> Is it? Because your reply is again filled with pathos, tribalism and narrativization. I refute these. Where is the pathos? There certainly wasn't any intent

> Is it? Because your reply is again filled with pathos, tribalism and narrativization. I refute these. Where is the pathos? There certainly wasn't any intent of emotional appeal, I never do that. Would be good to know which part of my comment triggered an emotional response. What tribalism? Mentioning that HN has better commentators or mentioning that pro-vax tribes exist? Please do let me know, what part of my comment constitutes tribalism. As for narrativization, well this is a HN comment not an Excel sheet. All comments here are narratives, including yours. So not sure what to make of that. Seems like a red herring.