Re: parmalee's warning for inciting violence

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by James R, Jan 7, 2021.

  1. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    And then there's this:
    Yet again, reading? Did you somehow not notice that I have also been addressing that matter directly--in fact, I even engaged with you regarding such, in another thread.

    Also, I said this:
    Do you honestly not see how this might be relevant to the events of the preceding day?

    You're an awfully peculiar fellow. I honestly cannot tell if you're being obtuse here, or simply dishonest. I suppose there are other possibilities, as well. Fuck if I know.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You're still going with this? Okay then.

    I read it. I agree with it. It is irrelevant to discussion of a warning I gave you six months ago, so I chose not to comment on it.

    Do you want me to add a comment to every sentence you write?
    Sure, but your main focus has been - and remains - on yourself and the chip on your shoulder about a six month old warning I issued to you. Why is that?

    Other possibilities include that I am responding to where you're leading the discussion.

    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.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Gawwwwwd, this is getting tiresome:

    OK, if you read it, then why would you immediately posit that, perhaps, I meant the precise opposite? That's just weird, you know.

    Also, you keep going on about this "chip on (my) shoulder," surely, it's apparent that I don't give a crap about "infraction points" and suchlike. At this point, I'm only in it due to my pathological fascination, obsession even, with the weird. I mean, I've seen over 90 Jesus Franco films (watching multiple versions/edits of many of them) and have multiple volumes about his "work"--including an acquaintance's recent work, the massive two volume set, Murderous Passions and Flowers of Evil, by Stephen Thrower.

    (Note to the punters: yes, they're very good, and yes, they contain many, many full color, full page images of Lina Romay--do you even need to ask?--not to mention images of Pamela Stanford, wearing awesome eye makeup that even Candy Darling couldn't have pulled off. (No disrespect to the late Candy Darling, of course--you're still a Superstar! Even if my heart is with Nico and Viva (despite the fact ... well, I'll leave that, lest I face further moderation), and you starred in Silent Night, Deadly Night, so...) )

    And many of your responses are quite weird.

    Except that you said that I am discussing this "rather than" that. A few problems here: first, you damn well know that I'm also discussing "that," given that some of said discussion of "that" was with you even; second, I could be discussing cat videos instead of "that," doesn't mean I'm not also concerned about "that." On principle, I do not cite logical fallacies, but I'm sure you know the relevant ones here.

    I "called you out," as you say, because I found it rather weird moderation--and, more importantly, it was somewhat relevant to the events of the preceding day. Sure, my disclaimer was crap--I absolutely coulda done better on that part. I think I was just trying to maintain a consistent tone. I don't know.

    Also, were we to get some serious financing to study disclaimers of such nature, I think we would find that disclaimers generally are "crap." Twitter flags a Trump post as containing specious bullshit, and then they print said specious bullshit post.

    Moreover, an aspect of the "calling you out," and the original post, as well, was to remark upon how people like Vociferous, and the like, regularly publish baseless nonsense and seriously dangerous misinformation. You interacted with the guy a fair bit--you know he ain't stupid, rather, he knew damn well what he was doing. While Trump, Hannity, et al bear the most responsibility here, people like Vociferous bear some too--why were they allowed to continue pushing baseless bullshit?

    This can end, quite swiftly, if you simply stop posting weird shit! Until you do, I'm gonna keep on responding, owing to my fascination/obsession with weirdness.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    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—

    —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.

    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.

    No, yours. Honestly, James, what's the problem? How did you screw that one up so badly?

    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:

    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.

    Maybe you really do have that much difficulty with context.

    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—

    —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.
  8. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Or, at least, move said discussion to it's own thread. However, I think it somewhat germane to the topic (the coup attempt), insofar as coddling the most toxic members--under some misguided notion of "fairness" or whatever--is in some respects what brought us here.

    With some exceptions, the most toxic members tend to be pretty crafty: they adhere to the rules just enough to keep themselves out of trouble, whilst regularly posting unbelievably awful bullshit. IIRC my post, from a few months previous, under discussion here was brought about by Vociferous posting some data re: perceptions of the Confederate flag--specifically, that the overwhelming majority of blacks in the US south find it deeply offensive, and even threatening--while defending people's rights to wave it "proudly" and "innocently" (according to him).

    I know I'm often sloppy, and that I sometimes push the envelope a bit too far. Still I do consider my audience carefully--I know some are gonna find it offensive, childish, utterly ridiculous, say, but I also believe that most (or, at least, the ones that matter to me) are gonna recognize that there is some sort of method at play. I don't know whether or not it's effective, but I do know that always responding civilly and rationally to certain parties simply ain't gonna cut it.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    There's a simple solution to that, open to you to take any time you choose.

    This was tiresome for me from the start, when you first decided to resurrect that 6 month old dead bee in your bonnet.
    I didn't.

    Disingenuous deflection.

    Go on, show me just how much you don't give a crap.
    That off-topic digression into details of your film hobby was weird.

    But you're not discussing Trump. You're discussing this. You choose how to allocate your time and effort. It reflects your priorities.

    You didn't make it very relevant. What would your point have been, I wonder? If somebody had exercised his "right" to "put a bullet in" Trump's head earlier, then the attempt to subvert American democracy might not have happened? Is that the relevance you had in mind?

    So your complaint is that you think Vociferous got away with something you should equally have been able to get away with, and you're disappointed about that - pissed off even? [I might comment that I haven't even seen him around here lately, but apparently you bear a grudge against him as well.]

    It's not weird for me to moderate you for inciting violence, no matter how much you say it is. If you're that delusional, I don't think there's much point continuing to attempt to entertain your concerns.

    What you're saying is that, if your intentions are good, you ought to be able to make death threats and the like, for theatrical effect.

    I disagree.
  10. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    You claim to have read this:
    Then you respond with this:
    Again, learn how to read--or, do try to be honest.
    How so? Especially given that, as I informed you in the pm, I accept the points for "flaming," or deliberately trying to provoke Vociferous, as opposed to your utterly ridiculous "incitement to murder."

    I've got two hands and two feet--I'm capable of doing several things at one time. Can you?i

    Are you seriously this daft, or are you just trolling, as usual?

    Nope. But if I were to have a complaint anywhere in that ballpark, I'd likely direct it towards Tiassa or Bells, say, as they are, unlike you, both literate and honest.

    For the final fucking time: there was no incitement to commit violence. Do you ever read anything outside the fields of physics, maths and the like? I mean, you invoke Poe's Law, but you don't seem to get it. And you're curiously selective "amnesia" is strongly suggestive of someone who hasn't embraced the text--or who is pathologically dishonest.

    Something about "putting words into another's mouth" or mind-reading goes here. I can play that game too, but I won't. Why? Because I prefer honesty.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Gotta go with James here. If, a week ago, Trump had tweeted "I am not recommending anything. I am just saying that it is well within your rights as Americans to put a bullet in the head of Pence, Pelosi, AOC or any of those freedom-hating criminal fucks. It might just be your duty to do it!" and Twitter banned him right then and there, it would have been a good call. (Also might have saved a few lives.)
    James R likes this.
  12. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    However, I am not an elected official--nor am I the president! With respect to free speech, private citizens are generally accorded much more leeway. Context is everything--take many a comedy routine, say, and perform it in the classroom. It's gonna take on a whole new meaning, and will very likely be totally inappropriate in that context.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    As usual, you seem to be getting distracted by the wood and failing to notice the trees.
    I quoted it. That's how it reads.

    I get it. You're sympathetic to parmalee's political position, and antagonistic towards his opponent-of-the-moment. So, you're willing to cut parmalee slack that, six months ago, I wasn't willing to do.

    At that time, I made a decision as a moderator of this forum. You are very welcome to disagree with me, but it's now done and dusted. The only reason I can see for you to jump into this discussion is to grab an opportunity to push your own grievances - to jump on a bandwagon. I'm not surprised about that. It's not the first time and it's unlikely to be the last.
    I quoted it. parmalee also helpfully reproduced the post in question, in full. It's not a matter of definition. Read the words of the post.

    parmalee is still here. This thread is open for discussion. Nobody has been cancelled.

    Yes. When you moderate somebody, that's your prerogative. When I moderate somebody, that's mine. That's the job.

    On the matter of "escalation" - by which you refer to handing out 20 warning points rather than the usual 10 - there is the matter of consistency. Making threats, or inciting violence towards others, has always been one of the offenses we have taken most seriously here. Or, at least, I have. I make no apologies for that. Your choices are yours, of course. That's your prerogative.
    Yes. I'm an optimist, as well as something of an idealist. I tend to hope that people are mostly reasonable, and that they have the capacity to act rationally. It can catch me by surprise when it turns out that they prioritise their own selfish concerns above reasonableness and rationality, especially when it comes from somebody whom I previously considered to be reasonable and rational.

    I guess so. I guess some people bottle it all up for months or years before they explode, rather than trying to deal with their concerns in a more healthy way.

    It's especially irritating when one is clearly in the right. Wouldn't you agree?

    Again, I can only direct you to the facts. Initially (see the opening post), parmalee did not reference or explain what he was on about. That you expect me, retrospectively, to have intuited what parmalee's concern might have been, based on a six-month old memory of one warning I handed out among many, is your own conceit.

    My 20 year history of posts to this forum exposes your blatant lie. There's no need for any further defence against that nonsense. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    You often make vague insinuations like that, full of errors and false implications. You ought to stop that.

    In this particular case, the standard I would like is the one that is set out in our posting guidelines: i.e. do not threaten other posters or other people, in general. Do not incite others to threaten, hurt or kill other posters or other people in general.

    What standard would you like?
    I quoted what you wrote. If there was reframing, it was yours, first.

    In this thread, I initially quoted only the part of his post that attracted the warning, believing that was the most relevant part.

    I have no problem at all with him reposting the entire thing. Nor I have I done anything dishonest in quoting only the relevant part.

    What "implications" you choose to read into my actions are entirely up to you. As usual, I think I can assume you'll manage to find a way to twist it round to suit your purposes.
    It's "us" now, is it? You and parmalee, taking a stand together?

    Why did you even decide you had to inject yourself into this discussion, in the first place? Here's what I think. I think that, like parmalee, you have a chip on your shoulder, and you took what you saw as an opportunity to put the boot in - to "gang up". It's not a good look.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    So the argument is now "It is not acceptable for the President of the United States to incite violence against others, but it is acceptable for me to do it".

    Or maybe the argument is "The President of the United States should be taken seriously when he incites violence, but I shouldn't be."

    Either version is not particularly persuasive as a reason why your incitement ought to be tolerated on this forum.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    billvon has nailed my opinion. But to further distill it:

    The second sentence negates the first.

    Parm, you literally said " It might just be your duty to [put a bullet in the head of Pence, Pelosi, AOC or any of those freedom-hating criminal fucks]!"

    Telling someone what their duty is is, in fact, a strong recommendation. You are directly recommending that citizens should enact cold-blooded fatal violence on named individuals, as is their duty.

    Parm, I think the only defensible position is to acknowledge what you said was an incitement to violence even of you didn't mean it to be when you said it.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2021
  16. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

    Also, you have not adequately shown that my statement was an "incitement to commit violence." It's all those other things I mentioned, certainly (inflammatory, irresponsible, etc.), but it is in no sense an "incitement to commit violence." It was mockery of rightwing fuckwits, all about the violent rhetoric and threats when it comes to Obama or Hillary, but then, when their guy is literally--and deliberately--getting them killed, en masse, they've got nothing?

    Incidentally, and funnily enough, I was actually calling out a lot of people (a few days back), myself included, for overly policing ourselves whilst allowing the rightwing agitators to post their specious and dangerous rhetoric freely, simply because they are "following the rules," as outlined. I named you, and alluded to your moderation, but I could have just as well gone with other examples of such.
  17. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    I would agree that it can be read as such, but my disclaimer--no matter how crappy and weak it was--was sufficient to make it very much not. And that's actually kind of unfortunate, but I think it imperative--especially as regards anonymous online communication--that we only hold people accountable for what they literally say. Otherwise, we're opening Pandora's Box, wherein people are culpable for things they do not say simply because it "kinda sounds like" that's what they meant.

    I say "unfortunate" I think for reasons which should be obvious, but briefly: Someone says "I am not a Trump supporter, but..." and we all know damn well that they are, in fact, a Trump supporter, but... With that example, of course, accountability is not likely to come into play, but there are innumerable instances where it very well could--you know, like my example of Twitter flagging a Trump post as containing "baseless, unsupported bullshit," and then posting said baseless, unsupported bullshit.

    Also, there's just plain common sense: first, most of us know full well that violent means seldom achieve the desired ends--and a lot of innocents will suffer and pay for such; second, Trump supporters aren't ever gonna turn on Trump--at least, the particular kind (of supporter) we're discussing here and "turn(ing)" meaning taking up arms and committing violent acts. Moreover, as I noted before, they're sure as hell not gonna heed the words of a vegan, epileptic, mischling, communist lumpenprole--I mean, really?
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    If it's crappy and weak, then how can it be sufficient? Clearly, it was not, or this would not still be an issue.

    Words are an inexhaustible resource - no need to ration them. Why not simply reiterate, here, now, that what you said, back then - that it was people's "duty" to commit lethal violence, upon named victims - is indefensible. (and that you're damned lucky you didn't get banned for it (as you would on any other forum), or even criminally charged).

    And then stop defending it.
  19. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Does it, though? However weak, the qualifiers--"I think," "it might" and so forth--are still sufficient.

    (The full post, by the way, with context is here:

    That was billvon's formulation, incidentally, see actual post above.

    I'm saying what their duty or right might be, depending upon one's interpretation of the texts.

    Also, why is it that you and billvon are capable of discussing this in a reasonable manner, without putting words into my mouth and distorting everyting I say? Why can't James do that? (Rhetorical question.)
  20. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    See post#7 for actual quote and the context.

    What I am "defending," or maintaining, is that my post is certainly inflammatory, etc., but it is not incitement to violence. Also, as I said somewhere on the previous page, I do in fact believe that certain founding documents can be reasonably read and interpreted in said fashion. Other readings, which expressly do not allow for such, are also reasonable. I'm a fence-sitter on the matter.

    Also, as noted previously, the post was intended mainly to provoke Vociferous. He had posted some truly awful shit in another thread (well, such was his way) and I really wanted to shine a spotlight on his hipocracy.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it does.

    It is.

    You suggested it is a citizen's duty to put a bullet in the head of named targets. That's literally "inciting violence". And it's a chargeable offense.

    I'm considering reporting this contemporary, ongoing thread (as opposed to an old, dead thread) to the authorities for continued recommendations of lethal violence against named victims that is being defended in every second post.

    James R : this thread is free publicity for hate speech, posted right here on SciFo.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2021
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Nothing I have written in this thread is dishonest. My posts are my own opinions, naturally. I try to reference facts and records, where relevant. I am careful to ask questions when I don't know something. I am careful to flag speculations as such. I am careful to say things like "It seems to me that..." or "You seem to be saying ...", when I am talking about my interpretation of something.

    None of those things is dishonest. Dishonesty does not equate with my saying stuff you don't like. The same goes for Tiassa's little rant.
    I explained to you in a recent PM that the warning was not given for flaming, but for inciting violence - making threats, in effect. I note this, by the way, only for the benefit of readers who will not be aware of our brief recent correspondence by PM on this.

    Not when I'm posting on a forum, no. I am only able to post one post at a time, which means only concentrating on one thread at any given time. But you knew that, didn't you?

    Is that a "no", then? Why not answer the question, rather than trying to avoid it?

    Yeah, nice. Accuse me of illiteracy - an obviously stupid thing to do, given the context - and of dishonesty (again). It really helps your case. (That's sarcasm, by the way.)

    Don't believe me? Try reading Dave's post, above. Or the other people who've told you.

    Pretending to be stupid doesn't suit you.
    Why don't you read a few of my posts and see if you can't figure it out for yourself?

    You don't seem to get it. But I think that, really, you do.

    You're not helping yourself with those kinds of lies. Don't take your cues from Tiassa.

    I've done no such thing, and you know it.

    Okay, so maybe you really are that stupid, or maybe that's just more self-serving bullshit. Your readers will judge for themselves.

    You were berating yourself for overpolicing yourself? And that's why you decided to complain about me "overpolicing" you?

    Sounds very muddled, if you ask me.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2021
  23. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    "Crappy and weak" may be sub-optimal, but by no means is such necessarily insufficient.

    The problem here is that that's not what I said--again, see post #7 for the actual passage.

Share This Page