I used to donate to the ACLU, but I won't anymore because the organization has become unrecognizable to me. They used to focus on civil rights and civil liberties, things like free speech, but now they're joining those who want to win various culture wars by shutting down opposition.
I do think it makes sense for the ACLU to oppose laws banning certain treatments for trans kids, because these states should not be interfering in private medical decisions. It's appropriate for the ACLU to fight laws that limit our freedoms.
But otherwise, they're becoming just like every other lefty group. Careless with facts, eager to silence those who disagree, taking sides based on identities. Their involvement in the Smith College situation involving cafeteria workers is another good example.
Interesting that these ACLU Law Clowns rushed in with their self-serving legal lecture, doing embarrassing victory laps after relying on an irrelevant statutory construction rule. They ignore the rest of the universe of construction rules that apply to actually more relevant writings, such as contracts, correspondence, SEC filings, and news articles, all of which encourage (mandate, in the case of SEC filings) reasonably interpreting writings in plain English, given the intended audience. A writer (lawyer-writer may be held to a higher standard of precision, given their legal training) can't escape blame by citing some stinky legal loophole to override how the intended audience reasonably interpreted the plain language of the writing. Does anyone believe that in a libel case the court will scrutinize how the offending article would be interpreted had it been a statute?
I believe that Strangio intended this association. Block's lemme-confuse-everyone-with-legal-jargon-no-one-will-understand pronouncement from on high was a weak attempt at post-misdeed CYA.
Applying legal doctrines to figure out what something means--typically a statute--represents the definitive word from a court about what it DOES mean. It settles the issue going forward and binds everyone in the applicable jurisdiction.
It's really dumb to transplant that to this scenario. You need not look very far on Twitter to find plenty of people applauding Chase for saying what he says is an erroneous interpretation. As you say, virtually everyone will read that sentence and come to the conclusion that you and the others named share those views.
There's no Supreme Court of Twitter (thank God) to say: No, it actually means this. The fact that, in theory, a court would apply a doctrine and issue a binding ruling saying what it actually means is wildly unhelpful.
....how in the heck else are you supposed to interpret that? A missing period wouldn't drastically change anything. The fact this is the only defense to such baseless accusations is hilarious(ly depressing). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm sorry. It's clear (if you actually listen and read what you say) that you are solely criticizing certain things, not transmen and transwomen in general, and to argue otherwise is, I'd guess 99% of the time, a willful misreading. Which I think ties back into what Haidt and Lukianoff are talking about in "The Coddling of the American Mind." Which, I did just get to the point where they cited you regarding Tuvel. Your article was spot on.
I'd love to read a long piece about what's happened to the ACLU in the last five (?) years. I'm not sure if anyone's written one that isn't just fangirling like the GQ article. BTW, would be happy to receive these kinds of quick response pieces as an email.
As far as I know, this is the only remark going against left orthodoxy on trans issues Bari Weiss has made: https://mobile.twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1327101009164812289. She might've said something else I'm unaware of, but if standing up for a friend whose book was banned from Target is enough to get you smeared by an ACLU lawyer, we're not in a great place. Of course, the treatment you've received from many of these activists over the years has been even more terrible, Jesse.
Also a lawyer - and this. You don't go around applying rules of statutory construction to everyday sentences. Plus as noted below, the use of "other" renders application of the rule nonsensical even if this sentence were a statute for some bizarre reason. It is really, really dispiriting to watch leaders of what was once one of our proudest legal organizations get to this level of dishonesty rather than simply saying "we were wrong."
I’m now imagining a perfect world when someone makes a Twitter account/bot that just “helps” Strangio et al by capturing their tweets (presumably delivered in plain language) and applies this type of obscure interpretation method. Like those haiku or Shakespeare boys you see on Reddit.
I used to donate to the ACLU, but I won't anymore because the organization has become unrecognizable to me. They used to focus on civil rights and civil liberties, things like free speech, but now they're joining those who want to win various culture wars by shutting down opposition.
I do think it makes sense for the ACLU to oppose laws banning certain treatments for trans kids, because these states should not be interfering in private medical decisions. It's appropriate for the ACLU to fight laws that limit our freedoms.
But otherwise, they're becoming just like every other lefty group. Careless with facts, eager to silence those who disagree, taking sides based on identities. Their involvement in the Smith College situation involving cafeteria workers is another good example.
IA also NAL, but in my opinion it seems like the word "other" would prevent that rule from being applied.
Interesting that these ACLU Law Clowns rushed in with their self-serving legal lecture, doing embarrassing victory laps after relying on an irrelevant statutory construction rule. They ignore the rest of the universe of construction rules that apply to actually more relevant writings, such as contracts, correspondence, SEC filings, and news articles, all of which encourage (mandate, in the case of SEC filings) reasonably interpreting writings in plain English, given the intended audience. A writer (lawyer-writer may be held to a higher standard of precision, given their legal training) can't escape blame by citing some stinky legal loophole to override how the intended audience reasonably interpreted the plain language of the writing. Does anyone believe that in a libel case the court will scrutinize how the offending article would be interpreted had it been a statute?
I believe that Strangio intended this association. Block's lemme-confuse-everyone-with-legal-jargon-no-one-will-understand pronouncement from on high was a weak attempt at post-misdeed CYA.
I always feel pope hat is not as smart as he thinks he is. His reply was also lame
Applying legal doctrines to figure out what something means--typically a statute--represents the definitive word from a court about what it DOES mean. It settles the issue going forward and binds everyone in the applicable jurisdiction.
It's really dumb to transplant that to this scenario. You need not look very far on Twitter to find plenty of people applauding Chase for saying what he says is an erroneous interpretation. As you say, virtually everyone will read that sentence and come to the conclusion that you and the others named share those views.
There's no Supreme Court of Twitter (thank God) to say: No, it actually means this. The fact that, in theory, a court would apply a doctrine and issue a binding ruling saying what it actually means is wildly unhelpful.
Love you Jesse. Great that you react
> Strange times, I guess.
One might even say Strangio times...
...I'll just show myself out.
....how in the heck else are you supposed to interpret that? A missing period wouldn't drastically change anything. The fact this is the only defense to such baseless accusations is hilarious(ly depressing). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm sorry. It's clear (if you actually listen and read what you say) that you are solely criticizing certain things, not transmen and transwomen in general, and to argue otherwise is, I'd guess 99% of the time, a willful misreading. Which I think ties back into what Haidt and Lukianoff are talking about in "The Coddling of the American Mind." Which, I did just get to the point where they cited you regarding Tuvel. Your article was spot on.
I'd love to read a long piece about what's happened to the ACLU in the last five (?) years. I'm not sure if anyone's written one that isn't just fangirling like the GQ article. BTW, would be happy to receive these kinds of quick response pieces as an email.
Here's one: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disintegration-of-the-aclu-james-kirchick
Thank you!
I wonder how the ACLU fundraising is doing?
As far as I know, this is the only remark going against left orthodoxy on trans issues Bari Weiss has made: https://mobile.twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1327101009164812289. She might've said something else I'm unaware of, but if standing up for a friend whose book was banned from Target is enough to get you smeared by an ACLU lawyer, we're not in a great place. Of course, the treatment you've received from many of these activists over the years has been even more terrible, Jesse.
You should search Twitter for how Chase employs a well-known slur that is used against gay men.
Also a lawyer - and this. You don't go around applying rules of statutory construction to everyday sentences. Plus as noted below, the use of "other" renders application of the rule nonsensical even if this sentence were a statute for some bizarre reason. It is really, really dispiriting to watch leaders of what was once one of our proudest legal organizations get to this level of dishonesty rather than simply saying "we were wrong."
I’m now imagining a perfect world when someone makes a Twitter account/bot that just “helps” Strangio et al by capturing their tweets (presumably delivered in plain language) and applies this type of obscure interpretation method. Like those haiku or Shakespeare boys you see on Reddit.