I can’t imagine a version of America so rickety that a magazine package detailing the history of one of the institutions most critical to both its founding and its remaking would be detrimental.
-
-
Do you think that the writers who contributed to the package are honest interlocutors?
-
Honest, but biased. As confirmed by Dean Baquet's comments about giving readers what they want...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dan—you can’t do meta on serious scholars and writers like this. Or not meta alone. You have to closely read the texts and criticize them on their own terms. Nobody is actually saying that
@jbouie misread Calhoun or that@KevinMKruse doesn’t understand public transportation in -
Atlanta. It’s all just vapid, “You are trashing the greatest nation ever conceived. You’re trashing liberty itself!” [oddly enough by exercising the right of dissent in the name of liberty.] It’s all bs if Erickson et al. can’t closely read even one essay. Merits, not meta.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Whether you trust them is irrelevant. Whether they are wrong on the facts and analysis is what matters - and what you and the other critics are avoiding. “Baseball to Judge: My client wins the case because I believe you are biased. Judge back: Sorry, here you need evidence. “
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.