[Feb. 1st, 2019]
[Richard, writing to Eisel:]
You've made several videos making up lies about me and you should know some of these lies could get me into serious trouble with the law. You claimed on camera at 6:15 in your video titled Vegan Gains is not "cured", he's not "a new man" that I own real firearms. You also claim that you came to this conclusion because you claim that I have never said I do not own real guns and because you claim I have an interest in firearms and plan to own firearms in the future. I do not own real firearms Eisel and currently I am not legally able to own firearms due to my probation and you accusing me of owning firearms could have serious legal consequences for me.
If you do not take down this video I will do everything I can to take this video down and take down any other videos you've made accusing me of criminal activity. I will first try to get these videos taken down through youtube's own policies against harassment and bullying, I have already talked to my multi channel network about this issue and if that does not work then I will pursue legal action against you. To be absolutely clear I want you to take down any videos you've made accusing me of any criminal activity.
[Note that Richard's current allegations that I called the police (and/or that I somehow "doxed" him) are completely absent from this correspondence, indicating that these allegations are a fantasy that Richard had not yet concocted in Feb. of 2019. The chronology of this fantasy is very strange: it wouldn't have made sense in 2019, but it makes even less sense in 2022: when exactly were these events supposed to have happened? Does he imagine that I called the Toronto police department while I was in Kunming, China, prior to my interview with him in August of 2016, when he first told me that he was "in trouble with the law"? When else could it have happened, and how are all the other events in the timeline supposed to make sense, if this theory of his were true? This seems to be a wildly implausible fantasy he came up with that serves the self-centered psychological function of shifting blame (for his mistakes, and his problems) onto someone else —while also, conveniently, avoiding mention of the real (and deeply embarrassing) reasons why Richard cut off communication with me.]
—————
[Eisel:]
Richard,
(1) Did it even occur to you to talk about this in a constructive way?
(2) Local time here = 11:23 PM, so I am replying without going back
and listening to the video, however, I'm willing to presume (at this
moment) that you have a reasonable request that you're stating in an
extremely unreasonable way (i.e., blackmail and threats).
(3) Let me just speculate as to what the reasonable request MIGHT BE
that you COULD HAVE MADE in a parallel universe:
"Hi Eisel, I know that you're not aware that I'm currently living
under probation, but under the terms the court set for me, I'm not
actually able to own firearms. In your video, around 6:15, suggest
the possibility that I could own firearms. It would really mean a lot
to me if you could edit the video, and re-upload a version clarifying
that I have written in to you, letting you know that I do not (in
fact) own any real firearms."
There are ten different ways this could be worded this that would not
have been blackmail.
Dude, I don't know if you imagine that you know me, but maybe you've
heard me say (about 10,000 times) that I'm a man of principle and
integrity, and I do the right thing ONLY AND PRECISELY because it is
the right thing to do.
You know: I don't like Durianrider. He really harmed me. I do not
lie about Durianrider: if I'm wrong, it is NOT because I'm lying.
I would not lie about you, Richard: if I've said something in my video
that is false or misleading due to either (1) my sincere ignorance, or
(2) imprecision/vagueness of wording (and in this case, it may be a
combination of both 1 & 2) I would be entirely eager to rectify that
SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
This is apparently so totally incomprehensible to you, that you open
your very first email to me with blackmail and threats: you give
lecture about morality and ethics for hours and hours on youtube (your
"debates" often evoke formal logic, and refined academic concepts of
ethical theory)… but this really shows how totally ethically
illiterate you are, and how you're totally incapable of understanding
someone like myself.
(4) The video does not state as a fact that you own real firearms: you
know exactly what it states (it points out the peculiar vagueness of
what you said, and it contrasts that your statements that you would
like to own firearms, that you plan to buy firearms, etc.) and it asks
whether or not your vagueness was intentional, because only the
firearms shown on-screen are "fake" (here meaning "Air Guns" or "B.B.
Guns"). However, if that statement is incorrect, misleading, or if
you are just personally concerned that it could be perceived as
misleading (by people in the audience who may not be listening
carefully) I would be HAPPY to make an amendment/clarification to the
video (i.e., to edit that part of the video, and re-upload) SIMPLY
BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
(5) Really question why you're blackmailing me? You know: Norvegan,
also, used blackmail as he default mode of "problem solving", both
with myself and with Vegan Footsoldier (and that's it was a sign of
real dishonesty on his part).
E.M.
—————
[Richard:]
I didn't black mail you, I told you what I was going to do if you do not take down your slander videos. You're making criminal accusations against me which are not true and this puts both me and my wife in danger. This goes against youtube community guidelines so I have contacted my multi channel network and they will try to get your slander videos removed if you do not do it yourself. If youtube is unwilling to remove your videos slandering me then I will pursue legal action against you. I don't care if you make videos criticizing me but when you make up false criminal accusations against me that's going too far. I would suggest you take those videos down yourself to avoid getting community guidelines strikes on your channel which could result in your channel being terminated and to avoid any legal issues. I have no interest in getting your channel terminated or pursuing legal action against you, this is not a threat, I just want to make sure my wife and I are safe. The reason I have contacted you is to avoid having this escalate any further and I have no interest in continuing an argument with you.
—————
[Eisel:]
Richard,
You have been "inaccurate" (I am choosing not to say "dishonest" but
"inaccurate") in claiming that my video states (circa 6:15) that you
currently own guns. Do you want me to quote exactly what the video
says?
I have not responded with hostility: I have responded by pointing out
(1) that you are issuing threats and engaging in blackmail, and (2)
this is really absurd, because (as you may know) I am really genuinely
willing to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
Sometimes, the right thing to do is to clarify something vague that
could mislead people, even if there was no intent to mislead people.
Sometimes, the right thing to do is to say, "Look, I have explained my
perspective on this, however, somebody (VG) may be hurt by the
discussion, for these reasons".
Sometimes, the right thing to do is to explain, "When I made that
video, I was unaware of _xyz_, and now Richard has written in to
inform me of _xyz_."
There are constructive ways to solve the problem (and you know,
editing a video only takes a few minutes, e.g., to upload a different
version of a video to reflect a correction).
Have you ever done this Richard?
Have you ever shown this much good-will toward someone writing in to
you, saying that you'd made a video that hurt them? If someone wrote
to you saying that your video had been unfair to them or
misrepresented them in some way? Maybe. Maybe you have. But if you
have, it's certainly remarkable to me that absolutely no method other
than threats and blackmail occurred to you.
Now, from my perspective, you are also lying, but perhaps you're
merely being inaccurate or vague, and perhaps you're not intentionally
deceiving me.
You made one claim so far: you find what I say around 6:15 of one
video upsetting, because you think some people may
interpret/misunderstand it as meaning that you currently own (real)
firearms. Well, that is NOT what the video says (i.e., I do not make
that claim, and I can quote to you exactly what I do say), but I can
still sympathize with the notion that you'd want to publicly clarify
that you do not own real firearms, and I have already said that I
would be pleased to upload an edited version of the video that
clarifies this (e.g., "Richard wrote in to reassure me that he does
not, currently, own any real firearms, and that he is under
terms-of-probation that do not allow him to do so…"). That would be a
fix/correction: newspapers do that all the time.
Now, instead of responding positively to the co-operative spirit of
that message, you write back saying, "You're making criminal
accusations against me which are not true and this puts both me and my
wife in danger."
Uhhhhhh… I'm left to suppose that this is "inaccurate" in much the
same way as your earlier claim, whether that's because of dishonesty
on your part, or, perhaps, just because you're emotionally
overwhelmed. However: I've shown you (already) that I'm willing to
make corrections and amendments to anything I've said that's
incorrect: why not respond positively (constructively, co-operatively)
and let me know what other "criminal accusations that are not true"
you'd want to see rectified?
I honestly do not know of any: there's a lot of criticism of your
conduct in these videos, but (e.g.) my commentary on the psychology of
self-justification involved in your formation of your opinions on
gun-control policy… nothing in that analysis has even the aura of
"criminal allegations".
E.M.
—————
[Richard did not reply.]
—————
[Feb. 2nd, 2019]
[Eisel:]
Richard,
Okay, so I'll make a video proceeding with your statement that (1) you
do not currently own (real) firearms because the police do not allow
you to, under the terms of your probation, (2) correct me if I'm
wrong, but you have lied (and you continue to lie) in claiming that
you do not own any real weapons (you claim that all of your weapons
are "fake" and are "toys") because the knives, assault batons, swords,
etc., are indeed real weapons, (3) you still want to own guns in the
future, as soon as you are allowed to do so legally. Is this correct?
Do you want to clarify what your position on firearms ownership is?
Do you believe that someone who has hallucinations of the kind you
describe yourself (including auditory hallucinations, "hearing voices"
that are not there, having paranoid and aggressive reactions to
strangers, with the specific delusion that people are trying to kill
you when they just say hello to you, or shake hands with you, etc.)
…do you think that sort of person should be allowed to own, use and
carry firearms?
If I described that person to you, as someone other than yourself,
would you agree with the statement, "The government is justified in
doubt their responsibility to safely use firearms"?
Do you think that the military would be willing to recruit or employ
someone with this list of symptoms, and to trust them to use guns
responsibly in a high-pressure situation?
Would you not agree that someone who had your checklist of symptoms
might be disqualified from owning/carrying firearms in at least some
democratic countries?
Richard: when people write in to me saying, "He should be on
psychiatric medication", I write back saying, "No, he should just take
a vow that he's not going to do any of these things again."
You say that you're a changed man: what you're showing me is that you
haven't changed.
You presented yourself as a victim of censorship; you then become a
hypocrite the moment it suits you ("You're putting me and my wife in
danger!" —as if this were more true of you than (e.g.) a bodybuilder
claiming his life is in danger if his apartment is searched for
illegal drugs, because you've accused him of using illegal drugs).
Richard, you have just been morally grandstanding about the right of
free speech, critique and satire, and then the moment it's convenient
for you, you do everything in your power to "oppress" someone else
—while continuing to play the victim card.
You know that I could make a telephone call to the Toronto police
TODAY with no difficulty, and simply express my concerns about you,
and THAT would more likely entail problems for you and your parole
officer. I didn't do that: I engaged in exactly the kind of rational,
philosophical discussion about ethics (on youtube) that you claim to
support and defend —but not when it questions your own most sacred
value (namely, wasting time playing video games).
Newspapers make criminal allegations all the time: it is part of
journalism. If a newspaper says, "the alleged bank-robber", that's an
allegation (it is reporting an allegation: the etymology of the two
words is clear).
In Canada, telling the truth is always a defense against defamation: I
have been telling the truth. You have completely failed to provide
even one example of me (1) lying, or (2) making a criminal allegation
against you. However, yes, e.g., you have openly talked about using
illegal drugs (e.g., hallucinogenic mushrooms) on your youtube
channel, so if I report that you've used illegal drugs, then I am
making an allegation in the same sense that a newspaper is, in
reporting the facts. That doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong:
talking about criminal allegation is one of the most important parts
of (protected) freedom of speech.
There are legal consequences for making reckless and irresponsible
criminal allegations, but that's not what I've done in my videos: you
are the one who has made irresponsible criminal allegations (accusing
Durianrider of rape, although this is certainly not the only example)
and you have been callous and cruel toward others when doing so.
Richard, you've been a complete hypocrite here: you've become
everything you always said you despised. You are (1) playing the
victim and (2) at the same time, you're really engaging in bullying
and harassment yourself ("I'll shut down your channel!", "I'll sue
you!") in response to legitimate criticism and satire.
Really think with some detachment and objectivity about the contrast
between the criticism-and-satire I've directed at you, and the
criticism-and-satire you've directed at so many other people. Even
think about the difference between the criticism I've directed at you,
and your replies to me (just insulting me, basically).
The golden rule would be pretty easy for you to apply here, Richard:
why can't you act toward me the way you'd want others to act toward
you?
E.M.
