Welcome, ACLU • Hacker News Board

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#741

Post by mmckelvy » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

g_sch wrote: post #665

mmckelvy wrote: post #650

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…

It's easy to poll high support numbers for things like "border security" if you avoid the details of what that means. For decades, border security did not mean explicitly banning the entry of all people coming from certain countries based on a campaign promise of religious-based discrimination. I'm guessing that if you polled the approval of "ban all Muslims, including legal permanent residents", you may end up with…

No one has called for a ban of all Muslims, citizens or otherwise and no fundamental rights of U.S. citizens have been threatened as far as I know.

We are talking about which non-citizens we allow into our country.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#742

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #412

ihsw wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not. Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.

You mean the Saudi Arabia that was so complicit in 9/11 that Republicans in Congress passed a law saying private citizens could sue the government of Saudi Arabia for damages caused by 9/11? That's your definition of "keeping a lid" and "maintaining internal security"?

9/11 was 16 years ago. Threats change. US domestic security has changed, and so has Saudi Arabia's. There is no reason to believe they are a current threat.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#743

Post by User23 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

dwaxe wrote: post #716

lol214365 wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU has completely deviated from their declared mission -- protecting civil liberties -- in recent weeks. The ACLU opposes a border wall. Who's civil liberties are violated by a border wall? The ACLU opposes the immigration and refugee EO. Who's civil liberties are violated by foreign nationals not being permitted into the United States?

They literally tell you. Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c... One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...

These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations.

I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#744

Post by notgood » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #572

HeavenBanned wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>half the people on these boards step over a homeless person to get to work every morning. But don't you think half the people on these boards would also support a vast overhaul of the tax system that prioritizes the military/war over services for the homeless? Currently 60+% of our taxes go towards the military. That's unbelievable. Why not chop that in half and redirect it towards welfare services? Or is that too h…

Come on... The budget for military spending in 2016 was 15-17%. What you're regurgitating was actually a hoax/misleading meme photo that propagated that number in order to paint Republicans as war mongers. All it took was one Google search to confirm. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/...

The funny thing is assuming as normal using %17 of the national income in wars ... specially since most of them have been a net negative

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#745

Post by literallycancer » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:31 PM UTC

19guid wrote: post #707

danielsju6 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not…

What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#746

Post by morgante » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:31 PM UTC

mmckelvy wrote: post #737

morgante wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying that "border restrictions" are fascist. It's jeopardizing rule of law which reeks of fascism. This weekend, the rule of law was jeopardized though the: - surprise invalidation and revocation of visas; people who had followed every law were still being detained and deported - detention of permanent residents - refusal to follow court orders We could instigate far more stringent border restrictions (ma…

The majority of the reactions I have seen focus almost exclusively on the restrictions themselves rather than the way they were implemented. Among SV, the media, Hollywood, and elites in general, any call for immigration / entry restrictions almost immediately results in the usual "you are a bigot", "you are a fascist" "we are a nation of immigrants" etc. visceral reactions NOT the kind of more nuanced response you p…

> The majority of the reactions I have seen focus almost exclusively on the restrictions themselves rather than the way they were implemented.

That's because the problem is with the restrictions themselves. Banning people, en masse, including existing lawful visa holders and permanent residents is a huge problem.

The fact that you haven't seen this information or reaction before says more about you than the facts of the case. If you follow the NYT, Atlantic, or even the Twitter feeds of many people reacting to this (including from YC) you'll see that much of the consternation is about how broad this ban is—not with the specific idea of tightening immigration rules.

In a democracy, we don't ban thousands of people from our country overnight. Changes like this, regardless of their merits, should be debated and approved by the legislature—not made by executive fiat.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#747

Post by rafikicoln » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:31 PM UTC

Especially now, it is very important to voice our concerns to our representatives. I've found https://www.mailyourrep.io/ to be really good at letting me do just that.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#748

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #389

cabalamat wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> racial justice According to https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/affirmative-actio... they support discrimination against white people: > Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field. This is bad for two reasons 1. is is immoral in…

Affirmative action is not discrimination against white people.

Preferring non-whites to whites is not discrimination?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#749

Post by nickparker » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:35 PM UTC

lol214365 wrote: post #722

nickparker wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think neither PG's tweets nor this ACLU post are actually against the broad ideas of conservatism. If you believe in individual freedom, small government, low taxes, and heavy use of market solutions, I haven't seen anything from YC that runs against those ideas. The issues YC seems to oppose are nativism/xenophobia and authoritarianism. Opposition to the former is a wholly rational decision to preserve YC's access…

The problem is one can label anything nativism/xenophobia or authoritarianism regardless if that thing objectively fits the criteria of either label.

I don't think that's a significant issue. Ycombinator's political positioning goes beyond a one line statement "We oppose nativism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism."

The partners in their individual capacities largely stick to statements on specific issues, and YC itself mostly promotes specific organizations and policies, eg permissive immigration rules for entrepreneurs. There's little ambiguity in those statements and actions, so it's up to every individual applicant to determine whether the sum indicates an overall culture they could enjoy.

If you have a specific YC action/statement which you think runs counter to a conservative position outside of nativism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, the HN readers would probably enjoy reading it so they can weigh its meaning for themselves.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#750

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

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.

"The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists" -Churchill