My chief complaint is
over-reaction to the slightest percieved criticism or even just an alternate view, and the attendant hatred, ill will, abusive insults, name-calling, tantrums, hyperbole, mean-spirited profanity, browbeating, dishonest insinuations, attempts to smear with bogus associations and seeing every disagreement as a personal attack. These are often followed by miles of needless reposts "proving" the "offending" poster wrong. (Now we're going to hear for days about how the word "sympathizers" is a "disgusting" slur.)
One small example. After one such ill-tempered shout-down attack on a sincere poster, I wrote "Nobody cares"—about the ridiculous one-person pile-on. That becomes, "somebody said that nobody cares about what I post," which is obviously not what I meant. But this deliberate, ill-intended misinterpretation will be dragged out again and again.
Mean comments like "I don't five a fuck what you think"—in response to a post not even addressed to them—are unhelpful to say the least, and unless one wants to waste time fighting about it, the alternative is to just stay out of the "conversation." It's not as if any of us posting on the Internet will actually change anything anyway, so why bother?
This is all actually acknowledged by Slad, who issued a big public apology for it (albiet without saying what she was apologizing
for—no responsibility really taken). But as I expected, the good behavior lasted about two days, if that.
When I'm told "I don't give a fuck what you think" by someone I
thought was a friend, it hurts. Guess what? I'm sensitive too. (Referring here to peartreed's absurd notion that all these bad behaviors should be overlooked because 'the poster is sensitive to criticism"—while sensitivity plays no part in the relentless attacks and disruptions.)
None of these behaviors explicitly violates board rules (depending on one's interpretation of the rules; personal attacks
are specifically prohibited), but it'd be great if we can all observe simple rules of decent, rational human discourse.
Start a new thread, since even slightly differing views in Slad's threads get shouted down and the posters personally attacked? Sure, but the same disruptive tactics and accusations get dragged into new threads, challenging the poster's motives—"of course this is about
me!!!!—"you don't believe [insert false assumption that serves your argument] so why bother?" to cite just two recent examples. It makes no difference who starts a thread, the thread is soon laid to waste if Slad doesn't like it. And of course ruining the new thread is exactly what the disrupter wants.
I'd like to start a thread about Robert Mueller—there really should be one about such a key figure in current events—but no matter how I phrase the OP or disclaim any motive beyond the spirit of inquiry, it would get the same treatment. It's tiresome.
Now let the onlaught begin!
I'm only posting now because people have PM'd me with encouragement to continue (I had no idea I had "readers"). Work will mostly keep me away from the board in the near future, but I wanted to address some issues in this important thread.
Good luck and thanks to 82_28 and SRP.