parmalee gives James R some feedback

[parmalee]

That may well be so. And I do not refute it.
But do you see it now?

I'm familiar with his methods, certainly. I find them very ineffective, generally, as more often than not they read more as baseless and unfounded insinuation.

In certain instances, it can work--and it does sometimes. But I think it's a methodology with fairly limited useful application.

 

[parmalee]

So, not a bigot himself. To be clear.

See, this is where the term hysteria comes in perfectly.

Yeah, James clearly has not read the thread.

But to clarify the bigoted matter: there's a distinction, certainly, but it's not always clear what to do with the distinction. i mean, what does it really matter? Is is that much different to be an apologist for something than to espouse such oneself?

 

[DaveC426913]

You most certainly did. Again: Read the thread.

This is what I read. can you clarify who is the "lying bigoted troll" in this quote?

For the record, lying bigoted troll (that's directed at you, James, just so we're clear) this is the article I linked to.

 

[parmalee]

Sorry, are you not accusing James R is being a bigot when he espouses his views on the matter? Did I get that wrong?

Weird. This post appeared a couple of minutes ago, but then it seems to have reappeared as a different post number?

 

[parmalee]

This is what I read. can you clarify who is the "lying bigoted troll" in this quote?

See clarification in edit in post above. There's a distinction, but I don't really know how meaningful or substantive it is practically.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, James clearly has not read the thread.

No. I see why he is calling it hysteria. You are arguing against an unseen third party, these bigots, that you see James enabling here in this thread, with his views.


I'm not saying bigots aren't out there; they are. But James having a discussion here, in a thread with considered viewpoints does not rise t the level of enabling anyone. That's not what discussion forums are about. This is a topical issue that needs to be discussed among concerned people. it needs the spac to do so.

You are accusing him of harbouring bogeymen, here in this thread. You are driving a movement that encourages the expression of only one allowed view, and we all must share it at all times, lest they "get us".

And doing it in a mob? Shouting down one voice by your own count of seven farmers with verbal pitchforks? Yeah, that's hysteria.

Do you see the problem? Is it what is happening in America, and what happened in "1984". "Any nuanced discussion of this topic shall be crushed by the popular opinion, lest it enable the bad people". Don't be that guy.

 

[DaveC426913]

See clarification in edit in post above. There's a distinction, but I don't really know how meaningful or substantive it is practically.

Well, I don't see a distinction. In case there was any ambiguity, you explicitly said who exactly you are calling (and I quote) "bigot". This puts the lie to your claim in post 557.

The larger picture here is that I see you over-reaching your words, and it is on you to say what you mean in the first place so as not to spend a page backtracking to have you clarify things you explicitly said. We had the same thing happen in the "Shoot Trump" tread. If it were ancient history, it wouldn't keep happening.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is is that much different to be an apologist for something than to espouse such oneself?

Yes.

Because your idea of bigotry and anti-semitism - as inferred from JKR's views - is not the same as everyone's.

To analogize (badly): You've got hold of a ribbon that's white at one end, black at the other, and million shades in between.
You say "The ribbon is white, and white is the only colour anyone can think it is, otherwise they are clearly black apologists".

 

[parmalee]

No. I see why he is calling it hysteria. You are arguing against an unseen third party, these bigots, that you see James enabling here in this thread, with his views.


I'm not saying bigots aren't out there; they are. But James having a discussion here, in a thread with considered viewpoints does not rise t the level of enabling anyone. That's not what discussion forums are about. This is a topical issue that needs to be discussed among concerned people. it needs the spac to do so.

You are accusing him of harbouring bogeymen, here in this thread. You are driving a movement that encourages the expression of only one allowed view, and we all must share it at all times, lest they "get us".

And doing it in a mob? Shouting down one voice by your own count of seven farmers with verbal pitchforks? Yeah, that's hysteria.

Do you see the problem? Is it what is happening in America, and what happened in "1984". "Any nuanced discussion of this topic shall be crushed by the popular opinion, lest it enable the bad people". Don't be that guy.

???

I think you haven't read the thread, honestly.

Read through the thread and then get back to me.

 

[parmalee]

Well, I don't see a distinction. In case there was any ambiguity, you explicitly said who exactly you are calling (and I quote) "bigot". This puts the lie to your claim in post 557.

Again, I don't think you've read the thread.

This has already been clarified, long ago.

 

[DaveC426913]

Again, I don't think you've read the thread.

This has already been clarified, long ago.

No, I am literally quoting you, explicitly calling James a lying bigoted troll, just six hours ago. And then thirty minutes ago, saying it didn't happen.

 

[parmalee]

No, I am literally quoting you, explicitly calling James a bigot, just recently. And then later saying it didn't happen.

Nope. Didn't say it didn't happen. I clarified by stating that what I really meant there is that James provides cover for bigots. Of course, the clarification wouldn't be necessary if you were to just read the thread. Like I said, it's already been clarified, a long while back.

Where are you claoming that I said this didn't happen?

 

[DaveC426913]

Nope. Didn't say it didn't happen. I clarified by stating that what I really meant there is that James provides cover for bigots. Of course, the clarification wouldn't be necessary if you were to just read the thread. Like I said, it's already been clarified, a long while back.

I read you calling him a lying bigoted troll just six hours ago. And then you said no one said bigoted thirty minutes ago.

You can equivocate all you want, it's on-record.


And a prick, and a fucking idiot.


The point here is not to pick nits or language-check. The point here is you're throwing a lot of black stones for someone living in a glass kettle.

Maybe recognize that your personal beef with James has interfered with your own credibility. You can still make your points without shooting off your own foot by degrading yourself. Sticking curse words and epithets in there, and perverting the thread into a personal vendetta, doesn't make you more righter. But it does pollute thread for everyone else.

 

[parmalee]

I read you calling him a lying bigoted troll. And then you said no one said bigoted.

Show me where I denied having said that. Also, why would one deny having said what a person has just quoted them as having said? Think this through.

Maybe recognize that your personal beef with James has interfered with your own credibility. You can still make your points without shooting off your own foot by degrqading yourself. Sticking curse words and epithets in there doesn't make you more righter. But it does pollute thread for everyone else.

No personal beef. Couldn't care less about the guy, I just don't like liars and people who routinely make baseless insinuations. And I have less patience with them than most people do.

Also, try starting just at post #405, on page 20, to get a sense of this current chapter.

 

[DaveC426913]

Show me where I denied having said that.

OK. Maybe I'm wrong. You acknowledge you did call him a bigot, just six hours ago. you;tre not denying that.

Also, why would one deny having said what a person has just quoted them as having said? Think this through.

Exactly my thought. Which is why it confuses me that you are so hard on James when you make all sorts of blunders yourself.

No personal beef.

Nonsense.

Also, try starting just at post #405, on page 20, to get a sense of this current chapter.

You still think this is all about you and James.

 

[parmalee]

Also, review this post--see the clarification?

It's more that I was backing up the assertion re: "lying bigoted troll". The lying and trolling are evident by virtue of having routinely misrepresented my own statements, as well as those made by several other posters. That question certainly suggest bigotry to me. Also, it was just one example. I've provided others elsewhere. Though really my contention is more that James provides cover for bigotry.


99 percent of the time, I am entirely in agreement with you here. However, in this case, James has been trolling throughout most of this thread and I'm just sick and tired of it.

 

[parmalee]

OK. Maybe I'm wrong. You acknowledge you did call him a bigot, just six hours ago. you;tre not denying that.

Yeah, just posted that again.

Exactly my thought. Which is why it confuses me that you are so hard on James when you make all sorts of blunders yourself.

Seriously, read the thread from page 20, post # 405, on. Do you not get the sense that James is deliberately misconstruing what was said? At best, he didn't read very carefully, but that's a rather generous interpretation.

Edit: Sorry, page 21.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you not get the sense that James is deliberately misconstruing what was said?

See my response to this here:
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/m...r-policy-or-myopic-insult.166757/post-3759309

Think of the genie with the wishes:

Aladdin: "My first wish is I want to be hawt for the ladies!"
Genie: "You're a fool. But OK, you're hot."
Aladdin: "Agh! It burns!"
Genie: "Look, we've been at this for ten years. In all this time, you've never learned to make well- thought-through wishes. I'm tried of leading you by the nose. Maybe burn for a bit."

I think I need to step back from this diversion, at least for now. So i will highlight this, in the hopes that - if anyone takes nothing else away, they will take this away:


In my view, James is deliberately exploiting the weaknesses - for the sake of argument - to prove to you your arguments are full of holes. I have seen this for decades; it is a tried and true method. The responsibility is on you to close the holes in your own argument, once he points them out by feigning misconstrual (as the genie did).

You: "Oh, I see what you did there. You found a hole in my argument and stuck your finger though it. I will have to reconsider."

I firmly and honestly believe that this is how James prefers to interact (especially when he's lost patience with haters, and foul-mouthers and is highly dubious they are using their thinking caps at all).

Note: it doesn't matter whether you like it, or whether you think it works. The point is, you are second-guessing his motives and thought processes. You expect him to be a shit because "we all do it" so that's what you see. But he's not being a shit. He's being a teacher (albeit a very frustrating, and apparently ineffective, one). You can hate him for that all you want - not my concern - I just don't like to see hate for the wrong reasons.


(Self-reporting, so I'm not putting words in James' mouth.)

 

[Sarkus]

I think labels are dangerous. Too much baggage.

So calling a duck a duck is dangerous?

It's easy to make sound bites out of labels. But they lack all nuance. They're black and white.

Or worse, they appear black and white but aren't. Because your bar for transphobia and/or anti-semitism is different from mine.

If you think JKR is "A transphobe" and "AN antisemite" then there's little more to be done but lick the back of the label and stick it on.

If you think there's some grey area (eg. but not limited to "lazy", "traditional", "misguided", or "what rises to the level of transphobia" etc. ), then there's more discussion to be had.

I'm really not sure of the point you're trying to make here, and how it relates to what's gone on. People can label others and discuss whether that label is correct or not. One can also discuss individual actions, tendencies, trends in their actions that might lead one to apply the label, or whether it is an example of the difference between someone doing something that has the appearance of, say, antisemitism, and that person being antisemitic. What's the issue with that? How does not applying labels help? If you think someone is an antisemite, would you not label them as such? How would you describe their views? Are you unable to call a duck a duck, if you think it to be a duck?
I'm not saying one should apply labels, only that I don't see the problem with doing so that you seem to.

And I think this is what James R is trying to encourage. I have known him for decades and his primary tool is give opponents leading questions that offer some rope to haul themselves out or hang themselves.

Sure. If that's what you think.

This is likely what y'all call misrepresentation.

No. I call things a misrepresentation when they're misrepresented. I call things dishonest when they're dishonest. I call things hypocritical when they're examples of hypocrisy.

He is putting responsibility back on y'all (ugh) to think through the implication of y'all's own assertions, and hopefully realize y'all've pulled enough rope to hang y'all's-self and maybe it's time to put some back.

Sure. If that's what you think.

He does this moreso with opponents he views as obstinate and combative.

He misrepresents, is dishonest, and hypocritical with pretty much everyone to some degree or other, especially when he gets defensive. But there's only a few that call him out for it. The rest are seemingly like you and happy to let discussions have plenty of misrepresentations.

I doubt this will go any way toward reconciling your opinion of him, but maybe you can see why I don't hold the same opinion of him as y'all.

Because you're blind? Because you are more tolerant of dishonesty? Because you can't spot the fallaciousness that others can? Because you're unwilling to hold him accountable? Just asking.

 

[parmalee]

In my view, James is deliberately exploiting the weaknesses in your arguments - for the sake of argument - to prove to you they are full of holes. I have seen this for decades; it is a tried and true method. The responsibility is on you to close the holes in your own argument.

Which argument? Seriously? He has not addressed a single argument I've made, from what I can see. That's kinda the problem. Just a bunch of straw men and manufactured crap.

For instance, JKR has harrassed and bullied a number of trans athletes (including one non trans athlete and a high school girl) online, particularly by misgendering them. That's my claim. What is James' response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He has claimed that there are no such links to these words of Rowling's, in fact, despite them having been posted multiple times, even in direct response to him--quotes, links, everything necessary to address the matter.

I've said there are antisemitic tropes in the Harry Potter universe--has James addressed this? Nope. Nothing. He makes a bunch of erroneous claims about Jon Stewart, about people claiming Rowling is antisemitic, etc. But nothing about the tropes.

I could go on, but, honestly, I can't think of a single argument or claim which he has actually even addressed.

Again, seriously, dude, just read through the thread--for the Jew stuff, start at #405.

Seriously though, I'm supposed to be building a greenhouse right now, but it's 35F/2C and raining for some stupid fucking reason and it pisses me off. I need to work that shit out.