4 ms·

>>This is just plain wrong. People went after new york's stop and frisk laws for being unconstitutional. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New

>>This is just plain wrong. People went after new york's stop and frisk laws for being unconstitutional. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_v._City_of_New_York) Did you read your own citation? >alleging that defendants have implemented and sanctioned a policy, practice, and/or custom of unconstitutional stops and frisks by the New York Police Department ("NYPD") on the basis of race and/or national origin The whole suit was based on the assertion that the stops and searches were unconstitutional because they were being carried out in a racist way - not because the searches themselves were unconstitutional by their very nature. >It's not surprising that civil rights groups will focus on civil rights violations. I'm for for equality and equal protection under the law (notice I said equality - not equity), and I fully support groups that push for Civil Rights and equality. But who stands up for Civil Liberties? ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union. If they aren't willing to stand up and fight for Civil Liberties (without regard whatsoever to "marginalized" status), then who is? >If you care about your own freedoms, you should care deeply about the freedoms of everyone else, especially the most vulnerable. It's really not some conspiracy to "make everything about race". It isn't a conspiracy - it is right out in the open. I care about freedom as a principle without regard whatsoever to anyone's standing in society. The freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are neither more or less important than the freedom of everyone else, or the principle of freedom.

autoexec 4y ago
Why did you cut off the rest of that sentence? It concludes: "...in violation of Section 1983 of title forty-two of the United States Code, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York." They attacked the practice on multiple grounds including Fourth Amendment grounds which I think you'll agree has nothing to do with race, so no, the whole suit was not based on the assertion that the stops and searches were unconstitutional only because they were being carried out in a racist way. The fact that the stops were racist was only one of several issues put before the courts and each of those issues were addressed by the courts on their own merits. > But who stands up for Civil Liberties? Many organizations, activists and individuals. It's not as if the ALCU is the only group in the country concerned with standing up for civil rights. > If they aren't willing to stand up and fight for Civil Liberties (without regard whatsoever to "marginalized" status), then who is? Even limiting ourselves to the ACLU, why should they have zero regard whatsoever for marginalized status? Do you think that there's some bar you have to have to clear where if your rights are violated they won't care if you aren't "marginalized" enough? Do you think that the marginalized status of a person whose rights are being violated could never be relevant as to why their rights were violated? Or that their marginalized status couldn't ever have an impact on their ability to fight against the violation of their rights without outside support? Why shouldn't they consider every factor in a case? > I care about freedom as a principle without regard whatsoever to anyone's standing in society. I think most members of civil rights orgs would tell you they also care about freedom as a principle which applies to everyone no matter what their standing in society. > The freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are neither more or less important than the freedom of everyone else I agree, but the freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are more often violated than the freedoms of everyone else, which is why they are often front and center in civil rights legislation. Your argument, to me, sounds a bit like someone complaining that doctors and researchers focused on chickenpox put more emphasis on children than adults. "Everyone's health matters without regard whatsoever to anyone's age!" well... that isn't being contested, but it doesn't change the fact that most people who suffer from chickenpox are children and that helping children with chickenpox would also help prevent many adults from catching chickenpox or that it's the natural place for doctors and researchers to focus their efforts. Who is going around saying that civil rights violations are acceptable when they aren't committed against someone from a marginalized group? Who is refusing to do anything about civil rights violations when they are committed against people who aren't marginalized enough? We all agree that civil rights violations are terrible no matter who is impacted, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to stop violations when marginalized groups are impacted, or that we shouldn't acknowledge the conditions that make violations against marginalized groups more prevalent or that we shouldn't acknowledge that it's often harder for marginalized groups to fight back against such abuses without lots of external support. You seem to be railing against some kind of bias that, generally speaking, doesn't appear to exist.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >Do you think that there's some bar you have to have to clear where if your rights are violated they won't care if you aren't "marginalized" enough? There absolutely is. You can start with the deafening silence regarding the treatment the people who have been locked up for the last 2 years for being accused of trespassing in the Capitol on Jan 6th. It doesn't matter how corrupt Trump is, or how stupid his followers are, the abuses by the DOJ in these cases have been absolutely horrific. You could look at the (mostly minority) young men who are being railroaded and destroyed by Kafkaesque Title IX rules at colleges. Where are the principled stands for people who are abhorrent or distasteful, but whose rights are being violated? You think the ACLU of today would take the same, principled stand on a KKK march in Skokie, like they did in 1978? Not a chance. There has been a pronounced shift by everyone from the ACLU to the Sierra Club away from their core missions into "social justice" organizations. It is not only possible, but desirable to plainly and openly call out authoritarian overreach by the government (such as the access of these private cameras in San Fran) without shoehorning in a social justice agenda which is entirely irrelevant to the abuses in question.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > You can start with the deafening silence regarding the treatment the people who have been locked up for the last 2 years for being accused of trespassing in the Capitol on Jan 6th. You mean this silence? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aclu-capitol-rioters-in-solitary-confinement https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aclu-capitol-rioters... From what I've seen their treatment hasn't been much different from what other prisoners experience. Sadly, a certain segment of the population believes that it's preferable for prisons to be inhumane and they've been fighting against efforts to reform the prison system my whole life. Additional context: https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8 https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioter... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/why-investigating-jail-conditions-for-the-capitol-rioters-is-a-win-for-all-incarcerated-people.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/why-investigatin... > You could look at the (mostly minority) young men who are being railroaded and destroyed by Kafkaesque Title IX rules at colleges. I agree that Title IX rules are a terrible problem, and that this is an area where I personally disagree with the ALCU's stance, but they haven't been ignored by civil rights groups either. https://www.thefire.org/proposed-title-ix-regulations-would-roll-back-essential-free-speech-due-process-protections-for-college-students/ https://www.thefire.org/proposed-title-ix-regulations-would-... > You think the ACLU of today would take the same, principled stand on a KKK march in Skokie, like they did in 1978? I agree that the organization has changed and I personally feel that they are not as reputable as they once were, but then again, the ACLU is not the only civil rights group in the country. It's not really a problem that different groups have different focuses. Nobody complains when the NRA doesn't oppose forced labor in prisons. Some of what you'd call "social justice" is civil rights activism. They aren't unrelated things that have to be shoehorned together. There's a lot of overlap between them. it's not an either or problem although it does sometimes provoke some interesting conflicts. The rights of minority men vs the rights of privileged women in title ix kangaroo courts for example. The winner of the Oppression Olympics in a particular case might be judged differently by different civil rights groups but I've never seen a situation where there weren't people fighting the injustices found on both sides. That's the thing to keep in mind really. People who support civil rights are all fighting for the same thing in the end, even when we're coming at the problem from different sides.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Because in general people don't give a shit about whether something is unconstitutional, so you need to look for angles that describe issues people do care about.

autoexec 4y ago

Why did you cut off the rest of that sentence? It concludes: "...in violation of Section 1983 of title forty-two of the United States Code, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York." They attacked the practice on multiple grounds including Fourth Amendment grounds which I think you'll agree has nothing to do with race, so no, the whole suit was not based on the assertion that the stops and searches were unconstitutional only because they were being carried out in a racist way. The fact that the stops were racist was only one of several issues put before the courts and each of those issues were addressed by the courts on their own merits. > But who stands up for Civil Liberties? Many organizations, activists and individuals. It's not as if the ALCU is the only group in the country concerned with standing up for civil rights. > If they aren't willing to stand up and fight for Civil Liberties (without regard whatsoever to "marginalized" status), then who is? Even limiting ourselves to the ACLU, why should they have zero regard whatsoever for marginalized status? Do you think that there's some bar you have to have to clear where if your rights are violated they won't care if you aren't "marginalized" enough? Do you think that the marginalized status of a person whose rights are being violated could never be relevant as to why their rights were violated? Or that their marginalized status couldn't ever have an impact on their ability to fight against the violation of their rights without outside support? Why shouldn't they consider every factor in a case? > I care about freedom as a principle without regard whatsoever to anyone's standing in society. I think most members of civil rights orgs would tell you they also care about freedom as a principle which applies to everyone no matter what their standing in society. > The freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are neither more or less important than the freedom of everyone else I agree, but the freedoms of the "most vulnerable" are more often violated than the freedoms of everyone else, which is why they are often front and center in civil rights legislation. Your argument, to me, sounds a bit like someone complaining that doctors and researchers focused on chickenpox put more emphasis on children than adults. "Everyone's health matters without regard whatsoever to anyone's age!" well... that isn't being contested, but it doesn't change the fact that most people who suffer from chickenpox are children and that helping children with chickenpox would also help prevent many adults from catching chickenpox or that it's the natural place for doctors and researchers to focus their efforts. Who is going around saying that civil rights violations are acceptable when they aren't committed against someone from a marginalized group? Who is refusing to do anything about civil rights violations when they are committed against people who aren't marginalized enough? We all agree that civil rights violations are terrible no matter who is impacted, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to stop violations when marginalized groups are impacted, or that we shouldn't acknowledge the conditions that make violations against marginalized groups more prevalent or that we shouldn't acknowledge that it's often harder for marginalized groups to fight back against such abuses without lots of external support. You seem to be railing against some kind of bias that, generally speaking, doesn't appear to exist.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Do you think that there's some bar you have to have to clear where if your rights are violated they won't care if you aren't "marginalized" enough? There absolutely is. You can start with the deafening silence regarding the treatment the people who have been locked up for the last 2 years for being accused of trespassing in the Capitol on Jan 6th. It doesn't matter how corrupt Trump is, or how stupid his followers are, the abuses by the DOJ in these cases have been absolutely horrific. You could look at the (mostly minority) young men who are being railroaded and destroyed by Kafkaesque Title IX rules at colleges. Where are the principled stands for people who are abhorrent or distasteful, but whose rights are being violated? You think the ACLU of today would take the same, principled stand on a KKK march in Skokie, like they did in 1978? Not a chance. There has been a pronounced shift by everyone from the ACLU to the Sierra Club away from their core missions into "social justice" organizations. It is not only possible, but desirable to plainly and openly call out authoritarian overreach by the government (such as the access of these private cameras in San Fran) without shoehorning in a social justice agenda which is entirely irrelevant to the abuses in question.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > You can start with the deafening silence regarding the treatment the people who have been locked up for the last 2 years for being accused of trespassing in the Capitol on Jan 6th. You mean this silence? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aclu-capitol-rioters-in-solitary-confinement https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aclu-capitol-rioters... From what I've seen their treatment hasn't been much different from what other prisoners experience. Sadly, a certain segment of the population believes that it's preferable for prisons to be inhumane and they've been fighting against efforts to reform the prison system my whole life. Additional context: https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8 https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioter... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/why-investigating-jail-conditions-for-the-capitol-rioters-is-a-win-for-all-incarcerated-people.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/why-investigatin... > You could look at the (mostly minority) young men who are being railroaded and destroyed by Kafkaesque Title IX rules at colleges. I agree that Title IX rules are a terrible problem, and that this is an area where I personally disagree with the ALCU's stance, but they haven't been ignored by civil rights groups either. https://www.thefire.org/proposed-title-ix-regulations-would-roll-back-essential-free-speech-due-process-protections-for-college-students/ https://www.thefire.org/proposed-title-ix-regulations-would-... > You think the ACLU of today would take the same, principled stand on a KKK march in Skokie, like they did in 1978? I agree that the organization has changed and I personally feel that they are not as reputable as they once were, but then again, the ACLU is not the only civil rights group in the country. It's not really a problem that different groups have different focuses. Nobody complains when the NRA doesn't oppose forced labor in prisons. Some of what you'd call "social justice" is civil rights activism. They aren't unrelated things that have to be shoehorned together. There's a lot of overlap between them. it's not an either or problem although it does sometimes provoke some interesting conflicts. The rights of minority men vs the rights of privileged women in title ix kangaroo courts for example. The winner of the Oppression Olympics in a particular case might be judged differently by different civil rights groups but I've never seen a situation where there weren't people fighting the injustices found on both sides. That's the thing to keep in mind really. People who support civil rights are all fighting for the same thing in the end, even when we're coming at the problem from different sides.

anigbrowl 4y ago

Because in general people don't give a shit about whether something is unconstitutional, so you need to look for angles that describe issues people do care about.