I personally found it well-written, if a bit wordy; the first few sections are indeed refutations / literature review, but that’s, uh, that’s the point. The who

I personally found it well-written, if a bit wordy; the first few sections are indeed refutations / literature review, but that’s, uh, that’s the point. The whole essay is about how we use the word loosely and existing definitions don’t fit well enough, so publishing a paper that didn’t cover all the (recently, semi-prominently) proposed definitions would be seen as lazy or incomplete. Personally, I think it’s a fun exercise to read through and update your own personal definition as you go. If you’re like me, all these papers start with a “oh well that word is simple and obvious” reaction that slowly disintegrates! Materially; I couldn't c/p it, but I think their line about “indirect or diffuse danger” that gets right at the crux of the issue. So I’d say I’d find this analysis convincing