6 ms·

The problem with this is that it's the mindset of a frog being boiled. Just one more degree won't hurt me.

vkou 4y ago
The problem with this problem is that there isn't a better alternative. There's a lot of people in this thread complaining about how the ACLU is ruined because they are no longer free speech absolutists. That's not why I give, or ever gave them money. I give them money because they solve all sorts of other problems. If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  There are plenty of orgs that tackle portions of what the ACLU used to - enough that I’m sure with 3 or 4 donations one could replace the former ACLU donations one made. For example, FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two than the ACLU despite a considerably smaller budget. Between them, Institute for Justice, and EFF, I don’t miss my ACLU donations much.
  - vkou 4y ago
    And what has FIRE done for, say, minority voting rights in the south? Police harassment?
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      If you want to support those causes, wouldn't the SPLC be a better method?
      - vkou 4y ago
        Why the SPLC over the ACLU, if their missions largely overlap? I give to both, FYI. If you don't give a crap about all the social causes, and just care about alt-right speech, I agree, the ACLU is not the organization you should donate to! In that case, I also can't say I care very much for your vision of the problems in this country, but it's your opinion, everyone's free to have one.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        I think the point of the article and general consensus here is that their missions should not overlap as much as they do. Or as the ACLU puts it, on why they defend abhorrent groups: "The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups — particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and the National Socialist Party of America. We do not defend them because we agree with them. Rather we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it’s too late." https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu Which is somewhat different than the SPLC: "The SPLC is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people." https://www.splcenter.org/about https://www.splcenter.org/about
        jimbokun 4y ago
        > but it's your opinion, everyone's free to have one. Clearly not any more, especially if the ACLU were to have their way.
        mechanical_bear 4y ago
        I do care about alt-right speech. I care about leftist speech. I care about anarchist speech. I care about conspiracy weirdos speech. I care about religious nut job speech. I care about free speech.
    - atdrummond 4y ago
      I think there are more effective organizations to tackle those specific issues, too. The Brennan Center comes to mind for the former.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    "FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two than the ACLU despite a considerably smaller budget" You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to?
    - euroclear 4y ago
      You can find a list of cases on their web site. I don't think they are a conservative organization, either. https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/
    - fieryscribe 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you're implying that FIRE "despises" speech; perhaps you see them as conservative. That said, here's are some recent situations in which FIRE has taken the side of what would be under the general progressive/liberal umbrella: * https://www.thefire.org/cases/new-york-university-administration-investigating-anti-zionst-statement-by-law-students-for-justice-in-palestine-following-harassment-complaints/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/new-york-university-administra... * https://www.thefire.org/cases/catholic-university-of-america-student-investigated-for-arthur-childrens-cartoon-meme-criticizing-student-group/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/catholic-university-of-america... * https://www.thefire.org/cases/suny-brockport-event-featuring-faculty-invited-speaker-jalil-muntaqim-defunded/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/suny-brockport-event-featuring... There are more, for sure, but hopefully this points you in the right direction.
      - Shebanator 4y ago
        You should re-read the comment you are replying to. You misunderstood.
        fieryscribe 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're suggesting. This is the comment: > FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two ... > You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to? It seems to imply that FIRE has done way more for conservative campus free speech issues. I supplied examples of times when FIRE supported non-conservative campus free speech. I'm not quite clear how else to read that comment, but would love your take.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  > If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles. Speech is the most important non-violent right that we have, regardless of who is speaking or about what issue. Without Freedom of Speech, corporations or the government could simply censor the other liberties out of existence. You can't be a civil rights absolutist without being a free speech absolutist.
  - donthellbanme 4y ago
  - didibus 4y ago
    I disagree. Never in my life has the best solution to anything been the extreme, instead it's always been balanced and nuanced solution that have ended being more optimal. I've observed this in science, physics, engineering, medicine, culinary, inter-social relations, business, in everything. Based just on that, I already get a red flag when someone says that an extreme free speech position, such as free speech absolutists, is the best solution to have a liberal society with civil liberties. In my experience, balanced and nuanced is always better, and you must always have provisions to handle special cases, there will always be special cases. Free speech is very important, like you said, beyond violence, how else you going to influence and assert any improvement or changes to defend, retain or ask for more liberties? But speech can remain civil and respectful, it doesn't have to include slander, or threats to a person, insults, ridicule, raised voices, talking over people, etc. And then you have the conflict with other liberties. Yes governement shouldn't be able to restrict anyone's speech, no matter what. But between themselves, citizens should be allowed recourse to slander for example. They should have ways to protect their reputation when it is being harmed by someone intending to harm it through misinformation, lies, and false accusations, and that would require the government to intervene and uphold someone's right to their reputation. Also, we should be allowed to create communities with code of conducts that include speech behavior. If you come to my house and start bad-mouthing my daughter, insulting her, and I kick you out, you shouldn't be able to sue me for violating your free speech rights. I should be allowed to control the code of conduct of others in my own home. Similarly on my website, in my comment section, or if I am a company running a social community space I too should be allowed to do so in order to protect my business. Robo-calls, spammers, calling me or leaving spam in my email, website, I should be allowed to block them, or have some service that auto-censors them, it shouldn't be that their creator can prevent me from blocking them because it infringes on their creator's right to free speech. Same for bot accounts and all that. So clearly I feel there needs to be special provisions for exceptions to the right to free speech, and when exactly it applies, to whom, about what, and how the speech itself is conducted and what the speech is actually saying, is it false accusations, slander, threats, spam, etc.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  Nice to know you consider protecting a fundamental human right trivial.
snowwrestler 4y ago
No, the frog doesn’t know it’s being boiled at all. Being fully aware of an organization’s good and bad behaviors is the opposite of being unknowingly boiled. Even if one chooses to continue supporting the organization in spite of some disagreement.

vkou 4y ago

The problem with this problem is that there isn't a better alternative. There's a lot of people in this thread complaining about how the ACLU is ruined because they are no longer free speech absolutists. That's not why I give, or ever gave them money. I give them money because they solve all sorts of other problems. If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles.

atdrummond 4y ago
There are plenty of orgs that tackle portions of what the ACLU used to - enough that I’m sure with 3 or 4 donations one could replace the former ACLU donations one made. For example, FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two than the ACLU despite a considerably smaller budget. Between them, Institute for Justice, and EFF, I don’t miss my ACLU donations much.
- vkou 4y ago
  And what has FIRE done for, say, minority voting rights in the south? Police harassment?
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    If you want to support those causes, wouldn't the SPLC be a better method?
    - vkou 4y ago
      Why the SPLC over the ACLU, if their missions largely overlap? I give to both, FYI. If you don't give a crap about all the social causes, and just care about alt-right speech, I agree, the ACLU is not the organization you should donate to! In that case, I also can't say I care very much for your vision of the problems in this country, but it's your opinion, everyone's free to have one.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        I think the point of the article and general consensus here is that their missions should not overlap as much as they do. Or as the ACLU puts it, on why they defend abhorrent groups: "The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups — particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and the National Socialist Party of America. We do not defend them because we agree with them. Rather we defend their right to free expression and free assembly. Historically, the people whose opinions are the most controversial or extreme are the people whose rights are most often threatened. Once the government has the power to violate one person’s rights, it can use that power against everyone. We work to stop the erosion of civil liberties before it’s too late." https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu Which is somewhat different than the SPLC: "The SPLC is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people." https://www.splcenter.org/about https://www.splcenter.org/about
      - jimbokun 4y ago
        > but it's your opinion, everyone's free to have one. Clearly not any more, especially if the ACLU were to have their way.
      - mechanical_bear 4y ago
        I do care about alt-right speech. I care about leftist speech. I care about anarchist speech. I care about conspiracy weirdos speech. I care about religious nut job speech. I care about free speech.
  - atdrummond 4y ago
    I think there are more effective organizations to tackle those specific issues, too. The Brennan Center comes to mind for the former.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two than the ACLU despite a considerably smaller budget" You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to?
  - euroclear 4y ago
    You can find a list of cases on their web site. I don't think they are a conservative organization, either. https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/
  - fieryscribe 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you're implying that FIRE "despises" speech; perhaps you see them as conservative. That said, here's are some recent situations in which FIRE has taken the side of what would be under the general progressive/liberal umbrella: * https://www.thefire.org/cases/new-york-university-administration-investigating-anti-zionst-statement-by-law-students-for-justice-in-palestine-following-harassment-complaints/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/new-york-university-administra... * https://www.thefire.org/cases/catholic-university-of-america-student-investigated-for-arthur-childrens-cartoon-meme-criticizing-student-group/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/catholic-university-of-america... * https://www.thefire.org/cases/suny-brockport-event-featuring-faculty-invited-speaker-jalil-muntaqim-defunded/ https://www.thefire.org/cases/suny-brockport-event-featuring... There are more, for sure, but hopefully this points you in the right direction.
    - Shebanator 4y ago
      You should re-read the comment you are replying to. You misunderstood.
      - fieryscribe 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're suggesting. This is the comment: > FIRE has done way more for campus free speech issues this last decade or two ... > You mean conservative speech? Or has FIRE actually defended speech they despised, like the ACLU used to? It seems to imply that FIRE has done way more for conservative campus free speech issues. I supplied examples of times when FIRE supported non-conservative campus free speech. I'm not quite clear how else to read that comment, but would love your take.
oceanplexian 4y ago
> If the biggest problem in your life is 'the far american right can't speak as loudly as it likes', that's certainly terrible, but it pales in comparison to the harm of all the other civil liberty violations that the ACLU tackles. Speech is the most important non-violent right that we have, regardless of who is speaking or about what issue. Without Freedom of Speech, corporations or the government could simply censor the other liberties out of existence. You can't be a civil rights absolutist without being a free speech absolutist.
- donthellbanme 4y ago
- didibus 4y ago
  I disagree. Never in my life has the best solution to anything been the extreme, instead it's always been balanced and nuanced solution that have ended being more optimal. I've observed this in science, physics, engineering, medicine, culinary, inter-social relations, business, in everything. Based just on that, I already get a red flag when someone says that an extreme free speech position, such as free speech absolutists, is the best solution to have a liberal society with civil liberties. In my experience, balanced and nuanced is always better, and you must always have provisions to handle special cases, there will always be special cases. Free speech is very important, like you said, beyond violence, how else you going to influence and assert any improvement or changes to defend, retain or ask for more liberties? But speech can remain civil and respectful, it doesn't have to include slander, or threats to a person, insults, ridicule, raised voices, talking over people, etc. And then you have the conflict with other liberties. Yes governement shouldn't be able to restrict anyone's speech, no matter what. But between themselves, citizens should be allowed recourse to slander for example. They should have ways to protect their reputation when it is being harmed by someone intending to harm it through misinformation, lies, and false accusations, and that would require the government to intervene and uphold someone's right to their reputation. Also, we should be allowed to create communities with code of conducts that include speech behavior. If you come to my house and start bad-mouthing my daughter, insulting her, and I kick you out, you shouldn't be able to sue me for violating your free speech rights. I should be allowed to control the code of conduct of others in my own home. Similarly on my website, in my comment section, or if I am a company running a social community space I too should be allowed to do so in order to protect my business. Robo-calls, spammers, calling me or leaving spam in my email, website, I should be allowed to block them, or have some service that auto-censors them, it shouldn't be that their creator can prevent me from blocking them because it infringes on their creator's right to free speech. Same for bot accounts and all that. So clearly I feel there needs to be special provisions for exceptions to the right to free speech, and when exactly it applies, to whom, about what, and how the speech itself is conducted and what the speech is actually saying, is it false accusations, slander, threats, spam, etc.
jimbokun 4y ago
Nice to know you consider protecting a fundamental human right trivial.

snowwrestler 4y ago

No, the frog doesn’t know it’s being boiled at all. Being fully aware of an organization’s good and bad behaviors is the opposite of being unknowingly boiled. Even if one chooses to continue supporting the organization in spite of some disagreement.