A Trump-nominated federal judge has halted the removal of the Reconciliation Monument in Arlington National Cemetery, which the cemetery indicated Saturday would otherwise take place by week's end. While the iconoclasts have been momentarily restrained, the fate of the historic monument, also ca...
  • Throwaway@lemm.eeM
    25·
    11 months ago

    Whats the trap?

    I feel like that specific wording is key to the trap. Maybe I’m just paranoid.

    But fuck it, I’ll walk into the trap and take the bait.

    I don’t support anything the confederacy stood for.

    Your turn. Is rebellion worse than slavery?

    • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      51·
      11 months ago

      Only in the case where the rebellion is fighting for slavery and not against it.

      There is no trap.

      So take the post down, because if you don’t you’re saying it’s pro-conservative (by your own rules) and that conservatives support the confederacy.

      This type of thing shouldn’t even be talked about. The statue represents a fight for evil.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
        35·
        11 months ago

        The statue represents a fight for evil.

        You correct. It represents the Democrats and their attempt to keep slavery. It’s exactly why it should be kept to remind people that the Democrats fought for slavery and continue to divide people by race even now.

        • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
          41·
          11 months ago

          It represents the Democrats and their attempt to keep slavery

          The slavery-loving, anti-civil rights malignancy that were the Southern Democrats shifted over to the Republican party, beginning with the contemptuous Strom Thurmond after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          The heritage of the Lost Cause is in the Republican party these days.

            • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
              4·
              11 months ago

              The article basically argues that the switch did happen, but it’s hard to say it’s because of racist sentiments.

              Does this mean that a change in white voters’ perceptions of the parties’ racial sympathies, particularly in the South, is the only explanation for the long-term switch that occurred in this demographics’ party loyalty from the 1960s to today? Certainly not. Univariate explanations for shifts in the political landscape are always tempting. But race-related policies and prejudices are but one explosive factor in the multifaceted set of causes that have led American politics to evolve as they have.

              Like…yeah, but the racists still moved over to the Republican party. It may not have been because they were racists, but the switch still happened nonetheless, and they took their racist views with them.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                25·
                11 months ago

                Not really. Which party still wants to divide people into races? The Democrats. The Democrats is all about dividing people into groups that are not important. People should be treated as people and not classifications.

                • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
                  4·
                  11 months ago

                  Not really what?

                  The Democrats is all about dividing people into groups that are not important. People should be treated as people and not classifications.

                  Divisions of the world aren’t inherently bad either. A foreign national as a national security risk is a useful categorization in some contexts. But if you’re just hanging out with people and talking to your Indian friend, it’d be unnecessary to classify him as such. Similarly, racial categories are arguably useful in some contexts. If I were a doctor, I might be concerned about high blood pressure in an African American patient. The context matter for categorizing people in the first place which categories should be used.

                  Because if people should be treated as people, then why should anyone be denied entry into the country? What is the point of a border but to keep people on the other side out? What is the basis for exclusion if people are just people?

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            25·
            11 months ago

            Here is a partial list ( there were alot of dems that voted no and I got lazy) of racists democrats that voted against the civil rights act of 1964 and when they stopped being reps/senators.  If the parties switched these guys wouldn’t be representing the racists democrats into the 90’s.

            George William Andrews 1972 Robert Emmett Jones 1972 Armistead Selden 1968 Wilbur Mills 1976 James Trimble 1966 Robert Sikes 1978 Charles Edward Bennett 1992 Dante Fascell 1992 Paul Rogers 1978 Don Fuqua 1986 Sam Gibbons 1996 George Hagan 1972 Phillip Landrum 1976 Robert Stephens 1976 William Natcher 1994 Joseph Waggonner 1978 Otto Passman 1976 Gillis Long 1986 Jamie Whitten 1994 Lawrence Fountain 1982 David Newton Henderson 1976 Roy Taylor 1976 Joseph Evins 1976 John Patman 1976 Herbert Roberts 1980 Olin Teague 1978 William Poage 1978 James Claude Wright 1989

            • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
              3·
              11 months ago

              The article wintermute_oregon linked mentions that the switch took place over, well, that it didn’t happen immediately. The article I linked said it took place over time:

              Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, another 13 Democrats in the South – one in the Senate and a dozen in the House – also bolted to the GOP. Most of those came since the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994.

              So, yeah, fine.

      • Throwaway@lemm.eeM
        26·
        11 months ago

        Except it doesn’t. It represents the exact opposite, that the fight against evil was won.

        So no, I’m not taking it down.