Purity tests - how the left is killing itself

ridski said:

RealityForAll said:

 What is wrong with you?

Just say what you mean and mean what you say.

 I said I did not say Tulsi Gabbard was a Libertarian candidate and I meant it.

do you really not get the difference between "She is a Libertarian candidate" and "think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also..."?

ml1 said:

do you really not get the difference between "She is a Libertarian candidate" and "think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also..."?

 Maybe he needs other examples of "think of me as …"

And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg—Which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous—And kill him in the shell

I think Paul didn't realize that "Libertarian" was a frame of reference geared towards Terp, and not a descriptor geared towards Tulsi.

RealityForAll said:

No homework. You and I are equals.

“Harrison Bergeron,” it turns out, is a story about MOL readers who’d be free to learn and laugh and in all other ways get the most out of life if your posts didn’t keep going off in their ears.

ml1 said:

do you really not get the difference between "She is a Libertarian candidate" and "think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also..."?

 Sure there's a difference. But in his words, Ridski describes Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate -- meaning  her views are Libertarian -- which I pointed out is absurd.

nohero said:

ml1 said:

do you really not get the difference between "She is a Libertarian candidate" and "think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also..."?

 Maybe he needs other examples of "think of me as …"

 So you're saying that when Ridski says "Think of Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate" he really means "Tulsi is not a Libertarian candidate"

Keep digging.

ml1 said:

And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg—Which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous—And kill him in the shell

 Hey, I'll bet you did that from memory.

sprout said:

I think Paul didn't realize that "Libertarian" was a frame of reference geared towards Terp, and not a descriptor geared towards Tulsi.

 Well it's true that his description of Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate appears in a response to Terp. But if you want to call it a "frame of reference" it's equally absurd to make a "frame of reference" that Tulsi is a Libertarian candidate. That would be like making a "frame of reference" that Bernie is a "Libertarian candidate".

Paul: Here's how I read it:

Interpretation of what terp said:

That candidate is really interesting. Why does that candidate seem to get so much hostility?

Interpretation of what ridski responded:
Think of it like if you had a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

paulsurovell said:

 Sure there's a difference. But in his words, Ridski describes Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate -- meaning  her views are Libertarian -- which I pointed out is absurd.

 why did you leave out the full context of what he wrote?  This is why arguing with you is futile. 

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

ml1 said:

do you really not get the difference between "She is a Libertarian candidate" and "think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also..."?

 Maybe he needs other examples of "think of me as …"

 So you're saying that when Ridski says "Think of Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate" he really means "Tulsi is not a Libertarian candidate"

Keep digging.

Two thoughts:

1.  I'm saying that one should accept Mr. Ridski's explanation even if you misinterpreted him the first time.

2.  I'm not "digging", but I know someone who is about this topic. 

nohero said:

Two thoughts:

1.  I'm saying that one should accept Mr. Ridski's explanation even if you misinterpreted him the first time.

2.  I'm not "digging", but I know someone who is about this topic. 

Or misinterpreted him the 2nd and 3rd time... It's already been 2 pages so far of Paul not believing Ridski, and trying to gaslight everyone else into believing his own misinterpretation of the sentence. 

On the original topic of this thread, it strikes me that a party featuring Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders running for president has some pretty ineffective purity tests.

I have just read a discussion among a group of MOL scholars as to  what Ridski meant by a certain statement. He has now a attained the status of Great Philosopher or perhaps, Jesus.

Wouldn't it be great if we could actually call on the great philosopher himself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJ8tKRlW3E

STANV said:

I have just read a discussion among a group of MOL scholars as to  what Ridski meant by a certain statement. He has now a attained the status of Great Philosopher or perhaps, Jesus.

nohero said:

STANV said:

I have just read a discussion among a group of MOL scholars as to  what Ridski meant by a certain statement. He has now a attained the status of Great Philosopher or perhaps, Jesus.

 

 This is why I’m tempted to switch my avatar to Noel Fielding instead.

sprout said:

Paul: Here's how I read it:

Interpretation of what terp said:

That candidate is really interesting. Why does that candidate seem to get so much hostility?

Interpretation of what ridski responded:
Think of it like if you had a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

 You added some words that changed the meaning of what Ridski wrote.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Sure there's a difference. But in his words, Ridski describes Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate -- meaning  her views are Libertarian -- which I pointed out is absurd.

 why did you leave out the full context of what he wrote?  This is why arguing with you is futile. 

 I quoted the entire exchange which provides the context. You're the one who's leaving out the context.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

ml1 said:

do you really not get the difference between "She is a Libertarian candidate" and "think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also..."?

 Maybe he needs other examples of "think of me as …"

 So you're saying that when Ridski says "Think of Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate" he really means "Tulsi is not a Libertarian candidate"

Keep digging.

Two thoughts:

1.  I'm saying that one should accept Mr. Ridski's explanation even if you misinterpreted him the first time.

2.  I'm not "digging", but I know someone who is about this topic. 

 I've been away for a while. Did Ridski give an explanation other than saying "I didn't say that"? and posting two Gifs?

Please post Ridski's "explanation".

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Two thoughts:

1.  I'm saying that one should accept Mr. Ridski's explanation even if you misinterpreted him the first time.

2.  I'm not "digging", but I know someone who is about this topic. 

 I've been away for a while. Did Ridski give an explanation other than saying "I didn't say that"? and posting two Gifs?

Please post Ridski's "explanation".

Other than what you quoted and decided to ignore?   

paulsurovell said:

 I quoted the entire exchange which provides the context. You're the one who's leaving out the context.

 you left out the last part of the sentence.  Do you think we're not able to go back and read the actual quote?

paulsurovell said:

sprout said:

Paul: Here's how I read it:

Interpretation of what terp said:

That candidate is really interesting. Why does that candidate seem to get so much hostility?

Interpretation of what ridski responded:
Think of it like if you had a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

 You added some words that changed the meaning of what Ridski wrote.

 I changed it so you could perhaps understand what he meant. 

sprout said:

paulsurovell said:

sprout said:

Paul: Here's how I read it:

Interpretation of what terp said:

That candidate is really interesting. Why does that candidate seem to get so much hostility?

Interpretation of what ridski responded:
Think of it like if you had a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

 You added some words that changed the meaning of what Ridski wrote.

 I changed it so you could perhaps understand what he meant. 

 What you think he meant but didn't say.

sprout said:

 I changed it so you could perhaps understand what he meant. 

 He doesn't want to understand it. You're witnessing a peak paulsurovell.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 I quoted the entire exchange which provides the context. You're the one who's leaving out the context.

 you left out the last part of the sentence.  Do you think we're not able to go back and read the actual quote?

 I quoted Ridski's entire sentence three times.

ridski said:

sprout said:

 I changed it so you could perhaps understand what he meant. 

 He doesn't want to understand it. You're witnessing a peak paulsurovell.

So can we have an explanation for what you really meant?

paulsurovell said:

So can we have an explanation for what you really meant?

who's this "we"?  Everyone else understood it from the beginning.