Of course I agree we should debate that very important topic. No objection to that. What I find worrying is that sandworm takes a quite objective piece of repo

Of course I agree we should debate that very important topic. No objection to that. What I find worrying is that sandworm takes a quite objective piece of reporting - a news article, not an opinion piece - and begins immediately to make assumptions about the author's politics, and to find grievous fault in those politics. He or she jumps straight to attacking the author and their motives, instead of considering what they are saying. sandworm doesn't even find anything not objective in the article. His or her complaints amounts to "the author presents evidence that, while true, is clearly meant to argue such-and-such specific political point of view, and they are terrible people for promoting that agenda." The article is just an interesting piece on new evidence. Sure, it could in theory be used to argue for some political side (more than one in fact), but no one actually did that, except in sandworm's head. If we lose the ability to have objective discussions about history, facts, and science, we lose as a society.