4 ms·

bit of ad hominem. They already gave sources, so anyone can take a look and make their call

• ggm 4y ago
  Yes, absolutely acknowledge it's a bit ad-hommy. But, the question stands: "the Russians diddit" had to be seen in the context we're in. Remember, a shitload of buuut Chyna is washup of US domestic politics and not actually about Covid. Anyone can take a look and make the call is "do the research restated" btw. That's a Q call. Maybe that's ad hommy too? All getting very meta.
  • Jerrrry 4y ago
    whataboutism is whataboutism. judge comments on their own standing merits. OP shouldn't have to tie together identities because you're too short sighted to "do you own research" and evaluate a comment without reverting to lame fucking dog whistles. "someone with a checkmark tell me how to feel about this talking point" - you
• cma 4y ago
  They presented a false dichotomy though. With no evidence yet that this one has ability for enhanced spread, both alternatives they gave imply that it does.
  • hadeohedron 4y ago
    Thank you for pointing that out, as a guy who excelled at physics and failed biology I just assumed it had an enhanced spread. I'll edit the post to reflect that.