Democrats: We're going to gerrymander every place we can and infiltrate commissions to get back at those evil Republicans for their past gerrymandering.
Republicans: We can't be too impolite and raucous. We better take the L lying down instead of using the limited power we have.
I guess UT, NC, OH, WA and AZ don't exist?
Of those, only NC and OH actually are gerrymandered to affect more than 1 seat, but both are less gerrymandered than they were 10 years ago. Utah just shored up a seat that was likely to be R anyway. The rest were independent commissions that produced an actually fair map (but since Dems think a fair map is gerrymandered, I guess that makes sense for you to bring that up). Arizona's map last time produced 5/9 Dem-leaning seats in a R-leaning state, and the new map is still 5/9 Biden-won seats.
Love the shifting standards to rationalize GOP gerrymandering in different states. NC and OH are "not as bad as last time" (arguable in OH's case), UT is "just shoring up a likely R seat" (which is only likely R because of a previous gerrymander and would be likely D in any fair map). I'm sure I could find some creative formulas like that to justify IL and MD too, but I'm not going to bother because I'm not a complete hack.
WA and AZ are examples of commissions where Republicans played hardball and Democrats played with kid gloves. To deny it is just delusional. The Arizona map is a soft R gerrymander which in a neutral year would go 6-3 and could even end up 7-2 in a mild Republican year. Sure, the 2010 map was a soft D gerrymander, but two wrongs don't make a right. WA ended up as a status quo map, but that just means enshrining the soft R gerrymander from 2010, so it's absolutely pathetic that Democrats caved on that. Again, feel free to nitpick each individual case applying an ad hoc rationale for why those two are totally OK but the mildldy D-leaning maps that came out of CA and MI are absolutely disgusting or something.
In the end there will be more dem seats than before redistricting so while EG's point was a bit hyperbolic, it is still valid.
