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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#931

Post by chillacy »

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

Probably because you could make a comment like this about any social issue, and the substance basically amounts to "my cause is more important than your cause". I've seen it attached to space exploration (why bother with space when our environment is in danger?) and victims of natural disasters (but what about ).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#932

Post by blablabla123 »

int_19h wrote: post #785
johndevor wrote: post #401

Why is Ycombinator involved in politics now? This didn't used to be the case.

I think it's more of a case of politics affecting the industry significantly. You can't really fully isolate business from politics, because politics, by definition, affects business. Businesses can tolerate that to some degree, but when the disruption becomes too severe, straightforward pragmatic business decisions start being inherently political.

Yeah but there's kind of the idea to keep both as separate as possible. When Hitler came to power he was very well connected with the big industrialists at that time. The years before Germany was a really chaotic and highly polarized nation. Reading the US news daily (CNN and Fox) I also see large polarization. I wonder if this move is bridging the gap between left and right or widening it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#933

Post by chillacy »

mmckelvy wrote: post #737
morgante wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

A large part is that Trump isn't as smooth as a traditional politician. He gets in and starts going for it–no conciliatory tones, no concessions. I bet that if Bush had implemented the same policy, there'd be opposition but not anything near what we have now.

> Trump entered office with one of the three narrowest mandates of the past century, along with Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000... Both Nixon and Bush, however — although they’d later become polarizing presidents — adopted conciliatory tones during their transitions into office. Hardly a partisan word can be found in Nixon’s 1969 inaugural address or Bush’s in 2001. They began their presidencies as relatively popular presidents, therefore.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doing-what-he-...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#934

Post by camel_Snake »

wernercd wrote: post #889
uabstraction wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico…

Considering you can find Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and various other Democrats calling for secure borders and barriers of various sorts throughout the years... It wasn't racism and xenophobic when it was called for then... Bill got a standing ovation from both sides when he made his speech... What's changed about wanting those things?

100% my opinion here, but based on what I've read and heard so far a physical wall is a terrible way to actually prevent illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally but just remain illegally.

But you know what a big wall is? A symbol. It's my opinion that the purpose of the wall is not to actually 'secure our borders' but to act as a symbol that those to the south are not as welcome as before.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#935

Post by igor47 »

lol214365 wrote: post #748
coldpie wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affirmative action is not discrimination against white people.

Preferring non-whites to whites is not discrimination?

Blacks make up almost 13% of the US population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...) but only about 3% of the population in top-tier schools in the US (http://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2015/12/20/diversity-at...).

Now, to me, this doesn't really seem like preferring non-whites to whites. Why does it seem that way to you?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#936

Post by camel_Snake »

lol214365 wrote: post #724
justinlaster wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ya know, some of us are fine with defending our borders but realize that the image of a big wall in our head is a lot nicer than the reality of seizing land and spending billions ineffectively.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#937

Post by sfifs »

chickenfries wrote: post #116
sfifs wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not terrorism problems affecting the US - only Indonesia and Australia.

So explain Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being left out?

1. Saudi = Oil. Also Trump's real estate customers

2. Pakistan = the only way US troops can get into Afghanistan.

Looking for "justice" in US foreign policy (or any country's foreign policy) is naive.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#938

Post by sixstringtheory »

danielsju6 wrote: post #888
fieldsy wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't give up rights just because you start a business.

When you engage in commerce you're subject to regulation, per the Constitution. Which means giving up (unstated) rights that you otherwise would have as a citizen. Discrimination for example. Social contract theory ;)

It makes sense to me that businesses should be regulated and should not have the same rights as a citizen (Citizens United?)

One thing I wonder, though, is: what if the owner or sole proprietor "quits" their business? Are they still criminally/civilly liable after they've "given up" their additional role? And, if something like that'd actually fly, would they ever be able to return to their [line of] business, or would they have to quit forever?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#939

Post by anarazel »

ihsw wrote: post #223
ucha wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am disappointed by these kind of comments. Being contrarian just for the sake of it doesn't get us anywhere. We cannot anytime someone does something good ask why something we consider better wasn't previously done.

There's plenty of evidence pointing towards liberal opposition to Trump's policies being purely contrarian despite their merit. Will you speak up then? Will you point out the hypocrisy and double-standards?

I'm pretty sure such cases will come. But, so far? Which ones would that be? All the meaningful EOs etc that get feedback seem to be quite validly being criticised from a liberal POV. The criticism about the conflicts of interest and inexperience of pending nominations is understandable, even if you probably can disagree reasonably on some.

The pettiest so far seems to be ~5 dems voting against Chao - but that was more about get husband and without consequence.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#940

Post by cbhl »

sama, I hope you will consider temporarily withdrawing YC's involvement (as an entity) with the ACLU.

I know that you mean well, and that you want to help. Your work on voteplz, and your blog posts during the election (and since) all demonstrate that.

However, this announcement -- especially now, with the ACLU raising $24 million over the weekend -- feels like "whitewashing" to me. The announcement lacks a number for the amount funded, so it must not have been big enough to be material (probably $XX,000).

I am not comfortable with Peter Thiel's involvement with the Trump campaign. And, by extension, I am not comfortable with sama's and YC's position to continue working with Thiel. I don't feel safe, given the current political environment. I feel like this announcement sounds like a way to "make up" for not cutting ties with Thiel. Basically, it looks like a PR move in YC's interest instead of the ACLU's interest -- something like the Ronald McDonald charity, or Google donating Chromebooks to schools, or an oil company donating to a charity that replants the rainforest. I worry that many others (especially immigrants, women, and people of color) may feel the same way.

I don't expect sama or YC to cut ties with Thiel -- sama has already given reasons why he doesn't wish to: https://twitter.com/sama/status/787834428064083968

But I believe that, so long as Thiel continues to be involved with YC, that YC being associated with the ACLU will harm the ACLU, its brand, and its ability to fundraise. And -- even with the brightest minds in SV -- I'm not confident in YC's ability to help the ACLU enough to offset that harm.

I really wish that I didn't feel this way about the announcement. We really need to be working together to fight to protect our democracy.

(Edit: Rewrote they -> I in Paragraph 4.)

Post reply on HN