This is a curious take I’ve noticed in various conversations. Instead of talking about the merits of the discussion, the discussion shifts to why someone is so

This is a curious take I’ve noticed in various conversations. Instead of talking about the merits of the discussion, the discussion shifts to why someone is so interested in it. As if it’s not right or appropriate to be interested and discuss. I think this is a characteristics of the “conflict v. mistake theory” [0] where I’m already on a side, try to find an argument for or against and then make it even if it’s not reasonable. Greenwald writes a lot. He’s written a few articles on the HunterBiden laptop story, but not like he writes every day. I don’t think it’s unusual to write about this topic given everything else he writes on. Framing this as a “hill to die on” seems disingenuous and not really relevant to the article under discussion, or Greenwald in general. I can understand arguing on the merits of the topic on whether it is or is not Russian propaganda, but bringing up how Greenwald shows a normal amount of interest seems odd. It seems the summary of OP’s comment is “Greenwald sucks and chooses bad topics.” My reasoning on how to interpret this, and I may be wrong, is that the belief that Greenwald sucks existed before this article and this thread. And trying to find some reason to discuss the suckers, OP came up with the rhetorical doozy that he reports on this topic too frequently. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/