While the OP may think that, you are assuming a lot about their thinking from those two sentences. Then somehow manage to generalize it to Americans and include religion.

Maybe go outside and take a breath of fresh air?

I'd hazard a guess that the person you're responding to is not so naïve that they believe this was unique to the Biden administration, but rather, is frustrated at what they feel is this kind of government tyranny often only being discussed through a partisan, one-sided lens that they might characterize as emphasizing this kind of stuff when conservative administrations do it but downplaying when progressive administrations do it.

I'm not necessarily supporting or defending that position, but we should at least strive to argue against the steelman version of our opponent's position, rather than the strawman position, no?

Steelman is "they meant what they said."

ie - no reinterpretation at all.

But even taking your reinterpretation at face value, it still couches the issue in terms of the "left" and "right" quasi-religions, no?

We must have different definitions of steelman. I have always understood steelman to be the opposite of strawman. To argue with the strawman of their argument is arguing a weaker version of the argument than the one they're really making - i.e. "I assume because they didn't mention any other administrations, they must be some dumb idiot who only thinks this happened during the last administration", while arguing the steelman is arguing against the strongest version of the argument they're trying to make - i.e. "sure, that poster didn't mention other administrations, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt - if we asked them whether they'd support similar surveillance done by the Obama admin or Bush admin, I'd be willing to guess they'd say no, I bet they're just expressing frustration about the left's unwillingness to acknowledge the Biden admin's big tech collusion, even if their real qualm is with the surveillance itself, not the partisan coverage of it".

I personally detest covert surveillance and social influence operations being waged by taxpayer-funded organizations (regardless of whether public or private in nature) against their own citizenry, and I oppose this across the political aisle. I think it reeks of institutions that distrust and fear us more than they represent our collective interests, and that's an ugly mindset unbecoming of a government or enterprise that publicly paints itself as a champion of free and open democracy on the world stage, regardless of whether it's an intelligence agency or an international social media platform. But I also recognize that it's bipartisan, and that most people seem to care more about deploying force against the other side than they do about reducing the amount of force that is deployed against all of us.

Where does your definition of steelman come from?

Model UN

ie - Strawman is to argue an easy to refute point they're not making. Whether that point is stronger or weaker is irrelevant. The key is you came prepared to refute the point. Steelman is to argue the point they're making.

But we're getting into irrelevant semantics at this point. Neither the poster's point, nor mine centered on the definitions we have of steelman or strawman.

My material point was on the tendency of people to embed what amount to using quasi-religious scripture quotations in discussions of completely non-religious problem areas. To the point of making it difficult for any, uh, "non-believers", out there to make any progress towards improvements.

Or, put another way, being the problem.

> one-sided lens that they might characterize as emphasizing this kind of stuff when conservative administrations do it but downplaying when progressive administrations do it.

Conservative administrations are worst tho. That is the objective reality. And as of now, there is not left wing analogy to what conservatives are doing. Democrats are not perfect, but common, the aggression and fanatization of the actual party is not even close. It is moderate center on the "left side" vs the thing we see on the right.

One sided lens are the ones that achieve "equality" by euphemism away conservative goals and behaviors while trying to paint their opposition in worst possible light. Obama wore tan suit which totally breaks respectability of the presidency and therefore, he is equal to Trump who talks about "grabbing women by the <body part>" kind of false equality.

The strongest criticisms against the Obama administration weren't the juvenile tan suit tabloid pieces, it was when he reauthorized the illegal, warrantless mass surveillance of the American public and prosecuted whistleblowers after campaigning on protecting them. That, or drone striking the civilian weddings.

Those were wrong and bad and Democrats should be emotionally honest with themselves about that in the same way Republicans should be emotionally honest with themselves about the fact that laws criminalizing out of state abortions (like the one on the books in Oklahoma) are a reprehensible attack on some of the most foundational values of both western society and the American nation - freedom of movement and states only being allowed to regulate activity within their own borders. That Oklahoma law is more befitting of North Korea than Oklahoma, and Republicans should be as righteously indignant about this moral atrocity as they are about Obama drone bombing civilians.

We should all be honest with ourselves and with eachother when our elected officials do objectively bad things that violate human rights rather than expanding and upholding them. Less partisan mud slinging about dumb stuff like tour bus tapes and suit colors and more serious discussion about the wrongs actually happening, why the wrongs are wrong, and how to make them right.