5 ms·

Might wind up being a net loss, because now Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU will be reluctant to be seen opposing FISA courts le

by 4bpp 6y ago

Might wind up being a net loss, because now Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU will be reluctant to be seen opposing FISA courts lest they be accused of providing fire support to Trump. Nominally one would expect Republican-aligned or neutral organisations to pick up the slack to the same extent as the Democrat ones drop it, but I am not aware of any ones that are similarly established and effective in the civil liberties niche.

panzagl 6y ago
So do you really believe in civil rights or do you just care that your team wins?
- 4bpp 6y ago
  Which side are you even insinuating is "my team"...? I can assure you I care about civil rights legislation in the US (which affects the whole Western world, since the US controls every major piece of ASCII-based WWW) more than I care about either political party in the US winning, not being American myself. What I was trying to say with my previous post is that I suspect that _most organisations_ that would be in a position to defend said civil rights legislation really just care that their team wins, which is a problem for civil rights if civil rights wind up being seen as a win for the other team.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The point is that the problem isn't that Republicans want something that is good for civil liberties -- bipartisan support for civil liberties is a good thing. The problem is if "civil rights organizations" care more about party loyalty than civil rights. So the solution is to get those organizations to stop being partisan, not to get Republicans to stop doing something good in this case.
    - 4bpp 6y ago
      Yeah, well, easier said than done. How do you make an organisation become less partisan when every issue it touches is of core interest to the party politics of the day? They say politics is interested in you even when you are not interested in politics even when "you" refers to an entity whose potential value to politics is limited to one vote and maybe a few hours of barely persuasive ranting in friend groups, but here the entities you would need to resist politics' interest have millions in funding and are rather better with words too.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > How do you make an organisation become less partisan when every issue it touches is of core interest to the party politics of the day? Have it focus on the issues and not the parties. That's what they have to do anyway if they want to be effective. At any given time more often than not -- including right now -- the same party doesn't control both houses of Congress and the whitehouse, so anything you want to do needs bipartisan support anyway. What's really happening here is that organizations that are supposed to be about issues are getting coopted by partisans -- which makes them less effective at their stated purpose, but more useful to the partisans who can then remove support from the opposing party members who actually support that issue. As for how "you" can do it, don't support "issue organizations" that are really partisan organizations, and instead support actual issue organizations. You can tell the difference because you can see real issue organizations regularly working with both parties and supporting candidates who support their issues regardless of which party they're in.
QUFB 6y ago
What? The ACLU has been consistent about FISA: https://www.aclu.org/other/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapping https://www.aclu.org/other/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapp... They don't give a fsck about the political inclination of those speaking. They even fought for the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie: https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  That proud version of the ACLU is long dead.
  - cjbprime 6y ago
    How long? They also represented the organizer of the Charlottesville white supremacy rally just a few years ago.
    - saurik 6y ago
      I think that's what killed them. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...
    - cameldrv 6y ago
      The principled version of the ACLU started dying in 2001 when Anthony Romero took over. He's taken the ACLU from an organization based on principles held so firmly that they would send a group of Jewish lawyers to defend the Illinois Nazis' right to march, to one that's almost indistinguishable from any left-leaning advocacy organization. It is a shame that we no longer really have an organization that zealously defends the Bill of Rights.
  - QUFB 6y ago
    Can you provide some recent actions that lead you to believe this? I'm genuinely curious.
objclxt 6y ago
> Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU There is an overlap in membership, but that doesn't always extend to policy: the ACLU sued the Obama administration over immigration, and they have backed up Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and the KKK in the past.
- 4bpp 6y ago
  I decided to go back and look at what came out of the handful of headlines that filtered through to me in the past years that made me think this to be the case, and it seems like the situation is probably not (yet) quite as bad as I made it out to be: the most worrying instances that the ACLU is favouring partisanship over principle are that their defense of that more recent far-right rally caused an immense amount of internal pushback (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-w...) and that they are taking a decidedly pro-Democrat, anti-civil-rights stance on campus politics (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos-title-ix/576142/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos...), but there has been no explicit renunciation of their former choice and they may have somewhat softened their stance (indicating that they were still responsive to the criticism that it is out of line with their principles?) on the latter. (There is also something on healthcare that appears similar, but I'll freely admit I don't understand enough about the background there and can't get past the paywall without giving up data: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wheres-the-aclu-when-you-need-it-1494455847 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wheres-the-aclu-when-you-need-i...)

by 4bpp 6y ago

panzagl 6y ago

So do you really believe in civil rights or do you just care that your team wins?

4bpp 6y ago
Which side are you even insinuating is "my team"...? I can assure you I care about civil rights legislation in the US (which affects the whole Western world, since the US controls every major piece of ASCII-based WWW) more than I care about either political party in the US winning, not being American myself. What I was trying to say with my previous post is that I suspect that _most organisations_ that would be in a position to defend said civil rights legislation really just care that their team wins, which is a problem for civil rights if civil rights wind up being seen as a win for the other team.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The point is that the problem isn't that Republicans want something that is good for civil liberties -- bipartisan support for civil liberties is a good thing. The problem is if "civil rights organizations" care more about party loyalty than civil rights. So the solution is to get those organizations to stop being partisan, not to get Republicans to stop doing something good in this case.
  - 4bpp 6y ago
    Yeah, well, easier said than done. How do you make an organisation become less partisan when every issue it touches is of core interest to the party politics of the day? They say politics is interested in you even when you are not interested in politics even when "you" refers to an entity whose potential value to politics is limited to one vote and maybe a few hours of barely persuasive ranting in friend groups, but here the entities you would need to resist politics' interest have millions in funding and are rather better with words too.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > How do you make an organisation become less partisan when every issue it touches is of core interest to the party politics of the day? Have it focus on the issues and not the parties. That's what they have to do anyway if they want to be effective. At any given time more often than not -- including right now -- the same party doesn't control both houses of Congress and the whitehouse, so anything you want to do needs bipartisan support anyway. What's really happening here is that organizations that are supposed to be about issues are getting coopted by partisans -- which makes them less effective at their stated purpose, but more useful to the partisans who can then remove support from the opposing party members who actually support that issue. As for how "you" can do it, don't support "issue organizations" that are really partisan organizations, and instead support actual issue organizations. You can tell the difference because you can see real issue organizations regularly working with both parties and supporting candidates who support their issues regardless of which party they're in.

QUFB 6y ago

What? The ACLU has been consistent about FISA: https://www.aclu.org/other/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapping https://www.aclu.org/other/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapp... They don't give a fsck about the political inclination of those speaking. They even fought for the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie: https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...

baggy_trough 6y ago
That proud version of the ACLU is long dead.
- cjbprime 6y ago
  How long? They also represented the organizer of the Charlottesville white supremacy rally just a few years ago.
  - saurik 6y ago
    I think that's what killed them. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    The principled version of the ACLU started dying in 2001 when Anthony Romero took over. He's taken the ACLU from an organization based on principles held so firmly that they would send a group of Jewish lawyers to defend the Illinois Nazis' right to march, to one that's almost indistinguishable from any left-leaning advocacy organization. It is a shame that we no longer really have an organization that zealously defends the Bill of Rights.
- QUFB 6y ago
  Can you provide some recent actions that lead you to believe this? I'm genuinely curious.

objclxt 6y ago

> Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU There is an overlap in membership, but that doesn't always extend to policy: the ACLU sued the Obama administration over immigration, and they have backed up Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and the KKK in the past.

4bpp 6y ago
I decided to go back and look at what came out of the handful of headlines that filtered through to me in the past years that made me think this to be the case, and it seems like the situation is probably not (yet) quite as bad as I made it out to be: the most worrying instances that the ACLU is favouring partisanship over principle are that their defense of that more recent far-right rally caused an immense amount of internal pushback (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-white-supremacists.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/aclu-charlottesville-w...) and that they are taking a decidedly pro-Democrat, anti-civil-rights stance on campus politics (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos-title-ix/576142/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos...), but there has been no explicit renunciation of their former choice and they may have somewhat softened their stance (indicating that they were still responsive to the criticism that it is out of line with their principles?) on the latter. (There is also something on healthcare that appears similar, but I'll freely admit I don't understand enough about the background there and can't get past the paywall without giving up data: https://www.wsj.com/articles/wheres-the-aclu-when-you-need-it-1494455847 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wheres-the-aclu-when-you-need-i...)