Covid-19’s impact on Tor

Post by new_time » Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 5:53 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #62

roenxi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just quickly glancing at Wikipedia [0] it looks like most of the major line items for the LGBTQ+ agenda have been part of US Federal law for about 5+ years. The LGBTQ+ community are basically ordinary people from all walks of life, including prominent names like Tim Cook and Pete Buttigieg. The community has I believe explicit public support from culture generating machines like Hollywood and political entities li…

There are still a few residual gay rights issues, but over the past few years, LGBTQ+ rights has come to primarily refer to trans rights. One of the ACLU's major recent campaigns is that trans girls should be allowed to play on girls' sports teams, for example - that's seen as an important right nowadays, but it's not on the checklist because it was never relevant for gay people.

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 6:01 AM UTC

new_time wrote: post #71

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still a few residual gay rights issues, but over the past few years, LGBTQ+ rights has come to primarily refer to trans rights. One of the ACLU's major recent campaigns is that trans girls should be allowed to play on girls' sports teams, for example - that's seen as an important right nowadays, but it's not on the checklist because it was never relevant for gay people.

It is not really progressive to allow biological males to play with and in many cases dominate biological female competition. This is an example of how the ACLU has lost its way in the weeds of questionable progressive crusades.

Post by goodrubyist » Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 6:20 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

mc32 wrote: post #7

This got me to think about the ACLU and what they are doing. I see some issues about accommodating justice and other issues affected by the pandemic and the intersection with liberties... it's more about looking at the compounding effect than protecting against fundamental change and fundamental threats to civil rights. But I don’t see any take on any measures governments have taken to kerb civil rights in the time o…

The ACLU has largely transitioned away from civil rights absolutism towards progressive advocacy. They haven't entirely tossed it out the door, and still sometimes defend the civil rights of non-progressive groups, but the modern ACLU definitely feels it's important to contextualize liberties.

Post by m0zg » Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 6:37 AM UTC

lph wrote: post #76

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU has largely transitioned away from civil rights absolutism towards progressive advocacy. They haven't entirely tossed it out the door, and still sometimes defend the civil rights of non-progressive groups, but the modern ACLU definitely feels it's important to contextualize liberties.

...which could also be explained by progressive groups being the target of more repression lately than conservative groups.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 19, 2020, 6:58 AM UTC

411111111111111 wrote: post #78

goodrubyist wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, took me some time to digest this -- "contextualize liberties" must be the most Orwellian phrase in existence, only thing that might come close is another phrase you used, "civil rights absolutism."

So in your opinion I should have the right to enslave you? Some liberties have to be put into context to see that they're plain amoral. It's easy for slavery, but harder for other topics. The same applies to the other expression you have an issue with. Some freedoms are detrimental to society and accepting them causes actual harm to people. Things are never easy with topics like this.