[icanhackit]

> Saying you don't understand because you don't agree

You can't make an assessment about whether you agree if you don't understand - the latter must must happen before the former can come to pass. It would either be the case that you don't understand because the explanation is complex or it contains logical fallacies...the latter applies to your statement above.

> is like saying you don't understand why a homosexaul is homosexual.

It's fine to say you don't understand why a homosexual is homosexual - however it's not fine to impose restrictions, punishment, violence or torment for what goes on between consenting adults. You're allowed to find it odd or not to your taste, but you're expected to live and let live.

> Last time I checked, that's called "bigotry"

Bigotry is intolerance stemming from a preconceived opinion that isn't based on reason or experience. And I'd agree that the liberal/progressive side can exhibit such intolerance - I've been on the receiving end despite considering myself progressive. But if we're going talk about the old classics like racism, homophobia, and sexism -- the conservative side knows the art better than any.

[wooter]

> But if we're going talk about the old classics like racism, homophobia, and sexism -- the conservative side knows the art better than any.

Lincoln, a Republican, abolished slavery. And Roosevelt, a Democrat, interned Japanese Americans.

[learc83]

He said "conservative". You think Lincoln was a conservative? The Democrat's decision to support civil rights and the Republican southern strategy shift to appeal to voters who opposed civil rights radically altered both parties. The Republican party shares a name with the Party of Lincoln, but that's about it.

[talmand]

If you look at the vote totals you'll see that far more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats and that far more Democrats voted against it than Republicans. The Democrats did not suddenly decide to support civil rights since the majority of the opponents of such policies were Democrats. Much of the violence against blacks you see from that era were committed by Democrats. I seriously doubt there were Democrats out beating blacks for demanding civil rights one day and literally the next day they were voting for civil rights.

That situation was far more nuanced than the idea that millions of people with opposing viewpoints across the entirety of the country suddenly agreed with each other to switch parties.

As for the southern strategy, there is the viewpoint that getting people to vote for you doesn't automatically mean you accept and enforce their ideologies. They just become "useful idiots" for your cause. Although, I disagree with the premise of the strategy because it would have the side effect of fostering racial divide. But I have the advantage of hindsight in that matter.

[justinlaster]

He literally just explained this. Democrats then are not the same Democrats now.

The people (southern whites) that committed violence against blacks who were democrats back then, are very, very likely to be Republican these days.

[talmand]

So, the rest of the Republicans across the country outside of the South that voted for Civil Rights just went along with this change and accepted the role of being the "racist" party? Because that's the claim.

[justinlaster]

Except it's not.

[_delirium]

At the time, region predicted support more than party: northern Democrats and Republicans voted for the civil rights act, while southern Democrats and Republicans voted against it. With a handful of exceptions on both sides.

[talmand]

That is likely true, but the common claim is that the entirety of the Republicans are the "racist" party. This requires that all Republicans suddenly decided to reverse themselves within a short time period. Your statement is probably the closest to what was going on at the time instead of the usual blanket generalizations that skip over the facts of the era.

[michaelbuddy]

giving some alternative facts again are we?

[jjaredsimpson]

Because political labels from 150 and 80 years ago are clearly relevant.