[13thLetter]

Why read an article _about_ him, as opposed to reading what he actually said? Are you concerned about contracting wrongthink?

[gwern]

Probably because his blog posts are like millions of words of meandering stream of thought and links to public domain books and you would have to spend the next few months of your free time to read most of his posts? Occasionally funny and insightful, but concise and well-written they are not, burying the real content under mountains of fluff.

[dropit_sphere]

You're gwern, so if you said you'd read enough to say you understand his writing, I'd believe you.

But someone reading the Baffler article will not have the same understanding you do---and worse, they'll think they do.

[obstinate]

I do not know the man's writings. There are many links on that page to things he wrote. So this is the most informative link I am likely to be able to provide.

As for why not read his writings: why not read the writing of the timecube guy, or those of reactionary christian authors? Because I try not to waste my time on idiotic polemic.

[tjradcliffe]

If you keep firmly in mind that he's a complete crank, his iconoclasm can be quite entertaining in short intervals (maybe one article a year.)