The NAACP announced Monday the group will not invite President Donald Trump to its national convention next month in Charlotte, North Carolina, the first time the prominent civil rights organization has opted to exclude a sitting president in its 116-year history.

NAACP President Derrick Johnson announced the move at an afternoon press conference, accusing Trump of working against its mission.

“This has nothing to do with political party,” Johnson said in a statement. “Our mission is to advance civil rights, and the current president has made clear that his mission is to eliminate civil rights.”

  • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    36
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The group also noted that Republican President Ronald Reagan accepted its invitation during his first year in office. Civil rights leaders had criticized Reagan’s use during the 1980 campaign of the term “welfare queen” to refer to people abusing federal aid. The term was viewed by many as coded racial language for Black women.

    He certainly meant all the white welfare queens! /s

    I will now quote Lee Atwater in 1981, apologies for the offensive terminology, but these shitheads speak this way:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “N----r, n----r, n----r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n----r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N----r, n----r.”

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

    Gosh, I wonder if they’re (repubs) racist…?

    • Admiral Patrick
      shield
      M
      link
      fedilink
      37
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      This comment was reported for containing racial slurs. First off, thanks, good call.

      That said, taking things into context and the fact that they’re part of a direct quote providing historical context, I’m allowing the comment to remain for now for that reason.

      @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org If you wouldn’t mind masking out the slurs (e.g. n----r), I think that might satisfy any potential concerns with regard to automods, content filters, or misunderstandings without diluting the gravity of the context it’s providing.

        • thermal_shock
          link
          fedilink
          English
          73 days ago

          You did fine before the edit. Nothing wrong quoting ass holes showing they’re ass holes and shitty ways of thinking.

      • @Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        103 days ago

        I prefer quotes to be as close to the original as possible. Hurtful as it is. That’s kind of the point here.

        Censoring the bad shit that happened before is a sure way to repeat it. See holocaust denial for the extreme. Don’t deny talking about the past just because it hurts.

        • Admiral PatrickM
          link
          fedilink
          12 days ago

          Yep, I totally agree with you. Just trying to address it head on while also appeasing as many viewpoints as possible.

      • Rikudou_Sage
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 days ago

        Just FYI, that report from the automod is just that, a report, it’s up to the human moderators to decide whether it’s fine in the context or not, it wasn’t meant as something that should be taken action on in each and every case.