Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
Already existed before that era and ended during it. Military was desegregated under Truman and the Civil Rights Act was passed under Johnson.
These things only really happened in the 80's, marking the end of the New Deal/Keynesian era.
Legitimate criticisms.
No they're not. Those two things were caused by far greater international factors. Like, you know, the 2nd World War.
You're literally to the right of Ronald Reagan on this.
As for the Red Scare, I appreciate the honesty of a .world mod siding with Joseph McCarthy explicitly instead of just following his example in practice while pretending to be leftist.
The comment you're responding to really doesn't seem to be condoning those things; the thing being argued here is whether there was a push in a progressive direction, you said these events are evidence against that, which they countered with the idea that war has a regressive influence, something your quote is supporting.
Exactly: total failure of reading comprehension. Acts like bro saying that bad thing doesn't support a conclusion means bro now endorses bad thing. Wut?
Then criticizing those things would be legitimate. To disagree that there's legitimate criticism regarding those issues is to condone them.
The fact that there were other factors pushing relatively progressive figures to do fucked up stuff doesn't mean that the stuff they did wasn't fucked up or that they shouldn't be criticized for it. The New Deal/Great Society era was a progressive era but it was also very imperfect and it's valid to critique the ways in which it failed certain groups of people.
I'd also point out that it cuts both ways, in addition to the factors pushing them towards regressive policies, their progressivism was also somewhat attributable to external factors. Even FDR wasn't really so much of a believer in "big government," in fact there were times when he tried to roll back aspects of the New Deal during the Depression. He was just someone who was responsive to the conditions of the time and willing to deviate from economic orthodoxy in order to respond to crises. Had FDR been president during different conditions, he might have been an unremarkable president, or perhaps he might have pushed for progressive policies but been stopped by institutional forces. The threat posed by communism may have also contributed to such reforms being implemented and permitted, out of a sense of self preservation.
I'm down to look at history through that lens, but if we're gonna do that we have to do it consistently, not just with regards to people we like doing bad things.
If what you meant by "legitimate criticisms" was to say that criticism of these policies themselves is legitimate, that's an extremely confusing way to say it given the context (both previous comments and the first part of your own comment), it very much sounds like you were saying something entirely different. I don't think it's fair to assume that someone objecting to your statement is objecting to that meaning of it.
It's legitimate to criticize the policies and the people who implemented them for implementing them. As Ronald Reagan agreed and Carter's commission found, internment was motivated by racism and was not a response to a legitimate national security threat. Apparently, this has somehow become controversial to say.
I think you'd have a really hard time finding someone on Lemmy genuinely trying to argue Japanese internment was a good thing, there's no need to immediately jump to the conclusion that people are saying that especially if it makes way more sense that they were saying something else.
I said that criticizing Japanese internment was legitimate, and they replied, "No it isn't." How else am I possibly supposed to interpret that?
By asking for clarification instead of jumping to some inflammatory assumptions. I was civil to you, and made no accusations against your character. Yet you were very quick to attack my character. Would you please refrain from such incivility in the future?
My apologies, I guess I wasn't clear enough. My point was that it's unfair to blame those things as results of progressive policies.
But hey, thanks for the gross mischaracterization of my perspective.
Who said that? What I see is someone critiquing the progressive New Deal era for not fully living up to progressive ideals. Nobody's claiming that New Deal policies caused Japanese internment.
It seems to me that you're the one jumping to conclusions and making assumptions here. I'm just straightforwardly responding to the claim that criticism of internment is illegitimate, if you don't want people to assume that you support internment, try not dismissing criticism of it.
Please allow me to clarify my perspective on this discussion.
This commenter associated a bunch of effects with the progressive era.
You then replied with a thoughtful response that questioned most of their points.
But then you wrote
At this point, I read that as you acknowledging those two points as legitimate criticisms against the progressive era. This is what I disputed. I think those are unfair criticisms, as far as I understood the words you wrote.
This is all I said. I've jumped to no other conclusions. I've said nothing against you or your character. I've made no other assumptions. I simply wrote a response based off the words you used.
I see you've further clarified your perspective as well, and understand that we're of the same perspective on the matter. You have no need to be so defensive anymore, my dude.
Edit: the other commenter essentially proved that they were just baiting people into inflammatory discussion. They kept resorting to personal attacks and flip-flopped on their position solely to continue arguing. This behavior is not tolerated here. Please report such trolls in the future.
And you're wrong. They are 100% legitimate criticisms of the New Deal era and to deny that is a completely absurd stance. This reads to me like you're just doubling down on defending them.
I don't see us as being on the same perspective of the matter at all. You don't think Japanese Internment as a valid point to criticize the New Deal era over and I do. But then you also say you don't support it. I have no idea how to make sense of, "criticism of [thing] is not legitimate, but also, I oppose [thing]." It's self-contradiction.
If I had to guess, maybe you're interpreting "legitimate criticism" as meaning, "proving that the thing was bad," as opposed to "proving that the thing had bad aspects." I'm not entirely sure what the perspective or thesis of the person I originally replied to even is, exactly, and my acknowledgement that the bad things done during the New Deal era is in no way endorsing whatever they're arguing. The assumption that it is in some way doing that, assuming that's what's going on here, is something I find cancerous to discourse. Just because I disagree with someone's overall perspective doesn't mean I'm required to fight them on every single point and just because you can find a few points of evidence to support a position that doesn't prove your position correct.
There is legitimate criticism of every era and every person (especially every world leader) in history. That doesn't necessarily mean the criticism is "damning." If that's what's going on here, then allow me to politely ask you to cut that shit out immediately. If that's not what's going on, then I legitimately have no idea wtf you're trying to say with, "It isn't legitimate to criticize the thing I oppose."