4 ms·

> At that point a lot of people started asking themselves "Are we really being a positive influence?". And a conflict began. Those people were clearly in the w

> At that point a lot of people started asking themselves "Are we really being a positive influence?". And a conflict began. Those people were clearly in the wrong though. After all, why join a civil liberties union if your support for said liberties is conditional on your whims?

dale_glass 5y ago
That's because it's a lot easier to be principled in the abstract, than when it blows up in your face. Pre-Brexit, there were a lot of people that really wanted sovereignty. Post-Brexit, it turns out that sovereignty didn't make a lot of those people happy, because it got in the way of their employment or business, and it turns out you can't eat sovereignty. Same thing happened here. It's a lot easier to defend a despicable person's right to hold a protest when they're powerless. But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify.
- calcifer 5y ago
  > But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify. Only for those who were unprincipled in the first place. Those who approach civil liberties from a point of subjective right vs wrong are doomed to failure - the moment a case comes up that clashes with their own viewpoints, they will abandon the liberties they claimed to defend. On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma.
  - dale_glass 5y ago
    This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. It's kind of a fairy tale of the kind Disney sells you: if you do the right thing, everything works out for the best. We like that idea because simplicity is appealing, but the real world is complicated and conflicts with such nice notions. In Disney movies when you do the right thing, it saves the world in the end. In the real world when you do the right thing, sometimes all you achieve is nazis running over a crowd, and you end up with a crisis of conscience and not much to show for it.
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      Not sure if you're aware, but way back when the ACLU supported Nazis right to march on pragmatic as well as principled grounds. If WE are stopping the BAD GUYS from marching on OUR turf, then what precedent does that set for permitting a civil rights march in Selma?
      - dale_glass 5y ago
        The way I read that is that the pragmatic bit is the true reason, deep down. Most of us aren't pure-logic Kantian robots. We have a goal in mind that's beyond simply being logically consistent. When we form an organization that sometimes defends the Nazis, we're not doing it because our only motivation is that some rights are absolutely inviolable no matter what. We do it for mostly pragmatic reasons, such as the one you've outlined. If the Nazis get a fair trial, then that helps ensure that we also do. If we make too bad of a law to use against the Nazis, we could end up as victims of it some day. Defending the Nazis is ultimately a means to the end of achieving a good society for us to live in. That's why whenever the true end of doing such things starts being endangered, principles start faltering.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        refenestrator 5y ago
        All principles are rooted in that kind of pragmatism, starting with thou shalt not kill. And it's valuable. Barely a year after getting people fired for takes was popularized during BLM, we see the cannon turned on journalists who wrote a pro-palestine essay in college. Nobody could have predicted it.
    - calcifer 5y ago
      > This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. I agree completely. This is exactly the reason why I believe most ACLU staff are thoroughly unqualified for the job. Defending civil liberties as a matter of principle is not something most people can do. That's perfectly fine. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of it. Don't believe in civil liberties for all? Fine, just don't pretend you do.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma. ...until they remember that there are that there is more than one civil liberty, and more than one person who has civil liberties, and that sometimes one person exercising a particular civil liberty can prevent or conflict with another person exercising a different civil liberty. Once you are dealing with a society bigger and more complicated than Gilligan's Island, you cannot escape these dilemmas.
    - calcifer 5y ago
      I don't see why that would be a dilemma for the civil-liberties-as-a-principle group. One can support the legal rights of both parties with opposing views. For example historically, the ACLU has defended both the NRA and the victims of policies that were funded by the NRA.
- thu2111 5y ago
  Your point about Brexit is totally wrong. Support for it hasn't changed much since before the vote: it still has majority support, and nobody ever claimed you could "eat" sovereignty but seeing as nobody in the UK is starving due to Brexit that's just a totally irrelevant soundbite isn't it? Nothing the ACLU ever did blew up in their face. People haven't "started dying" because of the rights they defended. Instead they just got taken over by people who are immersed in your worldview and willing to parasitize and destroy any organization they can get their hands on in a belief that people should be ruled by hard-left "experts", who will make them "happy", even if they don't seem to realize it or agree.
waddlesworth 5y ago
No principle is beyond question. How can you be in the wrong for wanting to discuss the value of maintaining a position? Particularly in the face of such tragic circumstances. Unwavering, unconditional support for an idea - any idea - seems like it could result in a bad time. Personally, I'm not sure where I sit on this one, and I think there's a valuable, good-faith discussion to be had on whether free speech as we see it today, is actually a net good or not. It's an inherently complex question worthy of debate.

dale_glass 5y ago

That's because it's a lot easier to be principled in the abstract, than when it blows up in your face. Pre-Brexit, there were a lot of people that really wanted sovereignty. Post-Brexit, it turns out that sovereignty didn't make a lot of those people happy, because it got in the way of their employment or business, and it turns out you can't eat sovereignty. Same thing happened here. It's a lot easier to defend a despicable person's right to hold a protest when they're powerless. But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify.

calcifer 5y ago
> But when people start dying that gets a lot harder to justify. Only for those who were unprincipled in the first place. Those who approach civil liberties from a point of subjective right vs wrong are doomed to failure - the moment a case comes up that clashes with their own viewpoints, they will abandon the liberties they claimed to defend. On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma.
- dale_glass 5y ago
  This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. It's kind of a fairy tale of the kind Disney sells you: if you do the right thing, everything works out for the best. We like that idea because simplicity is appealing, but the real world is complicated and conflicts with such nice notions. In Disney movies when you do the right thing, it saves the world in the end. In the real world when you do the right thing, sometimes all you achieve is nazis running over a crowd, and you end up with a crisis of conscience and not much to show for it.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Not sure if you're aware, but way back when the ACLU supported Nazis right to march on pragmatic as well as principled grounds. If WE are stopping the BAD GUYS from marching on OUR turf, then what precedent does that set for permitting a civil rights march in Selma?
    - dale_glass 5y ago
      The way I read that is that the pragmatic bit is the true reason, deep down. Most of us aren't pure-logic Kantian robots. We have a goal in mind that's beyond simply being logically consistent. When we form an organization that sometimes defends the Nazis, we're not doing it because our only motivation is that some rights are absolutely inviolable no matter what. We do it for mostly pragmatic reasons, such as the one you've outlined. If the Nazis get a fair trial, then that helps ensure that we also do. If we make too bad of a law to use against the Nazis, we could end up as victims of it some day. Defending the Nazis is ultimately a means to the end of achieving a good society for us to live in. That's why whenever the true end of doing such things starts being endangered, principles start faltering.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - refenestrator 5y ago
        All principles are rooted in that kind of pragmatism, starting with thou shalt not kill. And it's valuable. Barely a year after getting people fired for takes was popularized during BLM, we see the cannon turned on journalists who wrote a pro-palestine essay in college. Nobody could have predicted it.
  - calcifer 5y ago
    > This isn't how most people actually work. Most of us see principles as a means to an end, even if we don't say so, or initially don't admit it. I agree completely. This is exactly the reason why I believe most ACLU staff are thoroughly unqualified for the job. Defending civil liberties as a matter of principle is not something most people can do. That's perfectly fine. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of it. Don't believe in civil liberties for all? Fine, just don't pretend you do.
- tzs 5y ago
  > On the other hand, those who approach civil liberties as a matter of principle face no such dilemma. ...until they remember that there are that there is more than one civil liberty, and more than one person who has civil liberties, and that sometimes one person exercising a particular civil liberty can prevent or conflict with another person exercising a different civil liberty. Once you are dealing with a society bigger and more complicated than Gilligan's Island, you cannot escape these dilemmas.
  - calcifer 5y ago
    I don't see why that would be a dilemma for the civil-liberties-as-a-principle group. One can support the legal rights of both parties with opposing views. For example historically, the ACLU has defended both the NRA and the victims of policies that were funded by the NRA.
thu2111 5y ago
Your point about Brexit is totally wrong. Support for it hasn't changed much since before the vote: it still has majority support, and nobody ever claimed you could "eat" sovereignty but seeing as nobody in the UK is starving due to Brexit that's just a totally irrelevant soundbite isn't it? Nothing the ACLU ever did blew up in their face. People haven't "started dying" because of the rights they defended. Instead they just got taken over by people who are immersed in your worldview and willing to parasitize and destroy any organization they can get their hands on in a belief that people should be ruled by hard-left "experts", who will make them "happy", even if they don't seem to realize it or agree.

waddlesworth 5y ago

No principle is beyond question. How can you be in the wrong for wanting to discuss the value of maintaining a position? Particularly in the face of such tragic circumstances. Unwavering, unconditional support for an idea - any idea - seems like it could result in a bad time. Personally, I'm not sure where I sit on this one, and I think there's a valuable, good-faith discussion to be had on whether free speech as we see it today, is actually a net good or not. It's an inherently complex question worthy of debate.