Isn't "ideological emotional-string pulling" what the original historian was after by writing a story that fit the current popular narrative within academia?
Wouldn't holding one fraudulent historian accountable be withholding the credibility of historians, rather than 'despise'ing them?
Are you not the nihilist to be so pessimistic about the intentions of people who agree that the story was fabricated for popularity?
Honest questions that I would be interested in hearing a response to.
Historians aren't hated here, rather sensationalism at the expense of facts and logic are despised here. Finding people leaning towards sensationalism across media types and disciplines unfortunately. Techies here are especially sensitive to click-bait and articles devoid of evidence to back up their claims.
There's great synergy between critics of non-mainstream historians and the voting apparatus of HN which ensures that unpopular perspectives are rendered unreadable.
