There are allegations (probably in the form of guilt by association), vaguely suggestive tweets (or tweets that have obvious potential for misinterpretation), and things like that.

I think you could make a very good case against that comment, but "ad hominem" isn't it IMO. I'd argue {{citation needed}}, "lacks substantiation", "slightly hyperbolic", or something like that.

Just a sample from before 2022:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/elon-musk-twitter-te...

And he has been significantly worse since acquiring Twitter.

A partisan, prejudiced listicle is the online version of the Gish Gallop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

You can say that the article is partisan, prejudiced, or even stupid, but neither the article nor the comment are a gish gallop.

Seriously people, if you're going to call out logical fallacies, make sure you don't call out the wrong thing.

Gish Gallop isn’t a logical fallacy, it is a debate tactic. Seriously people, if you’re going to call out misuse of logical fallacies, make sure it is one.

Is anyone bothering to even click your “proof”?

Half of the list is “didn’t take covid as seriously as we think he should”.

The only potentially sexist thing on that list is calling Warren “senator karen”.

Ok so do you have proof of him being racist or sexist or not?