cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5566633
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/MechCADdie on 2025-04-04 08:19:11+00:00.
Removed by mod
No they’re not. Those two things were caused by far greater international factors. Like, you know, the 2nd World War.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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?
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod