8 ms·

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have

by alanh 10y ago

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” 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 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)!

bb611 10y ago
There is a chasm between anti-illegal behavior by the president and anti-president. By this definition of "actively and explicitly anti-Trump" the ACLU was probably the 2nd most anti-Obama group after the birthers. The ACLU has a clear agenda that is not highly aligned with either political party, so "being politicized" is accurate.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
A long time ago, during the GWB administration, I donated to the ACLU and got placed on the postal mailing lists of innumerable unrelated Democratic-leaning activist organizations. I was disappointed by that, since the partisan association cheapens their work and opens them up to attack.
- bjourne 10y ago
  Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: "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." https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-statement https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-... Because you are making a strong accusation: "they shared my data without my consent"
  - charia 10y ago
    I think the point being made is that the people who his information was shared with leaned toward one political affiliation.
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    > Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: 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.
    - bjourne 10y ago
      It can be checked using the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20020802064342/http://www.aclu.org/privacy.html https://web.archive.org/web/20020802064342/http://www.aclu.o... > 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.
- haldean 10y ago
  Usually, organizations sell these lists to anyone who pays for them. It's not the ACLU's fault that left-leaning organizations perceived that list as valuable while right-leaning organizations didn't; my guess would be that right-leaning organizations bought the lists of new donors more frequently during 2008-2016.
- wahern 10y ago
  I once almost donated to the NRA several years ago. But on their main website were a few links to some anti-abortion/pro-life organizations. (And, AFAICT, it wasn't advertisements served over a third-party system.) I never went back. 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.
  - lend000 10y ago
    The ACLU is much more closely aligned with the Libertarian Party, although they don't officially associate with any political party. They were huge critics of the Obama administration, the "embodiment of the Democratic Party" -- to some people, at least. They've also been huge advocates for Title IX reform on college campuses and opposed restrictions of student expression. It's wishful thinking that they are any closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party -- both are enemies of freedom, most of the time.
morgante 10y ago
Trump has positioned himself as actively and explicitly anti-civil liberties. He does not feel he is bound to ethical rules or rule of law.
bbctol 10y ago
I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposition to the executive branch. So they're "anti-Trump," but not in a way that's easily politicized; if any Democratic executives tried to punish people for being pro-Trump, the ACLU would be against them too.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > the ACLU is by definition anti-government 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.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    I think the ACLU goes beyond the rule of law, and sometimes will push the line on interpretations of the law to limit government power (which I think in a fine thing to be doing).
    - Vivtek 10y ago
      The L does stand for "liberty", so I think this is probably the entire point.
  - baconner 10y ago
    TWISI the org chart of the US Government is basically the constitution a the top & each branch of government below reporting to the constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution can't call up the president or file lawsuits on it's own so the ACLU takes it upon themselves to make an argument on behalf of the big boss. So many business people who want to be politicians mistake the presidency for being CEO. The president isn't CEO, more like co-COO and sometimes a swift and loud reminder of that fact is necessary.
    - groovy2shoes 10y ago
      I don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the constitution is supposed to be done by the Supreme Court (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the entire judiciary branch). I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;)
snowwrestler 10y ago
They are telling people to fight back against Trump's executive orders that threaten civil liberties. 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.
- finid 10y ago
  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.
  - pshposh 10y ago
    The constitution asks us to separate religious conviction from public policy so I don't think it is that outlandish. The government is supposed to represent all people not just the politician's beliefs.
  - empath75 10y ago
    The presidency isn't meant to be a cult of personality and good presidents will sometimes implement policies that they personally disagree with.
baconner 10y ago
I think it would be more accurate to say right now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. They're the static object in this equation imo. They're not anti-Trump the person. They're against anyone who intends to ignore/damage civil liberties and Trump the candidate was pretty explicit about his thoughts there and is following through.
- jack9 10y ago
  > I think it would be more accurate now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. That's less accurate. I don't think you understand what the ACLU "stands for", in context not in literal acronym. Not to say there isn't contention and opposition, but the hyperbole is not appreciated (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trump-continues-obama-policy-federal-workers/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trum...).
  - jack9 10y ago
    The implication is that if Trump is against everything the ACLU "stands for", the protections are anti-ACLU? This is categorically inaccurate.
    - baconner 10y ago
      OK fine it's more accurate to say Trump is anti Constitutional limits on his power whatever those limits are. the ACLU is just defending it's interpretation of those limits. We can parse the syntax more but my main point is simply that the ACLU has consistently stood for equal protection under the law. Trump is the new variable in this situation and brings a wildly anti equal protection view so he crashed into them (and the Constitution imo) not the other way around. Frankly, I'm not convinced he has even read more than snippets of the bill of rights.
  - baconner 10y ago
    Pretty sure I have a good grip on what the ACLU stands for and that is mainly equal protection under the law. If stepping on lgbtq rights becomes convenient for Trump he will do it in a heartbeat, but right now he finds it more useful to demonize Muslims, immigrants, and people of color. Speaking as a bisexual man myself deciding it's not worth the effort to attack me right now is not the same as being pro LGBTQ rights. Obama is the only president we have to thank for those protections Trump didn't do anything. This is a pattern with him over and over. Credit taking for things others have _clearly_ done and it's repulsive. And besides I don't know many LGBTQ people who don't consider an attack on any vulnerable minority an attack on us all. Hell gay immigrants have had loads of experience with cruel treatment by the us government. We're well aware of what it's like to have our families ripped apart with a deportation.
rayiner 10y ago
For context, I've got 8 years of ACLU emails with quotes like: > 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.
- general_ai 10y ago
  Funny how YC didn't consider it sensible to sponsor ACLU back then. :-)
  - justin 10y ago
    How is that funny?
    - general_ai 10y ago
      Not funny per se, ironic. But there's no smiley for "ironic".
      - richmarr 10y ago
        How is that ironic?
        general_ai 10y ago
        It's ironic in the sense that California liberals literally let their guy get away with murder, but for a republican, they're all indignant and stuff for a much smaller offense. Not only is this ironic, it's pathetic and hypocritical as well.
        coolgeek 10y ago
        > California liberals literally let their guy get away with murder What are you talking about? What guy, and what murder?
        10y ago

by alanh 10y ago

bb611 10y ago

There is a chasm between anti-illegal behavior by the president and anti-president. By this definition of "actively and explicitly anti-Trump" the ACLU was probably the 2nd most anti-Obama group after the birthers. The ACLU has a clear agenda that is not highly aligned with either political party, so "being politicized" is accurate.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

A long time ago, during the GWB administration, I donated to the ACLU and got placed on the postal mailing lists of innumerable unrelated Democratic-leaning activist organizations. I was disappointed by that, since the partisan association cheapens their work and opens them up to attack.

bjourne 10y ago
Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: "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." https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-statement https://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-privacy-... Because you are making a strong accusation: "they shared my data without my consent"
- charia 10y ago
  I think the point being made is that the people who his information was shared with leaned toward one political affiliation.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  > Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: 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.
  - bjourne 10y ago
    It can be checked using the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20020802064342/http://www.aclu.org/privacy.html https://web.archive.org/web/20020802064342/http://www.aclu.o... > 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.
haldean 10y ago
Usually, organizations sell these lists to anyone who pays for them. It's not the ACLU's fault that left-leaning organizations perceived that list as valuable while right-leaning organizations didn't; my guess would be that right-leaning organizations bought the lists of new donors more frequently during 2008-2016.
wahern 10y ago
I once almost donated to the NRA several years ago. But on their main website were a few links to some anti-abortion/pro-life organizations. (And, AFAICT, it wasn't advertisements served over a third-party system.) I never went back. 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.
- lend000 10y ago
  The ACLU is much more closely aligned with the Libertarian Party, although they don't officially associate with any political party. They were huge critics of the Obama administration, the "embodiment of the Democratic Party" -- to some people, at least. They've also been huge advocates for Title IX reform on college campuses and opposed restrictions of student expression. It's wishful thinking that they are any closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party -- both are enemies of freedom, most of the time.

morgante 10y ago

Trump has positioned himself as actively and explicitly anti-civil liberties. He does not feel he is bound to ethical rules or rule of law.

bbctol 10y ago

I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposition to the executive branch. So they're "anti-Trump," but not in a way that's easily politicized; if any Democratic executives tried to punish people for being pro-Trump, the ACLU would be against them too.

grandalf 10y ago
> the ACLU is by definition anti-government 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.
- dnautics 10y ago
  I think the ACLU goes beyond the rule of law, and sometimes will push the line on interpretations of the law to limit government power (which I think in a fine thing to be doing).
  - Vivtek 10y ago
    The L does stand for "liberty", so I think this is probably the entire point.
- baconner 10y ago
  TWISI the org chart of the US Government is basically the constitution a the top & each branch of government below reporting to the constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution can't call up the president or file lawsuits on it's own so the ACLU takes it upon themselves to make an argument on behalf of the big boss. So many business people who want to be politicians mistake the presidency for being CEO. The president isn't CEO, more like co-COO and sometimes a swift and loud reminder of that fact is necessary.
  - groovy2shoes 10y ago
    I don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the constitution is supposed to be done by the Supreme Court (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the entire judiciary branch). I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;)

snowwrestler 10y ago

They are telling people to fight back against Trump's executive orders that threaten civil liberties. 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.

finid 10y ago
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.
- pshposh 10y ago
  The constitution asks us to separate religious conviction from public policy so I don't think it is that outlandish. The government is supposed to represent all people not just the politician's beliefs.
- empath75 10y ago
  The presidency isn't meant to be a cult of personality and good presidents will sometimes implement policies that they personally disagree with.

baconner 10y ago

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

jack9 10y ago
> I think it would be more accurate now that Trump is anti ACLU and everything it stands for. That's less accurate. I don't think you understand what the ACLU "stands for", in context not in literal acronym. Not to say there isn't contention and opposition, but the hyperbole is not appreciated (e.g. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trump-continues-obama-policy-federal-workers/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/lgbt-protections-trum...).
- jack9 10y ago
  The implication is that if Trump is against everything the ACLU "stands for", the protections are anti-ACLU? This is categorically inaccurate.
  - baconner 10y ago
    OK fine it's more accurate to say Trump is anti Constitutional limits on his power whatever those limits are. the ACLU is just defending it's interpretation of those limits. We can parse the syntax more but my main point is simply that the ACLU has consistently stood for equal protection under the law. Trump is the new variable in this situation and brings a wildly anti equal protection view so he crashed into them (and the Constitution imo) not the other way around. Frankly, I'm not convinced he has even read more than snippets of the bill of rights.
- baconner 10y ago
  Pretty sure I have a good grip on what the ACLU stands for and that is mainly equal protection under the law. If stepping on lgbtq rights becomes convenient for Trump he will do it in a heartbeat, but right now he finds it more useful to demonize Muslims, immigrants, and people of color. Speaking as a bisexual man myself deciding it's not worth the effort to attack me right now is not the same as being pro LGBTQ rights. Obama is the only president we have to thank for those protections Trump didn't do anything. This is a pattern with him over and over. Credit taking for things others have _clearly_ done and it's repulsive. And besides I don't know many LGBTQ people who don't consider an attack on any vulnerable minority an attack on us all. Hell gay immigrants have had loads of experience with cruel treatment by the us government. We're well aware of what it's like to have our families ripped apart with a deportation.

rayiner 10y ago

For context, I've got 8 years of ACLU emails with quotes like: > 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.

general_ai 10y ago
Funny how YC didn't consider it sensible to sponsor ACLU back then. :-)
- justin 10y ago
  How is that funny?
  - general_ai 10y ago
    Not funny per se, ironic. But there's no smiley for "ironic".
    - richmarr 10y ago
      How is that ironic?
      - general_ai 10y ago
        It's ironic in the sense that California liberals literally let their guy get away with murder, but for a republican, they're all indignant and stuff for a much smaller offense. Not only is this ironic, it's pathetic and hypocritical as well.
        coolgeek 10y ago
        > California liberals literally let their guy get away with murder What are you talking about? What guy, and what murder?
        10y ago