The Libertarian Party (New Hampshire branch) highlights their 'anti-woke' stance to EXTREME degrees.

"Repeal the Civil Rights Act."

"End Affirmative Action."

"Cease federal and state school funding."

Yup, they said the quiet parts out loud. And highlights my and many other problems with the 'anti-woke' movement. Wow! Just... wow!

The example in the OP of "saying the quiet part out loud," is depressing. Here's a funnier example to brighten your day and provide some balance to the thread:

rofl wtf?

@zaryia: Libertarians have been in favor of most of these proposals since at least the 1990s. There was a user on here, maybe Maroxad perhaps, mentioned that he was recently enticed by the Libertarian party until he researched what it meant in the US sense. When US Libertarians say they want a minimal government (outside of military), most of them mean it.

Yeah, end regulations that treat people differently based on skin color. No segregation, or special rules. Everyone gets treated as an equal.

You have a problem with that?

@eoten: Yeah, because that's not what happens.

What does "repeal the civic rights act" mean in this context?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the nation's premier civil rights legislation. The Act outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.

Why would you want this repealed?

I think we all know that answer.

So strange, because other than that one line, the rest of it actually sounds positive.

Also, their logo kinda looks like a KKK hood if you don't look closely LOL.

Oh really? Then what happens when minorities are treated like everyone else? Not that the DNC has any interest in doing that. What LBJ said when the Civil Rights Act was signed says it all.

Talk to Libertarians, a lot of them already believed these things. Hell, Gary Johnson was booed at a libertarian conference for suggesting we need a drivers test to own and operate a vehicle in SOME capacity. These people are nuts.

What year is it again? Lordy, arguing against civil rights in 2021 is cringy.

@mattbbpl said:

@eoten said:

@mattbbpl said:

@eoten: Yeah, because that's not what happens.

Oh really? Then what happens when minorities are treated like everyone else? Not that the DNC has any interest in doing that. What LBJ said when the Civil Rights Act was signed says it all.

Yeah, funny how the party pushing the Civil Rights Act to control blacks and make them dependent on the party happen to be the same party that wrote and passed Jim Crow laws and fought against desegregation. It'd be an absolute disaster for the DNC if they were let off the chain and realized they didn't need them.

Control black people? Via the same law that ended segregation, and which you are now advocating we abolish?

Explain how.

Through fear. Demoralizing blacks day after day telling them they'd be nothing without the Civil Rights Act. Telling them every election cycle the other side is going to put them back in chains. Christ you just went a whole summer telling them police are out to get them for their skin color and only the DNC is going to save them.

And you didn't even hesitate before electing a segregationalist who used his position in office to oppose a busing bill to desegregate school systems as he said "I don't want my children to go to school in a racial jungle." So don't even try that "the parties flipped" BS.

@eoten: You mean by highlighting political platforms which literally state they want to end the law that ended segregation?

You know damn well there's more in the CRA than that, and that they are not advocating for segregation.

This is getting embarrassing.

O my. This rather irrelevant but evil political party is 'anti woke'. Anti-woke must be evil...

@eoten: So explain why you oppose it and how it controls black people.

In no way does this meandering extreme right rant show us why the Civil Rights Act was a negative. Stay focused.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the nation's premier civil rights legislation. The Act outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.

You are not letting us know which of the above specific provisions are problematic, and a study or historical text showing us why. I expect links to these if you ever give a real fact based rebuttal post (you won't).

And,

The parties did "flip" (More like changed their platforms and voters). Just not in some of the examples you gave. Not sure what this has to do with the Civil Rights Act being bad or wrong though.

• How Republicans and the 'Southern Strategy' Won Over the Once Democratic South - HISTORY
• Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms? | Live Science
• Party Realignment and the New Deal | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
• U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964
• PolitiFact | Candace Owens' false statement that the Southern strategy is a myth

Hence the confederate flag being flown in Red areas by GOP voters. Hence anti-black racial gerrymandering being used by primarily Republicans. Hence most anti-black hate groups being in conservative heavy counties.

@girlusocrazy said:

Funny that these groups are so concerned with angsty young people who push against traditional views, like that's something new. Anything to avoid governing and actual issues.

Conservatives ITT triggered by,

outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.

And then they get mad when the entire thread laughs at them.

@zaryia: lol wtf indeed!

Why repeal civil rights acts?

Possible, I remember thinking of Libertarianism in the european sense, which seeks to maximize positive freedom. The US libertarian party looks to maximize negative liberty. Which would heavily stratify society, and take a lot of freedoms most people currently enjoy.

@zaryia: Isn’t just eoten?

Probably a fakeboy tbh.

@zaryia: the only group i could think of that would want to get rid of civil rights, is the klan.

I don’t know why either side would support this.

The woke want to bring back segregation, are practicing mass racism daily, and relay a message of power through violence.

@Telekill: I think you have that backwards.

@thenation: I don't.

When you have mass anti-white racism occurring to the point where Amazon drivers are beating white senior women over their "white privilege", or how about a Yale speaker stating how she wants to kill white people.

No. You have it backwards.

@Telekill: I’ll let all the Asian people being beaten and harassed by the right know to be grateful they don’t have it as bad as white folk.

There is no mass racism against white people.

Are you including the Libertarian wing of the party that wants to abolish the law that ended segregation? Or the wing of the party that hosted that Nazi infested Unite the Right gathering? Or the one that stormed the capital with weapons?

So much projection.

@mattbbpl: Incorrect. Read my reply in the other thread.

@Telekill: You can respond here and keep the logic of both threads contained.

As a general reminder: You're one of many who conflates political moderate with the extreme and tries to euphemise political extremism with "Woke", "SJW" etc.

You really think rights come from the government and politicians, and they have the authority to give or take them, don't you? I guess it's a good think the Supreme Court didn't share your view of our legal system in 1955 when they forced the start of desegregation with the ruling for Brown vs Board of Education. Democrats refused to comply with the ruling, even using national guard troops to prevent blacks from entering schools. It was around that time that their methods changed from suppressing blacks to more manipulative means such as affirmative action.

The Civil Rights Act was them trying to take credit for something they didn't actually do, and in fact fought against, desegregation.

So you conceded correct?

You refuse to tell anyone what is specifically bad about The Civil Rights Act (with citation of course).

So you're either gas lighting or don't know about the Southern Strategy or the earlier platform switch. I gave quite a few links showing these facts. I can't help but wonder if you are new to politics to not know this.

Either way, you're objectively wrong. Considering the entire thread is cringing at you, it's best you give up.

I do what, now? "Woke" and "SJW" aren't really part of my vocabulary, so I'll need some examples of what you're talking about.

I'll leave the history to Zaryia as he's already jumped in on it, but concerning your first two sentences the example you gave is a clear example of rights coming from the government. The government originally did not grant black people the same rights as white people, and then it later did. Recall from civics that the judicial system is a branch of the government.

Mostly Southern conservative Democrats were against it, and things like it.

PolitiFact | Group of Southern Democrats, not all Democrats, held up 1964 Civil Rights Act

Those southern blue areas all mostly ended up red after the platform/voter switch which was in part due to civil rights. This is easily seen in historical voting maps. The Southern Realignment and Southern Strategy are facts.

Dixie's Long Journey From Democratic Stronghold To Republican Redoubt : It's All Politics : NPR

This includes the 11 states of the secession and to a lesser degree the four border states, which among them still have two Democratic senators and three Democratic governors.

In signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, President Johnson said he feared his party had lost the South for a generation. It now appears that he was understating the case. While there have been lapses in the Republican rise — notably in the Carter election of 1976 and the Clinton elections of the 1990s — the presumptive political alignment in Southern elections at all levels has become ever more Republican.

This isn't even debated. It's well documented history. It's why "rebuttals" to this are only seen in political blogs or PragerU.

The bigger question is why he's trying to take credit for it but think it should be repealed at the same time.

Just as an FYI Congress passes laws. Judicial interprets them.

At least they are specific. Try getting that from Republicans. Repubs like to bloviate alot.