SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
As someone involved with the discussion (in a very minor way), I can tell you that Ron said a lot of bad things about D&D. Vampire, and the World of Darkness were not my thing, so I didn't argue on that front at all. He said a lot of disparaging things about a ton of different games. He had a definite perspective on what gaming was and should be. And I disagreed with it. With swearing.Ironically I would say that the need to go after him and things he said elsewhere is a textbook example of ad hominem (especially when it involves misrepresentation of what he said) and throws objections to his theses into doubt.
But times have changed. I don't hold anything against him (other than not particularly liking Champions Now).
What I am saying is that the Narrative RPGs we are seeing today aren't based on the assumptions that Ron had. PbtA and Forged in the Dark games call themselves Narrative and explain what they mean by that. I think that outside of a place like Enworld which trends as old, not many people have even heard of Ron Edwards and his theory. If you came onboard D&D during 5E I don't think there's any reason you would know who he is.
Ron's interesting to read as an academic. I didn't place my worldview around what he wrote at the time, and I think that other people have made much more interesting strides in RPG theory since then. If there are almost no RPGs that would qualify as Narrativist, but plenty that count themselves as Narrative, the definition has changed. And it is just muddling the water to try and make them fit into a theory that they weren't designed to fit.