Condescending?

I'm beginning to think that forum.susan-boyle.com is downright detrimental to Susan. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they treat her like a simpleton child, in need of their protection. The slightest criticism will damage her self-esteem; they will coo over everything she produces, regardless of its quality. Objective discussion of her and her work is verboten, deemed negative and contentious, and earns the poster a warning. To me, that is the definition of condescension. She is a capable, autonomous adult. Would they treat any other performer that way? I think not.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest to see the place go down in flames. I'm having an increasingly difficult time seeing what good the place does for Susan. The latest - that Lou Reed actually LIKES Susan and helped in producing her video - only points up the fact that many of her fans (as represented on that fansite) are myopic fools who are ready to jump the gun without any facts in hand to ream out the perceived disrespecter of Their Susan. Face it - they make Susan's fan base as a whole look like a bunch of loons. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how this might be good for Susan.

edited to add: I'm starting to suspect that the sole purpose of the forum is to secure access to Susan for certain annointed members of the inner circle. Because it sure isn't to actually treat Susan with the respect commonly afforded a mature, competent adult.

You are so correct IMO. Her fans on the forum have appointed themselves as the official protectorate of all things "Susan".

Because the "experts" told Susan's parents that she was what we call today a "special needs" child they did everything they could to protect and shield her from the world with all it's trials and evils. And who could blame them for that? Wouldn't we all instinctively go that route? You bet we would.

Susan has spent most of her adult life banging her head against that wall, desperately trying to get beyond it and participate in a normal life. IDAD was her wrecking ball and she finally smashed that wall to smithereens and what happens? She ends up with a somewhat powerful fan base that continually tries to put that wall back up.

I don't think Susan wants that kind of image projected by her fans. It is my opinion that Susan would much rather have her most vocal fans project an imagine of the persona that she herself has developed. She is tough, feisty, intelligent and has proven that she can and will stand her ground. She is well aware that there will be criticism of her work and accepts that. I doubt that Susan is so naive that she can't separate criticism given in a productive way from criticism emoted simply to be mean and denigrating.

Putting Susan up on a pedestal and promoting her as an angel or saint is also condescending. Yes, she is deeply religious and lives her faith. But to imply that she is so pious that she could never rip you a new one in a heartbeat is ridiculous.

Fans could better serve Susan by emulating her, fighting against injustice and being told "you have to do things in a certain way because those are the rules".

Rules in forums, as I see it, are made to provide a degree of order and protection for the masses. All rules have borders...at what point does one nudge those borders and at what point does one blatantly break the rule? Being able to distinguish the difference is the mark of a good Moderator. Some complain that mods have a thankless, difficult and exhausting job. Well, that comes with the territory but they could change that by not trying to keep their "boots" clamped down on peoples necks. Giving people "power" of oversight can very easily change how that person behaves towards their peers. I am a mayor and I have seen and personally experienced how that changes those with the "Power". There have been many times when I have had to tell myself, wait a minute, step back and look at this from another perspective. Iron-fisted rule erodes the foundation and serves no one.

[quote="skywriter"]

Haak wrote:

You are so correct IMO. Her fans on the forum have appointed themselves as the official protectorate of all things "Susan".

Because the "experts" told Susan's parents that she was what we call today a "special needs" child they did everything they could to protect and shield her from the world with all it's trials and evils. And who could blame them for that? Wouldn't we all instinctively go that route? You bet we would.

Susan has spent most of her adult life banging her head against that wall, desperately trying to get beyond it and participate in a normal life. IDAD was her wrecking ball and she finally smashed that wall to smithereens and what happens? She ends up with a somewhat powerful fan base that continually tries to put that wall back up.

I don't think Susan wants that kind of image projected by her fans. It is my opinion that Susan would much rather have her most vocal fans project an imagine of the persona that she herself has developed. She is tough, feisty, intelligent and has proven that she can and will stand her ground. She is well aware that there will be criticism of her work and accepts that. I doubt that Susan is so naive that she can't separate criticism given in a productive way from criticism emoted simply to be mean and denigrating.

Putting Susan up on a pedestal and promoting her as an angel or saint is also condescending. Yes, she is deeply religious and lives her faith. But to imply that she is so pious that she could never rip you a new one in a heartbeat is ridiculous.

Fans could better serve Susan by emulating her, fighting against injustice and being told "you have to do things in a certain way because those are the rules".

Rules in forums, as I see it, are made to provide a degree of order and protection for the masses. All rules have borders...at what point does one nudge those borders and at what point does one blatantly break the rule? Being able to distinguish the difference is the mark of a good Moderator. Some complain that mods have a thankless, difficult and exhausting job. Well, that comes with the territory but they could change that by not trying to keep their "boots" clamped down on peoples necks. Giving people "power" of oversight can very easily change how that person behaves towards their peers. I am a mayor and I have seen and personally experienced how that changes those with the "Power". There have been many times when I have had to tell myself, wait a minute, step back and look at this from another perspective. Iron-fisted rule erodes the foundation and serves no one.

Nail on the head, Haak. For a chiller on the subject, read about the Stanford Prison Experiment. It was a simulated prison environment meant to study effects on the human psyche of being a prisoner or a prison guard. It was scheduled to be conducted over two weeks but halted after six days because of the horrific effects on the participants. That's an extreme example of what power can do. On a more day-to-day basis, I think it's often true that those who seek power most are the least equipped to wield it wisely.[/quote]
*******************************************************************************

How true Skywriter how true.."I think it's often true that those who seek power most are the least equipped to wield it wisely."

Let's be blunt about it. The site you mention is full of egotistical, arrogant, self-centred loonies who care about nobody but themselves. They live in the misguided hope that they will get to be Susan's best friend. Well, frankly I wouldn't wish any of those crackpots on my worst enemy. The only 'problems' these loonies have ever had is when they chipped a nail, or the maid showed up 10 minutes late. Living off their wealthy husbands while they go out and 'do lunch' has made them laughably naive, having basically had zero real life experience. Frankly, they act like 5 year old spoilt brats. They're not doing Susan any favours at all.

Lovin' Every Minute wrote:

I'm beginning to think that forum.susan-boyle.com is downright detrimental to Susan. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they treat her like a simpleton child, in need of their protection. The slightest criticism will damage her self-esteem; they will coo over everything she produces, regardless of its quality. Objective discussion of her and her work is verboten, deemed negative and contentious, and earns the poster a warning. To me, that is the definition of condescension. She is a capable, autonomous adult. Would they treat any other performer that way? I think not.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest to see the place go down in flames. I'm having an increasingly difficult time seeing what good the place does for Susan. The latest - that Lou Reed actually LIKES Susan and helped in producing her video - only points up the fact that many of her fans (as represented on that fansite) are myopic fools who are ready to jump the gun without any facts in hand to ream out the perceived disrespecter of Their Susan. Face it - they make Susan's fan base as a whole look like a bunch of loons. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how this might be good for Susan.

edited to add: I'm starting to suspect that the sole purpose of the forum is to secure access to Susan for certain annointed members of the inner circle. Because it sure isn't to actually treat Susan with the respect commonly afforded a mature, competent adult.

Recent events prompt me to bump this up. It is truer than ever.

knudt is now banned for 'disruptive behavior on the forum'- although that's not the reason stated by kalua in his PM to her. Her recent posts could not, by any definition, be considered 'disruptive'. Seems the actual reason didn't exactly fit into any of the stated rules violations. No matter - kalua seems to come from the Pinochet School of Democracy. Or - perhaps their admins should be folk for whom English is their first language, since kalua seems to have some problems expressing himself. See the link to knudt's blog, below.

Apparently other cleansing & purging has occurred, including the wholesale removal of dyebat's "Transparency" thread. The irony of its removal is not lost. Hint: The more you try to hide, the more you reveal. The Staff of forum.susan-boyle.com, led by Pickled Tink & kalua, are increasingly like the emperor who had no clothes. Must be getting a little chilly.

forum.susan-boyle.com is increasingly becoming irrelevant, and not worth another moments' discussion or consideration.

Removed.

Excellent points by all of you. For me, it just comes down to behaving like an adult. One of the biggest problems at the SBFII is the fact that people there go into threads that they have no interest in. By entering, all they are looking to do is cause turmoil in that thread. There are many threads there that I have no interest in, and in fact, I am against. But I am intelligent enough to not go into them. The attitude should be live and let live. As for moderation, it should be there but just as a last resort. Adults should be capable of handling minor disagreements between themselves. When I go out in the public, or to a gathering of any kind, do I need a moderator there to be a protector for all against some possible hurtful word or idea? HELL, NO!!

Agreed Fudge. That's what we have here - minimal intervention and moderating. It works really well and we can have a laugh and a joke, pull each other's leg and laugh uproariously at times. We can also discuss deep and serious matters. Generally there is harmony here and on the are occasions it gets really out of hand, DJG is not afraid to step in and take action.

janakimack wrote:

Agreed Fudge. That's what we have here - minimal intervention and moderating. It works really well and we can have a laugh and a joke, pull each other's leg and laugh uproariously at times. We can also discuss deep and serious matters. Generally there is harmony here and on the rare occasions it gets really out of hand, DJG is not afraid to step in and take action.

Some people like it the other way round, and this is the result: an uniform mass, dull as cold porridge (I could find more frightening pictures of real people masses...).

Thank g*d that Susan never in her life belonged to such a group.

They are doing nothing more than rebranding themselves as "Twats r us"

Toplass wrote:

They are doing nothing more than rebranding themselves as "Twats r us"

LOL!! Hadn't seen this!

tonnie_rocca wrote:

Subject: Re: Hilsita's latest message Today at 8:36 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hilsita just posted this ew:


Enough is enough!

In the last few weeks we have closed threads and deleted a number of posts. The staff have received NUMEROUS PM's and e mails thanking them for these actions and it is very clear that the majority are tired of the way in which a small minority seem intent on spoiling things for the rest.

One member posted this in another place – I will not say who, it really does not matter – but a member here said of this forum “ It would be a good thing to make it obsolete!”

Blah blah blah blah blah

Wow - brings a tear to my eye - did I actually receive top billing? Be still my beating heart - I'm just a little overwhelmed. (not) Might she be referring to this thread?

Maybe I should post it here for reference - just so's that they're all on the same page -

edited to add - if it's my Condescending? thread she's referring to - that post was made on November 7, 2010 - over 3 months ago. Talk about nursing grievances . . .

BTW I stand by that post -