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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#651

Post by [deleted] »

ohitsdom wrote: post #642
treehau5 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

[deleted]

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#652

Post by notgood »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #87
rexreed wrote: post #21

Does YC have a page of their particular positions on various political matters which guides their decisions on which non-profits to support and which ones not to? I'm genuinely interested in reading a "platform" as it were on what YC believes and is willing to support.

Yes this is somewhat dangerous for YC. I would like to see that this was planned before November and their support was not determined by who the president turned out to be. Combined with the outspoken politics of Paul Graham1, I get the feeling people who identify as conservatives may not feel welcome at YC. 1 http://twitter.com/paulg EDIT: I changed "conservatives" to "people who identify as conservatives" to clarif…

Did any president before a few days ago denied the entry to green card residents? No? Well they may think it's a sign of things to come so it's rational to start supporting the ACLU now; and sure there are another million problems they turned a blind eye before, doesn't mean they have to turn a blind eye to all the problems forever

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#653

Post by morgante »

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…

Trump has positioned himself as actively and explicitly anti-civil liberties. He does not feel he is bound to ethical rules or rule of law.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#654

Post by bb611 »

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…

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

The president of the United States just signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US on the basis of their country of origin, which is in fact unprecedented.

> This topic now is yet another gathering point for all unhappy with the election results.

Accurate.

> It's probably a good thing that liberals, in general, avoid firearms, otherwise there might be fighting in the streets already.

Classy

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#655

Post by Avshalom »

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…

>Given that what Trump is doing is allowed by law

both the (now fired) AG and several federal courts don't think it's allowed by law.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#656

Post by arjie »

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…

This is absurd. Following this, no one should ever do anything since they could have just done some other thing sooner.

Now maybe I'm wrong and you're a Nobel Peace laureate, but it looks a lot to me like someone claiming to care but only criticizing in an unproductive manner.

"You should have engaged in this other thing earlier" is a bullshit criticism. And then the holier-than-thou nonsense at the end about just caring oh so much. Unbelievable.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#657

Post by maxerickson »

savagej wrote: post #600
anigbrowl wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the American Civil Liberties Union, Not the Union of Americans' Civil Liberties. 'American' in this context refers to the provenance of the civil liberties in question, not some sort of property interest. The more you know!

Clearly I didn't know we had a one world government. If American liberties are a concept to apply over the whole world, the ACLU should be encouraging the whole world to a adopt the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

So in the US a lot of civil rights actually show up as restrictions on what the government is allowed to do.

Isn't it reasonable that we should seek to limit the actions of our government towards non citizens to those actions that are necessary or beneficial (either to US interests or to both parties)?

So for example, it may be reasonable to investigate the backgrounds of people that would like to visit the United States. But after such a reasonable investigation, I personally don't think the government should then be allowed to use those people as political props.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#658

Post by morgante »

jessriedel wrote: post #362
alpha_squared wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the ACLU non-partisan?

Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.

The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant.

For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#659

Post by kansface »

diyorgasms wrote: post #539
deskamess wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully not... YC needs to retain the inclusiveness. It should have the ability to disagree with civility. If PT is acting in a way that hurts YC's investments then I expect YC to have a civil discussion with him.

History shows that collaboration with fascists is without virtue. Fascist collaborators should not benefit from inclusiveness while trying to eliminate it.

I believe history also shows that labeling anyone who disagrees with you a fascist and organizing to systematically ostracize them from polite society is without virtue as well.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#660

Post by dragonwriter »

morgante wrote: post #658
jessriedel wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.

The ACLU tries pretty hard to stick to their values, even when it puts them in opposition to Democrats. They've sued the Obama administration several times and have frequently defended groups (ex. Nazis) which liberals find repugnant. For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.

The ACLU has not defended the Nazi cause; the ACLU has defended the cause of free speech and peaceable assembly, even when those speaking and assembling peaceably are themselves Nazis.

The distinction is quite critical.

Post reply on HN