The Times goes all-in on the 1619 Project's factually misleading history. Notable here: when push comes to shove, the expertise of liberal academics who have studied these issues for a lifetime & earned widespread acclaim gives way to the imperatives of ideology. https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1208189884139220993 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
In the 1860s, the New York Times was staunchly supportive of Abe Lincoln. Today, it not only promotes the smearing of Lincoln, but endorses the arguments of his opponents - Stephen Douglas and Roger Taney, drawing on John C. Calhoun - about the American Founding. What switched?
11 replies 43 retweets 139 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Brian Rosenwald
I don't think credentialed academics should have a monopoly on history - or any other area. I do think that if you're challenging the experts in a field from the outside, you need to come loaded for bear with evidence & specificity.https://twitter.com/brianros1/status/1208193701316567040 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
Brian Rosenwald @brianros1My take: this is why we started@madebyhistory so people get their history from historians. Journalists do wonderful work, but historians have specialized training & knowledge & we need to recognize that.@kawulf wrote about this for us: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/11/what-naomi-wolf-cokie-roberts-teach-us-about-need-historians/ … https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1208189884139220993 …3 replies 10 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
As a litigator, I've learned two things about experts. One, you can hire experts on both sides of just about any issue. Two, if you want to beat an expert in an argument about the truth, you gotta do your homework.
3 replies 8 retweets 68 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted
Especially when they focus on the things they're credentialed & respected in, rather than using them as a roving commission https://twitter.com/BenSharmaTO/status/1208195228584284161 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 3 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
The bottom line in all this is that you are not going to get an intellectually honest debate from the NY Times Opinion section. What you'll get is people who hand-wave or smear anyone who offers inconvenient facts.
3 replies 13 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Not really supported by a true majority of historians, but by a concurrent majority.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @charlescwcooke @baseballcrank
There is a meta-question. Why do we bother even reading
@nytimes? Our comments and criticism are ignored. The rag’s bubble is impenetrable. Should we continue wasting our time?0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
End of 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.