Want to talk about racism?
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
you started the argument with the lengthy comment. are you unhappy that the south had so many racists from the democrat party and continues to have them today? because the comment does not address todays democrats accusing anyone that opposes them of being racist which is what this post is being critical of by pointing out their history that they love to ignore. and looking at your comment, the dems are calling todays christians racists regardless of the history of being pro slavery.
I didn't realize this was supposed to be an argument. I was viewing it as conversation and the sharing of ideas. Even those ideas that don't agree with others.
I apologize for the length of my post. I grew up pre-twitter, and forget that a huge chunk of the population are accustomed to only reading tweets and memes and dislike reading long posts.
I did address how today's Democrats automatically label Republicans as racists and how I sympathized with how tiring that is. You seem to have missed that in my long post.
I'm unhappy that people play identity politics with people who lived 160 years ago. I'm also unhappy that you seem to have missed my entire point.
As much as people like to deny it, there ARE Christians who are Democrats, so they are apparently calling themselves racists?
There is a definite problem today of people thinking in absolutes. Such as the idea that ALL Democrats are exactly like. And ALL Christians are Conservative. Or that because someone disagrees with you over ONE issue, they MUST disagree with you on ALL issues.
Did you really miss the entire point of my post, or are you simply ignoring it in favor of getting angry over things you take issue with? Because you really seem angry that I don't agree with the idea that Democrats of 160 years ago and the Democrats of today have the same ideals.
ok, but this sounds like typical liberal response to being called out. "the parties have changed" oh, but you say they arent.
Lincoln did what he had to do to fight slavery, as that was the major platform he ran on to become president. are you saying the south was correct to secede from the union on states rights grounds? I would say they did the right thing. which would make the civil war not about slavery but states rights. and the left loves to claim anyone that thinks the civil war was not about slavery is a racist. so there is that.
do you REALLY think christians that support the socialist policies of todays democrat party are actually christians? is someone that murders fetuses for convenience really a christian?
I think your comment is more about revealing who you are as opposed to arguing the actual point of the original post here. maybe have a relook at both. maybe it is you that is missing the point. this is not the first time our paths have crossed on this forum, and for similar reasons.
I really don't know what you're trying to say in much of this.
No, I 100% have stated that the parties of 160 year's ago aren't the same as the parties of today. It's ridiculous to think that any parties political platform hasn't changed in 160 years.
I think you've confused me saying that the parties haven't "switched" with me saying they haven't changed. Many liberals like to say that the political parties "switched" platforms during the 1950s, when "dixiecrats" were a thing. That the Democrats of the 1860s were the conservatives of the time and the Republicans the liberals. And that the parties "switched" when civil rights issues in the 1950s and 1960s split the Southern Democrats up. I don't believe the parties switched ideals. I think they just changed over time.
I'm not arguing in favor or against anything Lincoln did or did not do here. I'm not making arguments in favor or against the Civil War. And I'm not the least bit interested in arguing about it here now. It wasn't the topic.
What I was doing in pointing out that Lincoln instituted income and inheritance tax and pressing federal over state is to show how different the Republican party of the 1860s is from today's Republicans.
It's hypocritical to say that Democrats of today are racist because the Democrats of the 1860s were racist, and then ignore that the Republicans of today have little in common with Republicans of the 1860s. That is the point I was making, which you apparently missed.
Just as you seem to have ignored the entire reason I pointed out how the Southern Christians of the 1860s approved of slavery. I don't do the "true Christian" gambit. It's just a variation of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It's not up to me to determine who is or is not a "true Christian". 50 years ago, a large percentage of the population thought those who were in favor of divorce weren't "true Christians". That has changed drastically today.
I'm not sure if you really don't understand the points I've made, or if you're just using it as a springboard to shift the argument to other topics just because you don't like that I don't agree with the premise that "Democrats today are racist because Democrats in the 1860s were racist".
Maybe you should also go back and read my posts and pay attention to what I said, and not jump to conclusions on what my stance is on other topics.
Quite simply, what I was saying was "Hey, you can't say the Democrats of today are racist because Democrats 160 years ago were racist and then ignore how drastically different Republicans today are from Republicans 160 years ago. Because that's nothing but sheer hypocrisy. So let's not be hypocrites."
Ok, short answer to your original comment. Democrats are still as racist as they were in the 1860's. They have not changed. You don't like that? Does it strike close to home? Sorry. For someone that doesn't want an argument, you sure are sounding like that monty python skit. And sorry if my communication skills are not on par with yours. Your original comment here is really nonsense to me.