2623
Comments (401)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
5
Friendly_B 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't understand your meaning about the party switch myth. They were calling Rs racists before Twitter. Can you expand on that?

9
fallhollow 9 points ago +9 / -0

PragerU has a good video on the myth of the party switch on youtube

6
Long_time_lurker 6 points ago +6 / -0

The Democrats founded the KKK and filibustered the Civil Rights Act, in addition to splitting off from the Democrat-Republican party to support slavery. They deny this history via the magic of the "party switch" in which the Republicans magically became the real racists.

My deconstruction of that is to point out that "racism" meant different things, i.e. they were cool with racism when it meant burning crosses and murdering people, but only changed their minds when mean words on Twitter and similar things became "racist".

Other examples of (neo) "racism" include math, milk, the OK sign, etc. All of which you can find articles on from the MSM.

5
Brlove0915 5 points ago +5 / -0

There's a claim out there that the parties switched ideologies at some unspecified date. The fairy tale says that on some magical date all Repubs became Dems and all Dems became Repubs, all at the same time for some unspecified "reasons." It's ridiculous.

2
Friendly_B 2 points ago +2 / -0

When I've gotten into discussions in the past to try and point this out, they will pivot and say that "it happened incrementally" and not all at once. This is to try and get around the discrepancies of multiple decades of contradictions. So having some earlier dates and much later dates in your timeline helps because they can only think in terms of the biggest, most celebrated cultural touchstones. Before and after these moments it's all in flux for them so you need to pin the timeline down in a few points so they can picture it all at once.