A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
I interpret the inscription to be paying tribute to the soldiers of the confederacy, essentially traitors. Rip it down, but do it very very carefully. They better be damn sure they're not going to disturb resting heroes.
The fact that you interpret the monument's inscription incorrectly does not mean it should be torn down.
The fact that one person read it that way, or as at least ambiguous, actually does support it being torn down. Regardless, it'll be gone soon.
One person misinterpreting something does not set the meaning. Take the song Under the Blade by twisted sister, Tipper Gore on her censorship quest, claimed it was a violent song. In truth she was a pearl clutching idiot that didn't know song was about guitarist Eddie Ojeda having surgery.
I have no idea what to do here. All I know is that it's going to be a shit show if I don't do something.
Can you guys be civil? This is a monument to unification, not rebellion.
Fuck it, consider this a warning to everyone who comments here, do not call for violence. Do not pretend the confederacy was good. Slavery and war crimes are bad. Those who comment otherwise will get the ban hammer.
So clearly you’re going to support its removal, because we are a union now and we can replace it with another thing celebrating how great our union is now and not celebrating some of the darkest times in our country’s history.
Let’s see some support for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and not this “it’s about unification” traitor crap you’re saying now.
If keeping this post up is “pro-conservative” and “anti-left” then you’re making a bold statement you can’t just wash away with that “slavery is bad” lip service. We know what you are.
It's not celebrating the confederacy, it already is celebrating how great our union is now ("Now" being when it was put up). Did you read the article?
And the "pro-conservative/anti-left" angle is that it's literally conserving a part of our history, the reunification, and the left are the ones trying to push for the destruction of monuments. Not really what I meant by pro-conservative, but it still counts.
I did notice that the issue you had with the confederacy was that it was a rebellion, and not the slavery. You repeated rebellion/traitor over several sentences, you didn't even mention slavery. Is rebellion worse than slavery, in your opinion?
Never actually said the word “rebellion,” as you suggest. Called you a traitor specifically. Only once, not repeatedly. Did you actually read the comment? I don’t need to bring up all the points of the civil war, I think we all know those by now. This is all about you being a traitor and a hypocrite. Stay on topic.
Again, is rebellion worse than slavery, in your opinion?
Stop deflecting.
We’re talking about you and your refusal to say “I don’t support anything the confederacy stood for.”
Do it.
Look, the reason I think you're being disingenuous is I explicitly stated "Do not pretend the confederacy was good." To me, that's a clear indication that I don't support the confederacy. So to just be absolutely clear, I do not support slavery, slavery is evil, and I think what you're asking is a trap somehow, even if I can't spot exactly how it's a trap.
And that goes doubly so that you're still deflecting. Is rebellion worse than slavery?
I don’t support anything the confederacy stood for. See? Easy. Do it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
https://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/2020/03/three-myths-of-false-leftist-narrative.html
The parties didn't really switch. Voting patterns changed.
The Democrats lost focus of the working class people. They did offer some support to unions but the south isn't very union.
The Republicans pushed the idea you can outgrow your situation and that message went over well in the south.
Quite literally all of those "myths" were addressed by your first link, which as I quoted, said the switch occurred.
But when the democrats or the reason they claimed.
Except it doesn't. It represents the exact opposite, that the fight against evil was won.
So no, I'm not taking it down.
They aren’t “heroes” as the statue would suggest.
Good. I hate this movement to just go tearing down statues.
It's a statue for traitors.
OK and? That doesn't negate what I said