https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/us/politics/sierra-club-s...
This appears to be part of a greater pattern of semi-bipartisan organizations veering to the left and losing credibility.
It's only partisan if the other side is racist. And in that case I see no issue with taking the anti-racist side.
Racism is a societal ill, so it will express itself through many channels in society, and it will be embedded in the systems that we institute (just like other biases and attitudes do). Therefore identifying racism even when it isn't explicit or flagrant is pretty common and reasonable thing to do.
I don't think I've ever run into anti-racists who are trying to invent issues, or discover racism where there is none.
"Anti-racist" is a term associated with extremist identity politics progressives which views all things through the lens of race and gives race primacy in all decisions. Many non-racist people see the anti-racists as being just the mirror image of the racists.
Racism is bad. Being non-racist is good. Declaring your organization to have "anti-racism" as a core focus puts it in the partisan, progressive or "woke" category.
They could say they don't tolerate racism or that they include everyone or they don't discriminate and that would be non partisan and uncontroversial.
Why does the word "anti-racism" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for racism, but for some reason, using the "anti" word makes you upset.
That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, progressive people moght be more inclined to use "anti-racism" than conservatives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase.
It seems you have no issue with the contents of anti-racism, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it.
That is not a good reason to oppose it.
Civilized people on the left are also pro-American. Is pro-American really a partisan issue to you?
It's only partisan if the other side is anti-American. And in that case I see no issue with taking the pro-American side.
If anything is extremist, it's painting "pro-American" as a partisan activity. That's something I only see far-left politicians do.
Why does the word "pro-American" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for pro-Americanism, but for some reason, using the "pro" word makes you upset.
That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, conservative people moght be more inclined to use "pro-America" than progressives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase.
It seems you have no issue with the contents of pro-American, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it.
That is not a good reason to oppose it.
Ostensible names are just that, ostensible. They do not always describe reality and are often chosen to mislead. With woke antiracists, that is exactly the case.
I've seen "antiracist" lecturers say kindly silly little things like "white people are born to not being human", an "antiracist" teacher saying white people are born human, but invariably abused by their parents "into whiteness". The torrent of absolutely blatant anti-white racism from these sorts of people is comical in its proportion, and neverending. Their every campaign is "we'll include sparkles everyone sparkles (NOT YOU), so join us at..."
Somehow, it's hard to take the epithet seriously. I wonder why.
Civilized people on the left are also pro-American. Is pro-American really a partisan issue to you?
It's only partisan if the other side is anti-American. And in that case I see no issue with taking the pro-American side.
If anything is extremist, it's painting "pro-American" as a partisan activity. That's something I only see far-left politicians do.
Why does the word "pro-American" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for pro-Americanism, but for some reason, using the "pro" word makes you upset.
That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, conservative people moght be more inclined to use "pro-America" than progressives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase.
It seems you have no issue with the contents of pro-American, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it.
That is not a good reason to oppose it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Sullivan_(columnist)#...
The detractors here keep vague-posting and it's very pathetic.
I can see that the addition of what may be possible social commentary to the EFF's mission may rub some the wrong way, but I can't see a meaning in which "for all the people of the world" is some coded message for a "woke agenda" or whatever. What about that addendum is political? Should the EFF only support "freedom, justice, and innovation" for some people of the world? For some, the assumption that "no, of course it means all people" is a certain naivety that reminds me of not understanding what "all lives matter" actually means.
There is a conscious effort to focus more directly and consistently on helping groups that are seen as oppressed.
There was an associated mission statement change sometime around 2015
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all the people of the world.
(The "for all the people of the world" part is doing a lot of work there.)