Purity tests - how the left is killing itself

paulsurovell said:

 I quoted Ridski's entire sentence three times.

 yes.  That's how I knew you cut the last part of it off.  The part that changed the meaning of the portion you did quote.

I've seen some dumb tangents before, but jeebus, this is one for the ages.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

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

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

 Your concept of "everyone" speaks volumes.

drummerboy said:

I've seen some dumb tangents before, but jeebus, this is one for the ages.

 Yeah, @ridski could have said he meant something other than what he wrote (if that's the case), but he can't bring himself to do it.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 I quoted Ridski's entire sentence three times.

 yes.  That's how I knew you cut the last part of it off.  The part that changed the meaning of the portion you did quote.

 If you knew that, why did you say:

ml1 said:
Do you think we're not able to go back and read the actual quote?

Paul, a simile is a phrase that usually includes the words "as" or "like.

ridski said: 
Just think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

Same simile, but replacing "as" with "like":

Just think of her like a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

Better now?

paulsurovell said:

 Your concept of "everyone" speaks volumes.

 you're right.  It wasn't everyone.  It was everyone else who speaks English who read it.

RealityForAll said:

ridski said:

terp said:

This is so typical.  If you are not on board with the new rules, you don't care about people. 

 Is it the rules themselves, or the speed with which the rules change, or the consequences of not obeying the rules that's at issue here?

Let's take a look at what this type of language policing has done for Britain.  See:  https://reason.com/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po/

===========================================

Brief Except from the Above Linked Article

Britain Turns Offensive Speech Into a Police Matter

BRENDAN O'NEILL | 9.15.2018 7:30 AM

Which country's police force just called on its citizens to report offensive speech? Not libelous speech or death-threat speech, just plain old insulting speech. Speech that is merely hurtful or hateful. Which nation's cops instructed the citizenry to snitch on haters?

North Korea? China? Maybe Turkey?

It was Britain. Yes, Britain has become a nation in which offensive speech can become a police matter. Where, in April this year, a 19-year-old woman was convicted of sending a "grossly offensive" message after she posted rap lyrics that included the N-word on her Instagram page. Where, also in April, a Scottish shitposter was found guilty of a hate crime for teaching a pug to do a Nazi salute and posting the footage on YouTube. Where in recent years individuals have been arrested and in some cases imprisoned for making racist comments or just cracking tasteless jokes on Twitter.

This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the "liberty to utter," is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.

The latest Orwellian invitation to rat out offensive speakers was issued by the South Yorkshire Police.

These clearly time-rich coppers took to Twitter to remind people that "HateHurts". That was their actual hashtag. I'm sure hate can hurt, but not nearly as much as being burgled or beaten up or whatever other crimes these cops are probably missing as they trawl Twitter for rudeness.

"In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents," they pleaded. These non-crimes include "things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing."

Leave my people out of this

sprout said:

Paul, a simile is a phrase that usually includes the words "as" or "like.

ridski said: 
Just think of her as a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

Same simile, but replacing "as" with "like":

Just think of her like a Libertarian candidate who also believes Real ID is needed for voters.

Better now?

 Ridski could have said "I didn't mean to say that Tulsi was a Libertarian candidate I meant that . . . "

but instead, when confronted with his statement, Ridski said "I didn't say that Tulsi was a Libertairan candidate".

He didn't say it was a simile, he denied that he said what he said.

I'm sure if he didn't mean it, he's capable of explaining what he meant. Until he does, we only have what he said.

In the meantime, thanks for your efforts, but we need to hear from the man himself.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Your concept of "everyone" speaks volumes.

 you're right.  It wasn't everyone.  It was everyone else who speaks English who read it.

Now that's a very silly claim to make.

paulsurovell said:

 Ridski could have said "I didn't mean to say that Tulsi was a Libertarian candidate I meant that . . . "

OK. I took 'the Dude' GIF to mean he thought it was pretty obvious, and you might just need a minute to figure it out. (But 4 pages later....)

sprout said:

paulsurovell said:

 Ridski could have said "I didn't mean to say that Tulsi was a Libertarian candidate I meant that . . . "

OK. I took 'the Dude' GIF to mean he thought it was pretty obvious, and you might just need a minute to figure it out. (But 4 pages later....)

 Four pages later and all we have are a couple of Gifs and @ridski saying that he didn't say something he said. Like Reality said . . . 

Tulsi's foreign policy isolationist views are more favorable to (Trumpers, libertarians, Alt right, white nationalists) then they are to most of the other democrats.  The response was after the critique of Dems to her foreign policy.

It's sort of like a libertarian embracing the concept of a REAL ID.  (They would never do that) 

Comprende?  Did I get that right guys?  

paulsurovell said:

 Four pages later and all we have are a couple of Gifs and @ridski saying that he didn't say something he said. 

 So then you are supposed to TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD.

If you can't, and have to keep insisting that your interpretation is the only one, and that Mr. Ridski is lying - I can't even,

Tell you what, think of one of the nastiest things you've written about a fellow poster here, Paul, and apply it to yourself.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

 Four pages later and all we have are a couple of Gifs and @ridski saying that he didn't say something he said. 

 So then you are supposed to TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD.

If you can't, and have to keep insisting that your interpretation is the only one, and that Mr. Ridski is lying - I can't even,

Tell you what, think of one of the nastiest things you've written about a fellow poster here, Paul, and apply it to yourself.

 When ridski's words are clear (regarding Tulsi being Libertarian), I do not think interpretation is necessary (nor desirable).

If am wrong, then please let me know why.

sprout said:

paulsurovell said:

 Ridski could have said "I didn't mean to say that Tulsi was a Libertarian candidate I meant that . . . "

OK. I took 'the Dude' GIF to mean he thought it was pretty obvious, and you might just need a minute to figure it out. (But 4 pages later....)

 4 pages and 3 days.

You know who had no problem interpreting my sentence? Terp. The guy I was responding to.

What’s really going to boil paulsurovells noodles is that Tulsi doesn’t even believe that we should require Real ID to vote. https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Government_Reform.htm

Feel free to chew on that for another 3 days.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

 Four pages later and all we have are a couple of Gifs and @ridski saying that he didn't say something he said. 

 So then you are supposed to TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD.

I am taking him at his word, but he's denying that he said those words.

If you can't, and have to keep insisting that your interpretation is the only one, and that Mr. Ridski is lying - I can't even,

His denials are too absurd to call lies.

Tell you what, think of one of the nastiest things you've written about a fellow poster here, Paul, and apply it to yourself.

I'm sorry to see that you're taking this matter so personally. A better approach would be to make a simple appeal to @Ridski to explain what he actually meant when he described Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate.

jamie said:

Tulsi's foreign policy isolationist views are more favorable to (Trumpers, libertarians, Alt right, white nationalists) then they are to most of the other democrats.  The response was after the critique of Dems to her foreign policy.

It's sort of like a libertarian embracing the concept of a REAL ID.  (They would never do that) 

Comprende?  Did I get that right guys?  

 This is a reasonable interpretation (based on unreasonable interpretations of Tulsi's views) that very well may have been what @ridski intended to convey when he described Tulsi as a Libertarian candidate.

RealityForAll said:

 When ridski's words are clear (regarding Tulsi being Libertarian), I do not think interpretation is necessary (nor desirable).

If am wrong, then please let me know why.

 Let you know why you’re misinterpreting?

I’d rather explain humor to you, but that’s Mr. ml1’s corner. 

ridski said:

sprout said:

paulsurovell said:

 Ridski could have said "I didn't mean to say that Tulsi was a Libertarian candidate I meant that . . . "

OK. I took 'the Dude' GIF to mean he thought it was pretty obvious, and you might just need a minute to figure it out. (But 4 pages later....)

 4 pages and 3 days.

That you've denied what you wrote.

You know who had no problem interpreting my sentence? Terp. The guy I was responding to.

That's possible, I haven't seen a response. But this is an open thread, so when you post something it's fair game for anyone to respond.

What’s really going to boil paulsurovells noodles is that Tulsi doesn’t even believe that we should require Real ID to vote. https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Government_Reform.htm

You can add this to the links I provided in my first response.

Feel free to chew on that for another 3 days.

Much appreciated.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

 When ridski's words are clear (regarding Tulsi being Libertarian), I do not think interpretation is necessary (nor desirable).

If am wrong, then please let me know why.

 Let you know why you’re misinterpreting?

He's not interpretating or misinterpreting. That's what you are doing.

I’d rather explain humor to you, but that’s Mr. ml1’s corner.

That's funny.

paulsurovell said:

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Government_Reform.htm

You can add this to the links I provided in my first response.

 Actually I can’t edit your posts, so you’ll have to do it. 

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Government_Reform.htm

You can add this to the links I provided in my first response.

 Actually I can’t edit your posts, so you’ll have to do it. 

 Sure you can. Just copy my post and add the link.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Government_Reform.htm

You can add this to the links I provided in my first response.

 Actually I can’t edit your posts, so you’ll have to do it. 

 Sure you can. Just copy my post and add the link.

Eh, What do you know from funny...?

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

 When ridski's words are clear (regarding Tulsi being Libertarian), I do not think interpretation is necessary (nor desirable).

If am wrong, then please let me know why.

 Let you know why you’re misinterpreting?

I’d rather explain humor to you, but that’s Mr. ml1’s corner. 

 Snarky attack because you have nothing substantive to add.