Nobody should be blaming fact-checkers here. This is all on Wolf.
The author is the one responsible for the premise of their argument. A fact-checker can happily save the author from themselves, among other heroisms. But as long as the fact-checker isnât introducing an error, then the raw material of a book is completely on the author, for praise or scorn.
I wouldnât spread blame to nameless fact-checkers for Bill OâReillyâs ahistorical malfeasances, I wouldnât do it here.
Yes, Iâve been seeing the bookâs claims dismantled on Twitter in the last couple days, including by someone who found an actual table from an earlier history book showing how many âdeath sentencesâ of each type of crime were commuted and to what.
The vast majority of those convicted of sodomy were sentenced to life transportation (i.e. sent to one of the penal colonies), a few had sentences totally commuted, and only the one case in 1835 actually had the death sentence carried out, probably because it seems to have been a case of actual child rape.
The authorâs failure here was not just failing to check with actual historians, but also failing to check with the queer community who have had a powerful interest in knowing the actual facts.
Oops, missed your reply before commenting to say much of the same.
Interesting. I wasnât aware of any of that. When I was looking for a book that covered the Civil War his work rises to the top of every search and is usually covered in 4 and 5 star ratings. So I never thought to seek out criticism of Foote himself.
I did notice (and dislike) a certain amount of reverence for generals but I took that to be the martial fetishism of a war historian.
Iâll probably still (try to) listen to it but with a wary ear now. Thanks for the enlightenment.
On what operating system? Holding down the e key tends to give you âeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeâŚâ
âDeath recordedâ sounds like some dystopian punishment. i.e. The Ticktockman cancelling your cardioplate or civil death.
That all sounds very ad hominem. Can you cite sources on whatâs âpar for the courseâ with this author? Till then Iâm not impressed.
Android, for one.
For a better source on Civil War history, try James McPhersonâs The Battle Cry of Freedom.
Naomi Wolf isnât some debut author.
Her dubious takes on a raft of subjects are public record and entertainingly Google-able.
A fact-checker wouldnât have helped her with her publicly asserted opinions on chem-trails, although it might have helped her with things like this:
Fact-checkers are only effective where theyâre used, and when people listen to them.
Chemtrails? Yikes!
âTry not to use term âchemtrailsâ as it is marginalizing. Try to say âaerial sprayingâ or âemissions that donât disperseâ âŚor geoengineering.â
(From Naomi Wolfâs Twitter account)
1860 is far removed from the 18th century.
In an academic press this would have been refereed like any other academic writing, and the referees (and press) would have had some culpability. The big presses preferred by so-called âpublic intellectualsâ have no responsibility towards quality of scholarship, though occasionally they do the right thing.
I guess, with Assange back in the news, this will at least deflect attention from some of what she said about the Swedish allegations.
Well thatâs definitely true. I donât know how applicable the same ideas are, or when they changed.
I found that tweet in order to report back that it really wasnât that bad in context, that maybe she was actually admonishing someone who was referring to actual crop dusting as âchemtrails,â or maybe she was being ironic.
No, she actually believes that chemtrails and âgeoengineeringâ (deliberately manipulating all the weather on Earth, for one thing) exists
Best look into âWelsh rabbitâ also.
