This claim is staggering. Because I wrote an essay arguing that The 1619 Project was great in parts, but was wrong to argue that 1619 was our "true founding," I take exception to it. My essay is here: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/… Was I duped by "the right" or duping others? A thread:
Nikole Hannah Jones repeats this claim on CNN, where the interviewer credulously accepts her framing that the right is misrepresenting the project
Here she is calling Ben Shapiro a liar and saying that the wrongheadedness of his claim is easily verified. Am I going crazy? I thought. So I went back to check myself to make sure I didn't error in my essay. What I found is quite damning. Image
There is, first, the original display copy: "The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American Slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding”
Numerous mainstream and left of center publications, as well as right of center publications, used that characterization *because that is what the NYT Magazine published.* Here is The Nation, not thinking that was factually wrong: Image
Here is The Daily Kos, no one's idea of "the right" Image
At first I thought, NHJ should just say that the display copy wasn't quite right, and she intended to argue something different. As a journalist I can sympathize with copy written by editors that I wish was just slightly different. It happens! But.
How do you call other people liars who repeat an easily falsifiable claim when you have characterized the matter this way? Image
Or when you give an interview to Niemen Lab and say: Image
People like me, who argued in good faith with the ideas that the New York Times Magazine and Nikole Hannah Jones put forth, do not deserve to be tarred as dupes or liars or sloppy for accurately characterizing their original presentation, now that they are walking it back.
Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @conor64

Nov 27, 2021
One more thread of email correspondence from this piece, some of it agreeing with what I wrote, some of it disagreeing with what I wrote, and some of it disagreeing with what I didn't write 1/x

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Read 11 tweets
Oct 24, 2021
One other line from that piece on The Closer that's worth unpacking:
The implication seems to be that it's inherently suspicious or problematic for someone with more power to claim to be the victim of someone with less power. Let's test that general view.
If a meth-addicted homeless man stabs a middle class insurance adjuster to death outside her home, is she his victim?

Was Princess Diana the victim of the paparazzi?

Can teen hackers victimize millionaire actresses?

Power dynamics are tremendously complicated and dynamic.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 24, 2021
Here's part of @jelani9's article on The Closer that deals with a claim I've been thinking about more 1/x
Is there any evidence that content on Netflix can lead to direct harm? Yes, 13 Reasons Why, seems to have done so, and was irresponsible, given what we've long known about suicide.
npr.org/2019/04/30/718…

Is there any comparable evidence of a comedy special doing harm? Ever?
I have found no evidence of that. No one has cited any evidence of it. Yet it's treated in piece after piece as though it's *obviously* a well-grounded concern. I want more than question begging on this point, partly for normal reasons of rigor, but also because
Read 4 tweets
Oct 19, 2021
There's one claim in this essay on the Chappelle special that I want to discuss real quick:

rainofterra.com/it-was-never-a…
To me, this is clearly mistaken, which is to say: Dave Chappelle, other famous comedians, and many not so famous comedians can and do routinely mock, disparage, and poke fun at all sorts of groups, including the ones that the Successor Ideology understands as the most powerful
To be clear, I don't deny that our culture sometimes does devalue trans people. It does, and that's a shame. My claim is that *famous comedian can joke about group with impunity* is true of almost all if not all groups, not evidence of anything about any particular group.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 13, 2021
The confidence with which some attribute this monocausally to "racism" despite significant evidence that other factors are at play is the latest illustration of how reflexive adherence to an Ur narrative harms our ability to address what is, in this case, a life or death problem.
Here is a USA Today poll about attitudes toward public safety in Detroit usatoday.com/story/news/pol… Ask yourself if @jasonintrator's claim can be squared with its findings
One needn't pay particularly close attention to know there is an uptick in murders in many American cities, and that people are concerned by that trens because murder is scary and bad.
Read 5 tweets
Sep 6, 2021
I've been thinking a lot about this. I share @radleybalko's view that far more damage is being done by Tucker Carlson (e.g.) than people making horse paste jokes. I disagree that a profusion of condemnatory pieces would improve things. Here's my thinking for your consideration:
1. While I have long believed that e.g. Tucker Carlson is acting in bad faith on many things, I don't think, e.g., Joe Rogan is acting in bad faith on Ivermectin, and condemning people who are wrong in damaging ways but are acting in good faith automatically loses a lot of people
2. Likewise, the premise that one *must* be acting in bad faith and/or be worthy of condemnation for believing in the promise of Ivermectin obviously rings hollow to *people who believe Ivermectin has promise to treat Covid*
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(