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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#671

Post by ChickeNES »

wallace_f wrote: post #632
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…

>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? Why weren't we funding the ACLU to help these people? I haven't seen Google talk about this, or AirBnB offer support to widows of veterans whose spouse commits suicide and has left th…

In what way is Tulsi Gabbard a good person? She's a supporter of Bashar al-Assad.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#672

Post by MrZongle2 »

freehunter wrote: post #450
forgetsusername wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

90% of what Trump and his supporters are saying truly is not acceptable, you're right. Banning people based on their religion, canceling visas that have already been granted, firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, discriminating against LGBTQ folks, destroying access to women's health care, those are all completely unacceptable ideas. It doesn't matter that some people believe in them, some peopl…

"Banning people based on their religion, ..."

The ban is based upon country. Muslims in general aren't being banned, otherwise travelers from countries such as Indonesia would be affected. They aren't.

"...canceling visas that have already been granted, ..."

If the visa has been granted to somebody from a country to which the immigration halt is applied, or otherwise is now subject to additional background checks that were not applied when the visa was granted, then the United States Government certainly has the right to revoke or otherwise suspend the visa.

This may be rude and it may be inconvenient, but it's hardly a violation of human rights. It certainly isn't unconstitutional.

"...firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, ..."

That oft-quoted "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" comes to mind here. What constitutes "reasonable"? If your boss tells you to do something, you do it. Or you resign. Or you get fired.

What if your boss told you to do something illegal? At the time, your options are identical: do what you were told, resign, or get fired. In due time, if you chose one of the latter options and your boss truly was breaking the law, you will be revealed to have taken the superior moral position.

We have yet to see if that is the case anywhere. If it turns out that way, it will harm Trump. I suspect, however, that if the appropriate courts rule in Trump's favor we will either not hear of it at all or it will be dismissed as judicial activism.

"... discriminating against LGBTQ folks, ..."

The White House affirmed today (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-p...) that LGBTQ protections enacted under the Obama Administration will stay in place.

"...destroying access to women's health care, ..."

Citation needed.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#673

Post by cdelsolar »

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?

But inside the womb they're not people yet.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#674

Post by cdelsolar »

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…

Please, a startup incubator/accelerator, and the SV culture, are the pinnacle of capitalism.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#675

Post by giardini »

RileyKyeden wrote: post #648
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…

As I read this, I imagined you as one of those flailing tube people car dealerships put out.

Thank you! This confirms that I have reached the audience I intended!8-))

What else is there to do? YC owns the football. I have no choice but to acquiesce to their (re)interpretation of their own rules.

But they own neither the stadium, nor the electorate, nor the country. And there's a bigger game afoot than this one.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#676

Post by OJFord »

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…

> Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is

Thank you for writing it out.

The OP is impressive in it's length for managing not to tell me anything about the ACLU at all...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#677

Post by giardini »

kafkaesq wrote: post #641
giardini wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed? The logic of your well-thought out and ponderous argument is utterly overwhelming. Might have as well said "Because we can!"

The logic of your well-thought out and ponderous argument is utterly overwhelming. Actually it's a pretty straightforward consequence of the HN guidelines, which clearly do not forbid all political discussion; just "politics for its own sake", i.e. political talk not strongly anchored in some other intrinsically legitimate topic.

Perhaps you could kindly update the HN guidelines, since they don't say that.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#678

Post by int_19h »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #626
artmageddon wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right. They have stood up for 2A rights in the past, but compared to the NRA and other 2A advocates, they have very limited resources, so they let the NRA / et. al. handle them.

The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right. And that's a problem. It betrays either a gross misunderstanding on their part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights, which is unlikely, or other less transparent motivations, which aren't. There are other civil liberties organizations that don't argue for a state monopoly on the right to self def…

ACLU doesn't argue that "they should own all the guns". They don't defend the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, but they don't argue against it, either. So, in effect, they're completely neutral on this.

They're also upfront about this position, so you can't claim that they're misleading you when they take your money.

When you donate money to ACLU, you do so in the knowledge that not go towards defending 2A rights[1]. But this is also the case for EFF, for example. Does that preclude you from donating to EFF, or any other organization? If not, then why do you demand that ACLU does something out of their declared scope.

[1] ACLU does actually defend 2A rights in contexts where they intersect with other rights. For example, they have collaborated with SAF to defend the rights of non-citizens to keep and bear arms - some states explicitly ban non-citizens from their shall-issue carry licensing provisions, or even firearm possession in general.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#679

Post by deeth_starr »

sueders101 wrote: post #646
deeth_starr wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you google "black lives matter ACLU". They have fought data collection about BLM protesters as well as defended people unlawfully detained at protests. And we have been funding the ACLU individually. I like that YCombinator is now trying to help them as a org. This comment is unpopular because you're just being a troll. Edit: I get you are complaining about the recent swell of funding. And YCombinator proba…

In response to your second edit; the vast majority of black voters voted for Hillary, a significantly greater proportion than any other race. Hillary ended up with 88%[1] of the black vote. Furthermore turnout was down across all demographics in 2016. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

But compared to the last few elections they stayed home [1]. It could be voter suppression but they were also down in California.

[1] http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the-real-reason-black-voters...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#680

Post by aeturnum »

nkurz wrote: post #565
aeturnum wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's correct to say this executive order is not a, "global Muslim ban," but it's clearly focused on specifically stopping Muslims from coming to the US. The "logic" for the countries selected is that they were already "countries of concern." [1] However, the executive order is written in such a way as to allow religious minorities in, even though they're from a "country of concern." The implication is that wh…

The people who wrote this clearly think adherents to Islam are more dangerous than other believers. I think it would be more exact to say that the writers believe some self-identified Muslims are sufficiently dangerous that it justifies temporarily banning anyone associated with certain Muslim-majority countries from coming into the US until we can distinguish those who wish to cause harm from those who do not. And s…

I understand the point you're making about the difficulty of the situation, but I go the other direction.

If someone wishes to come to the US, we'll need to ask if they're a religious minority. I'm sure that anyone wishing to attack the US (Muslim or otherwise) would be willing to lie to the US so they appear to fit the requirements.

To deal with that possiblitiy, the US would have to do research on that person's background. If it can conclude with satisfaction they actually are of that religion, they can come. Otherwise, the US denies the application with "not enough evidence."

If the US can do the research on their religious background, why can't the US do research on their political affiliations? On their views on the US?

Even from a, "damn the morals, let's be practical," perspective religious belief strikes me as a very weak indicator. Its confounded by all kinds of personal factors. Especially in muslim majority nations.

To your question: A mix of both. I think one of the "disadvantages" of a free society is that it's easier to commit terrorism. Yet we have few attacks. I think it's sensible to check that someone is not an active member of a group that wishes a country harm, but I think we need to consider the cost in lives to that filtering. If we double the time spent checking someone's background and they die after the halfway point, is that moral? If we half the number of people we can process to lower the risks, is that moral?

If nothing else, I think the executive order is totally divorced from a reasonable and adult conversation about risk and morality.

Post reply on HN