53
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

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

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

I heard that phrase just this week in the office.

Literally no one thinks that’s coded racists speech.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca -2 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] hypnotoad__@lemmy.ml 32 points 6 months ago

I read this expecting to be on the ACLUs side. As a pretty liberal guy... I don't see it. Sounds like they don't like her speaking up is all.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Tbh the ACLU is a pale shadow of its former self. The pivot took over a decade, but is no longer a an organization driven by the philosophy of defending all civil rights and is instead ruled by more specific politics of the day. I wish that FIRE was better, but because it’s not we’re stuck with the ACLU.

[-] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Also, the main solution to workplace concerns like this is to discuss it. Tell them that you feel uncomfortable with that kind of language and give them chances to use better language. You can't fire someone with no notice for making minor mistakes when they have not been given the chance to improve. Escalating personal conflicts to legal conflicts is not the way to resolve them.

load more comments (31 replies)
[-] yarr@feddit.nl 13 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 15 points 6 months ago

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

[-] thesilverpig@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] solo@kbin.earth -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago
[-] solo@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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?

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks! It did indeed clear my doubts.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
53 points (90.8% liked)

News

22882 readers
4031 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS