Live data from Hacker News

Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

nytimes.com

541–550 of 550 posts

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said in response elsewhere, these claims really need some support or they are just bytes on the Internet.

I guess I also have to repeat here as well then. The problem with the kind of critical theory dialectic Nicole Hannah-Jones use is how the claim of truth is made. I showed you how critical theory projects like the 1619 project makes a claim and deals with truthiness. I made it specific to this project and how it inherently makes unfalsifiable claims as it builds upon “lived experiences” of convenient political activi…

> I showed you ...

Here's another way to think about evidence: All you showed me was your thinking; you didn't show me anything from the 1619 Project.

Your points have intriguing points, but as written here, all they are now is points about you, not about the world.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil rights are not granted from cancelling racists from exposing their hateful views online, it's from taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights. This can take the form of both violent and non-violent struggle but the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech.

> the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech Sure, but speech plays an enormous role, the largest role IMHO. > taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights What is normalized among the public greatly determines, IMHO, the systems and powerful people. From another perspective: If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, im…

"If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion."

You cannot in fact change the rules if there hasn't been a shift in the public so this seems a rather moot point. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't invest in PR and education on these issues but muzzling the opposition just gives the next rulers in charge an already existing muzzle to use back on yourself.

There is a history of often murderous suppression of "radical" groups in the US and by and far the majority of these were socialists, environmentalists, and marginalised people.

The current fake appeasement to these demographics is just that - a mirage. They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

Excuse me for not taking this current "wokeness" fetishization by fundamentally hierarchical power structures entirely as good faith.

It's also not clear to me at all that "speech plays the largest role". Of course, existing power structures want you to believe that because the thing they fear the most of all is armed and genuinely effective resistance and it also helps perpetuate the illusion of a free and democratic society as if all it took to conquer racism and imperialism was to have a sit down and chat - with the hidden assumption that prior exploited people were just too stupid to consider this before - but MLK and Ghandai would have gone nowhere if there weren't decades of riots and militant struggle preceding them that pushed the US and British governments to enter negotiations with these parties.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#543
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> speech ... killed I’m not familiar with the incident (save it, don’t care), but I can promise you that no honest coroner has ever given “free speech” as a cause of death.

charlottesville was a pretty consequential event politically, which also result in a death. this is not the first dismissive comment I've had on HN of people showing a disregard for knowledge & literally not caring to know the issue they comment on. both instances i've participated in involved race which is telling to me imho. Seems to go against the ideals of this forum. I'm no trying to argue either way just point…

Really? What was the race of the person who died? What was the race of the person who killed them?

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech Sure, but speech plays an enormous role, the largest role IMHO. > taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights What is normalized among the public greatly determines, IMHO, the systems and powerful people. From another perspective: If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, im…

"If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion." You cannot in fact change the rules if there hasn't been a shift in the public so this seems a rather moot point. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't invest in PR and education on these issues but muzzling the opposition just give…

> They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

I think 'they' is way too broad. Some companies banned Trump from their platforms. Those companies aren't particularly involved with the policies.

> the thing they fear the most of all is armed and genuinely effective resistance

I strongly doubt it. Such things are so rare and unlikely, not only in the U.S. but in democracies in general, that it's not too far off saying 'what they fear most is a giant meteor strike'. Well that would be a big problem, but not what is most feared. There hasn't been one in the U.S. since the Civil War, and that one came top-down, from the power structure.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can as well as me google to see the myriad of critical social justice conferences and events she has contributed to. She is quite productive. You can also see her calls for the critical social justice DEI solution when she calls for racial equity (as in redistribution based upon identity politics traits - not equality), inclusion (as in critical social justice activists of all identities must be given a platform…

> You can as well as me google ... I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort. Sorry, but with no evidence it's not meaningful to me - there is so much dis- and mis-information on the Internet that I think people are…

> I think the burden to support your claims is on you. Readers can't check the evidence for every comment. It's more efficient too - you already know your argument and what you've seen, and you do it once rather than every reader duplicating effort.

She is the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice anti-racist projects, the 1619 project, which is the strongest argument I can think of that she is an adherent of and an important figure in that ideology.

With that as an established fact then in the context of a traditionally liberal creed organization like the ACLU or a liberal University, its relevant to detail how that ideology is in conflict with liberalism and why it is reasonable that a top ideologue of critical social justice is not given stewardship of a liberal position.

> Maybe assume some good faith;

When you question if the creator of one of the biggest critical social justice projects is a critical social justice adherent I think its fair to question if you are arguing in good faith.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#546
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think this new gov department won’t become politicized? Whatever affiliation you are, imagine the opposite side running these offices. That is very scary. Then there’s the question about your so-called “nonpositive rights”. What does this include? What does it take to remove these? Your vision of the future here is terrifying, and I will personally fight against a truth dictator and the removal of rights with…

Positive and negative freedoms aren't something new and even the US has plenty of examples. They merely stipulate what the state has to do to ensure them. A positive freedom is one where the state has to act to preserve them. A negative freedom is one where the state has to not act to preserve them. For example, owning property is a negative freedom, because the state must not act against your property to ensure this…

This got real buried. Thanks for the intro to positive and negative rights. My complaint is with removing rights. Rights are not supposed to be removed, you’re born with them. I do not think any entity should be able to remove any right, positive or negative. It’s a dangerous precedent and I reiterate, every ounce of my being.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#547
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positive and negative freedoms aren't something new and even the US has plenty of examples. They merely stipulate what the state has to do to ensure them. A positive freedom is one where the state has to act to preserve them. A negative freedom is one where the state has to not act to preserve them. For example, owning property is a negative freedom, because the state must not act against your property to ensure this…

This got real buried. Thanks for the intro to positive and negative rights. My complaint is with removing rights. Rights are not supposed to be removed, you’re born with them. I do not think any entity should be able to remove any right, positive or negative. It’s a dangerous precedent and I reiterate, every ounce of my being.

Again, I don't advocate for removing them, but that in order to protect your positive freedoms, the state will have to violate someone else's freedoms, negative or positive.

At the moment, the US has no protection against a political party removing your freedoms from the constitution. If someone were to attempt it, they would be let off scotts-free, so to speak. There is no punishment for saying "poor people shouldn't have the right to vote or freedom of speech", which some of your politicians are already saying in a roundabout way.

And once you lost them, you won't get them back as easily and that will be more dangerous that violating someone's freedoms to protect everyone elses.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I also have to repeat here as well then. The problem with the kind of critical theory dialectic Nicole Hannah-Jones use is how the claim of truth is made. I showed you how critical theory projects like the 1619 project makes a claim and deals with truthiness. I made it specific to this project and how it inherently makes unfalsifiable claims as it builds upon “lived experiences” of convenient political activi…

> I showed you ... Here's another way to think about evidence: All you showed me was your thinking; you didn't show me anything from the 1619 Project. Your points have intriguing points, but as written here, all they are now is points about you, not about the world.

Considering that we are here talking about one of the biggest and most famous anti-racist critical social justice projects, you are again not arguing in good faith.

Are you are a critical social justice adherent and subscribe to its anti-racist (which means being a racist) doctrine? If so I think you should declare that.

If you share this ideology we do not share values as I believe in the liberal doctrine of truth seeking and believe skin color is not informative of anything but melanin level, which both are in direct opposition to this faith/ideology.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion." You cannot in fact change the rules if there hasn't been a shift in the public so this seems a rather moot point. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't invest in PR and education on these issues but muzzling the opposition just give…

> They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. I think 'they' is way too broad. Some companies banned Trump from their platforms. Those companies aren't particularly involved with the policies. > the thing they…

Obviously, these companies themselves are not involved in the policies themselves but am I supposed to believe that all the major social media platforms independently decided to ban the then president of the United States when he had repeatedly violated their terms of conditions in the past with no response? That stretches credulity.

I also don't know where you're getting this idea that armed conflict between the people and the state is rare in democracies, least of all the US which has had several riots and armed conflict between the state and guerrilla organisations since the civil war, many of which have had a direct effect on legislation and happened decades before the Civil Rights act of 1960.

Re: Once a bastion of free speech, the ACLU faces an identity crisis

#550
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like that's reasonable? Maybe California handles it better than some places/states? I wonder if the ability to seize and sell assets, plus hand-me-downs of ex-military equipment shift those numbers, compared to a Canadian city?

I'm not sure if California does it better. I just know much of the funding comes from the federal/state government. A significant portion of the sheriff budget in my county is local taxes. Local funding is 3% for social services, the other 97% are state/federal taxes. One of the narratives I've seen in news articles is that a writer will talk about the proportion of general funds to police vs social services. The fun…

I've been meaning to reply here, but just haven't had time. I apologise for not holding up my end, as you did take the time to research a few things.

EG, wish I had time to find my data re: Toronto, and at least reply cogently. Regardless, have a good one.

Post reply on HN