Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

I don't know exactly what this means, as the implementation details are hazy, but if this entails substantial support to the ACLU (in terms of lawyers, money, or both), then that is awesome. I donated to the ACLU yesterday and I'm encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

View on HN

For people outside the US, I believe it is perfectly fine to donate to ACLU, but do check if there is an equivalent organization in your country. For example in the UK there is Liberty (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/). Threats to human rights are a global problem after all.

I would caution people about how they donate to the ACLU. I made a donation last year and since then have been awash in solicitations for donations from SCLC, Planned Parenthood, Grean Peace, PETA, and other leftist organizations.

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.

there's an option on the donation page where you can opt-in to the ACLU sharing your details with other charitable organizations. (the default is opt-out).

I verified via the wayback machine and the page is the same today as it was when I made my donation. I'm fairly certain I would not have checked that box. I make it a point to read checkboxes very carefully as companies are so prone to anti-patterns to get you to agree to share your info or join mailing lists.

Always possible you donated to another group around the same time...

I also didn't check the checkbox and haven't heard from the other organizations you cite.

Except, you know, they're a bunch of lawyers so any abuse of their own privacy policy is not really going to fly with them, especially from an optics perspective. It's far more likely that you did, in fact, click the checkbox, and just forgot about it than the ACLU deciding to ignore your request and forward your information anyway.

One data point: I have no idea if I checked the box, but I'm a regular subscriber and I've never had solicitation from any of those other companies.

If you check out the donation form, people are opted-out of that by default now. (Not sure how it was previously.)

I don't think you can fault the ACLU? In my experience: I donated a few times in the past and now I am a guardian of liberty (monthly donation) and I've never gotten any solicitations from any other charity/organization. However in college I never donated to any charity (wasn't stingy, just prioritizing being able to eat and pay rent at that time...) And I got piles and piles and piles of solicitations for those organizations you've mentioned. I don't know where the "leak" came from.

Yes, I experienced this as well, though it was about 8 years ago. I was really disappointed in the ACLU, I would have thought of all people they would be the last ones to sell off private information. It bothers me that all these groups have spent more money on sending me mail in the ensuing years than the original donation amount to the ACLU.

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.

As an employee of an old world charity trying desperately to connect with younger generations, I completely agree with you.

Our organization struggles to unsubscribe people from mailing lists. It's kind of ridiculous.

Im taking this as a statement, that progress for traditional ycombinator startups is under threat from things the ACLU deals with. It isnt a startup, far from it, but the ACLU is someone that you want on speeddial these days.

I don't donate to the ACLU because I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside. Is there a similar organization I can donate to?

Consider the EFF. They're more narrowly focused, and unlikely to come in conflict with your beliefs. And, with a battle over Net Neutrality being almost inevitable, they could use our help, too.

That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.

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

I am afraid you have read way too far into my comment. It really isn't, it's simply a way of rephrasing the argument, rather than just saying "I am Pro-life" which will get surely downvoted to oblivion, I phrased in a way that might make sense to rational thinkers -- that I believe civil rights should be applied to all created beings, both born and unborn, but boy was I wrong. I am legitimately interesting in supporting civil liberties, as I have had the graces of benefiting from civil liberty groups myself in the past, I just cannot look past the fact that the ACLU views persons inside the womb as somehow less human than those immediately outside.

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

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

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

I strongly agree. Let’s be better than this, please.

FIRE is a higher education focused group that's probably more in line with your sensibilities. They mostly focus on 1a topics, but they do good work.

https://www.thefire.org/

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.

If you're referring to this specific immigration issue, the National Immigration Law Center is a good one: https://www.nilc.org/

Can you elaborate on why that position excludes the ACLU from receiving your support? I don't understand your position.

Since they mentioned the womb, I'm assuming this person is pro-life. The ACLU is decidedly not pro-life.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion

Not so much pro life, as I like to disassociate myself from that hypocritical stance, but I like to call myself "whole life" or basically pro life for the whole life, from beginning to end.

Same, but I still use the term "pro-life". It's my attempt to take back the term :)

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.

https://www.facebook.com/Dems4Life/

Thank you. That seems clear now, I must have mis-read their post.

Not the poster above you, but the ACLU is pro-choice, and the comment you replied to sounds to be pro-life.

To really spell it out, as these "pro-life/pro-choice" terms are somewhat esoteric and not always understood by foreign speakers, the ACLU is in favor of abortion rights and many conservatives are against abortion rights.

The terms I usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Everyone on the planet is "pro-life" and thinks abortion is a bad thing, the question is whether outlawing abortion results in better outcomes than allowing it. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement, though legally speaking it's largely a settled issue.

I feel like you have that backwards. All evidence indicates that legal abortion results in no more abortions occurring, but those that do occur will be safer. Legally speaking there seem to be a fair number of people who want to outlaw it anyway.

That the terms you usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" means nothing more than that your particular filter bubble is strongly pro-choice. Pro-lifers never call themselves "anti-choice"; they call themselves "pro-life." Conversely, pro-choice activists never call themselves "pro-life" (except maybe in rhetorical arguments such as the one you just provided).

> Everyone on the planet … thinks abortion is a bad thing

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.

It can be better than the alternative, but I think you would be hard pressed to have anyone say abortion is a good thing. The ideal would be no unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

That response assumes that "unwanted pregnancies" are the only reason a woman would want an abortion. There's plenty of medical reasons why it would be necessary.

I believe that outside of the weirdness in America and the church, and perhaps a few religious groups a lot of people really don't care. I'd say a vast majority of people in the world aren't caught up this particular whirlpool of emotions.

Legally speaking, the situation could change drastically based off of new composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, legislation making abortion de facto banned, or an amendment to the Constitution explicitly banning it.

A more neutral way to put it would be that the ACLU is in favor of abortion rights and many conservatives are in favor of fetal rights.

Sounds like he is anti-abortion.

isn't it funny how you can safely conclude that it is a "he"?

Right, because this is Hacker News.

There are lots of pro-life women out there.

Being on Hacker News does not make someone a "he." (Which is a good thing. My husband and kids would be a bit taken aback otherwise.)

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/prob-comb/basic...

Women are more likely to support abortion restrictions than men.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortio...

I appreciate that you're concerned for people inside and outside of the womb, but I think you're not paying enough attention to a third group: the people who are the womb.

But inside the womb they're not people yet.

Oh, yeah there is, and you can donate here: https://action.aclu.org/secure/donate-to-aclu

Reply on news.ycombinator.com