Historically, the "conservatives" (if you're referring to the Republican party) was actually more tolerant. The abolitionist movement to end slavery, for one, and republicans supported the civil rights act more than the democrats did:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_...

Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans.

Earlier, the progressive movement was founded on, among other things, eugenics (sterilization and abortion) of undesirable people, such as minorities and disabled. The progressive movement has since changed its tune.

Minority groups clearly aren't using history to pick roommates they would feel comfortable with.

>Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans.

Yes I'm sure that's why all those Democrats are upset at tearing down Confederate/traitor statues...

Definitely the same party.

In fact, it is the same party, but different people.

I was responding to the idea that minorities were using history to choose their roommates, and how if that were the case, it would not be so clear cut.

It is clear cut though. What we call the Democratic party today used to be called the Republican party. It has zero connection to today's Republicans.

That is certainly not true in many regards. See for example my sibling comment on progressivism and eugenics.

The Progressive party had followers in its own right, as well as those in both the Democratic and Republican party, at least until Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican party in 1912.

Among the progressive movements goals were getting women the right to vote, and disenfranchising black voters. The philosophies of eugenics, and obsession with purity, were in fact an inspiration for those people who would eventually attempt to purify Germany during the Nazi reign.

Although much has changed in the progressive movement in the years since, the application of eugenics through abortion to eliminate undesirables has not (from my other comment, see Iceland).

Cough Cough Southern Strategy

Also a part of history, and a disappointing one at that. It does not, however, change my point about history being a poor way to choose one's roommates.

I specifically stated “conservative” because that’s more meaningful across large periods of time than referring to political parties. Yes, the Republican Party was once the more progressive party. That changed, and for ~50 years, Republicans have been the more conservative party.

> Republican Party was once the more progressive party

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

> As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

That is pretty much the antithesis of conservative, to be sure. However, keep in mind that none of that could have described the Republican party of old. The abolitionist movement and civil rights movement had a lot of support from conservatives for religious reasons. Martin Luther King Jr's message of unity was heard on multiple levels.

That definition of progressivism does still tie fairly closely to what a lot of Democrats would identify with, I think. Unfortunately, eugenics is still alive and well within the progressive movement- consider, for example, Iceland's attempt at eradicating Down's Syndrom by aborting babies. If you were to ask most people with Down's syndrom whether their condition would have been improved had they been aborted, they would disagree.

Maybe I'm older than you but Democrats have held many of those positions for a good portion of my life. They just generally don't hold them now though a sizable minority still do have at least a couple of those views.

Yes, even Barack Obama was against gay marriage. We've come a long way. But since ~1968, the Democratic party has consistently lead the Republican party on social issues.

Except there is still a double standard. For example, approximately the same number of black people are opposed to gay marriage as Republicans (52% vs 49%)[1], and yet only one of those groups gets consistently portrayed as homophobic and detestable.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-ma...

Being a Republican is a choice. Being black is not.

Being in favor of gay marriage is a choice though

If you're curious, there are lots of people who've written at length about why they hang out with and indeed support Republicans despite being in those categories. Peter Thiel and Marco Rubio would be two prominent examples if you're looking for recommendations.

I would find it uncomfortable being a roomate with an outspoken holocaust denier. A holocaust denier probably wouldn't find it uncomfortable being my roommate. I would wager this generalizes pretty well to holocaust accepters and deniers as a whole.

Is the takeaway from this that holocaust deniers are more accepting people?