I've always distinguished between the Shades board as a whole and the very prominent and vocal subset of its participants to which I refer -- partly but not entirely in jest -- as the "Ex-LDS chapter of QAnon." (On QAnon, see https://www.nationalreview..... They're a stunningly weird bunch.
A backtrack, of sorts...obviously he read your comment, Dr. Moore:
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.
Although in my opinion, labeling people QANON these days is the equivalent to people wondering if he is operating a chapter of the KKK there on his board, with a few select members. Is the group on Daniel C. Peterson’s blog, Sic Et Non, a chapter of the KKK? Or simply agents of the SMC? Obviously not. Well, at least not the first.
Haha, great find Lemmie. I actually saw that quote and nearly brought attention to it, I can't remember why I didn't. Indeed, no, he has not always made that distinction, in fact, his entire program until Dr. Moore through a wrench into it, has been to avoid that distinction, and he only makes it now as he's forced to.
Allow me to explain: A common political tactic is to saddle a class or community with the perceived worst actions of representatives, in order to encourage the community to denounce the representatives. This has long been his MO. So please, nobody should believe his "backtracking" here. And nobody does.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Exactly, Gad. And his “backtrack” was in response to this:
TimErnst • a day ago
After having read the majority of the comments on this blog, I finally reach the conclusion that Dr. Exiled, Moksha and others are having a quibbling contest over at their own hate-sponsored blog. Their blog apparently consists of many disaffected members, and might be referentially known as QAnon?
Exactly, Gad. And his “backtrack” was in response to this:
TimErnst • a day ago
After having read the majority of the comments on this blog, I finally reach the conclusion that Dr. Exiled, Moksha and others are having a quibbling contest over at their own hate-sponsored blog. Their blog apparently consists of many disaffected members, and might be referentially known as QAnon?
A post he is allowing to stand, by the way, giving further credence to your theory about this as a tactic.
It is a silly transparent tactic designed to illicit an "other" response to those who point out that Dr. P, Midge, and/or Kiwi57 may be straying into church cheerleader mode with their silly apologetics. He is using the Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing. Then when called out for your boorish conduct, you have an easy, ready made excuse available to put people off of your trail by accusing your accuser of falsely accusing you because they are the supposed guilty ones doing the Saul Alinsky thing. It creates doubt and reinforces the group.
Mormons believe in nonsense, NDE's, magic stones, that Joseph didn't invent polygamy so he could target some young women for sexual encounters, that there is actually evidence of Nephites, etc., etc. So, accuse the accusers of being involved with conspiracy theories. It just might bolster the faithful or at least get them to not look and find out the truth, for a short time anyway.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
...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.
And still...
Louis Midgley DanielPeterson a day ago
Dan: I strongly suggest sending MOKSHA back to the hate board for at least several months where he can decide if he is not going to try to stink up sic et non with his disgusting antics.
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....
Louis Midgley Moksha • 4 hours ago
And virtually no Latter-day Saints have heard of Moksha, or his truly disgusting home board.
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....
Louis Midgley Kiwi57 14 hours ago
Moksha does but finds that merely amusing. Moksha and his close associates have Professor Peterson and me, as well as our Kiwi friend as a targets of invective on their hate board.
Wow, so does he have any official capacity with the Interpreter? When you read items with factual errors at the Shades board, I wish you would post a correction at that time. I like getting correct information.
—-
Louis Midgley Moksha • a day ago
Moksha is now insisting that someone take on the job of correcting misinformation for people who float half-submerged in a sewer of misinformation. Sorry, no rational person would take on such a task.
