Facebook post by Micaela (my daughter) on the day after the election

[mudpuppy]

Your question implies two assumptions;;
1. That our assessments of either man's moral fiber or character can be divorced from our inclinations to their politics and,
2. That knowing some public figure through the lens of media coverage and the public persona they and their handlers project gives us the insight to make conclusive and objective evaluations of their characters.   

What we think we know about any public figure is so colored by our confirmation biases as to make any personal assessment of their characters quite subjective and so I  reject both assumptions.
 I referred to a hypothetical third party able to avoid those biases. I  do however know my brother  quite well and his objective demonstrated personality traits are much closer to  the projected persona of 44 than 45. What your personal and, whether you admit it or not, subjective evaluation of 44 or 45's "moral fiber" is, is not too informative or germane to the point I  made about shared personality traits.
While I  understand the urge to believe we have some special insights because of what we've been through, we should consider if what we've been through also makes us too ready to see the same traits in others, especially those we tend to dislike for other reasons, that we saw in our tormentors. We who have been the subjects of whisper campaigns and character assassination should be especially wary of forming opinions formed through the lens of competing cheerleaders and propagandists for and against someone we have little or no personal knowledge of.
I  have heard the last four presidents repeatedly labeled as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder or psychopathy based almost entirely on party affiliation  and political conviviality, which should give us some clue as to the value of extrapolating our experiences to people we don't know and don't agree with.

[sKePTiKal]

If people don't like sarcasm then they should consider, if they're going to talk about politics maybe they should rationally discuss the issues rather than making either careless or malicious characterizations of the people they disagree with.

Thank you for this very clear statement, mud.

It helps resolve an awful lot of the confusion that is tossed around in political discussions - which I participate in quite frequently, just not here. As a life-long independent, I've been totally horrified at the behavior and beliefs of people over political sloganeering and propaganda on BOTH sides. It went "us and them" quite some time ago and now that we're at the inevitable undeniable results of that my fears have deepened for the future. I find it ironic that my way more progressive-minded daughter (at 40, self-educated and compassionate) has also recognized the fearful state of affairs we are living in.

I've also had a strong amateur interest in sociology and done enough deep reading to know that "identity politics" almost ALWAYS ends in social and political division that are irreconcilable and lead to more overt conflict. We are seeing a beginning of that, in the news. I don't exaggerate or inflate those occurances to the point that some do - those who believe we are on the verge of open fighting in the streets - but I DO see that condoning and dismissing this kind of misbehavior and disturbance of the "peace" is a tacit statement that "Rule of Law" is becoming "Rule of Men". And that is a serious problem for a country established on the principle that we are ALL EQUAL in the eyes of the law.

I believe I may have mentioned here at one time, how I've noticed that morality and the basic tenets of value systems have been twisted around to mean something entirely the opposite; and how how the definitions of certain words, phrases and slogans have been twisted to mean - whatever the person using them SAYS they mean in this moment - and it can be different in the next.

If we can't agree on the definitions of words, we can't truly communicate. "Mind reading" what someone "means" is not reliable.

If some people choose the traditional beliefs of value systems and some the "reformed", "new and improved" values going by the same name, life can still go on to everyone's benefit. Right up until the point, one group tries to force their beliefs onto everyone holding the traditional version. Live and Let Live, as a philosophy, upholds the concept of individual freedom and opportunity to pursue their own happiness.

When the law carves out special protections for one group or another and then force the majority to adjust and adopt those protections, we have a situation where "rights" collide and Mr. Jone's right to build a fence, tramples Mrs. Smith's right to enjoy the view unobstructed. And when politicians - of all stripes - hold themselves to a different standard of accountability while applying the law to others who are not in their exalted group - the only thing left to persuade those non-politicians to obey the law are the risks involved in getting caught and being punished by the powers that be; FORCE, in plain language.

I seem to be quite the oddball, in that I don't truly fear change. Change involves accepting that the consequences are often unknown and unseen, at the moment of decision to accept change. I can and have adjusted my plans as quickly as possible to accommodate those unknowns that make themselves visible after setting my course. But much of what I see happening in people's behaviors is a clinging to the status quo and a fear of change - regardless of political views. Add a few dashes of anger & resentment and double standards and you can guess how that story ends.

Two last thoughts. As a society, we must be reminded that belief and behavior are two very different things. The law applies to behavior only (or should) and never dictate beliefs or moral value systems.

The other is, that most of life is NOT POLITICAL. Politics should not be applied to every human experience of life - beliefs, most importantly. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my perception and observation of the last several decades is that politics has become enmeshed (inappropriately) into almost all aspects of individual life. (And that might just BE an exaggeration, but examples aren't scarce). That phenomenon has been associated with some of the most tyrannical and devastating political events in recorded history.

I refuse to point fingers at anyone to blame them or try to foist responsibility for this phenomenon on them. At this point, even the "the People" who have silently seethed - but outwardly accepted this serious "boundary violation" in our governing principles - participated in the phenomenon. My intuition says the evolution of this phenomenon is going to come to conflict, sooner or later; in isolated locations and widespread. It scares the living bejesus out me on multiple levels because it is wantonly destructive of freedom - one doesn't have freedom, if one lives in fear of giving offense or being assaulted just because of what you look like -  and it wiill make it impossible to "work things out" and resolve the conflict with words and diplomacy once it's gone to violence.

Politics is not the most important thing in life or about a person, IMO. Government has no right to intrude on the personal lives of so many people at the level they do -- my value system and what I believe about other people is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. On the other hand, they do have a vested interest in making sure that I treat all people the same. And that will unfortunately hurt some people's feelings. Not everyone likes me; I don't have to like everyone else.

[lighter]

Your question implies two assumptions;;
1. That our assessments of either man's moral fiber or character can be divorced from our inclinations to their politics and,
2. That knowing some public figure through the lens of media coverage and the public persona they and their handlers project gives us the insight to make conclusive and objective evaluations of their characters.   

Mud:
I asked you if Trump reminds you of your brother.

To clarify.....

does Trump's combative world view, litigious record, and aggressive style remind you of your brother?

From my POV Trump seems to resent that he'll be expected to follow the rules, or be held accountable for not following them. 

Does he not remind you of your brother at all, ever?

When you brought #44 into the conversation it was confusing, and read like a tactical pivot, IMO.  I'm not going to debate politics, or presidents with you.  I'm not going to provide all the sound bites and footage of Trump that remind me of my late husband either.   I don't want to, and you've already seen them. 

Trump is the least "handled" politician in our time, IMO.  He's not shy about sharing his world views, and feelings about..... so many things, IME.  I've seen more than I'm comfortable with of the man's inner world, frankly.

I'm not asking you to defend any political party....
admission that Trump reminds you of your brother in certain ways isn't an admission about anything else, IMO.

I know you feel ganged up on, but I'd like to feel you can say Trump reminds you of your brother if he does, and just keep it at that if it's the truth. 

Lighter

 

[mudpuppy]

Lighter;
Is a "tactical pivot" a nice way of saying "lie"?
My reference to Obama  was because I don't recall ever having thought to compare either man to my brother so it would be hard for me to pivot to the one from the other when neither were on my radar.

I earlier said I  didn't feel welcome by the rhetoric being employed in this thread. That doesn't  equate to feeling ganged up on because it was not directed at me personally. That's part of why I  noted it. When people casually and generally  impute the basest of motives and traits to those who simply happen to disagree with them they are necessarily defaming and alienating of some of their friends and family and people they don't even know.
Do you or anyone you know like being defamed over your political views? If not then I  assume you understand why others don't.
Except for the purposes of civility or legal protections have you ever known me to not speak my mind openly and forcefully?  If you haven't, in reviewing your last sentence do you understand how it might sound a little patronizing over here on the receiving end of things?

SKePKikal (hope  I  got  that capitlalized right),

I  agree with most of what you say partly because it is so general as to be hard for anyone of good faith to disagree.
But I  do disagree with the  assertion both sides of the political divide engage in involving politics into every aspect of life.
One of the clarion calls of the New Left in the 60s, which is the ground from which the current weeds of authoritarian political  correctness and demonizing of political opponents sprang, both of which necessarily deeply inject politics into every aspect of our lives and relationships was and is "the personal is political" to the extent it has its own wiki page.
Unfortunately  if those who don't believe that is how we should live do not live by those rules we are steamrolled by those who do in precisely the same manner as if we pretend we don't have to fight back against a schoolyard bully. Turning the other cheek is a proper sentiment for us as individuals until it sends us to the hospital and it is never a proper sentiment to enable systemic bullying or stand by and watch someone else be steamrolled. And that is my point through all of this thread; the inflammatory and accusatory rhetoric routinely employed by the left has become not a method of debate but of stifling debate and the responses to that rhetoric is falsely accused people attempting to defend themselves from unwarranted and scurrilous attacks. I would think that reality would resonate on a board discussing voicelessness.
 I  don't particularly believe in the artificial left/right divide terminology that has been in use for so long. Political belief to me spans a spectrum  from the almost complete political and economic  liberty of classical libertarianism on one side to the total extinction of any liberty under totalitarianism on the other.(anarchism is such a mess it merits its own little category of nuttiness)
Viewed this way we very clearly see Nazism and Marxism not as some vastly different systems on opposite sides of the political spectrum but as kindred spirits who only differ in the details of why they think they should be given the power of life and death over their fellow man to use the power of the state to mold him into what invariably is their own image. Those actually on the opposite end of the spectrum are those who wish neither to mold nor be molded in any way.
Until about 100 years ago pretty much everyone in the US gravitated toward the  non molding end of the spectrum. With the advent and subsequent growth of the  progressive movement, which is little more than Marx's historical determinism watered down sufficiently to not immediately kill the patient that social and cultural contract and common ground began to wither and die. The state became the  mechanism by which this supposedly inevitable "progress" would be imposed. And because amorphous "progress" whatever that might mean is essentially limitless in its drive toward perfect human society there is no practical limit to its ambitions, the power of the state realize those ambitions and most importantly there is no practical check on the power of the self regard and self righteousness of the goodness of the progressive's cause. So who can stand in the way of the absolute goodness of "progress" other than the selfish, the greedy, the racist and all the other labels used to justify the bulldozing of those who think the power of the state is historically the most reckless deadly and senseless force on earth and it is always commandeered by those who think they know best how to force their fellow man into the perfect society. And every new boss, including the current progressives who envision themselves as uniquely qualified for the job and preternaturally benevolent, thinks they finally have it figured out unlike all the old bosses who came before.
They don't. They never do. The new boss is always the same as the old boss, he just has a different shiny badge. The only constant is they always think they know what their fellow man needs and they're willing to give it to him good and hard.
 And there are always millions who follow along and are shocked that their fellow man doesn't see the undeniable virtue in their project of externally imposed self improvement or being told how they prefer to live and think is not only different, it's  wrong. Eventually they learn it's not just wrong it's intolerant. Then it's not just intolerant it's intolerable. What perfect society can progress to perfection if it's full of racists and homophobes, or in other iterations of the race to the perfect society,, jews or capitalist pigs or infidels.
Problem is the fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves. The drive for utopia always ends in disaster because we are hopelessly flawed,  particularly and most especially those who  have the strongest drive to perfect everyone else.
If you ask most of those millions if they're engaged in some utopian project they'll say they're simply trying to better the state of man. When it all blows up they sit around bewildered like the Germans sitting in the ruins of their country in 1945 wondering how they couldn't see where their project was headed.
But man the moron immediately begins organizing the rubble back into a cobblestone street. Pretty soon he wonders why his neighbor's part of the street isn't  as nice as his and so he wanders over to show him, with only the best intentions, how to do it the way it should be done and pretty soon the road to hell is being paved all over again.

Our Founders struck the most successful balance in history of competing human interests and defects and the ideology of the progressives would have been as foreign to them as either international or national socialism. That is why the progressive cause is hostile to the constitution and seeks to fundamentally  transform it an why so many of us are yelling stop.
And so I  reject the idea the present toxic political atmosphere is a matter of  a pox on both their houses. The vast middle of the left has nothing but good intentions and wishes to make the world a better place. I don't impugn their motives. But their leadership and their ideology is headed in a toxic direction and the venality and the uncharitable rhetoric of that leadership is filtering down though the hoi polloi.
What is almost comic is that when a guy from the other side comes along who understands their game and employs it against them they're shocked and appalled that anyone else might question their motives or throw a few bean balls like they incessantly do. The aggressive, demonizing politics of the left created Trump and it will create many more before its done.
It's the way the world works; leave  your neighbor alone and he'll probably leave you alone. Punch him in the mouth and he'll probably punch back. Punch him in the mouth and claim it's for his own good and on top of that he deserves it because he is ignorant, evil and privileged and while he's at it he's so ignorant, evil and privileged he needs to hand over his dining room set, he saved five years to buy, because his unprivileged neighbor wants it, he's probably going to punch back considerably harder than the do-gooder anticipates.
 Why?
Because the personal has been made political.
Unless and until that ends things will only get worse.

mud

[lighter]

Lighter;
Is a "tactical pivot" a nice way of saying "lie"?

mud

No, the tactical pivot I'm referring to is used to change topics when one doesn't wish to address the topic at hand.

I asked you if Trump every reminds you of your brother, which would be a reason to consider if he does. 

I'm wondering if, for reasons I've stated...Trumps litigious history, dependence on altered facts, entitlement to skirt the rules, and combative response to being held accountable.......

does Trump remind you of your brother at all?

That was the question, and I'm resisting feeling patronized or offended by anything you've written in your very straightforward direct style.  Please don't assume I'm patronizing you, or in any way disrespecting you, bc it's not my intention.

I honestly want to know.... does Trump every remind you of your brother?

Lighter

 

[sKePTiKal]

Well said, mud. We're on the same page (all of it).

[mudpuppy]

Thanks SKePTiKaL.
Are you gonna be down at the Reichstag tonight for the big bonfire so we can get this party started?

Mud

[sKePTiKal]

LOL... well no; I'll have to take a rain check mud. I'm digging down deep into the earth and rocks in a desperate attempt to finally become unimportant enough and invisible enough - that the maelstrom passes me by. Different strokes...

But, I'm going to pass on an idea I had, that I believe you could do a much better job with, than I could. I was thinking that it's past time to write an essay about Freedom; and what Americans traditionally believed in -- and perhaps enough of the why they believed in it, to point people in the right direction for their own reflection on it. Sort of a touch-stone to those principles that have morphed into the opposite, in the name of "reinventing the wheel" for "progress". Not a reverse evangelisizing; just a "here, read this and THINK about it" piece.

Soon, the noise-levels will be too loud for something like this to get noticed. It may already be that way. But we have to TRY.

As for politics, here... I'm going back to my old practice of never asking who someone voted for, and not talking about my vote (it used to be impolite); same with not discussing politics and religion in "mixed company". Society is trying to compel "over sharing" and it's a contributing factor in some of the insanity I'm seeing play out in public. So much of what is driving things nutz is making public the things which should be private, IMO.

It would take a long time for me to search out my old comments on duality and the realizations I had about how dualities and either/or choices are used to muster reluctant people in choosing sides and
"making war" over those limited choices when I know for a FACT that there is more than two sides, choices and ways forward. The power of "AND", for instance.

And besides, y'all are all my friends. No matter your political persuasion; that's IRRELEVANT to whether we can care about each other or not and trust each other. But that's not a message that anyone is open to hearing these days, and it'll make me roadkill in certain circles. But I can SAY THAT here, and it's OK.

And for that, I'm immensely grateful and I love y'all. Warts & all. LOL.

[mudpuppy]

  IMO, this place should not be used for political discussions, period.
  With the  political rhetoric as divided and as extreme as it is virtually everywhere else, what I took to be a place for people to have a voice presents people with same choice Ns do; shut up and shut down in the face of what amounts to a personal attack or respond and become enmeshed in a bitter, rancorous, interminable fight.
  "The  personal is political" POV is a cancer on the nation expressly designed to divide and inflame people by assigning everyone an identity, whether they want it or agree with it or not, of "you're either for us or against us" personal friend or foe status. Those who disagree are no longer wrong in good faith or believe differently because they prioritize differently but in legitimate ways, they're wrong because they're ignorant hicks led astray by hucksters and pompadoured televangelists, they're greedy racists who want little black kids with big eyes and distended bellies to starve and they're evil authoritarians who long for Kristallnacht becoming a day ending in y.
  That's not only a perfect recipe for voicelessness, it's hard to see it as anything other than a calculated attempt to induce voicelessness. There are literally thousands of forums for people to shout their political voices with their thumb on the  caps lock key, but very few, perhaps only one, for those who've had their voices stolen or suppressed.

Mud

[sea storm]

Mudpuppy,
You are so articulate and scathingly brilliant that I hesitate to jump in and say that you are loved. Ever since your wife died you seem to be so hurt and in such a brilliant way that it is hard to let you know that you are welcome here and even your anger is welcome here. Pretty confusing but welcome. I personally don't have enough ego strength to withstand your angry barbs but you still belong.
I think you will always win a discussion, debate or argument because you can. You can hammer the begeezus out of any point you want to make. For Pete's sake you are the Mudpuppy guy and brought us the Mudpuppy song. That is a dorky thing to say maybe.

I asked a Tibetan monk how the lamas and nuns who were tortured for years in a Chinese prison survived the experience and were not destroyed. He said that they believed that nothing was more important than their belief in being connected to a higher power, compassion and love.  When the angry man or woman offers some horrible, ugly thought the Tibetans treated it as a gift that was not suitable or welcome. So they would say , Thank you for offering me your anger, but no thank you.
I accept you and care for you but I do not want your anger. Especially not righteous anger as it makes me feel quite queasy.

So, after all that I want to say that you are welcome. And who cares what any of us think, you are welcome because you say you are welcome. Not because anyone here says you are welcome. There. I can see you standing in a bright glow of welcoming yourself and no longer walking into the arena feeling attacked and loathed. You are tremendously valuable and your voice deserves to be heard. I don't know how you got into the state of feeling shunned here or anywhere else. You just are not shunned and unwelcome. It is confusing when you talk like that. You are a tad too smart for me to fully get what you are saying when you talk politics and you get so mad.

God .... I need a cup of tea.... Bye for now

[sKePTiKal]

I had one of those brain fart ideas pop into my head the more I thought about the idea: "The personal is political". Or maybe, it's more correct to say Twiggy pointed out something that should've been obvious about it.

It's akin to saying that a machine is a gear; or that a fish is a rhinocerous. Apples and oranges. And parts are not equal to the sum of the parts. A process or method is not the same as an entity, or person.

And the reason is because of BOUNDARIES and subordination. There are a whole lot of things that are blurred, merged, and smooshed into that slogan...in un-natural ways.

Just like a person isn't identical to what they do as an occupation, my personal experience, being, and life is not; can NOT be political. Politics requires a group - even as small as 2 - to even exist. (Barring the occasional person who's schizophrenic or has multiple personalities, of course.)

Politics is a system of "persons" who agree and consent to a set of rules governing their behavior in the acts of cooperating, working together, being in a group for a PURPOSE... usually defined as well-being, success, or "security". And here is the first boundary... there is the group, the system, and a person.

I think we can all agree that behavior is separate and subordinate to the person-entity. There is a boundary between them. The person IS - and can be many things without interfering or constraining another person. It is what a person DOES - behavior - that impacts, for good or ill, the other persons around them. I can control my behavior - sometimes temporarily, definitely by choice and intent - or NOT. I often choose not to smoke around people, for instance. I can control that behavior and therefore it is subordinate to my "being"... and there is a boundary between my being and that behavior.

So, I'm thinking politics is subordinate to, and separate from... the personal. And like my choice of controlling my behavior - it's fluid and sometimes situationally conditional. Sometimes, because it's always wrong for me to tell another person how to BE. And often, it's none of my business and doesn't impact me at all, how other people behave. Sometimes it DOES, and then it is my business and I have a choice then, about how to behave... and I need intelligent and wise boundaries to protect myself without harming others.

Politics are the mutually accepted definitions/process of regulating behavior among and between groups of people. A group may be said to have a "being"... but each person within the group has their own distinct and separate "being"... therefore a boundary.

That's probably enough of the foundation of the thought-process that plopped a pile of turkey-poop on my head, for you all to think about this on your own. You can see where I'm going with this. And maybe the analogy falls apart further on down the merry little thought-exercise path.

But Twiggy wouldn't let it rest; she tortured me with that "the personal is political/the political is the personal" crap until I started to get it. There is something in it, that's very much akin to an N saying: you're not, never gonna be "good enough"... all because you aren't exactly as the N wants you to be, when they want you to be. There is a very natural and OBVIOUS boundary between the self and what a person IS and what some other person thinks you "ought" to be. (Behavior aside for this bit, although it's not irrelevant here. An N will often confuse and conflate "being" and "behavior in others.)

Maybe I'm overthinking again.

[mudpuppy]

Sea,
I'm not particularly brilliant and I'm not particularly angry.

My dander only gets up when people go from saying "I disagree with your views" to "your views make you _____". Fill in the blank with any of the vile epithets that are routinely assigned to anyone that doesn't toe the party line these days; racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, greedy, sexist, ageist, genderist, transphobe, Nazi, fascist .
A person routinely accused of being those things would have to be a saint NOT to get angry. They are dismissive, devaluing, false and inflammatory. That in fact is their purpose. To inflame, not debate. They are designed specifically to falsely accuse someone and enrage them. In my humble opinion you might more profitably direct your concern to those who employ them.

 This thread started off with the good Doc's daughter essentially accusing me of being a participant in a sexual assault on her person. That kind of rhetoric generates heat not light and so I repeat, I don't think politics is an optimal subject for a board discussing the personal, almost exclusively apolitical pain of being raised by or otherwise attached to Narcissists. Obviously anyone can talk about whatever they want, subject to Doc's admin superpowers, but it seems a cross purpose here.
  It especially seems so if to avoid a conflict some are allowed to voice risible claims regarding others and those others are expected to remain Voiceless or be told how scary and angry they are when they're accused of metaphorical sexual assault and other vile things and they respond accordingly. That cycle and dynamic seems awfully reminiscent of what many of us have been through and why we came here in the first place.
I didn't come to this board to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

mud

[JustKathy]

but much as I have always respected you, I feel intimidated and nearly silenced by your tone.

I've been reading through this thread, not replying, but am finally going to jump in and says yes, I agree with Hops. Someone decided to stir the pot on this thread, left, then returned a few weeks later to revisit it and continue their bullying. And yes, it IS bullying. I'm not comfortable with it, I feel intimidated, and am choosing not to engage in future conversation with this person. That is all.

Kathy

[mudpuppy]

Too funny.
This thread began with the accusation I, and people like me, metaphorically sexually assaulted the Doc's daughter and that we are all also, of course, abusers.
I was told I knowingly voted for a racist, misogynist, raping pig and my vote was one which had the KKK dancing in the streets. I was informed if I didn't vote for Trump because he is so obviously a racist bigot it is only because I'm so stupid and uninformed. It was implied that while Trump is not yet a Nazi he is a proto-fascist who is just getting started. I apparently bathe in "fear and ignorance" every evening and powder my behind afterward with "white privilege".

I noted that kind of rhetoric was not justified by anything Trump had actually done in his life, did not lead to reasonable discussions but food fights, was unfair and unkind to the millions of very well informed voters who hate no one and simply disagree with people throwing the epithets and calumnies at them in place of reasonable debate and I noted people who throw stones shouldn't be surprised, if, when some of those stones hit others in the head, that they might want to have a heartfelt word or two with you.

After all the, what I can only describe as, defamations, and my tentative first efforts to get people to dial the rhetoric back a bit and my defense of my positions and criticism of others positions, I'M the one accused of bullying. That's what's too funny.

 In reskimming my comments the worst thing that I saw was the claim that the left "checked their brains" when ignoring the catastrophe their policies have wrought in black neighborhoods. That doesn't even rise to the level of an insult compared to the stuff lobbed my way and people like me.
I note it was only after I made prolonged defenses of my position and people started saying "oh it's too hard to argue with you" that the bullying meme arose.
Starting a conversation with libelous insults and then crying "bully" when you can't defend your position seems to me to be the actual bullying.

I've been here a long time and it did me a lot of good, but the fact is this election and the left's bizarre reaction to it, including this preposterous thread, demonstrate I am only welcome here, as I noted at the outset, if I hush my mouf and play the lovable, equanimous mudpuppy role.
If I have to keep my mouth shut and absorb egregious insults about my character and supposed foolishness without defending myself or pointing out where I think other people are mistaken then I am in a system that has taken on too many of the characteristics of the system that drove me here in the first place; my family of origin.
If I have to walk on eggshells and absorb unwarranted abuse and not rock the boat by speaking up to get along at the  Voicelessness board then it has moved beyond what it used to be when I first came here; a place to be heard. The truly astonishing thing to me is that otherwise kind and decent people apparently cannot see that the egregious, defamatory rhetoric is not only virtually guaranteed to drive anyone not part of the group spouting it out of this place but is exactly the same kind of reckless, thoughtless, over the top stuff many of us endured at the hands of Ns. And it's the same same 'shut up and conform or be shunned' mentality.

I understand Doc's decision to close the board to new members but IMO that began the downhill trend of making it a small, insulated, coffee-klatch kind of club of like minded pals rather than a place where people going through hell could find a calm port in a storm. Insularity inevitably breeds pressure for conformity and conformity necessarily breeds rejection of those who refuse to conform, especially if they speak up about it.
It was fun while it lasted, but as Sam Goldwyn said "include me out".

mud

[sea storm]

I understand Doc's decision to close the board to new members but IMO that began the downhill trend of making it a small, insulated, coffee-klatch kind of club of like minded pals rather than a place where people going through hell could find a calm port in a storm.

What you say is true. At least I agree with it. Like any relationship there will be struggles. I don't expect it to be a golden zone of compassion here and there is a normal amount of whinging, complaining and sending out little toxic darts. Human very human.  If your statement is a call to make things better and more authentic then that is wonderful. Respond to some sad, sick, brokenhearted soul and there are plenty here. Me included. It is cold and unforgiving out there and I still find refuge here even though I don't share very much.
I am not sure if I am getting lumped in with the insensitive, shallow , koffee klatchers. Just wish you could come for coffee and have a heart to heart ole buddy.

Sea