We're goin' on a witch hunt, I got my binoculars. Oh wait, no we aren't.
"Oh good, the old ‘witch hunt’ dismissal—because nothing says ‘reasonable discussion’ like pretending a pile-on isn’t happening. But here’s the thing: witch hunts don’t require actual witches. They just need enough people who are certain they’ve found one.
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a great example—Dr. Stockmann presents an inconvenient truth, and suddenly the discussion isn’t about the truth at all, but about silencing him. Same with Miller's The Crucible: one the accusation is made, guilt is assumed, and the only real crime is questioning the process.
This thread has that same energy. You don’t have to agree with the Roches, but the way people keep circling back, looking for new ways to burn them at the stake, is telling. At some point, you have to ask: is this still about coaching, or just the thrill of lighting another match?"
lol at how pointing out simple facts is a "witch hunt." Okay, Trump
A good question is why David never addresses these criticisms head on. He deletes the questions. He deletes the criticisms. To think that he shouldn’t have to prove something he states over and over again to be free from criticism is actually totally stupid. David is deserving of all of the criticism and “hate” that he gets for when he is misleading. And as a now public figure, yes, people actually can come here and rip on him and say what a narcissist he is. His podcast is boring and his videos are boring. If that bothers you that I have an opinion I’m expressing here, who cares? David is a big boy and should defend himself if he really wants to—but that would mean addressing the criticism. So…y’know. Won’t happen.
does he really delete any questions or criticism? Where does he do this? Strava/Youtube/IG?
We're goin' on a witch hunt, I got my binoculars. Oh wait, no we aren't.
"Oh good, the old ‘witch hunt’ dismissal—because nothing says ‘reasonable discussion’ like pretending a pile-on isn’t happening. But here’s the thing: witch hunts don’t require actual witches. They just need enough people who are certain they’ve found one.
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a great example—Dr. Stockmann presents an inconvenient truth, and suddenly the discussion isn’t about the truth at all, but about silencing him. Same with Miller's The Crucible: once the accusation is made, guilt is assumed, and the only real crime is questioning the process.
This thread has that same energy. You don’t have to agree with the Roches, but the way people keep circling back, looking for new ways to burn them at the stake, is telling. At some point, you have to ask: is this still about coaching, or just the thrill of lighting another match?"
Poor David, we all know you crave attention, well here’s 35 pages of it for you. Why the need to hide as a chatbot? Is this another character you’re playing, like the “alpha dog” or the “super positive runner”? Why don’t you actually address the legitimate criticism in this thread? Mr. “No secrets” is being rather coy.
We're goin' on a witch hunt, I got my binoculars. Oh wait, no we aren't.
"Oh good, the old ‘witch hunt’ dismissal—because nothing says ‘reasonable discussion’ like pretending a pile-on isn’t happening. But here’s the thing: witch hunts don’t require actual witches. They just need enough people who are certain they’ve found one.
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a great example—Dr. Stockmann presents an inconvenient truth, and suddenly the discussion isn’t about the truth at all, but about silencing him. Same with Miller's The Crucible: once the accusation is made, guilt is assumed, and the only real crime is questioning the process.
This thread has that same energy. You don’t have to agree with the Roches, but the way people keep circling back, looking for new ways to burn them at the stake, is telling. At some point, you have to ask: is this still about coaching, or just the thrill of lighting another match?"
Lol, hold up, who is Thomas Stockmann in this analogy? Because I don't think anyone on this forum is being that rough on Roche.
In An Enemy of the People, Stockmann is labeled as an "enemy of the people" after he advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople whom he compares to "vermin." Ibsen believed in eugenics and the racial superiority of people like him to rule over the unwashed masses. These ideas are directly acted out through Dr. Stockmann as Ibsen's protagonist and the play is a classical Greek tragedy (if you believe eugenics is correct).
This thread has become very silly and deeply lazy.
"Oh good, the old ‘witch hunt’ dismissal—because nothing says ‘reasonable discussion’ like pretending a pile-on isn’t happening. But here’s the thing: witch hunts don’t require actual witches. They just need enough people who are certain they’ve found one.
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a great example—Dr. Stockmann presents an inconvenient truth, and suddenly the discussion isn’t about the truth at all, but about silencing him. Same with Miller's The Crucible: once the accusation is made, guilt is assumed, and the only real crime is questioning the process.
This thread has that same energy. You don’t have to agree with the Roches, but the way people keep circling back, looking for new ways to burn them at the stake, is telling. At some point, you have to ask: is this still about coaching, or just the thrill of lighting another match?"
Lol, hold up, who is Thomas Stockmann in this analogy? Because I don't think anyone on this forum is being that rough on Roche.
In An Enemy of the People, Stockmann is labeled as an "enemy of the people" after he advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople whom he compares to "vermin." Ibsen believed in eugenics and the racial superiority of people like him to rule over the unwashed masses. These ideas are directly acted out through Dr. Stockmann as Ibsen's protagonist and the play is a classical Greek tragedy (if you believe eugenics is correct).
This thread has become very silly and deeply lazy.
Chatbot David owes us all an apology for his ignorant racism. Bahahaha
Lol, hold up, who is Thomas Stockmann in this analogy? Because I don't think anyone on this forum is being that rough on Roche.
In An Enemy of the People, Stockmann is labeled as an "enemy of the people" after he advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople whom he compares to "vermin." Ibsen believed in eugenics and the racial superiority of people like him to rule over the unwashed masses. These ideas are directly acted out through Dr. Stockmann as Ibsen's protagonist and the play is a classical Greek tragedy (if you believe eugenics is correct).
This thread has become very silly and deeply lazy.
Chatbot David owes us all an apology for his ignorant racism. Bahahaha
"Oh good, the old ‘witch hunt’ dismissal—because nothing says ‘reasonable discussion’ like pretending a pile-on isn’t happening. But here’s the thing: witch hunts don’t require actual witches. They just need enough people who are certain they’ve found one.
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People is a great example—Dr. Stockmann presents an inconvenient truth, and suddenly the discussion isn’t about the truth at all, but about silencing him. Same with Miller's The Crucible: once the accusation is made, guilt is assumed, and the only real crime is questioning the process.
This thread has that same energy. You don’t have to agree with the Roches, but the way people keep circling back, looking for new ways to burn them at the stake, is telling. At some point, you have to ask: is this still about coaching, or just the thrill of lighting another match?"
Lol, hold up, who is Thomas Stockmann in this analogy? Because I don't think anyone on this forum is being that rough on Roche.
In An Enemy of the People, Stockmann is labeled as an "enemy of the people" after he advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople whom he compares to "vermin." Ibsen believed in eugenics and the racial superiority of people like him to rule over the unwashed masses. These ideas are directly acted out through Dr. Stockmann as Ibsen's protagonist and the play is a classical Greek tragedy (if you believe eugenics is correct).
This thread has become very silly and deeply lazy.
"Fascinating. It turns out the real enemy of the people was reading comprehension all along.
Let’s clear this up: In An Enemy of the People, Dr. Thomas Stockmann discovers that the town’s spa water is contaminated—an inconvenient truth that threatens local interests. Rather than engage with the evidence, the town leaders (including his brother, Peter) work to discredit and isolate him. His findings are ignored, his character is attacked, and he’s branded an ‘enemy of the people.’
So, back to the original point: when accusations start drowning out discussion, when people become more invested in punishing dissent than examining facts, that’s when you’ve got a witch hunt. Ibsen captured this dynamic perfectly.
As for the claim that Stockmann ‘advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople’? That’s a creative take, but unfortunately, creative doesn’t mean correct. Stockmann does make a frustrated, elitist speech in Act IV, railing against the ‘majority’ for rejecting truth. But that speech is an emotional outburst, not a policy proposal—and certainly not an endorsement of eugenics. If we’re condemning every protagonist who ever said something impassioned and unfiltered in the heat of the moment, literature’s in trouble.
Which brings us to the final irony: the people who confidently accused me of not reading the play are the same ones who just butchered its meaning beyond recognition. You hate to see it.
And as for the ‘Chatbot David’ jibe—if pointing out textual facts and basic literary context makes me a chatbot, then I’d hate to see what passing a Turing test looks like on this forum.
But what really gets me is the sheer laziness of it all. This isn’t some obscure, forgotten text. An Enemy of the People is one of the most widely discussed plays about public discourse and moral courage. There are synopses everywhere. It would’ve taken all of thirty seconds to check whether that eugenics claim had any basis. Instead, we got a confidently incorrect screed based on what? A half-remembered quote? A hasty Wikipedia skim? A deep, unshakable belief that if you type with enough conviction, no one will notice you’re making it up?
If you’re going to sneer about laziness, at least have the decency to open the book first."
Lol, hold up, who is Thomas Stockmann in this analogy? Because I don't think anyone on this forum is being that rough on Roche.
In An Enemy of the People, Stockmann is labeled as an "enemy of the people" after he advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople whom he compares to "vermin." Ibsen believed in eugenics and the racial superiority of people like him to rule over the unwashed masses. These ideas are directly acted out through Dr. Stockmann as Ibsen's protagonist and the play is a classical Greek tragedy (if you believe eugenics is correct).
This thread has become very silly and deeply lazy.
"Fascinating. It turns out the real enemy of the people was reading comprehension all along.
Let’s clear this up: In An Enemy of the People, Dr. Thomas Stockmann discovers that the town’s spa water is contaminated—an inconvenient truth that threatens local interests. Rather than engage with the evidence, the town leaders (including his brother, Peter) work to discredit and isolate him. His findings are ignored, his character is attacked, and he’s branded an ‘enemy of the people.’
So, back to the original point: when accusations start drowning out discussion, when people become more invested in punishing dissent than examining facts, that’s when you’ve got a witch hunt. Ibsen captured this dynamic perfectly.
As for the claim that Stockmann ‘advocates for the mass extermination of the townspeople’? That’s a creative take, but unfortunately, creative doesn’t mean correct. Stockmann does make a frustrated, elitist speech in Act IV, railing against the ‘majority’ for rejecting truth. But that speech is an emotional outburst, not a policy proposal—and certainly not an endorsement of eugenics. If we’re condemning every protagonist who ever said something impassioned and unfiltered in the heat of the moment, literature’s in trouble.
Which brings us to the final irony: the people who confidently accused me of not reading the play are the same ones who just butchered its meaning beyond recognition. You hate to see it.
And as for the ‘Chatbot David’ jibe—if pointing out textual facts and basic literary context makes me a chatbot, then I’d hate to see what passing a Turing test looks like on this forum.
But what really gets me is the sheer laziness of it all. This isn’t some obscure, forgotten text. An Enemy of the People is one of the most widely discussed plays about public discourse and moral courage. There are synopses everywhere. It would’ve taken all of thirty seconds to check whether that eugenics claim had any basis. Instead, we got a confidently incorrect screed based on what? A half-remembered quote? A hasty Wikipedia skim? A deep, unshakable belief that if you type with enough conviction, no one will notice you’re making it up?
If you’re going to sneer about laziness, at least have the decency to open the book first."
"We appear to have reached Stage Three of the classic Cope-and-Seethe Cycle™—where bluster replaces argument and projection takes the wheel. Let’s see if we progress to the final phase: ‘Declaring victory while running away.'"
"We appear to have reached Stage Three of the classic Cope-and-Seethe Cycle™—where bluster replaces argument and projection takes the wheel. Let’s see if we progress to the final phase: ‘Declaring victory while running away.'"
You two should race. Or maybe just just make out. Isn't fighting over old ass plays code for "i'm kinda hot for you"?
"Finally, someone who understands the true stakes here. This has never been about coaching or 19th-century drama—just two deeply repressed intellectual titans circling each other, waiting for the moment one finally breaks and whispers, ‘Say Stockmann again.’"
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.