|"We got him good, everyone!"|
It was a most enjoyable and amusing experience. Even more astounding is the fact I hadn't even exceeded 1000k posts. Rather, after approximately only 630 meager little posts, I've been deemed unfit to bask in the company of the people of Suscipe Domine.
This is not a time of defeat, but a time of victory. This is not a time for frustration, but a time for elation. This news does not depress me. It uplifts me. It is time to stretch. Time to refocus. Time to exercise the mind and share conversation with folks who actually have the capacity to explore an idea.
In short, I am free.
Yes, I suppose I will be sad that many people who I've known from the better Fisheaters days shall be left behind. But a lot of them are scattered here and there, and I'm sure I will see them on occasion. And, of course, they can always find me here at this extension of my online presence, here at The Hirsch Files.
What Was Going On?
I am quite glad that I will no longer be trying to express an idea to a group, knowing that a handful of them have it out for me and will work to ostracize me at their leisure. In such an environment, good conversation is lost, and the dialogue is reduced to one man's defense against the zombie horde.
Nothing was explained to me. I was not warned. No one said anything about my ban before it happened. I simply came home from buying the groceries, checked e-mail and messages, and when I came to Suscipe Domine, I found this silly ramble of hypocrisy:
Sorry LaramieHirsch, you are banned from using this forum!
For emotional and agenda driven posting over a sustained period of time
This ban is not set to expire.
Emotional and Agenda Driven?
What I find emotional is a forum that allows its moderators to cut in and tell members to "shut up." Also, not a few glib feelings pour out from a forum owner who mocks a contributor for "bloviating," and "causing a rabble," just one example of many, to be sure. Or how about a moderator locking a thread simply because in her opinion she thinks it is inane?
And then, there is the obvious stew of good feelings that is visible to everyone who watches, as people witness the forum pet run circles around the moderators in an endless vortex of narcissistic and insecure brown nosing. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be so trapped in a continuous sycophantic cycle of well-trained servile flattery. Her ability to stir up groupthink and isolate someone is a spectacle to behold. I cannot imagine people trusting this woman in real life, and I imagine that she does not believe half of what she actually says, speaking primarily to receive attention. The most pathetic and frustrating thing when watching such status-seeking behavior is to always know that seeking status is a low-status behavior. The woman is trapped in a vicious circle, and it's pitiable.
All of this is quite emotional indeed. These people cannot control themselves. They do not know how to be objective. They do not know how to look at facts calmly and reasonably, nor do they know how to look into a situation. Polarizing someone into a corner and then getting rid of them seems to be a trend for Suscipe Domine, and I would definitely say that such a pattern clearly and truly demonstrates SD's own "agenda-driven posting over a sustained period of time."
What that agenda could be is anyone's guess.
The Echo Chamber
I am not alone in watching this slow-motion multi-staged bomb of
Suscipe Domine the Echo Chamber. Different kinds of people have been at the crap end of their capricious behavior for at least the last two years. From what I've noticed, the two groups that have been kicked out more than anyone is sedevacantists and atheists. And this has always puzzled me.
Are these Catholics unable to defend themselves? In regards to the sedes, the forum is perfectly willing to flirt with the idea of sedevacantism. But they will not outrightly embrace it, nor officially state they favor it. They will keep a sedevacantist priest, Father Cekada, as a member of the forum. However, they will banish the regular "sede laity." They do this, even though they have a particular designated folder for sedevacantist conversations!
But most sorrowfully was an incident I witnessed last year. An atheist by the name of Zzyzx decided to come and visit SD from The Thinking Atheist Forum in order to meet Catholics. Perhaps he had an agenda. Perhaps he did not. But he was banned by SD moderators before any kind of real and meaningful dialogue could begin. I initially found this behavior from the moderators distasteful.
His introduction was thus:
Hello! Just joined here in hopes to be involved in some interesting discussions/debates.
I come from TheThinkingAtheist and have participated there for several years. There is a significant lack of practicing Catholics over there, so I'm wanting to learn more straight from the source.
I look forward to some cool discussions, and I hope it's okay that I'm not a Catholic.
Even if the man did come to The Echo Chamber with some sort of atheist agenda, are the moderators so fearful and rickety in their faith as to not be able to stand up to such people? Can the moderators, forum members, or the forum as a whole not stand up to a threat? ZZyzx was swiftly booted, and no apologetical battle ever took place. He was even honest about his origins. But such honesty wasn't enough.
About a month later, another fellow without faith came to The Echo Chamber. This man had five posts. By page two of his introductory thread, the forum owner welcomed him with this:
If you're an atheist troll, get a job and get the hell off my forum. You people are a scourge and have no interest in honest discussion or debate.
The guy was swiftly booted off.
I find it strange that my most recent strong words for debating atheists somehow earned me condemnation. It is very strange when I consider the forum owner's harsh public words for atheists, as well as the persistent policy of the moderators to kick out atheists.
Why, does it seem as though--within The Echo Chamber--I'm forced to do as Jayne says and "preach the truth, but not with a belligerent and confrontational attitude." And yet, we look at The Echo Chamber's fearless leader, as he chides sternly at the occasional faithless man?
Does The Echo Chamber have something against everyone except the forum owner taking a strong tactic towards atheists in debate or confrontation? Is Laramie banned from talking about it? After all, it was a thread about confronting atheism that finally got me banned. True, this banning was a long time coming, as the moderators and owner clearly don't like me. But that discussion was going rather well. There were many contributors to my last thread--a thread I started about a muscular approach when faced with hostile atheists.
Strangely enough, to date, it is clear that Jayne mysteriously slithered away from that thread's conversation once I was banned. Perhaps she reached her objective once I was swept away?
Fighting Atheistcult, Obama's supposed sodomy, questioning the SSPX, race issues, standing against sedevacantism--all of these things are apparently taboo for The Echo Chamber. I've raised these issues in the past year, and more often than not, my threads are locked. I suppose they are not boring enough. Entertaining conversation and the exploration of ideas is not welcome at The Echo Chamber.
No, the main fare of that strange country is never-ending criticism of the pope, making fun of Novus Ordo Mass-goers, spitting on Michael Voris when he reveals scandals in the Vatican, tongue-in-cheek insults of laity who aren't conservative enough to "get it." This is the kind of pablum that is digestible for The Echo Chamber.
Pope Francis calls the Catholic Church a field hospital. Yet the Echo Chamber is not even a field hospital. It first has to be in the "field." Fisheaters is far more equipped to minister to wandering souls and minds! As for myself, I prefer the trenches.
So, I'll be around.
Previous posts about
Suscipe Domine The Echo Chamber: