The heart of the A.C.L.U.’s defense — arguing for an expansive definition of what constitutes racist or racially coded speech — has struck some labor and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the right to say it.
I was disheartened reading about this. I don’t know that the ACLU really had grounds to terminate her
She parroted a well known line about, “the beatings will continue until morale improves.” This is a not-uncommon way of saying that a situation sucks, especially as relates to power-dynamics. Complete bullshit to characterize that as anything else. I will think twice before donating to the ACLU again.
I heard that phrase just this week in the office.
Literally no one thinks that’s coded racists speech.
The ACLU has been flying off the handle for the past decade or so, it’s less about liberties and more about “our politics” now.
In one instance, according to court documents, she told a Black superior that she was “afraid” to talk with him. In another, she told a manager that their conversation was “chastising.” And in a meeting, she repeated a satirical phrase likening her bosses’ behavior to suffering “beatings.”
These coded racist micro-aggressive verbal assaults must be stopped at all costs. ACLU should ban staff from speaking at all times. All communication will happen via a laminated sheet of 12 carefully vetted non-offensive emoji. Should staff want to communicate, they can point at the most appropriate emoji while gesturing to the other party.
On top of that, she was using beatings in the context of ‘beatings will continue until morale improves’, a well known idiom and obviously not to be taken literally. WTF happened to the ACLU? I would have expected them to be filling amicus curiae briefs on the other side, normally
I think the Trump presidency really warped them and their supporters to be more identarian stalwarts as opposed to the ideologically pillar able to defend the worst people for the right reasons.
I don’t trust the judicial system to handle systemic racism. Also, I can’t say I fully understand this case. Intersectionality is a great analysis tool to use in situations like this, no matter what the outcome of the trial will be.
ELI5, please.
Intersectionality as a concept started by Crenshaw. She noticed a court case where a black woman sued a factory for not giving her a secretary job du to racism. The judge said that it could not be due to racism since the factory had employees that were black, and dismissed the case or ruled against it. Crenshaw spotted that the judge had not taken into consideration that all black employees were male working in the production line and all the secretary positions were taken by white females, so the judicial system can be ineffective when people are found in the intersection of different inequalities/etc, which by themselves are addressed. Or supposed to be addressed, but that’s another topic.
For the case in the article I think this is an analysis tool that could help us understand both sides. Of course with more info than the ones provided here.
Hope this was clear enough?
Thanks! It did indeed clear my doubts.
I love it when they turn on their own. You reap what you sow.
Can you elaborate? Not sure what this means
Oh look, it’s you. 🤢🤮
I was curious about this response, so I just took a look at their comment history. Holy shit.
The fuck are you on about?
