Unlike you, I don't think it's all that important a detail as its omission (mistake or not) does not detract from the analysis.
Not to get too meta, but if it was intentional, why would it necessarily be, since it's so incidental to the narrative?
The decision to add "possibly China" despite no evidence pointing towards that was certainly intentional and in bad faith.
>Unlike you, I don't think it's all that important a detail as its omission (mistake or not) does not detract from the analysis.
I think his choice to deliberately misinform is worth being called out whether or not it detracts from the rest of the analysis. It's clear that this thread wasn't written in good faith.
The rest of his analysis is uninteresting and not worthy of much criticism, he's mostly correct, but a HS student could come up with this stuff.
It's just as much "possibly India" as it's "possibly China", there's literally zero evidence (circumstantial or not) suggesting that the post originated from either.
> could be due to Chinese influence
Completely different from the suggestion that the post was literally made in China.
I'm sure absolutely nobody doubts that this post was made due to Chinese influence, it is the claim that the post physically originated from China which I find fundamentally ridiculous.
That'd be a mistake, or just poor wording. It kind of sounds like you're accusing me of some kind of silly pedantry here?
There's simply no way one could mistakenly arrive at the conclusion that this post might have originated from China, Mark Kern absolutely knew what he was doing when he dropped that insinuation. There's simply does not exist a single shred of evidence to support the "possibly China" claim.
Had he just left it at "overseas" then you could absolutely dismiss this as a mere mistake, he did not.