Because you're not arguing facts, by ignoring them if not flat out suggesting they don't exist in the present time, what you've written is worthy of legitimate

Because you're not arguing facts, by ignoring them if not flat out suggesting they don't exist in the present time, what you've written is worthy of legitimate ad hominem attack. And that's because the problem is with you, the person. You are a deeply ignorant and foolish person - whether it's malice or not I cannot say. But it is damaging to your personal credibility and is damaging to discourse by speaking mistruth. Jim Crow laws are from 1965, they directly connect to this country's history of slavery. That is not "so old" at all. And variations of Jim Crow laws still persist to this day, hence the Voting Rights Acts. That there are clever derivatives of these practices does not at all mean "they are so old they have no resemblance of". Yes foolish person, they do have resemblance of. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pasadena-texas-voting-rights-act_us_58714e44e4b02b5f85891a0d http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pasadena-texas-voting-ri... For some book ideas so you can work on your ignorance of this present day relevant history: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/books/review/chris-hayes-by-the-book.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/books/review/chris-hayes-...