What “history” are you talking about? Do you think he has a history with Naziism? That he’s been secretly going to Klan meetings?
How are you not “uncritically” accepting the narrative that he’s a Nazi, without ignoring everything else that says he isn’t? Wouldn’t critical thinking involve looking at everything about him, not just the one detail that contradicts the rest?
I am looking at everything about him. I’m just giving more weight to his history (ie, his work and his tattoo) than to his last year of campaigning. You are giving more weight to his campaigning. That’s fine.
What “history” are you talking about? Do you think he has a history with Naziism? That he’s been secretly going to Klan meetings?
How are you not “uncritically” accepting the narrative that he’s a Nazi, without ignoring everything else that says he isn’t? Wouldn’t critical thinking involve looking at everything about him, not just the one detail that contradicts the rest?
I am looking at everything about him. I’m just giving more weight to his history (ie, his work and his tattoo) than to his last year of campaigning. You are giving more weight to his campaigning. That’s fine.