4 ms·

They are not equivalent, though.

by efnx 5y ago

pope_meat 5y ago
of course not, the side you like is obviously a little less evil, and thus worth supporting.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Plus it’s a convenient way to never have to improve—we just have to be a little better than the worst caricature of the other side! “Why are you criticizing my tribe when the other tribe is literally Hitler?”
jimbob45 5y ago
Maybe not at specific points in time but, over the long term, they make exceedingly similar choices. The GOP backed No Child Left Behind which was an abject failure. Back then, it was easy for the left to claim that they would do better when given the opportunity. However, now the left is pushing Critical Race Theory in schools which is equally stupid and damaging. You can point to the left as doing a much worse job at this particular point in time but the reality is that both sides have made roughly equally stupid choices over the long run.
- efnx 5y ago
  No, full stop. The two American parties are not equivalent in their modern forms. You can use “over the long term” to further any point you like because at one point the Republican Party was the liberal, progressive party before it adopted the original southern strategy. Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). Also your argument is about the two parties being the same over the long term, but then you give a very short term anecdote, and one that isn’t very compelling. I’m sorry to appear so argumentative but it seems you are falling into the trap of false equivalence on multiple levels.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). To be fair, when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Reducing CRT to “merely studying race” is dishonest. Moreover, as race essentialist ideas are want to do, I posit that CRT does harm poorer people because it lets rich whites absolve themselves by way of ritual while characterizing poorer whites as the aggressors. Similarly, we prioritize issues that are almost certainly harmful for poorer communities of color, like (de facto or de jure) de-policing high-crime areas (we celebrate fewer police-related fatalities and sweep under the rug the enormous spike in murders). Note that this isn’t a partisan issue. The best criticism of CRT comes largely from liberals, progressives, and independent conservatives (CRT seems like it should be a slam dunk for establishment Republicans but in increasingly normal form they are finding innovative ways to bungle it).
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      >when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. CRT posits that differences among racial/ethnic groups are the result of, as wikipedia puts it, "social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Even its critics claim it relies too heavily on social constructivism - the literal opposite of essentialism. (Racial essentialism, in contrast, claims that "races" are biologically district categories that result in innate individual differences) Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. I knew someone was going to be pedantic which is why I phrased it as I did. The term is becoming overloaded, and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m choosing the latter. > Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny. Your account is called “LordDragonfang” with 800 karma, so you're not exactly posting with your legal name yourself. No, I’m not using my legal name, but this is my main account. I post here regularly, in good faith, and overall my contributions have been well-received.

They are not equivalent, though.

by efnx 5y ago

They are not equivalent, though.

pope_meat 5y ago

of course not, the side you like is obviously a little less evil, and thus worth supporting.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Plus it’s a convenient way to never have to improve—we just have to be a little better than the worst caricature of the other side! “Why are you criticizing my tribe when the other tribe is literally Hitler?”

jimbob45 5y ago

Maybe not at specific points in time but, over the long term, they make exceedingly similar choices. The GOP backed No Child Left Behind which was an abject failure. Back then, it was easy for the left to claim that they would do better when given the opportunity. However, now the left is pushing Critical Race Theory in schools which is equally stupid and damaging. You can point to the left as doing a much worse job at this particular point in time but the reality is that both sides have made roughly equally stupid choices over the long run.

efnx 5y ago
No, full stop. The two American parties are not equivalent in their modern forms. You can use “over the long term” to further any point you like because at one point the Republican Party was the liberal, progressive party before it adopted the original southern strategy. Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). Also your argument is about the two parties being the same over the long term, but then you give a very short term anecdote, and one that isn’t very compelling. I’m sorry to appear so argumentative but it seems you are falling into the trap of false equivalence on multiple levels.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Studying race and systemic racism in school is absolutely not “as damaging” as dictating the terms of school funding in a way that disadvantages the poor (and subsequently non-white people). To be fair, when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Reducing CRT to “merely studying race” is dishonest. Moreover, as race essentialist ideas are want to do, I posit that CRT does harm poorer people because it lets rich whites absolve themselves by way of ritual while characterizing poorer whites as the aggressors. Similarly, we prioritize issues that are almost certainly harmful for poorer communities of color, like (de facto or de jure) de-policing high-crime areas (we celebrate fewer police-related fatalities and sweep under the rug the enormous spike in murders). Note that this isn’t a partisan issue. The best criticism of CRT comes largely from liberals, progressives, and independent conservatives (CRT seems like it should be a slam dunk for establishment Republicans but in increasingly normal form they are finding innovative ways to bungle it).
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    >when people talk about CRT these days they’re talking about a specific set of beliefs about race, notably a variety of race essentialist beliefs. Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. CRT posits that differences among racial/ethnic groups are the result of, as wikipedia puts it, "social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors." Even its critics claim it relies too heavily on social constructivism - the literal opposite of essentialism. (Racial essentialism, in contrast, claims that "races" are biologically district categories that result in innate individual differences) Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Critical race theory and Race essentialism are fundamentally incompatible theories of race. If you're equating the two, you, or whoever presented them to you, has a deeply flawed (or actively malicious) understand of one or the other. I knew someone was going to be pedantic which is why I phrased it as I did. The term is becoming overloaded, and we can either debate semantics or we can engage substantially and I’m choosing the latter. > Of course, you used a throwaway account here, so you must, on some level, know you argument doesn't hold to educated scrutiny. Your account is called “LordDragonfang” with 800 karma, so you're not exactly posting with your legal name yourself. No, I’m not using my legal name, but this is my main account. I post here regularly, in good faith, and overall my contributions have been well-received.