Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

... get back to me when there is real proof of wide spread sub-8 year old gender training going on. Kids painting their finger nails is hardly gender training.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

This is why people think you're disingenuous when you bemoan the lack of encouraging discussion. PB comes out with an assertion to shut down discussion, and you +1 him. And you only call out certain people.

And then JHU comes back with a response of "kids aren't being taught sex and gender theory" because they aren't. I'm sure PB will respond with something like "if it's not happening, you shouldn't care about the bill" (ignoring there are a lot of other parts to it) and change the subject to something else.

Now, in the pre-PB, pre-Trump Media days on the board, we may have a thorough and interesting discussion about this, especially because a number of us actually have kids and have dealt with it. For instance there was someone in my kid's kindergarten who was pulling other kids pants down. The teacher has to have a discussion about why we don't pull other people's pants down. It's age-appropriate and simple, something like "people's privates are private." There was another kid who would burst into the bathroom, or touch other kids inappropriately. Teacher has to explain why that's wrong. Again, they're not "teaching" gender and sexuality, but you could get into hot water for discussing normal things like that if this bill passes. Kids at age 4,5 and 6 are figuring out on their own that there is a difference between boys and girls, and wonder about that. Why do only girls get to wear certain things or why do only boys get to play with things. They talk about it and their butts and their genitals with their brothers and sisters and classmates in school. Fart jokes and d*ck jokes happen in first and second grade all on their own. Our neighbor's kid talks about their 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced).

There is a nuanced discussion to be had about how to approach sex and gender to young kids in an age appropriate manner when it comes up in school. It's not part of the curriculum, but kids do bring it up. The discussion on how to respond is not a left vs. right thing, but just adults behaving like adults and figuring out what is actually appropriate to discuss with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, a 9 year old.

Most adults would agree that we don't need to have curriculum about gender identity and sex for 4-9 year olds, and they don't have a big problem with that part of the bill. But spouting a media talking point to try and trap your opponents into only talking about a small part of a large bill that has a lot of problems? That's pretty textbook trolling.


Same with the trans discussion. "They're not women and they shouldn't compete in women's sports" isn't a discussion, it's a fixed opinion when in reality there's a very nuanced discussion to be had about at what point someone transitioning is on a level playing field with biological women. And in some sports a level playing field may never happen, and in others it certainly does happen.

[NattyBohChamps04]

... get back to me when there is real proof of wide spread sub-8 year old gender training going on. Kids painting their finger nails is hardly gender training.

Yeah, the tweet is cropped - it happened at Bowie High School.

He's super outraged that high school students are learning that there are gay people in the world and that they deserve to live and it's ok if you're gay! And that kids can paint their nails if they want.

[seacoaster]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

This is why people think you're disingenuous when you bemoan the lack of encouraging discussion. PB comes out with an assertion to shut down discussion, and you +1 him. And you only call out certain people.

And then JHU comes back with a response of "kids aren't being taught sex and gender theory" because they aren't. I'm sure PB will respond with something like "if it's not happening, you shouldn't care about the bill" (ignoring there are a lot of other parts to it) and change the subject to something else.

Now, in the pre-PB, pre-Trump Media days on the board, we may have a thorough and interesting discussion about this, especially because a number of us actually have kids and have dealt with it. For instance there was someone in my kid's kindergarten who was pulling other kids pants down. The teacher has to have a discussion about why we don't pull other people's pants down. It's age-appropriate and simple, something like "people's privates are private." There was another kid who would burst into the bathroom, or touch other kids inappropriately. Teacher has to explain why that's wrong. Again, they're not "teaching" gender and sexuality, but you could get into hot water for discussing normal things like that if this bill passes. Kids at age 4,5 and 6 are figuring out on their own that there is a difference between boys and girls, and wonder about that. Why do only girls get to wear certain things or why do only boys get to play with things. They talk about it and their butts and their genitals with their brothers and sisters and classmates in school. Fart jokes and d*ck jokes happen in first and second grade all on their own. Our neighbor's kid talks about their 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced).

There is a nuanced discussion to be had about how to approach sex and gender to young kids in an age appropriate manner when it comes up in school. It's not part of the curriculum, but kids do bring it up. The discussion on how to respond is not a left vs. right thing, but just adults behaving like adults and figuring out what is actually appropriate to discuss with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, a 9 year old.

Most adults would agree that we don't need to have curriculum about gender identity and sex for 4-9 year olds, and they don't have a big problem with that part of the bill. But spouting a media talking point to try and trap your opponents into only talking about a small part of a large bill that has a lot of problems? That's pretty textbook trolling.


Same with the trans discussion. "They're not women and they shouldn't compete in women's sports" isn't a discussion, it's a fixed opinion when in reality there's a very nuanced discussion to be had about at what point someone transitioning is on a level playing field with biological women. And in some sports a level playing field may never happen, and in others it certainly does happen.

Great post. Thanks.

[Peter Brown]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

This is why people think you're disingenuous when you bemoan the lack of encouraging discussion. PB comes out with an assertion to shut down discussion, and you +1 him. And you only call out certain people.

And then JHU comes back with a response of "kids aren't being taught sex and gender theory" because they aren't. I'm sure PB will respond with something like "if it's not happening, you shouldn't care about the bill" (ignoring there are a lot of other parts to it) and change the subject to something else.

Now, in the pre-PB, pre-Trump Media days on the board, we may have a thorough and interesting discussion about this, especially because a number of us actually have kids and have dealt with it. For instance there was someone in my kid's kindergarten who was pulling other kids pants down. The teacher has to have a discussion about why we don't pull other people's pants down. It's age-appropriate and simple, something like "people's privates are private." There was another kid who would burst into the bathroom, or touch other kids inappropriately. Teacher has to explain why that's wrong. Again, they're not "teaching" gender and sexuality, but you could get into hot water for discussing normal things like that if this bill passes. Kids at age 4,5 and 6 are figuring out on their own that there is a difference between boys and girls, and wonder about that. Why do only girls get to wear certain things or why do only boys get to play with things. They talk about it and their butts and their genitals with their brothers and sisters and classmates in school. Fart jokes and d*ck jokes happen in first and second grade all on their own. Our neighbor's kid talks about their 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced).

There is a nuanced discussion to be had about how to approach sex and gender to young kids in an age appropriate manner when it comes up in school. It's not part of the curriculum, but kids do bring it up. The discussion on how to respond is not a left vs. right thing, but just adults behaving like adults and figuring out what is actually appropriate to discuss with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, a 9 year old.

Most adults would agree that we don't need to have curriculum about gender identity and sex for 4-9 year olds, and they don't have a big problem with that part of the bill. But spouting a media talking point to try and trap your opponents into only talking about a small part of a large bill that has a lot of problems? That's pretty textbook trolling.


Same with the trans discussion. "They're not women and they shouldn't compete in women's sports" isn't a discussion, it's a fixed opinion when in reality there's a very nuanced discussion to be had about at what point someone transitioning is on a level playing field with biological women. And in some sports a level playing field may never happen, and in others it certainly does happen.

How am I ‘shutting down conversation’? I don’t want sex or gender theory taught to young kids. This is true. I think there is a ton that young children can talk about other than age-inappropriate discussions of sex and gender theory, I certainly never had a teacher talk about that with me when I was in kindergarten.

Democrats are bizarrely agitated about Desantis passing a law forbidding teachers from teaching sex and gender theory to REALLY young kids. I think you’ll find that most parents including Democrats in Florida agree with Ron wholeheartedly.

I’d encourage you to keep arguing your point, whatever it is. jhu72 doesn’t have the capacity (no one does) to audit every school and every teacher in Florida, at every moment. We know for a fact that Florida, like every state, has its fair share of lunatic Marxist teachers. We also know for a fact that when left to their own devices, the Democratic Party sadly embraces some incredibly ill-advised Marxist societal disruption, including this very subject.

This law protects kids.

What exactly are you even asking for here? I’d love to know.

[jhu72]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

This is why people think you're disingenuous when you bemoan the lack of encouraging discussion. PB comes out with an assertion to shut down discussion, and you +1 him. And you only call out certain people.

And then JHU comes back with a response of "kids aren't being taught sex and gender theory" because they aren't. I'm sure PB will respond with something like "if it's not happening, you shouldn't care about the bill" (ignoring there are a lot of other parts to it) and change the subject to something else.

Now, in the pre-PB, pre-Trump Media days on the board, we may have a thorough and interesting discussion about this, especially because a number of us actually have kids and have dealt with it. For instance there was someone in my kid's kindergarten who was pulling other kids pants down. The teacher has to have a discussion about why we don't pull other people's pants down. It's age-appropriate and simple, something like "people's privates are private." There was another kid who would burst into the bathroom, or touch other kids inappropriately. Teacher has to explain why that's wrong. Again, they're not "teaching" gender and sexuality, but you could get into hot water for discussing normal things like that if this bill passes. Kids at age 4,5 and 6 are figuring out on their own that there is a difference between boys and girls, and wonder about that. Why do only girls get to wear certain things or why do only boys get to play with things. They talk about it and their butts and their genitals with their brothers and sisters and classmates in school. Fart jokes and d*ck jokes happen in first and second grade all on their own. Our neighbor's kid talks about their 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced).

There is a nuanced discussion to be had about how to approach sex and gender to young kids in an age appropriate manner when it comes up in school. It's not part of the curriculum, but kids do bring it up. The discussion on how to respond is not a left vs. right thing, but just adults behaving like adults and figuring out what is actually appropriate to discuss with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, a 9 year old.

Most adults would agree that we don't need to have curriculum about gender identity and sex for 4-9 year olds, and they don't have a big problem with that part of the bill. But spouting a media talking point to try and trap your opponents into only talking about a small part of a large bill that has a lot of problems? That's pretty textbook trolling.


Same with the trans discussion. "They're not women and they shouldn't compete in women's sports" isn't a discussion, it's a fixed opinion when in reality there's a very nuanced discussion to be had about at what point someone transitioning is on a level playing field with biological women. And in some sports a level playing field may never happen, and in others it certainly does happen.

How am I ‘shutting down conversation’? I don’t want sex or gender theory taught to young kids. That is true.

Democrat are agitated about Desantis passing a law forbidding teachers from teaching sex and gender theory. I think you’ll find that most parents including Democrats in Florida agree with Ron wholeheartedly.

I’d encourage you to keep arguing your point, whatever it is. jhu72 doesn’t have the capacity (no one does) to audit every school and every teacher in Florida, at every moment. We know for a fact that Florida, like every state, has its share of lunatic teachers. We also know for a fact that when left to their own devices, sadly the Democratic Party embraces some incredibly ill-advised societal disruption, including this subject.

This law protects kids.

What exactly are you even asking for here? I’d love to know.

So now you are backtracking. No one has the ability to audit every school and every teacher. So you are admitting that you don't know there is any gender training going on in Florida schools. You are assuming it is going on - "lunatic teachers" don't you know. So what you need is a law that will keep this make believe offense from taking place. Meanwhile you are ok with stigmatizing gay individuals current, and future.

Seems to me (and most sane people) that if this training is taking place in Florida it would be reported by parents. So finding examples should be easy. Also seems pretty obvious that if it is going on and is thought to be harmful there would be cases in the Florida court system, civil court cases. But you can't present any of these. Yup, DeSantis has got a solid case.

[JoeMauer89]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

This is why people think you're disingenuous when you bemoan the lack of encouraging discussion. PB comes out with an assertion to shut down discussion, and you +1 him. And you only call out certain people.

And then JHU comes back with a response of "kids aren't being taught sex and gender theory" because they aren't. I'm sure PB will respond with something like "if it's not happening, you shouldn't care about the bill" (ignoring there are a lot of other parts to it) and change the subject to something else.

Now, in the pre-PB, pre-Trump Media days on the board, we may have a thorough and interesting discussion about this, especially because a number of us actually have kids and have dealt with it. For instance there was someone in my kid's kindergarten who was pulling other kids pants down. The teacher has to have a discussion about why we don't pull other people's pants down. It's age-appropriate and simple, something like "people's privates are private." There was another kid who would burst into the bathroom, or touch other kids inappropriately. Teacher has to explain why that's wrong. Again, they're not "teaching" gender and sexuality, but you could get into hot water for discussing normal things like that if this bill passes. Kids at age 4,5 and 6 are figuring out on their own that there is a difference between boys and girls, and wonder about that. Why do only girls get to wear certain things or why do only boys get to play with things. They talk about it and their butts and their genitals with their brothers and sisters and classmates in school. Fart jokes and d*ck jokes happen in first and second grade all on their own. Our neighbor's kid talks about their 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced).

There is a nuanced discussion to be had about how to approach sex and gender to young kids in an age appropriate manner when it comes up in school. It's not part of the curriculum, but kids do bring it up. The discussion on how to respond is not a left vs. right thing, but just adults behaving like adults and figuring out what is actually appropriate to discuss with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, a 9 year old.

Most adults would agree that we don't need to have curriculum about gender identity and sex for 4-9 year olds, and they don't have a big problem with that part of the bill. But spouting a media talking point to try and trap your opponents into only talking about a small part of a large bill that has a lot of problems? That's pretty textbook trolling.


Same with the trans discussion. "They're not women and they shouldn't compete in women's sports" isn't a discussion, it's a fixed opinion when in reality there's a very nuanced discussion to be had about at what point someone transitioning is on a level playing field with biological women. And in some sports a level playing field may never happen, and in others it certainly does happen.

I think you are reaching when you assume that you could get into hot water for teaching a small child it's not ok to pull down somebody else's pants based on a observable instance of that action versus making it a a full-time portion of their curriculum. PB is saying just as much. That's a life lesson, and to think that it would get you into hot water as a result of this bill is a hyper-politicization of this particular bill. Has nothing at all to do with Trump in my mind, so I can't agree there.

Joe

[Peter Brown]

Kind of feel you’re missing the point. Of all the people you’d ever meet in life who advocates for keeping the government out of the bedroom, that would be me.

What I object to is lunatic leftists trying to get into the bedroom by indoctrinating young school children with sex education and gender theory.

Why leftists demand to teach young kids about sex and gender theory is positively bizarre if not troubling, and it’s also one of many reasons your party is about to be decimated in November. Normal people don’t want school teachers discussing subjects like this with kids who barely know how to tie their shoes.

Nope, the point is you're projecting your own gender obsession. You're the one stirring the pot and non-stop posting about it, while people really just want to be left alone.

You think kids are being indoctrinated because you're pushing for indoctrination yourself. It's all about the projection with you on here.

What am I ‘pushing’ when all I’m asking is for sex and gender theory to not be taught to young schoolchildren?

I guess you could claim I’m pushing for little kids to be able to have a normal life without lunatics telling them about stuff that’s way age-inappropriate. Okay, I suppose that’s true. I do want kids to be kids, so sue me?

+1

Joe

This is why people think you're disingenuous when you bemoan the lack of encouraging discussion. PB comes out with an assertion to shut down discussion, and you +1 him. And you only call out certain people.

And then JHU comes back with a response of "kids aren't being taught sex and gender theory" because they aren't. I'm sure PB will respond with something like "if it's not happening, you shouldn't care about the bill" (ignoring there are a lot of other parts to it) and change the subject to something else.

Now, in the pre-PB, pre-Trump Media days on the board, we may have a thorough and interesting discussion about this, especially because a number of us actually have kids and have dealt with it. For instance there was someone in my kid's kindergarten who was pulling other kids pants down. The teacher has to have a discussion about why we don't pull other people's pants down. It's age-appropriate and simple, something like "people's privates are private." There was another kid who would burst into the bathroom, or touch other kids inappropriately. Teacher has to explain why that's wrong. Again, they're not "teaching" gender and sexuality, but you could get into hot water for discussing normal things like that if this bill passes. Kids at age 4,5 and 6 are figuring out on their own that there is a difference between boys and girls, and wonder about that. Why do only girls get to wear certain things or why do only boys get to play with things. They talk about it and their butts and their genitals with their brothers and sisters and classmates in school. Fart jokes and d*ck jokes happen in first and second grade all on their own. Our neighbor's kid talks about their 2 moms and 2 dads (divorced).

There is a nuanced discussion to be had about how to approach sex and gender to young kids in an age appropriate manner when it comes up in school. It's not part of the curriculum, but kids do bring it up. The discussion on how to respond is not a left vs. right thing, but just adults behaving like adults and figuring out what is actually appropriate to discuss with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, a 9 year old.

Most adults would agree that we don't need to have curriculum about gender identity and sex for 4-9 year olds, and they don't have a big problem with that part of the bill. But spouting a media talking point to try and trap your opponents into only talking about a small part of a large bill that has a lot of problems? That's pretty textbook trolling.


Same with the trans discussion. "They're not women and they shouldn't compete in women's sports" isn't a discussion, it's a fixed opinion when in reality there's a very nuanced discussion to be had about at what point someone transitioning is on a level playing field with biological women. And in some sports a level playing field may never happen, and in others it certainly does happen.

How am I ‘shutting down conversation’? I don’t want sex or gender theory taught to young kids. That is true.

Democrat are agitated about Desantis passing a law forbidding teachers from teaching sex and gender theory. I think you’ll find that most parents including Democrats in Florida agree with Ron wholeheartedly.

I’d encourage you to keep arguing your point, whatever it is. jhu72 doesn’t have the capacity (no one does) to audit every school and every teacher in Florida, at every moment. We know for a fact that Florida, like every state, has its share of lunatic teachers. We also know for a fact that when left to their own devices, sadly the Democratic Party embraces some incredibly ill-advised societal disruption, including this subject.

This law protects kids.

What exactly are you even asking for here? I’d love to know.

So now you are backtracking. No one has the ability to audit every school and every teacher. So you are admitting that you don't know there is any gender training going on in Florida schools. You are assuming it is going on - "lunatic teachers". So what you need is a law that will keep this make believe offense from taking place. Meanwhile you are ok with stigmatizing gay individuals current, and future.

Seems to me (and most sane people) that if this training is taking place in Florida it would be reported by parents. So finding examples should be easy. Also seems pretty obvious that if it is going on and is thought to be harmful there would be cases in the Florida court system, civil court cases. But you can't present any of these. Yup, DeSantis has got a solid case.

The Senate just passed a bill that criminalizes lynching punishable by up to 30 years in prison. President Biden is expected to sign it. When was the last lynching in America? Are there cases in the federal court system of lynching right now?

We pass laws all the time when there are zero active cases of the possible harms posed by offenders. You’re agitated because this bill is basically an anti-Democratic Party and Union bill. Left to their own devices with no pushback, schools would be dominated by Marxist lunatics in no time flat.

Go follow “Libs of Tik Tok” on Twitter to see the unrelenting insanity of teaching in states controlled by Democrats.

Desantis and Republicans are simply protecting American kids. Even Floridian Democrat parents (not in a union or leadership position) are supporting this bill. It’s simply bizarre that you elect to fight it.

[RedFromMI]

The last lynching case depends on how exactly you define lynching (a definition which has changed over time).

One case that _can_ be considered lynching happened in 2020: Ahmaud Arbery.

A pair of more clear cut cases occurred in 2011 (Jackson Hinds murdered, ten convicted of hate crimes) and 1998 (James Byrd, Jr murdered, three convicted - one life sentences and two executions carried out).

[a fan]

Go follow “Libs of Tik Tok” on Twitter to see the unrelenting insanity of teaching in states controlled by Democrats.

Pete once again relying on "some guy on the internet" for his "news".

If it's on Tik tok, it must be true, right Petey? You deserve the leaders your asking for, Petey----they create a fake issue, and you lap it up without question. As usual, you didn't learn a thing from the Covington Catholic video. So you think some guy on tik tok is going to level with you, with no slant, and tell you the whole story.

Meanwhile, Florida government is 10% larger than it was before DeSantis arrived. And with it? Higher taxes.

Does Pete care? Nope.....and why? Because he's not actually a conservative, and dabbles, instead, in fake nonsense issues that have no basis in reality.

Do you know why sex ed is important in Florida, Pete? Because among other things, it helps to prevent STDs, which are reaching record numbers in parts of Florida. It also lowers the number of unwanted pregnancies...something that conservatives are SUPPOSED to be behind.

So instead of looking into the nuts and bolts of the issue? Petey goes to Tik Tok.

Smart. Way to go, Pete.

[runrussellrun]

Desantis and Republicans are simply protecting American kids. Even Floridian Democrat parents (not in a union or leadership position) are supporting this bill. It’s simply bizarre that you elect to fight it.

ummm.....aren't there many, many, many, references..........to online "lynching" , or something similar, that type of rhetoric ? even the "feeling" of being "lynched", by a hurtful twatt, like when cool as heck Obama read on a late nite tv show......just such a cool cat

so, there's that...... or, maybe not.

glad Congress has tyme to listen to lobbyists pushing this VITAL bill.....because the timing couldn't have been more perfect for this very important ...umm, issue.

murder is murder, isn't it? If a human (S), with deliberate intent, killed a green human....ya know them greenies....does it really matter the method ? the life IS still gone. a life taken, with intent. Burned, shot, run over, dragged, chewed up, whipped, etc.

not sure what this "law" is trying to solve, or "prevent".

Who knows, maybe Juicy Smollette lawyers found the treatment records for frostbite, at, or around, the tyme where the "lynching", b/c, anyone where JUST boreball style hats, ears totally expossed, would definately get frostbite, with the temps being what they were....unless, they were sitting in a running car....and they were "tracking" Juicy.......planned it. The "fact" that maga hat folks walked around the "windy" city, disregarding the weather and temps, in search of some black people to bleach and throw a noose around.....and, by chance, like Dave Chappelle said, "....they ain't watching Empire..."......

so silly. ........

[NattyBohChamps04]

I think you are reaching when you assume that you could get into hot water for teaching a small child it's not ok to pull down somebody else's pants based on a observable instance of that action versus making it a a full-time portion of their curriculum. PB is saying just as much. That's a life lesson, and to think that it would get you into hot water as a result of this bill is a hyper-politicization of this particular bill. Has nothing at all to do with Trump in my mind, so I can't agree there.

Joe

Doesn't matter what I or PB think, it matters what the law is and what lawsuits parents will bring when a teacher makes a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity in any context. Plenty of parents out there willing to sue over nearly anything as we've seen recently. In the end it comes down to censorship of ideas that can be discussed in general and in an age-appropriate manner if they're brought up IMHO.

My mention of Trump was that the board was a lot more discussion focused and civil pre-Trump. It was more moderated back then on the old site for good and bad. The divisiveness that was stoked after Trump was elected lead to people coming on here to troll and regularly say inflammatory stuff about half of America and the posters. Lots of lying and disinformation. A lot of the regular discussion-focused posters left when the trolling and divisiveness ramped up.

[jhu72]

There are currently open lynching cases (hanging by rope) active at the FBI (from California in June 2020). But you also likely don't understand the meaning of lynching. It does not require hanging by rope. Murder by any means of an individual wrongly / falsely or not accused of a crime by a mob. The most recent member of the club is Ahmaud Arbery, 2020, accused of burglary, hunted down and shot by three white peckerwoods.

You don't have to be black to be lynched. Even a good old boy like you can be lynched. So recent lynching law is not analogous to your Don't Say Gay bill. There is a history of this behavior and recent to boot.

SO NOW BACK TO THE DISCUSSION (nice try with the diversion )

So you think it is a good idea to just pass laws, for situations that don't exist. Criminalize something that there is no evidence for. I thought you wanted smaller government - guess not. What could go wrong? Of course the fact that this law terrorizes, stigmatizes gays doesn't bother you. You and your governor are not trusted by the gay community in Florida or anywhere else in the USA. But that doesn't matter, to attempt to score a political point, show how tough you are in protecting "kids" from a mythical situation, pandering to your bigoted supporters, you would terrorize and stigmatize these gay individuals.

You fool no one with your claimed intent. Your true intent is seen and recognized by everyone but for the truly clueless.

[JoeMauer89]

I think you are reaching when you assume that you could get into hot water for teaching a small child it's not ok to pull down somebody else's pants based on a observable instance of that action versus making it a a full-time portion of their curriculum. PB is saying just as much. That's a life lesson, and to think that it would get you into hot water as a result of this bill is a hyper-politicization of this particular bill. Has nothing at all to do with Trump in my mind, so I can't agree there.

Joe

Doesn't matter what I or PB think, it matters what the law is and what lawsuits parents will bring when a teacher makes a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity in any context. Plenty of parents out there willing to sue over nearly anything as we've seen recently. In the end it comes down to censorship of ideas that can be discussed in general and in an age-appropriate manner if they're brought up IMHO.

My mention of Trump was that the board was a lot more discussion focused and civil pre-Trump. It was more moderated back then on the old site for good and bad. The divisiveness that was stoked after Trump was elected lead to people coming on here to troll and regularly say inflammatory stuff about half of America and the posters. Lots of lying and disinformation. A lot of the regular discussion-focused posters left when the trolling and divisiveness ramped up.

Regarding, Pre-Trump, I wasn't a regular poster but perused the forums under a different name and it wasn't all that different. We will agree to disagree here. It's always been an insulated mindset in the Politics thread and if you are on the wrong side of it then watch out. It's a shame. There are no "real" trolls in here. There's a certain subset of posters on her that wouldn't know what to do if they actually came across a real "troll.

Joe

[runrussellrun]

There are currently open lynching cases (hanging by rope) active at the FBI (from California in June 2020). But you also likely don't understand the meaning of lynching. It does not require hanging by rope. Murder by any means of an individual wrongly / falsely or not accused of a crime by a mob. The most recent member of the club is Ahmaud Arbery, 2020, accused of burglary, hunted down and shot by three white peckerwoods.

You don't have to be black to be lynched. Even a good old boy like you can be lynched. So recent lynching law is not analogous to your Don't Say Gay bill. There is a history of this behavior and recent to boot.

SO NOW BACK TO THE DISCUSSION (nice try with the diversion )

So you think it is a good idea to just pass laws, for situations that don't exist. Criminalize something that there is no evidence for. I thought you wanted smaller government - guess not. What could go wrong? Of course the fact that this law terrorizes, stigmatizes gays doesn't bother you. You and your governor are not trusted by the gay community in Florida or anywhere else in the USA. But that doesn't matter, to attempt to score a political point, show how tough you are in protecting "kids" from a mythical situation, pandering to your bigoted supporters, you would terrorize and stigmatize these gay individuals.

You fool no one with your claimed intent. Your true intent is seen and recognized by everyone but for the truly clueless.

" NO.....Winthorp......we can't...we just can't " , Johns yells. Winthorp, hands and arms to the side, utters, "well, why the Fp not ? "

Johns, shrugs.......thinking to himself, 'mahn, HE truly IS a mouthbreather'....finally replying, " you get 30 years, that IS why...you fool. We'll kill him another way".


better be careful here......if the "law" focuses on the NUMBERS of humans involved in a murder, where does this place gang violence and muliticop tazer and beat downs? How about a horse trampling an elderly woman?....or rather, horses.

.in long, think the guys intial response might have suggested the "timing" of the vote, the "why now" question ?

I am still wondering WHO this protects? And if 3 "people" carjack my car, killing me in the process, that IS considered a "lynching" ?

[Peter Brown]

I think you are reaching when you assume that you could get into hot water for teaching a small child it's not ok to pull down somebody else's pants based on a observable instance of that action versus making it a a full-time portion of their curriculum. PB is saying just as much. That's a life lesson, and to think that it would get you into hot water as a result of this bill is a hyper-politicization of this particular bill. Has nothing at all to do with Trump in my mind, so I can't agree there.

Joe

Doesn't matter what I or PB think, it matters what the law is and what lawsuits parents will bring when a teacher makes a mention of sexual orientation or gender identity in any context. Plenty of parents out there willing to sue over nearly anything as we've seen recently. In the end it comes down to censorship of ideas that can be discussed in general and in an age-appropriate manner if they're brought up IMHO.

My mention of Trump was that the board was a lot more discussion focused and civil pre-Trump. It was more moderated back then on the old site for good and bad. The divisiveness that was stoked after Trump was elected lead to people coming on here to troll and regularly say inflammatory stuff about half of America and the posters. Lots of lying and disinformation. A lot of the regular discussion-focused posters left when the trolling and divisiveness ramped up.

Regarding, Pre-Trump, I wasn't a regular poster but perused the forums under a different name and it wasn't all that different. We will agree to disagree here. It's always been an insulated mindset in the Politics thread and if you are on the wrong side of it then watch out. It's a shame. There are no "real" trolls in here. There's a certain subset of posters on her that wouldn't know what to do if they actually came across a real "troll.

Joe

You should spend a few minutes reading this longish article called “The smug style in American liberalism”, in Vox no less!! It’s from 2016, but it’s even more true today.

The articles message reminds me so much of the Fanlax left.

Though you couldn’t characterize my life as blue collar, there’s zero doubt my character and outlook is blue collar, if not slightly southern redneck, the opposite what I sense from many here.

Some moneyshot paragraphs:

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.

It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.


The trouble is that stupid hicks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest.

As anybody who has gone through a particularly nasty breakup knows, disdain cultivated in the aftermath of a divide quickly exceeds the original grievance. You lose somebody. You blame them. Soon, the blame is reason enough to keep them at a distance, the excuse to drive them even further away.

Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecym

Nothing is more confounding to the smug style than the fact that the average Republican is better educated and has a higher IQ than the average Democrat. That for every overpowered study finding superior liberal open-mindedness and intellect and knowledge, there is one to suggest that Republicans have the better of these qualities.

Most damning, perhaps, to the fancy liberal self-conception: Republicans score higher in susceptibility to persuasion. They are willing to change their minds more often.

The Republican coalition tends toward the center: educated enough, smart enough, informed enough.

The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further. They will choose the smug style.

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/ ... liberalism

[a fan]

Though you couldn’t characterize my life as blue collar, there’s zero doubt my character and outlook is blue collar, if not slightly southern redneck, the opposite what I sense from many here.

In other words, you're a big phony. Just like Trump. Inherent money from Daddy, attend a socialist College because you didn't work hard enough to get accepted to a private school....and yet you think you're blue collar and a man of the people. Sounds like the Republican party alright.

Whatcha doing to help the working man when you give money to yet another politician who has NO IDEA how to help them, Pete?

So far you've got: make Florida government 10% bigger, and then act like no one has to pay for this larger government. Oh, and pretend that that's not a liberal policy because DeSantis has a R by his name.

Hypocrite and a phony, Pete.

The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further. They will choose the smug style.

Yeah, that doesn't matter, Pete. The libs don't need these rural voters. It's the other way around. The rural voters need liberal policies, and money from the libs who live in these big cities.

And at some point? The libs are going to get sick of carrying them, and cut the money off.

Then what, Pete? What's your plan for rural Americans, Pete? The answer until now has been to make government bigger every single time a Republican is in charge, and shovel money to them, like McConnell did under Trump....and then act like they EARNED that money. Nope. They borrowed that money, and handed the tab to folks who live in cities.

What happens when the libs call their bluff, and start cutting government? What happens when they expose the unskilled workers in America to the global free market for labor, Pete?

You don't know. You have NO CLUE how to fix that. So you rattle on about gay people and swimming. Telling us that "oh boy, now we're going to get into power". So what? All you're going to do is fleece these Americans that you pretend to care about, and buy a third vacation home, or another....what did you call it?.....oh yeah, "corporate life coach".

[tech37]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

Perhaps you didn't want to reply or missed this? A couple older articles that raise concerns with ACLU and seem to jibe with the Common Sense piece:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

The Disintegration of the ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... s-kirchick

[Peter Brown]

Though you couldn’t characterize my life as blue collar, there’s zero doubt my character and outlook is blue collar, if not slightly southern redneck, the opposite what I sense from many here.

In other words, you're a big phony. Just like Trump. Inherent money from Daddy, attend a socialist College because you didn't work hard enough to get accepted to a private school....and yet you think you're blue collar and a man of the people. Sounds like the Republican party alright.

Whatcha doing to help the working man when you give money to yet another politician who has NO IDEA how to help them, Pete?

So far you've got: make Florida government 10% bigger, and then act like no one has to pay for this larger government. Oh, and pretend that that's not a liberal policy because DeSantis has a R by his name.

Hypocrite and a phony, Pete.

The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further. They will choose the smug style.

Yeah, that doesn't matter, Pete. The libs don't need these rural voters. It's the other way around. The rural voters need liberal policies, and money from the libs who live in these big cities.

And at some point? The libs are going to get sick of carrying them, and cut the money off.

Then what, Pete? What's your plan for rural Americans, Pete? The answer until now has been to make government bigger every single time a Republican is in charge, and shovel money to them, like McConnell did under Trump....and then act like they EARNED that money. Nope. They borrowed that money, and handed the tab to folks who live in cities.

What happens when the libs call their bluff, and start cutting government? What happens when they expose the unskilled workers in America to the global free market for labor, Pete?

You don't know. You have NO CLUE how to fix that. So you rattle on about gay people and swimming. Telling us that "oh boy, now we're going to get into power". So what? All you're going to do is fleece these Americans that you pretend to care about, and buy a third vacation home, or another....what did you call it?.....oh yeah, "corporate life coach".

You really need to read that article a few more times. Preferably alone, with no external distractions. Think it over.

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/ ... liberalism

[seacoaster]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

Perhaps you didn't want to reply or missed this? A couple older articles that raise concerns with ACLU and seem to jibe with the Common Sense piece:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

The Disintegration of the ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... s-kirchick

Missed both of those; thanks.