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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#961

Post by grzm »

mistermann wrote: post #960
grzm wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is very often simply no logic to their arguments. You've likely heard those on the left express similar sentiments of those on the right. What comes to mind when you hear them say that?

That they've read far too many threads of rabid unthinking "conservatives" and have now concluded that all conservatives are idiots. It's difficult to blame them to be honest. Personally, I will always challenge idiots on my side, I don't often see the same on the other side, they tend to be much more unified and don't tolerate dissension.

That's commendable. I suggest that what you're seeing is also susceptible to perception bias. Regardless, HN is a place for civil and constructive discussion. However close-minded or obstinate we may believe others to be, it's counterproductive to express or engage on the assumption that they're unreasonable or irrational.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#962

Post by wpietri »

dragonwriter wrote: post #383
wpietri wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not contrarian. It's a valuable reminder. A bit of historical context: America was founded in white supremacy. [1] It did better after the Civil War in the Reconstruction [2], and then things got worse again, with Jim Crow [3] in the south and ethnic cleansing everywhere else [4]. The Civil Rights Act [5] marked an era of improvement (sometimes called the Second Reconstruction [6]), but things have recently got…

> This does not happen mostly through planned racial injustice Yes, it does, as all your examples that don't address positive change away from the problem clearly indicate.

Sometimes people do plan things, although a lot of the stuff I mention was relatively spontaneous. But what sustains it isn't careful planning. It's most people going along with systems they don't understand, impulses they've never considered.

E.g., the impulse where they protect people like them and people familiar to them before people unfamiliar to them. That very rarely comes from a considered plan of "let's screw over black people". But that's often the effect.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#963

Post by wpietri »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #373
wpietri wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not contrarian. It's a valuable reminder. A bit of historical context: America was founded in white supremacy. [1] It did better after the Civil War in the Reconstruction [2], and then things got worse again, with Jim Crow [3] in the south and ethnic cleansing everywhere else [4]. The Civil Rights Act [5] marked an era of improvement (sometimes called the Second Reconstruction [6]), but things have recently got…

Nice. You should throw in some Pete Wilson to put the current struggle into context.

Please do!

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#964

Post by tobltobs »

ausjke wrote: post #763
tobltobs wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the UAE is the only country which took refuges, those "super-RICH Muslim countries still took about 25x times" more refuges then the US. Those not so rich muslim countries took about 100x times more then the US. > .. share the same ideology first. What kind of ideology you are talking about? Not brave (trumpist) enough to use the word religion?

Agnostic here so ideology means religion to me to some extent. Muslim is banned not because of its religion, but because of the terrorism it incurred,yes many of them are nice guys, but you do not need a lot to cause massive damages here, no safety, no democracy, it is that simple. I do not save a snake from frozen for the purpose to show my great love to all beings, as it might kill me afterwards, very old story. No…

> Now let us save those inner cities innocent people in this land, and those homeless people first,

Doing this prevents you from helping refuges? Why can other, smaller and poorer countries take 100 times as much as the US and their societies don't break together?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#965

Post by nvahalik »

timr wrote: post #946
nvahalik wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lastly, there exists a wing of American conservatism which is significantly more racist, sexist, and homophobic than the national average. I think you're right, that group would not feel welcome at YC nor should they. Their exclusion is based on their personal views, which they are capable of changing. Their inclusion would make others feel excluded on the basis of immutable traits, which is far worse in my opinion…

"I'm not sure which 'wing' of conservatism you are speaking of but I'm neither 'alt-right' but my views are likely to be labeled as something like 'homophobic'....If the left is going to continue to preach 'inclusivity' and 'diversity' then it would behoove them to actually ensure that there are those things rather than limited everyone to a particular worldview that makes people feel comfortable." The leader of YC i…

tl;dr - disagreement != homophobia.

The issue I have is that what some people consider "homophobic" isn't really homophobic at all. For example:

Not homophobic: * Having a deeply held belief that homosexuality is wrong. * Being for laws that provide freedom of conscience. * Being against laws that elevate people to a protected class.

Actually Homophobic: * Conspiring against, starting rumors about, or otherwise attempting to defame someone simply because they are gay. * Verbally or physically assaulting someone simply because they "look gay". * Believing that anyone who claims to be LGBT isn't really a person (or is somehow lesser) because they aren't like you.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#966

Post by mst »

astrange wrote: post #845
mst wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but the list of countries was inherited from the previous administration. Maybe somebody should ask Obama's DHS head?

Maybe the list doesn't have any reasoning but was picked to distract you into posting this comment.

You mean "to distract the person I was replying to", I presume - my entire point here is that the list is nothing to do with the new administration, and we should be focusing on the stuff that they're actually responsible for, since frankly that's rather more horrifying than the particular list of countries they're doing it to.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#967

Post by smokeyj »

dragonwriter wrote: post #367
smokeyj wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The timing for this is peculiar. I'll give my hypothesis. Liberals didn't care about the Snowden leaks because it was "their guy" in office. This huge revelation that our constitutional rights were being systematically violated didn't register because of cognitive dissonance. Liberals are finally piecing the puzzle together. The executive branch with dragnet surveillance, infinite military capabilities, the right to…

> Liberals didn't care about the Snowden leaks Yes, lots of them did. In fact, it was liberals that organized around the information in the leaks, liberal groups that sponsors the lawsuits based on the leaks that got at least one program revealed by the leaks ruled to be illegal by the courts, liberals who kept calling for a pardon, and liberal media personalities that reached out to Snowden in Russia and broadcast h…

> Yes, lots of them did.

I'm not disputing that, but my point is there wasn't the current sense of urgency to reign in the executive branch. HN didn't partner with the ACLU and unicorns didn't use the situation as a PR piece.

But what's changed? The president decided to restrict travel and "enhance" screening from muslim countries? Ok.. Yet Obama's drone usage in Islamic countries wasn't good enough to get this response? Or maybe the American citizens Obama decided to assassinate without due process, that didn't raise any eyebrows?

I think my point stands. Obama was so damn charismatic that only he could have pulled that off without major backlash. The vast majority of voting democrats just didn't care about constitutional rights when Obama was in office, and the renewed interest is politically motivated. And for that, I'm thankful to have this clown in office.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#968

Post by timr »

nvahalik wrote: post #965
timr wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm not sure which 'wing' of conservatism you are speaking of but I'm neither 'alt-right' but my views are likely to be labeled as something like 'homophobic'....If the left is going to continue to preach 'inclusivity' and 'diversity' then it would behoove them to actually ensure that there are those things rather than limited everyone to a particular worldview that makes people feel comfortable." The leader of YC i…

tl;dr - disagreement != homophobia. The issue I have is that what some people consider "homophobic" isn't really homophobic at all. For example: Not homophobic: * Having a deeply held belief that homosexuality is wrong. * Being for laws that provide freedom of conscience. * Being against laws that elevate people to a protected class. Actually Homophobic: * Conspiring against, starting rumors about, or otherwise attem…

I'm not getting caught up in semantics. If you have a "deeply held belief that homosexuality is wrong", then you probably shouldn't be surprised if a group of people that includes homosexuals doesn't want to include you if you express that view, and/or act on your belief.

But sure, obviously, anything you want to think in your own head and not express publicly is fairly immune to labels. I'm thinking things right now, for example.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#969

Post by ScottBurson »

TheOsiris wrote: post #721
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?

Should a Jewish restaurant be compelled to serve neo-nazis wearing Nazi uniforms?

Yes, I think they should, if they could somehow be confident that their guests would dine in peace and not make trouble. The fact that such confidence could be hard to come by shows that this situation is not really analogous to the wedding photographer situation. You'd have to flip it around to get a better analogy: should a neo-Nazi restaurant be compelled to serve Jews? Clearly yes.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#970

Post by LordKano »

danielsju6 wrote: post #829
gregw134 wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the other hand... it's illegal. They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Swastika cake?

Should a black florist be forced to make arrangements for a KKK wedding?

Should a Muslim butcher be forced to prepare pork for his customers?

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to eat something that someone didn't really want to make for me. Can you trust food that was only made under threat of government action? I can't.

Post reply on HN