Cathy is generally OK, notwithstanding the TDS, and notwithstanding her claim that Snopes should be trusted because (paraphrasing) "there has to be something that you can trust".
I know one thing, and that is that she at least tries to be an honest person, and that is so rare that it deserves plaudits in this degenerate age.
She's saying that the 1619 Project people DID claim that 1619 was the "true founding" of America, but they did not mean that claim literally (as in, they did not mean the political entity was created then), and their criticis did not thing they meant that claim literally. The 1619 defenders are trying to make their opponents look absurd, and Young is having none of it.
Don't waste effort on gaslighting. Blacklist a person and move on. This tweetboi made the only necessary comment:
Holden D Center (@center_holden)
Replying to @RottenInDenmark
It's an argument that 1619 is the country's true founding, not 1776. Stephens is rebutting that argument. That's how discourse goes. I'm not sure what you're asserting here.
edit: That was not a criticism of posting this here. Just some free life advice. ;)
Young seems to be asserting that this one article is the only reference to it. It's not.
There's also a second issue of the NYT quietly updating the original article without mentioning they've done so, I believe, which is just a little Orwellian...
To me this doesn't read as defending or justifying it. I interpret it as "here's someone making fun of critics of the 1619 Project by making it seem like they think that the 1619 Project is literally trying to redefine when the USA was founded (as a collection of slave states) - but that's a complete strawman of the argument being made (against the 1619 Project) here".
Cathy is generally OK, notwithstanding the TDS, and notwithstanding her claim that Snopes should be trusted because (paraphrasing) "there has to be something that you can trust".
I know one thing, and that is that she at least tries to be an honest person, and that is so rare that it deserves plaudits in this degenerate age.
Did you even read the tweet? She's clearly on the side of the 1619 critics, and is opposing an attempt to strawman the critics.
You're misunderstanding that tweet.
I'm not sure I do, either. What do you make of it?
She's saying that the 1619 Project people DID claim that 1619 was the "true founding" of America, but they did not mean that claim literally (as in, they did not mean the political entity was created then), and their criticis did not thing they meant that claim literally. The 1619 defenders are trying to make their opponents look absurd, and Young is having none of it.
Don't waste effort on gaslighting. Blacklist a person and move on. This tweetboi made the only necessary comment:
edit: That was not a criticism of posting this here. Just some free life advice. ;)
Young seems to be asserting that this one article is the only reference to it. It's not.
There's also a second issue of the NYT quietly updating the original article without mentioning they've done so, I believe, which is just a little Orwellian...
To me this doesn't read as defending or justifying it. I interpret it as "here's someone making fun of critics of the 1619 Project by making it seem like they think that the 1619 Project is literally trying to redefine when the USA was founded (as a collection of slave states) - but that's a complete strawman of the argument being made (against the 1619 Project) here".