[Turing_Machine]

Ah, now we're playing the "selective quoting out of context" game. He said that he had based his Dixiecrat views on state's rights, not racism.

Why do you believe Byrd and not him?

Edit: given that they've both been dead for quite a while, I doubt that either Thurmond or Byrd is involved in much racist activity today.

[paulv]

No, we're playing the "you moved the goalposts" game. This started with your intellectually dishonest claims about Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd.

"States' rights" is a dog whistle phrase for racism.

[Turing_Machine]

No, I did not.

Why don't you provide the full quotes, in context? You didn't even provide a source for your quotes. Convenient.

You have absolutely no room to be calling someone else "intellectually dishonest".

Edit: if this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.

[ceejayoz]

> Edit: if this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.

It's always interesting to me how technologically literate HNers suddenly forget how to use a search engine when they don't want to acknowledge a point. It took me like 15 seconds to Google. Bottom half of the page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UjO6L2hv0mIC&pg=PA341&lpg=...

[Turing_Machine]

Oh, I found that one, but the quote isn't sourced there either, and this appears to be a hit piece biography of Thurmond. Even taking it at face value, the quote is grossly taken out of context, just as I said.

"I don't have anything to apologize for. I don't have any regrets. I may have said some things that I could have left off, because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment. Race should not enter into it. It's merit that counts."

In any case, I'm not trying to claim that Thurmond wasn't a racist, no matter how much you'd like to pretend that I am. Strom Thurmond absolutely was a racist. So was Byrd. Both later denied it (Byrd with his "change of heart", Thurmond with his "state''s rights" argument). But, oddly, only Byrd's denial is given credence. Why?

Edit: given the full, in context quote, the source appears to be: http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/13/met_233245.s...

Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation." So much for Thurmond never having repudiated it. That's literally the second sentence in the piece.

"Intellectual dishonesty", indeed.

[ceejayoz]

> Oh, I found that one...

You said:

> If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.

You then dismiss it as a "hit piece", apparently out of nowhere - the author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bass) appears reputable and I can't find anything Googling that indicates it was controversial in any way.

> Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."

It has been pointed out to you elsewhere that the "state's rights" pivot is something of a dog whistle - moving away from explicit support for racial segregation was a political necessity (see also: the famous Atwater quote in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).

The significant difference between Thurmond and Byrd is, IMO, the level of contrition. "No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing", especially when the latter comes with demonstrable action to right the injustices.

[Turing_Machine]

"If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it."

Your book link does not describe it as a "1998 interview", and in fact doesn't cite the original source at all.

And no, I don't just dismiss it as a "hit piece". I dismiss it because Thurmond claims to have given up segregation in the very next sentence. Thus making paulv's claim that these "quotes" show that Thurmond never repudiated segregation clueless at best, and likely actively dishonest.

"No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing","

It is if the "apologies" aren't sincere.

[paulv]

> You have absolutely no room to be calling someone else "intellectually dishonest".

* You did know that Clinton called Byrd a "friend and mentor" but didn't know that Byrd repeatedly & profusely apologized for his racism.

* You did know that Thurmond "apologized" for his racism but didn't know that Thurmond didn't really mean it.

* You call me out for not providing a source (which ceejayoz provided below) but ignored purephase's request for you to provide a source above.

Not to mention that we started this thread with your (incorrect) claims about Byrd + Clinton but now we're talking about Thurmond.

Convenient. Maybe next time you should try googling for a few minutes before you press submit.

[Turing_Machine]

>You did know that Clinton called Byrd a "friend and mentor" but didn't know that Byrd repeatedly & profusely apologized for his racism.

No, actually, I did know that. I just didn't believe him at the time, and still don't.

>You did know that Thurmond "apologized" for his racism but didn't know that Thurmond didn't really mean it.

According to whom? You?

> You call me out for not providing a source (which ceejayoz provided below)

A source which a) showed that your "quotes" were grossly out of context and b) when tracked back to its actual source showed that Thurmond did repudiate his segregationist stance.

> Not to mention that we started this thread with your (incorrect) claims about Byrd + Clinton but now we're talking about Thurmond.

1) No, this thread started with Thurmond.

2) My original claims about Byrd were:

a) Hillary Clinton called him a "friend and mentor" and a man of "eloquence and nobility". That is correct. I even provided a link to the video of her saying it.

b) Robert Byrd was a Kleagle (recruiter) in the KKK. That is also correct. He was also later the Exalted Cyclops (head) of his local chapter.

c) Byrd once wrote "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." That is also correct.

I can only conclude that by "incorrect" you mean "100% correct".

If you have any factual links to refute any of those claims, please provide them. Not "Well, he later said he was sorry, yadda-yadda".

Are a), b) and c) above factually correct or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

> Maybe next time you should try googling for a few minutes before you press submit.

Maybe you should try reading for a few minutes before you press submit.

[paulv]

Despite his repeated apologies and support of legislation that helped people of color, you're not willing to believe that Byrd was genuine when he apologized. But you do believe Thurmond was genuine. Okay.

It has become clear that this conversation is a waste of my time.

[Turing_Machine]

>But you do believe Thurmond was genuine.

I believe nothing of the sort. I explicitly said "Thurmond absolutely was a racist." How is that not clear?

You are, to be blunt, lying. Hint: that doesn't actually work when my original words are here for all to read. I would recommend sticking to out of context quoting from obscure sources in future.

I take it, then, that you can't refute my factual statements, despite declaring them to be "incorrect", repeatedly?

You cited Thurmond's "I have nothing to apologize for" out of context as evidence that he never claimed to have given up segregationist views, even though when (laboriously) tracked down to its original source, his very next sentence was in fact just such a claim.

And you have the nerve to call someone else "intellectually dishonest".

> It has become clear that this conversation is a waste of my time.

Agreed.