Just a moment...
apnews.com

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.”

  • pdxfed@lemmy.world
    117·
    18 days ago

    As it should be. They will lock you up, deport you, tread on your rights unless you’re rich or powerful or pose a threat.

    Politeness should have gone out the window long ago.

    • KumaSudosa@feddit.dk
      2·
      18 days ago

      Didn’t he say something about loving “Mexicans” (in reference to all Latin Americans) because you can “pay them so little”?

  • barneypiccolo@lemm.eeEnglish
    681·
    19 days ago

    I love the fact that they didn’t just not invite him, they held a press conference to announce it: “We’re having a big party, and you can’t come, because you’re a big poopyhead.”

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    521·
    19 days ago

    Don’t worry, he probably already has an invitation to a KKK or Proud Boys meeting that day.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        72·
        19 days ago

        Never gave up on any of the other demons the Republican Party produced, though.

        If they had any hope in them it’s embarrassing.

    • GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml
      8·
      19 days ago

      Giving those you’re fighting against an opportunity to publicly embarrass themselves can have many advantages. It also paints you as a group who is open to a good faith discussion about topics you know you disagree with these people on, which helps to gain more general public support for your causes.

        • GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml
          3·
          18 days ago

          I think the fact that they were sitting presidents is what gave them the most legitimacy. Fighting against racism usually means engaging in various ways with racists, so I simply disagree.

          • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.comEnglish
            2·
            18 days ago

            The fear of “giving people legitimacy” was valid when it was relatively unknown alternative right thinkers that you had to be paying attention to know their names, and even when Trump had an electoral college victory. But in these days, your Trumps and Rogans have more than double the legitimacy that you even have to give out.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            11·
            18 days ago

            The office of the presidency isn’t inherently legitimate, it gets its legitimacy because civil society groups like the NAACP give it legitimacy.

            But, also? Why didn’t they invite Trump this time?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    362·
    19 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@lemmy.worldM
      3611·
      19 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@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          19 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
        9·
        19 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 Patrick@lemmy.worldM
          11·
          18 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@lemmings.worldEnglish
        2·
        18 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.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    31·
    18 days ago

    The surprising thing to me, if this is the first time in history, is that this means they invited him every year of his first term.

  • Breezy@lemmy.world
    243·
    19 days ago

    Man… i had someone ask subreddit suggestions last night like wtf. Told them about lemmy and all but also pointed out why reddit might still be usefull but the way it is, is unhealthy. I pointed to r/conservative as one of many examples and saw this news sooner. The comments, jfc they just dont care, they think it’s funny the NAACP has stooped so low, and the sheer lack of post about the parade was even more telling.

    • Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
      4·
      19 days ago

      I still use old.Reddit for a few niche pocket of things as it still has some value to me. But instead of spending hours on it like I used to, I only spend like 20 mins on it and then I just get the fuck off.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    181·
    19 days ago

    “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.”

    Narrator:

    It had everything to do with political party, as the GOP had made a primary part of their national platform and brand about ignoring racial injustice and the legacy of slavery, in addition to overt, callous racism.

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      21·
      19 days ago

      They invited all the presidents. You try to bring in those with the power to change things and convince them that their actions have meaning, even symbolic ones. So, they probably tried his first term. It’s clear now that he doesn’t care and is in no way willing to help. I suspect that the reason they’re not inviting him goes beyond that. They’re making a statement. They’re signalling to those who support their mission.