• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    Thats re-interpreting what they said to be something defensible; but it isn’t what they said. What they said was specific, and isn’t, afaik, supported by any evidence. Its also the very first thing they said. Their main point. The primary point. Not some other thing they didn’t say, but the very first, and very specific thing they said first.

    Re-interpreting what people say to support our bias is both de-constructive when real security concerns are on the line, disingenuous, and shows a lack of reading comprehension.