By legitimate I mean: the first version of those sentences likely overstated the evidence and even as revised historians can genuinely disagree. With those couple of sentences. In the middle of an essay. Not even necessary for the thesis.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think one point of major controversy has been based on something NHJ tweeted, and that wasn’t even In the essays.
-
Oh god I just went over and skimmed and he’s basing it on an article published in QUILLETTE. Shouldn’t there be basic editorial standards that you need to cite sources that aren’t trash?pic.twitter.com/E6cLxdxH40
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, bad take, David, why is it so hard to believe that supporters of Donald Trump are very concerned about the truth and accuracy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The people still going on about it in bad faith are people who do not revise, only double down.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Yes. And the authors have toned down those sentences.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s strange that he criticizes “journalists doing history” without mentioning all the articles written by historians. Which is far and away the bulk of the project. Did he even read “Traffic”?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
what even was that sentence I keep hearing about it
- 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.