I said from the very beginning, completely explicitly, that a segment did indeed do that awful lib nonsense, but the statement “The delegation did not meet with the President” is only true if the actual delegation does not meet with the President, when the actual delegation did meet with the president. There were still delegates, the people following the itinerary of the delegation, operating in their official capacity as the delegation, who also made up the majority of the intended group, who did meet with him. Some people broke with the delegation to do awful reactionary bullshit, I have been very explicit about that and – for the record – have supported them being denounced by the Red Star Caucus and so on and wish the DSA actually took disciplinary action against them, but that does not mean the delegation did not meet with the President. The President was not just sitting in an empty room with his attendants, he did meet with DSA people from that very delegation who acted in their official capacity, and even discussed with them about the tantrum being thrown by the lib segment, where I don’t know exactly what he said, but the DSA people described it as being very magnanimous.
Anyone who denies that the delegation met with the President is either a liar, or so supremely bad with language or logic that they don’t understand what necessity and sufficiency are on even a crude intuitive level, or have been obviously misinformed. I don’t think we can say that you’re currently misinformed, since you have seen me mention both parties here multiple times now and yet still choose to present this false representation of both the truth of the initial claim and what I said about it. I never denied that a segment of the DSA delegates engaged in awful reactionary behavior, it was other people who pretended that that was the whole of what happened. I can’t see inside your head, so I can’t say what motivates you to keep misrepresenting things, but it’s very concerning.
You can say some of the delegation didn’t meet with him, but it is plainly a deception to just say “the delegation did not meet with him,” because most of the delegation did.
If a kid is well behaved 90% of the time but occasionally tortures your house cat, you don’t say that’s a normal child that doesn’t need help. Or when someone says “that kid needs psychiatric help for his unhealthy behaviors” you don’t try to shut them up by saying ACTUALLY MOST OF THE TIME HES ACTING TOTALLY REASONABLE AND NORMAL. STOP LYING AND SAYING HE IS UNHEALTHY.
It only takes one fuck up to ruin your entire delegation. It takes one delegate misbehaving to cause an international incident. The DSA cannot keep a leash on their delegates, and fail at a systemic level to prevent this type of behavior
Why the fuck are you doing this? The delegation did not ghost him, part of the delegation ghosted, but people, most of the people, came and therefore saying the delegation as a whole ghosted him is a fucking lie. I hate the shitlibs who pulled those stunts and think it’s an awful stain on the DSA that the splinter faced no repercussions, but there’s no reason to use hyperbole to turn it into something that is literally a fucking lie.
Do you see the style of inference you used in the sicko child example? In order to say that he sometimes abuses his cat, it is sufficient for making that claim that he does sometimes abuse the cat, however infrequently. It is necessary to make the opposite claim, that he doesn’t abuse the cat, for him to never abuse the cat. You are here making a construction that demonstrates your own lie, because it would be necessary for making the claim that the delegation ghosted the president that none of them showed up in their official capacity, but in fact most of them did, which is and therefore saying that the delegation as a whole ghosted them (which is unquestionably what you’re saying when you say “the delegation” and not "some of the delegation) is a fucking lie.
I said from the very beginning, completely explicitly, that a segment did indeed do that awful lib nonsense, but the statement “The delegation did not meet with the President” is only true if the actual delegation does not meet with the President, when the actual delegation did meet with the president. There were still delegates, the people following the itinerary of the delegation, operating in their official capacity as the delegation, who also made up the majority of the intended group, who did meet with him. Some people broke with the delegation to do awful reactionary bullshit, I have been very explicit about that and – for the record – have supported them being denounced by the Red Star Caucus and so on and wish the DSA actually took disciplinary action against them, but that does not mean the delegation did not meet with the President. The President was not just sitting in an empty room with his attendants, he did meet with DSA people from that very delegation who acted in their official capacity, and even discussed with them about the tantrum being thrown by the lib segment, where I don’t know exactly what he said, but the DSA people described it as being very magnanimous.
Anyone who denies that the delegation met with the President is either a liar, or so supremely bad with language or logic that they don’t understand what necessity and sufficiency are on even a crude intuitive level, or have been obviously misinformed. I don’t think we can say that you’re currently misinformed, since you have seen me mention both parties here multiple times now and yet still choose to present this false representation of both the truth of the initial claim and what I said about it. I never denied that a segment of the DSA delegates engaged in awful reactionary behavior, it was other people who pretended that that was the whole of what happened. I can’t see inside your head, so I can’t say what motivates you to keep misrepresenting things, but it’s very concerning.
You can say some of the delegation didn’t meet with him, but it is plainly a deception to just say “the delegation did not meet with him,” because most of the delegation did.
If a kid is well behaved 90% of the time but occasionally tortures your house cat, you don’t say that’s a normal child that doesn’t need help. Or when someone says “that kid needs psychiatric help for his unhealthy behaviors” you don’t try to shut them up by saying ACTUALLY MOST OF THE TIME HES ACTING TOTALLY REASONABLE AND NORMAL. STOP LYING AND SAYING HE IS UNHEALTHY.
It only takes one fuck up to ruin your entire delegation. It takes one delegate misbehaving to cause an international incident. The DSA cannot keep a leash on their delegates, and fail at a systemic level to prevent this type of behavior
Why the fuck are you doing this? The delegation did not ghost him, part of the delegation ghosted, but people, most of the people, came and therefore saying the delegation as a whole ghosted him is a fucking lie. I hate the shitlibs who pulled those stunts and think it’s an awful stain on the DSA that the splinter faced no repercussions, but there’s no reason to use hyperbole to turn it into something that is literally a fucking lie.
Do you see the style of inference you used in the sicko child example? In order to say that he sometimes abuses his cat, it is sufficient for making that claim that he does sometimes abuse the cat, however infrequently. It is necessary to make the opposite claim, that he doesn’t abuse the cat, for him to never abuse the cat. You are here making a construction that demonstrates your own lie, because it would be necessary for making the claim that the delegation ghosted the president that none of them showed up in their official capacity, but in fact most of them did, which is and therefore saying that the delegation as a whole ghosted them (which is unquestionably what you’re saying when you say “the delegation” and not "some of the delegation) is a fucking lie.