CRT Part II: Defunding the Military

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 10:42 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: First of all, I absolutely hate the term defund when used in this context.  I understand many claim it to essentially mean to pay less, but I don't find the definition suitable for what they're calling for.  I think it's intentionally divisive.

Do I think we should spend less, or to not pay as much for the military?  Actually, yes I do.  Big time.  But not just because they're teaching "Marxist, racist ideology".

While I think it's incredibly important for us to have a strong military, and I know that many of the talking points (world presence, troops abroad, outspending other nations) are more complex than meets the eye, I also understand that the amount of money is absurd.  More importantly, I know with these amounts comes shadiness and individuals getting rich off of taxpayer dollars.

I believe only a fool would think all of this money is well-spent and needed.  It's not.  There's people getting rich off of contracts, there's people using this system of spending to essentially launder money, and there's politicking and dishonest abound.

So I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.  But if it were just asked on the basis of the racial training/diversity training/CRT training/insert bs term for bs then yeah that's a waste of money.  "Defund" that portion of spending.  These subjects are counterproductive to forming a brotherhood/sisterhood and they accomplish nothing of note that helps us militarily.

My question was not about military spending in general, e.g., whether it should have a larger or smaller budget based upon defense needs.

Rather, my question concerned the bolded:   I just don't think it's fair to intentionally paint the opposing side as something it's not, only to make them appear irrational or to make their argument seem flawed

So it's a question about whether one side is being unfairly "painted as something it is not," to make them "appear irrational" and deploying a "flawed argument" -- as opposed to being "fairly painted," e.g. by copiously quoting them, and then judging the "rationality" and descriptive accuracy of their arguments based upon their own words. 

Is it accurate to say, as Laura Ingraham claims, that the U.S. military is teaching a "Marxist, racist ideology"?  I don't think so, so it appears to me that she is using distortive, hot-button words, not in the interest of accurate description, but to rile up her listeners to oppose something that really isn't going on. 

The Oxford Languages Dictionary defines "demagoguery" as political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

Laura's description of CRT in the military seems to fit that definition quite well. Does she merely "appear" irrational in suggesting we defund the military until it stops "teaching Marxism"? I don't believe she was serious about defunding the military, but was using that extreme proposal to gain attention, gin up emotion, not unlike whipping up Sharia panic.

Just taking the JCS side of this for a moment, I'd like to hear why they think it is important to understand "white rage" as something with potential to affect military readiness, as they apparently do. Could there be legitimate concern on their part about how "diverse" personnel work together?
 https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2021/Garrett-Military-Diversity/

Trump banned CRT and "diversity training" from the military "to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating,"  https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/08/military-resuming-diversity-training-trump-banned.html

Has Trump always combatted "race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating, or am I wrong to wonder if "rationality" is what he expressed in his opposition to CRT, and whether his argument is "flawed"?