Now sure, you can perhaps be very generous in your inference from Arth's post, but give the several others on related topics that they've made in this thread and others, all of which put forth the sentiment that the Trump administration is trying to roll back civil rights for black people and reinstitute abuses and discrimination on the basis of color, it's an entirely reasonable and likely interpretation for me to have made.
That would be more reasonable if you hadn't chosen to invoke slavery in the previous iteration on the topic with even less cause to do so and used such to try to manufacture cause to dismiss the concerns in play. Unfortunately for that attempt, of course, slavery isn't at all something that can be treated as if it's confined to the history books and the Republican Party has, in fact, made moves to pave the way for people to be able to get away with such with obvious dogwhistling attached. Given that (and more), the Republican Party paving the way for lesser abuses should, in fact, be treated more as unsurprising and something to guard against rather than something to cheer on. If you're actually opposed to the abuses, at least.
Again, though, the more parsimonious reading of the quoted is the obvious. The Trump Administration is so opposed to the discrimination caused by DEI that they're actively working to remove safeguards against discriminatory conduct? That's just more evidence that anti-discrimination is not actually the goal of the anti-DEI push.
Meh. Yes, gerrymandering is a stupid and self-serving practice. But the tendency of many people to insist that the gerrymandering is based on race alone, and is driven by racial animus, really misses the point. Gerrymandering occurs to increase the likelihood of people within that geographic footprint will vote for one party or another. It's done to maximize the likelihood of getting a stranglehold on votes. Republicans have certainly been guilty of it - but so have Democrats. Correlations with race are secondary, and result simply from the fact that in recent history, black people have generally been more likely to vote for Democrats than for Republicans.
And... that's dodging. What you just said is true enough on its face, albeit with misleading bothsiderism and a downplaying of relevant supporting factors in practice, but the main problem with it is that it completely avoids the points made. Fundamentally, your argument relied upon blindly trusting in the protections offered by the CRA as if that settles the matter and nothing could possibly happen to the CRA. Unfortunately, Republicans have already gutted the CRA, immediately exploited the gaps they created, and have continued to work to gut it more and more. It's utterly unreasonable to try to demand that we ignore that. You say that we should blindly trust the Trump Administration and Republicans to uphold the law in general, much less the CRA? Their brazenly and shamelessly illegal flouting of such clearly demonstrates that we cannot trust them to do so and that it's utterly unreasonable to demand that we do so. Once more, the foundation that you're trying to build on is swamp mud, and the only people you actually have to blame for that are those of the Republican Party.
It doesn't smack of dishonest at all when I was literally responding to Arth's post, which was literally addressing a single EO, and Arth was implying that racial segregation would rear its ugly head once more.
It does when you keep dodging the actual concerns being invoked, especially when you're trying to improperly isolate things out of the context that they're happening in. Noting that Hercules56 pointed to a different thing isn't necessarily wrong in and of itself, of course, but whether or not that's true, what he added to the conversation was entirely relevant to the topic at hand and what you did served as nothing more than an empty dismissal attempt of that.
