In all seriousness, the way to judge a work of history is by the productive debates it provokes. "1619" generated some very dumb knee-jerk reactions but also a lot of serious conversation. I think it's going to be at the center of conversation for many years.
-
-
Milo doesn't really provoke *productive* debates, that's his whole problem. You don't get fruitful insights from "what if SJWs ARE actually recreating nazi Germany?"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and the content of Milo's "work," such as it was, certainly didn't generate any conversation worth paying attention to. Milo himself did, I suppose, as a symptom of a larger problem. So I don't think the analogy holds. Maybe Andrew Sullivan's risible race 'science' instead.
-
Correct. He was a clown that people liked to point at. I can’t recall a single thing he wrote or produced that anyone talked about with any seriousness outside like a racist YouTube or reddit channel.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.