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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#581

Post by anigbrowl »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #399
whorleater wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a newer form of calling people "SJW's" or "White Knights", thereby reducing their opposition to caricatures and removing any realistic and reasonable discussion.

> thereby reducing their opposition to caricatures and removing any realistic and reasonable discussion. Isn't that exactly what you're doing with this comment by comparing the term to "SJW" and "White Knight"? Pot, meet kettle.

No. One is a logical argument, the others are ad hominem attacks. You're conflating two entirely different modes of argument and claiming they're the same.

Social Compiler Warning #17

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#582

Post by arbitrage »

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 does what it can, when it can, with the resources it has.

The answer you're looking for is that now the white-middle class is feeling the possibility of impending disaster, so of course now it's an emergency, and the floodgates of funding have opened.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#583

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

HeavenBanned wrote: post #206
muninn_ wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't even have to go that far; half the people on these boards step over a homeless person to get to work every morning. This is a spot on comment.

>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…

It's unbelievable because it's false. Total governmental spending is around $7 trillion. Only about 12% of that is the military, which is 4% of GDP or so. Healthcare, pensions, and education are almost 60%, though.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#584

Post by anigbrowl »

problems wrote: post #301
mst wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could do what I do and perform a search to check the validity of your opinion with evidence before posting. You'd be amazed how many of my own comments I delete unfinished because a little research causes me to reconsider my first reaction.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#585

Post by mememachine »

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…

The discouragement is not about making the world better

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#586

Post by anigbrowl »

boboyo wrote: post #559
jaypaulynice wrote: post #349

Come on YC, glad you're funding the ACLU and it's much needed, but where is the response to the homelessness in San Francisco for example? We care more about refugees than people who already live here?! Too many companies are taking advantage of a bad situation for PR and marketing!

sad this is flagged to the bottom yet it's a valid concern

I have posted stories about homelessness and the unsustainability of economic inequality here for years and have had many productive discussions with the HN community in general and YC members in particular on these topics. Just because people are activated over refugees does not mean they're indifferent to domestic political issues.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#587

Post by jameshart »

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…

If we grant those legitimate reasons (none of which are quoted in the stated justifications for the EO given to date by the White House, but which are, if true, certainly reasonable grounds for executive action) - If the concern is with visas issued in a given time period, from particular offices, via particular channels, then direct CBP to stop people for additional screening or refusal to enter if they present a visa issued in that time period, from those particular offices, via particular channels. Every US visa has all those details printed on it. You get all the benefits you want - time to rescreen those visa holders whose visas may not have received adequate screening - without causing massive confusion and inconvenience to travelers whose visas don't need to be called into question.

Such action would be fully backed up by the precedent of what Obama did in suspending the Iraqi asylum application process for 6 months in reaction to specific risks that had been highlighted in that process.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#588

Post by Eridrus »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #12

Does the ACLU have any new product/entrepreneurial goals for the future? Without, it would seem this is a somewhat unusual association.

Right, I'm sort of confused by what YC will do for the ACLU besides donate some cash to try to make up for the Thiel optics.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#589

Post by tim333 »

forgetsusername wrote: post #351
andy_ppp wrote: post #146

There are quite a few comments by presumably more right wing people marked as dead here. Excluding these people from debate this way makes hacker news less useful IMO. Why not make constructive criticism instead of downvoting, I realise it's easier...

HackerNews loves to pat itself on the back about what a great community it is, but when it comes to politics (and other specific topics) the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet. But this is exactly why half of America is in utter shock about what's happening: their discussion circles involve one "side", and the other isn't acceptable.

>bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet.

There are much worse places than HN.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#590

Post by alanh »

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 this administration (and to some extent, of every previous admin, as well)!

Post reply on HN