3 ms·

> 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 thei

by 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.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      I haven't thought about this too much, but, words are power. Is identifying someone by a racial slur a civil-rights issue? Obviously it's not a black-and-white issue, and is complex, but yeah, fundamentally calling someone something they don't want to be called (and I don't mean "your hair is blue / don't tell me my hair is blue") can be a civil rights issue. Words define our selves. There's a reason jargon is such a big deal in the corporate world - words have power. Consider this - if it wasn't a civil rights issue, would there be so much discomfort and/or backlash around it? Would it even be a big deal at all if it didn't matter? Again, I'm not saying it's straightforward - it's not. But a quick google search says civil rights are "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality." So that's pretty complex and broad in and of itself.
      - sershe 6y ago
        I think it only looks complex because of halo effect/lack of clarity... you want to call it a civil right because it feels like a good thing. I am not saying it's not a good thing, but I am saying it's not a civil right. Like, it's good if everyone had affordable health care, but it's not a civil right. There are also tons of issues that are not civil rights that have lots of backlash/noise around them (like healthcare). In fact, in this case enforcement of any kind (outside of the private contract-based context like the office) would be quite obviously anti-civil-rights, which is a bummer with civil rights - sometimes, they inconvenience other people. Remember that being right and being wrong feels the same way. There are tons of people who would be very offended at you for all kinds of bogus reasons, like that you don't go to church, or are friendly with gay people, or whatever. So yeah, if ACLU is about civil rights, it should focus on those. If it's going to pontificate that it's good to use certain pronouns, of for everyone to go to church, or whatever, then I'll take my money somewhere else :)

by notJim 6y ago

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.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    I haven't thought about this too much, but, words are power. Is identifying someone by a racial slur a civil-rights issue? Obviously it's not a black-and-white issue, and is complex, but yeah, fundamentally calling someone something they don't want to be called (and I don't mean "your hair is blue / don't tell me my hair is blue") can be a civil rights issue. Words define our selves. There's a reason jargon is such a big deal in the corporate world - words have power. Consider this - if it wasn't a civil rights issue, would there be so much discomfort and/or backlash around it? Would it even be a big deal at all if it didn't matter? Again, I'm not saying it's straightforward - it's not. But a quick google search says civil rights are "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality." So that's pretty complex and broad in and of itself.
    - sershe 6y ago
      I think it only looks complex because of halo effect/lack of clarity... you want to call it a civil right because it feels like a good thing. I am not saying it's not a good thing, but I am saying it's not a civil right. Like, it's good if everyone had affordable health care, but it's not a civil right. There are also tons of issues that are not civil rights that have lots of backlash/noise around them (like healthcare). In fact, in this case enforcement of any kind (outside of the private contract-based context like the office) would be quite obviously anti-civil-rights, which is a bummer with civil rights - sometimes, they inconvenience other people. Remember that being right and being wrong feels the same way. There are tons of people who would be very offended at you for all kinds of bogus reasons, like that you don't go to church, or are friendly with gay people, or whatever. So yeah, if ACLU is about civil rights, it should focus on those. If it's going to pontificate that it's good to use certain pronouns, of for everyone to go to church, or whatever, then I'll take my money somewhere else :)