parmalee gives James R some feedback

[parmalee]

He misrepresents, is dishonest, and hypocritical with pretty much everyone to some degree or other, especially when he gets defensive.

Yes. I think it partly (largely?) comes down to this. He gets defensive and flustered and then goes all out with the misrepresentations and insinuations and the generally bad readings. Just take a minute, and read what people have actually said,

 

[parmalee]

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).

Yeah, I'll say. Here's an example:

billvon:
...
One thing she has said (I'm paraphrasing here, to be clear) is that accepting that any man who self-identifies as a women must be a woman is effectively "erasing sex". One of her concerns is that there was legislation in front of the British parliament that would have let anybody calling themself a woman use woman's changerooms and restrooms, with no requirement for any medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or any medical interventions, hormone therapy, transitioning or anything else. Just the person's say-so.

Such a law would allow a male sexual predator to enter women-only spaces with impunity, if he were willing to say "I am a woman". And in case you imagine there have been no cases of men who identify as women sexually assaulting women in restrooms, I'm here to tell you that there have been (and Rowling is, too).

OK, and? What does this have to do with trans people? Or "trans ideology"? And why should trans persons pay the price for crimes of cisgender men?

Then he makes some more baseless assumptions about Billvon:

Perhaps you think that concerns for the safety of women in such spaces are just "loudly complaining" and that they shouldn't be taken seriously? People certainly shouldn't be allowed to discuss them publically, without being shouted down by a mob. Right?

On the broader issue, can I ask you: are sex and gender different? Has your personal Overton window moved to the position where you think sex is an outdated and irrelevant concept, such that we should dispense with it and just use gender, exclusively? That's what the radical leftist trans activists are arguing for, in effect.

What that would mean is that if one's self-proclaimed gender is male, then it doesn't matter if you have ovaries and a vagina and you menstruate and you can become pregnant. You're male because you say you are, and there's nothing more to be said. You're just a male who happens to have a vagina, etc.

Is that your position on these issues? Sex is redundant, passe, outdated and irrelevant?

Don't recall Billvon having said or implied any of that shit, but whatever, I guess? That's James' "Method". And that's a shit method.

 

[billvon]

Like I've said before, I think James mostly provides cover for bigots.

?? By allowing them to post here? Or by not telling them they are assholes/cunts/(insert your favorite pejorative here?)

Because I haven't seen him "provide cover" for such people.

 

[foghorn]

Seriously, read the thread from page 20, post # 405, on.

My post # 405 was using the information given in your earlier #post 176 article link. That's where Rowling's Potter books were called lazily racist.

Quote from Parmalee's article link:

At a guess, she’s done just enough reading to validate her preconceived notions about asexuality, just like she only read enough folklore to make the Harry Potter setting lazily racist, as numerous indigenous, Asian, Black, and Jewish critics have long observed

Seems that Rowling is just an all around... what's the word I'm looking for here?

Turns Out J.K. Rowling Is Mad at More Letters Than Just the “T” in LGBTQIA+

On International Asexuality Day, Rowling joked she would like to observe “Bored of This Shit Day.”

www.them.us

my bold above and below

"Seems that Rowling is just an all around... what's the word I'm looking for here?"

I wonder what word parmalee was thinking of calling Ms Rowling after reading that?
Something to mean all those negative things given in that article I would think.
It's part of the cancelling process.

 

[Tiassa]

I do not belong on this list. I have not explicitly indicated I find her views transphobic. I have some issues with them, but I have not signed up for a Rowling-Haters membership card, thanks.

It's an interesting dualism: Either Rowling isn't transphobic, or it's a haters club.

I know you're accustomed to just saying whatever, Dave, without any regard for reality, but sometimes there are facts involved.

The people who think Rowling's behavior is transphobic are observing facts. The counterargument, in this thread and, yes, quite frequently at large, is is that is she's not transphobic because her supporters just don't like the word. It's a familiar argument we've heard before with racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other prejudices.

Also, consider two things going on in this thread: That people are offended because I hold my line where and how I do is nothing new under the sun; neither is the part where they prove the point. Nobody should be surprised, for instance, that TheVat↑ is holding out. If Parmalee and I read TheVat differently, it's because he accepted the implications TheVat tried to project, while I'm still cynical about TheVat's expectation↑ that "the Left" should "graciously" concede; it's also evident in his topic-post recollection↑ of Chomsky in hopes of advancing the anti-trans argument. Y'know, just for instance.

I'm not psychic, Dave; it's just that people give themselves away. Look at Parmalee's list of seven, and watch who holds out. I'm not at all surprised to see DaveC426913 or TheVat affirm the double-negative, that they are not not-antitrans.

They're not bigots or supremacists; far from it. Rather, they're the true egalitarians, seeking a safe space for harm. Like I said↗, there's no point in banging on the notas.

When the suggested gracious compromise is to rewind ten years and give over to supremacists, I take people at their word. Your response, Dave, at #404↑ made it pretty clear. The question, "Did you catch the first line where I said I should get informed - the implication being I am currently not sufficiently informed?" does not actually address the question.

The revised version would appear to cover the point, but the three paragraphs of explanation each leave glaring questions for further discussion: Rape as a tributlation of biological females is extraordinarily hamfisted and clumsy, a you-didn't-just-say-that kind of reservation. And, maybe because Rowling says so, but there are plenty of groping philanderers who say they're not misogynists, because they love women; similarly, some segregationists would say they don't hate black people, but want to respect them by excluding them. And one of the things about the horse's mouth is that it has a horse in the race, so to speak.

And the thing is, consider those other sources I offered↗: Please understand, ca. 2018, in re a liked tweet she meant to screenshot, it was research because she had developed "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters". And those are her words, "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters". And for everyone paying attention at the time, those words meant something, because they take a side. It stands out when people assert neutrality by adopting partisan phrasing; sometimes, it's noise, but there are also occasions when it's unclear whether something was coincidence or evidence of the phenomenon it coincides with. In the moment, it's easy to pass over; in hindsight, it's hard to ignore.

(e.g., Topic post: "we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity. Nor should opposing views all be reduced to hateful strawmen", is a weighted contrast compared to a discourse depending on straw fallacies and complaints about the words critics use, which, of course, was the state of the discourse long before this thread on Rowling's behavior and transphobic prejudice, except apparently some people were completely unaware of how things went as late as last summer, at least.)​

What we have in Rowling's own words, ca. 2023, is refusal and provocation: Actually looking to the source tweet↱ shows us something more than the Entertainment Weekly report told us: Rowling chose to pick that fight; she chose to post a photograph of some words and respond.

What safe space, then, do you think she requires? What is this thing where someone like Rowling takes an explicitly transphobic position but somehow remains aloof from the transphobia?

And, look, you don't need the EW reporter's narrative to understand that Rowling's subsequent prison laundry jokes are precisely in line with Sartre's description↑:

They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The supremacists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.​

One thing to keep in mind is the functional result: To follow these middle-roaders, who aren't -phobic or -ist, but just object to the criticism against the ism or phobia, the result is the continuance of infliction according to the needs of phobic ists.

It's not new.
____________________

Notes:

@jk_rowling. "No." Twitter. 17 October 2023. X.com. 22 May 2025. status/1714279937279160596

See Also:

Morrow, Brendan. "A timeline of JK Rowling's transphobic shift". The Week. 25 April 2025. TheWeek.com. 22 May 2025. https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. 1944. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.

Wang, Jessica. "J.K. Rowling says she would 'happily' do prison time for controversial transgender views". Entertainment Weekly. 19 October 2023. EW.com. 22 May 2025. https://ew.com/books/j-k-rowling-would-do-prison-time-for-transgender-views/

 

[parmalee]

It's an interesting dualism: Either Rowling isn't transphobic, or it's a haters club.

I'll add here that it's interesting that a person would post this:

(Rowling's argument) is a terrible red herring argument that (not to put too fine a point on it) is a ploy almost universally used by bigots.

and then be surprised that I infer this:

(Dave) has indicated that (he) consider(s) JKR's views transphobic...

I mean, what other conclusion would I draw from such a passage? The form of argument "is a ploy almost universally used by bigots"--the very form of argument which Rowling herself used. And, if we take people at their word in claiming that they have read the thread, then JKR's vocal and financial support for the bill which stripped trans people of many rights and protections, and JKR's documented history (and documented here repeatedly) of deliberately misgendering trans persons would be a part of Dave's database of JKR's views--and this only strengthens the soundness of drawing such an inference.

So honestly, it would be rather unreasonable for me to conclude that Dave does not consider JKR's views transphobic.

Again, we can only work with what people give us.

 

[parmalee]

?? By allowing them to post here? Or by not telling them they are assholes/cunts/(insert your favorite pejorative here?)

By offering the most generous interpretations or rationalizations imaginable for content which has already been reviewed and assessed extensively and deemed, by most people, to be plainly bigoted, and also by feigning ignorance of said assessments wherein he had previously professed to be informed about such.

One example would be within the CRT thread, wherein the Florida curriculum which would involve teaching students about the “benefits of slavery”. I'm not gonna link that yet again, because I aready have several times--but if you request such a link, I'll provide it.

Another would be regularly providing far less unsavory rationales for why people support--and continue to support Trump--while consistently ignoring the mountains of polling and data which very clearly show that the anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric were enormous factors informing their support for Trump.

Also ignoring the repeated posting of Rowling's own words wherein she deliberately misgenders multiple trans people, as well as ignoring Rowling's vocal and financial support for the bill stripping trans people of rights and protections.

Then there's his indifference to Foghorn's repeated claims that various random Jews are "happy" to portray Jewish stereotypes--in the context of a discussion specifically about antisemitic tropes in media. James even asks, "Are they?" meaning "Are Jews happy to portray Jewish stereotypes?"

 

[parmalee]

Quote from Parmalee's article link:

At a guess, she’s done just enough reading to validate her preconceived notions about asexuality, just like she only read enough folklore to make the Harry Potter setting lazily racist, as numerous indigenous, Asian, Black, and Jewish critics have long observed

Can you show me where I quoted that passage? No, you can't; because I didn't.

my bold above and below

"Seems that Rowling is just an all around... what's the word I'm looking for here?"

I wonder what word parmalee was thinking of calling Ms Rowling after reading that?
Something to mean all those negative things given in that article I would think.
It's part of the cancelling process.

What "cancelling process"? What exactly are you talking about here? Can you show me any instances where I have called for "cancelling" or "censoring"? No, you can't; because I haven't.

 

[DaveC426913]

So honestly, it would be rather unreasonable for me to conclude that Dave does not consider JKR's views transphobic.

Again, we can only work with what people give us.

Well, you could try not concluding things. I said what i said, and i didnt say more. Nobody asked you to second guess me.

This is what I mean by 'baggage'. There seems to be no Grey zone allowed; you assumed I had to fall in one of two camps as if there are only two polar opposites. That would explain why you are having trouble with James.

What I said was I found her rationale weak. It is also a weak rationale when used by bigots. That does not mean she "is a bigot". You misconstrued it.

You are raging at James for what you consider bad behavior, but you are not looking at your own bad behavior. You even keep using the words 'misrepresent' and 'misconstrue', and yet here you are, misconstruing my words, no real biggie - until you weaponized my words against James.

Perhaps James is just "reasonably construing" from what you say. Perhaps he "can only work with what you give him".

Cut James the same slack you expect to get. Not for his sake - I think he can take it - for the sake of a civil non-hysterical, and maybe even illuminating discussion.

 

[Tiassa]

What I said was I found her rationale weak. It is also a weak rationale when used by bigots. That does not mean she "is a bigot". You misconstrued it.

It's just such outstanding commitment to being noncommittal.

Are we down to the difference between her views↑ and how she expresses them? i.e., "I have not explicitly indicated I find her views transphobic", "What I said was I found her rationale weak. It is also a weak rationale when used by bigots."

I mean, okay, but it's been years, Dave, and she doesn't seem to be getting any better at it. At some point, we just take her at her word.

 

[parmalee]

Well, you could try not concluding things. I said what i said, and i didnt say more. Nobody asked you to second guess me.

This is the very thing I have said to James again and again and again. As have countless other posters.

You clearly have not read the thread--I'd suggest actually reading the thread, then getting back to me. What you said above should be directed at James. Do you think you could maybe actually set aside your, frankly, incomprehensible... worship (?!) of James for a moment, and actually try to look at things objectively? And, you know, maybe actually read the thread.

Perhaps you should actually read the thread and perhaps consider that the things which countless individuals have been saying about James here for years might have some merit. Not a whole lotta supporters for your generous views.

In fact, here's a passage from Randwolf from a year back with a rather astute observation:

JamesR:

Will you accept this post as an observation, a critique of what you post, rather than who you are? Remember, what you post is all I / we have to go on...

I fear I will also be labelled as some wannabe white knight, attempting to ride to the rescue of the downtrodden - just for chiming in - c'est la vie.

In no particular order: Sarkus, parmalee, cluelesshusband, Magical Realist, Foghorn (if you count a "like"), Pinball1970 (a relative "newbie"):

BOTH STOP NOW PLEASE!!!!

Note the "BOTH" in that reply, JamesR - it implies that you are also behaving in a way that should stop.

Realize also: this comes from someone who doesn't have a ten, or fifteen, or twenty year history, like the rest of us.

billvon too:

Well, no. The most minimal intervention would be to simply stop replying when it became clear he was trolling.

It takes two to create a disruptive off-topic detour.

That's from this thread alone!

We could throw in Tiassa, Write4u, Seattle, and a few others - I think Wegs made mention in some thread or other.

Are all of these members part of some "gang"? Maybe... Note who is conspicuous by absence: DaveC426913, exchemist, etc. Is that significant?

Right or wrong, justified or not, your method of handling posts you don't like, or more accurately, posters you don't like, seems to be raised more and more frequently.

Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion

parmalee: Okay. It looks like I made some incorrect assumptions, and probably didn't read your post carefully enough. There is some confusion because you originally posted in the Abortion thread, but I agree that you did reference the opening post of this thread. However, I did not know at the...

www.sciforums.com

(Emphasis mine.)

Note the mention of a "gang" here? That's one of James' curious little paranoid fantasies--that people are "teaming up" and colluding against him. Have you seriously not noticed this before?

Also, Randwolf didn't mention a few others who felt obliged to address James' glaring hypocrisy here, including Bells and Baldee.

 

[parmalee]

Cut James the same slack you expect to get.

Uhhh... Perhaps you should not be so presumptious. I don't expect anyone to cut me any slack.

Perhaps James is just "reasonably construing" from what you say. Perhaps he "can only work with what you give him".

You're doing a lot of speculating here--perhaps you could provide some actual examples? You know, where James actually addresses what is written (and within the appropriate context--by which I mean: not pretending to forget, like, what has already been said).

Not for his sake - I think he can take it - for the sake of a civil non-hysterical, and maybe even illuminating discussion.

Clearly, you have not read the thread. The pattern, also noted by Sarkus above, is that James starts gettin seriously ridiculous when he gets defensive. He clearly cannot take it.

Also, could you give me an example showing where James demonstrates his oh-so extraordinary methodology with respect to anything that I have said here? Seriously. Try to find just one instance of this.

Seriously--because I'm having a whole lot of trouble finding even a single instance of James actually addressing anything I've written here.

Anyway, if you want to see an example of some actual speculation, how's this:

Maybe the reason that you are backtracking on your pretty clear indication that you find JKR's views bigoted--you know, that whole "almost universally employed by bigots" thing--has something to do with the fact that you discovered that James used the very same argument which you had just described as weak and indicative of a tactic "almost universally employed by bigots".

See, that's speculation. Though as far as speculation goes, well, sure seems like it.

 

[parmalee]

It's just such outstanding commitment to being noncommittal.

Are we down to the difference between her views↑ and how she expresses them? i.e., "I have not explicitly indicated I find her views transphobic", "What I said was I found her rationale weak. It is also a weak rationale when used by bigots."

I mean, okay, but it's been years, Dave, and she doesn't seem to be getting any better at it. At some point, we just take her at her word.

I guess it's kinda like James' contention that you have to actually reference Jews in order to employ antisemitic tropes. All those political cartoonists and satirists, as well as the purveyors of coded racism, i.e., dog whistles, over the centuries have just been doing it all wrong. When depicting a negative Black stereotype, for instance, they should have clearly written "that's supposed to be a Negroe" with an arrow pointing at the subject--just to be clear! Cuz apparently, we are to generally assume that absolutely everyone is just a fucking idiot, I guess?

Or maybe (like that other guy) James just somehow skipped out on English class for the entirety of high school?

Then again, he claims to have read through at least the latter part of the thread, so maybe he doesn't consider deliberately misgendering trans people and supporting a bill which strips rights from trans people to indicate transphobic views? If that's the case, then what sort of thing might actually indicate transphobic views? Do you have to just start murdering trans people in order to be legitimately regarded as harboring transphobic views?

 

[parmalee]

What I said was I found her rationale weak. It is also a weak rationale when used by bigots. That does not mean she "is a bigot". You misconstrued it.

You do understand the difference between saying a person has bigoted views and saying the person is a bigot, yes? Please just quote my actual words here, rather than--again--distorting my claims.

 

[parmalee]

One thing to keep in mind is the functional result: To follow these middle-roaders, who aren't -phobic or -ist, but just object to the criticism against the ism or phobia, the result is the continuance of infliction according to the needs of phobic ists.

This in large is why, imho, the US is well and truly fucked. Historically, there is a critical number a resistance movement must attain in order to prove effective. The numbers pertains mostly to the number of active participants, but it is still dependent upon an even larger number of persons who, at the very least, accept and support those persons with their "thoughts and prayers"--again, at the very least.

Instead, we've got a considerable number who wouldn't even bat an eye when it comes to, say, censuring Al Green for "breach of decorum". And Woody Guthrie would be imprisoned, or disappeared, for "incitement" with his guitar, which "kills fascists".

 

[DaveC426913]

You do understand the difference between saying a person has bigoted views and saying the person is a bigot, yes?

Fair enough. We can agree on that.

 

[parmalee]

Fair enough. We can agree on that.

Dave, I have provided examples and links of what I have been describing.

You, on the other hand, have only been saying, "perhaps James is doing this" and "perhaps James is doing that". Please, show me these instances--in this thread. I don't care that he's done such with idiots who think they've proved Einstein wrong, or the guy who seemed incapable of grasping the Monty Hall problem--of course such methods work with that kind of crap. Those guys are, bluntly, idiots--or delusional, maybe. I am asking--have been asking repeatedly--for concrete instances of this methodology at work here, and with respect to anything that I have said.

Again, we work with what people actually say here--not speculation--and we, at least, try to be objective about it and adopt something resembling a scientific methodology.

 

[DaveC426913]

You, on the other hand, have only been saying, "perhaps James is doing this" and "perhaps James is doing that". Please, show me these instances--in this thread. ... I am asking--have been asking repeatedly--for concrete instances of this methodology at work here, and with respect to anything that I have said.

I am speculating as to his thought processes and motives, which are obviously not in-evidence, so it's not something I can exemplify, let alone argue.

I was simply suggesting that - what you described previously as 'deliberate misconstrual' - is (provisionally granting it to be true) less about being a jerk, and more about making a point about porous arguments. Deliberate misconstrual is a way of putting onus on the asserter than their argument is ambiguous or problematic. See my genie example, post 582.


As for not answering specific points, that's another issue. In my experience, Sarkus also addressed my post a page back (post 583) but I didn't respond to it like I did with you. Sarkus' response has a lot of stuff that was merely a rebuttal, not really much I could sink my teeth into. Yours was more productive. (Not criticizing Sarkus, but I don't have unlimited time. James only posts once a week. I'm sure he picks his battles carefully.)

Anyway, I don't want to appear like I'm brown-nosing, and it really isn't my place to speak for James, let alone second guess his motives. It just seemed like you were getting super wound-up, dragging down the thread, and for reasons that seemed wrong to me.


Be that as it may, since I can't, or won't, go back over 600+ posts to find explicit examples of my speculations about James' tactics, my only recourse is to concede my point and step back.

 

[parmalee]

I can't really do that. I am speculating as to his thought processes and motives, whcoh are not in-evidence, so it's not something I can exemplify, let alone prove.

I was simply suggesting that - what you described previously as 'deliberate misconstrual' - is (provisionally granting it to be true) less about being a jerk, and more about making a point about porous arguments. Deliberate misconstrual is a way of putting onus on the asserter than their argument is ambiguous or problematic. See my genie example, post 582.

Sure, and there are contexts wherein that's an appropriate tactic and it can prove effective. It's just that it's not what's been going on here.

Be that as it may, since I can't, or won't, go back over 600+ posts to find explicit examples of my speculations about James' tactics, my only recourse is to concede my point and step back.

And that's fair. That's kind of what I was getting at with the repeated "read the thread"s. There's a lot here, and you're under no obligation to have read it all. I'm just saying don't speculate about what's going on when you're not sufficiently familiar with the material.

As to the rudeness and all that, you'll note that you and I have disagreed plenty over the past few pages, and yet remained civil. Even over the "you said this" "I didn't say that" blah blah crap. It was a misunderstanding, and it got resolved. Not a big deal.

If I'm going to dispense with civility altogether, there's a reason for it. I do not like dishonesty, especially repeated and incessant dishonesty. And I don't like posters besmirching other posters with baseless insinuations and accusations--and there's a lot of that here, as well. After so many years of this, I get to a point where I'm like, Fuck this guy! If anything, the hope is that they will just ignore me entirely henceforth, and I shall do the same.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus' response has a lot of stuff that was merely a rebuttal, not really much I could sink my teeth into. Yours was more productive. (Not criticizing Sarkus, but I don't have unlimited time. James only posts once a week. I'm sure he picks his battles carefully.)

No criticism taken. I wasn't looking for discussion on the matter, just to make the points I made. If felt you subsequently needed to clarify anything, or say anything as a result, sure, but nothing was/is expected.