I’ve read this years prior. I don’t see how it’s relevant to this article. But if a whole book’s premise is invalid because of some bored dude wrote an article, then so be it.
The source of an argument irrelevant to the soundness of an argument, otherwise it's an example of the genetic fallacy, a form of ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance.
That's technically true about argument in some specific contexts. But it isn't in practice true a lot of the time, and is especially irrelevant here when it's not just citing it for an argument, but as proof of the argument.
It's hard to trust a conclusion if three quarters of the argument offered in support are inaccurate. At least, it should invite a healthy dose of skepticism.
Calling the author of the article "some bored duded that wrote an article" is not a really strong argument against considering the points it made.
