899
Probably accurate (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8955441

He was a coomer, Ben Franklin?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Ben Franklin owned seven slaves early in his life, but later got rid of them, became an outspoken critic of slavery, and worked toward its abolition.

Also, slavery or not, the point still stands. They wouldn't recognize America today and would be horrified.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Of what?

    There was a transgender Royal Governor of New York State.

    Edward Hyde, served 1702 to 1708.

    You'd know that if you actually studied US history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    “Bonomi concluded that Lord Cornbury’s crossdressing was likely invented by his political enemies as character assassination.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    And...?

    My point was that the Founders would have been familiar with the idea of transgender. Also, most of them had studied the Classics, and would have known about Sappho and the initiation rituals of the Spartan warriors.

    Homosexualism* wasn't invented in the 20th Century.

    *I can't find the video, but I once heard William F. Buckley use that word and it's lived in my head ever since.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    You immediately assumed they held a position opposite of yours for no reason and then speak condescendingly to them, why? Maybe they think the founding fathers would be horrified by the same things you are horrified by. And even if they didn't, they aren't defending them, just stating the fact that they would indeed be horrified.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Cawthorn

    Funny thing. I happen to own an electronic device that allows me to search a thing called 'the world wide webbing.'

    Using my advanced OKJeeves search engine, I learned something about Ms. Crawford.

    One thing I learned about Ms. Crawford is that they don't think we should respect other people's preferred personal pronouns, so to honor that I'll refer to them as 'Ms.'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    More condescending commentary.. ok?

    Who is this person, and why do I care about them? And if they're so important, and you're so clever, why can't you keep their name consistent in your own comment?

    Edit: he's the guy in the OP. Again, what does that really have to do with anything? A different person in the comment section said, "the founding fathers would still be horrified". Why are you using someone else's beliefs to justify your rude attitude toward someone who never even implied they share those beliefs?

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

    why can’t you keep their name consistent in your own comment?

    You seem confused. I referred to Ms. Crawford twice, and both times as 'Ms. Crawford.'

    Also, your edit is as confusing a jumble as I've ever read. I have no idea what you're unhappy about.

    Finally, I didn't 'assume' anything. I've run across Ms. Crawford's comments in the past, and happened to remember the name. I guess I overestimated you; I should have added an '/s' but I thought the using the terms 'worldwidewebbing' and 'OKJeeves' would convey my sarcastic intent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Cawthorn

    Crawford

    My point is that your original comment was not to Cawthorn. It was to someone completely different. Cawthorn could have a swastika in his profile picture and call for the extinction of all trans people and it wouldn't justify your being rude to some random guy online who said, "yeah the founding fathers would be horrified".

    You're acting like you're talking directly to the OP and responding directly to Cawthorn's tweet, when you're not.

    Finally, I didn't 'assume' anything. I've run across Ms. Crawford's comments in the past, and happened to remember the name.

    I'm not saying you're assuming Cawthorn's position. I'm saying you're assuming Dookieman12's position. What do Cawthorn's past comments have to do with the person you're actually responding to?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You're adorable.

    Don't ever change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    So are ad hominem attacks when someone can no longer defend their position, or even acknowledge the obvious mistake they sarcastically defended.

    I don't see why I would, based on this interaction.

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

    even acknowledge the obvious mistake they sarcastically defended.

    I've been replying to all your screeds.

    Isn't that acknowledgement enough for you, you greedy little minx?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    No, I want you to concede at the very least that you acted like I was incapable of understanding your ClEveR comment when it was in fact you that made a mistake, and it'd be even better if you admitted that your random "well there were trans people in the 1700s dumby!" quip a. had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone was talking about, b. was unnecessarily rude to someone who only disagreed with you in your own mind, and c. failed to disprove the thing you decided to argue against. But I don't think you're gonna do any of that so I think we're done.

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

    Of what?

    There was a transgender Royal Governor of New York State.

    This may come as a shock to you, but the existence of trans people is not the only significant change that has happened here since the 1700s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •