> You injected that in, and then claim it's the author dog whistling. (By the way, this is actually, literally "begging the question" - "It must be a dog whistle because I read it this way even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all!")

An unexpected take on my words.

What I actually did/said:

>> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but I wonder if the author is suggesting ("dog whistling") that in our (US) current two party system, that only one side is guilty of it?

>> Or perhaps the author is saying this only with respect to history, and I'm getting all worked up about nothing.

If you look more closely, you may notice that I am very explicitly pointing out that I am speculating about what the author is getting at, rather than, as you (incorrectly) say I say:

- and then [claim it's (it is)] the author dog whistling

- It [must be] a dog whistle

- ...because [I read it this way] even though it doesn't use those words or make that claim at all (this one is rather ironic)

> There's a strong reason the author didn't use the words "Trump" or "left".

Assertions like this are suggestive of mind reading ability, and also that political rhetoric that does not say things explicitly does not exist.

Something else I said:

>> I guess my question is actually: I wonder how paragraphs like this are unpacked in the minds of readers, depending on their particular worldviews. Written English is so brutally flawed as a communication medium.

This "how...are unpacked in the mind of the readers" is interesting, and I think might explain why near every single comment I make gets downvoted. I've always thought that it was people not liking my political views, but I think what it actually is, is that people aren't able to read text literally. As I was writing my message, I was "reading between the lines", with suspicion, looking for rhetoric - but I was doing this with full conscious intention, and my statements were explicitly speculative - I was wondering if the author was implying (which often does indeed happen) the things I sensed. If a logical, unbiased person (if there is such a person anymore) considers the article and writing techniques* - I could easily excerpt several examples) in it's entirety, my suspicion doesn't seem terribly inappropriate.

Your assessment (and I expect others) on the other hand, is that I have(!) read and said very specific things, that I haven't actually said/done. Not only did you not "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", you grossly misinterpreted it, and then asserted that misinterpretation as if it was a fact (because to you, it is just that).

Of course, there are very stressful times, the world is a complete gongshow, it's hard not to get at each others throats - "these things happen", so I'm not bent out of shape by it. Rather, I'm actually quite relieved, because I now feel quite a bit less confused and frustrated about the world around me, and how people within it behave.

Thanks for your insight.

The article literally starts out by pointing out that the left brainstormed ideas for what to do if Trump contests the results of the election, and that the right reacted to this brainstorming by arguing it's part of a broader pattern.

There is no way to disentangle the left vs right dynamic in the free speech discussion right now, which is probably why this always gets so heated. People are constantly trying to remove this dynamic because flat out stating one side is "for censorship" while the other isn't rubs up against much of the recent history surrounding free speech and it makes people feel really uncomfortable.