In the past six months, I'm not sure how many warnings I have handed out to people on this forum. I guess you can count them up if you feel so inclined.
This is an example of one among the many reasons why I doubt you so. See, here it's just another warning, but a couple lines later—
Making threats to kills, or inciting others to murder, is a serious offence.
—it's really, really serious; the difference does stand out. It's one thing if you read Parmalee wrong; it's another if he could have refined the bit some more; he's even acknowledged that. But you? You just need to have things your way. It wasn't a threat to kill, or incitement to murder.
You've been told what the passage is, yet you insist on your own definition. And for all those disputes we've had over the years, in which you pretend to be standing up for free speech, you frequently betray the underlying principle. You complain about cancel culture, or shame, or overzealous political judgment, yet you
do this? Providing demonstrative examples of what you complain about is not unheard of.
Here, let's call this a joke:
Did you read the "incitement" in an Australian accent? That's what I meant about reading the passage on a certain cadence. If you read it as a Donald Trump impersonation, it actually makes a certain amount of sense.
Thus, as Parmalee acknowledges, "Crap 'parody?' Fine. Irresponsible? Sure. Inflammatory? Yep. Just don't call it
incitement." And you simply insist that only your reading is correct.
So, let's be clear: You read the passage as problematic, that's your prerogative. You find it worth escalating the infraction; that's your prerogative. But that's about it.
On the other hand, I'm frequently surprised when posters here suddenly want to reopen ancient issues.
First,
really? After all this time, you're actually still surprised?
Second, six months ago, or even eleven, isn't so ancient, especially when one feels maligned.
The thing about your forgetfulness, James, is that it contains a tell. Something brushes your sensitivities just so, and you put on a particular manner of defensive display; I've seen it many times. I mention it at this point because another of your tells is a manner of reframing, in this case, your treatment of six months ago as ancient. Also, the question of how many infractions you hand out over that period has a familiar feel about it, even without the contrast of the seriousness of the offense. It's not quite prim, but the whole thing has a sniffy indignance about it.
And it's true, at a basic level, certainly I sympathize with the irritation at being called out in certain manners. To the other, you have, in our own disagreements, managed to forget what we were talking about over the course of a thread, and even over the course of a day. Honestly, I had accepted it was a stylistic habit; that's one of the reasons the behavior stands out in the manner it does. So it's true, compared to wondering whether this was really occasion Parmalee wants to have this discussion, well, now you went and showed that nearly signature posture of not remembering. Most charitably, I would say it describes particular dimensions of uncertainty; I wouldn't know what those dimensions actually are because I am not you. Less charitably I would shrug and observe, of course you don't remember. Please understand, you are someone who has, in the past, given me the,
"What is this [___] you refer to?" bit when there wasn't really any question. So it's also true that when you show that front, my sympathy recoils.
Seriously, James: People are going to call us out, sometimes. You're still surprised? Okay. But, also, remember how offended you get when I express my disdain for the regard you show white supremacism, misogyny, and other hatemongering. And episodes like this are why all those years of you fretting about free speech have always read poorly. These infractions are the sort of suppressive action you otherwise pretend to disdain, and it's been like this for years.
parmalee's air, you mean?
No, yours. Honestly, James, what's the problem? How did you screw that one up so badly?
I hope you don't assume that when I issue warnings it is just because I'm pissed off at someone. That isn't what you do, is it?
Oh, please do cite an example.
And, honestly, are you really going to justify yourself as some sort of anti-identification against me?
Meanwhile, hey, remember the time you looked at a massive, off-topic fight and decided to close a thread you didn't like, issue one infraction to a political opponent on inconsistent grounds, and publicly congratulate yourself along the way? Of course not, you never remember. But, hey, at least you showed your political opponents. One of our biggest policy disagreements actually goes back over a decade, and involves you suspending someone for criticizing your moderation after you issued a petty infraction you could only justify by pretending you couldn't read.
It's not a matter of assuming, James; I've watched you do it.
And there really is a lot that goes here. What standard would you like? Look, this wasn't as bad a screwup as the time you issued an arbitrary infraction to someone you didn't like under a pretense of being fair to someone else entirely; still, at the same time, Parmalee mocked Donald Trump, and this guy who went trumpfan on me twice issued an infraction. Compared to every other coincidence I'm supposed to shrug past, okay, whatever. But consider, it is by
your standard this particular context becomes that much more significant. To wit, while the result is consistent with political views you've gone out of your way to coddle, over the years, the trumpfanning actually reminds me more of your complaints about cancel culture, &c., and your pretenses in defense of free speech. After all, that's why you went trumpfan on me, twice, in the first place. Remember, there is a standard by which there is a lot to talk about, and there is also yours, which in our present episode seeks to interpret something someone wrote in the worst possible way.
And think about that last. Here is you trying to
enforce that worst possible interpretation:
You decided to call me out because you thought the warning I gave you six months ago was unfair. I have merely set the record straight. But it seems you're struggling to let it go.
So, please, James, just since we have the moment: In the future, when we need to figure how to deal with problematic behavior, do not ever again give me those frets about suppressing political views you can't or won't enumerate, or pretensions of principled argument against abstract overzeal. And I know, I know, you don't remember. To the one, that goes back a while; to the other, you've been forgetting the whole time.
It's one thing if I think people ought to know better than to put on such a direct show, but if I find
an infraction you gave him almost funny for its context of mockery, yeah, I get that the one in question actually feels a little bit libelous to Parmalee, and then you went and put on
that puffy air of forgetfulness.
Meanwhile, "I hope you don't assume that when I issue warnings it is just because I'm pissed off at someone," really is an odd contextual shift. Something about reframing goes here.
You might just be the most intuitive person on the forum, Tiassa, able to work out what people mean and what they are referring to without them ever having to actually come out and say it. Again, if that's the case, good for you. Congratulations on your perspicacity.
Maybe you really do have that much difficulty with context.
The rest of us unfortunately have to rely on what people actually write, at least some of the time.
James, you're not an AI. Moreover, I've actually seen you show contextual awareness. Additionally, between invoking Poe's Law and wavering on the significance of the occasion, some manner of uncertainty seems in play.
The one you flagged Parmalee for six months ago, which, not so ironically, is strongly implied by what you snipped out. Of course, it was clear your response was a troll well before that line. From the first line, actually.
I remain of the opinion that calling us out so directly is generally a bad idea, but how we respond or not remains up to us. Insofar as you were willing to have the discussion, you went and showed a particular posture. It's not so much that I regret the vague post, but, rather, I cannot help but observe that I chose a lightweight version. Look, your pretense that you don't know what's going on reads snotty as hell, and has the effect of suggesting to people that you don't know what's going on. I know, that's probably not striking the right tone, is it, but it's true so there remains a question of how to regard that reality.
Remember, nobody is telling you to eat the infraction. Parmalee, however, resents the appearance of exaggeration and overstatement, which you, in turn, seem absolutely determined to maintain. And when you strike that pose—
I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I guess you have chip on your shoulder about some past perceived injustice done to you. Is that it?
—it's not a poker face, James, but a tell. When you respond that you don't know what someone is talking about, but let you diminish and demean them, and then ask them to affirm that's what they mean, you're responding to more than just the simple fact of being called out. It's not that you're ready to fight; you're already fighting. It's a familiar routine.
Anyway, that's why.
