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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#981

Post by adrienne »

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…

The overwhelming majority of the terrorist attacks committed on US soil since 9/11 have been by white dudes who are Christian (or sometimes atheist). Should we ban them?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#982

Post by adrienne »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #978
adrienne wrote: post #976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Parent comment is transphobic language and it really appalls me that the moderators let this stuff stand all the time around here.

Why was my comment transphobic? It seems the common riposte in today's political climate is to use some kind of derogative label if the other person doesn't fit your exact worldview.

The comment directly above mine clearly explains why your language is transphobic. I'm not gonna explain it again more nicely just because you didn't want to hear it the first time.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#983

Post by adrienne »

monochromatic wrote: post #270
equalarrow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are your rights 'trendy'? I tend to stay out of politics, and don't really label people as such, but Trump is a bad guy. I'm happy to donate engineering time to the ACLU.

> Trump is a bad guy That's your political opinion. Half the country disagrees (or at least found him less-bad than the alternative).

Less than one-quarter of the country, actually. Half the country didn't vote.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#984

Post by adrienne »

tropo wrote: post #752
anigbrowl wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the other side is proposing to reduce the liberties of those it disagrees with, you're darn right it's not acceptable. It's not like conservatives are forced to get abortions, change gender, become homosexual, or have a different religion, but they complain mightily about other people who want to do such things for themselves, while conservatives present themselves as victims of...well, I'm not too clear on exac…

"not like conservatives are forced to get abortions" What if the conservative hasn't been born yet? Maybe they wouldn't want to be aborted. Do they get a choice, or should we reduce their liberties and victimize them? See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved, but for only one person is the issue literally a matter of life and death. The fact that such a person can't live alone is…

So when do we get to sign you up for your mandatory kidney donation? Oh, and half your liver. And one of your lungs - you only need one!

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#985

Post by rpearl »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #978
adrienne wrote: post #976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Parent comment is transphobic language and it really appalls me that the moderators let this stuff stand all the time around here.

Why was my comment transphobic? It seems the common riposte in today's political climate is to use some kind of derogative label if the other person doesn't fit your exact worldview.

Your comment is transphobic in the following ways:

1) your direct language ("a man who identifies as") is problematic in the way it frames the argument. It is both dismissive in that it implies the rights being stepped on are trivial and not worth concern, and in that it up-front implies (again, you lead specifically with "men who...") that the people involved are claiming these rights in bad faith.

2) Your dismissal of the defense of rights for a marginalized group is problematic. I explained why. I don't think I should need to continue to rephrase that argument.

Calling your comment transphobic should probably lead to you in good faith wondering why people think you are using transphobic language; if you want to not be perceived as transphobic (and if you think you are okay with trans people) then figure out why your behaviors do not line up with that belief about yourself and fix it.

If it is merely a question of priority ("there's more important things than the rights of the marginalized to focus on right now!") then: if not now, then when? You might have a good answer in this instant, but... the goalposts always move. Since marginalized groups are by their very definition small and at the edges of society, there will always be something to prioritize over their rights; that is how marginalization perpetuates. If we do not defend the marginalized and most vulnerable intersections of our society, then our society has failed.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#986

Post by pcvarmint »

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 ;)

Only interstate commerce is regulated in the Constitution.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#987

Post by pcvarmint »

shawn-butler wrote: post #887
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…

The ACLU used to be an entirely admirable organization. It has devolved into mostly political advocacy and attention-seeking, but still does some good work. Not black/white, every institution has its own history. But YC is entirely diluting their brand wading into this mess. The A.C.L.U. has has about 250,000+ members, a $15-20 million annual budget (hardly a startup mentality), an extensive network of state affiliat…

In Worst Instincts [1] [2], Wendy Kaminer documents this.

I lately have found the Rutherford Institute [3] to be a much better protector of individual rights than the ACLU. [4]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Instincts-Cowardice-Conformity-...

[2] http://beta.wendykaminer.com/ACLU.aspx

[3] http://rutherford.org/

[4] http://www.npr.org/2013/06/02/188125996/john-whitehead-on-pr...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#988

Post by int_19h »

blablabla123 wrote: post #932
int_19h wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Keeping them separate in this sense can actually encourage cooperation, like the infamous case of IBM. They didn't collaborate with the government of the Third Reich because they were ideologically in lockstep - no, they kept their business separate from their politics, and collaborated because it was profitable.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#989

Post by baconner »

jack9 wrote: post #972
jack9 wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it would be more accurate now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. That's less accurate. I don't think you understand what the ACLU "stands for", in context not in literal acronym. Not to say there isn't contention and opposition, but the hyperbole is not appreciated (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trum... ).

The implication is that if Trump is against everything the ACLU "stands for", the protections are anti-ACLU? This is categorically inaccurate.

OK fine it's more accurate to say Trump is anti Constitutional limits on his power whatever those limits are. the ACLU is just defending it's interpretation of those limits.

We can parse the syntax more but my main point is simply that the ACLU has consistently stood for equal protection under the law. Trump is the new variable in this situation and brings a wildly anti equal protection view so he crashed into them (and the Constitution imo) not the other way around.

Frankly, I'm not convinced he has even read more than snippets of the bill of rights.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#990

Post by baconner »

jack9 wrote: post #903
baconner wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be more accurate to say right now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. They're the static object in this equation imo. They're not anti-Trump the person. They're against anyone who intends to ignore/damage civil liberties and Trump the candidate was pretty explicit about his thoughts there and is following through.

> I think it would be more accurate now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. That's less accurate. I don't think you understand what the ACLU "stands for", in context not in literal acronym. Not to say there isn't contention and opposition, but the hyperbole is not appreciated (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trum... ).

Pretty sure I have a good grip on what the ACLU stands for and that is mainly equal protection under the law.

If stepping on lgbtq rights becomes convenient for Trump he will do it in a heartbeat, but right now he finds it more useful to demonize Muslims, immigrants, and people of color.

Speaking as a bisexual man myself deciding it's not worth the effort to attack me right now is not the same as being pro LGBTQ rights. Obama is the only president we have to thank for those protections Trump didn't do anything.

This is a pattern with him over and over. Credit taking for things others have _clearly_ done and it's repulsive.

And besides I don't know many LGBTQ people who don't consider an attack on any vulnerable minority an attack on us all. Hell gay immigrants have had loads of experience with cruel treatment by the us government. We're well aware of what it's like to have our families ripped apart with a deportation.

Post reply on HN