3 ms·
How is this not "about" that? The headline of the article is literally calling it a "ripoff." The GP's comment is exactly what the article is discussing. No one
by marcellus23 1y ago
How is this not "about" that? The headline of the article is literally calling it a "ripoff." The GP's comment is exactly what the article is discussing. No one is arguing Franklin is not worth mentioning.
- leereeves 1y agoI'm talking about subtext. The implicit meaning in this article is that women in science were disrespected (in general and in this case). Whether a man was also disrespected is not relevant to that conversation.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- marcellus23 1y agoThe man in question is one of the ones vilified (accurately or not) in the linked article. So it's relevant for someone to talk about, in a comment on the article, whether or not that vilification is appropriate.
- leereeves 1y ago> The man in question is one of the ones vilified (accurately or not) in the linked article. So it's relevant for someone to talk about, in a comment on the article, whether or not that vilification is appropriate Gosling is far from being vilified in the linked article. He's only mentioned three times, and one of those is "those who deserve the most credit for deciphering the DNA molecule are Wilkins, Franklin, and Gosling".