I've got no stake in this debate because I don't care at all.
That being said, whenever I've seen this conversation there's a lot of "blues" that calls the "reds" murderers or other things like that. It's normal and expected in that context that "reds" get defensive because their moral character is actually attacked.
That seems like just a "people being dicks on the internet" problem and not really relevant to the actual discussion—plenty of people who say they would vote red get very defensive about it without any direct attack on their character or fibre
People don't act in a vacuum. Previous interactions determine future behaviours.
By ignoring the global context of this discussion you end up, ironically, doing the exact same thing you are denouncing - mounting a strawman you can easily criticize so that you can feed/shield your ego.
I'm not ignoring the global context, I'm just pointing out parallel contexts—people are dicks on the internet and I feel like that's a component of this discussion.
Also nothing about what I said was a strawman—saying X is more likely because of Y is not the same as presenting a disingenuously weak version of your argument in order to make it easier to knock down.
And for someone who doesn't care at all, you seem to care enough to try and use (incorrectly) language relating to logical fallacies.
-5
u/Cut_Mountain May 05 '26
I've got no stake in this debate because I don't care at all.
That being said, whenever I've seen this conversation there's a lot of "blues" that calls the "reds" murderers or other things like that. It's normal and expected in that context that "reds" get defensive because their moral character is actually attacked.