3 ms·
We've been consistently getting a lot of 'cancel Fuller' posts on here, which have wrong details and ad-hominem attacks. This article even stoops as low as usin
by _yb2s 4y ago
We've been consistently getting a lot of 'cancel Fuller' posts on here, which have wrong details and ad-hominem attacks. This article even stoops as low as using a race based ad-hominem.
For the last few of these on here, I wrote a detailed response pointing out the misinformation. I am just going to link some of those here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33083498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33083498
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32513327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32513327
- cxr 4y agoIf you have something specific that the author has gotten wrong, perhaps you should state what it is. You write: > Yet another article about Fuller that categorically dismisses his ideas and historical importance based on a few shallow misunderstandings that likely came from reading other shallow summaries rather than actually reading his work. It's hardly shallow. Nevala-Lee's book is well-sourced, and the author worked closely with the BFI. The error seems to have been that past writers' MO was to uncritically take Fuller's claims (even the mutually contradictory ones—of which the book documents many) at face value. The best evidence of shallow reading and speculative guesswork connected to this article, ironically, is the one I quoted above...