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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#911

Post by grzm »

asveikau wrote: post #505

Pre-inauguration, discussion of Trump's immigration policies and their logical conclusion would have been shut down under the "no politics" rule. Seems it only takes ~10 days of this stuff being real for folks here to admit that politics affects everybody and is a valid topic of discussion.

There's been a lot of misunderstanding with respect to the appropriateness of politics on HN. 'dang has made a number of comments related to it recently. I've aggregated some of them. The quotes are just identifiable snippets from the posts themselves. If you're interested in this topic, I encourage you to read them in their entirety.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969

There's no satisfying anybody about this: not the readers who want more politics, not the readers who want less, and certainly not the partisans on an issue.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433

There's a lot more politics on HN right now than there usually is, which is appropriate since it reflects what's going on right now.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969

When there's a deluge of political stories, as in the last couple days, users heavily flag most of them. But there have still been plenty of major threads spending plenty of time on the front page. That's the status quo for HN: most politics are off topic, but not all. It's a delicate balance and an important one. Letting politics overrun this site would kill it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#912

Post by grzm »

unethical_ban wrote: post #703
asveikau wrote: post #505

Pre-inauguration, discussion of Trump's immigration policies and their logical conclusion would have been shut down under the "no politics" rule. Seems it only takes ~10 days of this stuff being real for folks here to admit that politics affects everybody and is a valid topic of discussion.

It's allowed here now because banning foreign nationals from traveling to the US has an impact on industries that are associated with foreign workers. Say, IT, and engineering.

It's not because this particular issue is associated with tech. I've collected some of the comments 'dang has made recently regarding politics and HN here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538787

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#913

Post by mynameishere »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #39
mcphage wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL at all the liberals giving money to a group that defends the constitution, how silly is that amirite?

They defend every part of the Constitution except the Second Amendment. That hypocrisy is why the ACLU will never see a penny from me.

You're out of your god damned mind. They sure as hell don't defend the 9th or 10th amendments.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#914

Post by wtvanhest »

maxerickson wrote: post #203
jacquesm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember when HN did not have a political agenda. Discussing politics is not the same as having an agenda. > Right or wrong, this used to be mainly about startups. I don't recall such a time and I've been here quite long. > Now its become a highly political message board This is most likely a reaction to real world developments involving a large number of HN participants. Just like HN isn't a San Francisco local…

It's also the case that not wanting to have political discussions is itself a political agenda . It might not be a secret or pernicious agenda, but it seems people forget what agenda means.

Yes, that is true, but there are many, many channels for that type of discussion. I don't want politics to be in my face 100% of the day.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#915

Post by ScottBurson »

19guid wrote: post #907
lotu wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I've always wondered if the people who don't want to make cakes for a gay wedding/provide flowers would be willing to subcontract that out to someone else. When you buy a cake you don't generally expect that specific person will be making that cake. This would allow them to not participate while at the same time protecting people from discrimination.

Alternatively, why doesn't the gay couple just go somewhere else? I would imagine that only a very small minority of bakers/photographers/florists have strong feelings on this issue, so it's not like it would be difficult to find equivalent service elsewhere.

Because the law can't depend on how many people would like to disregard it. If, in any particular locality, it's not a small minority at all, we're quickly back to "separate but equal". We've seen that movie and we know it doesn't end well.

So given that people's rights would be grossly violated if lots of businesses turned them away, the law must say that no business may turn them away.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#916

Post by grigjd3 »

jrmurad wrote: post #863
int_19h wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the subject of abortion and drugs, it's fairly straightforward. ACLU is not a "states' rights" organization. It is an "individual rights" organization. It sues states for infringing people's rights as much as it sues the feds. So from their perspective, if they can enshrine the protection of a right at a federal level, they'll go for it, because it's easier than forcing all 50 states to do the same.

Yes, it may be "easier" for the ACLU to abuse/"reinterpret" the Constitution rather than work to amend it or work within its strict framework... but doing so makes things worse for more people in the longterm. States' Rights limit the Federal Government from being so powerful that it can more easily violate civil rights... a bigger picture which ACLU should take into account. Likewise, "legislating from the bench" ma…

Cause states rights weren't used to shield Jim Crow for a hundred years... oh, right. States just as easily trample individual rights as the federal government.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#917

Post by general_ai »

rayiner wrote: post #861
alanh wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

For context, I've got 8 years of ACLU emails with quotes like: > Despite initial assurances that he would veto this outrageous bill, President Obama will now be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.

Funny how YC didn't consider it sensible to sponsor ACLU back then. :-)

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#918

Post by general_ai »

azrazalea wrote: post #784
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…

I've always had an internal issue here. On one hand, I believe heavily in free speech to the point where as a principle (but not a constitutional thing) I find a lot of twitter and facebook's recent behavior awful. On a personal level, I think religion is stupid and people who refuse to give service to anyone over it equally stupid(especially since if they were actually following Jesus's word they wouldn't be doing i…

I just wonder if they'd be as passionate about defending civil liberties if a devout Muslim photographer refused to photograph a Bar Mitzvah of a gay Jew. Would that be illegal? Or does this only apply to Christians?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#919

Post by grzm »

general_ai wrote: post #918
azrazalea wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always had an internal issue here. On one hand, I believe heavily in free speech to the point where as a principle (but not a constitutional thing) I find a lot of twitter and facebook's recent behavior awful. On a personal level, I think religion is stupid and people who refuse to give service to anyone over it equally stupid(especially since if they were actually following Jesus's word they wouldn't be doing i…

I just wonder if they'd be as passionate about defending civil liberties if a devout Muslim photographer refused to photograph a Bar Mitzvah of a gay Jew. Would that be illegal? Or does this only apply to Christians?

Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#920

Post by [deleted] »

grzm wrote: post #919
general_ai wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wonder if they'd be as passionate about defending civil liberties if a devout Muslim photographer refused to photograph a Bar Mitzvah of a gay Jew. Would that be illegal? Or does this only apply to Christians?

Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN