No. As far as I’m aware, no individuals have been attacked here, including me. (Praise be.)
As I tried to explain (obviously not successfully), I also felt attacked in TLN, even though (with only one exception, viz., Mary, and then a bunch of others when she stormed off) no-one had it in for me personally there. I tend to identify with ideas, and a lot of ideas are given a hard time in TLN. It’s hard to explain! Write me off as paranoid, if it’ll save time.
I don’t want to go on too long (it’s now past bedtime, once again), but I think you surely must understand that in TLN, it wasn’t a group of individuals against another group of individuals, but a collective process.
It’s very hard to get this sort of point across; indeed it was at just such a point as this that I got suddenly banned from TLN.
(Only Everyman ever properly addressed the concept of collective processes in a small online group - he foresaw the kind of difficulties that emerged.)
I would alter your wording to something like: “a dynamic where dissent is bashed”. The individual personae of the dissenters and the bashers periodically vary (naming no names - my tactlessness has its limits!), but the dynamic* persists.
* [Not a word I much like - was it introduced by Freud?]
This could get too complicated, and I’m happy to let it drop. (Not my original point about the need for a pair of vague terms, though - I’m stubborn about that.) The “dynamic” here is nowhere near as unhealthy as it was (and still is) in TLN.
I’m hope I’m not being too tactless in mentioning TLN several times explicitly like this. (It’s what they get for banning me in such an ad hoc way, for so little reason!) Or, tactless in drawing attention to something that seems a little bit squiffy in our own “dynamic”, here at 5F. I think I’m acting a bit like a canary in a coal-mine - but it may all be in my own mind, and others may have other ideas of what I’m acting like.
Heed Everyman’s warnings about internal group processes! One can’t afford to ignore them - and that’s precisely for the sake of the future survival of evidence and argument. Ignoring such things is a form of “denialism”!
Sorry if I’m being preachy.
Wayyy past bedtime, again.
That’s probably a good pattern to follow. That is, split off new threads to deal with particular points in the long video and (later) PDF document that I referred to in the OP, because they cover a lot of ground. Also, this thread seems to have become the de facto place for discussing the (surprisingly deep) ramifications and connotations of terminology.