Defending the Absurd takes a toll?

[drumdude]

Louis Midgley
Posted March 21, 2013
“Scratch” has hunches, and lots of bilge and bile, but, as far as I can see, no independent reality. “Scratch” has been a useful name under which wild, unfounded speculation which he calls his so-called “intel,” often announcing a qualification on his speculation that he is not really sure if he has it right. Kish actually has a name and his identity and portions of his career are rather easily known. I agree that it seems that when Kish is busy opining up a storm, that “Scratch” tends to disappear, and when “Scratch” is engaged in wild speculation (sometimes called “intel”), then Kish is dark.

[Rivendale]

Louis Midgley
Posted March 21, 2013
“Scratch” has hunches, and lots of bilge and bile, but, as far as I can see, no independent reality. “Scratch” has been a useful name under which wild, unfounded speculation which he calls his so-called “intel,” often announcing a qualification on his speculation that he is not really sure if he has it right. Kish actually has a name and his identity and portions of his career are rather easily known. I agree that it seems that when Kish is busy opining up a storm, that “Scratch” tends to disappear, and when “Scratch” is engaged in wild speculation (sometimes called “intel”), then Kish is dark.

They have also been wrong in some of their Doxing attempts. Chino_Blanco comes to mind. But it does make one suspect deep anger at people who disagree with them. The Blake Ostler threat to ruin a career is similar to Bill Reel's recent fiasco with Peter Pan showing up to flex some brotherly heat at his workplace. These are the things of Danite lure and the origins of defending at all costs. I also believe as said earlier that certain personality types get hyper juiced up when immersed in Mormonism as do members of Unions lining a scab picket line.

[drumdude]

Just found the thread where DCP outed Chino Blanco as Dr Scratch. Hilarious!

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 4&t=126675

[Marcus]

They have also been wrong in some of their Doxing attempts. Chino_Blanco comes to mind. But it does make one suspect deep anger at people who disagree with them....

Yes. On the word of a troll who long ago posted here as Smokey, DCP announced that Lemmie, the person who posted about his plagiarism, was actually "_____." He was incorrect, but still, he posted the professor's name, her department, the University at which she taught, and the Borough in NYC in which she lived and worked. On the basis of a tip from a troll best known here for his neo-nazi stance and denial of the holocaust. (In other words, a true troll, not a "troll" like canpakes and me! )

He later retracted, but i always wondered about the nasty emails the professor he mistakenly doxxed may have received, and her utter confusion, i am sure, as to why.

[MsJack]

As I detailed in my recent MBR interview, I did not get into BYU the first time I applied.

I had something of a love-hate relationship with an apologist (now ex-apologist) whom we all know but whom I won't name. He was about 10 years older than me, so ~28 to my 18. I told this person in private that I hadn't gotten into BYU. I was devastated.

Not even a week later, he posted on two different forums (in response to a joke I'd made that he didn't like) that I hadn't gotten into BYU. Obviously I was embarrassed. I didn't want the people on these two forums to know that I was even applying to BYU, let alone that I hadn't gotten in.

When I was like, what the hell, why would you post something sensitive that I told you in confidence?? His reply was basically, "You're a critic of the church. Anything goes."

I could not believe that he was, with a straight face, claiming it was fine to out a teenage girl's sensitive, private information over online criticisms of Mormonism. But that really is the attitude that a lot of apologists have. Once you're branded a "critic," the attitude is, "anything goes." You're the enemy. A non-person.

Sure, some won't personally stoop as low as others. Some don't dox, some don't contact employers and higher education administrators, some don't engage in crude insults, some don't gang up mercilessly on young women who have asked to not be contacted anymore. But they almost all share at least one feature in common: a culture of public silence when it comes to other apologists' bad behavior. And this culture of silence allows the bad behavior to continue. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

Okay, but maybe the apologists are totally having conversations in private and doing their best to reign in their worst elements without publicly embrassing them? I doubt it. Many people don't realize that I only posted my Schryver thread after I was absolutely sure that the apologists had had multiple opportunities to address Schryver's behavior with him in private. They absolutely had the power to stop the thread from happening, but they refused to tell him to get back on the straight and narrow, even in private where there would be relatively little embarrassment for him. I think, so long as this behavior is directed at people they don't like (meaning anyone even loosely branded a "critic"), they're fine with it.

The Bible says, "But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning" (1 Tim 5:20). There isn't supposed to be a culture of silence; we're supposed to publicly rebuke fellow believers who behave badly, especially "elders" (which all Mormon apologists claim to be). There are exceptions (yes, we all love Kevin Barney), but in my view, this is just one more way that LDS apologists routinely behave like false Christians.

[Bill_Billiams]

As I detailed in my recent MBR interview, I did not get into BYU the first time I applied.

I had something of a love-hate relationship with an apologist (now ex-apologist) whom we all know but whom I won't name. He was about 10 years older than me, so ~28 to my 18. I told this person in private that I hadn't gotten into BYU. I was devastated.

Not even a week later, he posted on two different forums (in response to a joke I'd made that he didn't like) that I hadn't gotten into BYU. Obviously I was embarrassed. I didn't want the people on these two forums to know that I was even applying to BYU, let alone that I hadn't gotten in.

When I was like, what the hell, why would you post something sensitive that I told you in confidence?? His reply was basically, "You're a critic of the church. Anything goes."

I could not believe that he was, with a straight face, claiming it was fine to out a teenage girl's sensitive, private information over online criticisms of Mormonism. But that really is the attitude that a lot of apologists have. Once you're branded a "critic," the attitude is, "anything goes." You're the enemy. A non-person.

Sure, some won't personally stoop as low as others. Some don't dox, some don't contact employers and higher education administrators, some don't engage in crude insults, some don't gang up mercilessly on young women who have asked to not be contacted anymore. But they almost all share at least one feature in common: a culture of public silence when it comes to other apologists' bad behavior. And this culture of silence allows the bad behavior to continue. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

Okay, but maybe the apologists are totally having conversations in private and doing their best to reign in their worst elements without publicly embrassing them? I doubt it. Many people don't realize that I only posted my Schryver thread after I was absolutely sure that the apologists had had multiple opportunities to address Schryver's behavior with him in private. They absolutely had the power to stop the thread from happening, but they refused to tell him to get back on the straight and narrow, even in private where there would be relatively little embarrassment for him. I think, so long as this behavior is directed at people they don't like (meaning anyone even loosely branded a "critic"), they're fine with it.

The Bible says, "But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning" (1 Tim 5:20). There isn't supposed to be a culture of silence; we're supposed to publicly rebuke fellow believers who behave badly, especially "elders" (which all Mormon apologists claim to be). There are exceptions (yes, we all love Kevin Barney), but in my view, this is just one more way that LDS apologists routinely behave like false Christians.

Those are astute observations. I think that is what it really boils down to... Once someone is a "critic" then anything goes. It keeps happening because the behavior is either encouraged or no one has the courage to call it out.

[Rivendale]

I could name a dozen apologist that have been asked during several incidents over the past 5 years as to why they stay silent. From the POX to the SEC scandals to the most blatant frauds in Mormonism and they all go into sleep paralysis mode. They all really love the offensive strategy to the point of abhorrent almost criminal tactics. Take a few hours and just look at how the reverse Peterson obsession board deals with critics. There is never genuine dialogue by believers other than ingrained platitudes from previous leaders. And it isn't just there. It is ingrained in the fabric of Mormon culture all through Utah Idaho and Arizona. This is not a snapshot of normal human behavior, it is a culture that has been cultivated by polygamy and secrecy.

[High Spy]

I could name a dozen apologist that have been asked during several incidents over the past 5 years as to why they stay silent. From the POX to the SEC scandals to the most blatant frauds in Mormonism and they all go into sleep paralysis mode. They all really love the offensive strategy to the point of abhorrent almost criminal tactics. Take a few hours and just look at how the reverse Peterson obsession board deals with critics. There is never genuine dialogue by believers other than ingrained platitudes from previous leaders. And it isn't just there. It is ingrained in the fabric of Mormon culture all through Utah Idaho and Arizona. This is not a snapshot of normal human behavior, it is a culture that has been cultivated by polygamy and secrecy.

They're big into the fable that if the Book of Mormon is true, then a whole long list of other things must be true.

The words of men mingled with scripture. But they are the prime example of falling for the Pious Fraud.

[Res Ipsa]

They have also been wrong in some of their Doxing attempts. Chino_Blanco comes to mind. But it does make one suspect deep anger at people who disagree with them....

Yes. On the word of a troll who long ago posted here as Smokey, DCP announced that Lemmie, the person who posted about his plagiarism, was actually "_____." He was incorrect, but still, he posted the professor's name, her department, the University at which she taught, and the Borough in NYC in which she lived and worked. On the basis of a tip from a troll best known here for his neo-nazi stance and denial of the holocaust. (In other words, a true troll, not a "troll" like canpakes and me! )

He later retracted, but i always wondered about the nasty emails the professor he mistakenly doxxed may have received, and her utter confusion, i am sure, as to why.

To call Smokey a "troll" is to defame trolls. He was a true blue believer in the Christian Identity Movement: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... n-identity Racist, as in black folks are subhuman. Antisemitic as in Jews are literally the descendants of demons. That Peterson relied on this truly vile individual to doxx anyone was beyond shameful.

[Gadianton]

Faith Matters is not an authoritarian structure. You’re blowing smoke/BS.

Please, MG, you're really outdoing yourself here. I did not say "faith maters" is authoritarian. The Mormon Church is authoritarian. Faith Matters is a fluff, just-so, shallow dive into Mormon-related topics intended to keep members positive about staying in the boat.

Silly sheep, right?

Well yes, this is what I've been saying.

You don’t have to scroll farther than three headers down to find a discussion on Fowler’s Stages of Faith

I've tried to explain to you in the past that Fowler's stages are not prescriptive. But even if they were, all it would mean is that those living in Scientology's Sea Org who are questioning will reach stage 5 at the same time they make OT8. But they must keep to "present-time" and eschew wandering thoughts and urges to flee.