If you hate a person, then you are defeated by them.

[Hound of Heaven]

Most of my close friends have passed away, and the family members I do maintain contact with are so busy that I avoid asking for assistance whenever possible because I don't want to bother them. So you can imagine my delight at discovering an online community that shares my interests and opinions on Mormonism and politics. The amount of hate speech here is so overwhelming that I decided to quit posting for months. When other users openly criticize the character and ideas of some of the posters here, I don't know what to say. Even though I disagree with Ceeboo on political and religious issues, I will never treat a fellow human being with the same level of disrespect as many of the forum regulars do toward Ceeboo. The use of groupthink to control churchgoers was a major factor in my decision to cease going. It appears that the intention here is to dissuade people from posting by utilizing groupthink. To deter others from participating, certain members are resorting to personal attacks in their posts. Personal attacks are acceptable in a lower kingdom, but I don't think that's the case here. Why is it that a small number of board members are subject to such intense animosity?

[Some Schmo]

Why is it that a small number of board members are subject to such intense animosity?

I won't speak for others, but I have natural animosity toward people who spend all their time and effort here pushing obvious lies. I hate BS, and I don't mind saying so.

This is a message board. We should all feel a responsibility to call out BS if we care about the board's value.

[honorentheos]

Rather than deterring participation, and speaking only for myself, I'd love for Ceeboo to actually engage in discussion on the topics. But that doesn't seem to be his intention in participating here. Quite the contrary. So if the social order of a message board is framed around discussion but a person is almost gleefully disdainful of engaging in actual discussion then boundary maintenance occurs.

It is interesting how many bad faith posters have shown up over the years who engage in crap stirring but never actually bother to engage facts or criticisms of their positions. Then jump to accusations of groupthink or hate when they could have instead engaged.

[Some Schmo]

If you hate a person, then you are defeated by them.

You'd do well not to confuse hating BS with hating the person spreading BS. I don't hate ceeboo (I don't really know him, and I'm not certain he knows himself). I hate the BS he posts on this site.

You should respect a person's right to believe what they want, but you don't have to respect what they believe, and you certainly don't have to let it go without comment.

[Morley]

If you hate a person, then you are defeated by them.

What is Buddha? Three pounds of flax.

[Dr Exiled]

It's hard to discuss something/anything when there is a fundamental disagreement with facts, and the attendant gaslighting and ridicule that occurs when the blessed narrative isn't supported. Four years ago, many posters here were haranguing anyone that didn't automatically agree with the laptop/russian influence narrative and that turned out to be nonsense. Prior to that, there was the russiagate idiocy that turned out to be nonsense. No, there is no discussion here, only reinforcement of narrative, regardless of the facts, and ridicule to anyone questioning it. However, do whatever. Just don't expect anything but an echo chamber.

[Hound of Heaven]

Rather than deterring participation, and speaking only for myself, I'd love for Ceeboo to actually engage in discussion on the topics. But that doesn't seem to be his intention in participating here. Quite the contrary. So if the social order of a message board is framed around discussion but a person is almost gleefully disdainful of engaging in actual discussion then boundary maintenance occurs.

It is interesting how many bad faith posters have shown up over the years who engage in crap stirring but never actually bother to engage facts or criticisms of their positions. Then jump to accusations of groupthink or hate when they could have instead engaged.

My modest suggestion is that the board may have sunk into a pit of groupthink; I base this on the fact that one of its members is the target of constant abuse and insults, and the board is doing little to stop it. Why aren't the rules being enforced if there is a moderator for the forum?

[honorentheos]

Rather than deterring participation, and speaking only for myself, I'd love for Ceeboo to actually engage in discussion on the topics. But that doesn't seem to be his intention in participating here. Quite the contrary. So if the social order of a message board is framed around discussion but a person is almost gleefully disdainful of engaging in actual discussion then boundary maintenance occurs.

It is interesting how many bad faith posters have shown up over the years who engage in crap stirring but never actually bother to engage facts or criticisms of their positions. Then jump to accusations of groupthink or hate when they could have instead engaged.

My modest suggestion is that the board may have sunk into a pit of groupthink; I base this on the fact that one of its members is the target of constant abuse and insults, and the board is doing little to stop it. Why aren't the rules being enforced if there is a moderator for the forum?

What rule do you feel is being left unenforced and where? As a member you can of course report the offending post.

in my opinion, the argument you make typically has other aims than promoting discussion. Folks making claims like yours may want representation of views but rarely do they agree to defend them when challenged. If the board should instead be a museum of ideas rather than a discussion board, such arguments may have merit. Not sure the board could displace the blogosphere and other self-promotional outlets for that purpose, though.

ETA: Folks who eventually stop being interested in discussing and debating ideas usually also find the forums a poor place for mere socializing. I'd argue it's because the identify we project as representatives of ideas are the best suited for message board. The social, perhaps more true to a person's in real life identity finds the framework of a message board to be a poor fit. Eventually folks find better places for that evolution of their relationships and move on.

It's a discussion board and an exchange of ideas is essential to it's existence.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Rather than deterring participation, and speaking only for myself, I'd love for Ceeboo to actually engage in discussion on the topics. But that doesn't seem to be his intention in participating here. Quite the contrary. So if the social order of a message board is framed around discussion but a person is almost gleefully disdainful of engaging in actual discussion then boundary maintenance occurs.

It is interesting how many bad faith posters have shown up over the years who engage in crap stirring but never actually bother to engage facts or criticisms of their positions. Then jump to accusations of groupthink or hate when they could have instead engaged.

My modest suggestion is that the board may have sunk into a pit of groupthink…

The irony is palpable.



I think if you knew board members here you might hesitate to place us into groups, but you did, so here we are. What specific behavioral changes would you like to see?

- Doc

[Marcus]

Rather than deterring participation, and speaking only for myself, I'd love for Ceeboo to actually engage in discussion on the topics. But that doesn't seem to be his intention in participating here. Quite the contrary. So if the social order of a message board is framed around discussion but a person is almost gleefully disdainful of engaging in actual discussion then boundary maintenance occurs.

It is interesting how many bad faith posters have shown up over the years who engage in crap stirring but never actually bother to engage facts or criticisms of their positions. Then jump to accusations of groupthink or hate when they could have instead engaged.

My modest suggestion is that the board may have sunk into a pit of groupthink; I base this on the fact that one of its members is the target of constant abuse and insults, and the board is doing little to stop it. Why aren't the rules being enforced if there is a moderator for the forum?

You should report any posts you think break rules. We can't expect the moderators here to read everything, but they are very consistent with reading reports, and in my opinion they apply the rules very consistently.

Also, what do you think of what Ceeboo says about other posters here? He gives as good as he gets in my opinion, including stereotyping vast swaths of posters here who disagree with him, so it's hard to understand why you call him a target without at least acknowledging his participation in the "abuse and insults." And please don't say he only attacks a person after first being attacked by them, because that's provably false.