Comment by djur
4 years ago
I was critical of this at the time because it associated Ginsburg with a viewpoint that she may not have held, but there's nothing Orwellian about that. People smooth over the rough edges of their historical idols all the time. There's virtually nobody who quotes the US founders who is actually advocating for the precise same set of values and institutions those founders supported.
> advocating for the precise same set of values
The problem isn't advocacy, but quoting. They did use [brackets], so I hesitate to call the quote outright falsified, but since brackets are intended only for clarification, their use in this case is definitely deceptive.
> People smooth over the rough edges of their historical idols all the time.
They shouldn't tell lies about history. If a particular historical figure said something, say what they said, and don't put false words in their mouth.
Do you not understand that what ACLU did was showing deliberate contempt for the idea of truth itself?
> There's virtually nobody who quotes the US founders who is actually advocating for the precise same set of values and institutions those founders supported.
Yes, and that's fine, provided they quote them accurately and not deliberately misquote them.
> People smooth over the rough edges of their historical idols all the time
What exactly needs "smoothing over" in a quote about the female body, using the proper female pronouns, regarding something only females are capable of: that is, childbearing and childbirth?
Perhaps instead of 95%+ of society being admonished into not offending anyone based on today's ever-changing what-can-we-think-of-to-correct-you-for next, the 5% should learn to be a little less sensitive. When we raise children that cry about everything, good parenting typically involves lovingly, but firmly, teaching the child to not be so sensitive. Imagine if the child instead "raised" the parents by conditioning them into catering to their every tantrum?