I don&#x27;t think this comment contributes all that much.<p>&quot;Liberal hand-wringing&quot; is I think largely (though, not entirely) an expression of sentiment, not an expression of fact. (similar phrases about other places in the political &quot;spectrum&quot; would be similar in this regard. My comment is about the type of comment, not about the specifics of liberal vs somethingotherthanliberal).<p>The &quot;liberal&quot; part is contentful enough I guess, but it doesn&#x27;t really add much to the conversation, because any comment which is disagreeing with a comment that is meant to defend, e.g., muslim immigrants or w&#x2F;e could be expected to, most of the time, consider the post they are responding to, to be too liberal (again, similarly, this could be reflected partywise. I&#x27;m not making a point about specific parties).<p>The hand-wringing, I think, suggests, I guess, worrying too much about something, or, trying too hard to be seen as being concerned about something?<p>one part of this is the &quot;too much&quot;, and, the phrase is just, generally a disparaging phrase.<p>But, accusing the comment one is responding to, of being just for posturing, doesn&#x27;t really seem like something that contributes all that much?<p>I mean, sure, it could be true, but isn&#x27;t more important than the motivations of what is said, the accuracy or validity of what is said?<p>Also, the ambiguity of the meaning of calling something &quot;hand-wringing&quot; I think also reduced the content of it. If someone says &quot;No, that technically isn&#x27;t liberal-handwringing&quot;, what would they be saying?<p>If it doesn&#x27;t mean much to dispute a statement, then it doesn&#x27;t mean much to make the statement.<p>So, generally, I think your comment that this comment is a reply to, is almost without content.