod for anger in the USA, in any political direction, than the ACLU? Would a similar article be posted about the NRA, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, or Southern Poverty Law Center (all which, along with ACLU, do excellent work for their contributors/supporters)? From the ycombinator Hacker News Guidelines a…

As I read this, I imagined you as one of those flailing tube people car dealerships put out.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#649

Post by temp246810 »

morgante wrote: post #645
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…

You're committing the classic fallacy of castigating people for trying to fix a problem when they don't fix all problems. Would you prefer that the wealthy tech companies didn't donate to the ACLU? That they refused to ever support any good causes? This is a pernicious idea and should be put to death. Trying to step up and do something should not make you a target . Reserve your wrath for the many billionaires who do…

Exactly - what motive could OP's comment have other than self-aggrandizement.

Look at me everyone, in the face of something really good happening, I still complain about all our other shortcomings because I am morally superior.

This is a good thing that is happening, get off your high horse.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#650

Post by mmckelvy »

I see SV and its ilk are doubling down on the actions and ideas that lost them the election. Perhaps something beyond a knee-jerk reaction is in order.

Great article along these lines: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nine-questions-protesti...

Particularly salient quote:

"If you decide that border restrictions are fascist then you are declaring the views of most people to be fascist, because most people believe in border security."

Food for thought.

Post reply on HN