Why are Republicans so reluctant to talk about slavery?

[msc545]

https://jezebel.com/nikki-haley-calls-voter-who-asked-her-about-civil-war-a-1851128651

[RealMarek]

They’re not, but Nikki Haley is an absolute numbskull shill for the defense industry who recently called for a ban on online anonymity and has made various other ridiculous statements and claims. If Trump is forced off the ballot and Haley is somehow nominated most Republicans will boycott the election.

[OlderAndWiser]

Lincoln was a Republican and he talked about slavery frequently!

[msc545]

Sadly, you were making the same mistake here that is frequently deliberately made by the right wing. Specifically, you failed to elucidate the difference between Republicans and democrats in the present day and those in the past.

You were taking advantage of a name change and a change in positions that occurred in the past.

I think you know better than to do something like this.

[OlderAndWiser]

So you are saying that Lincoln is like a current day Democrat?

[msc545]

I'm unclear as to how you reach that conclusion. Please explain.

[OlderAndWiser]

It was not a conclusion. It was a question. You chastised me for stating that Lincoln was a Republican so I am inquiring about the thinking behind that criticism.

[msc545]

You need to specify the differences between the Republican party of today and that of 175 years ago, and the same for the Democratic party. Otherwise, whatever you say is misleading.

[Daniela1982]

Because it is in the past. Why are Democrats so reluctant to talk about girls being sold into the sex trade. I wonder how many of them went to Jeff Epstein's Island for sex with underage girls?

[milyjohn]

Which of these two titles would make more sense:

"Why are Republicans so reluctant to talk about slavery?"

"Why is Nikki Haley so reluctant to talk about slavery?"

[milyjohn]

@Drewtate
I don't know if he's either. But he did once say he was a Muslim.

[Drewtate]

He sure bombed a lot of Muslims

[msc545]

Both are true. You like false equivalencies, don't you?

[milyjohn]

Who?

[msc545]

YOU!!

[milyjohn]

When there are three people on a thread, it would behoove you to @ mention who you are talking to.
And you might also want to define what you're talking about.
Are you able to lay it out in simple terms? False equivalent?

[msc545]

Almost everyone here but you understands what a false equivalence is. Google is your friend in this regard.

Do you need help in learning how to use Google?

[Drewtate]

@milyjohn he gets confused

[msc545]

No. Drew, I don't get confused at all. I'm very clear about who and what I'm responding to. What? I am a little confused about actually now that I think about it is what the hell you're doing on this thread.

[milyjohn]

Do you think that Nikki Haley represents the other hundred million Republicans?

[msc545]

No idea and don't care.

[Joshydavid25]

Why talk about it at all.. I happen well over a century ago, and at that time many people around the world were enslaved.. America actually turned out to be one of the better places for former enslaved people..

[slatyb]

It was and still is a major force in American History.

[Joshydavid25]

@slatyb As a descendants of slaves... No it's not.. We are long past slavery, and even though yes some of its effects are still present, I mean for the most part it doesn't affect us. Slavery was a result of what was normal around the world at the time..

[slatyb]

Right, and systemic racism has disappeared from the United States? We're still seeing the echoes of slavery and institutional racism.

[Joshydavid25]

@slatyb The Chinese in Malaysia are "institutionally" discriminated against, and yet they seem to be doing better than the Malaysians.. The Jews in many places were also discriminated against and still thrived.. In fact even in America straight after slavery the 3 first millionaires in the "Black" community and among women were "Black" women.. Not to mention in places like Atlanta many of the legislation is "Black".. They are the system.. What's holding "Black" people back is our culture and mindset.. Not Slavery..

[FunkyMonkee]

Why do you WANT to talk about it? Slavery here was at least 100 years ago! Sounds to me like democrats STILL want it back!! How often do you still hear Jews talking about the good old days of the holocaust?

[RedInnocent68]

Because it hurts their feelings. ‘But Lincoln freed the slaves’ only gets you so far. Most know damn good and well that back then they would’ve fought for the Confederacy. Traitors! Just like today…

[Anonymous]

My ancestors were slaves. It's over. I don't see anything to talk about.

[slatyb]

They want to bring it back

[goaded]

No, just pretend it wasn't a big deal and they're wealthier because they're superior, not because there was a century of treating black people as sub-human.

The Holocaust, on the other hand...

[slatyb]

@goaded Trump: "I am your retribution" -- how much scarier could it get?

[Kingofkings1992]

Wow, I am in awe of the stupidity

[milyjohn]

@Kingofkings1992
If we could just harness it, we wouldn’t need wind turbines, or solar.

[msc545]

@milyjohn or coal. or oil-burning power.

[Drewtate]

They already freed the slaves. Why are Democrats unwilling to discuss their role in slavery, Jim crow, segregation and the KKK?

Joe Biden for instance refused to support desegregation and was buddies with kkk members.

[milyjohn]

I wonder if CRT addresses those things. lol

[Soteris]

No you have not. Read the 13th amendment, slavery is still alive and well in USA. It is quite frankly disgusting and it only gets worse when you try defend your practices by arguing that it does not matter because they are criminals. As if they are somehow no longer people and can be enslaved freely. Either humans have rights, or they do not, you should stop being so hypocritical.

[Soteris]

@milyjohn I mean, that is literally what CRT is so yes.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris

CRT teaches that Democrats are willing to discuss their role in slavery, Jim crow, segregation and the KKK?

[Soteris]

@milyjohn CRT is about examining history, its laws and effects on society in relations to race and racism so yes that also includes Democrats, Jim Crow and the KKK.

[Soteris]

@drewtate
At least we dont have legalized slavery.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris
That's good! I want kids to know about Democrats and their racism.

[Soteris]

@milyjohn So you want kids to learn CRT? Sounds a bit premature for a university subject but I guess it could be squeezed in somewhere.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris
That's already happening. Even Disney is getting in on it..

[Soteris]

@milyjohn Disney sounds very unlikely. They never take any controversial positions because it would hurt their businesses.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris

Are you really that out of touch?

[Soteris]

@milyjohn I would say the same to you.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris

"They never take any controversial positions"

Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a joke?

[Soteris]

@milyjohn Nope. It pretty much explains every position and decision that Disney has taken in particular. Disney is literally the best in the world on this and would never do such a newbie mistake.

[milyjohn]

Type this into the YouTube search

Proud family slaves built this country

[Soteris]

@milyjohn Did it. You do not want to know what kind of results came up. Just for future reference, youtube searches are based on the information google has collected on your viewing habits. As such, my results are going to be vastly different from yours.

Also, who unironically searches for "proud" in this context? Such a weird (and possibly disturbing) way to phrase it.

[msc545]

Evidence - or just your opinion?

[milyjohn]

@Soteris
"Proud Family" is the name of the cartoon.

I don't know why you can't find that while using the YouTube search. Copy and paste it. lol

[milyjohn]

@msc545

I asked him to check out a cartoon. He claims he can't find it. Can you find it?

[msc545]

@milyjohn here: www.youtube.com/results

[milyjohn]

The Proud Family: Slaves (African Americans) Built This Country America

[milyjohn]

Copying and pasting is fairly easy

[msc545]

@milyjohn Read it (if you can read ) and you won't need to wonder.

[Soteris]

@milyjohn I just got a bunch of videos of youtubers arguing over history (more specifically the civil war). No cartoons on the first 15 results at least and I stopped looking after that since the titles of the videos were not even close to what I searched for.

Looking at the video I am not entirely sure about what your point is however.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris

@milyjohn Disney sounds very unlikely. They never take any controversial positions because it would hurt their businesses.

I just pasted this into a YouTube search and it was the very first thing to come up.

This is why I don't like to give links. You will never be able to see what you don't want to see.

[Soteris]

@milyjohn An outlier like that is not really considered as a Disney property compared to for example the little mermaid or whatever. Besides, its not even a particularly controversial position in the first place. USA is a left leaning country speaking from the population so statements like those would not be controversial to their core audience even if it was part of their big releases.

[Sasahara]

@milyjohn Don’t you know, Disney is so good at avoiding controversies they had to change their original stance regarding DeSantis’s don’t say gay bill, and Disney staff did a strike
www.cnn.com/.../index.html
Their original stance was totally not controversial amoung leftists

Disney’s live action Mulan being filmed near internment camps were also not a controversial choice
www.forbes.com/.../

And an more internal example, Bob Iger made a comment that mentioned a white horse (just ctrl f white horse in this link to find it) www.cnbc.com/.../...ccession-mess-iger-chapek.html that was so uncontroversial he had to apologize for an hour next day to make up for it

Or perhaps they actually are able to make controversial decisions. Yeah I think you are right, they might make some controversial decisions here and there.

[milyjohn]

@Sasahara
Please don't tell the guy who's taken a dump in Sweden. :)

[Soteris]

@milyjohn You can think something is wrong or even harmful to people without it being controversial. They are not mutually exclusive. Also, having thousands of people cancel their service is a rounding error for their profits. They would not even notice it unless you told them.

[milyjohn]

@Soteris

Let me go get my hip waders on. LOL

[Soteris]

@Sasahara
The Florida debacle is actually a very good example of just how committed Disney is to not be controversial. They (along with many other corporations) have done surveys to determine that support for LGBTQ is beneficial for their businesses, hence why everyone raises a pride flag every year. However because of the Republicans arbitrary outrage machine which targets things seemingly at random they became the target of Ron DenSantis from out of nowhere.

Disneys response to being targeted by Republican outrage has been to more or less write off Disney World entirely. It was a decision between keeping their famous theme park or going against their own market analysis regarding the support for LGBTQ and they choose to basically burn the park down. Not because they are ideologically supportive of LGBTQ but because they believe there is more profit in supporting this group than there is in Disney World.

This is the kind of cold blooded profit calculations Disney is known for. They have no problems throwing away decades and billions of dollars today if it makes economic sense in the future.

Disneys work on Mulan and in regards to China is another great example of their efforts to be uncontroversial. You are just not the audience for them in this case, China is. Maintaining a public face to both USA and China at the same time is basically impossible but Disney has more or less done so. Its obviously not perfect, if one side finds out what Disney says to the other they generally gets super upset but on the whole this has allowed Disney to access Chinese fans and even open a Disney themepark in China.

You are failing to acknowledge that Disney has somehow successfully managed to have its cake and eat it as well.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris So they are so good at not being controversial, they had to change their original statement regarding the Don’t say gay bill, because leftists found it controversial?

"In response to the current controversy, LGBTQ staff at Pixar, the animation studio owned by Disney, wrote in an open letter: “We at Pixar have personally witnessed beautiful stories, full of diverse characters, come back from Disney corporate reviews shaved down to crumbs of what they once were.

“Nearly every moment of overtly gay affection is cut at Disney’s behest, regardless of when there is protest from both the creative teams and executive leadership at Pixar. Even if creating LGBTQIA+ content was the answer to fixing the discriminatory legislation in the world, we are being barred from creating it. Beyond the ‘inspiring content’ that we aren’t even allowed to create, we require action.”"
www.theguardian.com/.../disney-faces-backlash-lgbtq-controversy-dont-say-gay-bill-florida

I’m just posting examples of things their leftist target audience apparently don’t find controversal.
I guess their staff took a strike because the company made an non-controversial decision.

Regarding the Mulan thing, leftists still found it controversial. Just bevause it ain’t controversial to China does not mean the leftists you consider their target audience didn’t find it controversial.

Another nontroversy, their casting for Nani in the upcoming Lilo & Stitch remake seems to be very popular.
www.cbr.com/.../

[milyjohn]

@Sasahara

Wow. Go easy on him. He's unarmed. lol

Ah... yes... we have

Mickey Mouse
Goofy
Minnie Mouse
Simba
Winnie-the-Pooh

And now...

Children, listen to me. White kids are all monsters that don't deserve to live.

But that's not controversial at all.

[Soteris]

@Sasahara AHAHAHA! Oh my, that is fucking hilarious! Of course the corporate leadership of Disney would mercilessly cut down "diverse characters" and all that, have you not heard what I have been saying? Disney is a profit driven machine, it is amoral, heartless, apolitical and uncompromising. Every major expression of support for one thing or another is calculated and follows the internal surveys and projections. They dont just simply let their writers and staff express themselves through art, everything must fall within the company oversight.

I already told you, they are the most uncontroversial company in the world. That is because they carefully pick and choose when and where to be controversial, not that they avoid it all together. They are completely fine with burning the public relations with entire countries if they find a benefit in it, just like how they have abandoned Florida thanks to Ron DeSantis. But they always do it in favor of a bigger picture, a larger group, a case where doing the opposite would be more controversial.

It is quite telling that your examples of Disney being "controversial" boils down to them making lukewarm statements and people being upset they are not harsher.

But again, look at the results. The fact that Disney is so widely accepted in both USA and China is a damn near miracle, especially after they had already completely alienated China by making the Kundon movie. Disneys widespread success across the world can only be achieved by carefully maintaining irreconcilable internal contradictions. Something that would be impossible if they were truly controversial in any one place beyond the pathetic examples you have shown.

[Soteris]

@milyjohn Then tell me dear miss, why does no one care?

[Sasahara]

@Soteris I have heard what you said. Your comment I disagreed with was they they never take any controversial positions.
Now you changed it to "That is because they carefully pick and choose when and where to be controversial, not that they avoid it all together. "
If they never took any controversial positions they would have avoided it alltogether.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you write yourself.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris if "Disney sounds very unlikely. They never take any controversial positions because it would hurt their businesses." Were true, then "…they carefully pick and choose when and where to be controversial, not that they avoid it all together." would not be needed. They would have avoided it all together by not choosing to be controversial anywere. So which of your own statements do you feel is wrong?

[Soteris]

@Sasahara *rolls eyes* Oh yes, I chose those words very carefully because I knew it would annoy you. After all, your type loves to be the victim and always tries to twist a situation to where the world is against you.

The very notion that a company the size of Disney within the entertainment industry could "never take any controversial positions" is utterly ludicrous. Even if they never opened their mouth to say literally anything, that in itself would be seen as controversial to some people. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. The thing you should have learned by now is that there is an art to this.

But I guess you are just too caught up in your own biases that you think that if only Disney was not controversial from YOUR point of view then everything would be fine. So childish.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris I disagreed with the notion that they NEVER pick controversial stances. As you said yourself. Have fun disagreeing with yourself.

Had you gone with the pick and choose right away I would not have disagreed with you here.
I’m not the childish one going back on my own words.

[Soteris]

@Sasahara Controversy is subjective. My statement is still true, just not in the way you thought it was. The essence of what I said is that Disney does not alienate their target audience with controversy, which is true, even if a minority of people find what they are doing controversial, which is unavoidable since literally every action and inaction they can make is controversial to someone.

It is not my fault that you are naive enough not to understand what I am saying, even when I explain it multiple times.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris "Disney sounds very unlikely. They never take any controversial positions because it would hurt their businesses." And "they carefully pick and choose when and where to be controversial, not that they avoid it all together." are mutually exclusive. If they pick and choose where they are controversial, they are controversial.
Its your fault for not writing what you mean and can’t own up to it.

[milyjohn]

@Sasahara

Liberals will jump through their own ass to assure you that young kids are being shielded from CRT, and that it's only offered at the college level.

Then I present a cartoon on Disney Plus that teaches white kids that they're monsters, and the Swede is now defending the cartoon! lol

[Soteris]

@Sasahara Is it really contradictory? If Controvery is subjective then would that not make that statement "They never take any [subjectively bad] positions because it would hurt their businesses" and "they carefully pick and choose when and where to be [subjectively bad] (when it benefits their business), because they can't avoid it all together."?

Sounds coherent enough for me.

[Soteris]

@milyjohn If you think that cartoon teaches white kids that they are monsters then you could probably do with watching more cartoons to learn what monsters actually are because that ain't it chief.

[Sasahara]

@milyjohn He also blames me for taking him at his word when he said they never pick a controversial opinion.

@Soteris Yes its really that contradictory. You said never. By saying never, you are saying they avoid it. And changed it to sometimes pick and choose. I disagree with never. I do not disagree they pick and choose.

[Soteris]

@Sasahara Do I really need to bring out the crayons here?

Lets say we have a perfect universe. In it we have a company. They make a choice that some of their customers disagree with but most of them agree with and the company makes a huge profit. Can you argue that this choice is controversial for the company?

[Sasahara]

@Soteris I could but if I were to, I would say the some find it controversial, I would not word it as the company never make controversial decisions only to change my wording after being called out on it. And I would not say I worded myself the wrong way to annoy some people. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and you seem to struggle with the difference between never doing something controversial, and pick and choose when to do something controversial.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris And just to cut the chase, you ain’t going to convibce me never doing something controversial and sometimes doing something controversial is the same thing. Because they are not.

If you never do something, you don’t carefully pick and choose when you do it who you it to. You simply don’t do it.

[milyjohn]

@Sashahara

He says that Disney doesn’t do anything controversial, then, when you prove him wrong, he just deflects.

[Sasahara]

@milyjohn I have noticed, I’m jusy really stubborn too.

[Soteris]

@Sasahara Here we go again. You can't make a choice that is truly uncontroversial, its all relative. Even if we used my previous argument then somehow magically appeasing everyone still means the company loses out on the massive profit which is controversial from the business perspective since that is literally the purpose of the company.

Making choices that purely benefits the company is as such uncontroversial from their point of view even if there are some people who disagree. None of the examples you have provided are controversial from Disneys perspective, since they always stand to gain from each and every one of them. This is what I was talking about. Disney has more or less made the best possible business decisions even if it has made a negligible amount of people unhappy.

It is a corporation and their choices have always furthered the goals and been to the benefit of themselves which by any sane standard makes it uncontroversial.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris Its not uncontroversial just because their standard benefits them. And never taking a position thats controversial and picking and choosing whem they do it are mutualy exclusive no matter how much you wrangle it, your original statement stands the same.

[Soteris]

@Sasahara I dont know what to tell you, your definition of "uncontroversial" is so bad that it can never be used in reality. There has never existed, and never will exist a situation where you can use it by your insane standards which just feels like you are using the word wrong, which you are.

[Sasahara]

@Soteris You can tell me you are just unable to admit your original statement is wrong.
I did you the favor of asking a question about your statements
Do you you think these two statements are mutually exclusive, written the way they are? ↗

So far the only answerer agrees that "They never take any controversial positions because it would hurt their businesses." And "they carefully pick and choose when and where to be controversial, not that they avoid it all together." are mutually exclusive statements.

You can’t both never be controversial and not avoid it all together.

[Sasahara]

@milyjohn Get a load of this, apparently a definition of uncontroversial that says that never doing something controversial and picking and choosing where and when to be controversial are unrealistic. And Disney is apparently unable to be controversial, despite it being perfectly possible to dig up crap leftists find controversial about them.

I guess the leftists who used hashtags like #BoycottDisney #DisneySayGay #DisneyDoBetter #BoycottDisneyPlus after Disney’s original statement would be wrong to feel that their original comment was controversial, and apparentlym took a strike for no reason, and that Disney probably wasted their time changing that non-controversial statement

[milyjohn]

@Sasahara

This is all very simple, so I’ll explain it to you. There once was a fairytale named sleeping beauty. The wicked witch gave her a poison apple to sleeping beauty, and she went into a coma.
The only thing that could bring sleeping beauty back to life, was a kiss from Prince charming. But the brilliant woke said that promoted rape culture. So Disney World had to cancel their sleeping beauty exhibit.

But when Disney+ hosted the cartoon that taught white children that they’re racist, and they owe money to Black people., the woke love that.

In the land of the woke, everything good is bad, and everything bad is good.

Poisoning children’s minds with CRT
is good. 100 year old fairytales that have a happy ending, are bad.

I am actually in awe of the woke. Imagine such a small group of people controlling the minds of liberals.

If the woke decided that the sky is red, the left would accept it and embrace it.

So, to say that Disney doesn’t do anything controversial, is kind of wacky, Children’s fairytales are controversial in the eyes of Disney.

[msc545]

@drewtate Because we are not going to collude with you or promote your lies.

[Drewtate]

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulne­ss while telling carefully constructe­d lies, to hold simultaneo­usly two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradict­ory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy.

[Soteris]

@Sasahara By my definition they are not mutually exclusive. Never was, even including my deceptive way of phrasing it.

[Anonymous]

We aren't just when you deny having anything to do with it just like the Nazis

[Anonymous]

I don't know much about Democrats or Republicans

[KrakenAttackin]

Bro, haven't we talked slavery to deeth?

[AngryCarl]

Because they want to reintroduce it, obv.