3 ms·
historically revisionist? I don't see how we can get anywhere discussing like this. Instead of discussing the topic, it's all meta. Ad hominems, characterizati
by netcan 5y ago
historically revisionist?
I don't see how we can get anywhere discussing like this. Instead of discussing the topic, it's all meta. Ad hominems, characterizations of the argument and accusations of bad faith.
As I said, disagree and make your case. You don't have to assume credibility, but don't assume malice. What's the point of having a discussion if it's not a good faith discussion.
- numair 5y ago> historically revisionist? Yes. The “big banks lost money servicing the poor people” narrative is totally wrong, and the author knows this. We can’t let this incorrect story get more traction than it already has. Too many innocent people suffered great hardships in the real story of what happened — look at the stories in this thread! > What's the point of having a discussion if it's not a good faith discussion. Edward Bernays might have a few ideas.