Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Were you convinced by what that author says about the 1619 Project?

No. I think 1619 is deeply flawed, but also makes some deeply important points. That one is a real mixed bag. It's politically angled and filled with considerable bunk, but also filled with some insights.

It's like a Stones' show. You'll never see a 15 song set where they deliver well on each number. They'll put out a few perfectly, flawlessly, earning the title "the greatest rock and roll band." But they'll also do a few tunes so badly - I mean, terribly - that you'll wonder if they actually know how to play. And there's no order, no pattern. The brilliant version of "Midnight Rambler" can be followed with a painful "Angie," then a brilliant "Can't You Hear Me Knocking." Or there could be four terrible tunes followed by four brilliant ones. Crapshoot.

But the political message of 1619? That was a bit much. The agenda there was transparent, and the quantum of facts disproving it easily matching those marshaled to prove it. (There goes my fragility again. How can I refuse to accept that race was and is the most important aspect of the founding of this country?)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because they describe your (and many others') form of radical unthinking:

To insist that the conclusion that the arguer wishes to reach, with its implied corollary commandment, must be accepted by his or her opponent as a premise before the argument begins is not the move of a person who has confidence in their truth. It is the opposite of any form of reasoned argument. It is coercive. Except the people who argue this way claim that they cannot possibly be coercive, because you must accept the premise that they don’t have power—even if they are editing The New York Times Magazine, or threatening to get you fired from your job. You say they can’t have it both ways? They say, why not—and then accuse you of opposing the powerless, which, it turns out, is a form of authority that cannot be trumped.

That describes your argument on white fragility. If one does not agree with the construct you offer, one's view is invalid and only serves to prove the existence of white fragility. You assert no one can engage you intellectually on the subject. Any questioning of the concept must be viewed as being made in bad faith. Any questioning of your assertion it is made in bad faith must also be deemed to have been made in bad faith.

The author of the latter piece I cited gets to the meat of why you and others engage in this behavior: Your ideas are extreme, your ideology is often quite naive, and logic and facts undercut a lot of them. This is why you leap to the argument that anything that questions your antiracist statements is automatically racist.

Taibbi might as well have been writing about you when he cited the silly binary thinking he spotted in DiAngelo's work:

DiAngelo’s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like “AMAZING!” and “SAD!” that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.

In Adderland, things can only be racist or antiracist. All in or all out.

Except criticism doesn't work that way. Nor does conversation. To have an engaging discussion where we reach greater understanding of DiAngelo's work, or that of any other author, we have to allow it to be tested.

This brings me full circle to the first cite I offered, where the lawyer critiques Americans' penchant for litigating rather than conversing about ideas. He asserts that we do this because we know our ideas have holes in them and cannot withstand criticism. (The ideas themselves are not bad, but people like you embrace their most extreme forms. You cannot merely agree with DiAngelo - you must genuflect in the most severe manner and profess to agree with her 100% on everything, a sentiment I think she would find uncomfortably orthodox.)

DiAngelo has some great ideas. She also wrote some really dumb statements in her book (as any author will, it being impossible to pitch a perfect game over 250 pages regarding a subject so complex). Taibbi has some fair criticisms of her. He also wrote some really dumb and cheap criticisms of her. But what's 100X dumber than anything either of them wrote is to reply to Taibbi, or any other critic, by saying the critic is racist for simply having the temerity to critique someone who is antiracist.

It is better to unpack Taibbi and DiAngelo, and any other writer, thinker, or pundit, rather than shut down discourse regarding them with the silly pavlovian retort, "Racist!"

I cited these articles not because they're exceptional pieces. I cited them because they happen to describe you, and you can learn from them.

They are the same old "discourse about the discourse" that is nonsense. They boil down to "it's too hard to argue that some groups of people are less than other groups." Tedious. (Yes, you may take that as me confirming your point, which is also tedious).

I assume you also enjoyed the Harper's letter?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

They are the same old "discourse about the discourse" that is nonsense. They boil down to "it's too hard to argue that some groups of people are less than other groups." Tedious. (Yes, you may take that as me confirming your point, which is also tedious).

I assume you also enjoyed the Harper's letter?

You know, as does anyone following, that your characterization of the discourse about the discourse is untrue. You just flagrantly dodged. No sane person can characterize what I wrote as a desire to be able to argue for superiority of one race or nationality over another.

And you know that was a dodge.

The fact is, you’re litigating the right to be an extremist with me. You know that’s an absurd position, so rather than engage my point - that being open to discussion is preferable - you duck it. You’re as unfair as Taibbi was with his criticisms of DiAngelo.

But hey, it’s all cool! The ends justify the means when you are absolutely certain about the propriety of your self righteousness.

Of course I agree with the Harpers letter. The better question is, does anyone disagree? Do you disagree with that letter? If you do, by all means, please explain what logic you employ to take such a position.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Were you convinced by what that author says about the 1619 Project?

By "conceding the point" was he referencing the correction noting that the revolutionary war wasn't just motivated by preserving slavery but preserving slavery was part of it?

Because every one of those authors will be guilty on more than one occasion of a similar bit of hyberbole, usually toned down with a disclaimer in the introduction or footnotes somewhere. It's pretty common for historians championing a thesis to overstate it to make their point, even in the most scholarly of works.

1619 was a wide range of different articles, which ranged in general from good to truly excellent. As to the point on slavery being a cause of the revolutionary war, it's pretty much the same point made, ad nauseum and with many citations, by the Dred Scott court, which is always worth re-reading. Yeah, it played into it, and not insignificantly. As did taking Indian lands.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You know, as does anyone following, that your characterization of the discourse about the discourse is untrue. You just flagrantly dodged. No sane person can characterize what I wrote as a desire to be able to argue for superiority of one race or nationality over another.

Not you, the people you're citing. The people in the Harper's letter. The constant complaint from the conservative and the old that they just can't say anything (i.e., don't know how to argue for anything) are complaibts that they can't say things without people, usually people younger than them, interpreting what they are saying as denigrating, for example, trans people. Which is true, because what they want to say is, for example, denigrating trans people.

That's progress, not a problem.

You know that’s an absurd position, so rather than engage my point - that being open to discussion is preferable - you duck it.

Tell yourself whatever you need to, but you also need to consider that fact that some of us have been having these discussions with you for more than a decade and you come back with the exact same shit.

Of course I agree with the Harpers letter. The better question is, does anyone disagree? Do you disagree with that letter? If you do, by all means, please explain what logic you employ to take such a position.

Yeah, you'll be shocked that I have no sympathy at all for powerful people whining they get pushback on their bad ideas.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not you, the people you're citing. The people in the Harper's letter. The constant complaint from the conservative and the old that they just can't say anything (i.e., don't know how to argue for anything) are complaibts that they can't say things without people, usually people younger than them, interpreting what they are saying as denigrating, for example, trans people. Which is true, because what they want to say is, for example, denigrating trans people.

That's progress, not a problem.




Tell yourself whatever you need to, but you also need to consider that fact that some of us have been having these discussions with you for more than a decade and you come back with the exact same shit.



Yeah, you'll be shocked that I have no sympathy at all fo powerful people whining they get pushback on their bad ideas.

Taibbi is arguing for the right to assert racial superiority? This is as dumb as you calling him “compromised by Russians.”

And you’re full of shit. Your gripe with Taibbi was his criticism of DiAngelo, not his assertion that whites were superior or his right to argue that assertion. How am I sure of that? Because he never argued the latter two, ever, anywhere. He wrote books about police brutality and judicial mistreatment of minorities!

So now Gloria Steinem is a racist enabler.

You’re absurd. Clinically. You’re arguing against free speech and in favor of mob rule over speech.

ETA: I think you’re crazy. But I think the cure for crazy thinking is discussion with the crazy. You’ve thrown in with people who think the cure is to get the crazy fired, have them ruined, make it so they cannot speak. It’s deeply un-American.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Taibbi is arguing for the right to assert racial superiority?

What are you talking about?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

What are you talking about?

That’s what you’re talking about when you say the old people are just whining about not being able to say what they want and that’s it’s getting too hard for them to argue that some groups are “less” than others.

You’re reducing all critics to people who want to simply have the right to say one group is better than another. You can’t believe that. No sane person could believe that. But you wrote that. So please - tell me if I’m not understsnding your point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. I think 1619 is deeply flawed, but also makes some deeply important points. That one is a real mixed bag. It's politically angled and filled with considerable bunk, but also filled with some insights.

It's like a Stones' show. You'll never see a 15 song set where they deliver well on each number. They'll put out a few perfectly, flawlessly, earning the title "the greatest rock and roll band." But they'll also do a few tunes so badly - I mean, terribly - that you'll wonder if they actually know how to play. And there's no order, no pattern. The brilliant version of "Midnight Rambler" can be followed with a painful "Angie," then a brilliant "Can't You Hear Me Knocking." Or there could be four terrible tunes followed by four brilliant ones. Crapshoot.

But the political message of 1619? That was a bit much. The agenda there was transparent, and the quantum of facts disproving it easily matching those marshaled to prove it. (There goes my fragility again. How can I refuse to accept that race was and is the most important aspect of the founding of this country?)

Set aside the merits of the 1619 Project and just ask yourself whether the piece you just posted holds up when you look at what he says about it.

The author starts by bemoaning the disappearance of conversation and caring about empirical evidence, replaced by arguments that appeal to moral truths instead. Here's the general argument:

There are distinct and deep-rooted traditions of rational empiricism and religious sermonizing in American history. But these two modes seem to have become fused together in a new form of argumentation that is validated by elite institutions like the universities, The New York Times, Gracie Mansion, and especially on the new technology platforms where battles over the discourse are now waged. The new mode is argument by commandment: It borrows the form to game the discourse of rational argumentation in order to issue moral commandments. No official doctrine yet exists for this syncretic belief system but its features have been on display in all of the major debates over political morality of the past decade. Marrying the technical nomenclature of rational proof to the soaring eschatology of the sermon, it releases adherents from the normal bounds of reason. The arguer-commander is animated by a vision of secular hell—unremitting racial oppression that never improves despite myths about progress; society as a ceaseless subjection to rape and sexual assault; Trump himself, arriving to inaugurate a Luciferean reign of torture. Those in possession of this vision do not offer the possibility of redemption or transcendence, they come to deliver justice. In possession of justice, the arguer-commander is free at any moment to throw off the cloak of reason and proclaim you a bigot—racist, sexist, transphobe—who must be fired from your job and socially shunned.

Practitioners of the new argument bolster their rationalist veneer with constant appeals to forms of authority that come in equal parts from biology and elite credentialing. Have you noticed how many people, especially online, start their statements by telling you their profession or their identity group: As a privileged white woman; as a doctoral student in applied linguistics; as a progressive Jewish BIPOC paleontologist—and so on? These are military salutes, which are used to establish rank between fellow “az-uhs” while distinguishing them as a class from the civilian population. You must always listen to the experts, the new form of argument insists, and to the science. Anything else would be invalid; science denialism; not rational; immoral.

Because of the way it toggles back and forth between rationalism and religiosity, switching categories by taking recourse to one when the other is questioned, the new form of argument-commandment, rather than invalidating itself or foundering on its own contradictions, becomes, somehow, rhetorically invincible—through the demonstration of power relations that the arguer denies exist, but are plainly manifest in the progress of the argument.

A little hard to follow, but it sounds bad if true. But here are the next two paragraphs, about the 1619 Project, with the original links:

The group of historians who submitted their letter of dissent to The New York Times, objecting to the historical claims in the paper’s flagship 1619 project provided a nice demonstration of this point. They questioned the project's scholarship and in response, were accused of being old white men, as indeed most of them were, and antique reactionaries. When they pleaded that they were not abettors of white supremacy but objected to the project’s historical claims, they were told their history was in error. In the end the historians, however distinguished their careers were beforehand, appeared confused and defeated, complaining solicitously in their allotted column inches in the paper’s letters section.

The 1619 project, meanwhile, having essentially conceded the historians’ central point, lost nothing at all. It marches on unscathed toward becoming the official curriculum in the nation’s public school system, replacing the products of the American historical profession as a whole, which must either adapt or suffer a similar humiliation. The outcome proved that whether or not the historians were right about the facts of history, they had made a fundamental error in judging where power lies. At best, they are dopes who thought they were smarter, which is to say more powerful, than they are. At worst, they are professionally self-destructive, and—who knows—maybe even racists.

Clearly the author has some sympathy for the historians who object to the 1619 project, and feels that they were shouted down for the wrong reasons. But doesn't he do exactly what he complains about? Who "accused" them of being "old white men" and "antique reactionaries"? If someone told them their history is in error, isn't that how debate is supposed to work? Sounds like there was an actual empirical dispute there about historical facts, but this author says nothing about it, and just implies that the "group of historians" with "distinguished careers" -- note that he introduces them by their qualifications, but doesn't say anything about the qualifications of the people who disagreed with them, or even who they were -- were right. The rhetorical trick here is to say nothing about the dispute itself, but to appeal to sympathy for the distinguished historians. But if they appeared "confused and defeated," could it be because they wrong? Did your author even entertain that possibility. Note also that the second link in that first paragraph does support the point it's deployed for at all.

But, you say, look at the second paragraph! He says the 1619 Project "essentially conceded the historians' central point" ("the historians" slyly implies that the 1619 Project authors were not historians). That sounded suspect to me, so I clicked on the link. Did you? It's not a concession at all. It's a letter from the historians themselves. Does that sound like a robust intellection exchange of ideas, or an appeal to the sort of thing that he's complaining about? "The outcome proved that whether or not the historians were right about the facts of history, they had made a fundamental error in judging where power lies." Wait -- whether or not the historians were right -- isn't that the question, but now it doesn't matter? "Where the power lies"? The author hasn't said *anything* about "where power lies" -- he's only said that anonymous people disagreed with a bunch of eminent historians. What on Earth does that have to do with his larger argument? Doesn't it suggest that the real problem is people who want to make arguments without listening to the other side?

I stopped reading there. Do you think I should have continued?

[Hank Chinaski]

"... I just probably should have never posted anything that Hitler did, because Hitler was a bad person, and I know that. I was just trying to uplift African Americans and slavery and just enlighten my people. ... I didn't intend any harm or any hatred toward any people. ... I'm for love and I extend it every day."


The post was pretty hard to reconcile as not being anti-Semitic, but didn’t Hitler have some innocent things to say about raising dogs and water colors? That is the problem with quoting Hitler. Sometime it is hateful shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"... I just probably should have never posted anything that Hitler did, because Hitler was a bad person, and I know that. I was just trying to uplift African Americans and slavery and just enlighten my people. ... I didn't intend any harm or any hatred toward any people. ... I'm for love and I extend it every day."


The post was pretty hard to reconcile as not being anti-Semitic, but didn’t Hitler have some innocent things to say about raising dogs and water colors? That is the problem with quoting Hitler. Sometime it is hateful shit.

Um, what?

eta nm

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Um, what?

Do you have the google?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Set aside the merits of the 1619 Project and just ask yourself whether the piece you just posted holds up when you look at what he says about it.

Neither holds up entirely. Both are biased and flawed in certain respects, insightful in others.

The author starts by bemoaning the disappearance of conversation and caring about empirical evidence, replaced by arguments that appeal to moral truths instead. Here's the general argument:

There are distinct and deep-rooted traditions of rational empiricism and religious sermonizing in American history. But these two modes seem to have become fused together in a new form of argumentation that is validated by elite institutions like the universities, The New York Times, Gracie Mansion, and especially on the new technology platforms where battles over the discourse are now waged. The new mode is argument by commandment: It borrows the form to game the discourse of rational argumentation in order to issue moral commandments. No official doctrine yet exists for this syncretic belief system but its features have been on display in all of the major debates over political morality of the past decade. Marrying the technical nomenclature of rational proof to the soaring eschatology of the sermon, it releases adherents from the normal bounds of reason. The arguer-commander is animated by a vision of secular hell—unremitting racial oppression that never improves despite myths about progress; society as a ceaseless subjection to rape and sexual assault; Trump himself, arriving to inaugurate a Luciferean reign of torture. Those in possession of this vision do not offer the possibility of redemption or transcendence, they come to deliver justice. In possession of justice, the arguer-commander is free at any moment to throw off the cloak of reason and proclaim you a bigot—racist, sexist, transphobe—who must be fired from your job and socially shunned.

Practitioners of the new argument bolster their rationalist veneer with constant appeals to forms of authority that come in equal parts from biology and elite credentialing. Have you noticed how many people, especially online, start their statements by telling you their profession or their identity group: As a privileged white woman; as a doctoral student in applied linguistics; as a progressive Jewish BIPOC paleontologist—and so on? These are military salutes, which are used to establish rank between fellow “az-uhs” while distinguishing them as a class from the civilian population. You must always listen to the experts, the new form of argument insists, and to the science. Anything else would be invalid; science denialism; not rational; immoral.

Because of the way it toggles back and forth between rationalism and religiosity, switching categories by taking recourse to one when the other is questioned, the new form of argument-commandment, rather than invalidating itself or foundering on its own contradictions, becomes, somehow, rhetorically invincible—through the demonstration of power relations that the arguer denies exist, but are plainly manifest in the progress of the argument.

A little hard to follow, but it sounds bad if true.

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.

But here are the next two paragraphs, about the 1619 Project, with the original links:

The group of historians who submitted their letter of dissent to The New York Times, objecting to the historical claims in the paper’s flagship 1619 project provided a nice demonstration of this point. They questioned the project's scholarship and in response, were accused of being old white men, as indeed most of them were, and antique reactionaries. When they pleaded that they were not abettors of white supremacy but objected to the project’s historical claims, they were told their history was in error. In the end the historians, however distinguished their careers were beforehand, appeared confused and defeated, complaining solicitously in their allotted column inches in the paper’s letters section.

The 1619 project, meanwhile, having essentially conceded the historians’ central point, lost nothing at all. It marches on unscathed toward becoming the official curriculum in the nation’s public school system, replacing the products of the American historical profession as a whole, which must either adapt or suffer a similar humiliation. The outcome proved that whether or not the historians were right about the facts of history, they had made a fundamental error in judging where power lies. At best, they are dopes who thought they were smarter, which is to say more powerful, than they are. At worst, they are professionally self-destructive, and—who knows—maybe even racists.

Clearly the author has some sympathy for the historians who object to the 1619 project, and feels that they were shouted down for the wrong reasons. But doesn't he do exactly what he complains about? Who "accused" them of being "old white men" and "antique reactionaries"?

He does fail to name names. I think he assumes his audience will be familiar with the controversy.

If someone told them their history is in error, isn't that how debate is supposed to work? Sounds like there was an actual empirical dispute there about historical facts, but this author says nothing about it, and just implies that the "group of historians" with "distinguished careers" -- note that he introduces them by their qualifications, but doesn't say anything about the qualifications of the people who disagreed with them, or even who they were -- were right.

He could have been more explicit. But I don't think he's stifling debate here. He's working in an abbreviated medium.

The rhetorical trick here is to say nothing about the dispute itself, but to appeal to sympathy for the distinguished historians.

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.

But if they appeared "confused and defeated," could it be because they wrong?

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.

Did your author even entertain that possibility. Note also that the second link in that first paragraph does support the point it's deployed for at all.

See immediately preceding point.

But, you say, look at the second paragraph! He says the 1619 Project "essentially conceded the historians' central point" ("the historians" slyly implies that the 1619 Project authors were not historians).

I based my conclusions about 1619 on my own reading of some of it.

That sounded suspect to me, so I clicked on the link. Did you? It's not a concession at all. It's a letter from the historians themselves. Does that sound like a robust intellection exchange of ideas, or an appeal to the sort of thing that he's complaining about?

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.

"The outcome proved that whether or not the historians were right about the facts of history, they had made a fundamental error in judging where power lies." Wait -- whether or not the historians were right -- isn't that the question, but now it doesn't matter? "Where the power lies"? The author hasn't said *anything* about "where power lies" -- he's only said that anonymous people disagreed with a bunch of eminent historians. What on Earth does that have to do with his larger argument? Doesn't it suggest that the real problem is people who want to make arguments without listening to the other side?

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 stopped reading there. Do you think I should have continued?

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?

[Adder]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

OK, so here's the main point I was trying to make about the piece: There's some preamble that I didn't quote about how the author used to have great conversations in the olden days when everyone was reasonable. Then there are the three paragraphs I quoted, which are a discursive mess but lay out something like an argument about what has changed. Let's leave alone for a second whether we agree or disagree with him there -- it's such a mess that, as you say, one can find something to like in it if one tries hard enough. But take those three paragraphs as his argument. My point to you is, there is *nothing* in the two paragraphs that follow about the 1619 Project that support his argument *at all.* If you are already familiar with the 1619 Project and you already share his views, you will nod out of tribal affinity, but only because he uses rhetorical tricks to sympathize with the eminent historians who weren't listened to, not because he actually shows anything about who said what to or about them. This from someone extolling the lost art of evidence-based argument! There's nothing in it at all. Is that what he thinks we lost? It's shite.

It doesn't mean that his larger argument, whatever it is, is right or wrong. It just means his writing is crap. He blows off anything the 1619 Project people said without considering it or them in any serious way. Isn't that exactly what he is complaining about?