4 ms·

Come on, the main thesis of the project is claiming 1619 is the true founding. And the project writer secretly removed it and denied she said it. > In Septembe

Come on, the main thesis of the project is claiming 1619 is the true founding. And the project writer secretly removed it and denied she said it. > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice. A simple reading of its Wikipedia page can get those information.

avs733 5y ago
the thesis of an argument is by definition not a fact. It's a point...founding is a theoretical concept, its metaphorical, its not provable and demonstrable and repeatable. Wow.
- temp8964 5y ago
  I quoted the main thesis is to simply demonstrating the creator of project is a straight liar, so her work can't be trusted. You can get more information by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
  - avs733 5y ago
    you disagree with the thesis of someone's argument. Mapping that to 'straight liar' is unlikely to lead to meaningful understanding of their point or sincere engagement with their work...its an unhelpful epistemic and ontological perspective.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      What???? How is she not a 'straight liar'? May be you missed this? > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.
platz 5y ago
in this situation, the OP class would teach kids to use lateral reading. > what helped students distinguish misinformation the most is something called lateral reading. That can be as simple as opening a new tab and leaving the post to find more about the source of information. It appears to be effective. in fact, you would be for this class It would be clear that the class would help kids uncover that 1619 has many controversial claims
- temp8964 5y ago
  > in fact, you would be for this class I am for the idea of this class. But I am pretty sure many teachers won't implement this idea netrually.
macintux 5y ago
It hardly seems controversial to suggest that slavery was a fundamental building block of our country, and one that has had an enormous long-lasting impact on our society. To label 1619 as the founding of the country sounds like hyperbole designed to draw attention and discussion. Was she wrong to respond the way she did? Sure. And it's a shame that an important project to take a sober look at the legacy of slavery has been diminished by her reaction to the criticism, and generally mishandled by the NYT. Does that mean that the project as a whole is "factually wrong"? That seems dubious at best.

avs733 5y ago

the thesis of an argument is by definition not a fact. It's a point...founding is a theoretical concept, its metaphorical, its not provable and demonstrable and repeatable. Wow.

temp8964 5y ago
I quoted the main thesis is to simply demonstrating the creator of project is a straight liar, so her work can't be trusted. You can get more information by reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
- avs733 5y ago
  you disagree with the thesis of someone's argument. Mapping that to 'straight liar' is unlikely to lead to meaningful understanding of their point or sincere engagement with their work...its an unhelpful epistemic and ontological perspective.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    What???? How is she not a 'straight liar'? May be you missed this? > In September 2020, lead 1619 Project writer Nikole Hannah-Jones criticized conservatives for their depiction of the project, arguing that it "does not argue that 1619 is our true founding".[12] Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf responded on Twitter by citing statements from Hannah-Jones arguing that 1619 was the nation's true founding.[12] Philip Magness said in a Quillette essay that the claim that the project aimed to "reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding" had been removed from the opening text of project's page on the New York Times' site without an accompanying correction notice.

platz 5y ago

in this situation, the OP class would teach kids to use lateral reading. > what helped students distinguish misinformation the most is something called lateral reading. That can be as simple as opening a new tab and leaving the post to find more about the source of information. It appears to be effective. in fact, you would be for this class It would be clear that the class would help kids uncover that 1619 has many controversial claims

temp8964 5y ago
> in fact, you would be for this class I am for the idea of this class. But I am pretty sure many teachers won't implement this idea netrually.

macintux 5y ago

It hardly seems controversial to suggest that slavery was a fundamental building block of our country, and one that has had an enormous long-lasting impact on our society. To label 1619 as the founding of the country sounds like hyperbole designed to draw attention and discussion. Was she wrong to respond the way she did? Sure. And it's a shame that an important project to take a sober look at the legacy of slavery has been diminished by her reaction to the criticism, and generally mishandled by the NYT. Does that mean that the project as a whole is "factually wrong"? That seems dubious at best.