8 ms·

I was a member for 10 years and stopped renewing a year or two ago, when it seemed to stop putting free speech and expression first.

wutbrodo 5y ago
I held them up for years and years as an example of an actually principled organization in an age where every other institution was compromising their stated beliefs in favor of genuflection to fashionable slogans. Like you, I stopped doing this a few years ago : ( To their relative credit, they do seem to be struggling with it in a way that very few other orgs are, and you occasionally see them take principled action.
nxc18 5y ago
Same. I was turned off by the “my way or the highway” mentality on trans issues shown in their Twitter. Failure to defend 2A rights, now that NRA is clearly not principled in any way (maybe it never was), also bothered me. It is hard to imagine them defending an anti-trans person in 2021. As despicable as those people are, they still have civil rights. As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. Reading through their Twitter again just now, it is clear they have gone off the rails.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The ACLU has never defended or supported Hellerian 2A rights (https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment), and its not clear that they should change their position due to a shift in SC precedent, anymore than that they should shift their position on speech if the SC decided to revert to Schenck.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hed 5y ago
    Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it as a 5-4 decision but even the dissenters on the case believed it was an individual right, they just still thought it could be regulated / scrutinized. In that sense the individual right won 9-0.
    - syshum 5y ago
      The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just their cover so they did not have to admit they only stood for some of the constitution not all of it //EDIT: Mods have rate limited me, so in response to comment below allow me to add I guess I should have implicitly stated Constitutional Rights, and more specifically Bill of Rights in the context. On top of that, that is still not a "collective right", that is more of a Balance of rights, You have a right to your property, I have a right to my property, if your actions (aka polluting ) damage my property then you have directly harmed my individual rights and are thus liable An example of this would be the fact that I have the right to swing my arms, but if I swing my arms in a manner that hits another person I have violated their bodily rights not to be injured by me. No one would claim that is a "collective right", no here we are balancing individual rights, their right to not be injured trumps my right to swing my arms in the physical space they occupy at that moment
      - arrosenberg 5y ago
        > Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
- stirfish 5y ago
  The NRA started as a way to retrain Union soldiers to actually aim their weapons instead of volleying them, as they were no longer using smooth-bored muskets. If that's a principle, they did that. I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    > I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK. They didn't. The NRA supports the rights of all individuals to own gubs. The KKK supports gun control to stop minorities from owning guns.
    - 1986 5y ago
      Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912 https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the military to possess one.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
- istorical 5y ago
  > As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. This precise thing is why it's baffling that people can suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong. What is considered wrong does not always age well. Sometimes we ourselves are the baddies.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    >people ... suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong This is an oversimplification. What you might be extrapolating from is the common sentiment that complaining about cancel culture is not substantive in cases where an individual appears to have done something wrong enough to justify the consequences. Yes, "wrong enough" is of varying subjectivity in each case, but focusing on "cancel culture" as some kind of monolithic evil instead of focusing on the details of each case is a very common source of noise, and so is commonly criticized, and that criticism may be what you're accumulating into "cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong".
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - p1necone 5y ago
      The whole concept of cancel culture seems to just be used as a way to silence legitimate criticism of others as far as I can see. I'm sure it meant something at one point, but now it's just silly.
      - tomerico 5y ago
        Note how you have just did exactly what you criticized ( “silence legitimate criticism of others” by dismissing those that called out cancel culture)
        5y ago
- devwastaken 5y ago
  I looked at their twitter, looks pretty good to me. What exactly are you talking about?
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  Trans politics was going okay until they took the lions share of BLM donations that was raised on the death of cisgendered straight black men. There are people that are unhappy with this distribution being called anti-trans and it’s kinda insane.
  - sgerenser 5y ago
    Haven’t heard about this. Googling doesn’t unearth anything either. Have any links to details on this?
    - birdyrooster 5y ago
      page 22 of their 2020 impact report https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ meanwhile families of those who died in 2020 still haven't received help from BLM despite promises https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-taylor-tamika-palmer-blm-b1833123.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-ta... https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-activist-request-20-million-from-black-lives-matter-for-organizing-efforts https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-...
- syshum 5y ago
  NRA never was, they wrote or substantially contributed to most of the Gun Laws we have today, they comprised the 2nd amendment way in never ending trail of "reasonable gun control" [1] GOA and SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) are far far better when it comes to actual legal challenges to laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment [1] https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png
  - jdhn 5y ago
    At this point, I think the NRA exists only to act as a foil for gun control groups. I have donated to both of the groups you mentioned as I think that they're both lightyears ahead of the NRA when it comes to actually doing anything.
asabjorn 5y ago
https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ has picked up the mantle on executing on the vision of what ACLU used to be. ACLU is lost, I stopped donating a while ago as well, and it won't return until they oust those that work against the liberal ideal.
BurningFrog 5y ago
I have a similar history. My replacement donations are Fire and Institute for Justice. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ https://ij.org/ https://ij.org/
- brian_cunnie 5y ago
  Thanks for the tip! I'm going to follow suit, and replace my donations. I feel there's merit to a singleness-of-purpose within an organization, and ACLU's attempt to juggle "12 or 15 different values" detracts from its effectiveness.
norswap 5y ago
And so the ACLU gets worse and worse via evaporative cooling of group beliefs. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...

wutbrodo 5y ago

I held them up for years and years as an example of an actually principled organization in an age where every other institution was compromising their stated beliefs in favor of genuflection to fashionable slogans. Like you, I stopped doing this a few years ago : ( To their relative credit, they do seem to be struggling with it in a way that very few other orgs are, and you occasionally see them take principled action.

nxc18 5y ago

Same. I was turned off by the “my way or the highway” mentality on trans issues shown in their Twitter. Failure to defend 2A rights, now that NRA is clearly not principled in any way (maybe it never was), also bothered me. It is hard to imagine them defending an anti-trans person in 2021. As despicable as those people are, they still have civil rights. As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. Reading through their Twitter again just now, it is clear they have gone off the rails.

joshuamorton 5y ago
The ACLU has never defended or supported Hellerian 2A rights (https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment), and its not clear that they should change their position due to a shift in SC precedent, anymore than that they should shift their position on speech if the SC decided to revert to Schenck.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hed 5y ago
  Once they came out after Heller and stated they still believed it was a collective right, I knew my relationship with them was over. ACLU (and others) cite it as a 5-4 decision but even the dissenters on the case believed it was an individual right, they just still thought it could be regulated / scrutinized. In that sense the individual right won 9-0.
  - syshum 5y ago
    The collective right never made any sense in the first place, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights is viewed as a "collective right" so why in the hell would this lone amendment be a "collective right" Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... the ACLU hates guns, does not believe anyone outside the government should have guns, the "collective right" was just their cover so they did not have to admit they only stood for some of the constitution not all of it //EDIT: Mods have rate limited me, so in response to comment below allow me to add I guess I should have implicitly stated Constitutional Rights, and more specifically Bill of Rights in the context. On top of that, that is still not a "collective right", that is more of a Balance of rights, You have a right to your property, I have a right to my property, if your actions (aka polluting ) damage my property then you have directly harmed my individual rights and are thus liable An example of this would be the fact that I have the right to swing my arms, but if I swing my arms in a manner that hits another person I have violated their bodily rights not to be injured by me. No one would claim that is a "collective right", no here we are balancing individual rights, their right to not be injured trumps my right to swing my arms in the physical space they occupy at that moment
    - arrosenberg 5y ago
      > Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.
stirfish 5y ago
The NRA started as a way to retrain Union soldiers to actually aim their weapons instead of volleying them, as they were no longer using smooth-bored muskets. If that's a principle, they did that. I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  > I'm not sure why they became a weird mix of Russians and the KKK. They didn't. The NRA supports the rights of all individuals to own gubs. The KKK supports gun control to stop minorities from owning guns.
  - 1986 5y ago
    Then why was the NRA so silent about Philando Castile?
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      Because he was in possession of a controlled substance and a gun which is illegal. Edit: not sure why I am being down voted but here is the statement https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912 https://mobile.twitter.com/DLoesch/status/895508311193382912
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        > and a gun which is illegal. > not sure why I am being down voted Probably for stupid reasons, but a legitimate reason for downvoting you would be because that is no such thing as a gun which is illegal[0]; that's the whole point of the second amendment. 0: Except maybe something like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) if applicable arms limitation treaties make it also illegal for the military to possess one.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
istorical 5y ago
> As a gay man, I would have been despicable for most of the past 100+ years, but the ACLU would have defended me anyway. That version of the ACLU no longer exists. This precise thing is why it's baffling that people can suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong. What is considered wrong does not always age well. Sometimes we ourselves are the baddies.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  >people ... suggest cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong This is an oversimplification. What you might be extrapolating from is the common sentiment that complaining about cancel culture is not substantive in cases where an individual appears to have done something wrong enough to justify the consequences. Yes, "wrong enough" is of varying subjectivity in each case, but focusing on "cancel culture" as some kind of monolithic evil instead of focusing on the details of each case is a very common source of noise, and so is commonly criticized, and that criticism may be what you're accumulating into "cancel culture is only something to complain about if you've done / said something wrong".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - p1necone 5y ago
    The whole concept of cancel culture seems to just be used as a way to silence legitimate criticism of others as far as I can see. I'm sure it meant something at one point, but now it's just silly.
    - tomerico 5y ago
      Note how you have just did exactly what you criticized ( “silence legitimate criticism of others” by dismissing those that called out cancel culture)
      - 5y ago
devwastaken 5y ago
I looked at their twitter, looks pretty good to me. What exactly are you talking about?
birdyrooster 5y ago
Trans politics was going okay until they took the lions share of BLM donations that was raised on the death of cisgendered straight black men. There are people that are unhappy with this distribution being called anti-trans and it’s kinda insane.
- sgerenser 5y ago
  Haven’t heard about this. Googling doesn’t unearth anything either. Have any links to details on this?
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    page 22 of their 2020 impact report https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/ meanwhile families of those who died in 2020 still haven't received help from BLM despite promises https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-taylor-tamika-palmer-blm-b1833123.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-ta... https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-activist-request-20-million-from-black-lives-matter-for-organizing-efforts https://www.complex.com/life/michael-browns-father-ferguson-...
syshum 5y ago
NRA never was, they wrote or substantially contributed to most of the Gun Laws we have today, they comprised the 2nd amendment way in never ending trail of "reasonable gun control" [1] GOA and SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) are far far better when it comes to actual legal challenges to laws that infringe the 2nd Amendment [1] https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png https://i.imgur.com/TO8BGgw.png
- jdhn 5y ago
  At this point, I think the NRA exists only to act as a foil for gun control groups. I have donated to both of the groups you mentioned as I think that they're both lightyears ahead of the NRA when it comes to actually doing anything.

asabjorn 5y ago

https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ has picked up the mantle on executing on the vision of what ACLU used to be. ACLU is lost, I stopped donating a while ago as well, and it won't return until they oust those that work against the liberal ideal.

BurningFrog 5y ago

I have a similar history. My replacement donations are Fire and Institute for Justice. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ https://ij.org/ https://ij.org/

brian_cunnie 5y ago
Thanks for the tip! I'm going to follow suit, and replace my donations. I feel there's merit to a singleness-of-purpose within an organization, and ACLU's attempt to juggle "12 or 15 different values" detracts from its effectiveness.

norswap 5y ago

And so the ACLU gets worse and worse via evaporative cooling of group beliefs. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...