I agree that the origin of this piece of misinformation is a key — perhaps the key — piece of evidence that we don’t have. The only source we have is one youtube video and it’s show notes. Either he fabricated it or someone else fabricated it.Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 2:28 pmThe question that I have is where did Robert Boylan get the very detailed idea that “Richard Boylan Nygren” was an AA apologist that lives in Birmingham, AL? And if Smoot and DCP knew who was behind Peter Pan, why didn’t they set the record straight? DCP admitted he knew who Peter Pan was, so why did he run with Boylan’s lie? These guys have some very serious explaining to do.
- Doc
Edit: not Boylan, rather Nygren, derp
Here’s what we don’t have: any evidence that Peterson heard was aware of what was said in that video or the show notes. The first evidence we have that Peterson ever heard about Nygren was Smoot’s comment at Sic et Non. And note that Smoot did not mention the word “black” or apologist in his comment.
So, no one has any evidence that Peterson was aware that Boylson had identified Nygren as black at the time he made the comment that folks are all worked up about.
Is there any evidence that the issue of who Peter Pan was of importance beyond a handful of posters on this board. Did anyone ever use Nygren’s alleged blackness as some kind of street creed for Peter Pan? Or is all we’ve got one YouTube interview and a show note, with zero evidence that Peterson was aware of the content of either?
The narrative being concocted is classic conspiracy theory thinking. Pseudonymous bloggers are a dime a dozen on the internet. Folks here only care about this particular one because they are obsessed with Mormon apologists. The narrative here works only if you assume a conspiracy based on nothing but dislike and distrust of Peterson.
Everything presented so far is perfectly explained by Peterson being told by Parker, in confidence, that Parker is Peter Pan and that Peterson kept the confidence.
In a blog post lampooning Scratch for his accusation and analysis that Smoot is Peter Pan, Peterson says that Peter Pan revealed his in real life identity to him, that it was, as he had earlier predicted, someone he already knew, and that it wasn’t Smoot.
In the comments to that selfsame blog post, Smoot says he heard from the YouTube video that Peter Pan was Richard Nygren from Alabama. He doesn’t say that Nygren is allegedly black, let alone the only apologist.
Peterson responds that he’s never heard of Nygren. He’s already said in the in the post being commented on, that Peter Pan is someone he already knew. To turn that into “perpetuating” the claim that a black apologist named Richard Nygren is beyond ludicrous. All you have to do is read the words, which say the opposite of what is being claimed.
The notion that Peterson had some duty to clear the record is also ludicrous. The “record” was one guy in a videotape partially repeated in a blog comment. All this comes down to a nitpicking claim that Peterson has some obligation to say “Peter Pan isn’t named Richard Nygren” despite the fact that what he said meant that Peter Pan could not be named Richard Nygren.
This whole notion that Peterson is a racist because he perpetuated a false claim that Peter Pan was black is a completely manufactured nontroversy.
