A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacyor a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.[2]
How can you organize voters with a district like the Texas 33rd?
I said “the internet”…
That was “my claim”.
That “the Internet” is how you would organize people in a sprawling district because that doesn’t rely on geography and in person meetings. It’s also just how you do shit now.
Then you asked me:
Let’s see evidence of “the internet” solving extreme gerrymandering
And acting that I claimed it could. When I never said that because I was answering a completely different question.
The only way that makes sense, is if you dont know what me or that other person was talking about.
What is wrong with you? It’s very clear that the issue that makes organizing in the Texas 33rd is the extreme gerrymandering. What question did you think you were answering when you confidently answered “the interenet”? Were you just saying random shit hoping no one would call you out on your bullshit?
Look, they’re apparently never wrong about anything and when they say “the internet,” they mean it. Fact. End of.
Edit: and reading below, it’s gone from “you can use the internet to organize to fix a problem like Texas’ third district’s gerrymandering” to “the internet has been used to organize people politically sometimes.” Very helpful and relevant!
The internet…
*citation needed
Let’s see evidence of “the internet” solving extreme gerrymandering
The question was:
I said “the internet”…
And now you’re demanding I prove checks notes something else no one else has been talking about?
Why?
I asked you to prove your claims. (if you can’t, of course, nobody should believe them). Not something unrelated. But thanks for the
Red Herring
Why don’t you just answer the question?
That was “my claim”.
That “the Internet” is how you would organize people in a sprawling district because that doesn’t rely on geography and in person meetings. It’s also just how you do shit now.
Then you asked me:
And acting that I claimed it could. When I never said that because I was answering a completely different question.
The only way that makes sense, is if you dont know what me or that other person was talking about.
Backed up with nothing but excuses and self-serving bullshit. You have zero evidence to back up your “claims” …
Blaming me for calling you out and then blaming both me and others for your own actions and their consequences is textbook projection.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood
…
Wait…
So you want evidence that someone can use the Internet to organize politically?
I gotta admit, I didn’t see that coming.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357176371_Online_political_participation_the_evolution_of_a_concept
I’m willing to put the time in, I think we can do this. Please don’t hesitate to keep asking if you don’t get it yet.
that’s a fine song and dance you do.
let me know when you can back up you claims with evidence, instead of showing ed hearings…
So…
To you, a link about how people can organize politically online…
Isn’t evidence that people can organize politically online?
What is wrong with you? It’s very clear that the issue that makes organizing in the Texas 33rd is the extreme gerrymandering. What question did you think you were answering when you confidently answered “the interenet”? Were you just saying random shit hoping no one would call you out on your bullshit?
Look, they’re apparently never wrong about anything and when they say “the internet,” they mean it. Fact. End of.
Edit: and reading below, it’s gone from “you can use the internet to organize to fix a problem like Texas’ third district’s gerrymandering” to “the internet has been used to organize people politically sometimes.” Very helpful and relevant!