my respect for ACLU

[Anonymous]

Progressive nonprofits have always been bastions of crazy workplaces. I used to work at a nonprofit in DC where senior staff members would routinely call people racist for any workplace dispute. So glad I got out of that world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is indeed my problem that the Democrats despise women as a political platform now. That is in fact a true statement.

The rest of your post is incoherent so I will ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You realize you are talking about the DNC here? That’s hysterical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with all of your points - thanks for being so clear!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s simpler than that. They are a progressive organization, so they will elevate men over women. There is no world in which a male supervisor in a progressive organization will put up with opinionated women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I mean, everyone involved works with lawyers so I’m fairly certain there is documentation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I put the ACLU and the SPLC in the same bucket.

They are both organizations that have lost their way and are no longer credible.

+100
Absolutely.

100%

If you care about speech issues, follow FIRE instead.

ACLU has completely lost the plot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I put the ACLU and the SPLC in the same bucket.

They are both organizations that have lost their way and are no longer credible.

+100
Absolutely.

100%

If you care about speech issues, follow FIRE instead.

ACLU has completely lost the plot.

FIRE does true free speech work now.

[Anonymous]

Has the ACLU responded to the article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has the ACLU responded to the article?

Why would they? They don’t believe they are wrong. Based on the ACLU’s own statements, they appear to believe that a Korean American woman who has suffered domestic abuse is lower ranked in oppression than a gay Black male supervisor. Therefore he cannot be wrong by dint of who he is, pretty much regardless of how terribly he acts. Conversely, she has to be wrong because she is the oppressor and he is the oppressed based on her identity.

The ACLU is fighting this, remember. They are choosing this fight; they could have settled a long time ago. And it’s the NLRB — hardly a bastion of conservatism — that is fighting on behalf of Ms. Oh. Yet the ACLU is throwing itself into the fight. Why? Because foundationally the ACLU cannot accept that they are wrong here; that would upset the entire ethos and philosophy of the current organization. They have to believe they are right here. They have to believe that Ms. Oh is the oppressor. To quietly back down would mean examining the entire structure of their new belief system as an organization and they cannot face that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the ACLU responded to the article?

Why would they? They don’t believe they are wrong. Based on the ACLU’s own statements, they appear to believe that a Korean American woman who has suffered domestic abuse is lower ranked in oppression than a gay Black male supervisor. Therefore he cannot be wrong by dint of who he is, pretty much regardless of how terribly he acts. Conversely, she has to be wrong because she is the oppressor and he is the oppressed based on her identity.

The ACLU is fighting this, remember. They are choosing this fight; they could have settled a long time ago. And it’s the NLRB — hardly a bastion of conservatism — that is fighting on behalf of Ms. Oh. Yet the ACLU is throwing itself into the fight. Why? Because foundationally the ACLU cannot accept that they are wrong here; that would upset the entire ethos and philosophy of the current organization. They have to believe they are right here. They have to believe that Ms. Oh is the oppressor. To quietly back down would mean examining the entire structure of their new belief system as an organization and they cannot face that.

while I'm not suprized they believe they are right, I am suprized they believe they can win.