When we say "no, everything hasn't been digitized," I need you to understand that we really mean is that virtually nothing has been digitized. This is because the realm of primary sources that historians use is incomprehensibly large.

GOYA (get off your ass) is a crucial research method.

It’s possible people will be surprised by how many of Trump’s voters J. D. Vance will be able to keep on side, but it will have relatively little to do with J. D. Vance himself & he probably will not have the same pull with infrequent voters.

We have to make sure that in the United States of America you very much do have to apologize for saying shit like this.

Wait, what is learning?

"I'm just a politically homeless classical liberal who thinks that network news should consist solely of softball interviews with third tier MAGA media personalities"

That "the Left" and "Democrats" have collective responsibility for killing Charlie Kirk is Trump administration doctrine.

That’s not the quote. JD is a racist maniac, but this is what he actually said: ‘Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.”

You should, however, apologize for being JD Vance

Full on, undeniable anti semitism a d white nationalism

Trump could win because he gave supporters plausible deniability (to themselves, if not to outsiders). He's putting on a show, messing with the media, trolling the left, that's just the way he talks, seriously but not literally, etc. Vance's unabashed, creepy white nationalism doesn't have that.

What historians (and other scholars do) is create knowledge. We should use that phrase more and talk about what it means. I think we don't, and it's part of why AI enthusiasts are confused when we don't readily agree that our work can be replicated/replaced by their products.

Bingo. He can't win a national election because he's a repulsive douche. The danger is him inheriting power.

This is why I feel the “Vance is juiceless & him being in charge is a win position for liberal democracy” is a bad take. His ideological allies are the most extreme and he’s actually a functional person. He can stand in front of a camera and give a boring normal sounding address filled with bile

I'd genuinely rather keep Trump as POTUS than this guy. Vance is dangerous in a way that Trump isn't. He's disciplined in his assault on norms and institutions. He's racist by choice and calculation (note the fake-ass Freudian slip about Mogadishu). He actually has an ideology, one which utterly/

I've always said, if being white is important to you, you are exactly what's been wrong with this country from the very beginning.

You can feel the white pride from the audience. They are LOVING this.

Dude has cooked his brain many times over, and he's one heart attack away from controlling the executive branch.

He knows he has to feed the moronic rubes and Internet psychos that form the base of the GOP. And as a person with no integrity or scruples, he's happy to do so.

This dude is actually an idiot. There's something off about him. We're gonna find out some weird shit about this guy, mark my words.

When you are right you are right except it won't be the radical left doing it.

i often think about this "it's okay to slaughter children in the name of world wide revolution--you just haven't read enough chomsky" tweet from the founder of jacobin

fuck right off with this too please. Chomsky has been quite clear that he doesn’t think his relationship with Epstein is anyone else’s business and we can and should draw adverse inferences from that. sorry he wrote some things you liked; bold thinkers can be monsters too.

chomsky: “there was no bosnian or cambodian genocide, those skulls were probably put there by ibm, and anyway even if they were real it’s Good” average chomsky fan: “i didn’t hear the first bit but i love him for his takes on corporate power”

My favorite thing is the people saying “You worded it badly,” because apparently it is your responsibility to disclaim every potential bad-faith reading by people who are absolutely champing at the bit to read you in bad faith.

What this really is, is “I came to this angry because of the Big Account that wanted me to be angry about it, and then I looked at it and the reason I was angry was wrong, but I’m still angry so there has to be some way to justify it.” Very common on here.

Noam Chomsky has spent about 60 years telling us that billionaires control the world through corporate propaganda.

One thing that has alarmed me for closer to two decades is the worship of Chomsky the genocide denier and authoritarian apologist among so many people who really, REALLY, ought to have known better.

Russia’s public officials/influencers competing for the employee of the month title

Hey professional historians! Guess what! All of us are wrong and we should be using AI because we also....wait for it .... we use the internet!!

Terrible comparison.

Wow.

Hey is it good when the DNI repeats Russian talking points?

I don't understand how you can be this fucked up.

They have these great things now called "abstracts" and "introduction" that take between 1 and 5 minutes to read. They also invented this thing called the "book review" that usually takes 5 minutes! Also, no one reads every book/article in their field. No one.

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T THEY READ THE BOOK OR ARTICLE?! Come on. Stop trying to replace intellectual activity and work. Stop trying to replace thought.

You absolutely will not convince a bunch of historians and sociologists and whoever else is in this thread that you know more than we do about this and we should use it. I wish you AI enthusiasts would stop wading into our conversations. You have nothing helpful to contribute and are snarky.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution.” - Abraham Lincoln

It’s all so pathetic isn’t it

It's time to announce the Stiebies, i.e. my personal books of the year, plus honorable mentions. My favorite fiction book this year was "The MANIAC," a haunting, engrossing book about the heedless pursuit of knowledge and technological progress.

And because it's important to spread hate as well as love, here are the book I most detested this last year (in fiction, at least):

It's time to announce the Stiebies, i.e. my personal books of the year, plus honorable mentions. My favorite fiction book this year was "The MANIAC," a haunting, engrossing book about the heedless pursuit of knowledge and technological progress.

"Why did God let Trump be president?" He gave us two thousand years advance warning of the antichrist, made him the individual with the most readily accessible, up-to-date public information about his multiple shortcomings ever, and gave us a mulligan the first time. We were given an out.

Nothing to see here, just a right wing hyper-nationalist government going to their party’s youth event sponsored by a group with a martyred leader they’ve pledged to avenge, recruiting people to join their masked police force devoted to removing auslanders from ze homeland.

Paul and Tate getting their brains turned to mashed potatoes the moment they stepped in the ring with somebody in the same weight class who isn't afraid to punch back feels like God flashing a big red warning sign to our country.

Here's Texas attorney general Ken Paxton strutting across the TurningPoint USA stage in Phoenix, AZ, comparing Charlie Kirk to Jesus Christ.

This guy is president again www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/u...

Now that American power and influence is declining, all the "America Bad" people are becoming "Europe Bad" people.

With all due respect, God does not care about your performance in a sporting event. You are not, in fact, His worldly agent carrying out a divine punishment of Texas A&M.