6 ms·

If so inclined, support the ACLU: https://action.aclu.org/give/donate-to-aclu https://action.aclu.org/give/donate-to-aclu

ve55 6y ago
The ACLU used to be on the top of my list of my personal favorite charities, but I've found they've become significantly more reactionary in the last few years, prioritizing emotionally outraging causes over utilitarian causes, so don't donate to them any longer. With that said, some of their work is still great, and I'm thankful for it.
- xrd 6y ago
  I'm scared of that outcome. I'm glad you donated to them in the past so you obviously valued them at some point. Do you have articles to back that up? I'm not trolling; I wonder if this is the message that the "powers-that-be" want us to think. Remember how McDonalds was the victim of a baseless lawsuit? Well, it wasn't actually the case, but that sure benefitted corporations who can now assert most lawsuits against them are frivolous. https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Having read extensively on that case, my opinion changed. I now consider the lawsuit baseless and the verdict primarily the result of a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant (the stereotypical sweet old lady vs the stereotypical evil money-grubbing mega-corp). Their coffee is just as hot nowadays and to lower the temperature to the degree to where the effect on Stella would have been meaningfully different would result in lukewarm, under-extracted coffee that fewer people would be interested in. Further, the sheer quantity of Mcdonalds coffee moved every year without incident implies user error, rather than product error. Yes, I know what the jury said and how they divided up the blame. I disagree with their conclusion.
    - outworlder 6y ago
      > and to lower the temperature to the degree to where the effect on Stella would have been meaningfully different would result in lukewarm, under-extracted coffee that fewer people would be interested in. Citation needed.
      - catalogia 6y ago
        Hot water systems in homes are generally set to not go hotter than 120F, because much hotter than that could burn somebody in seconds. 120F is a bit more than "lukewarm" (which I take to be an exaggeration), but is nevertheless cooler than anybody serves standard coffee at. 140F (60C) water can give you third degree burns in 5 seconds.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        (disclaimer: quick back of the envelope research, mistakes might have been made, void where prohibited, kids eat free) Stella's own doctor testified[1]: >Lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees. The NCA (a coffee industry group) recommends[2] holding at a temperature of 180-185, due to "rapid cooling", and consuming at or below 140. Stella's injuries were exacerbated by: * The hot coffee permeating through thin sweatpants and being held against the skin. * Her age - 81 years old at the time of the injury. Older skin is damaged more easily[3], and would also have implications for her mobility (how fast she could remove the soaked sweatpants) Some experiments [4] show that coffee served at 180 will cool to around 162 in 5 minutes, 148 within 10, and 138 within 15. 70% of Mcdonalds business is through the drive-through [5], so must customers would be getting their coffee to go. The question I'm unable to find a satisfactory answer for is how long it takes the average customer to receive their order and return home. I could probably figure that out if I knew how far the average customer was from their store, but that information is not readily available. If holding at 180 results in optimum drinking temperature of around 130 in about 15 minutes (per 4), then this is the optimal temperature to hold at for product quality if the average customer lives within 15 minutes of a Mcdonalds. If you were to hold at 160, using the info from [4], the coffee would fall below this optimum temperature in about 10 minutes and require reheating, which alters the flavor. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195353/http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195353/http://www.busine... (page 4, bottom) [2]: https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377829/ (It is widely accepted that elderly burn patients have significantly increased morbidity and mortality. Irrespective of the type of burn injury, the aged population shows slower recoveries and suffers more complications.) [4]: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/mathematics/equation-to-model-a-cooling-cup-of-coffee.php https://www.ukessays.com/essays/mathematics/equation-to-mode... [5]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-meeting-idUSKBN16856Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-meeting-idUSKBN...
  - winstonewert 6y ago
    Its true that the McDonald's case is often presented in a one-sided fashion that makes it look like it was a baseless lawsuit. But its also true that responses, like the one you linked to are also often one-sided. And what would you accept from an association of lawyers who make money launching such suits? The truth is, its not as simple as either side tries to make it out to be. I think the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau..., does a good job of presenting pertinent details from both sides.
    - Guest42 6y ago
      Agreed, I had a much different perspective after reading the whole story.
  - casefields 6y ago
    >Ira Glasser says the organisation he once led has retreated from the fight for free speech. The ACLU would not take the Skokie case today’: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-take-the-skokie-case-today/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-... Former ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer: The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... to complaints of sexual violence. We will continue to support survivors.” The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos-title-ix/576142/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos...
  - roenxi 6y ago
    From your link: > McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. > Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds. They might also be interested to know it was composed primarily of dihydrogen monoxide, a lethal chemical agent known to be the proximate cause of hundreds of deaths each year. They are describing boiling water. Even if McDonald's did the wrong thing, it is a frivolous lawsuit. I serve boiling hot tea to all my guests, it isn't negligence. The case as described seems to be that McDonald's should be civilly liable for serving a hot beverage in a styrofoam cup to a customer who asked for a hot beverage and could easily detect it was in a styrofoam cup.
    - owenmarshall 6y ago
      > I serve boiling hot tea to all my guests You hand styrofoam cups out your window to guests you know won’t be staying? Curious social habit. > a customer who asked for a hot beverage Coffee is brewed at very high temperatures but is rarely - if ever - consumed at those same temperatures. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/ For most people, getting a cup of coffee that is near boiling would make for a very unpleasant surprise.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I get junk mail from the ACLU, but haven't given anything to them in a few years. They recently sent me an email saying "thanks for your wavering support". Bringing up Stella Liebeck makes me feel irrationally hostile; I've had a negative reaction to people "busting the myth" of that lawsuit on the internet for probably 20 years. I certainly believe that suing corporations with deep pockets is a reasonable and moral way to deal with medical bills in a country without universal health care. It's not a good system, but if you can get away with it, why not? And I know well that on average, the scourge of frivolous lawsuits against corporations is a myth, because I've worked in the legal industry and have a perspective based on many other lawsuits. And if McDonald's served coffee without a properly secure lid, or some other defect then they should be held responsible for every penny of damages. However, I am irritated by anyone who may insist that it is a "fact" that serving coffee which is hot (but less than 212 deg) is negligent in itself. And if I continue to see this "myth busted" or "fact checked" for the next 20 years, it's not going to change my opinion, because assuming I live that long, I'm going to be boiling water for coffee on my stove almost every day.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      That tea was hot enough to cause bad burns, and did cause bad burns. If you wanna fact check it, heat 12oz of water to 185F and dump it in your lap. It was known by management to be dangerous; that was done deliberately so that people would be forced to sip slowly, to discourage refills. Ain't negligence in light of intent
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        When I make coffee it is also right around 180-185F. I checked. I also scald myself with live steam once in a while so I know it's easy to burn yourself. I could cite some industry association's standard for brewing temperature, but I know nobody cares. The point I'm trying to make is not that coffee should be hot, because I know arguing that is futile. The point is, that framing this as a disagreement about readily available facts is incorrect and if you habitually interpret people's opinions/values this way, it warps your sense of reality to your own detriment. I think anyone who wants to prevent me from getting hot coffee is not a nice or reasonable person, and I feel threatened by any implication that I would be in the wrong for making hot coffee if someone else spilled it. But these are facts about me, not about the rest of the world. As such, you don't have to accept them, but you can't invalidate them with facts about the world either.
  - viburnum 6y ago
    The whole “tort reform” business came about because injury lawyers were supporting democrats instead of republicans. There was an episode of Citations Needed about it. https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-107-pop-torts-and-the-ready-made-virality-of-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-54cb545e9357 https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-107-pop-torts-an...
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I supported them for a long time as well, but they've waded very far from their original waters. These days the ACLU is incredibly politically biased, and the issues they focus on are often non-issues or low-priority ones. I am disappointed to see them, for example, file lawsuits against schools that are trying to ensure that only biological women participate in sports divisions for women, so that those sports are competitive and fair. The ACLU's social media accounts are a mess as well. Their postings come off as unhinged and sue-happy, and the fan base of commenters has become so one-sided, that I think the ACLU simply caters to that vocal audience now. Maybe the change is not solely attributable to that - there might also be a new generational wave of inside actors that simply operate the ACLU in a more ideological manner. I agree that some of their work is still great. But unfortunately it's been enough of a change that upon weighing the good and bad, I had to finally pull the plug on my recurring donations too.
  - tw000001 6y ago
    >These days the ACLU is incredibly politically biased I was going to post the same in anticipation of the partisan downvotes that you're receiving. Without going into specifics, this sums it up nicely: >It’s not that the left shouldn’t have opportunities to speak up against the president’s agenda -- of course it should. But the ACLU shouldn’t be its political bullhorn. The organization’s legal independence gave it special standing. By falling in line with dozens of other left-leaning advocacy groups, the ACLU risks diminishing its focus on civil liberties litigation and abandoning its reputation for being above partisanship One issue in particular is the ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment, which they do not fight for with the same fervor as the first. 1.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/08/the_aclus_regrettable_turn_to_partisan_politics_136220.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/08/the_ac...
    - jmpman 6y ago
      Their lack of support for the second amendment is the only reason I don’t support them. It proves that they’re politically slanted and it truly for my civil rights. Unfortunately the NRA has drifted from their core issue to bashing non-conservative candidates. I also can’t support them.
- JPKab 6y ago
  This. Huge fan of the ACLU in general, but some of the highly unpopular but incredibly important work they used to do, for example defending neo-Nazi groups right to protest, has been discarded in favor of popular causes. While I understand why they have gone this way (who wants to defend Nazis in court?) it was a very important symbol of the organizations insane dedication to civil liberties. Taking a principled stand of preserving freedoms for those who are deeply, deeply unpopular is inconvenient and essential.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  Keep in mind the ACLU has a lot of local affiliates. All to often national orgs absorb the fundraising, while local chapters languish.

ve55 6y ago

The ACLU used to be on the top of my list of my personal favorite charities, but I've found they've become significantly more reactionary in the last few years, prioritizing emotionally outraging causes over utilitarian causes, so don't donate to them any longer. With that said, some of their work is still great, and I'm thankful for it.

xrd 6y ago
I'm scared of that outcome. I'm glad you donated to them in the past so you obviously valued them at some point. Do you have articles to back that up? I'm not trolling; I wonder if this is the message that the "powers-that-be" want us to think. Remember how McDonalds was the victim of a baseless lawsuit? Well, it wasn't actually the case, but that sure benefitted corporations who can now assert most lawsuits against them are frivolous. https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Having read extensively on that case, my opinion changed. I now consider the lawsuit baseless and the verdict primarily the result of a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant (the stereotypical sweet old lady vs the stereotypical evil money-grubbing mega-corp). Their coffee is just as hot nowadays and to lower the temperature to the degree to where the effect on Stella would have been meaningfully different would result in lukewarm, under-extracted coffee that fewer people would be interested in. Further, the sheer quantity of Mcdonalds coffee moved every year without incident implies user error, rather than product error. Yes, I know what the jury said and how they divided up the blame. I disagree with their conclusion.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    > and to lower the temperature to the degree to where the effect on Stella would have been meaningfully different would result in lukewarm, under-extracted coffee that fewer people would be interested in. Citation needed.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      Hot water systems in homes are generally set to not go hotter than 120F, because much hotter than that could burn somebody in seconds. 120F is a bit more than "lukewarm" (which I take to be an exaggeration), but is nevertheless cooler than anybody serves standard coffee at. 140F (60C) water can give you third degree burns in 5 seconds.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      (disclaimer: quick back of the envelope research, mistakes might have been made, void where prohibited, kids eat free) Stella's own doctor testified[1]: >Lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees. The NCA (a coffee industry group) recommends[2] holding at a temperature of 180-185, due to "rapid cooling", and consuming at or below 140. Stella's injuries were exacerbated by: * The hot coffee permeating through thin sweatpants and being held against the skin. * Her age - 81 years old at the time of the injury. Older skin is damaged more easily[3], and would also have implications for her mobility (how fast she could remove the soaked sweatpants) Some experiments [4] show that coffee served at 180 will cool to around 162 in 5 minutes, 148 within 10, and 138 within 15. 70% of Mcdonalds business is through the drive-through [5], so must customers would be getting their coffee to go. The question I'm unable to find a satisfactory answer for is how long it takes the average customer to receive their order and return home. I could probably figure that out if I knew how far the average customer was from their store, but that information is not readily available. If holding at 180 results in optimum drinking temperature of around 130 in about 15 minutes (per 4), then this is the optimal temperature to hold at for product quality if the average customer lives within 15 minutes of a Mcdonalds. If you were to hold at 160, using the info from [4], the coffee would fall below this optimum temperature in about 10 minutes and require reheating, which alters the flavor. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195353/http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195353/http://www.busine... (page 4, bottom) [2]: https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3377829/ (It is widely accepted that elderly burn patients have significantly increased morbidity and mortality. Irrespective of the type of burn injury, the aged population shows slower recoveries and suffers more complications.) [4]: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/mathematics/equation-to-model-a-cooling-cup-of-coffee.php https://www.ukessays.com/essays/mathematics/equation-to-mode... [5]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-meeting-idUSKBN16856Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-meeting-idUSKBN...
- winstonewert 6y ago
  Its true that the McDonald's case is often presented in a one-sided fashion that makes it look like it was a baseless lawsuit. But its also true that responses, like the one you linked to are also often one-sided. And what would you accept from an association of lawyers who make money launching such suits? The truth is, its not as simple as either side tries to make it out to be. I think the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau..., does a good job of presenting pertinent details from both sides.
  - Guest42 6y ago
    Agreed, I had a much different perspective after reading the whole story.
- casefields 6y ago
  >Ira Glasser says the organisation he once led has retreated from the fight for free speech. The ACLU would not take the Skokie case today’: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-take-the-skokie-case-today/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/14/the-aclu-would-not-... Former ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer: The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp... to complaints of sexual violence. We will continue to support survivors.” The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos-title-ix/576142/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos...
- roenxi 6y ago
  From your link: > McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. > Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds. They might also be interested to know it was composed primarily of dihydrogen monoxide, a lethal chemical agent known to be the proximate cause of hundreds of deaths each year. They are describing boiling water. Even if McDonald's did the wrong thing, it is a frivolous lawsuit. I serve boiling hot tea to all my guests, it isn't negligence. The case as described seems to be that McDonald's should be civilly liable for serving a hot beverage in a styrofoam cup to a customer who asked for a hot beverage and could easily detect it was in a styrofoam cup.
  - owenmarshall 6y ago
    > I serve boiling hot tea to all my guests You hand styrofoam cups out your window to guests you know won’t be staying? Curious social habit. > a customer who asked for a hot beverage Coffee is brewed at very high temperatures but is rarely - if ever - consumed at those same temperatures. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226454/ For most people, getting a cup of coffee that is near boiling would make for a very unpleasant surprise.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I get junk mail from the ACLU, but haven't given anything to them in a few years. They recently sent me an email saying "thanks for your wavering support". Bringing up Stella Liebeck makes me feel irrationally hostile; I've had a negative reaction to people "busting the myth" of that lawsuit on the internet for probably 20 years. I certainly believe that suing corporations with deep pockets is a reasonable and moral way to deal with medical bills in a country without universal health care. It's not a good system, but if you can get away with it, why not? And I know well that on average, the scourge of frivolous lawsuits against corporations is a myth, because I've worked in the legal industry and have a perspective based on many other lawsuits. And if McDonald's served coffee without a properly secure lid, or some other defect then they should be held responsible for every penny of damages. However, I am irritated by anyone who may insist that it is a "fact" that serving coffee which is hot (but less than 212 deg) is negligent in itself. And if I continue to see this "myth busted" or "fact checked" for the next 20 years, it's not going to change my opinion, because assuming I live that long, I'm going to be boiling water for coffee on my stove almost every day.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    That tea was hot enough to cause bad burns, and did cause bad burns. If you wanna fact check it, heat 12oz of water to 185F and dump it in your lap. It was known by management to be dangerous; that was done deliberately so that people would be forced to sip slowly, to discourage refills. Ain't negligence in light of intent
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      When I make coffee it is also right around 180-185F. I checked. I also scald myself with live steam once in a while so I know it's easy to burn yourself. I could cite some industry association's standard for brewing temperature, but I know nobody cares. The point I'm trying to make is not that coffee should be hot, because I know arguing that is futile. The point is, that framing this as a disagreement about readily available facts is incorrect and if you habitually interpret people's opinions/values this way, it warps your sense of reality to your own detriment. I think anyone who wants to prevent me from getting hot coffee is not a nice or reasonable person, and I feel threatened by any implication that I would be in the wrong for making hot coffee if someone else spilled it. But these are facts about me, not about the rest of the world. As such, you don't have to accept them, but you can't invalidate them with facts about the world either.
- viburnum 6y ago
  The whole “tort reform” business came about because injury lawyers were supporting democrats instead of republicans. There was an episode of Citations Needed about it. https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-107-pop-torts-and-the-ready-made-virality-of-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-54cb545e9357 https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-107-pop-torts-an...
throwawaysea 6y ago
I supported them for a long time as well, but they've waded very far from their original waters. These days the ACLU is incredibly politically biased, and the issues they focus on are often non-issues or low-priority ones. I am disappointed to see them, for example, file lawsuits against schools that are trying to ensure that only biological women participate in sports divisions for women, so that those sports are competitive and fair. The ACLU's social media accounts are a mess as well. Their postings come off as unhinged and sue-happy, and the fan base of commenters has become so one-sided, that I think the ACLU simply caters to that vocal audience now. Maybe the change is not solely attributable to that - there might also be a new generational wave of inside actors that simply operate the ACLU in a more ideological manner. I agree that some of their work is still great. But unfortunately it's been enough of a change that upon weighing the good and bad, I had to finally pull the plug on my recurring donations too.
- tw000001 6y ago
  >These days the ACLU is incredibly politically biased I was going to post the same in anticipation of the partisan downvotes that you're receiving. Without going into specifics, this sums it up nicely: >It’s not that the left shouldn’t have opportunities to speak up against the president’s agenda -- of course it should. But the ACLU shouldn’t be its political bullhorn. The organization’s legal independence gave it special standing. By falling in line with dozens of other left-leaning advocacy groups, the ACLU risks diminishing its focus on civil liberties litigation and abandoning its reputation for being above partisanship One issue in particular is the ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment, which they do not fight for with the same fervor as the first. 1.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/08/the_aclus_regrettable_turn_to_partisan_politics_136220.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/02/08/the_ac...
  - jmpman 6y ago
    Their lack of support for the second amendment is the only reason I don’t support them. It proves that they’re politically slanted and it truly for my civil rights. Unfortunately the NRA has drifted from their core issue to bashing non-conservative candidates. I also can’t support them.
JPKab 6y ago
This. Huge fan of the ACLU in general, but some of the highly unpopular but incredibly important work they used to do, for example defending neo-Nazi groups right to protest, has been discarded in favor of popular causes. While I understand why they have gone this way (who wants to defend Nazis in court?) it was a very important symbol of the organizations insane dedication to civil liberties. Taking a principled stand of preserving freedoms for those who are deeply, deeply unpopular is inconvenient and essential.
pyuser583 6y ago
Keep in mind the ACLU has a lot of local affiliates. All to often national orgs absorb the fundraising, while local chapters languish.