| ▲ | chris_wot 5 days ago |
| That way leads to civil war. |
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| With States redistricting/gerrymandering, a cold civil war has already begun. |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | MA gerrymandered their state to 100% dems in the early 90s. Was that the start of the cold civil war? | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend. | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not the one injecting politics here - the parent comment did that for me. I'm the one pointing out the hypocrisy. | | |
| ▲ | wewtyflakes 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No you didn't. You assumed the other poster's intent then straw-manned their position. | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That is a lot of word salad to dance around bad faith arguments. | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Responding to a bad-faith argument by pointing out it is bad-faith is generally acceptable. | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What was the active verb in the post you replied to? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | insurancesucks 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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? | | |
| ▲ | bdhe 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It is a bit ironic to post this in a thread where someone who arguably wielded only words succumbed to someone wielding violence. From Sartre: > Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. | | |
| ▲ | motorest 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. Here's a very recent example: Russia sending a drone swarm into Poland, and then making all sorts of cynical statements such as "those weren't even our drones" or "they were our drones but it was a false flag operation". |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
