Both the Mopologists, and the institutional Church more generally, are really bad when it comes to issues of both race and censorship. Hopefully I don't need to go into a lot of detail, but suffice it to say, things like the Priesthood Ban, the September Six, and etc., etc. are example enough to show that there have been problems.
And, indeed, the Mopologists have engaged in censorship, too: just note the number of posters here who've been censored/banned by DCP after expressing views he disagreed with. But I think that Dr. Peterson has at last come to a point where his loyalty to his (incredibly ____) friends cannot be ignored.
Russell C. McGregor, one of Dr. Peterson's best and longest friends, wrote this today:
Russell C. McGregor wrote:It's a term of abuse used as a dog-whistle by a certain kind of bigot. Some bigots use "kike," others use "nigg*r," still others use "spic," and yet others use "mopologist."
Lemmie already launched a thread laying the blame at McGregor's feet, but Dr. Peterson has the power to ban people who do things like this, and he's been busy the past several days threatening all kinds of people with banning for far less than this. America is on fire right now. Either Dan Peterson deletes Pahoran's post, or he lives with the consequences of doing nothing.
Peterson really is tone-deaf. How else to explain that he thought this was a good example to use in a comment:
It is also true that it is wrong to murder Jews. But I can't actually prove it. So, gemli, if you feel no "psychological necessity" to believe that it's wrong to murder Jews, you're free to swear the Führereid. We absolutists will be waiting to arrest you when you begin to express your conviction in this regard.
Unbelievable. Especially after he brags regularly about his father’s role during WWII, using examples like this is thoughtless and vastly inappropriate.
Coach P. periodically goes off the deep end (like with the lynching photo) and his cohort waterboy kiwi57 tries too hard to carry the water and crosses the line as well.
Please look at what you are doing kiwi57. The religious defenders always go to excess in their support of their cult leader.
His choice to refer to the Jewish Holocaust is interesting. He could have made his point with many other examples. This is an extension of KiwiFruit’s post and I see it as DCP condoning that behavior. Much stronger than an upvote on his part.
Just what is the basis for white middle class educated men to think that they have it as bad as a European Jew during the 1940’s? Or even a Black man today? I would like to see DCP try to explain.
Unbelievable. Especially after he brags regularly about his father’s role during WWII, using examples like this is thoughtless and vastly inappropriate.
Change the word Jews to Mormons and watch how fast mr. spineless grows a spine and begins showing how and why it is illegal and immoral to go about killing Mormons........Peterson is a joke. A joke to Mopologetcs and Mormonism.
Peterson quote edited: "It is also true that it is wrong to murder Jews Mormons. But I can't actually prove it." Surely him and his man baby partner Lou the mini-Elohim, would take notice and rage against this for pages? Yet when it is anyone else, they shrug their shoulders, go back to reading their scriptures and genuflect to Russell M. Nelson.
His choice to refer to the Jewish Holocaust is interesting. He could have made his point with many other examples. This is an extension of KiwiFruit’s post and I see it as DCP condoning that behavior. Much stronger than an upvote on his part.
Just what is the basis for white middle class educated men to think that they have it as bad as a European Jew during the 1940’s? Or even a Black man today? I would like to see DCP try to explain.
He appears to be conflating a moral position with an evidentiary claim.
"Is it wrong to kill Jews?" is a subjective question of morality and is dependant on one's philosophical position. Most right minded individuals would take the position, based on their values beliefs and morals that yes, it is wrong to kill Jews for being Jewish. But for others, their values beliefs and morals allowed for a different response - those people would say no, it wasn't wrong to kill Jews.
"Is the Book of Mormon a record of actual events?" is not a subjective question dependant on values beliefs or morals. It's a question that can be objectively weighed based on the preponderance of available evidence.
There's a difference. Peterson knows there's a difference, but wants to move away from responding to the point at hand. So he pulls a Godwins Law in order to disrupt his own blog comments.
Perhaps Peterson might ponder the question "Is it wrong to kill a drunken, passed-out man in order to steal something valuable?" I'll wager he'll find a way to justify senseless and unnecessary killing in that particular circumstance. He keeps reinforcing the correctness of the MI's decision in 2012 to forcibly distance the institution from Peterson and his Mopologetic ilk. They are really bad examples of Mormons, Christians.
His choice to refer to the Jewish Holocaust is interesting. He could have made his point with many other examples. This is an extension of KiwiFruit’s post and I see it as DCP condoning that behavior. Much stronger than an upvote on his part.
Just what is the basis for white middle class educated men to think that they have it as bad as a European Jew during the 1940’s? Or even a Black man today? I would like to see DCP try to explain.
He appears to be conflating a moral position with an evidentiary claim.
"Is it wrong to kill Jews?" is a subjective question of morality and is dependant on one's philosophical position. Most right minded individuals would take the position, based on their values beliefs and morals that yes, it is wrong to kill Jews for being Jewish. But for others, their values beliefs and morals allowed for a different response - those people would say no, it wasn't wrong to kill Jews.
"Is the Book of Mormon a record of actual events?" is not a subjective question dependant on values beliefs or morals. It's a question that can be objectively weighed based on the preponderance of available evidence.
There's a difference. Peterson knows there's a difference, but wants to move away from responding to the point at hand. So he pulls a Godwins Law in order to disrupt his own blog comments.
Perhaps Peterson might ponder the question "Is it wrong to kill a drunken, passed-out man in order to steal something valuable?" I'll wager he'll find a way to justify senseless and unnecessary killing in that particular circumstance. He keeps reinforcing the correctness of the MI's decision in 2012 to forcibly distance the institution from Peterson and his Mopologetic ilk. They are really bad examples of Mormons, Christians.
Coach P doesn't like objectivity when it comes to Mormon truth claims. When they are falsified, questions about what is truth and denials about official positions of the church become the norm.
"Tone deaf" is a good summary. One of the points he's trying to make is predictable and eye-rolling, but it isn't totally invalid. Coach is saying, for the 12,000th time without ever having googled a counterargument, that science can't confirm a moral imperative, and if only scientific facts matter, then so-called morals don't. Now, there is a famous ethics dilemma that everyone knows about regarding "lying to the SS to protect a Jewish family hiding in the basement" -- it's not this context, but allusions to the Holocaust aren't necessarily out of bounds for ethical discussions.
That being said, Coach's examples are "tone deaf", like someone who doesn't have an inner sense of how to step about a sensitive issue. His example quoted by Lemmie at 11:27 is especially grating: "Huh Gemli, what's stopping you from goin' out there and killing ....?"
It's also quite revealing that he'd desire consequences so grave to hinge upon his own narrow criteria -- he's holding everybody hostage, and if we don't agree with him, we submit to the Führer and participate ourselves.
Consig, you're surprised? REALLY? You're surprised a man who posts a photo of a lynching and then yuks it up about it is so comfortable with racist language he allows his Mormon buddy to drop a hard 'r' and then leaves it up for posterity?
He really ought to delete it and put Kiwi in "Time Out" for a while. By leaving it up, he's leaving himself vulnerable to all kinds of bad consequences: from Patheos, from BYU admin, and from Church leadership. Allowing it to stand, particularly given the social turmoil of the moment, is an incredibly shortsighted move.
My understanding is that the n word has a long and important history in the United States. I even ran into it from Mark Twain. I do not wish to censor Twain though some folks have so wished. I think to equate Mopologist and the n word is an extreme imbalance but the problem is not in allowing the naughty word but in the comparison.
My understanding is that the n word has a long and important history in the United States. I even ran into it from Mark Twain. I do not wish to censor Twain though some folks have so wished. I think to equate Mopologist and the n word is an extreme imbalance but the problem is not in allowing the naughty word but in the comparison.
The comparison is what is objectionable. Some LDS Apologists, Mopologists, seem to have latched on to this comparison where they place themselves as some type of victim position. For the most part they use it within the group only with each other, every once in a while this tone deaf comparision leaks out of their loony bin and makes an appearence.
This is one from the late Bill Hamblin.
Bigotry
All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:
“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ’em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”
It simply won’t do to insist that you’re not really a bigot because what you believe about Mormonism is really true. Anti-Semites honestly think they’re not bigots either–what they believe about Jews is really true: “I’m not bigoted! There really is an international Jewish banking conspiracy.”
My understanding is that the n word has a long and important history in the United States. I even ran into it from Mark Twain. I do not wish to censor Twain though some folks have so wished. I think to equate Mopologist and the n word is an extreme imbalance but the problem is not in allowing the naughty word but in the comparison.
The comparison is what is objectionable.
This is one from the late Bill Hamblin.
Bigotry
All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike.
I am pretty sure that ,the comparison is what is objectionable, is what I said. We are in agreement there. The title of the thread is at best unfocused.
Perhaps I could note that I find the terms Morg, and morgbot, even Mopologist offensive. They are not in the same class as the n word however.
With all due respect, Dr. Huckleberry, I think that the issue is more layered and nuanced that it might seem at first. Look: I already know that Dr. Peterson isn't going to edit the post. There is simply no way in hell that he's going to do that, regardless of how nice a gesture it would be. And as Dr. Robbers already pointed out, Peterson failed to upvote it--despite the fact that Kiwi is allegedly his "friend." Part of the reason why Peterson won't edit it is because he's thinking to himself: "No! I won't be censored!" I can guarantee that there are images of American flags unfurling in his mind, and he's ready to throw down over his 1st Amendment rights, and so on: "I won't be silenced!". Plus, I'm sure he's of the belief (sort of like Mark Z. of Facebook) that he shouldn't be held responsible for things that others say in the "Comments" of his blog.
*But* there is an interesting bit of history here, in that DCP, Hamblin, Kiwi, and many other Mopologists have aggressively held Dr. Shades's feet to the fire, for more than a decade, about the criticism that gets posted *here*. Just ask Dr. Shades how much grief he's had to take from these guys on this particular issue. And Dr. Shades, I believe, *has* deleted things at certain times. Meanwhile, scores of people have been banned and censored for far less on "Sic et Non."
As for "Mopologist" as a term--I'm glad to consider other options, but "Mopologist" has a lot of definitional value, I think. You can't just say "apologist," because that lumps these guys in with *all* apologists, including non-LDS apologists, like C.S. Lewis. As much as they'd like to be compared to him, it just doesn't make sense. So why not "Mormon Apologists," then? Well, again: that lumps them in with people like Richard Bushman and Teryl Givens, who just don't behave the way they do. (Exhibit A, at the moment, would be Midgley's weird fixation on Gina Colvin.) So, Mopologists is a useful term because you instantly know what it refers to: defenders of Mormonism who behave in rancid ways. This includes Peterson and Midgley, obviously, but also people like Kiwi, Greg Smith, John Gee, Allen Wyatt, and quite a few others. Is the term "offensive"? I don't think it is: it's descriptive. If it's "offensive," it's because the people it refers to are "offensive" in their behavior.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I can’t say that the term white privilege is always used as an illegitimate rhetorical device, and there is certainly still plenty of evidence that black people are sometimes disadvantaged in unfair ways. (So, for that matter, though seldom in such serious respects, are short people and unattractive people. We live in a fallen world.) But it seems to me that white privilege is often weaponized, deployed as a way of silencing or marginalizing those who don’t toe the required ideological party line or voice the correct shibboleths. It stigmatizes them as morally defective. But that seems to me illegitimate and, yes, divisive — an example of the very divisiveness that the current street protests ought to be warning us to surrender.
(italics ibid)
So, instead of protesting the death of George Floyd and all the other black people who've been killed by police, Dr. Peterson is saying that the protests ought to be about those times when the term "white privilege" is "weaponized"? *That* is what people should be protesting? Really?
I would be surprised if Peter$on didn’t immediately ban Dean Robbers. Dean’s vastly superior intellect and calm demeanor would utterly devastate Sic et Non and its denizens. Dean was a HUGE threat to Peter$on and he had to be immediately banned.
ETA Crap! I think I posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry for the derail.
In a different blog entry Peterson continues on a theme...
I can’t say that the term white privilege is always used as an illegitimate rhetorical device, and there is certainly still plenty of evidence that black people are sometimes disadvantaged in unfair ways. (So, for that matter, though seldom in such serious respects, are short people and unattractive people. We live in a fallen world.) But it seems to me that white privilege is often weaponized, deployed as a way of silencing or marginalizing those who don’t toe the required ideological party line or voice the correct shibboleths. It stigmatizes them as morally defective. But that seems to me illegitimate and, yes, divisive — an example of the very divisiveness that the current street protests are plainly telling us to surrender.
Sometimes disadvantaged in unfair ways?
He equates racism with short people and unattractive people (what does he class as "unattractive"?) being disadvantaged?
