I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I guess you have chip on your shoulder about some past perceived injustice done to you. Is that it?
Re: parmalee's warning for inciting violence
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Heh. Call it a delayed reaction--like 11 months delayed.
I got an infraction for something that I -- quite explicity -- did NOT say. But the material is in a PM, so I shall forward to you.
Edit:
Some elaboration. With the former (11 months previous), I was marveling at how quickly Republicans are to resort to threats and incitation of violence when a black guy (Obama, obviously), I don't know, makes funny jokes?. But when their guy (current Serial Rapist in Chief) gets 'em killed (COVID 19) left and right (at present, around 5000 a day!), they're silent all of a suddenlike. More importantly, I clearly stated that I do NOT advocate killing (or threats of violence) said Serial Rapist in Chief. (At least, on a public forum.)
Still, I got 30 infraction points for something I clearly did NOT say, whilst the complainant--that fuckwit, Vociferous--was allowed to spread his dangerous misinformation freely.
Presently, I am clearly implicating the police in allowing the storming of the Capitol--it's pretty obvious, just google "DC cops selfies," for instance. But as I clearly said nothing of, say, killing cops, it might--to borrow your words--"sound like" I am advocating for such.
Most illogical? Yes. But so is giving someone infraction points for something they did not say, simply because it "sound(s) like" they maybe/sorta/kinda/coulda/in a bizarro universe meant precisely the opposite of what they actually said.
Last edited:
Since, 4 months after the fact, you've decided to relitigate the infaction I gave you, I will publish the objectionable part of what you wrote back then, again, and let your readers judge for themselves whether you incited violence against a sitting President.
Quote from parmalee: "I ain't recommending anything, I'm just saying that I think it's well within yours, mine, anyone's rights to forcibly remove, 'take out' (again, Trump talks about 'taking out' U.S. citizens all the time, so...) or just plain put a bullet into the heads of Trump, de Santis, or any one of these mass murderous fucks. In fact, I think it might actually be our duty to do such, not sure on that part."
The readers can, once again, decide for themselves.
???
What exactly are they deciding here? I fully support what I said above, including the part where I explicitly state that "I ain't recommending anything."
Edit: Got it. Just read the edit.
Also, if you're gonna quote me, perhaps you ought to publish the entire quote--you know, context and shit.
It would seem that our moderator is not going to provide the context, so I shall. Here is the full post in question:
http://sciforums.com/threads/corona-virus-2019-ncov.162778/page-96#post-3642877
parmalee:
You ought to be clear to your readers.
Are you, or are you not, suggesting that you, your readers and "anyone" else has the "right" to "just plain put a bullet into the heads of Trump, de Santis, or any one of those mass murderous fucks"?
If you are not advocating that somebody "put a bullet" into those people's heads, what are you trying to say, exactly?
You ought to be clear to your readers.
Are you, or are you not, suggesting that you, your readers and "anyone" else has the "right" to "just plain put a bullet into the heads of Trump, de Santis, or any one of those mass murderous fucks"?
If you are not advocating that somebody "put a bullet" into those people's heads, what are you trying to say, exactly?
For the final time:
I stand by what I said. I do, in fact, believe that certain readings of certain founding documents of this nation do, in fact, allow, perhaps even oblige, a person to take such actions given the circumstances. Other readings do not. Interpretation.
That said, I ain't recommending anything.
Inflammatory? Absolutely. Incitement to violence? Absolutely NOT.
The relevance here is that we've put up with some fascist thug, and it's coterie of buffoons, regularly inciting violence for the past four/five years. Yet everyone equivocated on that point (mainstream media, social media, etc.). Finally, there seems to be some agreement that Trump, et al, have, in fact, been inciting violence on a regular basis. But it's kind of a bit late for that revelation.
So when I, parodying and mocking the rightwing fuckwits, post my inflammatory rhetoric--which explicitly does NOT advocate anything--get taken to task for such, while the true inciters go unchecked, it's rather annoying. And seriously problematic. I'm not the one in need of policing here.
Let's hope so.
You chose to highlight this supposed "obligation", for some reason. Why, if not to incite?
I can't speak for others, but I read that as a weak attempt at plausible deniability. You want to cover your arse in case your own words come back and bite you.
I guess you'd also say that Trump and his associates' invitations to his supporters to march on the Capitol and to "fight" the procedural confirmation of Biden's election victory were not an incitement to violence, either.
The problem with parody is that it's not already easy to identify, especially when we consider Poe's law.
Nope. I emphasized the rights part. (in the original post under question)
Again, reading?
Also, well, an "invitation to... fight" is, well, an invitation to fight.
That's why, to be safe, one ought to assume that what is meant is what is literally said, like, "I ain't recommending anything."
@ James,
Crap "parody?" Fine. Irresponsible? Sure. Inflammatory? Yep. Just don't call it incitement.
I consider my audience carefully, as well as the present state of affairs in the US. Terrorism, mass shootings and the like are committed almost exclusively by rightwing lunatics. The left haven't got the arsenal, nor the inclination. Now, in the most unlikely event that one of these rightwing nutters is actually reading sciforums--again, c'mon?--you think they're gonna consider my ruminations? An epileptic, mischlinge, communist lumpenprole--over Trump, Tucker Carlson, Hannity, et al?
Crap "parody?" Fine. Irresponsible? Sure. Inflammatory? Yep. Just don't call it incitement.
I consider my audience carefully, as well as the present state of affairs in the US. Terrorism, mass shootings and the like are committed almost exclusively by rightwing lunatics. The left haven't got the arsenal, nor the inclination. Now, in the most unlikely event that one of these rightwing nutters is actually reading sciforums--again, c'mon?--you think they're gonna consider my ruminations? An epileptic, mischlinge, communist lumpenprole--over Trump, Tucker Carlson, Hannity, et al?
You made fun of Donald fucking Trump. In that sense, it occurs to wonder what you expected.
So this probably isn't the time to tell the one story about this guy I know who something, something, Burt Ward, went trumpfan on me twice, &c., and so on, ad nauseam, but it's a fun bit, and kind of lion and hedgerow Zen. I'll have to throw together a version, sometime.
More relevant to the moment, though, James R did invoke Poe's Law, and, honestly, go ahead and believe him on that count.
• • •
Also:
You never remember.
Parmalee's offense was sufficient to require augmented points and duration, but apparently not important enough to remember. In its way, this point stands out.
I promise, the forgetfulness is not among your endearing traits.
Okay, there was the one time you forgot something I would rather forget, but never mind, since you've probably forgotten, again. Still, though, while it's true I don't like being called out for something, I almost can't imagine myself putting on that particular air. What would I have done that pissed someone off like that, and then forgotten? That's the part I have a hard time imagining. Oh, hey, I know, it's a particular insult, and I can think of maybe two specific people I would have smacked that way, and I've probably hit several people with a version of it, but it would be really hard to so blithely pretend to have no idea what someone was referring to.
Oh, right. Never mind. It also occurs, late in the writing, to observe that something goes here about reading the passage with the proper sniffing, leering, ¿what'd they dose him with? rambling cadence of a Trump campaign rally. It's funny, because my first advice to Parmalee would have been to just shrug and say something about a lack of subtlety.
Real quicklike, because I have to go: do not put words into my mouth!
First you need to get what I actually claimed right, before you go assessing whether or not there is, in fact, such a right.
Precisely which false claims? Precisely. What exactly did I claim?
I stated an interpretation that I believe may or may not be correct. Pretty clearly, actually.
Again--do NOT put words into my mouth!
It should be noted that, in this particular case, the moderator (me) got involved back in July 2020 - i.e. six months ago.
I was under the impression that a simple warning would suffice to let parmalee know what is and is not acceptable on sciforums.
Now, after having had six months to think things through, parmalee has for some strange reason decided that rather than discussing the attempt to subvert American democracy that occurred yesterday, he wanted instead to discuss a six-month old warning I issued to him.
It's bizarre behaviour, if you ask me.
In the past six months, I'm not sure how many warnings I have handed out to people on this forum. I guess you can count them up if you feel so inclined.
It might very well be the case that your memory for such things is far superior to mine. If so, good for you. Congratulations. It's a good thing I have you around to remind me when appropriate (or not).
Making threats to kills, or inciting others to murder, is a serious offence.
Note that when he initially raised the issue again here, after six months and out of the blue, he didn't initially explain what he was complaining about. Helpfully, parmalee PMed me and pointed me to the relevant warning from back in July.
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.
On the other hand, I'm frequently surprised when posters here suddenly want to reopen ancient issues. It seems to me that a lot of people carry petty grudges for this and that. It would be healthier, if one was in the wrong (e.g. in breach of site posting guidelines) to simply learn from the issued warning what is and isn't acceptable on this forum, and then adjust one's attitudes or behaviours on the forum to ensure that one was not subsequently warned about the same thing for a second time (or a third, or fourth or whatever). One could also apologise to one's readers, if one honestly did not mean to offend. One could then move on with one's life with a free conscience, instead of carrying around emotional baggage forever after.
parmalee's air, you mean?
I hope you don't assume that when I issue warnings it is just because I'm pissed off at someone. That isn't what you do, is it?
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?
perhaps if those secret service goons turn up you could suggest that to them... lol
The point being is that you have to take some responsibility for the possibility that various interpretations are to be reasonably expected.
I'm not terribly concerned--I'm American and more than adequately informed as regards what "they" (the "goons") are inclined to perceive as potential threats. You might be surprised by some of the shit that's actually trending on Twitter.
Granted, there's undoubtedly a fair number of poor readers amongst them, but, for the most part, they've superior reading skills to your own (no offense intended: it's their job--they have to be diligent).
(Also, it's interesting that the legal aspect does seem to be the focus here. Me, personally? I'm actually more concerned about viability and the likelihood as to whether certain actions or inactions will achieve a desired end. Mostly, they do not--or are not likely to.)
Just curious here, but when you wrote this:
And then you wrote this:
It is clear that you must have, at least, read this:
So what are we, the readers, to assume or conclude here? You can't read? You had some sort of absence seizure perhaps (are you also epileptic)? Or are you simply dishonest?
I ask, frankly, behave I have witnessed similar behavior from you in the past, on countless occasions, and I am simply trying to understand what is going on here.
I suppose, given that you've set the precedent above, that I can always speculate as to what you are doing above, and what your intentions are? But I'm, unlike some, not into playing the mind-reader game.
Edit: I eagerly await the demand for an apology--'cuz we all know that coerced apologies are the most sincere kind. (Whoops. That was sarcasm, James, just to be clear.)
And then you wrote this:
It is clear that you must have, at least, read this:
Because it falls directly between the two other passages to which you were responding above.
So what are we, the readers, to assume or conclude here? You can't read? You had some sort of absence seizure perhaps (are you also epileptic)? Or are you simply dishonest?
I ask, frankly, behave I have witnessed similar behavior from you in the past, on countless occasions, and I am simply trying to understand what is going on here.
I suppose, given that you've set the precedent above, that I can always speculate as to what you are doing above, and what your intentions are? But I'm, unlike some, not into playing the mind-reader game.
Edit: I eagerly await the demand for an apology--'cuz we all know that coerced apologies are the most sincere kind. (Whoops. That was sarcasm, James, just to be clear.)