Re: parmalee's warning for inciting violence

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

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member


    Yes, James, but you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

    No, James, I actually told you why I got involved. The fact that you can't manage to be honest about even that makes its own point.

    As I look through the rest of your response, I notice that you skip over something, so let me reiterate:

    • 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.​

    Yes, you quote it. You've told us how you think it reads. You refuse to acknowledge any alternative. Or maybe you're just not capable.

    Thus, to reiterate:

    • 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.​

    That kind of dumbassed missing the point is another of your tells, James. What I'm getting at is that compared to how you whine about free speech, you sometimes fulfill what you purport to guard against.

    I gave you an example↗, several months ago, in a discussion about cancel culture, and it comes to mind, because it involved a lament about people being fired from their jobs because somebody decided to go out of his or her way to interpret one word of something they communicated in the worst possible way it could be interpreted. It's true, I don't expect you to remember, even though you're familiar with the example.

    You justify yourself by absolute insistence on your particular reading. So let's step out of our context, for a moment:

    • • •​

    I hear you, but maybe you recall an occasion↗, not quite a year and a half ago, when I told you to stop encouraging violence. The reason you got black ink and not an actual infraction is because despite the direct advocacy of violence↗, I recognized the bit you were doing.

    Do you understand that idea? You were telling people they were obliged to violence. You were encouraging, instructing people to violence.

    I recognized the bit you were doing. Should I not have afforded you that courtesy?

    It's just that to go by James' context-free insistence, you should be flagged on record for inciting violence. That's the difference, Billvon.

    • • •​

    That's just you being stubborn and indignant.

    Well, think of it this way, James: Even in the moment, you still apparently cannot properly comprehend the problem.

    Well, yes and no, but this is one of those parts where, yes, there are pathways by which there is a lot to discuss, and then there is yours. In the context of larger consideration, you and consistency display an interesting relationship. More in the moment, your inability to understand the issue raised will have its own justifying value for others, devaluing your characterization of Parmalee's alleged incitement.

    Sure, but that's not explicitly the case, here.

    Such as it is, sure, but compared to what you purport to respond to, with that, okay, then.

    To the one, you make my point. To the other, it was July↗ when you staged a weird public inquiry about a member's behavior, and like I say, there is a lot to talk about, because the part about, "Is Seattle advocating for white supremacy? (I'm inclined to say no, but maybe I'm wrong)", is just extraordinary. And I can only wonder if you had already forgotten, by then, that we have previously, in policy considerations, parsed definitions of what it is to advocate; but, really, that's just a distracting irony. It was just a pained question, compared to everything else that was going on in the moment. Actually, maybe that irony is more than just a distraction; we were discussing the nature of particular discourse about behavior otherwise classified as sex offenses.

    More generally, look, there's an old, unanswered question about what political views you worry about when fretting at discussions about disruptive or otherwise problematic behavior. Actually, you know, that one did pertain, in its range and moment, to an actual discussion of misogyny. Compared to the history of our discussing behavior and political views, and the fact that my disdain for your outlook offends you, observing the fact that you are offended by my disdain for your outlook seems to have offended you.

    At any rate: If you are offended because you think I attribute to you a will that is not yours, then you already know why people will call us out, sometimes, and why the misattribution they perceive sticks with them.

    Oh, well, I set that one aside↗ for you.

    I hold myself answered on this count, and refer you to the intermezzo to Billvon, above.

    That doesn't even make sense.

    How did you screw that up, James?

    You snipped from what you quoted from me. So, y'know, look:

    Does that attend my use of the word, "implied"?

    Because, at this point—

    —what the hell is wrong with you?

    And, I mean, really:

    I can only apologize for being unclear when I said, and that's why.

    You could have brushed this one off, but, like I said: When you strike that pose, it's 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, it's a familiar routine. It's not that you're ready to fight; you're already fighting.

    Think of it ...

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

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


    ... this way:

    I see what you're saying, but, honestly, you're this far into the discussion, and answering your own straw man.

    It's one thing to say the part where I give Parmalee and everyone else particular, obvious advice about how to conduct themselves at Sciforums, vis à vis performance art pretenses and routines, is still, as the saying goes, a ways away. Your contextual absolutism would seem to make a certain point. But I also think you're inconsistent.

    And, remember, this isn't about the basic infraction itself. This is about your assignment of will to a person, and absolute insistence despite leaving the ostensible significance of the occasion to disappear among mundane infractions, or invoking Poe's Law. Beyond that, the comprehension problems you just demonstrated in responding to me only further erode confidence in your escalation of the infraction and assignment of will.

    And it's true, there are pathways by which there are many things to discuss, and there are pathways by which there aren't.

    That is, there are ways of looking at and talking about things that aren't so simplistic. Trust me, James, you wouldn't accept judgment as simplistic as what you show.

    It's kind of like the bit about trumpfanning. Consider, please, a couple ways of looking at it.

    Someone made fun of Trump, and of course the guy who went trumpfan on me twice went and escalated an infraction per a worst possible interpretation, as he's been known to otherwise disdain. That's pretty simplistic, I think, and can probably only be held in place by absolute insistence. Or, as I said, it is by your standard this particular context becomes that much more significant.

    Like I said↑, the trumpfanning actually reminds me more of your complaints about cancel culture, &c., and your pretenses in defense of free speech, which was why you went trumpfan on me, twice, in the first place. Yeah, that one's a lot more complicated. But in that more complicated context, your assignment of will per the worst possible interpretation stands out for being inconsistent with your disdain for jumping to the worst possible interpretation. Inasmuch as any of that leads back toward, well, a lot of things we might discuss, it probably is much easier on any given occasion to just skip out on it all and stick wtih the simplistic absolute insistence.​

    You could have smacked Parmalee's callout down. You could have simply brushed it aside. But, instead, you assumed a fighting stance, delivered a slap, and invited him to come on. Inasmuch as you're willing to have this discussion at all, why would you ask me why, especially after whining your way through the post in which I told you why? I opened and closed with why, James. So of course you're going to ask, "Why did you even decide you had to inject yourself into this discussion, in the first place?" I mean, why wouldn't you, right? And, of course you're going to do it immediately after screwing up on comprehension.

    Yes, I get that you don't get it. But you chose to have this discussion. You chose to go about it the way you have, including skipping out on substantive aspects and, to be honest, it really is hard to know what to make of the disoriented reading comprehension. I have had previous occasion to suggest you were behaving↗ unbelievably↗, and, yes, whatever else is going on in this discussion, your response to me↑ verges on being unbelievable.

    Choosing to have this discussion, to fight with Parmalee, to cat and mouse him instead of brushing him aside or smacking him down, is yours. And if Bells↑ suggests my response to Parmalee wasn't helpful, I would not necessarily disagree, though that whole post↑ is a lot funnier if read in context. But that's the thing, there are myriad contexts, each according to the beholder. And among them is yours:

    Honestly, even though you've forgotten it, before, I figured you probably wouldn't appreciate me recalling so specifically the occasion I botched up and filed a private message in a Mod Lounge discussion, such that you could read the inquiry― .... Really, I figured you probably would prefer I not be so direct in our present moment. Then again, you don't remember, so, I don't know, take my word, this time.

    Meanwhile, had Parmalee applied my advice about Poe's Law, and accepted that you simply will not observe the difference, well, okay, I don't know. But, still, it's also true that your indignant forgetfulness is not helpful because it is not intended to be.

    While it is generally true, as Bells put it, "we'd probably be trying to figure out what was going on as well", the point of "a similar fashion", that "our response would probably have been along the same lines", gives me pause. To wit, if I do not recall what her version of the forget, diminish and demean, ask the other to affirm, routine is, it might be that I have never seen it; I don't know that she has one. It's not that we're above playing rough, but like I said, James, when you strike that pose, it's 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, it's not that you're ready to fight; you're already fighting.

    Among the many things we might discuss is that while it is clear according to Parmalee's address of the issue this really wasn't the time, I can tell you, generally, there is a reason why now. And perhaps it's an American thing, and that makes it a more complicated explanation, and in that aspect I'm not certain the implicit interconnection or transference of general and particular is the appropriate context for what he is after. However, this is not necessarily the appropriate circumstance for that more complicated discussion.

    And while the requisite tsking at Parmalee in particular, and advice to members in general, regarding dangerous rhetorical performances remains to be formulated, you've made clear that one part will include that it does not necessarily matter what anyone thinks they intend, as there are occasions when they will be told what they intended. And your own intentions aside—that is, regardless of whatever reason you chose this manner, struck that forgetful pose, in having this discussion with Parmalee—the absolutist imposition of intention is one of the things you managed to actually establish. So, above all, whatever advice we might give about appropriately demarcating particular manners of figurative performance, and while there comes a threshold at which the artistic needs of a joke become so demanding that the best advice is to skip it entirely, there will also be the looming point that none of that really matters because, and depending on which aesthetics are offended, they might simply be told what they intended. In an impossible circumstance when failure is not an option while also virtually guaranteed, yes, it becomes best to skip out on such risky performances. And, true, it really is simpler, that way.

    "Why," you asked, "did you even decide you had to inject yourself into this discussion, in the first place?" I could spend multiple posts on your question and its asking, but, like anything else about the present discussion, that depends on how broadly or narrowly we are to consider anything about the larger circumstance. This one will need to suffice. Especially since the first one only compelled you to ask. I mean, your question wasn't just a setup for righteous, self-pitying projection, so, sure, there is easily a lot to discuss. But that is, as such, up to you.

    Meanwhile, the difference 'twixt comedic bomb and wilful incitement is resolved as irrelevant, and that is what it is. And, like I said, your prerogative, but that's about it. Parmalee's choice to air his grievance as such is what it is. Your choice to receive his complaint as you have is what it is. And that last is actually why. That telling posture you struck, pretending forgetfulness but making sure to lash out and then ask the other to affirm your blithe diminishment, is what it is, and the subsequent discussion reflects that. It is as if you chose to go out of your way to make things worse.

    Such as it all is, there is either a lot to discuss, or not, and that, in the end, is left to your absolute insistence.

    Sorry to take so long about it; for as much as there might be to discuss, so also is there a lot to think about, think through, and prioritize. It's one thing if I can't see how Parmalee thought this would fail to go poorly, but, similarly, neither can I figure how you expected your response↑ to go over well.

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Way to go parm. You got mom and dad fighting.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well, hey - gravity sucks. What are you gonna do?
  8. Bells Staff Member


    You can read that in an Australian accent if you would like.


    Nobody ever thinks of the children.
    exchemist, sculptor and DaveC426913 like this.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Since I'm unlikely to be able to correctly comprehend your post as you intended it, I think I'll skip it. That will save us both some time and effort, talking at cross purposes.

    As predicted, you managed to twist some of what I wrote around to have the meaning you'd prefer it to have. You also managed to ignore a number of things I posted either directly to you, or to parmalee, previously. But I guess you'll assume that's my fault.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2021
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    We can only wonder if you were you ever up to the task, James.

    (When you remind me of your twenty year history at Sciforums, do you think about the point of how many years and occasions I have experienced your behvior? Even this latest turn is not unfamiliar.)

    You're aware how unreliable that assessment is compared to your reading comprehension problem? Here, as quickly as possible; from #17↑:

    "Only the one time? You often seem to expect me to magically intuit what your particular concern of the moment might be, regarding some putative past action of mine, or past interaction with you. It might make things easier if, like parmalee, you could provide relevant references so I have an inkling about what you might want to talk about."

    "parmalee's air, you mean?"

    "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. The rest of us unfortunately have to rely on what people actually write, at least some of the time."

    "Which passage?"

    And from #30↑:

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

    "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."

    "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?"

    That's a quick list of your comprehension failures in responding to me. Am I supposed to applaud?

    (Compared to how you feel in that quitter post, I can only wonder how many posts it would have taken to cover everything wrong with #30, and how much better or worse would you feel for my having done so. After all, you coped so well with my attempt to deal with the mess you made in #17.)

    Did I miss something important while shoveling through your distortions? Or was it just more simplistic absolute insistence?

    But think of this, James: Anyone can give you however many hours of cosnideration, even over the course of days, and one thing you consistently remind is that people are mistaken to do so.

    Meanwhile, this is the second time you've chosen to respond to me while skipping out on a specific point about the difference under consideration and complaint, and of course you're also ducking a comparative example. How droll.
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Firstly, I just want to be clear, my intention (re: the offending post) was absolutely not to incite violence, but I recognize now that it can be read as such. My thinking at the time was that, weak disclaimer and abundance of weasel words aside, the notion that Trump supporters would actually turn against Trump was sufficiently absurd and most unlikely as to render my post an absurdity, as opposed to a sincere injunction. But I did not provide sufficient context, nor did I make the parodic intent sufficiently clear. Likewise, with respect to audience, I failed to consider the randos, i.e., lurkers, non-members and others who might be reading such. So I apologize for that.

    As to the matter of providing insufficient context, I can say that I will try to do better in that respect in the future--and I mean that--but that's been a lifelong habit of mine. Sometimes it's even deliberate, as shitty as that sounds. And it doesn't help that for several years I worked in a discipline wherein obscurantism is sometimes acceptable, and "providing insufficient context" is practically a sacred guiding principle. Again, consideration of audience: I play to those who I am reasonably certain will pick up on what I am getting at, while failing to consider everyone else, who are apt to be wondering, "What the fuck are you on about?" But I will try to be more attentive in that regard.

    Re: my contention about coddling the purveyors of the most odious rightwing bullshit. Perhaps "coddling" is too strong a word, "tolerating" may be more appropriate. And I do believe that, but, at the same time, it's hardly as though I've got the solution to that one. It's not like banning people right and left is much of a "solution." An example I gave previously in this thread was a poster specifically noting that blacks in the southern U.S. overwhelmingly consider displays of the Confederate flag to be offensive, and even threatening, and then going on to say that persons can still display such proudly and innocently. That's fucking disgusting. It also doesn't make a damn bit of sense. What to do about it? I honestly don't know, but often posters of such garbage are sufficiently intelligent and savvy to always heed the rules--they're also good at exploiting loopholes.

    @ James,

    In the past, our exchanges have always been civil and reasonable--even when I genuinely could not see where you were coming from; likewise, most of this discussion has been civil and reasonable--but there are bits here and there that bother me.

    When I say something like, "Trump, et al have been regularly inciting violence for the past 4+ years..." and you respond with something like, "I assume you do not consider Trump's injunction to "take the fight" to the Capitol to be incitement..." (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Why would you say that, after I had just sai the exact opposite? In fact, even if I hadn't just said the opposite, it seems an odd thing to assume. Surely you can see why I might take offense at that?

    Or when I remarked upon a number of quite blatant threats and incitements on Twitter--many of which had been up for months, and, somehow, gone "unflagged," when they were the sort of thing that the most basic keyword search ought to have caught (and removed). The post wasn't directed towards you, or anyone for that matter, it was simply an observation. Why would you assume either that I was condoning such, or even expressing a preference for Twitter's brand of moderation, say, over the moderation here?

    I thought that this discussion could have been over and done with with just a few posts, but I also felt that you were unfairly forcing interpretations upon me. Consequently, I couldn't simply drop it so easily.
    Xelasnave.1947 and billvon like this.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    On the one hand, you were insisting that your saying that maybe people have a duty to shoot other people in the head did not amount to inciting violence. On the other hand, you point out how you believe the Trump has been regularly inciting violence. My aim was to put both of those comments side by side, so readers could compare them. It seems to me that if Trump's remarks can be fairly taken as inciting violence, then so can yours. Similarly, if your remarks were not an incitement to violence, then for reasons of consistency I think you'd have to agree that neither were Trump's.

    It's the lack of consistency in your position that I was trying to highlight, there. I wasn't literally suggesting that you did not consider Trump's remarks to be incitement. I was saying that if you consider Trump's remarks to be incitement (which you do), then it should follow that you could also recognise your own remarks as incitement. See?
    From my point of view, there, you were trying to run a "two wrongs make a right" argument. If Twitter didn't remove or sanction remarks that incite violence, then sciforums shouldn't either - or something like that. Which would be a pretty stupid thing to argue, don't you agree?

    I thought the issue was dealt with back in July 2020.

    Do you think we've discussed this enough, now? Do we understand each other?
  13. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    I have to be honest here: this just reads like utter and complete bullshit to me.

    Maybe it's an issue of dialect? Honestly, I don't know.

    Yes, it's been discussed enough, but we clearly do not understand each other.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Does that mean you don't understand what I wrote, or that you disagree with me? If it was disagreement, the usual thing would be to give reasons - to make a counter-argument - that kind of thing.

    What didn't you understand?

Share This Page