4 ms·

> A cartoonist (a guy with no engineering, legal or historian background) born in 1982 on the wrong side of the continent > cynical style typically demonstrate

> A cartoonist (a guy with no engineering, legal or historian background) born in 1982 on the wrong side of the continent > cynical style typically demonstrated by the worst of US-born Millennials > Disclaimer: The works below are the opinion of the author and not the official viewpoint of the Edison Tech Center That's enough for me to forget this whole article. I'm not buying all the "facts" in The Oatmeal's comic either, but wow, when you have to lash out at someone for being a young cartoonist living in Seattle...

jstarfish 9y ago
Why not? A wide and impressionable audience now understands this part of history as interpreted by an internet celebrity. The ability to publish misinformation on the internet far outscales the ability of anybody to refute it. At some point you have to filter out the noise by appraising the source. If that means dismissing inflammatory history lessons from young cartoonists in Seattle, or dismissing medical advice from has-been Playboy models on the basis that neither group knows what the hell they're talking about, then so be it.
- nulagrithom 9y ago
  So we should take the word of a random "author" who didn't even bother to publish his name and credentials over Inman simply because this guy blasted Inman for being a Millennial? That's just as wrong as accepting some dumb comic as the authority on history. This guy, whoever he is, goes on about "crap on the Internet" then cites a 3rd of his sources from the Internet, four of those being Wikipedia. Even better, half his non-Internet based sources are museums -- no further information provided. His sources are mostly unverifiable crap, then he stoops to an ad hominem. It's garbage.
  - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    Its published by the Edison Tech Center which is a non-profit in Schenectady, NY. It doesn't need to publish on a more granular level of authorship. I guess it would be nice, but its own editorial policies are what they are and not outside of norms. I don't complain about the Economist doing the same, for example. >His sources are mostly unverifiable crap There is a source list at the end of the article. Sources: -Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930. by Thomas Parke Hughes.1993 (book) -Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany -Historisches Museum, Frankfurt Germany -The General Electric Story - A Hall of Electrical History Publication.1999 (book) -Archives of the Schenectady Museum: William Stanley files, E.W. Rice Jr. Files -Great Barrington Historical Society -Hawkins Electrical Guides (book series) -Men and Volts. by John Winthrop Hammond. 1941(book) -Folsom Powerhouse Museum. Folsom, California -Biography of Elihu Thomson, prepared by E.W. Rice Jr. -Archives of the Edison Tech Center: Rice Family Archives -Almost Edison: How William Sawyer and Others Lost the Race to Electrification. by Donald Scott McPartland. 2006 Internet Sources: -MIT website: Inventor of the Week" William Stanley -IEEE Global History Network: Milestones: Alternating Current Electrification 1886 -http://profiles.incredible-people.com/galileo-ferraris/ http://profiles.incredible-people.com/galileo-ferraris/ -wikipedia: Nikola Tesla -wikipedia: Transformers -wikipedia: Hippolyte Pixii -wikipedia: Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovsky
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    > So we should take the word of a random "author" who didn't even bother to publish his name and credentials over Inman simply because this guy blasted Inman for being a Millennial? No. I'm not saying anyone should "just" believe either party over the other. For all of Inman's bold assertions, he cites no sources whatsoever-- not even random crap on the internet-- and ends his comic with an appeal to vandalize Wikipedia to support his argument. Without knowing anything about ETC, from an objective standpoint, I agree with ETC's assertion that Inman isn't qualified to be publishing unsubstantiated claims about anything related to a dead man's character or accomplishments.
    - King-Aaron 9y ago
      > I agree with ETC's assertion that Inman isn't qualified to be publishing unsubstantiated claims about anything related to a dead man's character or accomplishments. He's an entertainer and comedian, not a bastion for everlasting factual histories of the world... I seriously feel that a large percentage of commenters on HN need to step back a bit and be less rigid in their assessment of society around them.
- otakucode 9y ago
  I would say the "why not" comes down not to why not dispute it but why dispute it in the way it was done, by insulting Inman for being from the west coast, for being young, for being unhappy, etc. Rather than insult him for perpetuating untruths, the author instead tosses out weird demographic and geographic insults. It reminds me of the saying attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, "Smart people talk about ideas. Mediocre people talk about things or events. Stupid people talk about people." Speaking about specific people denigrates a conversation. A discussion will always be more interesting and enlightening and overall useful if instead aimed at ideas or even slightly abstracted.

jstarfish 9y ago

Why not? A wide and impressionable audience now understands this part of history as interpreted by an internet celebrity. The ability to publish misinformation on the internet far outscales the ability of anybody to refute it. At some point you have to filter out the noise by appraising the source. If that means dismissing inflammatory history lessons from young cartoonists in Seattle, or dismissing medical advice from has-been Playboy models on the basis that neither group knows what the hell they're talking about, then so be it.

nulagrithom 9y ago
So we should take the word of a random "author" who didn't even bother to publish his name and credentials over Inman simply because this guy blasted Inman for being a Millennial? That's just as wrong as accepting some dumb comic as the authority on history. This guy, whoever he is, goes on about "crap on the Internet" then cites a 3rd of his sources from the Internet, four of those being Wikipedia. Even better, half his non-Internet based sources are museums -- no further information provided. His sources are mostly unverifiable crap, then he stoops to an ad hominem. It's garbage.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  Its published by the Edison Tech Center which is a non-profit in Schenectady, NY. It doesn't need to publish on a more granular level of authorship. I guess it would be nice, but its own editorial policies are what they are and not outside of norms. I don't complain about the Economist doing the same, for example. >His sources are mostly unverifiable crap There is a source list at the end of the article. Sources: -Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930. by Thomas Parke Hughes.1993 (book) -Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany -Historisches Museum, Frankfurt Germany -The General Electric Story - A Hall of Electrical History Publication.1999 (book) -Archives of the Schenectady Museum: William Stanley files, E.W. Rice Jr. Files -Great Barrington Historical Society -Hawkins Electrical Guides (book series) -Men and Volts. by John Winthrop Hammond. 1941(book) -Folsom Powerhouse Museum. Folsom, California -Biography of Elihu Thomson, prepared by E.W. Rice Jr. -Archives of the Edison Tech Center: Rice Family Archives -Almost Edison: How William Sawyer and Others Lost the Race to Electrification. by Donald Scott McPartland. 2006 Internet Sources: -MIT website: Inventor of the Week" William Stanley -IEEE Global History Network: Milestones: Alternating Current Electrification 1886 -http://profiles.incredible-people.com/galileo-ferraris/ http://profiles.incredible-people.com/galileo-ferraris/ -wikipedia: Nikola Tesla -wikipedia: Transformers -wikipedia: Hippolyte Pixii -wikipedia: Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovsky
- jstarfish 9y ago
  > So we should take the word of a random "author" who didn't even bother to publish his name and credentials over Inman simply because this guy blasted Inman for being a Millennial? No. I'm not saying anyone should "just" believe either party over the other. For all of Inman's bold assertions, he cites no sources whatsoever-- not even random crap on the internet-- and ends his comic with an appeal to vandalize Wikipedia to support his argument. Without knowing anything about ETC, from an objective standpoint, I agree with ETC's assertion that Inman isn't qualified to be publishing unsubstantiated claims about anything related to a dead man's character or accomplishments.
  - King-Aaron 9y ago
    > I agree with ETC's assertion that Inman isn't qualified to be publishing unsubstantiated claims about anything related to a dead man's character or accomplishments. He's an entertainer and comedian, not a bastion for everlasting factual histories of the world... I seriously feel that a large percentage of commenters on HN need to step back a bit and be less rigid in their assessment of society around them.
otakucode 9y ago
I would say the "why not" comes down not to why not dispute it but why dispute it in the way it was done, by insulting Inman for being from the west coast, for being young, for being unhappy, etc. Rather than insult him for perpetuating untruths, the author instead tosses out weird demographic and geographic insults. It reminds me of the saying attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, "Smart people talk about ideas. Mediocre people talk about things or events. Stupid people talk about people." Speaking about specific people denigrates a conversation. A discussion will always be more interesting and enlightening and overall useful if instead aimed at ideas or even slightly abstracted.