Arthur Scargill appreciator
- Sep 1, 2018
Yeah I've pretty much stated the negatives above and elsewhere but to summarise:That’s the thing this place has never done any PR outside this forum as far as I know. And I’m not saying we should fight back even though I know plenty of people here want to, I just want to make people understand the actual situation and our side whereas the public is only getting a one sided biased part of the story. I’m not trying to win hearts and minds or spread the word of assisted/pro choice suicide.
Do you think that no matter what we say even if it was proofed read before submitting won’t help the situation at all? If so I can atleast somewhat agree given the fact that I feel most people don’t actually care so.
I mean can you give any reasons why not and why it’ll be negative?
1) putting out a blogpost in a PR battle with *actual media professionals* and expecting that to be read in good faith is naive.
2) this website is not a political movement for me, it's a forum for people with varying degrees of suicidality and myriad drivers for this. Naturally, some people want it shut down, however if the website follows the path of the former it will lose sight of the latter.
3) the website isn't just for the members with over 1000 posts who like to discuss the politics of suicide and it's wrong to assume all members want greater scrutiny just because some more vocal members want to be seen front and centre.
4) the quality of it, proofread or otherwise, is kind of irrelevant given how it will be received, but even so l suspect it will, sadly, not be very good and will not be representative of the forum as a whole.
5) there's no need to refute the shit about paedos, terrorists,whatever. In fact the more outlandish the smear the more it will alienate those who are curious - I've been involved in left wing politics a very long time, media are never kind to us but there comes a point where the smear is *so* extreme that people stop believing it and begin to give us a fairer hearing.
6) there are facts in that NYT article which do sadly reflect badly on this site, for eg the Mclnnes case. We are going to struggle to put out a mission statement of core aims and values without addressing some of these facts, and we are better off swerving imho
7) they are not going to stop wanting yo shut us down, but the story will die if we let it.
8) there is an enthusiasm for high-drama on this forum, this is probably to be expected given its nature but see for example how quickly Marquis' resignation letter became derailed with shit about murder charges. The forum should not be embarrassed by the actions of a few who perhaps enjoy drama so much it causes them to lose perspective.
9) the new admin has called for calm and made reassuring noises about the future of the site, we should heed them and not act rashly out of fury or need for retaliation - yes the story has some traction and has caused the resignation of the admin but the reality is "Emma Davis" is screenshotting us on twitter for 20 followers and 2 favs. Yes they doxxed and this was dreadful, I'm not sure however that sitting that hornet's nest makes any of us safer.
10) l specifically do not want people saying or writing anything in public without my prior consent in any context, if l want someone to do PR for me, I'll find them myself, and l don't think it's unreasonable to demand that users of this forum refrain from appointing themselves as my mouthpiece.