The cornerstone of progressivism is that unequal outcomes are downstream of oppression. When a black student fails, a math test, it's not because he is stupid or didn't study, it's because the test is racist, the teacher is racist, the school is racist, and the entire institution of mathematics is racist. For this reason, progressives take a "blank slate" view of humanity; anyone can achieve anything given sufficient support. Put a hoodrat in Harvard, and he'll become a doctor or a lawyer; the only reason that he has not yet done so is because oppression.
Progressives believe that it is possible to socially and politically engineer away the ills of society: crime, poverty, pollution, etc. But if people are not blank slates, if human nature is a constraint, then that puts limits on how effective those engineering programs can be. Worse, it also suggests that the institutions and the unequal status quo that progressives decry as oppressive and illegitimate have good reasons to exist the way they do, given the constraints of human nature. Both of these problems place limits on the progressive ideal of universal equality and add legitimacy to the present, unequal society.
Ironically, liberals have arrived at the same conclusions via going the completely wrong direction.
For example, a Black student failing a test is racist (or rather "discriminatory") because Black students cannot be expected to perform like Whites. "Equity" is a valid concept because, if you want equal outcomes, you need to give Blacks and Whites different tests, reflecting their actual capabilities. Somehow, liberals have fully internalised the idea that some races (and other groups) are inherently superior to others (which is why you can't "discriminate" against straight White males; we're just the pinnacle of humanity) while simultaneously being willing to sacrifice everything to make that not true.
Their means are sane, but their motive is not. Tolerance is not a virtue and discrimination is not a sin. We should treat Blacks differently from Whites, as they clearly already do, but not because we are correcting historical injustice or some other claptrap, but because Blacks are inherently more violent, less intelligent, and unable to operate at the level of Whites. Blacks had better lives under Jim Crow than they do today because those laws protected them (and us) from themselves.
Constructionism is the cornerstone of marxism. They believe everything is a social construct, having an external demostrable proof of objective reality completely shatters their theory.
They believe culture shapes people, we believe culture is an extension of people...
The cornerstone of progressivism is that unequal outcomes are downstream of oppression. When a black student fails, a math test, it's not because he is stupid or didn't study, it's because the test is racist, the teacher is racist, the school is racist, and the entire institution of mathematics is racist. For this reason, progressives take a "blank slate" view of humanity; anyone can achieve anything given sufficient support. Put a hoodrat in Harvard, and he'll become a doctor or a lawyer; the only reason that he has not yet done so is because oppression.
Progressives believe that it is possible to socially and politically engineer away the ills of society: crime, poverty, pollution, etc. But if people are not blank slates, if human nature is a constraint, then that puts limits on how effective those engineering programs can be. Worse, it also suggests that the institutions and the unequal status quo that progressives decry as oppressive and illegitimate have good reasons to exist the way they do, given the constraints of human nature. Both of these problems place limits on the progressive ideal of universal equality and add legitimacy to the present, unequal society.
Ironically, liberals have arrived at the same conclusions via going the completely wrong direction.
For example, a Black student failing a test is racist (or rather "discriminatory") because Black students cannot be expected to perform like Whites. "Equity" is a valid concept because, if you want equal outcomes, you need to give Blacks and Whites different tests, reflecting their actual capabilities. Somehow, liberals have fully internalised the idea that some races (and other groups) are inherently superior to others (which is why you can't "discriminate" against straight White males; we're just the pinnacle of humanity) while simultaneously being willing to sacrifice everything to make that not true.
Their means are sane, but their motive is not. Tolerance is not a virtue and discrimination is not a sin. We should treat Blacks differently from Whites, as they clearly already do, but not because we are correcting historical injustice or some other claptrap, but because Blacks are inherently more violent, less intelligent, and unable to operate at the level of Whites. Blacks had better lives under Jim Crow than they do today because those laws protected them (and us) from themselves.
Constructionism is the cornerstone of marxism. They believe everything is a social construct, having an external demostrable proof of objective reality completely shatters their theory.
They believe culture shapes people, we believe culture is an extension of people...