A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of blacks on behalf of the NAACP at the same time as they were fighting for the rights of the Klu Klux Klan to hold rallies calling for the abolition of those rights.
The strength of your convictions are only tested at the extremes. Do you still believe in free speech when it's coming from neo-Nazis? The ACLU do and I deeply respect them for that.
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 this administration (and to some extent, of every previous admin, as well)!
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.
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...).
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.
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.
The ACLU has a clear agenda that is not highly aligned with either political party, so "being politicized" is accurate.
I'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law". Governments break the law all the time and need some form of checks and balances to correct wrongdoing.
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 isn't CEO, more like co-COO and sometimes a swift and loud reminder of that fact is necessary.
They can't at all. Ours is an adversarial legal system and therefore the rule of law depends on dogged opposition willing to make challenges to unjust laws. That's why the ACLU is so critically important.
It's also one of the big problems with secret laws and warrantless surveillance: if you don't know your rights are being violated, how do you prove a violation occurred (which is a requirement to be granted standing in court)?
The ACLU will fight against laws it considers unjust, illegitimate and liberticide. It has under pretty much every administration.
I don't think the ACLU is nearly as partisan aligned or affiliated like that. But they're definitely more aligned, as a political matter, with the Democratic party. Partly for historical reasons (e.g. school busing, voting rights, criminal rights, etc.) But I totally get what you're saying.
The other part of it, though, is that we all need to learn to be a little more tolerant of political organizations and politicians taking stances that we personally disagree with. It's inevitable. To demand otherwise leads to more extremism, and leads to more fragmentation. If all we have are 10,000 smaller advocacy organizations, they're all going to drift left or right to a much greater extent. The only way to arrest that shift is to use yourself as an anchor; support the organization but then be sure to voice your opposition when they assume an inappropriate policy stance or affiliation.
"When we give you an opportunity to voluntarily submit information about yourself, we may give you the option of indicating that you permit us to share that data with other parties such as coalition partners or specific legislators. We will not share your data with such parties unless you have indicated that you permit us to do so."
Because you are making a strong accusation: "they shared my data without my consent"
My donation happened more than 10 years ago (probably closer to 15), so who knows what their privacy stance was then. Quoting their current one certainly doesn't shed any light onto that.
In any case, while the fact that they shared my info was annoying, it also wasn't the point I was getting at. My point was: they chose to lump themselves in with unrelated left-wing causes by sharing my data, and I'm unhappy they chose to make civil liberties seem like a left/right thing by doing that.
> However, the names and postal addresses of ACLU members, ... may be exchanged or rented to other organizations ...
> members who join through the ACLU Freedom Network website are provided with an opportunity to opt out of this exchange.
That's from 2002 and they have similar paragraphs in all their updated privacy statements. But that's a moot point I guess, because your complaint wasn't that your data was shared.
They are not anti-Trump, in that if Trump rescinded his problematic EOs, the ACLU would stop fighting him. The issue is not the man, it's the policy.
But how do you separate the man from his policies? That would be like trying to separate a man from his religious conviction. A mans policies reflect what he believes in.
> 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.
He's gone to ridiculous lengths to make enemies. He's a frickin reality TV show host, and it shows (ha). Obama, on the other hand, is a very subdued and poltician-ish figure. He colored within the lines on most public fronts, and pushed the limits in subtler and slower ways.
People holding the opposing side in politics to a different standard isn't irony. To be irony it has to be exepectedly reversed somehow.
This is called confirmation bias, and you're doing it too.
>... it's pathetic and hypocritical as well.
If you stop and engage your rational brain, you'll immediately realise that's how partisan politics works, and that both sides do it.
Yes, it's both pathetic and hypocritical, but we all do it all day long... pathetic hypocracy is part of human nature. So are plenty of admirable traits, on all sides of any argument.
What are you talking about? What guy, and what murder?
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 it. There's a lot about not judging and jesus hanging out with sinners in the new testament). I try not to let this affect my policy opinions since I try to be logical not emotional about them but I'm not sure how well I succeed. Religious beliefs do seem to be about the only reason people are trying to push for these sorts of things too.
Another point on a personal level is I would not want to work with someone on something like my wedding with someone who secretly hated who I am. Especially if they were being coerced by the government to do it.
So overall I'm altogether confused about the whole issue.
One thing I am sure of is that I am absolutely against any kind of religious exemption to any law whatsoever. Make the law one way or another.
They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.
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.
The last point, fair. No one said the cake had to be good :P It's just their professional reputation on the line.
The protected populations are rather limited "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation", there may be additional protections in your jurisdiction + it has to be a product/service you already provide.
If you bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple; you could refuse on any number of other grounds though. If you don't sell pork, you can't be forced to. But breaking our laws because you like a book (legally speaking) is not allowed.
* FYI I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you're refusing service to anyone for anything other than business reasons you should double check with your counsel. You could be violating feduciary duty, etc.
I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want to photograph a wedding ceremony with two brides.
The law has no regard for silly.
Moreover, you're missing the point. I picked people for my example because we all understand how repugnant those people would find it to be forced to take part in certain actions.
I get it, religious people are a convenient target of scorn and ridicule but the government shouldn't be in the business of coercing people to provide non-essential services to others.
So, a black ER doctor should have to provide assistance to the KKK member who was just shot and a Jewish pharmacist should have to fill the prescription for the neo-nazi's cancer medication.
Those are life and death issues, so they're not the same as someone getting their feelings hurt because someone else didn't want to associate with them.
The first two you listed here are, if it is proven in court that they were discriminating based on sexual-orientation. If the baker doesn't do bespoke decorations, fine. If the photographer doesn't shoot weddings, fine.
If you don't obey the law A) you're not a good Christian B) you don't get to engage in commerce in the United States of America.
Also please show me in your holy book where it says "thou shall not participate in commerce with homosexuals"
Yes, that was the point. I'm talking about the weaponization of the law.
Please show me where I ever said that it was my book.
If they are bankrupt it's more likely they spent all their money on their crusade in the courts + lost IMO.
Just cause you like a book doesn't mean you can ignore the law.
Those devout Christians had no business exchanging services for currency if they can't respect the law. Commerce is regulated per our Constitution.
I have noticed that every time you say this, you conveniently leave out "religion". It's against the law to discriminate against someone because of their religion too.
Commerce is regulated per our Constitution.
Interstate commerce is regulated per our Constitution. Intrastate commerce falls under other laws.
Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger.
I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit.
How on earth do you jump from "he was doing something illegal so the police had the right to enforce the law" to "the amount of force used was appropriate and unfortunately led to his death". You may have lost the thread of the conversation, but no one was talking about bakers being killed by inappropriate use of police force in the course of compelling them to serve gay weddings.
Do you have any evidence for that?
Who exactly has lost their minds here?
There is no such thing.
Honest question: which right would that be? I've never heard about that before.
> The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance—which the government violates whenever it tells a person that she must or must not speak. Forcing a photographer to create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of the mind.
The government can't order you, as an individual, to bake someone a cake; but if you're a business discrimination is prohibited.
Engaging in commerce is a regulated activity per our Constitution.
EDIT: looked it up, they didn't want to bake a cake with bert & ernie and a pro-gay-marriage slogan.
A more sinister version of the same logic is the argument that states weren't discriminating against gay people by not letting them marry someone of the same sex because technically they could go find someone of the opposite sex and be granted a wedding license for a life of misery married to someone who they could literally never be attracted to instead of the person they were attracted to and loved. It's discrimination in either case.
I agree the states and Congress can regulate commerce, but those regulations are still subject to the First Amendment.
The moment you start a business you adapt an additional role to the one you already have ("private person"). In this role you have specific rights and obligations while you're in that role. It's the same reason that a person who is a police officer is allowed to arrest you while on duty (in his role as a police officer), but not when he is off duty (and in his role as a private citizen).
Folks who fought for Jim Crow laws did not view themselves as willfully evil people who discriminated for no reason. They viewed their own support of segregation as a principled moral stance. That's why they fought so hard.
Among other reasons, what do you do when people start inventing religions to get out of doing things they don't want to? Should the government be in the position of deciding which religions are "real"? Just look at the history of Scientology or modern Satanism for examples.
For me this issue is so frustrating because in the gospels, Jesus repeatedly went out of his way to accept and bless society's cast-offs. He tells his followers to turn the other cheek and be wary of imposing judgment.
Yet today, people who supposedly follow his teachings are eager to do the casting off themselves, based on a few sketchy line readings from elsewhere in the Bible. I just don't understand how someone can read the New Testament and come away with "be mean to gay people" as a priority message.
Perhaps more importantly, the difference between that and a landlord "offering service"?
We talk about the wedding cakes and the photographs, but it's important to remember that less than 50 years ago, blacks were constantly turned away from houses in nice neighborhoods for similar objections.
The "because of their religion" part is demonstrably nonsense.
People don't foster anti-gay feelings because of their religion, they trawl archaic text to justify anti-gay feelings that already exist.
It takes 30 seconds and a copy of Leviticus to disprove. Where's the conservative rage about tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), or oysters (Leviticus 11:10)?
You haven't even begun to consider these issues, yet here you are issuing sweeping proclamations about the contents and motivations of other people's hearts. Dare I say that you are not fostering anti-Christian feelings because of your understanding, but you trawl archaic text to justify anti-Christian feelings that already exist.
Because they don't want to follow that rule, and they see other Christians not following that rule.
Under your interpretation (that Christian attitudes are recieved from the Bible) Christian law would have remained largely static for the past 1600 years since the Bible was compiled, which is clearly not the case. For example, the treatment of adultery and usury have changed unrecognisably.
Having either attended or helped perform mass for half of my life, I can tell you for a fact that most Christians have no interest at all in treating the Bible as 'law' and instead use it for inspiration, comfort, or occasionally a crutch when making tough decisions. They recieve their morality and prejudices from themselves and from their peers.
If anyone was actually interested in treating the Bible as law then Theology would be a legal field not an academic one.
> ... you trawl archaic text to justify anti-Christian feelings that already exist.
Nonsense, I haven't said a single anti-christian word... and my pre-existing feelings are against the rationalisation of bigotry being treated as special, or worthy.
Prejudice (and we all have plenty) is to be examined and squashed, not protected.
> ... how they relate to the New Covenant
This is topical. Jesus teaches "love thy neighbour", and the Good Samaritan, lessons that we could all let a little closer to our hearts in times of wall-building, rejection of refugees, and threats of war.
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.
Social contract theory ;)
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?
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.
Humans tend to distrust/dislike those we're not close to. Lots of evidence shows associating with people builds empathy. Taken to its extreme, segregation causes us to 'other' people and lose empathy.
Association certainly breeds empathy, but what if that association is forced by a third party? If I didn't want to interact with a member of group X, and the government decided I had to interact with them or face some arbitrary punishment, initial interactions would be stained by that use of implied force. When you add religion into the mix, tensions are even worse because you might find yourself stuck between blasphemy and judicial punishment.
Its not like everyone feels 'forced', its only a few people (just like I don't feel forced to drive within lanes or not kill people - these don't register for me). But the impact of their attitudes is potentially much greater.
Lets say there are 3 groups of people - (M)inority group, (P)rejudiced people who have businesses, and (E)veryone else.
In this instance, the forced interaction is only forced on P, which is a small number.
P's actions would have broader impact though. The M's would find themselves less welcome in certain areas, and over time (justifiably) choose to go elsewhere. Less M's mean E's would have less interaction with M's.
P's unchecked actions would also begin to normalize P's behavior, and embolden their stance. Normalization would potentially increase the number of E's becoming P's.
Over a long time, this could create an environment where M's choose to leave entirely, E's simply lose out on the opportunity to interact with M's, and increase the likelihood E's turn in to P's through osmosis of P's normalized behavior, and because of lack of personal experience with M's. The P/E community get segregated from the M community, and whenever there are struggles between those communities (which always happen between communities, e.g. resources, culture, etc), empathy is not there to keep things civil. All due to a few Prejudiced individuals not liking being 'forced' to interact with others during the course of their personal choice to engage in (government regulated) economic activity.
Basically, a few rotten apples spoils the lot.
In cases where the number of prejudiced is higher and thus the minority group is unlikely to be able to avoid dealing with a prejudiced business owner, it's unlikely that the two groups would have ever gotten along in the first place.
This happens, a lot. Again, per my previous comment, behavior is normalized, potentially creating a hostile environment.
> After all, we're talking about the prejudiced group simply not wanting to have to associate with the minority group, not necessarily hating them or wishing harm upon them.
We don't necessarily know that. The law certainly doesn't know that.
> We all have people who don't like us, often unjustifiably, but we just avoid interacting with those individuals rather than abstaining from interaction with anyone in their community.
It only takes a small number of people or a few bad interactions for one to choose to avoid an entire area.
> In cases where the number of prejudiced is higher and thus the minority group is unlikely to be able to avoid dealing with a prejudiced business owner, it's unlikely that the two groups would have ever gotten along in the first place.
That's an assumption. Again, plenty of evidence to show that people who don't associate have prejudices that can be extinguished through repeat exposure.
I can see that these all seem small issues in the individual instance, but the thrust of my argument is their cumulative effect has broader implications.
At the risk of seeming too personal (and I mean this sincerely and not in a mean way), it honestly doesn't sound like you've been in an environment where you've felt unwelcome in this way, or spoken to someone who's felt that way about their experiences in certain areas.
 by search, I mean on Google rather than HN
Also, faith means "trust", not "irrational opinion".
Not quite, faith means "trust" in an "irrational opinion". Howerver, everyone should have the right to trust whatever opinion rational or irrational.
That sort of faith can absolutely be rational.
I encourage you to look up the history of segregation in the U.S. That approach works out very badly.
but I see your point and concede that it can be a dangerous slippery slope.
Very different, but still a long way to go. I remember reading that in ~1959 (this is from memory, so all details are a bit hazy) 95% of Americans opposed legalizing interracial marriage; now of course a similar number support its legality - it's a non-issue. Look at the boom in the black middle class (it's amazing what people do when you give them a chance). Look at LGBTQ rights and the incredible advance of women in society.
On the other hand, look at who won the November election, offering the most brazen racially and religiously prejudiced, hateful messages of any major party candidate, possibly ever, and openly partnering with the most powerful agent of white supremacy in the U.S. (Bannon). Look at how minorities are treated by law enforcement in many places. Look at the overwhelming prevalence of white-skinned people (and men) in movies, IT (name the top 10 industry leaders in the last 25 years), national and state government, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc etc.
It is not fair one way or the other. You have also put yourself in the unenviable position of determining what can and can not be controlled by an individual - this will not end well.
| ...equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
IE, a specific group of people in specific set of places. That does not include discrimination against "things people can't control" in any and all establishments.
That's like saying you didn't steal my money, you've just enforced a rule that I can only spend my money on you.
Incidentally, the lawyers representing the National Socialist Party and the ACLU were both Jewish.
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 affiliates and local chapters, backed up by a national office with headquarters in New York, a legislative office in Washington and regional offices in Atlanta and Denver.
There are fifty-one affiliates - every state except North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, plus 3 in California, and one in D.C. (not sure about state offices anymore, I think that is correct), - have their own staffs and their own boards, plus at least one representative on the national board, which sets policy for the whole organization.
The state affiliates do make independent decisions about which cases to take and which local legislation to lobby for or against. They frequently take cases in areas where the national organization has not yet adopted a policy. But they also get smacked down when they run afoul of national board.
It is the national board sets a "policy" agenda and then seeks out cases to pursue that agenda. That board meets for a weekend four times a year to iron out the policy.
That natl/local split accounts for some of the diversity, but in truth it is mostly partisan organization based on board membership.
I lately have found the Rutherford Institute  to be a much better protector of individual rights than the ACLU. 
That's long been true, though I'm sure sometimes more than others. I agree with what you say, but AFAIK they always have been associated with the left.
Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c...
One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...
I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.
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 so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.
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?
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.
the constitution does not guarantee open-borders and the entire immigration system is there to act as a virtual wall in the first place. So I fail to understand the ACLU's position on the wall. It definitely has nothing to do with constitutional issues
That's the easiest, inarguable example.
Whether completely upending the lives of longterm residents without any prior warning is something that should be allowed to happen in a country is at least in part a moral question, and surely the ACLU is well within it's rights to answer that in the negative; nor, I dare say, would that answer seem very foreign to the average decent person.
To be fair, most of the time I hear your complaint, the people complaining about the loss of free speech has nothing to do with the Constitution (though that isn't the case in this instance, of course). It's possible to oppose certain speech restrictions as damaging to a community you care about and to be upset when those restrictions arise. Not for constitutional reasons, but for reasons having to do with the health and ethical grounding of a community.
Though this is just my sample: It's of course possible that we are exposed to very different circles and that you're more often exposed to "Reddit can't ban this subreddit! It's unconstitutional!". If so, I'm sorry, that must blow
"... a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."
--John Stuart Mill
Bush tackled the easiest parts of the wall. Expanding will only present more seizing of property from citizens and subjecting citizens to search and seizure solely due to their proximity to the border, despite them having no desire to cross the border. Whether being searched for wanting to play golf is unreasonable is a constitutional issue.
I don't understand why people often bring up other areas where private money and resources could have gone. When someone says "I support X" (e.g. X = ACLU), they are not saying "I don't support anything that's not X." They are just saying they care about X. If you would prefer to donate your time and resources to another cause, that's great! I'm sure you'd be disappointed if you dedicated yourself to curing diabetes and someone complained because they thought cancer research should be higher priority, or if you offered to hire 10k refugees around the world and people suggested a boycott because they preferred that you hire Americans instead.
Let's not discourage people from trying to make the world better.
> The left protest about Trump, but they're strangely silent about King Raedwald's invasion of Northumbria in AD 616
It's a bizarre way to argue in favor of being politically detached.
If your answer is "well, when Obama did X he mitigated the negative effects by also doing Y, and did X in political climate where it made more sense and yadda yadda" then I have something tangible to understand your motives. I can feel like I'm donating to an organization or protesting alongside people I understand the motives of. But by treating it as an insider secret only the smarter half of Americans will figure out, regardless of the issue or question, I'm left in the dark alongside the unenlightened Republicans.
Worse, Republicans, who will soon control 3 branches of government, get to say people are just predisposed to hating Trump and have no incentive to listen to protesters. My personal take has been the left has been thrown into chaos by Trump's unexpected victory and don't have a unified voice or reasoning. People won't speak because their afraid their reasoning might step on the toes of someone else's, so everyone just pretends its obvious and gathers immense support without saying anything.
The motives of the protesters are an insider secret? You can find them almost everywhere. Try the NY Times editorials, as a simple way to start.
In general this question is: "You were wrong yesterday, why don't you keep on being wrong today?". The answer, of course is, "I'd rather stop being wrong as soon as possible. On this issue, I stopped being wrong today, and so today I'm trying to do better than yesterday."
Honestly, I care very little about people "protesting Trump". But I think it's great that people are protesting against misogyny, racism, militarism, fascism, anti-intellectualism etc.
Ok, so too few people were protesting extra-judicial drone strike assassinations under Obama. Lets not take that as a great reason to not protest them under Trump (or any further President). It certainly seems likely that Clinton would've had no scruples continuing to blow up Yemeni children in the name of "fighting terrorists". And hopefully that'd garner protests too.
This helps make sense of things a bit more for me as well, thanks. I listen to the left, and I very often agree, but at least as often I simply don't understand what they are on about, 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?
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.
Even though it is relatively new, I think moral foundations theory is an excellent place to start in understanding how people assess moral choices that underlie political preferences. With imagination, try to understand how it is impossible to maximize the fulfilling all of these goals he describes simultaneously, and how the moral foundations inevitably come into conflict. Also, try to imagine how different people you know might prioritize one over the other.
For example, nearly everyone wants to claim that they are loyal to people they know well (people in their group) and nearly everyone wants to claim that they are just and would not harm people indiscriminately. Yet clearly people prioritize these two goals very differently. For some almost no inconvenience to others is too great in order to offset even the most minor risk, and for others almost no danger is great enough to justify the most minor inconvenience to strangers.
Hopefully, that sheds a little light on the idea that people have different fundamental goals.
Next, one might explore how effectively different policies achieve different goals. An example could be the topic of trade barriers. How will they affect total world economic production, or the economic production of individual countries relative to each other, the impact on total economic output within one's own country, and how that economic output will be distributed among different groups of people within the country.
And perhaps finally, how will people make their political arguments, given that the people who make political arguments are likely to at least have some intuition about what is likely to convince different types of people. For example, if you want a distribution of wealth favoring the top, then you'll likely talk about how a meritocratic system increases overall economic growth for everyone, rather than only just saying that you think they deserve it. And, if you want a more equal distribution of wealth you will probably talk about talent discovery from a larger pool of people, the value of social safety nets in encouraging entrepreneurship, or the inefficiency of workers who are made to struggle, rather than just saying that everyone deserves a moderate standard of living regardless of the talents they were born with.
Anyway, if you've never supported Trump, but don't see how his decisions have been different from Obama's it could just be that the overwhelming majority of people you know are negative about him, just as other people might never have supported Obama or Clinton because people around them complained about them often. Maybe one way to figure out what you would believe independent of peer pressure is to identify the different values politicians appeal to within a single party. Partly because people in Congress have very different constituents, it can be striking how much a people who seem unified within the same party are appeal to radically conflicting values.
While I don't object to many of these organizations, I take my privacy very seriously and I wasn't aware when I donated that my personal information would be given/sold out the way it has been.
At least now it seems like they let you opt out.
This is a problem in the non-profit industry that should get addressed, especially given younger generations are less likely to respond to mailers anyways.
Our organization struggles to unsubscribe people from mailing lists. It's kind of ridiculous.
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.
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
I'm a strange mix of conservative and liberal views, but I find myself strongly agreeing with "whole life" groups like Democrats for Life of America.
I think it's a pretty damn good thing when it's needed, so let's cool it with the "everyone on the planet thinks" business.
There are lots of pro-life women out there.
EDIT: I changed "conservatives" to "people who identify as conservatives" to clarify. Some replies below referred to the philosophical conservatism, which is somewhat different.
If you believe in individual freedom, small government, low taxes, and heavy use of market solutions, I haven't seen anything from YC that runs against those ideas.
The issues YC seems to oppose are nativism/xenophobia and authoritarianism. Opposition to the former is a wholly rational decision to preserve YC's access to the best international founders, and authoritarianism presents slightly more round-about problems for YC in reduced press freedom and tighter relationships between large corporations and government, both of which make life more difficult for startups.
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." I get the feeling that national average you speak of isn't really average so much as it's left-leaning and acceptable in your views.
I do agree that there are people who are vehemently and dangerously bigoted and I gladly condemn them. However, there are people who have extremely reasoned yet different beliefs than most people you'd likely find at YC.
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 is a gay man. A number of YC founders are also gay.
I bring this up not because it comes up a lot, but because you seem to view homophobia as an "opinion" that should be respected by gay people as "inclusive" and "diverse". You can certainly believe that, but you're not likely to get anywhere with it.
The issue I have is that what some people consider "homophobic" isn't really homophobic at all. For example:
* 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.
* 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.
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.
I'm failing to see how that isn't blatantly hypocritical.
If you think homosexuality is wrong but you keep that to yourself and don't let it influence your business decisions, your private beliefs will also have no effect on other YC founders, and you'll be welcome in the community.
If a gay man said "I believe heterosexuality is wrong and I reserve the right to not do business with heterosexuals to keep my conscience free" they wouldn't be included because that's blatantly discriminatory.
A gay man saying "I don't want to work with people who believe my sexuality is wrong and reserve the right not to do business with me because of it" that's just a rational choice to avoid people who want to punish them for something that only matters to them and their partners.
Mutual tolerance isn't a hard concept. Tolerating others' intolerance of you is not part of it.
The partners in their individual capacities largely stick to statements on specific issues, and YC itself mostly promotes specific organizations and policies, eg permissive immigration rules for entrepreneurs. There's little ambiguity in those statements and actions, so it's up to every individual applicant to determine whether the sum indicates an overall culture they could enjoy.
If you have a specific YC action/statement which you think runs counter to a conservative position outside of nativism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, the HN readers would probably enjoy reading it so they can weigh its meaning for themselves.
* Many conservatives do not support Trump's policies. Conservativism is traditionally about preserving stable society and carefully evaluating changes before radically changing society.
I think many took a wait-and-see approach to Trump. Sure, he was bombastic during the campaign and said a lot of bad things, but he's a screwd businessman. Surely he will get some decent advisors and not breaks things.
The last week has made it clear that is not the case. Trump and Bannon are determined to reshape society in their own image, and that is really scary. It is clear Trump's executive orders have not been run past anyone sensible, and they make no attempts to limit unnecessary damage to people's lives.
> I think many took a wait-and-see approach to Trump. Sure, he was bombastic during the campaign and said a lot of bad things, but he's a screwed businessman. Surely he will get some decent advisors and not breaks things.
Intentional, typo ("shrewd"), or Freudian slip?
Hence the attacks on Dukakis for being a member of the ACLU during his election campaign, and his joking self-labeling as a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (in reference to McCarthy's references to "card-carrying Communists").
EDIT: And for yet more historical background - it was originally founded (as the Civil Liberties Bureau) to defend anti-war speech and conscientious objection during World War I, which were mostly left-wing and far-left-wing phenomena. Post-war, in addition to serving as an ethnically-neutral counterpart to ethnic civil-liberties organizations such as the ADL (Jewish) and the NAACP (African-American), it spent a lot of time defending free political speech. And the free political speech that was most under attack through its seminal period in the 1920s was labor organizing and socialist politics. (Because of the phenomenon of white-supremacist Southern Democrats, minority-rights issues did not necessarily line up with party politics, but they were indeed perceived as left-right issues in the sense that racial equality was considered a far-left position.)
The ACLU has been criticized by liberals, such as when it excluded Communists from its leadership ranks, when it defended Neo-Nazis, when it declined to defend Paul Robeson, or when it opposed the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. Conversely, it has been criticized by conservatives, such as when it argued against official prayer in public schools, or when it opposed the Patriot Act. The ACLU has supported conservative figures such as Rush Limbaugh, George Wallace, Henry Ford, and Oliver North; and it has supported liberal figures such as Dick Gregory, Rockwell Kent, and Dr. Benjamin Spock.
A major source of criticism are legal cases in which the ACLU represents an individual or organization that promotes offensive or unpopular viewpoints, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, Nation of Islam, North American Man/Boy Love Association, or Westboro Baptist Church. The ACLU responded to these criticisms by stating "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive."
Also I found this article:
Seems like ACLU historically has not cared about partisan politics, left vs right, and care most about their mission of defending civil liberties, and individual rights.
Says something about the as state of (particularly right-wing) American politics, IMO.
That's a joke, right? The ACLU has been a prominent critic of Obama's executive overreach and even Muslim profiling.
Some good evidence against your interpretation of YC's actions here as simple partisan attack:
* YC did not partner with the ACLU on election day, or on inauguration day, but only after a partial Muslim ban became the law of the land.
* YC quasi-defended Peter Thiel and allowed him to remain as a partner in the face of pretty strong pushback from the left.
Don't let the people kissing up because they have to work with him fool you. This is broadly alarming in many conservative circles too.
What we are seeing over the last week and what is expected to be coming from the Trump administration in the near future have little to do with liberal vs. conservative. I know many conservatives who are outright horrified by what they are seeing.
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, strong borders, deportation of illegal aliens, deregulations, tax cuts and tax code simplifications. There are disagreements on free trade (and please note that TPP is "free trade", not free trade) and NSA spying.
As for Pauls being conservative, as long as they are not using government power to force you to be like them it's all fine in my books.
as far as I've seen, a global job market has resulted in more exploitation than prosperity. Most of the profit seems to go to international businesses that have little interest in giving back to their host nation in the form of jobs or taxes.
That's not entirely a coherent combination of labels; the closest thing in the real USA to that seems to be bog-standard conservatives who selectively deploy libertarian rhetoric against programs they oppose.
what is incoherent about it? Both libertarianism and nationalism are vast repositories of political thought that can be combined in any number of ways. Libertarianism at its core does not require forfeiting national interests, nor do national interests require forfeiting a global economy founded on capitalist principles.
The reaction to Trump's executive order actually seems to personify the inherent conflict between the two sides -- while a lot of conservatives (including, I would say, those with more nationalistic viewpoints) approve of the executive order, the libertarian side so far seems to be pretty vocal about their disapproval.
I think the assent/dissent situation around Trump is a lot more complex than "conservatives for, libertarians against", precisely because his platform consists of a mix of ideological positions. He has almost nothing in common with neoconservatives (which seems to have been a big hitter for public appeal), and both conservatives and libertarians seem to differ depending on their concern for specific libertarian policies. Hence the fracturing of the GOP, with as many representatives condemning him as supporting him. After all, the GOP is nothing if not a grab-bag of varying political positions.
Now there is a term I never expected to see.
Also, conservatives need to get off their "persecuted" high horse for a second and take a look around themselves. Donald Trump is the one butt-fumbling his way into empowering organizations like the ACLU by scaring the shit out of right-minded people. As these groups experience spikes in popularity and cash, they're going to reach out and start working on new initiatives.
Cash talks and bullshit walks. Tell me, if you're a free-market conservative, why YC or the ACLU should disregard such a resonating and clear message from the market.
If YC wants to be politically oriented, they can and should, but it strikes me as something they should be open about.
Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act. Cooperating with Peter Thiel is a political act. Expanding the labor supply in markets with unions is a political act. Disrupting healthcare is a political act. Employment under H1B visas is political.
YC can admit [your candidate here] supporters and say 'we won't discriminate based upon your political affiliations or your vote' but they will absolutely discriminate against each other's political aims because of the political ramifications of the any work done by technologists.
With a number of layers of indirection, maybe. Capitalism is a system of economic organisation and is not inherently political. The wide variety of both left-leaning and right-leaning capitalist countries speaks to that.
what I mean when I say political is overt politics. You can argue that "the personal is political" or "everything is political" but there's a considerable difference in granularity between agreeing to work with a libertarian or trying to improve the healthcare industry, and donating money to an anti-Trump cause. Donating to the ACLU is an act of political affiliation given their recent spotlight, whereas simply agreeing to work with Thiel or employing a H1B worker is an economic act in the frame of capitalism.
Economic systems are SO radically political that people used 'socialist' as a slur against Obama. McCarthyism. CIA overthrow of democratically-elected socialist governments. Not political?
Not to pick on Peter Thiel, but he's a convenient and recent example. He donated $1.25M to Trump. He wouldn't have had $1.25M to donate to Trump if people didn't earn that money for him. You can cast it as wishy-washy, indirect, etc. but at the end of the day that check cleared.
"Socialist" as a slur for Obama was in reference to the political act of taxation and wealth redistribution. Neither of these things are capitalist, and the term "socialist" has a somewhat different meaning to the original political system, when it comes to American politics. American "socialism" is more akin to social democracy i.e. a capitalism-driven welfare state. At least, that's my understanding.
McCarthyism was political, nothing to do with economics. The CIA interfered with other countries' political process (i.e. staging a coup).
The whole idea of capitalism is that people join together in free association to trade for mutual benefit. The responsibility ends there. If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into. Ergo, trading with Thiel is not a political act that can somehow be ratified retrospectively. It is an economic act. If your agreement was "I'll trade with you on the condition that you donate the profits to Trump", then it becomes political. From my perspective, the distinction is pretty clear to be honest.
That argument might work until you try to convince any other person. If you're buying cocaine from FARC, what did you expect them to do?
Similarly all the profound libertarian arguments on this thread will last up until they need $500k for cancer treatment and end up an indentured servant to a future billionaire hedge-fund AI.
even throwing FARC or cocaine into that equation muddies the water because cocaine is illegal (and thus inherently a political purchase) and FARC are known for their violent tactics and thus when you purchase from them you are wilfully accepting that your money may be used for violence (unless you aren't aware of what FARC does when you enter the transaction).
If you want to get into the ambiguities of terrorism and drugs, then what about your average joe buying some weed from their local dealer? If you know that dealer works with a cartel then by buying from him you are knowingly funding the cartel. If you have no idea whether he works with a cartel or not, then you can't be said to be knowingly funding the cartel - you are just participating in a transaction. The alternative as I see it is to suggest that everyone who smokes marijuana illegally is pro-cartel or pro-terror, or at least is OK with the idea that their money may be used for violence.
> Similarly all the profound libertarian arguments on this thread will last up until they need $500k for cancer treatment and end up an indentured servant to a future billionaire hedge-fund AI.
this is literally the entire point of the insurance industry - to absorb black swan risks. Do you think that insurance would not exist in a libertarian society? Plus, by reintroducing supply and demand into the medical industry you would likely see those obscene costs fall drastically when no-one can afford $500k for treatment, especially with reduced government bureaucracy and regulation increasing costs.
McCarthy hunted down communists (supposed and actual).
> The whole idea of capitalism is that people join together in free association to trade for mutual benefit. The responsibility ends there.
It appears to me that you are conflating 'socialism' with 'planned economy' and 'capitalism' with 'free market'.
yes, and communism is a political belief. Political persecution is a political action, not an economic one.
> It appears to me that you are conflating 'socialism' with 'planned economy' and 'capitalism' with 'free market'.
I don't believe I am. The premise of capitalism is mutually beneficial trade of privately owned and produced goods. I think you are confusing capitalism and social democracy, in that social democracy adds burdens onto the capitalist economy (for example, taxes and regulations) for the benefit of society at large and to counteract the problems that free-market capitalism can create (exploitation, the tragedy of the commons, etc).
That's pretty depressing.
Peter Thiel is still a partner at YC. So there is someone high-profile openly allied with Trump at YC, YC is not as radical left-wing as some people try to paint it.
Sounds like a personal problem. "Oh no, an organization that defends people's liberties is making me feel uncomfortable!"
A lot of conservative landowners on the border are very much against the idea, and private property ownership is part of the reason the current fence has gaps in it.
> Among most people with an education conservatives are not really welcome right now
I don't think that most educated people lump Trumpian ignorance and the politics of idiocy with conservatism; the two traditions have completely different origin stories and share relatively little philosophical or political underpinnings. It is precisely people in the academic community who are most keen to recognize this.
It's hard to imagine this doesn't have real-world consequences, e.g., strategically choosing to not defend right-leaning speech as vigorously as left-leaning speech.
For example, the ACLU supports the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United even though the majority of liberals and democrats strongly oppose it.
The distinction is quite critical.
Can you see anything there that would be representative of what you're saying?
Another example: Techdirt argues that ACLU fails to defend free speech of wedding photographer who violated equal protection legislation by refusing photograph gay wedding.
Right off, I want to clearly state that I'm not a lawyer, so my ability to judge the merits of these cases is very suspect. To the point where I'm hesitant to attempt to address them at all for fear of appearing exceedingly ignorant.
With the UN resolution, I see the inconsistency between their avowed reason for not joining the other groups (we don't get involved in international issues). The rest of the article is speculation as to the real reason why, on which I think reasonable people can disagree on. It's not clear to me that this is a clear-cut case of consistent anti-conservative bias. For example, I can imagine without too much difficulty American religious conservatives wanting protection from defamation of religion.
For the wedding photography case, I don't think it's a free speech issue: I think it's a protected-class issue which falls under the Civil Rights Act and its extensions, as in this instance the wedding photographer is acting as a business providing a service, and depending on the jurisdiction, the couple may be a protected class. I'm exceedingly unsure about this whole area of law, though, I'd defer to just about anyone. I don't know how judges decide the balance between free speech and the Civil Rights Act, though I'm sure there's precedent and guidelines.
Her 2009 book Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity and the ACLU critiques what she regards as the ACLU’s ethical decline, ideological hypocrisy, and descent into groupthink.
Wow, that's shameful.