all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 63 points 1 month ago (12 children)

I embrace the sentiment. If people cannot change and are chastised for their past, there is no incentive to apologize or reform.

We need to be able to allow people a path toward redemption.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    I agree, with the caveat that when the person is still living we need to distinguish between people who have had a genuine change of heart and people who are just publically adopting a popular position for social reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    The alt-right especially have the strong tendency to back down when confronted, then continue using dog-whistles and other less-provably-problematic things, which helps them build up support while keeping their fellows around them, until they break out and start calling for racial purity again, but this time with a bunch more people blindly following them.

    It's a festering cancer that needs to be excised, not given new places to which to metastasise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    And how do we know for sure? Point at them a lot? Yell, "REMEMBER WHEN YOU DID THAT THING? ARE YOU STILL SORRY?"

    There comes a point where we have to trust them to show their bad self again, but also allow them to be their reformed self. So, sure, be aware - but if you bring it up or hold it against them, are you really allowing them to move on?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I bet you would not say that if the person did something bad to you.

    I strongly believe there are tiers of people in society based on this, and that they are permanent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    You're incorrect. I have a number of people in my life who "did something bad" to me whom I've forgiven after the right things were said and right actions were taken. I have also done "something bad" to others and made an earnest apology. Don't presuppose who I am because it doesn't fit your own narrative.

    We need to be more forgiving. That's not a blanket statement - it requires proper apology and actions from the person who "did something bad."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    Sounds like this guy deserves the reputation Lee somehow got. I guess, by definition, historical revisionists promote those who aren't worthy and denigrate those who are. That's what makes them historical revisionists.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    historical revisionists

    Uh... no? Revisionism just means "critically challenging the mainstream historical narrative." "Lee was actually an evil slaveholder who fought for slavery fuck him" is the revisionist narrative here. The word gets a bad rep because certain people only like to revise narratives about how fascism is bad actually, but revisionism is an important part of studying history, as any historian will tell you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Maybe he just really liked leading militias. Adjusted his tactics to keep up with the times.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago
    [–] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Hey, let's name some high schools after this guy.

    Change it from Lee HS to Longstreet. Idiots won't argue because "well, he was a Confederate!" But his story will live on as a legacy of change and reconstruction.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Lost Cause types blame Longstreet for the loss at Gettysburg and therefore the entire war. Even though he tried to tell Lee that his plan of "send my entire army across a giant open field directly into enemy artillery" was shit and suggested the far more reasonable plan of moving toward DC and entrenching themselves to scare the congress into peace talks which may have actually worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Stop! Stop it, I can't like this dude anymore!

    Edit: the meIRL-ness of "yo, dude, no, don't do that! Shit, I fucken told ya. You know what? Fuck you, and fuck this all" is glorious.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    People change. Even Strom Thurmond voted for MLK days and hired non-whites in his crew. Not a redemption - he famously voted against rights his illegitimate daughter needed - but a change.

    People aren't gonna sea-change so much, but do look for and celebrate their evolution when it's positive.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Also invented trench warfare 40 years before it was trendy. If Lee had listened to him the south might have hung on for a while longer.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I WAS a piece of shit though!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    hated by both north and south

    Sounds like my kinda guy.

  • source