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.
No they’re not. Those two things were caused by far greater international factors. Like, you know, the 2nd World War.
removed by mod
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.”
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?
removed by mod
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.
removed by mod
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?