[1/2]
I quoted it. That's how it reads.
Yes, James, but you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.
I get it. You're sympathetic to parmalee's political position, and antagonistic towards his opponent-of-the-moment. So, you're willing to cut parmalee slack that, six months ago, I wasn't willing to do.
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.
I quoted it. parmalee also helpfully reproduced the post in question, in full. It's not a matter of definition. Read the words of the post.
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.
parmalee is still here. This thread is open for discussion. Nobody has been cancelled.
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.
On the matter of "escalation" - by which you refer to handing out 20 warning points rather than the usual 10 - there is the matter of consistency. Making threats, or inciting violence towards others, has always been one of the offenses we have taken most seriously here. Or, at least, I have. I make no apologies for that. Your choices are yours, of course. That's your prerogative.
You justify yourself by absolute insistence on your particular reading. So let's step out of our context, for a moment:
• • •
Gotta go with James here. If, a week ago, Trump had tweeted …
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.
• • •
Making threats, or inciting violence towards others, has always been one of the offenses we have taken most seriously here. Or, at least, I have. I make no apologies for that. Your choices are yours, of course. That's your prerogative.
That's just you being stubborn and indignant.
Yes. I'm an optimist, as well as something of an idealist. I tend to hope that people are mostly reasonable, and that they have the capacity to act rationally. It can catch me by surprise when it turns out that they prioritise their own selfish concerns above reasonableness and rationality, especially when it comes from somebody whom I previously considered to be reasonable and rational.
Well, think of it this way, James: Even in the moment, you still apparently cannot properly comprehend the problem.
I guess so. I guess some people bottle it all up for months or years before they explode, rather than trying to deal with their concerns in a more healthy way.
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.
It's especially irritating when one is clearly in the right. Wouldn't you agree?
Sure, but that's not explicitly the case, here.
Again, I can only direct you to the facts. Initially (see the opening post), parmalee did not reference or explain what he was on about. That you expect me, retrospectively, to have intuited what parmalee's concern might have been, based on a six-month old memory of one warning I handed out among many, is your own conceit.
Such as it is, sure, but compared to what you purport to respond to, with that, okay, then.
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.
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.
You often make vague insinuations like that, full of errors and false implications. You ought to stop that.
Oh, well, I set that one aside↗ for you.
In this particular case, the standard I would like is the one that is set out in our posting guidelines: i.e. do not threaten other posters or other people, in general. Do not incite others to threaten, hurt or kill other posters or other people in general.
What standard would you like?
I hold myself answered on this count, and refer you to the intermezzo to Billvon, above.
I quoted what you wrote. If there was reframing, it was yours, first.
That doesn't even make sense.
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.
How did you screw that up, James?
You snipped from what you quoted from me. So, y'know, look:
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.
Does that attend my use of the word, "implied"?
Because, at this point—
It's "us" now, is it? You and parmalee, taking a stand together?
—what the hell is wrong with you?
And, I mean, really:
Why did you even decide you had to inject yourself into this discussion, in the first place?
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 ...
[(cont.)]