This is what people defending the column didn’t get. It was inaccurate. This wasn’t about difference of opinions, but no subject matter expert believed it to be a correct portrayal of civil/military rules or interactions, let alone history. 1/
Sometimes experts are correct. That it was also seen as unleashing use of force against minorities & media was of course an added factor. Institutions have interest in getting it right. This failed. Cries of censorship are silly; this is a newspaper with agency, not government.2/
Many grew up believing being anti-PC was hip and cool, like they see through everything. Many have power now yet never saw that term was constructed to oppose facts and history, let alone inclusion and diverse voices. They still think it’s cool. Sometimes it’s just wrong. 3/
This isn’t generally my fight esp. with media friends. But when errors — so factually unhinged, so grotesquely oozing of violence over law and history — are something you know, then it is. We have a common cause: rigorous debate based on facts in a democracy just holding on. 4/4
