Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Neither holds up entirely. Both are biased and flawed in certain respects, insightful in others.
We can have a disagreement about how true those far flung allegations are, or which are true and which are reaches. I don't think all of them can be defended.
He does fail to name names. I think he assumes his audience will be familiar with the controversy.
He could have been more explicit. But I don't think he's stifling debate here. He's working in an abbreviated medium.
I think that's laziness. He's trying to avoid explaining the empirical data by saying, "People who knew the data offered solid criticism of it." It's an essay. He's not refusing to engage. He's failing to offer his proofs.
No. The point made was very clear. These historians raised criticisms and they were met with refusals to engage or shaming, as Adder would reply. But you are correct - the author fails to provide detail about the response. I agree that's a big failing.
See immediately preceding point.
I based my conclusions about 1619 on my own reading of some of it.
I agree, the statement there was a concession is unsupported, and I do not recall one being given. I saw the same flaw in that statement.
I think what he's saying is, "Look, a lot of very serious people found a lot of bullshit in 1619, and a lot of political agenda within it." That is true. I didn't read those criticisms, but I saw a load of them in the news.
But to your broader point, yes, he is discounting 1619's problems without giving credit for the areas in which it was insightful.
I didn't aim the piece at you. I suggested it to Adder. Unlike Adder, you and I can have a sensible back and forth about where an essay succeeds and where it fails. Suppose instead I had just called you a "Social Justice Warrior" and you bleated, "Racist!" Suppose we leveled these stupid kneejerk characterizations at the authors of 1619 and the piece I cited. Does anyone gain anything from that idiotic dialogue?
|
You have racist beliefs. You have misogynistic beliefs. So do I. The difference between us is that I can accept that about myself and try to change and you need to retreat to denial.
You think calling me “idiotic” absolves you. (You even think that Ty or Hank not also calling you out absolves you.) It doesn’t. You are the problem. The reason we can’t move past these problems is your denial.
You and I are racist. You and I are misogynistic. You have to admit these things to yourself or you’re going to keep beclowning yourself. The problem isn’t people telling us how we are failing. The problem is that we keep failing.
Get your white, male head out of your white, male ass and care about anything beyond yourself.
