[flagged]
Is that intended to be persuasive? Intimidating? Does it make the point stronger or weaker? Are we wiser for having read it?
The unrestrained acting out is not reserved for Mitchell Baker.
Not OP, but it was probably intended for you to start discussing points in good faith.
It's not necessarily that, it's more like your points in the thread come across (to me at least) as a bit of sealioning.
Not everything needs a "what if it was you in that position, your mom, your friend, your sister" POV. Sometimes people are just bad at their jobs, and it's ok to criticize them for it.
It's definition is, people raising questions about things that I believe are already established. But those are the most important questions.
I'm aware that some people have judged and condemned Baker, but that's not persuasive or at all conclusive. Internet mob behavior - and it's clear in some of the responses in this thread and in others - is a signal of error, sometimes of very serious errors. Nobody (wise) ever said, 'this person is really angry and out of control; their analysis must be highly accurate and precise, and their judgment reliable.'
There's also an element to the term's meaning of just asking questions endlessly, but I have expressed clear, strong opinions too.