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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#731

Post by lol214365 »

ajamesm wrote: post #274
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 ACLU, in the past week, received as much $ in online donation as it has over the past six years. Cash talks and bullshit walks. Tell me, if you're a free-market conservative, why YC or the ACLU should disregard such a resonating and clear message from the market.

>Why should they disregard a market signal in regards to a NON-profit?

Really makes you think...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#732

Post by Miner49er »

19guid wrote: post #713
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?

In the context of expressive services like wedding photography, yes. The government should not be allowed to compel protected speech, even when such compulsion would be in the public interest. That's the price we pay for liberty. I don't see how this is any more problematic than allowing the Klu Klux Klan to march against black rights.

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.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#733

Post by lol214365 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #541
jessriedel wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nominally, but so are other organizations that are clearly partisan in practice. I don't think anyone disputes that members of the ACLU are overwhelmingly democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union... It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.

They defend actual Nazis. That's about as right-leaning as you can possibly get.

Well that is a zero-risk move politically. Defending Nazis gives you credibility and it's not like that makes Republicans any more influential.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#734

Post by int_19h »

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.

Their recent (as in, last 5 years) cases include defending a Confederate veteran group, Washington Redskins, KKK, Chick-fil-A, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

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

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#736

Post by sanderjd »

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.

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?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#737

Post by mmckelvy »

morgante wrote: post #664
mmckelvy wrote: post #650

I see SV and its ilk are doubling down on the actions and ideas that lost them the election. Perhaps something beyond a knee-jerk reaction is in order. Great article along these lines: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nine-questions-protesti... Particularly salient quote: "If you decide that border restrictions are fascist then you are declaring the views of most people to be fascist, because most people believe…

Nobody is saying that "border restrictions" are fascist. It's jeopardizing rule of law which reeks of fascism. This weekend, the rule of law was jeopardized though the: - surprise invalidation and revocation of visas; people who had followed every law were still being detained and deported - detention of permanent residents - refusal to follow court orders We could instigate far more stringent border restrictions (ma…

The majority of the reactions I have seen focus almost exclusively on the restrictions themselves rather than the way they were implemented.

Among SV, the media, Hollywood, and elites in general, any call for immigration / entry restrictions almost immediately results in the usual "you are a bigot", "you are a fascist" "we are a nation of immigrants" etc. visceral reactions NOT the kind of more nuanced response you provided above. That's the point of the article to which I referred. Maybe it's time to stop calling people names and organizing against them for having completely legitimate concerns and instead debate the actual issues at hand in a reasonable manner.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#738

Post by beaconstudios »

Miner49er wrote: post #732
19guid wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of expressive services like wedding photography, yes. The government should not be allowed to compel protected speech, even when such compulsion would be in the public interest. That's the price we pay for liberty. I don't see how this is any more problematic than allowing the Klu Klux Klan to march against black rights.

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 someone with an egalitarian mindset that might seem abhorrent but some beliefs or characteristics can't necessarily be reconciled.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#739

Post by lol214365 »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #239
striking wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a list inherited from the Obama administration. The best time to argue about whether this list stands up to scrutiny or not was years ago. Edit: I'm not making comments about Trump's actions (specifically, I'm not defending what he did). As for whether this particular list stands up to scrutiny, that question should have been asked a long time ago.

Well, sort of. Obama was president when the list was created, but it was forced through by a Republican-majority Congress. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

Obama had veto power. How did republicans force it through?

What happened was Obama signed the bill imposing exceptions to the Visa Waiver Program in December 2015, and then his own DHS added the current list of middle eastern nations in February 2016.

It is the most tenuous argument to act like that was the work of the GOP.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#740

Post by azernik »

cphoover wrote: post #601
azernik wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "car…

Here is an interesting paragraph from wikipedia: ``` The ACLU has been criticized by liberals, such as when it excluded Communists from its leadership ranks, when it defended Neo-Nazis, when it declined to defend Paul Robeson, or when it opposed the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.[62][63] Conversely, it has been criticized by conservatives, such as when it argued against official prayer in public schools…

I didn't mean to imply that the ACLU sees its mission as a partisan, or that they follow partisan lines on pursuing cases; just that they have predominantly pursued leftist cases (because that's where civil rights were historically most seriously infringed) and that therefore that support for it is seen as a partisan act.

Says something about the as state of (particularly right-wing) American politics, IMO.

Post reply on HN