Welcome, ACLU • Hacker News Board

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#721

Post by TheOsiris » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #615

19guid wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…

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?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#722

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:12 PM UTC

nickparker wrote: post #279

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…

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.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#723

Post by MrZongle2 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:12 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #692

MrZongle2 wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 tha…

What they've done versus what they have said they wanted to do is not the same. The trouble is, what they have said they wanted to do is really, really awful. Sure Trump himself isn't repealing LGBTQ protections, but the Republicans really want to, and aren't shy about it. And you're calling the Attorney General a terrorist? For saying that she didn't think the EO was legally defensible? Something that AGs do all the…

You know, I was starting to address your first two paragraphs, then my eye went to your last one:

"Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that."

If you've already convinced yourself that I'm a fascist, then you've shut down the conversation. Nothing I can possibly say can change your thinking, because even if I'm redeemable as a person it will be because I have rejected my irredeemable position, which is apparently fascism. Which is unlikely, because you've assessed me as incapable of observing reality.

And this, in a nutshell, is why Trump won.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#724

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:14 PM UTC

justinlaster wrote: post #264

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…

> I get the feeling conservatives may not feel welcome at YC. Sounds like a personal problem. "Oh no, an organization that defends people's liberties is making me feel uncomfortable!"

More like: "Oh no, an organization that casts advocacy for their leftist politics as defense of people's liberties is making me feel uncomfortable!"

Opposing a border wall defends no one's civil liberties.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#725

Post by cperciva » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:15 PM UTC

amckenna wrote: post #622

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…

I searched around to see if I could find any writeup about the ACLU defending the NAACP and KKK at the same time. I found a similar example to the one you described from the mid 90's - http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/10/news/a-klansman-s-black-la...

An even more impressive demonstration of their principles: In the 1970s the ACLU supported the National Socialist Party of America in their fight to be allowed to display swastikas while marching through the predominantly-Jewish village of Skokie.

Incidentally, the lawyers representing the National Socialist Party and the ACLU were both Jewish.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#726

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:16 PM UTC

jackmott wrote: post #213

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…

>I get the feeling conservatives may not feel welcome at YC. Among most people with an education conservatives are not really welcome right now. If you feel welcome, people are being polite, but we are all really really mad at you right now. -honest feelings. -Honest feelings, sorry.

>Everyone who doesn't think exactly as I deem acceptable is evil

"Tolerance"

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#727

Post by gregw134 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:16 PM UTC

danielsju6 wrote: post #605

19guid wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…

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.

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as a photographer, baker, etc. There's a very real tension between the rights of LGBT people to not be discriminated against and the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience. It's a snaggly issue, but hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#728

Post by lol214365 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

vedranm wrote: post #520

rqebmm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's because he's publicly backed Trump, who is as un-libertarian as you can get.

That is being thrown around a lot and actually isn't true. Thiel did not accidentally back Trump and backing Trump isn't contradictory with being a libertarian. (However, claiming that Trump is perfectly adheres to libertarian principles would be.) Compare Donald Trump to Ron and Rand Paul, which are the prime examples of what libertarianism is (unlike Gary Johnson), there is a lot of overlap: free market healthcare,…

Excellent post

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#729

Post by Chinjut » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #693

village-idiot wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like castigating someone who volunteers at a soup kitchen for not volunteering at every soup kitchen.

It's more like, in a world with exactly eight soup kitchens, the "soup kitchen support union" specifically excluding one from its support network and issuing a statement that, despite its soup having similar origins and ingredients, doesn't qualify as soup in to today's palette unless consumed collectively by all of society.

They're not the American Bill of Rights Union. They have a conception of what "civil liberties" amounts to which many sympathize with, and they fight for that.

If you think they do good work in that arena, great!

If you think they do good work in that arena and others do good work elsewhere, hey, you know what? That's still great!

(And if you think they do poor work, or work on the wrong goals or whatever, well, of course that's your prerogative.)

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#730

Post by Naberhaben » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

ernestipark wrote: post #562

treehau5 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.

This is being downvoted because of the intentionally passive-aggressive language that was used by the poster. It's fairly clear that the poster isn't interested in engaging in a discussion due to this. Even ignoring the phrasing, it wasn't a post that merits much discussion -- simply responses in the form of references to groups similar to the ACLU that are anti-abortion.