Interesting as always, LandM.
I think I only winced/blinked twice, once when you used the word "enemies" re Heather Cox and NYT...if I understood your meaning correctly. Really, they are the "enemy"? Your enemy? Totally agree with you that it's good to read perspectives, experiences, tastes, expertise that don't directly align with one's own...lots of learning can happen in that way...
But "enemy"? ugh, this polarization in America is an ugly thing.
The second was "when I and a few others put myself out there for that freedom is over the top"; which freedom? What are you referring to with this? Do you mean freedom of speech?...that describing someone's "speech" as "trolling" is "over the top"? So, "speech" describing another's "speech" in negative terms should not happen?? I may be totally misunderstanding you, but that's what I've gleaned so far...
Or is it just that the rules of the site that penalize trolling or vicious personal attacks are what you think is "over the top"? I'm thinking that view seems to lead into the "echo chamber" notion...that a few guys getting sent to the box for breaking the rules reduces the number of "speech" providers, or "speakers", so don't penalize...?
That phrase followed you saying you had been called a nazi or fascist (I don't recall anyone calling you either of those, but things do get heated at times and those words do get thrown around to describe the far right wing populist movement ...I just don't recall you writing anything that would get
that degree of response to you personally...some others have, but I don't recall that from you...sure, 'right wing' or 'conservative' but not "fascist" or "nazi"...but then maybe my memory is slipping...I think I'm a couple years younger than you, but only a couple, so maybe
...).
Here's my sense, at least on the politics threads (the women's thread 'trolling' issue is a different kettle of fish, I think), a handful of people somehow associated with our sport (and at least one with no affiliation, but with a professed rooting interest...) participate in discussions on various topics of timely interest, sharing information and perspectives, debating etc...a few seem to see it as a battleground, an opportunity to be keyboard warriors for a partisan cause...ideology doesn't seem to matter, just the partisan aspect...a few are simply ideologically passionate, both ends of various spectrums. But most are actually interested in discussing and learning from one another... It's not many total people...most think it would be great if more people, of good faith, joined in...
We're not sure why more people don't participate, one theory is that such discussion is too contentious, one exposes oneself to attack...certainly the reason why I for one don't participate on Twitter or Facebook etc; those areas IMO are a cesspool of anger and vitriol and, yes, "trolling". Others say, hey, we'd have many more participants if people were free to post any darn thing they want, attack each other all they want, etc. Others (esp.the mods) preferred a forum in which many moderators wielded power, no seeming recourse or discussion brooked.
so, when
this forum was being put together after the earlier one failed, the founders asked for input from the handful of people who first showed up...the result was a forum with very few rules, but a few, with the intent that people would feel welcome to read and post, without concern about the kinds of stuff one can readily get on Twitter or FB.
Moreover, another area of the forum, Hamsterdam, was created where there are no holds barred, say what you want, post what you want. Result? Hamsterdam gets very little posting.
This overall forum is pretty darn active daily, but the total # of posters remains pretty small...