peartreed » Sat May 12, 2018 2:37 pm wrote:
The most recent cruel diatribe by MacCruiskeen about SLAD on the original Skripal thread, followed by JackRiddler’s slightly less personalized critique on the new thread about board changes but also about SLAD’s posting patterns, illustrate a continuing intolerance and resentment towards the RI forum’s most prolific participant. Neither acknowledge SLAD’s sincere and unselfish enthusiasm to share news here. Nor do her attacking antagonists allow that she has for years invested her time informing the members.
All of us have individually unique idiosyncrasies in our style and form of participation, as well as our selected topics to present here, some of them more annoying and others more engaging – depending on the reader’s reactions, personal interests and preferences and reasons for being here. Myself included.
The main reason I appreciate and value SLAD’s plenitude of posts is because I connect from outside the mass media markets and normal reach of news coverage, unless I surf all over the net in a search for the subject matter that we have a predetermined common interest in discussing here, like conspiracy etc. The alternative for me would be more annoying and time consuming in chasing news of shared focus. I also enjoy SLAD's unique personality.
In terms of the forum format, section threads and rules, the moderators are on it again, as is admin, appropriately responding to use issues and problems as they arise in an ongoing idea exchange and testing of intended improvements. Those have included influencing and modifying behavior here. That is still a work in progress and likely will forever be, given the variety of personalities in the membership.
But the atmosphere here is a key determinant of joining in – or even reading – the news and views on RI. The much-discussed bullying, tag team tormenting and personalized acrimony against SLAD is the schoolyard kind of juvenile jousting that drops the otherwise intellectual level of RI interaction to zero.
I fully support gathering input to upgrade this place but let’s not deteriorate into chauvinistic, unchivalrous, crude and caustic misogyny in the process – by attacking our most prolific member.
Said poster's use of the board is completely anomalous and very extreme. IIRC, it currently accounts for about 5% of this site's material over more than a decade.
There may or may not be anything wrong with that, but it is, at very least, an extreme deviation from the norm.
And so it feel quite disingenuous that people keep claiming that, when such an extreme use of the board draws multiple critics, it follows that this is nefarious, bullying, or misogynist. There are a limited number of recurring criticisms and they are not based in irrational hatred but things that are pretty much empirically undeniable: 1) volume, 2) sourcing (MSM), 3) bias, 4) non-engagement.
Point 1 is indisputably a legitimate topic of discussion and/or criticism - said poster posts a shit ton of material. Far far far more than anyone else.
Point 2 certainly *feels* legitimate as I frequently notice said poster's MSM sources, but that could be my own confirmation bias so someone would have to run some numbers to approach obejctivity.
Point 3 is perhaps trickier. Said poster is very very very clear where they stand and what their mission is - they refer to it periodically and their sig line usually includes the most current statement thereof.
Point 4 is the one that I am the most sympathetic to seeing as a response to attacks and causticity. Poster does take a lot of shit. Sometimes that shit is cruel. But on the flip side, IMO it is not best practice to flood any board, forum, sub, etc with so much material unless you are really going to own it, which, IMO, means engaging in far more open discussion than said poster does. For instance, I don't buy, fundamentally, that Russiagate is the same thing that said poster does. But I'm certainly open to that possibility. Hence there is not much space for the kind of discussion that interests me, with said poster.
Yet let's get real - is there anyone here at all who reads even a majority of what said poster posts? How many words per average post? How many hours or minutes on average per day would it take to get through this stuff. Point being that said poster appears to be functioning more like a news aggregator than anything else. That's a noble goal maybe but coupled with the commitment to a relatively singular viewpoint, I at least wonder why said poster's energy continues being directed to parts of this site designed for conversation rather than the data dump, reddit, a new blog, etc.
The kicker is, all that said, I like SLAD. I think she can be really funny. I think her sometimes sunny nature shines through. And I like picturing her out on her fishing boat taking a break from posting. My personal suspiciong is that she'd enjoy starting a subreddit for posting all this stuff. But, at the same, it's not particularly a great deal of skin off my back. I just put her on the poorly named "foe" list - she's definitely not an enemy - so that I was able to navigate the rest of the board but I find I still at least skim a fair number of her posts.