5 ms·

Taking a look at their Twitter, I have a hard time seeing how their viewpoints are anything but hyper-partisan. They often have nothing whatsoever to do with de

Taking a look at their Twitter, I have a hard time seeing how their viewpoints are anything but hyper-partisan. They often have nothing whatsoever to do with defending civil liberties in a nonpartisan manner.

UncleMeat 6y ago
ACLU knows that they've been politicized externally. This messaging is a funding strategy, not necessarily related to their actual legal advocacy.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  That doesn't seem to be the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Free_speech_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union...
adamsea 6y ago
Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  For example, they sent a lot of tweets yesterday about preferred pronouns and why you should use them in your personal and professional life. That's a quite controversial message in many circles, and it really has nothing to do with civil liberties, so an organization focused on civil liberties would want to stay neutral on it in order to best promote their core goals.
  - notJim 6y ago
    > That's a quite controversial message in many circles If you think the ACLU has steered clear of controversy historically, you are not very familiar with their history. > it really has nothing to do with civil liberties How so? It is about someone's right to exist as themselves without discrimination and be treated equally to others. The ACLU has been involved in LGBT rights since at least the 70s.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Civil liberties are liberties that you have from the government. That is, things that the government ought to allow you to do. So debates over whether suchandsuch interpersonal practice is polite just aren't issues of civil liberties, even if the people discussing such practices have related civil rights concerns. (It'd make perfect sense, for example, if the ACLU said that you ought to be able to put whatever letter you'd like in the "gender" field of your driver's license.)
      - adamsea 6y ago
        > Civil liberties are liberties that you have from the government. That is, things that the government ought to allow you to do. What do you think the ACLU did in the 60s? Not fight segregation where it was legal?
    - sershe 6y ago
      That is absolutely not the right, not at all. Although I honestly don't give a crap about this particular issue, and would use whatever pronouns people prefer (as long as I don't forget them, as one sometimes does even with names), the civil right is free speech. Claiming the right of not being offended by speech, to me, is a litmus test for an anti-civil-rights person/organization. Sure, if someone chooses to call everyone "you pitiful worm" it's their right to not associate with the caller, but they have no right whatsoever, and certainly not any kind of civil right, to be called anything else.
      - adamsea 6y ago
        There’s more than one civil right, no? Also your example is unrealistic and distorted - it’s not a useful hypothetical because no one is asking anyone to call them something insulting like that as their public form of address. The fact that the example is an insult makes it different from “they/them”
        sershe 6y ago
        See sibling response. The example illustrates the principle. My point is that it either has nothing to do with civil rights whatsoever (any, not just speech; if I'm wrong please elaborate), or it is slightly anti-civil-rights, in a way indicative to me of being much more anti-civil-rights than the tweets would let on. What it is, though, even if it's the right thing to recommend, is partisan.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    So because one party has a problem with intolerance, promoting these things breaks the non-partisan label? Seems a bit like being non-partisan is an end in itself.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's just a thing you have to do in order to effectively achieve non-partisan goals. An organization that picks a side on every political battle in the country won't be able to effectively focus on its core mission.
      - jahaja 6y ago
        That suggests that an organizations value system should follow along with a moving target - the current mid-ground - rather than their own values. At some point one party may just sway too far to accept a middle ground.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Being non-partisan isn't about seeking out a middle ground and planting yourself there. It's about saying "you know, there's a lot of strongly held beliefs on this issue, and we're not the right organization to reconcile them". It's the same principle as being a non-religious organization. If the ACLU went around telling people that accepting Jesus as your lord and savior is the most important liberty, I suspect you'd agree that's very strange - even though many devout Christians do hold that position and think it's important.
        jahaja 6y ago
        But if it's one part of those strongly held beliefs that are simply wrong because they range from intolerance to bigotry, there's nothing non-partisan to make a stand.
        adamsea 6y ago
        Example - white supremacy is not a “strongly held belief” to those who believe in universal human rights and equality. My belief system makes white supremacy not some other, legitimate belief I oppose, but one that is beyond the pale because it threatens the core of my belief system (universal human rights and equality). Since the (current) Republican Party is running on white supremacy ...
- dnissley 6y ago
  Do border walls have anything to do with civil liberties? https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1318242920416366593 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1318242920416366593
  - notJim 6y ago
    Sure, they make two arguments: 1) Trump is redirecting funds that were intended by congress for totally different purposes [1]. Doing this is anti-democratic and therefore infringes on your right to determine government policy. 2) Trump is interfering with natural and culturally significant sites that people have a right to. Destroying cultural sites and altering land that was set aside as a national park for preservation for future generations are obviously civil liberties issues. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-supreme-court-order-border-wall-challenge https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-supreme-cou...
    - adamsea 6y ago
      This is an informative cogent response and I was surprised to see it downvoted.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Yes, they do. If nothing else the fact that you don’t seem to recognize the desire to build a huge wall as one big red authoritarian flag is concerning. It’s like going on a date with someone who says he’s a nice guy but treats the waitress like shit. And it’s not only Border Walls it’s Border Patrol / ICE. Which has literally been putting children in cages. Plus as another poster said it’s not clear that the administration was building this wall in a legal fashion.

UncleMeat 6y ago

ACLU knows that they've been politicized externally. This messaging is a funding strategy, not necessarily related to their actual legal advocacy.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
That doesn't seem to be the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Free_speech_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union...

adamsea 6y ago

Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
For example, they sent a lot of tweets yesterday about preferred pronouns and why you should use them in your personal and professional life. That's a quite controversial message in many circles, and it really has nothing to do with civil liberties, so an organization focused on civil liberties would want to stay neutral on it in order to best promote their core goals.
- notJim 6y ago
  > That's a quite controversial message in many circles If you think the ACLU has steered clear of controversy historically, you are not very familiar with their history. > it really has nothing to do with civil liberties How so? It is about someone's right to exist as themselves without discrimination and be treated equally to others. The ACLU has been involved in LGBT rights since at least the 70s.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Civil liberties are liberties that you have from the government. That is, things that the government ought to allow you to do. So debates over whether suchandsuch interpersonal practice is polite just aren't issues of civil liberties, even if the people discussing such practices have related civil rights concerns. (It'd make perfect sense, for example, if the ACLU said that you ought to be able to put whatever letter you'd like in the "gender" field of your driver's license.)
    - adamsea 6y ago
      > Civil liberties are liberties that you have from the government. That is, things that the government ought to allow you to do. What do you think the ACLU did in the 60s? Not fight segregation where it was legal?
  - sershe 6y ago
    That is absolutely not the right, not at all. Although I honestly don't give a crap about this particular issue, and would use whatever pronouns people prefer (as long as I don't forget them, as one sometimes does even with names), the civil right is free speech. Claiming the right of not being offended by speech, to me, is a litmus test for an anti-civil-rights person/organization. Sure, if someone chooses to call everyone "you pitiful worm" it's their right to not associate with the caller, but they have no right whatsoever, and certainly not any kind of civil right, to be called anything else.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      There’s more than one civil right, no? Also your example is unrealistic and distorted - it’s not a useful hypothetical because no one is asking anyone to call them something insulting like that as their public form of address. The fact that the example is an insult makes it different from “they/them”
      - sershe 6y ago
        See sibling response. The example illustrates the principle. My point is that it either has nothing to do with civil rights whatsoever (any, not just speech; if I'm wrong please elaborate), or it is slightly anti-civil-rights, in a way indicative to me of being much more anti-civil-rights than the tweets would let on. What it is, though, even if it's the right thing to recommend, is partisan.
- jahaja 6y ago
  So because one party has a problem with intolerance, promoting these things breaks the non-partisan label? Seems a bit like being non-partisan is an end in itself.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's just a thing you have to do in order to effectively achieve non-partisan goals. An organization that picks a side on every political battle in the country won't be able to effectively focus on its core mission.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      That suggests that an organizations value system should follow along with a moving target - the current mid-ground - rather than their own values. At some point one party may just sway too far to accept a middle ground.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        Being non-partisan isn't about seeking out a middle ground and planting yourself there. It's about saying "you know, there's a lot of strongly held beliefs on this issue, and we're not the right organization to reconcile them". It's the same principle as being a non-religious organization. If the ACLU went around telling people that accepting Jesus as your lord and savior is the most important liberty, I suspect you'd agree that's very strange - even though many devout Christians do hold that position and think it's important.
        jahaja 6y ago
        But if it's one part of those strongly held beliefs that are simply wrong because they range from intolerance to bigotry, there's nothing non-partisan to make a stand.
        adamsea 6y ago
        Example - white supremacy is not a “strongly held belief” to those who believe in universal human rights and equality. My belief system makes white supremacy not some other, legitimate belief I oppose, but one that is beyond the pale because it threatens the core of my belief system (universal human rights and equality). Since the (current) Republican Party is running on white supremacy ...
dnissley 6y ago
Do border walls have anything to do with civil liberties? https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1318242920416366593 https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1318242920416366593
- notJim 6y ago
  Sure, they make two arguments: 1) Trump is redirecting funds that were intended by congress for totally different purposes [1]. Doing this is anti-democratic and therefore infringes on your right to determine government policy. 2) Trump is interfering with natural and culturally significant sites that people have a right to. Destroying cultural sites and altering land that was set aside as a national park for preservation for future generations are obviously civil liberties issues. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-supreme-court-order-border-wall-challenge https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-supreme-cou...
  - adamsea 6y ago
    This is an informative cogent response and I was surprised to see it downvoted.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Yes, they do. If nothing else the fact that you don’t seem to recognize the desire to build a huge wall as one big red authoritarian flag is concerning. It’s like going on a date with someone who says he’s a nice guy but treats the waitress like shit. And it’s not only Border Walls it’s Border Patrol / ICE. Which has literally been putting children in cages. Plus as another poster said it’s not clear that the administration was building this wall in a legal fashion.