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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#771

Post by sidlls »

sanderjd wrote: post #736
sidlls wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, asking why things were done in the past is a useful exercise to uncover deficiencies in reasoning, process and other areas which can be acted upon for present and future action. Your argument is essentially "don't ask why my favored party/people/orgs did bad things, just pay attention to the rhetoric they're using now." It's an incredibly cynical position to take, in my opinion.

Seems pretty easy to resolve this dispute: let's both act in the present and critically consider our past actions. Where's the argument here?

No argument on that specifically. I do take note, and exception, when very vocal supporters of Hillary have a "come to Jesus" moment over Trump's actions. Part of that "critically consider past actions" thing.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#772

Post by bjourne »

lpolovets wrote: post #500

It upsets me to read negative comments about initiatives like this. My assumption is that most people agree that it'd be good for the ACLU to have more funding and to operate in a more efficient, higher leverage manner. If YC can help with that, great! They could be backing other areas instead, or they could be backing nothing. I, for one, am glad they're backing something good. I don't understand why people often br…

I hope it is because we are all hackers and programmers. We find flaws in everything because that is (literally) our jobs.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#773

Post by npunt »

beaconstudios wrote: post #738
Miner49er wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I can understand that viewpoint, it is logical. However, I'd argue that while liberty would be gained, it would come at the expense of there being more hate in the world. I personally don't think I would want to live in a society where people are denied service because of something about themselves that they cannot control.

forcing interaction doesn't remove that pre-existing hate though (I'd prefer the term prejudice because I know many christians don't hate gays). Forcing a christian bakery or a muslim pizzeria to cater to a gay wedding would just foster resentment at being compelled by the government to perform an action against their will. Freedom of association means that groups that don't want to interact, don't have to. For someo…

It may - or may not - change the prejudice of the individuals providing services. However, the sum of those prejudices (in the absence of laws that say otherwise) normalizes separation & segregation, which creates an environment for hate to grow.

Humans tend to distrust/dislike those we're not close to. Lots of evidence shows associating with people builds empathy. Taken to its extreme, segregation causes us to 'other' people and lose empathy.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#774

Post by wfo »

sidlls wrote: post #370
tptacek wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking why things were done in the past is unproductive. Asking why more things aren't being done in the present isn't.

No, asking why things were done in the past is a useful exercise to uncover deficiencies in reasoning, process and other areas which can be acted upon for present and future action. Your argument is essentially "don't ask why my favored party/people/orgs did bad things, just pay attention to the rhetoric they're using now." It's an incredibly cynical position to take, in my opinion.

It's cyclical to be constantly looking back and holding every group to this impossible standard we've constructed for today that is constantly changing. This is the only argument I ever see from Trump supporters: Clinton or Obama or the Democrats did it/would have done it or worse, so it's all okay and you aren't allowed to complain. Never is the argument presented that what is currently being done is right, because it's indefensible.

Why not talk about what is right and talk about doing that? When we read 'all men are created equal' we don't say 'well, the founding fathers hated women so it's okay for me to' or 'the founding fathers had no good ideas and they are trash' we talk about what parts of their ideas had merit and try to improve upon them and do the right thing /today/, from this moment forward.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#775

Post by lol214365 »

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...

Both articles just say "unconstitutional" and say "racist" a bunch of times without citing statute or case law. Sorry if I don't find such arguments compelling.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#776

Post by Miner49er »

TheOsiris wrote: post #721
Miner49er wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line between free speech and discrimination was drawn long ago. Would you also have people deny service to Black Americans like we did before the Civil Rights movement?

Should a Jewish restaurant be compelled to serve neo-nazis wearing Nazi uniforms?

Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#777

Post by int_19h »

jrmurad wrote: post #260
del82 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain specifically how the ACLU is a left-leaning political organization, rather than an apolitical nonprofit?

Some "left-leaning" stances they take where I'm hard-pressed to see how they are defending civil rights, if not outright violating those of one party for the benefit of another: affirmative action: https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/affirmative-actio... voter id (are all the other countries that have this violating their citizens' civil rights?): https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...…

On the subject of abortion and drugs, it's fairly straightforward. ACLU is not a "states' rights" organization. It is an "individual rights" organization. It sues states for infringing people's rights as much as it sues the feds. So from their perspective, if they can enshrine the protection of a right at a federal level, they'll go for it, because it's easier than forcing all 50 states to do the same.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#778

Post by kafkaesq »

rhizome wrote: post #770
kafkaesq wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that kind of an "investment". It's more less obviously a charitable donation.

Why leave it to interpretation?

Tone and message. Which are quite significant, in gestures like these.

To call it a "donation" would carry a connotation of pity, or do-gooderism ("We know this is money down the toilet; but we're doing it anyway because it's the right thing.") Calling it an "investment" suggests that in fact they earnestly expect a substantial return on that investment -- which they do, though not a directly financial return, of course.

But rather in safeguarding the very fabric of society in these perilous times we find ourselves in (which, indirectly, also safeguards their ability to keep doing what they're doing).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#779

Post by fokov »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #719
rz2k wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a little glib, but this came up on Reddit from Twitter: > The left protest about Trump, but they're strangely silent about King Raedwald's invasion of Northumbria in AD 616[1] It's a bizarre way to argue in favor of being politically detached. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/5r6zw0/the_left...

I never supported Trump, but I can't find it in myself to join the opposition specifically because I don't understand them. When someone says "Why are you protesting Trump doing X, but not Obama doing X?" it's not a valid argument, and it's not a convincing argument, but that's not the point. If your answer is "well, when Obama did X he mitigated the negative effects by also doing Y, and did X in political climate wh…

Sounds like you're listening the noise and not the signal. There were plenty of people that were against Trump before the election and now he is doing the things he said he was going to do. They have real reasons to be opposing him, it just sounds like you are paying attention to memes and talking heads in the consolidated media.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#780

Post by int_19h »

monochromatic wrote: post #574
xeromal wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU has defended the rights of neo-nazis and pedophiles. They defend people that no one wants to defend including democrats.

Recently?

Yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...

Which is something that can be found with a straightforward Google search, I must add, so the sheer number of comments here that are asking this question makes me conclude that most of you doing that believe the question to be rhetorical. As in, you assume that ACLU does no such thing, because "everybody knows that".

Well, "everybody" is wrong.

Post reply on HN