Peterson promises to ignore Mormon Discussions Board

[_Lemmie]

In a brief follow up, someone flagged an ongoing comment exchange between Peterson, Kiwi57 and Moksha. I will address Dan directly here, on this development.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4973455827
16 hours ago

I would very much like to see this happen.

Over at the Shades board, where every day begins afresh with a new and fervent declaration of war against me and all my works (and, lately, against Louis Midgley), my integrity is yet again being dragged through the mud because, despite having given my word that I would try to tamp down the expressions of indignation against that board here in the comments section of Sic et Non, I haven't succeeded in doing so.

I've come to regard the continued participation here of certain regular posters from that board, and their continued representation here of themes and complaints typical of that board (but irrelevant to my actual blog entries), as the principal factor in keeping things here stirred up on the subject. In that light, until I saw the proposal above I had decided a few hours ago simply to ban them all for a period of at least one week and perhaps two weeks. The hypothesis to be tested was just this: I expect rather confidently that, if they were not posting here, mention of their message board in these comments would be sharply reduced if not altogether eliminated. (Derogatory mention of me, this blog, the Interpreter Foundation, Louis Midgley, the Witnesses film project, and etc., will, of course, remain a major staple of the daily diet over there, but that evidently seems completely wholesome and salutary, even necessary, to the folks who participate on the Shades board.)

Anyway, I will watch for a while to see how this experiment goes. I wish it well.

Now, if Dan is merely taking thought to introduce an intermediate step, like a short term civility experiment to preserve maximum liberty at SeN, while also encouraging the additional benefit of improved person-to-person tone at SeN, then I applaud that move. I wish him well with that. Seriously.

Dan's additional idea/threat to ban perceived agitators for 1-2 weeks after a warning should be taken at face value, and I hope he succeeds wildly by taking this much-needed moderation step. If that's "what it takes" to succeed in fulfilling our deal, painful as it may be, he should be encouraged in that direction. Personally I prefer his model of a 1-2 week "timeout" vs a perma ban, because his blog (SeN) is still one of the few places where folks talk openly about controversial ideas about Mormonism.

I worry, however, about the bolded text (my emphasis) above, which suggests a possible "out" being established to avoid taking responsibility for past and future bad faith on fulfilling our contracted agreement. That "out" being the age old finger pointing excuse -- "I know I'm not supposed to hit, but he hit me first!"

Shades, Moksha, LOD, Exiled and anyone else who tread over to SeN represent NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES. None of those people brings up the MormonDiscussions.com forum in their comments, EVER. None of them represents anyone but his or her self. He/she may make certain comments that agitate Dan or his loyal board members -- heck, maybe intentionally (I don't know, I've never asked any of them about their motives). What we do know is that it is ALWAYS Dan, Louis or Kiwi57 who bring up MormonDiscussions.com, and that has remained a daily default response. Like some kind of umbrella insult to push the unwanted interlocutor away. And that would be perfectly fine, except for one thing: delivering that umbrella MormonDiscussions.com insult is THE ONE AND ONLY THING DAN PETERSON PROMISED NOT TO DO when he agreed to our Interpreter fund raising settlement agreement.

So to be perfectly clear: no, overlapping users of SeN and MormonDiscussions.com are NOT the "principal factor in keeping things here stirred up on the subject." The "principal factor" for Dan's failure to "tamp down expressions of indignation against [MormonDiscussions.com]" is that Dan and his friends CHOOSE to respond to individual comments at SeN with blanket insults aimed at this forum, rather than addressing those people as individuals.

Dan: engage, ban, ignore -- that's entirely your call. Defend at all costs when someone attacks you directly -- per our many long emails, that is all FAIR GAME in our contract. As I recall, you reserved the right to directly address an INDIVIDUAL when defending yourself against specific libel or slander. Go for it! But for the sake of your good name, please do "whatever it takes" to fulfill your side of our agreement.

Dan, if you cannot or will not do that, kindly and promptly say so. Upon seeing your concession, I will happily name a worthy charitable cause to which you and your colleagues at the Interpreter Foundation may remit the entirety of my October 2019 Interpreter donation, thus relieving you of any future burden in our agreed upon deal.

Peterson has decided to become his own “principle factor.” After a response where Peterson suggests that Midgley wouldn’t want to be associated with anything Shades says (? gravity was the topic), he continues:

−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Mod Dr. Shades • 14 hours ago
Well, maybe not.

But I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with QAnon. If those folks were to make a point of proclaiming that 2+2=4, I would probably try to keep quiet about the matter.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
Avatar
Dr. Shades DanielPeterson • 6 hours ago
What does QAnon have to do with any of this??
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Mod Dr. Shades • 5 hours ago
When I think of contemporary conspiracy fantasists, I think of QAnon and I think of roughly a half dozen folks -- the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board that it would be churlish of me to identify further.

http://disq.us/p/2aefqs4

Peterson’s thoroughly churlish (and libelous) reference to this board and people who have left his religion as containing QAnon types again breaks his word to Dr. Moore.

[_Physics Guy]

There are some people on SeN whom I assume are okay by virtue of not being insulting and some that appear to be those kind Mormon people whom I enjoy. Then there are those who have taken up the poison pen as their contribution to the faith.

They're obnoxious, I grant. And in contrast your comments seem to me to be mere gentle fun-poking. I wonder, though, if their perception is that you are constantly making nasty insinuations about their cherished religion?

I wasn't trying to make a joke when I suggested that a Mormon apologist could be gracious and respectful if one insisted that Joseph Smith was a diabolical impostor because Muhammed was the Seal of the Prophets, but furious if one made a mild joke about Smith. Getting Smith compared to Muhammed is a huge win for Mormonism no matter how harsh the comparison is. I mean, if you tell me that I'm no Stephen Hawking you'll make my day, not upset me—I'll be chuffed that someone actually thought that worth saying. Mockery, on the other hand, is a deadly serious threat to Mormonism, no matter how gentle the mockery is. So I'm beginning to think that these people may not really be such nasty people; maybe they're just really on edge. They probably perceive your light-hearted comments as vicious attacks on everything they hold dear and are reacting in what they perceive as the same vein.

[_Lemmie]

...Mockery, on the other hand, is a deadly serious threat to Mormonism, no matter how gentle the mockery is.

So I'm beginning to think that these people may not really be such nasty people; maybe they're just really on edge. They probably perceive your light-hearted comments as vicious attacks on everything they hold dear and are reacting in what they perceive as the same vein.

Sounds like a hate crime defense! Lol. Luckily, mopologist poison pens are quite a bit less lethal than the typical weapons used.

[Guest]

Dan defending himself from personal attack, including what he describes above as a disagreeable conspiracy speculation, by specific individuals was explicitly allowed for in our agreement. I'm actually very encouraged to see Dan observing the line we drew together, and doing so explicitly.

Blanket QAnon labels ascribed to the board clearly crosses the "line" he promised to monitor, and I flagged a number of those previously in this thread. In fairness to the letter and spirit of our agreement, I see Dan's comments above as a narrowing the accusation to a "half dozen" people that he finds offensive. I don't believe I have any reason to get worked up about that.

Dan seems to address a small group of ~6 people from this forum who regularly engage Peterson watch-dogging. I don't think he's wrong about that observation -- though it would help to see a specific list of users. If to him those 6 are doing the equivalent of "deep-state" theorizing on all things Peterson, well then as far as our deal goes, he's in bounds firing back that way.

Labeling the neighborhood as "QAnon" is out of bounds. But addressing specific users is his prerogative. I hope that distinction is clear -- it's clear in my mind, anyway. I would hope that Dan's integrity alerts him to the fact that wading into the gray area in between those two distinct places only risks turning good faith into bad faith, and would only make him look bad. For instance, it might be tempting to migrate from a clarifying comment such as, "I think of QAnon and I think of roughly a half dozen folks -- the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board" to something more generic like "that home to ex-LDS QAnon" which now labels the whole forum in just the manner he promised not to do.

I've grown weary of Dan forcing me to circle back, going on 8 months now, to the basic idea that a deal is a deal. I'm hopeful that Dan has decided, finally, to express good faith all around on our agreement. If so, it will show in what he says online over time. If not, I'll probably have to get a bit more aggressive and would offer in the mean time to simply nullify our deal on confirmation that Dan and/or the Interpreter have forwarded my donation on to another charity (this time, one of my choosing).

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Who are the 6 ex-LDS QAnon, whatever that actually means?

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

Labeling the neighborhood as "QAnon" is out of bounds. But addressing specific users is his prerogative. it's clear in my mind, anyway. I would hope that Dan's integrity alerts him to the fact that wading into the gray area in between those two distinct places only risks turning good faith into bad faith, and would only make him look bad. For instance, it might be tempting to migrate from a clarifying comment such as, "I think of QAnon and I think of roughly a half dozen folks -- the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board" to something more generic like "that home to ex-LDS QAnon" which now labels the whole forum in just the manner he promised not to do.

Good point, but i do feel that implying that Mormondiscussions is associated with and harbors a QAnon chapter has taken that extra step:

Peterson [in reference to associations with Dr. Shades]:

...But I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with QAnon.

[when asked to explain the association]:

...the Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon -- on a certain message board that it would be churlish of me to identify further.

Yes, he’s defining “association” in that passive-aggressive way that allows for indignant deniability. You know, the way honest people who keep their promises do. But you are correct, Dr. Moore. Technically, it probably doesn’t count.

And no I’m not rolling my eyes so hard my contact just fell out. I am just tearing up at the way an apologist keeps his word. It’s downright godly.

[Guest]

Who are the 6 ex-LDS QAnon, whatever that actually means?

- Doc

Obviously the persons who have documented Peterson’s extensive plagiarism are QAnon, right? Or maybe not. How do you get a conspiracy theory out of the full and irrefutable documention of regularly repeated plagiarism?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I've grown weary of Dan forcing me to circle back, going on 8 months now, to the basic idea that a deal is a deal. I'm hopeful that Dan has decided, finally, to express good faith all around on our agreement. If so, it will show in what he says online over time. If not, I'll probably have to get a bit more aggressive and would offer in the mean time to simply nullify our deal on confirmation that Dan and/or the Interpreter have forwarded my donation on to another charity (this time, one of my choosing).

Dr. Moore,

Please make sure to have The Interpreter forward your donation to MormonStories, care of John Dehlin. https://www.mormonstories.org/donate/

MormonStories can then put The Interpreter on their list of donors. That would be something for the ages.

Or, in the alternative, you could also have The Interpreter forward your donation to Sacred Space, Kate Kelly's organization. I would love to see The Interpreter on Kate Kelly's donor list.

And, there is always the Maxwell Institute. I don't think Dan would ever get over having to donate to the Maxwell Institute.

Finally, there is always the Utah Gay And Lesbian Alliance. Dan would probably stroke out if The Interpreter had to write a check to that charity.

[_Philo Sofee]

The assumption here is Dan has integrity. We all know the answer to that.....

[_Physics Guy]

Sounds like a hate crime defense! ... Luckily, mopologist poison pens are quite a bit less lethal than the typical weapons used.

Well, yes. But exactly. Your reaction is accurate but your qualification is important to me.

Apart from what might have been the odd attempt to mess with somebody's pension, which isn't a completely clear case to me, the nastiness of the Mormon apologists is limited to snide comments on a blog that few people are going to see who haven't already signed the waiver. We have to keep this in perspective. They may fall short of what one would expect from the only true priests of the only true God, but once you've dropped that expectation they're not even on the radar of really bad things in the world. I hope I don't make excuses for people who do make that list, but below a certain point, hey, few people are nearly as good as we should be and I want to be as understanding as possible of anyone who isn't really doing much harm.