New Documentary on Lincoln being gay.

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
I watched this documentary and was appalled. Dear Lord was it painful to watch. Without a doubt one of the worst documentaries I’ve ever seen. It’s more of a progressive propaganda film than anything.

Not only did the filmmakers use tissue thin evidence to support their conclusions but they stretched what minuscule evidence they had well beyond the breaking point into incredulity.

This isn’t even good enough to be called historical revisionism. It’s just flat out an anachronism. Which means the probability of their being historically accurate is minute to non-existent.

I would strongly urge everyone to watch this documentary as how not to do historical research. The political agenda that this film has is just so blatantly obvious that it can only be characterized as badly made political propaganda.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I watched this documentary and was appalled. Dear Lord was it painful to watch. Without a doubt one of the worst documentaries I’ve ever seen. It’s more of a progressive propaganda film than anything.

Not only did the filmmakers use tissue thin evidence to support their conclusions but they stretched what minuscule evidence they had well beyond the breaking point into incredulity.

This isn’t even good enough to be called historical revisionism. It’s just flat out an anachronism. Which means the probability of their being historically accurate is minute to non-existent.

I would strongly urge everyone to watch this documentary as how not to do historical research. The political agenda that this film has is just so blatantly obvious that it can only be characterized as badly made political propaganda.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the report.
 
They very fact they use euphemisms like 'gay' means they know it's a disorder and not 'normal' and need to refrain from saying 'homosexual fetishism'. Wait long enough and they will publish all kinds of nonsense.
 

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln​

The sexuality of Abraham Lincoln has been the topic of historical speculation and research. No such discussions have been documented during or shortly after Lincoln's lifetime; however, in recent decades (Circa 1995) some writers have discussed purported evidence that he may have been homosexual.

Mainstream historians generally hold that Lincoln was heterosexual, noting that the historical context explains any of the supposed evidence, that he had romantic ties with women, and that he had four children in an enduring marriage to a woman.

Commentary on President Abraham Lincoln's sexuality has been documented since the early 20th century. Attention to the sexuality of public figures has been heightened since the gay rights movement in the late 20th century. In his 1926 biography of Lincoln, Carl Sandburg alluded to the early relationship of Lincoln and his friend Joshua Fry Speed as having "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets". "Streak of lavender" was period slang for an effeminate man and later connoted homosexuality. Sandburg did not elaborate on this comment. Historian and psychoanalyst Charles B. Strozier believes that it is unlikely for Sandburg to have used that phrase with homosexual implications, suggesting that he instead used the term to note "Speed's and Lincoln's softer, more vulnerable sides, which shielded their vigorous masculinity".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I watched this documentary and was appalled. Dear Lord was it painful to watch. Without a doubt one of the worst documentaries I’ve ever seen. It’s more of a progressive propaganda film than anything.

Not only did the filmmakers use tissue thin evidence to support their conclusions but they stretched what minuscule evidence they had well beyond the breaking point into incredulity.

This isn’t even good enough to be called historical revisionism. It’s just flat out an anachronism. Which means the probability of their being historically accurate is minute to non-existent.

I would strongly urge everyone to watch this documentary as how not to do historical research. The political agenda that this film has is just so blatantly obvious that it can only be characterized as badly made political propaganda.
Click to expand...
What is its title? And why would anyone care whether Lincoln was gay, straight, or whatever?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
What is its title? And why would anyone care whether Lincoln was gay, straight, or whatever?
Click to expand...
Lover of Men: The Untold Story of Abraham Lincoln. Why? Self rationalization by gay activists. A form of validation that famous persons from history were gay and homosexuality more common than believed at those times. The later which may very well be true. That doesn’t except that this was a poorly researched documentary with a specific political agenda in which an anachronism was created as a premise to create a controversy that’s very suspect.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Lover of Men: The Untold Story of Abraham Lincoln. Why? Self rationalization by gay activists. A form of validation that famous persons from history were gay and homosexuality more common than believed at those times. The later which may very well be true. That doesn’t except that this was a poorly researched documentary with a specific political agenda in which an anachronism was created as a premise to create a controversy that’s very suspect.
Click to expand...
Warping history to fit your agenda IMO does your cause no good at all.
 
EdwinA said:
You haven't deleted any of your posts yet, so of course you're just smoking rocks.
Click to expand...
Why would I want to delete my posts? Once again, you are dodging. Why can't you give us any specific examples of how "leftists persist in constant revisionism and blatant lying about it"? Because you lied about it? Not surprising, given that most of your posts are also b.s.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Why would I want to delete my posts? Once again, you are dodging. Why can't you give us any specific examples of how "leftists persist in constant revisionism and blatant lying about it"? Because you lied about it? Not surprising, given that most of your posts are also b.s.
Click to expand...

No need to, since none of you will ever tell the truth about anything that doesn't fit the narratives you're told to parrot. Left wing revisionism is all over the place and has been for decades, and you can't defend it.
 
EdwinA said:
No need to, since none of you will ever tell the truth about anything that doesn't fit the narratives you're told to parrot. Left wing revisionism is all over the place and has been for decades, and you can't defend it.
Click to expand...
So you won't back up your lies with credible evidence. So typical of the years of idiot Trumpanzees I've clashed with and defeated. Goodbye. You are the weakest link.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
So you won't back up your lies with credible evidence. So typical of the years of idiot Trumpanzees I've clashed with and defeated. Goodbye. You are the weakest link.
Click to expand...

You can't name even one leftist version of history that isn't blatant lying and outright distortion. You claiming there is no credible evidence is just hilarious rubbish.

And, TDS isn't a rebuttal, it's just more idiocy on parade.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I watched this documentary and was appalled. Dear Lord was it painful to watch. Without a doubt one of the worst documentaries I’ve ever seen. It’s more of a progressive propaganda film than anything.

Not only did the filmmakers use tissue thin evidence to support their conclusions but they stretched what minuscule evidence they had well beyond the breaking point into incredulity.

This isn’t even good enough to be called historical revisionism. It’s just flat out an anachronism. Which means the probability of their being historically accurate is minute to non-existent.

I would strongly urge everyone to watch this documentary as how not to do historical research. The political agenda that this film has is just so blatantly obvious that it can only be characterized as badly made political propaganda.
Click to expand...
I have read about it several times. It is possible. Why does it matter?
 
EdwinA said:
You can't name even one leftist version of history that isn't blatant lying and outright distortion. You claiming there is no credible evidence is just hilarious rubbish.

And, TDS isn't a rebuttal, it's just more idiocy on parade.
Click to expand...
You still haven't posted a single example of this so-called "leftist version of history." Try doing that first, then we can discuss it. I realize that this request is in vain, however. You are not here to discuss. You're just here to troll and pop your grievance pimples in public.

Yes, #TrumpDevotionSyndrome (TDS) truly is a fatal disease of idiots. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Nordberg said:
I have read about it several times. It is possible. Why does it matter?
Click to expand...
Because it’s lousy history based on an anachronistic point of view based on current values and Mores and predicated on a political agenda. You simply can’t study history and be accurate if you’re looking back at history from a modern point of view. To study history of any particular era you need to first study the history 2-3 generations prior to that era so you understand the cultural, social and historical conditions and events that preceded and created the conditions and events of that era. When you study history anachronistically you will almost always be wrong because the historical conditions and events of modern times just didn’t exist in previous eras. That’s why professional historians avoid creating anachronisms like the plague in their writings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top