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.

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.