Essay talk:The errors of RationalWiki's Southern strategy article

This essay is dogshit

I've read multiple poorly written, poorly thought out, and just plain morally bankrupt essays on this site, but this half-assed piece of trash has to be the worst yet. It does not engage with the subject in a thorough and digestible manner, instead favoring cheap "gotcha" type arguments of an immature and idiotic variety. The fact that it was written by someone who claims to want to promote nuanced history only further highlights the essay's partisan nature. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you expect anything else? Scream!! (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

GrammarCommie, I well understand you're not fond of the truth I share. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scream!! Unfortunately not, though I had hoped to read something thought provoking at least. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Change over time" is quite literally the most basic, easy-to-grasp fundamental concept in historical thinking, and he just keeps whiffing it. Buck (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Not an essay, not even a list of key points (and the points are not in chronological or any other order): a 'Child's First Reader' book would be better laid out. Anna Livia (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Buck Read the specific points again. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)