my respect for ACLU

[Anonymous]

PP here. By the way, if you are looking for an organization that actually does good, Open Secrets is great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet another reason normal people are waking up to the destructiveness and divisiveness that is DEI. And organizations like the ACLU are squarely to blame.

Oh please. Like anything else, it can mishandled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, it's both ... and... I think her language was definitely coded AND they had a toxic work environment that they did not manage.

I agree, she knew what she was doing.

Why do you think that? Can you give specific examples?

Interesting language that no one would ever say in a meeting. She also sounds like an azzhole. Listen, no one is defending ACLU. It sounds like their entire operation was a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, it's both ... and... I think her language was definitely coded AND they had a toxic work environment that they did not manage.

I agree, she knew what she was doing.

Why do you think that? Can you give specific examples?

Interesting language that no one would ever say in a meeting. She also sounds like an azzhole. Listen, no one is defending ACLU. It sounds like their entire operation was a mess.

You must work in a very civilized environment if you don't have people who say such things. I hear many stupid things where I work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another weird thing about this... the ACLU basically is a law firm that brings cases. To me, it seems clear that this case is about as viable as the Trump election fraud cases. And when lawyers bring cases that stupid, they should, like Guliani, get disbarred for wasting the courts time.

The case was brought by the NLRB against the ACLU

right. maybe what is weird is that they didn't know they were sitting ducks for somebody to bring a wrongful dismissal against them. Lawyers should know better.

But you have to remember, these are DEI lawyers. Which means they are cloaked in the safety of their righteousness and felt they needed to smite evil.

To them, they were just doing the right thing by bring down the oppressor in their midst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic

You wanna know the real irony? Who published the article in the original post?

Do you remember Sarah Jeong, who was hired by the New York Times as an editor?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Wikipedia says she is another Korean woman. While Oh was accused of racism against blacks, Joeng was accused of racism against white people.

The world seems to want Korean women to be compliant k-pop stars and not human beings.

I think that applies to many women. As a middle aged white woman, if I dare speak any displeasure, I am considered a Karen. Just stay mum and invisible.

No wonder suburban women are questioning their political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway is that anyone who doesn’t recognize the very, very famous saying, “The beatings will continue until morale improves,” isn’t well read…and is quite dim if they can’t recognize the humor.

None of this is surprising, but it is sad.

The bizarre and inappropriate behavior at the ACLU speaks volumes…and underscores that the org has lost its way.

They need new leadership…and a heckuva lot of training.

I think she knew what it meant. It was said in the context of a supposed morale boosting meeting where the oganization was attempting to make up for a dismissed abusive boss. The fact that she claimed it was threatening violent language, akin to a physical threat, is absurd on its face. That's like claiming "bang the drum" is a violent phrase.

It was clearly retaliation in my opinion. But what makes it worse is that it was also likely defamation and the whole inversion of the power dynamic was very odd. Senior leadership claiming that someone two or more rungs down the ladder was threatening them because they said they felt afraid. WTF

Sadly it's a leadership problem that is now threatening the legacy of a storied organization. Shame on them, I'm definitely done donating.

Agree with all of this. The gay Black man felt threatened when a junior associate told him that she was afraid to report a bad boss - so he fired her? Crazy!

And several posters on this thread thought her language was coded and she deserved firing because of it? That's more craziness!

I was fired for complaining about abusive behavior by my boss. They didn't want to deal with the bad behavior, so got rid of the complainer. It happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic

You wanna know the real irony? Who published the article in the original post?

Do you remember Sarah Jeong, who was hired by the New York Times as an editor?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Wikipedia says she is another Korean woman. While Oh was accused of racism against blacks, Joeng was accused of racism against white people.

The world seems to want Korean women to be compliant k-pop stars and not human beings.

I think that applies to many women. As a middle aged white woman, if I dare speak any displeasure, I am considered a Karen. Just stay mum and invisible.

No wonder suburban women are questioning their political party.

Ditto. I keep my head down and mouth shut. Hard for me to do because I'm opinionated and have a big mouth. But I can NEVER complain. EVER.

[Anonymous]

She sounded like a complainer the ACLU wanted to get rid of. They twisted her language to make it appear that it could be interpreted by some as racist, and used that as an excuse to fire her.

They are also hiding behind current "workplace standards" whatever that may mean legally:

"Terence Dougherty, the general counsel, said in an interview that standards of workplace conduct in 2024 have shifted, likening the case to someone who used the wrong pronouns in addressing a transgender colleague."

So if I accidentally call my trans colleague "her" when I mean "him," that verbal slip is so offensive in 2024 that I'm going to get fired?

I am a socialist, extremely lefty liberal, but this is what gives us lefties a bad name!!

I defend the right of racists to use racist language because I believe that impinging on the rights of others to use certain language impinges on my own rights to use countering language, and I want to be able to call someone "racist" without them accusing me of hurting their feelings. I also want to be able to say "her" or "him" when referring to a non-binary colleague, because, quite frankly, I've been using the word "they" as a plural pronoun for my entire life, and I forget from time to time that it's now a singular pronoun for some self-identified people, some of whom I don't know have so self-identified.

I don't want to offend anyone, but there should be space for sarcasm, verbal mistakes and critical language in a workplace, even if it ruffles some very delicate feathers simply because that same language "could" be interpreted by some as offensive and hurtful.

Ms. Oh sounds like an annoying, entitled employee, BTW. If she hated the ACLU so much, why didn't she leave and find a better workplace? And her Twitter post!?! I'd fire her for that. It's inexcusable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway is that anyone who doesn’t recognize the very, very famous saying, “The beatings will continue until morale improves,” isn’t well read…and is quite dim if they can’t recognize the humor.

None of this is surprising, but it is sad.

The bizarre and inappropriate behavior at the ACLU speaks volumes…and underscores that the org has lost its way.

They need new leadership…and a heckuva lot of training.

I think she knew what it meant. It was said in the context of a supposed morale boosting meeting where the oganization was attempting to make up for a dismissed abusive boss. The fact that she claimed it was threatening violent language, akin to a physical threat, is absurd on its face. That's like claiming "bang the drum" is a violent phrase.

It was clearly retaliation in my opinion. But what makes it worse is that it was also likely defamation and the whole inversion of the power dynamic was very odd. Senior leadership claiming that someone two or more rungs down the ladder was threatening them because they said they felt afraid. WTF

Sadly it's a leadership problem that is now threatening the legacy of a storied organization. Shame on them, I'm definitely done donating.

Agree with all of this. The gay Black man felt threatened when a junior associate told him that she was afraid to report a bad boss - so he fired her? Crazy!

And several posters on this thread thought her language was coded and she deserved firing because of it? That's more craziness!

I was fired for complaining about abusive behavior by my boss. They didn't want to deal with the bad behavior, so got rid of the complainer. It happens.

right. but they should be honest about why they are firing her. they shouldn't claim that it is because she is racist when she demonostrated no racist behaviors. Just opinionated ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic

You wanna know the real irony? Who published the article in the original post?

Do you remember Sarah Jeong, who was hired by the New York Times as an editor? :shock:

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Wikipedia says she is another Korean woman. While Oh was accused of racism against blacks, Joeng was accused of racism against white people.

The world seems to want Korean women to be compliant k-pop stars and not human beings.

I think that applies to many women. As a middle aged white woman, if I dare speak any displeasure, I am considered a Karen. Just stay mum and invisible.

No wonder suburban women are questioning their political party.

This is because the progressive left of the Democrats have leaned into misogyny as a political platform. You are feeling alienated because you are realizing that a lot of Democrats only want silent women in their party. Of course the Republicans have long used misogyny as a political platform. What is new is that the Democrats have now adopted misogyny as a political platform. Both parties want silent and compliant women voters only at this point, IMO. Actually weirdly I think the Republicans may even be slightly more tolerant of women with opinions than the Democrats now, which is a bizarre situation.

I’m sure a lot of the progressive Democrats are entirely fine with how the ACLU behaved here. At heart they believe the woman shouldn’t have complained or opened her mouth. She should have just meekly accepted anything the man said. That was her role and she violated it. So she needs to be attacked and branded as a racist, because she stopped being a quiet and compliant woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic

You wanna know the real irony? Who published the article in the original post?

Do you remember Sarah Jeong, who was hired by the New York Times as an editor? :shock:

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Wikipedia says she is another Korean woman. While Oh was accused of racism against blacks, Joeng was accused of racism against white people.

The world seems to want Korean women to be compliant k-pop stars and not human beings.

I think that applies to many women. As a middle aged white woman, if I dare speak any displeasure, I am considered a Karen. Just stay mum and invisible.

No wonder suburban women are questioning their political party.

This is because the progressive left of the Democrats have leaned into misogyny as a political platform. You are feeling alienated because you are realizing that a lot of Democrats only want silent women in their party. Of course the Republicans have long used misogyny as a political platform. What is new is that the Democrats have now adopted misogyny as a political platform. Both parties want silent and compliant women voters only at this point, IMO. Actually weirdly I think the Republicans may even be slightly more tolerant of women with opinions than the Democrats now, which is a bizarre situation.

I’m sure a lot of the progressive Democrats are entirely fine with how the ACLU behaved here. At heart they believe the woman shouldn’t have complained or opened her mouth. She should have just meekly accepted anything the man said. That was her role and she violated it. So she needs to be attacked and branded as a racist, because she stopped being a quiet and compliant woman.

The men wouldn't be in charge, if they weren't good at their jobs. The cream rises to the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironic

You wanna know the real irony? Who published the article in the original post?

Do you remember Sarah Jeong, who was hired by the New York Times as an editor? :shock:

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Wikipedia says she is another Korean woman. While Oh was accused of racism against blacks, Joeng was accused of racism against white people.

The world seems to want Korean women to be compliant k-pop stars and not human beings.

I think that applies to many women. As a middle aged white woman, if I dare speak any displeasure, I am considered a Karen. Just stay mum and invisible.

No wonder suburban women are questioning their political party.

This is because the progressive left of the Democrats have leaned into misogyny as a political platform. You are feeling alienated because you are realizing that a lot of Democrats only want silent women in their party. Of course the Republicans have long used misogyny as a political platform. What is new is that the Democrats have now adopted misogyny as a political platform. Both parties want silent and compliant women voters only at this point, IMO. Actually weirdly I think the Republicans may even be slightly more tolerant of women with opinions than the Democrats now, which is a bizarre situation.

I’m sure a lot of the progressive Democrats are entirely fine with how the ACLU behaved here. At heart they believe the woman shouldn’t have complained or opened her mouth. She should have just meekly accepted anything the man said. That was her role and she violated it. So she needs to be attacked and branded as a racist, because she stopped being a quiet and compliant woman.

Baloney. You revel in grievance politics because it's all you have.

Any of your views on platforms regarding economics, standards of living, government as a solution provider, the justice system, and people earning their own way and being financially independent have no place in the modern democrat party. So grievance politics and victim-hood is the DNC's main controlling force.

You go through life with a chip on your shoulder. That's your problem, not other people's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another weird thing about this... the ACLU basically is a law firm that brings cases. To me, it seems clear that this case is about as viable as the Trump election fraud cases. And when lawyers bring cases that stupid, they should, like Guliani, get disbarred for wasting the courts time.

The case was brought by the NLRB against the ACLU

right. maybe what is weird is that they didn't know they were sitting ducks for somebody to bring a wrongful dismissal against them. Lawyers should know better.

They are a progressive organization so are going to continue to express their belief that an outspoken Asian woman is an oppressor over her black supervisors that fired her. Basically they believe anything is justified if they can claim something said is racist and/or simply makes a black person feel as if what was said felt racist.

[Anonymous]

A woman feels intimidated by her male bosses. She’s Korean, they are black. She reports it to HR twice and again during a Zoom meeting.

Her triggering words: afraid, chastising, beatings (in context referring to employee morale)

According to ACLU, she is a protected class: “Much of our work today is focused on equality for people of color, women, gay and transgender people, prisoners, immigrants, and people with disabilities.”

It’s a wash, right? No, because they are her superiors and we don’t know what they said to her over time. Anyone know what they said? Did she provide documentation?