You say that like it’s a bad thing. 
I’ve never once heard any one put forth the argument that a crass society was invented out of necessity. Nor do I think this crassness was realized over the dead bodies of “conservatives,” who are frequently found barreling the wrong way on parking lot lanes, making clumsy turns in their oversized vehicles, and trying to cram them into “compact only” spots because they are loathe to carry their fat, conservative asses more than a yard at a time by foot. They are found shoving their way through lines, yelling at clerks and waiters, leaving bad tips, and talking in over-loud voices. They are found posting off-topic and hateful remarks on the newspaper websites of the world, often descending into racism, sexism, homophobia, and a general whining protest of entitlement, outrage, and disgust with everything. Do a careful accounting of who has abandoned the social niceties, and who has compromised civility, before you heave that stone.
Not true. Most conservatives throughout the country readily saw and agreed with civil and women’s rights. What they opposed was some of the methods suggested or legislated in order to achieive them.
Liberals, as is their wont, eagerly embraced any and every attempt, even the idiotic and dishonest ones, that was suggested (no, demanded) in order to to try to acheive these goals.
Then, whenever some conservative posed the question as to whether forced busing was the best way to force segregation, or whether there was truly no difference between men and women, they were reviled and insulted for even daring to pose the question.
The same is going on today with regard to gay rights. A person can be in favor of gay rights but if he or she doesn’t fully and unthinkingly embrace every suggestion made to acheive them, they get called names and reviled as bigots.
IMO, if the left would attempt to correct the injustices inherent in these issues by trying to educate people to the realities that exist in regard to these issues instead of insisting upon mindless acceptance of every effort or suggestion that sees the light of day, they would meet with much less resistance and the change they seek would happen much sooner.
The way you operate now, and the way you’ve been operating since the late sixties, makes it look like you’re doing little but seeking out a perch from which to look down upon everyone else and call them names.
Without a cite for this folks will assume that you’re making things up.
I lived through the early '60s. Conservatives were all for civil rights - but the civil rights of restaurant owners to exclude black people outweighed the rights of black people to eat there. Integrating colleges was fine, but not as important as the rights of the states to prevent it. Even Barry Goldwater, generally a good guy, was more than happy to give up equal rights for states rights.
If some conservatives believed that racism or sexism was wrong but they were willing to sit quietly and allow racists and sexists to do what they wanted, then those conservatives were either cowards or hypocrites. The liberals may have made some mistakes but at least they were willing to stand up for what they believed in.
Still waiting.
You’ll be waiting for a long time.
Expecting Godot to show up would be more realistic.
Agreed. If I can do drugs and get laid and listen to rock music and still do my job better than anyone else, what business is it of yours?
Pack lunch.
My favorite part of this bullshit, so far, is the whole “Most conservatives…opposed …the methods suggested or legislated in order to achieive [civil and women’s rights]” argument.
How does this differ, in any substantial way, from “conservatives vigorously opposed these rights on principle but saw advantange in voicing their opposition merely to the methods used to gain these rights, since there would necessarily be some method employed, and they could always advocate the slowest and least effective methods while still claiming to favor the rights themselves, which they actually hated like poison”?
There was a lot of fantasizing in the Fifties, too.
It differs in that you don’t allow for the possibility that someone can, intellectually honestly, take this position.
So your premise is “anyone who opposes any form of civil rights legislation is secretly racist - now tell me how anyone who opposes any particular civil rights legislation isn’t racist!” - you’re assuming the conclusion.
Some people can be entirely not racist and still think it’s not the role of government to force social change by law - that’s a defensible, honest position - but you’ve already labelled such a person a secret racist.
from Starving artist
Sure. The method they wanted everyone to follow was shut up and wait your turn - which was not ever going to come as long as they were in charge.
No, I allow for the possibility. I used to hold this position myself–when I was eight years old. I was a very sincere 8 year old, but I gradually came to realize that most people who thought this way were merely paying lip service to the concept of equality and would have voted in a monarchy if they thought they could get away with it. But I admired how nicely they had insultated themselves against any charges of opposing civil rights themselves. “Attack the methods” was in a perverted way sorta brilliant as a strategy.
Oh yeah. That’s why they created the “Dixiecrat” party, the entire platform of which, was “Segregation!!!” :rolleyes:
Please.
Really? You had a sophisticated position on the position of government authority within a Constitutional Republic and the implications of the effects of attempting to legally create social change?
Or… you want to say “nyah nyah, people who disagree with me think like 8 year olds”?
You may be correct in that a lot of current conservatives who opposed civil rights legislation because they’re racist may not be saying “no, I opposed it on principle” - but you draw no distinction between people who legitimately believed that the civil rights act was an unoptimal or illegitimate use of government power and secret racists. You imply that the former don’t even exist - that there isn’t any possible legitimate opposition to the civil rights act based on political philosophy about the role of government, or about what the best way of dealing with racism was.
I dream of the day when people knock off this revision of civil rights history.
To take the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if you break it down by party, it’s roughly even. Republican legislators supported it in about the same numbers as Democrats.
So liberals shouldn’t claim the bulk of credit for civil rights? Conservatives were just as on-board?
Not exactly…
If you look at the breakout by geography, the act was overwhelmingly opposed by southerners of both parties, and overwhelmingly supported by northerners of both parties. Cite.
Southern Democrats called themselves the conservatives of their party. And the Republicans who supported civil rights were invariably in the self-described moderate wing (many the so-called ‘Rockfeller Republicans’ - George H. W. Bush was one.). You can make your ‘angels-on-a-pin’ arguments that these conservatives were not ‘true conservatives’, but you’re revising history when you do that. People who supported the act were calling for federal government intervention. And this intervention was often cited by opponents as a reason for their opposition.
So the claim that Republicans were just as much in favor of civil rights is true, but specious in proving that conservatives were also in favor, since it took place before conservative Democrats began to switch to the Republican party.
It was overwhelmingly liberals in the 1960s who called for government intervention in the cause of civil rights, and conservatives who opposed them.
I honestly wonder if 20 years from now, conservatives will be claiming that they were always the ones pushing for gay rights.
I was one of the lefties marching and fighting for civil rights about 50 years ago. The reason was simple. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of their color . It hurt the whole country to hold back a race. It lessens us as a people. It is wrong. People are people and they should not have their rights diminished by the country, whether they are blacks, women or gays.
It was a serious fight. People died trying to get fair treatment . If you were in a march ,you would be amazed how nasty they could be. It was not just something to do or a lark. I resent your snotty attitude about something you know nothing about.
How much sophistication does it take to think “I like a strong authority in charge to make sure people do like they’re supposed to do”?
I don’t think there are enough of the former to matter–once they realized that their sincere position is being severely undermined by all the people claiming to be genuinely concerned about how recklessly legislation is being enacted but who actually opposed the principle of civil rights (and that’s most of those who espoused those views, IMO,) they had the option of denouncing them and rethinking what their “conservative” position truly represented or accepting that they were less enlightened than they were giving themselves credit for. Either way, there’s not much to respect.