parmalee gives James R some feedback

[James R]

It's ... er... good? ... to learn that I have such a fan club. I'm the centre of attention! It's like being famous, almost.

There's a lot of amateur psychoanalysis going on here, along with a lot of second-guessing of motives.

It's nice to see parmalee backpeddling and trying to justify his quite odious behaviour towards me, when somebody else confronts him about it. So, thanks for that. I don't expect parmalee will be returning from his short break from the forum with a newfound humility and a desire to apologise to me, though.

So, I guess we'll see just how far down parmalee wants to dig his hole.

parmalee:

Though really my contention is more that James provides cover for bigotry.

This is a serious accusation. It needs some unpacking, first.

What does it mean to "provide cover for bigotry"?

Can you provide a clear example of somebody other than me "providing cover for bigotry"?

Can you provide a clear example of me "providing cover for bigotry"?

You've made the accusation. Now make your case. Or withdraw the accusation.

 

[James R]

Has anyone said that JKR is an antisemite? How many times have I, and others, had to clarify--to James--that the matter being discussed is the presence of antisemtic tropes within the work, not whether or not Rowling is an antisemite.

This is easily clarified.

Do you, parmalee, consider JK Rowling to be an antisemite?
And do you, parmalee, consider JK Rowling to be a transphobe?

Are these questions too hard for you to answer?

It seems safe to assume that you consider JKR to be transphobic, based on your posts in this thread. But have you changed your mind over the course of the thread?

And the antisemitism? If one is a bigot when it comes to trans people, it would hardly be surprising to find out that one also holds a whole bunch of other odious prejudices, right? Does it follow, then, that with all those antisemitic tropes within JKR's work, that probably JKR is an antisemite? Or not?

Tell us what you think, parmalee.

Do you also think that JKR is a white supremacist, like Tiassa does?

Do you think that JKR also probably tortures innocent fluffy bunnies? After all, why stop with three or four bigotries? If you're irretrievably evil, why not go all in?

 

[James R]

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

Let's confine this to transphobia for now, for simplicity.

If I was a transphobe myself, then it might conceivably make sense for me to "provide cover" for transphobic bigots, depending on what "providing cover" is supposed to consist of. Through solidarity, I would presumably want to support like-minded transphobes in any way I could.

But if I was not a transphobe myself, what would be my motivation for "providing cover" for transphobes? I'm fascinated to learn.

Do you think I'm a transphobe, parmalee? If you do, on what basis?

Just so you know - because you seem to be a poor judge when it comes to these things - I don't consider myself transphobic. But maybe I'm delusional and/or I'm somehow an unconscious transphobic prick (as you might put it).

 

[James R]

Couldn't care less about the guy, I just don't like liars and people who routinely make baseless insinuations.

You're apparently blind to question marks, parmalee. Ignoring them is a mistake you've made repeatedly, in reading my posts.

I concede that questions can sometimes be rhetorical, and a rhetorical question can, in some circumstances, be fairly read as an insinuation. But in most of my communications, when I use a question mark it means that I'm asking an actual question - often one to which the addressee can respond with a simple "yes" or "no".

I ask questions for clarity, because many people are surprisingly reticent about owning their own opinions. If you take issue with insinuations, then pay attention to how often people on this forum insinuate (or imply) that they hold a certain view (e.g. on a political issue) but never quite come out and say what they think about it plainly.

So, I often find myself posing questions like "So you think that X?" or "Is it your contention that Y, then?"

Nine times out of ten, I'm asking for clarity. Both of those questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". But, very often, they are answered with a "How very dare you! I'm incensed and offended that you would insinuate that I think X or have contended Y! You lying prick!" Even more often, cagey people just pretend I didn't ask the question, and they simple ignore it and go on talking obscurely, making sure they don't ever unequivocally say what they believe.

People should try being open and honest once in a while, rather than angry all the time. That's what I think.

Watch how I respond, for example, when somebody puts to me "So, you're saying that Z, are you?" It's usually "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying" or "No, I said no such thing."

And if somebody asks "Do you think W?" or "Do you believe that Q?", I will usually answer "Yes" or "No" or "I haven't formed a firm opinion on that, yet."

This isn't hard.

 

[James R]

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.

You have characterised posts that JKR has made as harrassment, certainly. You haven't convinced me that they do constitute harrassment, yet. But I remain open-minded to the possibility that you, or somebody else, might convince me that they do.

It is clear that you consider "misgendering" a form of harrassment. It could be useful to dig into that some more, but you seem quite unwilling and/or unable to have a rational discussion about such matters.

For instance, we might ask whether it matters whether the misgendering happens in direct conversation with the aggrieved party, or whether misgendering by reference (e.g. in a communication to another person or in a public post) constitutes harrassment.

We might also ask whether, in the context of a discussion about the differences between sex and gender, for example, it is "misgendering" to refer to somebody's sex if they are trans.

It seems highly unlikely that you are capable of discussing such things maturely. It seems far more likely, based on past behaviour, that you will just get angry if anybody disagrees with whatever opinion that you hold on these matters - or even if they dare to ask you what your opinion is (because you might assume they are "insinuating" something).

That's my claim. What is James' response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I don't think you brought up those matters in a post directed to me. If you wanted a response from me, you could have asked, rather than bottling up your rage that I didn't jump to respond to you immediately.

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.

This is easily verified. Please link to the post(s) where I claimed that Rowling has never posted such things, if you can find any. I don't think you can. I think you're telling lies. Why do you feel like you need to do that?

I've said there are antisemitic tropes in the Harry Potter universe--has James addressed this? Nope. Nothing.

I did. In fact, I asked you some direct questions about why you assume that goblins are supposed to be associated with Jews. Did you address those? Nope. Nothing.

He makes a bunch of erroneous claims about Jon Stewart, about people claiming Rowling is antisemitic, etc.

Please detail one erroneous claim I made about Jon Stewart, if you can. I think you're telling lies again.

 

[James R]

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

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?

I addressed this at some length, previously.

JKR's argument is that any law that would make it easier for men to assault women in public bathrooms is a law that ought to be debated. Her complaint is that an organised cabal of self-described "trans activists" have been actively trying to shut down that debate by any means, including violent protest, by attempting to physically prevent public debate in some instances and by threatening women (and/or their families) who argue against the passing of that law.

This is not about trans people paying the price for the crimes of cisgender men, per se. It does not come from a place of transphobia. It actually has nothing to do with that. But you don't want to hear that.

Then he makes some more baseless assumptions about Billvon:

Let's look at what I wrote to billvon, again, shall we? Here it is:

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?

Count the question marks. There are 6 question marks. That means I asked billvon six questions.

This is the opposite of making baseless assumptions. When I ask "Perhaps you think ... ?", that's a question, that billvon can answer with a "yes, that's what I think" or "No, that's not what I think at all."

When I politely say "Can I ask you: are sex and gender different?", is it not clear to you that I'm asking a question, not making a baseless assumption? If it isn't clear to you, then you really need to brush up on the basics of what a question is.

And when I ask "Is that your position on these issues?", is it not clear to you that billvon could answer "Yes, that's my position" or "No, I hold the exact opposite view!"?

Do you have a problem with question marks, parmalee? (That's a question, prompted by an evidence-based suspicion that you do.)

Don't recall Billvon having said or implied any of that shit, but whatever, I guess?

If billvon had already answered those questions, I wouldn't need to ask them, would I? Duh.

That's James' "Method". And that's a shit method.

Sure. It's "a shit method" to ask people questions when you want to find out what they think about stuff.

I'm here to tell you it isn't, parmalee. I urge you to try it.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Nor have I. In fact I think it was it a comment of mine that caused TheVat to start the thread in question. Though, as I knew it would rapidly become a snakepit, I have stayed well out of it.

 

[James R]

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.

The thing about a dog whistle is that it's deliberately ambiguous. It might be completely innocent, or it might be completely nefarious. Which it is depends on who is receiving the message, and who is sending it.

How do we tell the difference between a dog whistle and an actually innocent message? Well, first and foremost we need to look at the intention of the person sending the message. If the preponderance of the evidence is that the sender is a bigoted racist, based on other activities of theirs, then it can be fair to read dog-whistling into an ambiguous message. If, on the other hand, there is no good evidence that the sender is a bigoted racist, then the chances that the non-racist, unbigoted sender intended to put out a dog-whistle communication to racists is likely to be very small.

There are far too many people around these days who don't care to investigate the sender of the message. They are hyper-vigilant for anything they can consider to be a dog whistle and as soon as they find an ambiguous communication that could be one, they are more than willing to pull out their pitchforks and storm the castle of the message sender, demanding that the witch be burnt for her crime.

You're a witch-burner, parmalee. That much is clear. You and Tiassa would make a good (?) team.

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?

I take it that you think we are to generally assume that everybody is hypersensitive to "micro-aggressions", like you are, instead.

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

Clearly, I got more out of English class than you did. Also, I learned how to think critically. It means I'm not generally one for enthusiastically joining rabid mobs baying for blood.

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?

On the deliberate misgendering, you don't have to speculate. I already commented on that in the JKR transphobia thread. Go read what I had to say there.

On the bill, as is so often the case with laws, it might well be a case of balancing pluses and minuses and coming to a well-informed evidence-based decision as to whether the bill will result in net harm or net good. In some cases, "stripping rights" from a minority might be defensible for the good of the majority. (Are you are aware of the emotional ploy involved in referring to "rights" in this context? Or didn't you notice?)

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?

No need to go to that extreme. Most actual transphobes aren't that hard to spot. You usually just have to ask them what they think about trans people.

Do you know what JK Rowling thinks about trans people, parmalee? Know anything she has said about them, in general?

 

[TheVat]

It's like living in a psych experiment where the protocol is designed to make one cease to care anything about what JKR, or Jon Stewart, or anyone in this snake pit (merci pour le mot juste, Ex Chem,) ever said or thought on any matter. And it's working!

JK Rowling now wants to grind up Chinese babies to make protein drinks. Fine. I don't care.

 

[exchemist]

It's like living in a psych experiment where the protocol is designed to make one cease to care anything about what JKR, or Jon Stewart, or anyone in this snake pit (merci pour le mot juste, Ex Chem,) ever said or thought on any matter. And it's working!

JK Rowling now wants to grind up Chinese babies to make protein drinks. Fine. I don't care.

Oui, une vraie fosse aux serpents, n'est ce pas?

 

[Sarkus]

Trump's team have this protocol of "flooding the zone" where they flood the media with rather minor shithousery so as to provide a smokescreen for the truly abhorrent thing they're doing. It works, unfortunately. In much the same vein, if someone wants to stop others thinking them, or someone else, as possessing a negative characteristic, maybe flood the zone to deflect, evade, avoid, obfuscate, etc? Would that work in the same way?

 

[Tiassa]

It's like living in a psych experiment where the protocol is designed to make one cease to care anything about what JKR, or Jon Stewart, or anyone in this snake pit (merci pour le mot juste, Ex Chem,) ever said or thought on any matter. And it's working!

JK Rowling now wants to grind up Chinese babies to make protein drinks. Fine. I don't care.

But that was always the point, cf., Sartre↗: At this point, the whole point is to "discredit the seriousness" of the discourse, in order to "intimidate and disconcert".

(I mean, what was the point of opening that thread↗, if not to blank-slate the discussion in order to give anti-trans another mulligan? You, yourself↗, wondered, along the way, why "the Left" cannot "graciously" rewind ten or so years and concede the whole thing to the exclusionists. And you did like that one post↗ with the weird line about bathrooms—

"So - where does that leave me? Is a trans-woman a woman? Sure, if that's what she wants to be, why not? Should she have the right to use a women's toilet, go to women's prisons, etc? I don't know : These institutions belong to an earlier binary culture. We could ask - should black women and white women share the same toilets?"​

—from the guy who wanted to mitigate the definition↗ of bigotry. The heads or tails is the difference between whether you think nobody notices or, perhaps, that you really don't notice. But it's true: To say it with a smile doesn't change what it is.)​

Remember, the whole digression (see exchemist, #87↑) spun away from the connection between sympathy for supremacism and the fact of the second Trump administration, which resulted in a thread to redeem Rowling and anti-trans↗, which in turn spawned two↑ additional↗ threads to give certain parts of that political discussion some breathing room.

And as I explained, recently↗, sometimes there really is no communicating with someone because that simply isn't part of their plan, and when that happens, one thing we can do is choose our occasions to simply answer for the sake of the record, leaving markers to remind there was nothing new about it this time around, either.

But that sentiment you express, "like living in a psych experiment where the protocol is designed to make one cease to care", is exemplary of what Sartre means by "intimidate and disconcert". The whole point of the know-nothing anti-trans revival and its inability to countenance history is to make the mere prospect of discourse daunting in itself.

A couple months back↗, I said to you, the idea that Sciforums is where people finally learn about something that has been going on in the public eye for years is kind of strange. Moreover, the idea that people can't learn something unless someone else tells them should be just silly.

And what you said↗, then, is worth recalling: "One can have partial learning of an issue (that whole having a busy life can't get to everything thing) and be motivated by a forum topic to start reading further on it." And while, generally speaking, that's not wrong, this time later it just doesn't really seem to be applicable. You also said, "The second sentence of your quote applies to literally no one here." Except, here we are, these months later, and evidence including her own social media posts↑ doesn't matter to the Rowling hardliners, evidence of her words and behavior over time↗ doesn't matter to them, and quoting Jon Stewart↗ apparently isn't good enough for them, or something. Inasmuch as the part about people not being able to learn something unless someone else tells them might be wrong, the part where being told doesn't make any difference to them is neither helpful nor surprising.

Or, such as it goes, the spectacle↗ is the distraction↗ is the point↗.
____________________

Notes:

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