19 ms·

Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly valuable and I'm glad they have a lot more money now to fight for the American people, I'm que

• ucha 10y ago
  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.
  • enitihas 10y ago
    I don't think he is being contrarian just for the sake of it. He is just using the platform to raise awareness about issues which are serious but don't make the same impact into public discussions and don't get similar levels of support. There is nothing bad in bringing more issues to light, and now seems the perfect time for this when the public appetite is ready for such issues.
    • ucha 10y ago
      I see your point but isn't easy to understand that the reason tech companies and YC try to help the ACLU is because charity begins at home? Preventing engineers from working at these companies because of their national origin affects them more than police violence against black people. There surely are other causes more worthy of support outside the US that he did not mention.
    • Paul-ish 10y ago
      The comment strikes me a concern trolling.
  • ihsw 10y ago
    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?
    • ucha 10y ago
      Yes.
    • anarazel 10y ago
      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.
  • tptacek 10y ago
    Asking why things were done in the past is unproductive. Asking why more things aren't being done in the present isn't.
    • sidlls 10y ago
      No, asking why things were done in the past is a useful exercise to uncover deficiencies in reasoning, process and other areas which can be acted upon for present and future action. Your argument is essentially "don't ask why my favored party/people/orgs did bad things, just pay attention to the rhetoric they're using now." It's an incredibly cynical position to take, in my opinion.
      • sanderjd 10y ago
        Seems pretty easy to resolve this dispute: let's both act in the present and critically consider our past actions. Where's the argument here?
        • sidlls 10y ago
          No argument on that specifically. I do take note, and exception, when very vocal supporters of Hillary have a "come to Jesus" moment over Trump's actions. Part of that "critically consider past actions" thing.
      • wfo 10y ago
        It's cyclical to be constantly looking back and holding every group to this impossible standard we've constructed for today that is constantly changing. This is the only argument I ever see from Trump supporters: Clinton or Obama or the Democrats did it/would have done it or worse, so it's all okay and you aren't allowed to complain. Never is the argument presented that what is currently being done is right, because it's indefensible. Why not talk about what is right and talk about doing that? When we read 'all men are created equal' we don't say 'well, the founding fathers hated women so it's okay for me to' or 'the founding fathers had no good ideas and they are trash' we talk about what parts of their ideas had merit and try to improve upon them and do the right thing /today/, from this moment forward.
  • wpietri 10y ago
    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 gotten worse, to the extent that many see us as needing a third Reconstruction [7]. This does not happen mostly through planned racial injustice. It mainly happens through ignorance and a convenient blindness to uncomfortable facts. We help people familiar and dear to us, and ignore the ones who aren't. I think it's great that Silicon Valley came out strongly in favor of immigrants. They're familiar to us, and we'd be monsters to ignore our neighbors, our co-workers, our ancestors. But muninn_'s right, we have been ignoring some other pretty big injustices. And the ones muninn_ mentioned are groups historically underrepresented in tech. It's no coincidence that we started here. As we boldly support immigrants, it's a good time to ask, "Oh, who might we have forgotten?" Companies are communities, embedded in a society. This week, we are stepping up to that responsibility. There's nothing wrong with thinking a little about what that really means. [1] e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Reconstruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Reconstruction [7] https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7c https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7...
    • seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Nice. You should throw in some Pete Wilson to put the current struggle into context.
      • wpietri 10y ago
        Please do!
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• CydeWeys 10y ago
  > Maybe I'm too cynical and look at these moves (AirBnB, Uber, Google, etc...) as marketing moves. I strongly disagree that this is purely for marketing. As someone working for one of the aforementioned companies, we are all aghast at how quickly this administration has jumped to eroding everything we believe in. These companies' moves are motivated by very real horror at the US going down a dark path. The worst you could say about these actions is that they are self-interested, as the Muslim ban affects a lot of my coworkers in a very negative way that, say, inner city violence in Chicago does not. But it's definitely not so cynical as to be mere marketing moves.
  • JonFish85 10y ago
    > "eroding everything we believe in." > "the Muslim ban" This sort of exaggeration probably doesn't help anyone.
  • muninn_ 10y ago
    "This temporary hold on people entering the country from one of 7 countries for 90 days affects a lot of my coworkers" And then "I don't care about the dozens of black people gunned down every day" Seems a little selfish no? This is exactly the same mentality that Trump supporters had, just exchange Americans with coworkers and refugees with black people. Maybe they aren't purely marketing moves, but I just have a hard time with it. Why can't Sergey show solidarity with our black community, who make up a large percentage of Americans, but can show up to protest in person for a temporary restriction on new people entering the US on top of the 120 day restriction that already exists?
    • facetube 10y ago
      You're constructing a strawman. Nobody has said they don't care about black people. The absence of protest attendance or action does not mean people don't care – it may mean they've judged that their talents are best suited to another cause, or that their potential to do good in a different arena is greater. It is a sad cynical state of affairs when people attempting to do good for one cause are berated for not participating in every other cause under the sun. People have finite resources and differing abilities. What have you done to combat heroin addiction? What have you done to reduce environmental destruction? What have you done for Jewish causes? What have you done to improve oversight at the FDA? One could play this game forever.
• sankho 10y ago
  I'm with you 100%. By coincidence I made a site to direct people to various charities on HN when this post came up - it went nowhere of course. If you're looking for an option to support other charities w/o feeling like you're actually just buttressing a corporation's branding --> https://helpsavetheusa.com/ https://helpsavetheusa.com/
  • sankho 10y ago
    Also shameless shill for upvotes --> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531669
• cosinetau 10y ago
  The best time to plant a tree was yesterday. I can personally forgive them, but we need to hold these players accountable in the future. If marketing moves is what incentives them, we need to make it impossible to move us without extended action. Edit: Ya'll are cynical Jedis.
  • seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The best time to plant a tree was yesterday, the second best time to plant a tree is today. Being proactive is better than being reactive, but we shouldn't poohoo the value of being at least reactive now and maybe proactive in the future.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • koolba 10y ago
    > The best time to plant a tree was yesterday. I can personally forgive them, but we need to hold these players accountable in the future. If marketing moves is what incentives them, we need to make it impossible to move us without extended action. I feel like I hear that line on a daily basis but it doesn't factor in reality. To stretch the metaphor further (for illustration), if the lot where you'll be planting the tree is being bulldozed today, yesterday is the worst day to plant a tree.
    • pasquinelli 10y ago
      and applying that stretched metaphor back to its original context, we shouldn't support civil liberties if they're a lost cause. but what have we actually achieved with all this metaphor stretching?
      • koolba 10y ago
• nopcode 10y ago
  I share your sentiment. It seems to me (I'm European) that bashing Trump is just a fancy, hipster thing to do.
  • andy_ppp 10y ago
    I find this sort of thing chilling when Steve Bannon talks about the alt-right being in power for 50 years and has been (pre election) doing 3 small town speeches per week telling people (by my guess including border control, the police, the Sarah Palin supporters of this world) that they are the thin blue line as society falls apart. Watch: https://youtu.be/7nTd2ZAX_tc https://youtu.be/7nTd2ZAX_tc
  • ssully 10y ago
    I have no idea how supporting the ACLU or the ACLU's actions this weekend could ever be considered Trump bashing or 'hipster'.
  • soundwave106 10y ago
    Perhaps it is, to some extent. Unfortunately, it sometimes it takes a direct threat to get people motivated. But that's human nature. Trump has done an awful lot to raise the ACLU's profile recently and ultimately this will be for a better good. The ACLU has long been a strong advocate against police abuse (one web link of many: https://action.aclu.org/secure/stop-police-killing-communities https://action.aclu.org/secure/stop-police-killing-communiti...), and the ACLU is participated in combating opiate abuse that emphasize treatment over jail (example: http://www.aclu-wa.org/story/task-force-issues-ground-breaking-recommendations-opiate-epidemic http://www.aclu-wa.org/story/task-force-issues-ground-breaki...). So while Silicon Valley may be reacting mainly to the executive order, support for the ACLU will help address these issues as well. One other comment: I'll add that criticism of Trump is not just coming from the "hipster" left. I've noticed, for instance, that the Cato Institute, a very well notable libertarian think tank, is taking a hostile stance towards the Trump EO (https://www.cato.org/ https://www.cato.org/). This isn't a surprising stance frankly, but in a nation where politics is often thought of as binary (Cato is sometimes incorrectly generalized in this binary as "right wing"), sometimes the subtle nuances are missed.
• ffef 10y ago
  > Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops.. You can't compare apples to oranges.
• Sakes 10y ago
  As far as I have observed, the only thing people consistently respond to is pain. This can be done through the introduction / removal / or threat of pain. It'd be nice if we all empathized more with other people's pain, but that doesn't appear to be the culture that we live in. Maybe there are cultures that do elsewhere, but I am unaware of them. But I do have a question for you, when the interests of those with influence align with the ignored, why would your initial reaction be a negative one?
• becarefulyo 10y ago
  So your argument is that if you didn't do what was right before, you shouldn't do what's right now?
  • muninn_ 10y ago
    The other problems still exist and in my opinion are far worse. My argument is that we should prioritize problems like those over the current outcry.
    • becarefulyo 10y ago
      This is not the only issue people are protesting.
    • urbanj 10y ago
      Why are you posting on here instead of getting out and doing something then?
    • facetube 10y ago
      People often support the ACLU because they believe that threats to free speech and free assembly are systemic and have potentially catastrophic future consequences. Doing so does not imply an absence of action in other arenas, and IMO it's dangerous to assume that.
    • smokeyj 10y ago
      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 detain and torture anyone including US citizens is the recipe for disaster. As a libertarian I welcome anyone joining the fight for our constitutional rights regardless of what triggers them.
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
• alphonsegaston 10y ago
  It's good to be skeptical and this may very well be a good marketing strategy. But at the moment, we're facing an fast-moving onslaught of authoritarianism, and the ACLU is one of the only legal defenses we have against it. If YCombinator, right now, wants to help stop it, I support them in doing so. We can cross other bridges of criticism when we come to them.
• CodeSheikh 10y ago
  Just because ACLU is late along with most of the communities and people in realizing things they could have done better that does not mean we need to question their every future step for the betterment of the society. Along with your positive critique, you can donate to them or any other org. of your choice and make sure your voice is heard. Oh btw ACLU was always active with whatever limited funds they had. . Please try researching on them.
• illuminati1911 10y ago
  Maybe the ACLU wants to support innocent people in warn-torn countries more than black gangsters and anti-police anarchists/terrorists?
  • jMyles 10y ago
    > anarchists/terrorists What kind of ridiculous designation is that? "Anarchist" and "Terrorist" are nearly mutually exclusive.
• ra1n85 10y ago
  Because it's virtue signalling. Nevermind that Chicago had more murders in 2016 than New York and Los Angeles combined, or that there's a rampant opiate epidemic across wide swaths of the country - this is a cause with visibility among the well heeled coastal elites. Where were these same people when we undermined and bombed the governments of the countries these immigrants are fleeing from?
  • geofft 10y ago
    I thought "virtue signaling" meant loudly expressing sentiments to enhance your perceived moral standing. If you actually put your money where you mouth is, a) is it still virtue signaling, and b) what's wrong with it?
    • ajamesm 10y ago
      seems like the meaning is shifting from "non-sacrificial action taken solely to signify virtue" with "any action taken in the name of virtues I don't embrace"
      • geofft 10y ago
        Cool. Is Trump's get-rid-of-two-regulations executive order "virtue signaling"?
        • ajamesm 10y ago
          In tandem with the gag order, though, there's the angle of entirely halting the work of government agencies. 'Virtue signaling' is a criticism of people who put social approval before productive work. Someone who 'virtue signals' isn't opposed to a cause, though they exploit it out of narcissism. But in this case, the entire point of these EOs is that they are specifically crafted to interfere with gov't agencies, while appearing to cut through red tape. It's red meat for the base, but that's just a bonus.
  • jblow 10y ago
    Accusing someone of "virtue signalling" instantly ends any possibility for reasonable discussion, because it's a stark violation of the Principle of Charity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity On a meta-level, invoking "virtue signalling" is itself a signal that you want to ad-hominem the human subject rather than discuss and resolve the issues. It is the opposite of rationality, and it's a bit weird that so many People Who Think They Are Rational are into the idea.
• laurent123456 10y ago
  This logic (people should do nothing today because they did nothing yesterday) doesn't make any sense, and I don't get why it keeps coming up every time something related to Trump's policy comes up.
  • mhink 10y ago
    Because it's a rhetorical tactic, not an argument based on logic. And it's tailored directly towards getting the Left to "sit down and shut up".
  • bmelton 10y ago
    Not to speak for the OP, but at least for me, I'm seeing a lot of my friends all of a sudden up in arms over policies that Obama (and Bush, and in some cases earlier than that even) got crickets for. Admittedly, I'm not trying to compare apples to apples, and I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, and it's absolutely amazing that the media have finally grown into their role of a check and balance against the government, but all too often, that means that they do so with carelessly chosen words that misrepresent the issue, and they act like it's new. The problem with acting like it's new and giving a pass to handsomer / more liked / partisan presidents of yore is that once Trump is out of office, everyone will start to be complacent again. Standing up for your rights is the job of the citizenry no matter who is president, and holding our elected officials' collective feet to the fire is what we're supposed to be doing all the time. If it took electing Trump to get people engaged, so be it, but let's not pretend that passing what effectively amounts to law with "a pen and a phone" is Trump's idea, or that people weren't cheering on the last president when he chose to do so, or that it's in any way a good thing to remove the checks and balances branches of the government are supposed to be providing against their co-equal branches.
    • TenOhms 10y ago
      It also reeks of hypocrisy of the highest order.
      • tptacek 10y ago
• maxander 10y ago
  Before November 2016 it was easy to be complacent- there was a sense that people with more power than us were doing the right thing to fix any given problem, so our own contribution felt less urgent. We don't have that now.
• Eyas 10y ago
  My take on this: I'm glad that the "right thing" to do is the popular thing to do. In the past, there have been trends of conspicuous consumption, bigger as better, etc., to convey social status and desirability. Mainstream culture has been moving in a direction where inconspicuous consumption, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility, and companies have been following. Whether we do things because it looks good or is right is an interesting question. But to me, it is similar to the question of "are we kind because it makes us feel better? or because its right?".
• katm 10y ago
  You can be cynical about us bringing in the ACLU, but in the words of Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
  • zymhan 10y ago
    That's a great quote. Also, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    • npsimons 10y ago
      Another factor is to consider framing: you can view this cynically as "only getting involved when it might impact their bottom line", or more favorably in that "it was bad before, but now it's finally hit their breaking point." I prefer to reduce my cynicism as much as possible, giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's also good for my overall happiness.
  • sidlls 10y ago
    In that case, I fully expect to see continued activity on this front even after the next Democratic adminstration and congress continues the Bush-Obama-Trump programs that are (finally) meeting resistance. I won't hold my breath waiting for that, though. Usually what happens is that when one's favored party regains power the criticism suddenly disappears.
    • davidw 10y ago
      The ACLU is not a partisan group. They've criticized Obama where they felt it appropriate: https://action.aclu.org/secure/president_obama_deportations https://action.aclu.org/secure/president_obama_deportations
      • sidlls 10y ago
        I wasn't calling out the ACLU. I am rather skeptical of the commitment of certain folks who are just now finding their voice. This is from long experience, at least on the left end of the pond, where the mainstream Democratic partisans attempt to shout down any protest when Democratic politicians do something but encourage it when Republicans do equivalent things.
• jrcii 10y ago
  Liberals don't actually care about anyone. How many of those protesting the refugee ban donated even $1 to their cause in the prior year? This is liberalism 101 -- cultivation of the /appearance/ of sweet, sweet, ego-stroking self righteousness. The PR stunt aspect is just the icing on the cake.
• efnx 10y ago
  I agree with you that we should all cast a wider net WRT the charities we pick, but I'll play devils advocate because that's what I do. There are too many worthy issues. An organization like ycombinator or like its investments (Airbnb, Uber, etc) aren't altruistic by design, but can choose to be when they see fit. That's not bad. Right now it fits because there's either some PR to be gained (like Lyft) or some looming threat to fight (H1B visas and immigration). A tactical move like this is still good for everyone even if its motivation isn't philanthropic. It's a win-win. We should look at it more as a strategic investment for the common good.
• sp332 10y ago
  Not trolling, but I don't think those required the same magnitude of capital. Your examples didn't involve going up against the federal government. The ACLU got something like 24 million dollars in the last week, but the Koch brothers pledged to spend $300-400 million in the run-up to the 2018 elections. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/jan/28/koch-political-network-to-spend-300m-to-400m-over/ https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/jan/28/koch-political-netw... (Worth noting the Koch network actually disagrees with Trump over the immigration ban https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/koch-network-condemns-trump-ban-on-refugees-and-immigrants/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01...)
• gadders 10y ago
  I also wonder where they were when the Snowdon revelations of of the massive NSA spying campaign under Obama were released.
• Overtonwindow 10y ago
  ...and this, in a nutshell, is why a lot of people voted for Trump.
• phillmv 10y ago
  You don't even have to go that far; half the people on these boards step over a homeless person to get to work every morning. >Why weren't we funding the ACLU to help these people? Well, I think that's easy to answer. People care more about causes when it affects them personally. For better or for worse, few of us are strict utilitarian maximizers. I haven't quite settled how I think about it, myself.
  • muninn_ 10y ago
    > You don't even have to go that far; half the people on these boards step over a homeless person to get to work every morning. This is a spot on comment.
    • jookoolok 10y ago
      .
      • artmageddon 10y ago
        There are plenty of people who are trying to become American, as well. My wife came here from Iran to study at an American University, and her conditional green card is set to expire next year. We want her to get her citizenship as fast as possible. Now it seems that USCIS has put all that on pause though, so we're sweating bullets over whether they'll actually let us file the petition to have the conditional aspect removed in a year's time. If they don't, we're fucked and all of the work and money(read: thousands of dollars) we put into putting her through the system properly will have been all for nothing. FYI I'm an American citizen.
        • siphor 10y ago
          Why doesn't she qualify for naturalization (married to a u.s. citizen?)
          • soneil 10y ago
            married to a citizen doesn't magically grant you anything. It makes you eligible for a K1 visa, and from there you join the same path from greencard to citizenship as everyone else. Specifically, there's a minimum residency period before you can apply - usually 5 years, 3 if you're married. The conditional greencard is the first 18(? 24?) months, before you get the 10yr card - so if they're still conditional, there's no way they meet any minimums. The path from marriage to citizenship is not automatic (nor inalienable).
• jmclean 10y ago
  Although I agree that there's been a frustrating lack of response to those issues, I think at least part of that muted response was a sense that these incidents were an aberration from a general trend of progress. The reality that many people are waking up to is that social progress is not guaranteed and a passive approach is not enough. I share your cynicism regarding many of the marketing moves by the companies you mentioned. At the same time, the fact that doing the right thing builds goodwill with a hopefully-majority highlights the importance of making our views and voices heard. I might wish for a more high-minded motive form these companies. I also wish that it hadn't taken shock events to make the loss of rights feel real for most of America (though to be honest, I'm guilty of this too.) But I'm excited to see people mobilizing, and will take the good outcomes where I can find them these days. Progress here could require an uneasy coalition.
• AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
  The ACLU has been fighting the good fight for impoverished black people as well. They happen to be in the spotlight at the moment due to the Trump immigration executive order, but it's not as though 100% of the funds raised by YC will go towards fighting the immigration ban. It will support their countless other ongoing legal battles as well. They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization that is deserving of your donations. I'm personally of the opinion that a charitable act should not be diminished or castigated because one picked this time to donate and not other times. Put another way, if a guy shows up to volunteer at a soup kitchen, I'm going to thank him for his time, not shout at him, "Where were you when we had the flood of Katrina refugees to feed!"
  • jMyles 10y ago
    > They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization The ACLU is wonderful, no doubt about that. But I think some people do put an asterisk next to the group because of their (obviously somewhat strange) categorization of the protections of the 2nd amendment as outside the scope of American civil liberties.
    • m3rc 10y ago
      What? This is a giant [citation needed]
      • throwaway76543 10y ago
        Right here: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment It's well established that the ACLU refuses to defend the individual civil right to armed self defense.
        • m3rc 10y ago
          That all seems pretty clear to me. It's not up to you to interpret the 2nd Amendment for them. Not to mention that orgs like the NRA have many times more funding than the ACLU and dedicate every action to that one issue. Or the fact that you're dealing with a organization that has been one of the biggest and best defenders of oppressed groups in recent history and you're cranky that they're not gonna help you own a handgun like most of congress is.
• kickscondor 10y ago
  While I think white bias is still an issue - seems like this is what you're pointing at exclusively, right? - I think a possibly bigger issue here - and the answer you're looking for - is that Obama was a classy face for progressives to look at when these government encroachments (and - in many cases - outright killings) came up. Now that Trump is the face of this disease, there is no pretense. The face lines up with the actions. This allows everyone to freely mobilize on their issues without feeling like they are stepping on toes. Classy, wingtip toes, that is. Now, I'm not a Trump hater - I don't think he's Hitler. In fact, I do thank him - he did drop the pretense on his own. But I also am enjoying seeing America radicalized in a way that I hoped would happen with the Snowden disclosures fell.
• akras14 10y ago
  100%
• marwatk 10y ago
  I'm not 100% sure what all the ACLU does so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they were a bunch of lawyers? What can they do for Chicago or people shot by police? Who could they sue and for what to fix those problems? Isn't this like complaining about Habitat for Humanity not doing enough to prevent forest fires?
  • mtalantikite 10y ago
    The profiling and killing of black men by police is most certainly a civil rights issue. The NYC division of the ACLU has done work on the illegal and racist stop and frisk law that was in place here, for example.
  • Govannon 10y ago
    Not exactly. THe ACLU actually does work in the area being discussed [0]. I believe the criticism is that people did not donate for that reason, not that the ACLU doesn't do anything about it; the ACLU does quite a bit. [0] https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice
  • bbctol 10y ago
    They'd sue the police department. The ACLU sues police departments for violations of civil rights constantly.
• kiloreux 10y ago
  I think it's pretty easy to see the answer to your question. Black people and cops violence don't hurt their interests. If black people will be killed then the effect on Google/AirBnB/Ycombinator will be low. However seeing that the ban on foreign countries visa (I expect a lot more countries to be added). It would be harder for tech companies that rely basically on technical talent from outside US.
• facetube 10y ago
  You will always be able to come up with another problem to use in a "where were you all when..." scenario, because any given organization's resources are finite and cannot address all problems. Further, the ACLU is a civil liberties advocacy organization and is not well-equipped to handle complex socioeconomic issues such as gun violence or homelessness or health care. It is outside the stated mission.
• jstalin 10y ago
  Of course you know the answer: The ACLU is a political organization. Edit: Not a peep out of the ACLU when the Obama administration permanently ended the Cuban refugee program and many refugees in Mexico are now being deported back to Cuba because there is no chance of them being accepted in the US. 60 day pause on refugees from seven middle-eastern countries identified and signed into law by the Obama administration? MELTDOWN.
  • facetube 10y ago
    With a stated intent to ban Muslims. Donald Trump and his advisors have gone on record for months stating that their intent is to ban Muslims. Many of his staff have asked publicly if there was a legal way to ban Muslims, and stated that they were seeking a way. This is well-documented in the US mainstream press, with video evidence of Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani stating this in their own words. The rationale given for banning these Muslim majority countries by Mr. Trump included 9/11. Not a single 9/11 attacker came from these countries. Claiming a material connection is a lie. They claim Obama is responsible for picking them – yet he never banned an entire country in a fit of collective punishment, merely ordered additional monitoring and procedures. Last weekend, valid green cards were cancelled without a documented or individualized reason. This is a vast difference in policy. People resent Mr. Trump because he lies. He repeatedly lies to Americans. He presents suspect reasoning, misrepresents documented facts, and then claims he didn't in the presence of video evidence. That is a far more critical flaw than any policy error could bring.
  • digitalneal 10y ago
    Maybe because the ACLU is about American civil liberties.
    • jstalin 10y ago
      Then not about seven middle-eastern countries civil liberties?
      • digitalneal 10y ago
        Dual citizens?
• diydsp 10y ago
  https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/ferguson-everytown-usa https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/ferguson-everytown-usa https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-response-ferguson https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-response-ferguson Ferguson and related issues are important and the ACLU did respond in important ways I referenced above. However, we're now seeing an umbrella of issues targeting an even larger number of groups of people.
• jacquesm 10y ago
  By your reckoning everybody that was standing by the sidelines should forever do so. Better to turn late than not at all, and YC and immigration policies are quite strongly linked, YC and people being gunned down in the streets less so.
• character0 10y ago
  Hopefully, people are setting up recurring payments that continue to show support for organizations like the ACLU. Then when the next travesty inevitably occurs, they are already supporting the good fight.
• kobayashi 10y ago
  Because although many terrible things occur every day, President Trump/Bannon are the most serious internal threats to the freedoms, safety, and security of Americans since WWII, and perhaps even earlier. Moreover, the threats they pose extend far beyond America's borders. The possibility of autocracy, illiberalism, and kleptocracy are real, and the many donors understand this. Liberal democracy is the foundation of human freedoms. I normally disagree with some prominent positions of the ACLU, but we're in an "all hands on deck" situation. It's different.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• EnFinlay 10y ago
  My guess is that up until now, the cause for these events has been hard to quantify and identify. Like your example of people in West Virginia and Kentucky who have lost their jobs and got drenched in opiates. Who do we rally against for that? You could argue that it's caused by automation, outsourcing, globalism, capitalism, local policy, state policy, federal policy, and at least a dozen other things. People don't band together against something that has just happened. Boiling the frog and all that. Companies are throwing their hat into the ring on this issue because there is a clear and present threat with an immense amount of power. You can point to it and say "look, this is going to cause things that I'm not okay with, and I will stand against it". It's finally cut and dry. Evil exists and it can be fought. Screw cynicism, that's the easy way to deal with these events.
  • bryanlarsen 10y ago
    Exactly. And those are also issues that everybody agreed are issues; it's the solutions where there was disagreement. Trump's platform was that bribing corporations to keep jobs in America, loosening environmental regulation and tearing up TPP & NAFTA were the solutions for lost factory jobs. Clinton's platform was that education, a social safety net and withdrawing from the TPP were the best solutions. Fighting to build awareness of problems is a lot easier than agreeing on a solution.
• PeterisP 10y ago
  "Do Not Listen to What They Say, Look at What They Do" - simply treat it as evidence that yes, really, despite what some people might want, large parts of the society actually do care more about immigrants like the tech industry green card holders who got stuck in the airports than local homeless people or "people in West Virginia and Kentucky who have lost their jobs and got drenched in opiates". It's obvious that this is the case. It's also obvious that some people are angry at this, they want America to clearly put their interests above the interests of immigrants, and that's part of why they voted for Trump.
  • chrshawkes 10y ago
    I notice most non-liberal points of view get down-voted to oblivion in this circle jerk named Hacker News. Commence the down-voting of this comment please.
• criddell 10y ago
  > Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Why weren't we funding the ACLU to help these people? What answer are you looking for?
• mtalantikite 10y ago
  They can show their intentions by not just stopping with their support of the ACLU. They can move to support other organizations, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Earth Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sylvia Rivera Law Project, National Immigration Law Center, EFF, RAINN, and so many more.
  • cidibe 10y ago
    Not to SPLC please. I have no idea what they are thinking with regard to criticism of Salafism. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maa...
    • mtalantikite 10y ago
      Thanks for the heads up, wasn't aware of that particular case. Surprised to hear about that, they typically have done good work over the decades.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• brandonb 10y ago
  Here are a few efforts from the Y Combinator and broader tech communities that help with those goals. On veterans, several YC alumni, after working on the healthcare.gov rescue team, went on to help start the US Digital Service (https://www.usds.gov/ https://www.usds.gov/) and Nava (navahq.com), which are working on the VA backlog. Both organizations are hiring. Within the broader tech community, companies like Nuna are working on Medicaid and the VA backlog. On policing, DJ Patil--former Greylock Data Scientist and one of the founders of Color, FFS--launched an initiative around police data and criminal justice during his time at the White House: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/13/dj-patil-criminal-justice/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/13/dj-patil-criminal-justice/ And, of course, Code for America in SOMA does lots of work with local governments and you can apply to be a Fellow: https://www.codeforamerica.org/ https://www.codeforamerica.org/ There's a lot more to do, and not all of these efforts are as well-known as they should be. But if you're looking to help, people in tech are working on these problems.
• smacktoward 10y ago
  Saving democracy isn't Pitchfork; nobody should be looking down on people just because they liked this band before it was cool. Just welcome them to the fan club -- and do what you can to make sure they keep their membership current after this rush of buzz wears off.
• ProxCoques 10y ago
  When you say "Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops" - what exactly do you imply by asking that question? That the parties involved are morally compromised such that they should not fund the ACLU and hire immigrants?
• api 10y ago
  I get what you're saying, but late is better than never.
• pdkl95 10y ago
  > Where was [...] In politics, I believe it's important to use the philosophy of "better late than never". Memes take time to diffuse into the population. It is better to encourage more participation in the future by accepting late arrivals. Attacking people that finally decided to participate can easily drive them away.
• brandall10 10y ago
  I think the major difference is this a new, chilling shift of civil liberties enacted by a political administration - whereas the issues surrounding race/homelessness in this country are pre-existing are having an increasing light shown on them.
• egocodedinsol 10y ago
  When you've convinced people to come to your side and donate money to it, demanding an apology for not coming sooner is a great strategy for revenge, but not a great one for your cause. From an activist friend: "Hearing leftists be like "ugh these protesters are so passionate about protesting now but I didn't see them protesting at BLM marches three years ago!" is one of those things that makes me wonder whether the left has been infiltrated by the CIA or whether the death-wish is native."
  • Kalium 10y ago
    Given that the leftist death-wish showed up in revolutionary Russia, revolutionary France, and civil war Spain... we should seriously consider that it might be native.
• tptacek 10y ago
  This is an entirely legitimate concern. We're not meant to sit here stroking our chins and purring about the good deeds of our favorite companies. YC has an incredible position in Silicon Valley, built over a decade with the help and influence of people like us. To whom much is given, much is required. I'm glad YC is helping ACLU out this winter. But ACLU took in more money in 1 day last week than NILC, the National Immigration Law Center, spends in a year. After they get done patting themselves on the back for the ACLU win, they should start figuring out how to help the smaller organizations that don't have ACLU's built-in advantages. We're not here to feel sympathy for Y Combinator or Sam Altman. Most of us will never meet any of these people and, candidly, can't fathom the amount of financial success and security their position has brought them. More power to them! But they exist to us as abstractions, and rightly so, and any pressure we can bring to bear to more fully enlist them in the cause of shoring up our institutions and the rule of law is legitimate. Push harder. Thanks for that comment.
  • muninn_ 10y ago
    Thanks.
  • TorKlingberg 10y ago
    I am not comfortable having big companies as the protectors of civil liberties, but I'd rather have them fighting for freedom than against.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      I'm not saying that we should be unhappy about this, just that nobody should apologize for putting more pressure on YC. Their karmic debt is enormous.
  • justin66 10y ago
    No argument here, but... > But ACLU took in more money in 1 day last week than NILC, the National Immigration Law Center, spends in a year. On the bright side, NILC's national budget went from $5.5MM to $7.5MM in the past few months thanks to increased donations.
• eroo 10y ago
  > Where was the outpouring of funding [...] Build the thing that needs funding. Then, seek support and apply.
• VikingCoder 10y ago
  The ACLU excels at mounting a legal defense. I think when bad cops get off, it's because of bad (or absent) legal prosecution.
• xenophonf 10y ago
  I think these are all good questions. I can only answer for myself. The latest spate of racism and bigotry are what finally prompted me to commit to funding the ACLU on a regular basis. Prior to this election season I was more passive in my outlook, especially since neither major political party here in the U.S. aligns with my personal beliefs. Now I realize that was naive, and I don't want to wait, like Martin Niemöller did, to stand with my fellows against injustice and bigotry while we still have a chance to change things for the better.
• stevens32 10y ago
  Even if these are marketing moves they'll end up doing some good, which is definitely better than marketing moves which do nothing but market
• the_watcher 10y ago
  So because this didn't happen earlier, when you wish it did, it can't be celebrated as a step in the right direction? Progress, by its very nature, takes time and is incremental. By this logic, no one should ever bother with anything like this, because it will just be seen as cynical "marketing."
• RodericDay 10y ago
  I agree, but it's not just a vague sense of unease that bothers me. It's actually very real and very concrete. I am probably in the very far left-wing on this website in many regards, and what I see in a lot of this effusive and reflexive anti-Trumpism, is a lot of dubious and easily rolled-back gains. At climax radical right-wing activity, the GOP can just throw Donald Trump under the bus, and I think this would completely destroy any of the coalitions currently being built up against him, because the agreement on everything else is vague. A lot of people really and deeply want to believe that the problem is Donald Trump himself, not the entire institution that props him up. I've seen numerous liberals (as opposed to leftists) on the internet openly and effusively embrace John McCain in his fashionable and phony role of maverick, the man who sang "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys. It's bewildering. Another example is the Women's March. A friend of mine mentioned to a fellow protestor how important it was for her to fight for reproductive rights, and this woman's response was that it wasn't even about that, it's mostly just about Trump's disrespect towards women. And if you go on the movement's website, it's true. It doesn't mention planned parenthood or reproductive rights at all. Some people see it as a virtue, I think it is a strategic error. Moreover, I think everyone on the broad left clearly understood Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" as a dogwhistle for bygone years largely characterized by white supremacy and a vision of the ideal normal nuclear family. The real surprising thing is that a lot of the impassioned, patriotic rallying cries against Trump today, by celebrities who describe themselves as patriots who were proud up until yesterday, are exactly the same: "Make America Great Again". It's just that they pine for the great Obama years instead. There is almost zero mea-culpa about how it was possible that Trump got elected in the first place, and it's become so important to "stop Trump" that criticizing allies is a huge faux-pas. I don't see this building into a healthy strong movement.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• nrjames 10y ago
  Just because somebody or an organization failed to do something charitable in the past is no reason to criticize them for doing it in the future. I see this argument everywhere these days. Business change and their priorities change, just like people.
• NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
  Muninn_ You are obviously misinformed and looking to divert. I am grateful for your comment.
• BickNowstrom 10y ago
  Your concern/question is akin to a fallacy of relative privation. Another name for this style of argument is the "not as bad as"-argument. To answer/satisfy your concern/question is impossible without inaction. The cases you mentioned already happened and are in the past. In essence you are proposing that YC does not act to help solve this current issue, because worse issues happened in the past, and YC did not act then, so it does not deserve to act now (at least, without being accused of hypocrisy and selective outrage). This mode of argumentation results in nothing happening to solve the current issue, just by virtue of there existing past worse issues. I don't think you are really in favor of this. As for the marketing argument, sure, I can agree this playing a minor role in this decision. But not a major one. There is not much evidence I am aware of, or that you pointed out, signaling that YC does not act in good faith. Though absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, this alone is not a solid basis for posing that any action that YC takes is purely profit/PR-driven. Likely, this decision was not instigated out of marketing motives, but like any good decision for a for-profit company: it aligns with marketing motives. Another angle to look at motives for problem solving: Is the crime of having a less than glamorous motive worse than the outcome of solving the problem? Donating to non-profits makes me feel good. Is this egocentrism worse enough to stop donating?
• pc86 10y ago
  > Maybe I'm too cynical and look at these moves (AirBnB, Uber, Google, etc...) as marketing moves. Of course they're marketing moves. Corporations, especially the three you listed, do not do anything that doesn't generate profit or open the window to future profit.
  • mgce 10y ago
    Come on - this is egregiously cynical. You know this isn't really the case.
    • adrienne 10y ago
      Of course it's the case. Corporations are by law amoral and only allowed to pursue profit for their shareholders. Not to mention all the people who run corporations are billionaires, and billionaires are basically all monsters (if they weren't, they wouldn't still be billionaires.)
  • int_19h 10y ago
    And even if it's true, so what? If we have created an environment in which this kind of activism is a profitable marketing move, why, that's awesome, and let's keep it up! I trust the profit motive more than I would trust altruism, when it comes to corporations. It's our job as a society to make sure that doing the right thing is also the profitable thing (and vice versa).
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• DiffEq 10y ago
  So...what examples are there of blacks being gunned down and slaughtered? I think you do not know what the words you are using actually mean or you are doing it on purpose - which when you line your comments up with the facts; is very disingenuous.
• anigbrowl 10y ago
  There wasn't as much money coming in because far fewer people were aware of the problem. But some people here have been banging on about such issues for years. The fact that economics outweighs justice is an unfortunate truth about human psychology. Meantime, don't worry about it. It's normal to feel disoriented when the crowd stampedes where a few had previously blazed a lonely trail, but that's just how people are. Make the most of all this undirected energy.
• rocqua 10y ago
  The reason is that there has been progress or at worst stagnation on these issues. Moreover, what is happening now seems to be damaging the process of government itself. Whilst the things you mention are horrible, they are the result of bad government rather than an attack on the idea of government. The above does ignore the rather obvious 'which issue affects affluent people more?' question.
• leshow 10y ago
  I don't care whether google, ycombinator, airbnb, etc acted out of their own self-interest or not (for marketing, as you say). I don't think anyone should. I'm not naive enough to think they would act altruistically, all I can hope for is that our interests align at least temporarily and they help. Perhaps they could've done more in the situations you're describing, but it seems odd to chastise them now that they are. Would you rather they didn't ever help?
• iron0012 10y ago
  Nice concern trolling. The answer, as I'm sure you well know since you're arguing in bad faith, is that now is always the right time to do something good (like provide financial assistance to the ACLU). The argument that a good deed shouldn't be done now because it should have been done earlier instead is a ridiculous non sequitur.
• mc32 10y ago
  Not only that but these companies could provide vocational training to adult poor, as well as a conduit to tech education for both poor young blacks as well as poor whites as well as other poor Americans, but that's not sexy. However it is a very big problem for people who earn minimum wage or thereabouts and the unemployed. If only they got as much enthusiastic and monetary support, we'd be a little more equal amongst ourselves.
• mankash666 10y ago
  There's one big difference to note. This defiance from the general public is less about one single issue (immigration) and more about a pattern of general disregard to law that the elected leader has shown. Instead of upholding the law, he's displayed a willingness to bend or even violate it to his own liking. The one thing that sets America apart economically is the predictability and uniform applicability of the rule of law. The moment this certainty disappears, which is what Trump is driving towards, no company can have a meaningful plan or strategy. From backing out of the TPP to violating privacy agreements with the EU, with every whimsical stroke of his pen he's thrusting America towards economic uncertainty. The ACLU will hold his actions accountable to the law, and backing it is in the best economic and social interests of the US
• tootie 10y ago
  The ACLU is not an anti-crime organization is why. Nor is the ACLU a pro-immigration organization. They have repeatedly defended racism when it pertains to first amendment protections. Protecting constitutional rights is their mission and they do it very well. Solving gang violence is extremely difficult and there isn't a non-profit out there that has a clearly-defined path to solving it that can be supported with investment.
• deeth_starr 10y ago
  Why don't you google "black lives matter ACLU". They have fought data collection about BLM protesters as well as defended people unlawfully detained at protests. And we have been funding the ACLU individually. I like that YCombinator is now trying to help them as a org. This comment is unpopular because you're just being a troll. Edit: I get you are complaining about the recent swell of funding. And YCombinator probably skews immigrant. So I retract my troll comment. But know there are some white devs here who have supported ACLU and BLM. There's no easy answer. Racism is deep in the US (and actually most countries). It's not a zero sum game. Fighting Muslim racism (I know it's a religion) doesn't mean that we forget about other people of color. People have to unlearn the racism that their parents taught them. Edit2: But black voters didn't turn out to vote for Hillary in support of Mexicans and Muslims. Why should we now help you? Serious question.
  • sueders101 10y ago
    In response to your second edit; the vast majority of black voters voted for Hillary, a significantly greater proportion than any other race. Hillary ended up with 88%[1] of the black vote. Furthermore turnout was down across all demographics in 2016. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...
    • deeth_starr 10y ago
      But compared to the last few elections they stayed home [1]. It could be voter suppression but they were also down in California. [1] http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the-real-reason-black-voters-didnt-turn-out-for-hillary-clinton-and-how-to-fix-it/ http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the-real-reason-black-voters...
      • sueders101 10y ago
        Your link only talks about early voting in South Carolina. I haven't been able to find a source on black voter turnout numbers nationwide in 2016. As I said in my previous comment, voter turnout was down across all demographics[1]. It's very difficult to vote more loyally to the democratic party than black people have over the past two decades or so. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-...
• dieterrams 10y ago
  I'm completely sympathetic to your point. Part of the problem is that the examples you give were, sadly, not enough of a deviation from the status quo to shock people into large scale action/donation. Trump's actions are, and he/Bannon/et al. also built up an ever increasing antagonism during the election cycle that wants an outlet.
• mikeash 10y ago
  My question is, what would you like to see happen? They can't go back in time and donate earlier. Pulling funding now would satisfy the desire for consistency, but doesn't seem like a good outcome.
• 1_2__3 10y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen a more egregious case of concern trolling. Here's a tip for you: Complaining about people taking action because you think they should have taken action is stupid. The ACLU is not a be-all end-all shield for everything you don't like and randomly picking your person moral crusades and demanding answers for why the ACLU isn't your personal army is naive and childish. The ACLU is getting involved now and people are getting involved with the ACLU are doing so because they believe this administration represents an existential threat to the existence of the United States. They don't think that your personal crusades represent as much of a threat. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but you are contributing the problem of the left. "You want to make the world better? Fuck you, I think this stuff is more important!" is insanity.
• andrepd 10y ago
  > I know this comment will be unpopular, and that's ok. I would just like to say this kind of bait is agains the guidelines
• baconner 10y ago
  It's sad that less people we're inspired to donate earlier, but IMO the whole "you're just realizing this now?" thing is unproductive. Every person has a moment when they wake up and decided to step up, usually several. Litigating their decision process after he fact does nothing to help. Just say "thanks and welcome, now let's go wake up some others." Momentum is important and true or not this kind of stuff serves only as a speedbump.
• phantarch 10y ago
  I think it's less about the immigrant situation in particular, and more about the way the new President is wielding his power blatantly in front of a nation who is _extremely_ divided when it comes to their opinion of him. It's not that those other issues are less or more important, but that they have a much less identifiable perpetrator. A prominent cause is more easily reducible. It's a cry for someone or some organization to help guide us back to center. The ACLU just happens to be one of the best positioned organizations to fit this situation.
• svckr 10y ago
  I know, it is hard to take anything at face value these days. And asking the question why there is so much support now might not be popular, mainly because the answer is not really pretty. I do, however, believe that there are some objective reasons for the current wave of support. Some I can think of: - The events currently unfolding affect a lot more people directly. - The threat has changed from being systemic but disorganized to intentionally organized. The official stance has shifted as well from being apologetic to "damn fucking right, we're going to eradicate you". (sorry about the language) - People feel utterly helpless regarding politics in general. They might tell themselves (rightfully or not) that they can talk themselves out of trouble (if they even get into trouble being a good citizen and all). But they feel there's nothing they can personally do to stop DC from messing with their lives, so they put their trust into the hands of organizations like ACLU. Also, I can personally say, my stance (as a European) went from an amused, uneasy "geez, America, get your shit together" to being actually concerned about western civilization.
• ausjke 10y ago
  I UPVOTE you, even though I do not expect to discuss political issues at HN and I think HN was not encouraging that either,it somehow has the power to push its own political views such as ACLU to a developer like me. There are so many super-RICH Muslim countries nearby, why don't they take in refugees who share the same ideology first?
  • tobltobs 10y ago
    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?
    • ausjke 10y ago
      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. Now let us save those inner cities innocent people in this land, and those homeless people first, be it a Muslim or not. It's not religion, it is about safety.
      • tobltobs 10y ago
        > 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?
      • adrienne 10y ago
        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?
• k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> Where was the outpouring of funding when... I'm getting tired of seeing this sentiment. It's popped up constantly over the last few days. Just because people don't protest or support every single cause doesn't take anything away from support of this cause. In fact, people getting outraged enough to get involved for a change may be a good thing for other causes as if people see results they will be more likely to mobilise for other causes in the future.
• stackptr 10y ago
  Likely because people are emboldened to action when they see themselves in those who are being unjustly treated. It's no secret that Silicon Valley is not terribly representative of black people, veterans, and so on. If this is a fault of the folks at YC, I'd wager it's a fault of many many other people as well--so while I feel it is valuable to point out that issues, I don't think it's constructive at all to point at a good deed and ask, "Why not sooner?"
• daveheq 10y ago
  Where were you when all these things were happening? Were you asking YCombinator to address these issues? Are they supposed to address every social justice issue by anyone who thinks it should be addressed? Be glad they're addressing anything, because they're a tech blog that should focus on tech issues, not every social justice issue on the planet, which there are already many blogs and campaigns and donation sites for.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• projectileboy 10y ago
  While every issue you mentioned is important, the very discussion we're having starts with a base assumption that we live in a society governed by the rule of law. Coupled with the reality that YCombinator is not the Gates Foundation and has a finite amount of money and resources with which to attack problems, helping the ACLU seems to me a brilliant move by YC, to make the largest positive difference possible.
• jza00425 10y ago
  This is why people say all lives matter. Because nowadays the black thing is priority. no matter how serious other people's problems are, other people just get ignored because blacks always get attentions.
  • zaphar 10y ago
    That is most definitely not why most people say all lives matter. They say all lives matter because it allows them to point at someone saying Black Lives Matter and make a moral judgement about them. Maybe some of the people saying All Lives Matter mean well but the vast majority of those saying it most definitely do not.
• wocka 10y ago
  >Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Please stop with the hyperbole about Chicago. Yes, it has a problem, but it's beaten by St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Newark, and Memphis for per 100k murder rate in 2016. Also, while the national per 100k murder rate has been trending upward lately, it is still lower than approximately 1965 to approximately 2007. [0] 0. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/u-s-cities-experienced-another-big-rise-in-murder-in-2016/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/u-s-cities-experienced-...
• pdeuchler 10y ago
  Probably because top SV companies recruit PHDs from the Levant at an order of magnitude more than they recruit from inner city Chicago? How is this not obvious to the people here on HN? How do the people on here who constantly get holier than thou about demographics in tech not see the obvious machinations? Seriously, look around your office right now and then ask yourself again why top tech companies care more about immigrants than other oppressed groups. What do you think is more likely, that Google genuinely cares about the immigration of farmers from Libya, or that they have a couple physics PHDs from Iran driving huge amounts of search revenue? Corporations don't have morality, they have profit motives. YC doesn't give a shit about immigrant rights any more than the unjust deaths of african americans around the US, they care about attracting certain demographics to apply as founders.
  • comex 10y ago
    > What do you think is more likely, that Google genuinely cares about the immigration of farmers from Libya, or that they have a couple physics PHDs from Iran driving huge amounts of search revenue? Why not both? If Sergey Brin joining the airport protest is any indication, the leadership genuinely cares about the injustice of the ban - but they're more inclined to act when issues affect them directly. Nonetheless, Google did support Black Lives Matter, if not quite as loudly. For example, in November 2015, Google.org donated $2 million in grants for racial justice, part of which was supposed to "fund a tech-savvy, grassroots solution to end police violence against communities of color": http://ellabakercenter.org/in-the-news/googleorg-invests-235-million-in-community-organizations-fighting-for-racial-justice http://ellabakercenter.org/in-the-news/googleorg-invests-235... Also, @google tweeted in support: https://www.twitter.com/google/status/751174648855928834 https://www.twitter.com/google/status/751174648855928834
  • mgce 10y ago
    > Corporations don't have morality, they have profit motives. YC doesn't give a shit about immigrant rights any more than the unjust deaths of african americans around the US, they care about attracting certain demographics to apply as founders. I see no evidence this is the case, or that the founders of YC aren't human beings who also make decisions out of legitimate concern for the betterment of the world.
• wtf_is_up 10y ago
  Virtue signaling over poor Appalachian Americans or black-on-black violence is not very fashionable.
• deeth_starr 10y ago
  Black people didn't turn out to support Hillary against the Trump racism against Mexicans and Middle-East countries. Now you complain?
  • deeth_starr 10y ago
    Look people, this is a problem [1]. We all need to stand together and not only for ourselves. [1] http://www.phillytrib.com/news/black-voter-turnout-a-look-at-the-numbers/article_49d1aed9-76be-550e-b063-15ad7639dc97.html http://www.phillytrib.com/news/black-voter-turnout-a-look-at...
• wfunction 10y ago
  One difference between current events and previous ones is that the current problems run all the way up to the president and Congress, whereas the previous ones did not. I suspect if Obama was the one ordering blacks to be gunned down and Congress was behind him the situation would've changed dramatically.
• kmos17 10y ago
  The ACLU is always active and protecting our rights, I do get the crying wolf fatigue and impression that a lot of this might seem questionable, but right now I think a lot of people are more motivated as this is not an issue of one specific group being targeted/needing help, but the very idea of democracy in America that is under attack by this administration. It is something they have publicly said (trump and bannon), everyone who believes in the constitution should be very worried at what is going on. Hopefully we are all wrong and overreacting, but if trump has shown one thing it is that you should take what he says literally, and if you pay attention to what he and bannon have said you should be worried, no matter your political leaning or origin. And that to me means we can't afford to get cynical on people's motives that are reacting to what is going on. So good on YC for doing this now.
• technologia 10y ago
  Also keep in mind that they have to use very little funding to fight innumerable injustices that have already happened and those that will potentially happen. Its incredibly tough as others have said on other fronts, but from a fiscal perspective its amazing they are able to do as much as they have.
• arbitrage 10y ago
  The ACLU does what it can, when it can, with the resources it has. The answer you're looking for is that now the white-middle class is feeling the possibility of impending disaster, so of course now it's an emergency, and the floodgates of funding have opened.
• rmc 10y ago
  > Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? The tech community/industry thinks that it is a meritocracy, where race (and hence racism) doesn't exist.
• wallace_f 10y ago
  >Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Why weren't we funding the ACLU to help these people? I haven't seen Google talk about this, or AirBnB offer support to widows of veterans whose spouse commits suicide and has left them with nothing. Thank you for your comment. Trump is anti-establishment (sort of: he's reshaping the establishment with his own insiders, I'm not saying he's any less corrupt) and he's anti-globalism. Don't lie to yourself: that's what this is about. The police state and surveillance state abuses are out of control, Obama dropped over 100,000 bombs on 7 countries, we're consistently throwing constitutional and human rights under the bus, Wall Street and the Fed are permitted to loan each other 16 trillion in secret loans and when it was revealed, the worst that happened was a finger wave from Bernie Sanders, 20 trillion in debt and a necessary, impending economic correction due to overspending (in the same exact way if you were spending way more than you earned for years and years, there's no getting away from that)... and I could go on and on. Please give me a break about Trump, he's a deeply flawed character but I'd like people to start being more honest and respectful to the realities we live with as our civil liberties and constitutional rights are consistently eroding as average, humble people are struggling to afford a middle class lifestyle, and it is magnificently disingenuous to pay lip service to the, and let us be honest, mainstream media which is owned by a small group of over-sized corporations, who play Trump out to be the Devil on Earth. But the real problems existed before and without Trump. This will be entirely unpopular but I really don't care anymore about what being liberal has become. I care about the fact that we have a torture camp in Cuba, about what I mentioned above and more like it. I care about constitutional rights. Equal opportunity. Human rights. World peace. Environmentalism. Nobody in mainstream politics is actually for those things and it's really bothering me. If someone wrote this during the lead-up to Nazi Germany--you'd look back in retrospect and say they were right--I hope that is not the case for me. But I see just a few good people out there: Glenn Greenwald, Tulsi Gabbard, Edward Snowden, etc., who really hang out on the fringes of the mainstream consciousness of political thought in America, only once in a while coming into view for moments at a time.
  • ChickeNES 10y ago
    In what way is Tulsi Gabbard a good person? She's a supporter of Bashar al-Assad.
• morgante 10y ago
  You're committing the classic fallacy of castigating people for trying to fix a problem when they don't fix all problems. Would you prefer that the wealthy tech companies didn't donate to the ACLU? That they refused to ever support any good causes? This is a pernicious idea and should be put to death. Trying to step up and do something should not make you a target. Reserve your wrath for the many billionaires who don't do anything about any issue. I read an article about this phenomenon a while ago, but I can't find the link. It's essentially the fallacy that trying to fix a problem makes you responsible for it—so if you can't completely fix it, you shouldn't try at all.
  • temp246810 10y ago
    Exactly - what motive could OP's comment have other than self-aggrandizement. Look at me everyone, in the face of something really good happening, I still complain about all our other shortcomings because I am morally superior. This is a good thing that is happening, get off your high horse.
• arjie 10y ago
  This is absurd. Following this, no one should ever do anything since they could have just done some other thing sooner. Now maybe I'm wrong and you're a Nobel Peace laureate, but it looks a lot to me like someone claiming to care but only criticizing in an unproductive manner. "You should have engaged in this other thing earlier" is a bullshit criticism. And then the holier-than-thou nonsense at the end about just caring oh so much. Unbelievable.
• OJFord 10y ago
  > Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is Thank you for writing it out. The OP is impressive in it's length for managing not to tell me anything about the ACLU at all...
• buddapalm 10y ago
  Back then, we had a attorney general who had an interest in dealing with the problem, under an administration that could help deploy the government to deal with bad actors. That's all changed now, and the populous saw the gap, with the ACLU being well equipped to advocate for the same issues.
• toomanybeersies 10y ago
  To the credit of Starbucks, who you didn't mention but could be criticised for the same reasons, they did implement a plan to hire 10,000 veterans in 2013 (https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/229828 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/229828).