3 ms·

That way leads to civil war.

by chris_wot 1y ago

JKCalhoun 1y ago
With States redistricting/gerrymandering, a cold civil war has already begun.
- pclmulqdq 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend.
    - pclmulqdq 1y ago
      I'm not the one injecting politics here - the parent comment did that for me. I'm the one pointing out the hypocrisy.
      - wewtyflakes 1y ago
        No you didn't. You assumed the other poster's intent then straw-manned their position.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        We all know (probably including you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) that the "cold civil war" comment wasn't about gerrymandering in a general sense, which has been around for a century, but about a specific recent redistricting (and gerrymandering) bill in Texas. The sentence doesn't really make sense if you interpret "gerrymandering and redistricting" in an abstract sense because (1) it's not a new thing and (2) everyone does it. That is why they didn't need to state it to make the reference to the Texas news clear. If you were aware of the Texas news, you would also have drawn the obvious inference. However, equivocating this Texas idiocy with actual political violence (which is what the "cold civil war" comment does) is disturbing at best.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        This is not what I was calling out. You made a bad-faith strawman argument, stating something of which I think you knew would be _not_ what the other poster intended (i.e. "I'm glad you agree with me..."). Your point would have been better made if it was posed like "What do you think of redistricting in Illinois and Massachusetts?" That would have stood on its own.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        The poster made a comment using imprecise generalities that was intended to imply specifics. When taken as a set of generalities, it seems a lot softer and less politically pointed than it is. I treated what they said as what they wanted to say in order to expose what they meant. A strawman in the common usage of the term involves changing the argument to a weaker version that is not within the text you are arguing with. If you want to suggest that this is fallacious, you could call it a tu quoque fallacy, which was the point of the post. However, when you want to claim the moral high ground to forgive/soften a political assassination, it does matter that you are being a hypocrite about it.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        That is a lot of word salad to dance around bad faith arguments.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        Responding to a bad-faith argument by pointing out it is bad-faith is generally acceptable.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        Well, your post was the one that was flagged (and it wasn't me).
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        What was the active verb in the post you replied to?
- nradov 1y ago
  Gerrymandering is hardly a new problem or a sign of a civil war, it's literally been happening since near the founding of the Republic.
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Gerrymandering is hardly a new problem (...) Gerrymandering is not new, but the overt and direct and very public claims that gerrymandering is being used to push an authoritarian regime against the people's wishes is something recent and very present.
- tutorialmanager 1y ago
  MA gerrymandered their state to 100% dems in the early 90s. Was that the start of the cold civil war?
CuriouslyC 1y ago
We're basically guaranteed to get one if we don't get two blue sweeps (or an independent party that fights the republicans) in the coming elections. The Republicans have rigged the game badly and have been escalating their use of advantage, Democratic states are going to start withholding taxes, and people are going to start taking shots at ICE in the streets. When that happens, it's already too late.
- insurancesucks 1y ago
  It's rhetoric like this that gets people shot. "If my side doesn't win then the only way forward is violent." We didn't go to war with the Nazis because they wanted a border and were buying people flights home.
  - nullocator 1y ago
    A mega prison in El Salvado frequently described as hell on earth - "home". Ya it's just clean fun border talk and the people black bagged by masked men are surely enjoying their complementary airline pretzels.
  - collingreen 1y ago
    > wanted a border and were buying people flights home This is a really really disingenuous way to describe what is happening, which I expect you fully understand. The bit I don't get is _why_ does this smirking, bad faith, intentional misrepresentation happen? What good actually comes from pretending and trying to mislead? I find this kind of thing extremely discouraging. Maybe that's the answer to my question?
    - watwut 1y ago
      It happens, because itnworks well. For years and years, it allowed moderate Republicans to pretend their party goals are something they were not. It allowed center to pretend to themselves both sides are the same. It allowed us all to to just dismiss those who actually read what conservatives say and plan as paranoid. This dishonesty worked well and that is why it was used.

That way leads to civil war.

JKCalhoun 1y ago

With States redistricting/gerrymandering, a cold civil war has already begun.

pclmulqdq 1y ago
[flagged]
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend.
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    I'm not the one injecting politics here - the parent comment did that for me. I'm the one pointing out the hypocrisy.
    - wewtyflakes 1y ago
      No you didn't. You assumed the other poster's intent then straw-manned their position.
      - pclmulqdq 1y ago
        We all know (probably including you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) that the "cold civil war" comment wasn't about gerrymandering in a general sense, which has been around for a century, but about a specific recent redistricting (and gerrymandering) bill in Texas. The sentence doesn't really make sense if you interpret "gerrymandering and redistricting" in an abstract sense because (1) it's not a new thing and (2) everyone does it. That is why they didn't need to state it to make the reference to the Texas news clear. If you were aware of the Texas news, you would also have drawn the obvious inference. However, equivocating this Texas idiocy with actual political violence (which is what the "cold civil war" comment does) is disturbing at best.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        This is not what I was calling out. You made a bad-faith strawman argument, stating something of which I think you knew would be _not_ what the other poster intended (i.e. "I'm glad you agree with me..."). Your point would have been better made if it was posed like "What do you think of redistricting in Illinois and Massachusetts?" That would have stood on its own.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        The poster made a comment using imprecise generalities that was intended to imply specifics. When taken as a set of generalities, it seems a lot softer and less politically pointed than it is. I treated what they said as what they wanted to say in order to expose what they meant. A strawman in the common usage of the term involves changing the argument to a weaker version that is not within the text you are arguing with. If you want to suggest that this is fallacious, you could call it a tu quoque fallacy, which was the point of the post. However, when you want to claim the moral high ground to forgive/soften a political assassination, it does matter that you are being a hypocrite about it.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        That is a lot of word salad to dance around bad faith arguments.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        Responding to a bad-faith argument by pointing out it is bad-faith is generally acceptable.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        Well, your post was the one that was flagged (and it wasn't me).
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      What was the active verb in the post you replied to?
nradov 1y ago
Gerrymandering is hardly a new problem or a sign of a civil war, it's literally been happening since near the founding of the Republic.
- motorest 1y ago
  > Gerrymandering is hardly a new problem (...) Gerrymandering is not new, but the overt and direct and very public claims that gerrymandering is being used to push an authoritarian regime against the people's wishes is something recent and very present.
tutorialmanager 1y ago
MA gerrymandered their state to 100% dems in the early 90s. Was that the start of the cold civil war?

CuriouslyC 1y ago

We're basically guaranteed to get one if we don't get two blue sweeps (or an independent party that fights the republicans) in the coming elections. The Republicans have rigged the game badly and have been escalating their use of advantage, Democratic states are going to start withholding taxes, and people are going to start taking shots at ICE in the streets. When that happens, it's already too late.

insurancesucks 1y ago
It's rhetoric like this that gets people shot. "If my side doesn't win then the only way forward is violent." We didn't go to war with the Nazis because they wanted a border and were buying people flights home.
- nullocator 1y ago
  A mega prison in El Salvado frequently described as hell on earth - "home". Ya it's just clean fun border talk and the people black bagged by masked men are surely enjoying their complementary airline pretzels.
- collingreen 1y ago
  > wanted a border and were buying people flights home This is a really really disingenuous way to describe what is happening, which I expect you fully understand. The bit I don't get is _why_ does this smirking, bad faith, intentional misrepresentation happen? What good actually comes from pretending and trying to mislead? I find this kind of thing extremely discouraging. Maybe that's the answer to my question?
  - watwut 1y ago
    It happens, because itnworks well. For years and years, it allowed moderate Republicans to pretend their party goals are something they were not. It allowed center to pretend to themselves both sides are the same. It allowed us all to to just dismiss those who actually read what conservatives say and plan as paranoid. This dishonesty worked well and that is why it was used.