5 ms·

No. I acknowledged the comment about the NYT, but it's not particularly relevant. We were discussing wikileaks. GP's point was that no one's opinion of wikileak

No. I acknowledged the comment about the NYT, but it's not particularly relevant. We were discussing wikileaks. GP's point was that no one's opinion of wikileaks' could have been influenced by the conduct of wikileaks' because everything is hypocrisy period, no exceptions. That's vapid, tldr edgelord nonsense. GP stands accused. Hypocrisy exists therefore every narrative begins and ends there. By the same reasoning, you cannot have possibly been influenced by the details of 1619 fact checking or whatnot. You have to live in the world that is. People lie. They have biases, agendas, etc. Knowing this doesn't give you the ability to see through the matrix. You still have to use judgement... and people do. People generally grow out of black pill mode by either moderating and backing out or eventually checking out, b/c even they are sick of listening to them. There isn't really a way forward. I haven't read 1619 or taken an interest. Purely from the surrounding noise, it sounds like it's all coming from people brand new to critiquing history books or social theory.... Welcome to critical theory and enjoy trying to board the Titanic as it sinks.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> Purely from the surrounding noise, it sounds like it's all coming from people brand new to critiquing history books or social theory.... The criticism came from the historical profession. The NY Times tasked someone who is not a historian to lead their flagship project on American history (and if you follow her on Twitter, it quickly becomes clear that she's not even a well read amateur historian, and she doesn't appear to have even a better than average grasp of history at all). She made some really explosive - and straight-up incorrect - claims about American history. For example, a central part of her thesis is that the Americans rebelled against Britain because Britain was about to abolish slavery. That's utter nonsense, and the historian the NY Times hired to check the piece for accuracy told them as much. They ignored that historian and printed the claim anyways. Some of the most famous historians of the American Revolution and the Civil War saw the newspaper of record making these kinds of absurd claims in print, and flipped out. These are liberal historians who read and respect the NY Times, so they were upset that it was making an utter mess of their field. They wrote a letter to the Times explaining their objections. The Times responded by basically saying, "We know better," and that they weren't going to correct anything. On Twitter, the 1619 Project lead dismissed those historians as "white men." Finally, the historian the Times originally asked to fact check their piece, who is a black woman, wrote an article explaining that she had told the Times they were wrong before publication, but that they had ignored her. The Times then went and did a minimal "clarification," which watered down one of their original, incorrect claims just enough so that it is now unfalsifiable. This wasn't just some squabble between historians. It was a fight between historians and a newspaper (and a project lead who doesn't know anything about history) that wanted to sell a narrative that is simply incorrect. Why did the Times do this? Because it fit in perfectly with the angle they had decided they wanted to pursue. The NY Times had an all-hands meeting around the time of the 1619 Project in which Dean Baquet told the staff that the paper was going to try to connect every story to race. That was going to be the Times' signature feature going forward. They did that with their big, feature historical piece, completely messed it up, and then responded arrogantly to the historical profession. People who say that WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization because it has an agenda are incredibly naive about how journalistic organizations actually behave. This line of attack is being used to artificially separate WikiLeaks from journalism and justify the government's campaign against it and Assange. If we accept this line of argument, then in the future, the government can go after any organization that publishes news, but which the government claims has an agenda.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  "People who say that WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization because it has an agenda" We're like 15 deep into a flame thread... and I'm pretty sure no one up this thread has said anything like that. As I said, I haven't read it or taken much interest... and hence commented only on the noise that has reached the uninterested. Seems mostly like politibait, drawing conservatives into a tussle the way Trump drew in liberals. I'll note that this thread is not about 1619, american history or NYT. It's about wikileaks. 1619 came into it as "proof" that everything everywhere is hypocrisy and only hypocrisy. Hence anyone's opinion on Wikileaks as an organisation reflects only hypocrisy, and in no cases is caused by Wikileaks conduct, ethos, etc. This is exactly what I meant by noise. 1619 always seems to always be one person ranting to a nonconsensual partner that something they had assumed happens all the time (and don't care) is happening right now. I don't care! Go write the 1620 project in protest. There are lots of books to get angry about. Diversify. This is boring to those of us not into that sort of thing. Be considerate.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    I just gave the 1619 Project as an example (alongside the NY Times burying a massive story at Bush Jr's request in 2004, so that it wouldn't come out during the election) of the political biases of the NY Times. > Seems mostly like politibait, drawing conservatives into a tussle the way Trump drew in liberals. Liberal and left-wing historians were actually the most outraged about the project. Trump only caught onto the controversy much later. The claim that the critics of the project were just conservatives was a dishonest deflection often used by the Times' supporters in the controversy. The claim was made above that WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization because it has an agenda. Most journalistic organizations, even the paper of record, have strong biases and agendas. That doesn't justify labeling them "non-state hostile intelligence agencies" and trying to lock up their editors for 175 years.
    - dalbasal 4y ago
      Nonsense. No one said any of that.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> Purely from the surrounding noise, it sounds like it's all coming from people brand new to critiquing history books or social theory.... The criticism came from the historical profession. The NY Times tasked someone who is not a historian to lead their flagship project on American history (and if you follow her on Twitter, it quickly becomes clear that she's not even a well read amateur historian, and she doesn't appear to have even a better than average grasp of history at all). She made some really explosive - and straight-up incorrect - claims about American history. For example, a central part of her thesis is that the Americans rebelled against Britain because Britain was about to abolish slavery. That's utter nonsense, and the historian the NY Times hired to check the piece for accuracy told them as much. They ignored that historian and printed the claim anyways. Some of the most famous historians of the American Revolution and the Civil War saw the newspaper of record making these kinds of absurd claims in print, and flipped out. These are liberal historians who read and respect the NY Times, so they were upset that it was making an utter mess of their field. They wrote a letter to the Times explaining their objections. The Times responded by basically saying, "We know better," and that they weren't going to correct anything. On Twitter, the 1619 Project lead dismissed those historians as "white men." Finally, the historian the Times originally asked to fact check their piece, who is a black woman, wrote an article explaining that she had told the Times they were wrong before publication, but that they had ignored her. The Times then went and did a minimal "clarification," which watered down one of their original, incorrect claims just enough so that it is now unfalsifiable. This wasn't just some squabble between historians. It was a fight between historians and a newspaper (and a project lead who doesn't know anything about history) that wanted to sell a narrative that is simply incorrect. Why did the Times do this? Because it fit in perfectly with the angle they had decided they wanted to pursue. The NY Times had an all-hands meeting around the time of the 1619 Project in which Dean Baquet told the staff that the paper was going to try to connect every story to race. That was going to be the Times' signature feature going forward. They did that with their big, feature historical piece, completely messed it up, and then responded arrogantly to the historical profession. People who say that WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization because it has an agenda are incredibly naive about how journalistic organizations actually behave. This line of attack is being used to artificially separate WikiLeaks from journalism and justify the government's campaign against it and Assange. If we accept this line of argument, then in the future, the government can go after any organization that publishes news, but which the government claims has an agenda.

dalbasal 4y ago
"People who say that WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization because it has an agenda" We're like 15 deep into a flame thread... and I'm pretty sure no one up this thread has said anything like that. As I said, I haven't read it or taken much interest... and hence commented only on the noise that has reached the uninterested. Seems mostly like politibait, drawing conservatives into a tussle the way Trump drew in liberals. I'll note that this thread is not about 1619, american history or NYT. It's about wikileaks. 1619 came into it as "proof" that everything everywhere is hypocrisy and only hypocrisy. Hence anyone's opinion on Wikileaks as an organisation reflects only hypocrisy, and in no cases is caused by Wikileaks conduct, ethos, etc. This is exactly what I meant by noise. 1619 always seems to always be one person ranting to a nonconsensual partner that something they had assumed happens all the time (and don't care) is happening right now. I don't care! Go write the 1620 project in protest. There are lots of books to get angry about. Diversify. This is boring to those of us not into that sort of thing. Be considerate.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  I just gave the 1619 Project as an example (alongside the NY Times burying a massive story at Bush Jr's request in 2004, so that it wouldn't come out during the election) of the political biases of the NY Times. > Seems mostly like politibait, drawing conservatives into a tussle the way Trump drew in liberals. Liberal and left-wing historians were actually the most outraged about the project. Trump only caught onto the controversy much later. The claim that the critics of the project were just conservatives was a dishonest deflection often used by the Times' supporters in the controversy. The claim was made above that WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization because it has an agenda. Most journalistic organizations, even the paper of record, have strong biases and agendas. That doesn't justify labeling them "non-state hostile intelligence agencies" and trying to lock up their editors for 175 years.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    Nonsense. No one said any of that.