I explicitly said that there are people out there who'd want to get rid of the Sietch.
The thing is...
Well, remember when I
commented on the Zizek/Peterson debate? One of the good points Zizek made was that a claim made for ideological reasons can be pathological even if it is in fact true. Indeed, in pathological cases, the truth or falsehood of the claim is irrelevant: it
must be held to be true in order to sustain a particular narrative, and that
must is where the pathology, the core problem, lies.
That's more-or-less how I feel when you or Zoe start talking about the conspiracy of people out to destroy the Sietch.
Sure, there's an empirical question here. Insofar as it goes, there are a couple of people out there who do silly things in order to attack you. They are only a handful and they pose no actual threat - I would argue that you've done far more damage to yourselves than any external actor could - but if you want to press that point, sure, there are a few people in that category.
But the point is that the identity that you are crafting for the Sietch, as far as I can see, is one of an embattled and persecuted minority. In this topic the word that I keep coming back to is 'paranoid'. The story in Zoe's appeal was about the cabal of external enemies. In this topic, when I started making criticisms, the responses I saw were
all about how there's some outside threat of people out to get you. Your response to me just now is about this threat. This forum is named
the Sietch, which as your subtitle points out,
means 'a place of refuge in time of danger'. What is this time of danger?
In that light, then, I fear that you are cultivating a tribal, siege mentality. Everyone else is out to get us! You're not safe out there! Better rally around our leader Zoe! That seems to be the story that the Sietch tells itself, at least to me, and I don't think it's a healthy story or one that will help in building a community.
Does that help clarify any?