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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#991

Post by danielsju6 »

pcvarmint wrote: post #986
danielsju6 wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not correct.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Several high court rulings have concluded that it includes intrastate commerce. It's wide reaching & has historically been the main tool for combating discrimination.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#992

Post by baconner »

baconner wrote: post #990
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... ).

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 righ…

oh, and now this:

https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-rel...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#993

Post by baconner »

groovy2shoes wrote: post #924
baconner wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TWISI the org chart of the US Government is basically the constitution a the top & each branch of government below reporting to the constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution can't call up the president or file lawsuits on it's own so the ACLU takes it upon themselves to make an argument on behalf of the big boss. So many business people who want to be politicians mistake the presidency for being CEO. The president…

I don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the constitution is supposed to be done by the Supreme Court (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the entire judiciary branch). I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems…

Agreed - enforcing the constitution is a tag team effort between the judiciary and the people. I would prefer it if there were required judicial approval for new laws and EOs, but alas that's not our system.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#994

Post by dang »

lol214365 wrote: post #762
jlgaddis wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did a bunch of people just learn the term "virtue signaling" in the last few days? I don't recall seeing it spoken on here in ages but it seems I've read it 20 times in just the last few days. It reminds me of a child who learns a new, big word and then porceeds to use it in conversation (to "show off") as often as possible.

The left only started pretending like the world was ending in the past few weeks...

We've banned this account for trolling. It's an abuse of HN to use the site primarily for political or ideological battle.

Please don't create accounts to break the HN guidelines with.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#995

Post by shard »

humanrebar wrote: post #873
Miner49er wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.

People don't pick whether God exists.

Of course people do. That's why there are many religions with many different gods.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#996

Post by and0 »

rpearl wrote: post #985
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #978

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#997

Post by Naberhaben »

treehau5 wrote: post #957
Naberhaben wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is being downvoted because of the intentionally passive-aggressive language that was used by the poster. It's fairly clear that the poster isn't interested in engaging in a discussion due to this. Even ignoring the phrasing, it wasn't a post that merits much discussion -- simply responses in the form of references to groups similar to the ACLU that are anti-abortion.

I am afraid you have read way too far into my comment. It really isn't, it's simply a way of rephrasing the argument, rather than just saying "I am Pro-life" which will get surely downvoted to oblivion, I phrased in a way that might make sense to rational thinkers -- that I believe civil rights should be applied to all created beings, both born and unborn, but boy was I wrong. I am legitimately interesting in support…

I think I read into your comment exactly how you intended and have just described. Perhaps the "intentionally" portion of my "intentionally passive-aggressive" comment was incorrect, but the rest of what you just described is exactly what I (and I presume other down-voters) understood your comment to be.

Your phrasing as "I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside" carries the implicit assumption that pro-abortion people do not, in fact, believe in the civil rights for all people. The reality is that the down-voters likely do believe in the civil rights for all people, but do not believe that a fetus is a person yet. Since that is generally the debate between those who are for and against abortion, the feeling of passive-aggression from your comment stems from entirely disregarding the other side's point of view and instead simply implying that they don't care about civil liberties.

FWIW, I think just saying "I am pro-life" wouldn't have gotten you down-voted to oblivion.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#998

Post by blablabla123 »

int_19h wrote: post #988
blablabla123 wrote: post #932

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...because they had no ethics.

Ethics is surely a thing that should be omnipresent.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#999

Post by JCzynski »

vedranm wrote: post #520
rqebmm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's because he's publicly backed Trump, who is as un-libertarian as you can get.

That is being thrown around a lot and actually isn't true. Thiel did not accidentally back Trump and backing Trump isn't contradictory with being a libertarian. (However, claiming that Trump is perfectly adheres to libertarian principles would be.) Compare Donald Trump to Ron and Rand Paul, which are the prime examples of what libertarianism is (unlike Gary Johnson), there is a lot of overlap: free market healthcare,…

I don't think it's fair to call the Pauls more central examples of libertarianism than Johnson. They're more moderate on most things but also have a strong strain of cultural conservative that cuts against the libertarian strain.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#1000

Post by int_19h »

blablabla123 wrote: post #998
int_19h wrote: post #988

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...because they had no ethics. Ethics is surely a thing that should be omnipresent.

A lot of politics - in fact, I would argue that it's all politics, ultimately - is about ethics. This ranges from obviously related stuff like "it's unethical to abort babies", to more indirect like "it's unethical to let people starve or die from diseases when they can be helped, so we need taxes to maintain a welfare system preventing that".
Post reply on HN