Yikes, a red hat! A FASCIST! Trying to steal the World Series Trophy like they almost did our democracy!
Why would I think either of these two people would be able to answer either of these two questions? I don't even need to listen to this and I already know exactly what their answers are going to be, with zero evidence for either, and I already know they're going to be the same as all the other people who said them immediately.
They're probably big mad that Musk pulled in 100k on his Twitter Space and they want even a single drop of that clout. I'll be surprised if they pull 100.
Duder! That's totes reactionary.
And here comes criticism number one
IIRC, there was a historical book published in recent memory which claimed the American colonies had very few guns. It turned out to be fraudulent from the get-go, claiming access to courthouse records that didn't exist. The problems with the book were not found by historians, but by an NRA lawyer.
That was over 20 years ago.
Yes, that's it. The chief takeaway is that a mildly critical reader could never have fallen for it, yet it was widely accepted by historians.That was over 20 years ago.
(that said I do remember it)
Even Wikipedia calls it "discredited."Arming America - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The last place I can find that he worked was Trinity College in Hartford although he is neither listed on their faculty page nor in their emeritus faculty page.
Incidentally it is ridiculous it was even taken seriously for a minute, much less given a prestigious award (the Bancroft Prize). It should have immediately raised suspicions, because at least of the voting population, largely consisting of landowning white males, it was virtually obligatory to have some kind of weapon or multiple weapons to protect the property. Much as today, these would range from varmint rifles to something for humans.
And to the contrary of the kind of argument this fake history was meant to support, these were "military grade" weapons and in fact, would generally be the very weapons men would bring to use in the militia if they were called up by the state to serve (the military largely operated at the state level and actually having a standing army during peacetime is a relative novelty).
A lot of it is like a drunk looking for his car keys under a streetlight. They might not be there, but it's the only place he can see anything.
Which also makes John's statement here look retarded. Yes, historians work from original sources, because that's what they have. Guess what the victors do with any data that discredits them, given the opportunity to do so?
Just a guess : Go on a hissy fit rampage when Elon Musk gets access to the "Trust & Safety council" ivory tower?
That at least is plausibly an honest mistake.Remember the feminist who wrote the whole book about how Britain was executing fags left and right and someone who actually knew their shit corrected her live on air "Um, actually Death Recorded means the judge determined they didn't deserve capital punishment"
Feminist author Naomi Wolf admits error in new book after called out live on air for misunderstanding data
It was every author’s biggest nightmare – getting called out live on air for featuring factually incorrect information in your new upcoming book.www.foxnews.com
No, that's what the LOSERS do. Musk is the winner here. He gets to decide what to release of what he now OWNS.
Dude he does literally nothing. He sucks a rich chink's dick. That's what he does. Some wealthy SFWA pervert bankrolled him getting his cock cut off to turn him into a wife and now owns him, and keeps him as a pet and pays for all his ridiculous flights of fancy.
For internet shit posting, yes. Not for a published volume.
I have to maintain my foolish optimism on this place, or the MovieBob thread alone would have driven me to jumping off the Chrysler Building years ago.
