4 ms·

It is hard to take this as a serious criticism First James Kirkpatrick argues that the ACLU doesn't stand for anything these days. Then he starts to associate

It is hard to take this as a serious criticism First James Kirkpatrick argues that the ACLU doesn't stand for anything these days. Then he starts to associate the ACLU with cancel culture. Mostly by citing surveys of leftist students and implying that the ACLU is also leftist thus it is basically the same. Then he argues that the ACLU does stand very strongly for transgender rights but then criticizes it for being strong on that because James Kirkpatrick doesn't agree with it. Argh. I think the key problem is that James doesn't like what the ACLU is prioritizing, that is all.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
He's not arguing that the ACLU stands for nothing, I don't think. He's arguing that it's shifted towards being a general-purpose progressive activism group, standing up for whichever causes are trendy in progressive circles and ignoring causes that aren't, rather than prioritizing based on the underlying principles of civil liberties they're nominally protecting.
slibhb 6y ago
The article quotes the guy who led the ACLU from 1978 to 2001: > My successor, and the board of directors that have supported him, have basically tried to transform the organization from a politically neutral, nonpartisan civil liberties organization into a progressive liberal organization You are of course not obligated to agree. But acting like it's just the author sharing his funny opinions seems a bit disingenuous. If you are a progressive, you might not object to the turn the ACLU has taken. For liberals and conservatives, it's been a marked decline. The same is true for the SPLC.
- bhouston 6y ago
  Is trans rights progressive? This seems to be one of his big objections to the current ACLU. ACLU used to advocate for gay and lesbian rights. At the time it was viewed by conservatives as a bad thing generally. But now it is accepted and seems like they were on the right side of history. I feel that trans rights is basically the same thing as gay and lesbian rights were previously. Not widely popular but important to advocate for. James is just being a standard conservative and arguing for the status quo (conservatism is generally based in keeping things the way they were.) Where as the ACLU is advocating for equality in a place where we previously haven’t given it. In fact in the light of James conservatism this article is stereotypical. It is better the way things used to be and this change is all bad. But in fact in the past the ACLU was controversial and it only seems less so in hind sight. In general the article boring. Lots of words though but in the end boring.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Trans issues were mentioned in only two paragraphs of the source article. Even there, the subject was a prominent ACLU attorney's opposition to books on the topic, not advocacy for rights as such. I think you're finding his conservatism stereotypical simply because you're projecting your stereotypes of conservative beliefs onto him.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    The ACLU supported gay and lesbian rights when the government was trying to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. It didn't talk about censoring books that were critical of gays and lesbians. Which would trample the rights not of the gays and lesbians but of the homophobic writer.
jariel 6y ago
"I think the key problem is that James doesn't like what the ACLU is prioritizing, that is all" Except that's a serious criticism. "“case selection guidelines,” stipulating, “Speech that denigrates such [marginalized] groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.” Before agreeing to take a free speech case, the document continued, the ACLU would now consider “the potential effect on marginalized communities,” whether the speech advances the goals of speakers whose “views are contrary to our values,” and the “structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.” " i.e. you can't say something, even factual, if it doesn't support the ideological causes of a specific version of 'equity', or rather, the ACLU doesn't care about your rights in that endeavour. And that right there, is the end of the ACLU.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

He's not arguing that the ACLU stands for nothing, I don't think. He's arguing that it's shifted towards being a general-purpose progressive activism group, standing up for whichever causes are trendy in progressive circles and ignoring causes that aren't, rather than prioritizing based on the underlying principles of civil liberties they're nominally protecting.

slibhb 6y ago

The article quotes the guy who led the ACLU from 1978 to 2001: > My successor, and the board of directors that have supported him, have basically tried to transform the organization from a politically neutral, nonpartisan civil liberties organization into a progressive liberal organization You are of course not obligated to agree. But acting like it's just the author sharing his funny opinions seems a bit disingenuous. If you are a progressive, you might not object to the turn the ACLU has taken. For liberals and conservatives, it's been a marked decline. The same is true for the SPLC.

bhouston 6y ago
Is trans rights progressive? This seems to be one of his big objections to the current ACLU. ACLU used to advocate for gay and lesbian rights. At the time it was viewed by conservatives as a bad thing generally. But now it is accepted and seems like they were on the right side of history. I feel that trans rights is basically the same thing as gay and lesbian rights were previously. Not widely popular but important to advocate for. James is just being a standard conservative and arguing for the status quo (conservatism is generally based in keeping things the way they were.) Where as the ACLU is advocating for equality in a place where we previously haven’t given it. In fact in the light of James conservatism this article is stereotypical. It is better the way things used to be and this change is all bad. But in fact in the past the ACLU was controversial and it only seems less so in hind sight. In general the article boring. Lots of words though but in the end boring.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Trans issues were mentioned in only two paragraphs of the source article. Even there, the subject was a prominent ACLU attorney's opposition to books on the topic, not advocacy for rights as such. I think you're finding his conservatism stereotypical simply because you're projecting your stereotypes of conservative beliefs onto him.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  The ACLU supported gay and lesbian rights when the government was trying to restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. It didn't talk about censoring books that were critical of gays and lesbians. Which would trample the rights not of the gays and lesbians but of the homophobic writer.

jariel 6y ago

"I think the key problem is that James doesn't like what the ACLU is prioritizing, that is all" Except that's a serious criticism. "“case selection guidelines,” stipulating, “Speech that denigrates such [marginalized] groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.” Before agreeing to take a free speech case, the document continued, the ACLU would now consider “the potential effect on marginalized communities,” whether the speech advances the goals of speakers whose “views are contrary to our values,” and the “structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.” " i.e. you can't say something, even factual, if it doesn't support the ideological causes of a specific version of 'equity', or rather, the ACLU doesn't care about your rights in that endeavour. And that right there, is the end of the ACLU.