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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#301

Post by problems »

mst wrote: post #126
monochromatic wrote: post #33

The ACLU sometimes supports a worthy cause, but it's basically just a left-leaning political organization. I understand that's particularly trendy right now, and anyone who supports Trump is a pariah in Silicon Valley... but come on. Would YC be donating directly to the Democratic party if that got the same favorable tax treatment?

The ACLU sued to protect the rights of neo-nazis. That's not how most "just a left-leaning political organization"s behave.

I had great respect for them when they were doing that kind of thing and standing up for everyone's right to speech. Do they still engage in that? If I recall correctly they haven't had cases like that in decades.

All their recent cases in my memory are left-leaning at least, which, while they do represent many good goals in my opinion, is understandably a political slant.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#302

Post by geofft »

ajamesm wrote: post #240
geofft wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought "virtue signaling" meant loudly expressing sentiments to enhance your perceived moral standing. If you actually put your money where you mouth is, a) is it still virtue signaling, and b) what's wrong with it?

seems like the meaning is shifting from "non-sacrificial action taken solely to signify virtue" with "any action taken in the name of virtues I don't embrace"

Cool. Is Trump's get-rid-of-two-regulations executive order "virtue signaling"?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#303

Post by TenOhms »

bmelton wrote: post #194
laurent123456 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic (people should do nothing today because they did nothing yesterday) doesn't make any sense, and I don't get why it keeps coming up every time something related to Trump's policy comes up.

Not to speak for the OP, but at least for me, I'm seeing a lot of my friends all of a sudden up in arms over policies that Obama (and Bush, and in some cases earlier than that even) got crickets for. Admittedly, I'm not trying to compare apples to apples, and I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, and it's absolutely amazing that the media have finally grown into their role of a check and balance against the…

It also reeks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#304

Post by beat »

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?

Consider the EFF. They're more narrowly focused, and unlikely to come in conflict with your beliefs. And, with a battle over Net Neutrality being almost inevitable, they could use our help, too.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#306

Post by CydeWeys »

MikusR wrote: post #299
muninn_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This temporary hold on people entering the country from one of 7 countries for 90 days affects a lot of my coworkers" And then "I don't care about the dozens of black people gunned down every day" Seems a little selfish no? This is exactly the same mentality that Trump supporters had, just exchange Americans with coworkers and refugees with black people. Maybe they aren't purely marketing moves, but I just have a ha…

Because the temporary restriction on new people entering the US affects his company's ability to get lots of cheap labor.

Top tech companies are paying lots of money for world-class talent. It is absolutely not "cheap labor".

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#308

Post by azernik »

eddieroger wrote: post #137
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The unfortunate thing is that the ACLU should be non-partisan and only fighting for those who are having their rights threatened. It just so happens that in the last week or so, it was Conservatives doing the threatening. There aren't a lot of incidents in recent memory of liberals taking away rights from folks, so you get a slant of ACLU vs Conservatives. The irony of wanting a small government I guess.

Theoretically, yes. However, the ACLU has historically been perceived (especially by the right-wing) as a left-wing organization, since it stood for things like racial equality, religious equality, and most importantly the end to (mostly anti-Communist) restrictions on political expression.

Hence the attacks on Dukakis for being a member of the ACLU during his election campaign, and his joking self-labeling as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (in reference to McCarthy's references to "card-carrying Communists").

EDIT: And for yet more historical background - it was originally founded (as the Civil Liberties Bureau) to defend anti-war speech and conscientious objection during World War I, which were mostly left-wing and far-left-wing phenomena. Post-war, in addition to serving as an ethnically-neutral counterpart to ethnic civil-liberties organizations such as the ADL (Jewish) and the NAACP (African-American), it spent a lot of time defending free political speech. And the free political speech that was most under attack through its seminal period in the 1920s was labor organizing and socialist politics. (Because of the phenomenon of white-supremacist Southern Democrats, minority-rights issues did not necessarily line up with party politics, but they were indeed perceived as left-right issues in the sense that racial equality was considered a far-left position.)

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#309

Post by m3rc »

chickenfries wrote: post #16

Peter Thiel insists that the immigration EO is does not constitute a religious ban [1], but Rudy Giuliani says this is exactly what the President asked for [2] (Also, we heard him say as much many, many times). [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2017/01/28/peter-thiel-s... [2] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...

Peter Thiel is as usual, a snake. He knows he's spreading lies but his support for this administration trumps any dedication to the truth.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#310

Post by VikingCoder »

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…

The ACLU excels at mounting a legal defense.

I think when bad cops get off, it's because of bad (or absent) legal prosecution.

Post reply on HN