To those who have been honestly and sincerely trying to help me, I thank you.
I wasn’t angry, and I had not lost my temper. I’m sorry some of you read it that way. My purpose in writing was definitely not to blow some steam. I didn’t take offense at what Dr. Smeed wrote, but I believe his writing was meant to cause offense by his use of harsh, rude, belittling language directed toward “My name here,†who asked question #50742. I do get passionate (but stay logical) when I see someone in authority bully and mistreat another person, but apparently I am the only one who saw that. And there was much more in Dr. Smeed’s reply that I didn’t ask about, but I thought was meant to give offense. If you didn’t like my language it may be because I was quoting Dr. Smeed, and responding in his own style of writing, except more humble. My comments were meant to be taken as humorous, tongue in cheek; note the warning I gave at the end: “So, Dr. Smeed, just remember, ‘I have to answer your lack of sense of humor. Have you no concept of tongue in cheek?’â€
I don’t blame anyone for not appreciating my humor in my last post. It was meant to reflect that of Dr. Smeed. After all, I asked him some questions and he challenged me to answer them. Perhaps I succeeded too well. I guess it is understandable that one does not appreciate humor when that humor makes light of one of your own tight knit group, or one of your heroes.
To the charge that I showed Dr. Smeed a complete lack of respect, I plead true, for the most part. I do believe, however, that I showed Dr. Smeed more respect than he showed “My name here.†I believe we all should show respect to one another as brothers and sisters in the gospel.
Which brings me to another issue. I don’t believe in showing a Board writer more respect, just because they are a Board writer. I don’t believe that we need to worship the ground the Board writers walk on, and that it is never kosher to challenge or criticize what they say. I’m sure some Board writers would agree with that.
I don’t think so much deference to Board Writers is healthy for the 100 Hour Board. I write here because I enjoy reading the board and I enjoy continuing discussions generated by the board. On rare occasions I disagree with the Board or criticize a Board Writer. My intention is to improve the Board. I notice that corrections are sometimes posted, and some of the better writers admit to making mistakes. But other Writers dismiss objections with an imperious wave of the hand, thus abusing the power they have. They are given power by people who think Board Writers deserve more respect than the hoi polloi, like me. Yes, there is definitely a double standard operating here.
Apparently this discussion group is more of a fan club for hero worshipers than a chance to give genuine and honest response. That is regrettable. I believe that everyone, including Board Writers, needs to be held accountable for what they write.
I’m not really surprised that most everyone chose to attack me, rather than address the facts and issues I brought up, or criticize Dr. Smeed. It is, ironically, stereotypical liberal behavior. And I’m sure most of you are not all that liberal. Just, apparently too liberal. I think that rather than showing something about me, it shows something about you. Uguisrweerd was an exception, and I thank him or her for it.
The usual suspects who choose to call people names, as a substitute for helpful discussion, were at it again.
Actually, Black Sheep, I was joking when I suggested that you would stick up for me. I knew you wouldn’t, but my joke was meant to bring something out about you, and it succeeded. .
I did want an answer to my questions. I wanted to hold Dr. Smeed accountable for what he wrote. Some of the things he said puzzled me, because I wondered how a reasonable and intelligent person could believe such things if he were informed? I thought perhaps he could enlighten me in the errors of my thinking. Or perhaps Fred could, or someone else.
Foreman, I always think long and hard before I write something. Please don’t belittle me by assuming that I don’t. I’d say we just disagree, but I’m not sure how you feel about the issues. I only know what you think are my faults. You might be right about my faults, but they are irrelevant to the discussion I was trying to have.
Lastly, I think most of you who wrote in the last thread on this topic are taking this way more seriously than I am. Lighten up, people!
liberal writers
Moderator: Marduk
Vorpal,
We openly admit that we as writers are fallible, and that's (usually) okay. We also are just fine with exchange between readers and writers. Sometimes the defensive reflexes kick in when we feel judged for what was actually the best answer we could give. But that's not the point of this thread (plus that point has been argued before ad nauseum), so I'll move on.
I really think more issues are coming from how you say things, not what you're saying. We also know (note other questions this week) that there are board writers all across the spectrum. Yet we are all friends and respect each other. How? Because we try not to make associations like "liberal=wrong." We are all reasonably intelligent (and most of our readers are, too), and yet we have differing opinions. This is because the world has very, very few absolutes, especially in arenas dominated by political parties created by men.
I am, in all honesty, probably one of the most conservative writers. I actually agree with you on a lot of points, but your expressions of them often come off as absolutist and intolerant, which is not what we are about. Maybe it's not what you're about either, but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.
You can't expect us to always acquiesce to popular opinion anymore than you intend or feel the need to. People don't work that way. Not us, not you. That, also, is okay.
You said "I’m not really surprised that most everyone chose to attack me, rather than address the facts and issues I brought up, or criticize Dr. Smeed." However, several of your posts came off as an attack not on the ideas, but on the writer. We're ad hominem-ing no more than you. We'll gladly discuss the issues at hand, but not at the expense of others. I extend the same courtesy to you, as well; but if you break that rule, you're bringing it upon yourself from any comers.
I am not going to issue a point-by-point rebuttal, because a)that's way too much time, b)it's going to cause more contention than necessary, and c)it's not my point. My point is that we are a diverse group who have room for everyone, but only as long as EVERYONE is leaving room for differences for everyone else. We don't mind you being here, but please play nice. Please enforce your own rules and talk about the ideas. I find the less I react immediately and the more I try to actually see something from another person's point of view, the more I learn and the more enlightened I become. I hope you find the same thing.
-Foreman
We openly admit that we as writers are fallible, and that's (usually) okay. We also are just fine with exchange between readers and writers. Sometimes the defensive reflexes kick in when we feel judged for what was actually the best answer we could give. But that's not the point of this thread (plus that point has been argued before ad nauseum), so I'll move on.
I really think more issues are coming from how you say things, not what you're saying. We also know (note other questions this week) that there are board writers all across the spectrum. Yet we are all friends and respect each other. How? Because we try not to make associations like "liberal=wrong." We are all reasonably intelligent (and most of our readers are, too), and yet we have differing opinions. This is because the world has very, very few absolutes, especially in arenas dominated by political parties created by men.
I am, in all honesty, probably one of the most conservative writers. I actually agree with you on a lot of points, but your expressions of them often come off as absolutist and intolerant, which is not what we are about. Maybe it's not what you're about either, but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.
You can't expect us to always acquiesce to popular opinion anymore than you intend or feel the need to. People don't work that way. Not us, not you. That, also, is okay.
You said "I’m not really surprised that most everyone chose to attack me, rather than address the facts and issues I brought up, or criticize Dr. Smeed." However, several of your posts came off as an attack not on the ideas, but on the writer. We're ad hominem-ing no more than you. We'll gladly discuss the issues at hand, but not at the expense of others. I extend the same courtesy to you, as well; but if you break that rule, you're bringing it upon yourself from any comers.
I am not going to issue a point-by-point rebuttal, because a)that's way too much time, b)it's going to cause more contention than necessary, and c)it's not my point. My point is that we are a diverse group who have room for everyone, but only as long as EVERYONE is leaving room for differences for everyone else. We don't mind you being here, but please play nice. Please enforce your own rules and talk about the ideas. I find the less I react immediately and the more I try to actually see something from another person's point of view, the more I learn and the more enlightened I become. I hope you find the same thing.
-Foreman
-
Waldorf and Sauron
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:37 pm
All,
I found some extremely applicable advice in a question Vorpal Blade asked long ago:
I think we could all work better at heeding that advice, whether we agree with vorpal blade, disagree with vorpal blade, or are vorpal blade.
-sauron
I found some extremely applicable advice in a question Vorpal Blade asked long ago:
From http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=26487.I was very impressed with Elder Robert S. Wood's talk in the April 2006 General Conference. The talk continues to make me think about my behavior in Internet forums. I personally needed to hear the talk. If I may quote a few lines from the talk: "Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?... Before you launch into your criticism, she said, you must first present the strongest case for the position you are opposing, one that the philosopher himself could accept....We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing 'straw men,' if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character.... It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt."
I think we could all work better at heeding that advice, whether we agree with vorpal blade, disagree with vorpal blade, or are vorpal blade.
-sauron
-
Nanti-SARRMM
- Posts: 1958
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:02 pm
- Location: Beyond the Mountains of the Copper Miners into the Desert of Absolute Boredom
- Contact:
Re: liberal writers
Blasphemy, blasphemy I say!!!vorpal blade wrote: I don’t think so much deference to Board Writers is healthy for the 100 Hour Board.
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.
-
NerdGirl
- President of the Lutheran Sisterhood Gun Club
- Posts: 1810
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:41 am
- Location: Calgary
I just have a few thoughts.
First, I'm probably one of the more liberal people on here, if you go by the fact that my political compass score is somewhere around a -6,-6*. I've come to realize in the last few years that in a lot of cases political differences are not so much about having different goals but different ideas of how to achieve those goals. We all want peace. We all want to be happy. We all want to eliminate poverty. We just disagree on what government should or should not do in order to make those things happen. This is a generalization, of course, and it's not true in every case, but I'll give you a really basic example. Let's take the idea of helping the poor. I think that since I'm paying taxes to the government, a good way for them to use that money is to set up programs to help poor people. Someone who is more conservative would probably like to pay lower taxes and contribute to charities as they see fit. That's an oversimplification, but I think you can see my point. We both have the same goal, which is sharing our abundance with those less fortunate, but we have different ideas of how to do it. When we realize that we want the same thing to happen, we can come together with our different ideas and try to figure out the best way to achieve our common goal. Since I've had this realization, I've come to really appreciate the input of people like Vorpal who are much more conservative than I am because they often have ideas that I haven't thought about. I also appreciate the political discussions on here because I'm an astronomer, not a political scientist, and I've learned a lot from many of you who know more about history, world events, and politics than I do.
Another thought. I don't think that this message board is a fan club for hero worship, but I do think that a lot of us really appreciate what the Board Writers do for us. They spend a good deal of time writing and researching to provide us with entertainment, information, and advice. They don't get paid for what they do, and they don't even get publicly recognized for what they do since they write anonymously, so I don't think it's inappropriate for people to express their appreciation on here.
Last thought. Vorpal, I don't know if you actually feel this way or not, but sometimes your posts make it sound like you believe that someone who has liberal political views could not possibly be intelligent or righteous. I have pretty liberal views, but I'm very active in the Church and very committed to the Gospel. I have a master's degree and I'll have a Ph.D. in about a year, so I think that qualifies me as at least somewhat intelligent (although I am experiencing the phenomenon of how the more you learn, the more you realize just how little you know). This is a difficult medium in which to communicate, because it's hard to see the feelings and intentions behind what people write, but when you use phrases like "stereotypical liberal behavior" or "apparently too liberal", it makes me feel like my character is being attacked, even if I haven't said much in the discussion. I highly doubt that that is your intention, but it sometimes comes across that way. That makes me feel very defensive, until I calm down and realize that you probably weren't trying to attack anyone.
*I was actually a bit surprised that the Political Compass test gave me the score it did, because I'm very pro-military and pretty morally conservative, and I answered the questions that way. I would have thought those were things that a political quiz would have associated with being more conservative. Everyone I've talked to, though, has been surprised at how far down and to the left it put them, so I guess they just have a different zero point than we typically think of. I was, however, expecting to be in that quadrant.
First, I'm probably one of the more liberal people on here, if you go by the fact that my political compass score is somewhere around a -6,-6*. I've come to realize in the last few years that in a lot of cases political differences are not so much about having different goals but different ideas of how to achieve those goals. We all want peace. We all want to be happy. We all want to eliminate poverty. We just disagree on what government should or should not do in order to make those things happen. This is a generalization, of course, and it's not true in every case, but I'll give you a really basic example. Let's take the idea of helping the poor. I think that since I'm paying taxes to the government, a good way for them to use that money is to set up programs to help poor people. Someone who is more conservative would probably like to pay lower taxes and contribute to charities as they see fit. That's an oversimplification, but I think you can see my point. We both have the same goal, which is sharing our abundance with those less fortunate, but we have different ideas of how to do it. When we realize that we want the same thing to happen, we can come together with our different ideas and try to figure out the best way to achieve our common goal. Since I've had this realization, I've come to really appreciate the input of people like Vorpal who are much more conservative than I am because they often have ideas that I haven't thought about. I also appreciate the political discussions on here because I'm an astronomer, not a political scientist, and I've learned a lot from many of you who know more about history, world events, and politics than I do.
Another thought. I don't think that this message board is a fan club for hero worship, but I do think that a lot of us really appreciate what the Board Writers do for us. They spend a good deal of time writing and researching to provide us with entertainment, information, and advice. They don't get paid for what they do, and they don't even get publicly recognized for what they do since they write anonymously, so I don't think it's inappropriate for people to express their appreciation on here.
Last thought. Vorpal, I don't know if you actually feel this way or not, but sometimes your posts make it sound like you believe that someone who has liberal political views could not possibly be intelligent or righteous. I have pretty liberal views, but I'm very active in the Church and very committed to the Gospel. I have a master's degree and I'll have a Ph.D. in about a year, so I think that qualifies me as at least somewhat intelligent (although I am experiencing the phenomenon of how the more you learn, the more you realize just how little you know). This is a difficult medium in which to communicate, because it's hard to see the feelings and intentions behind what people write, but when you use phrases like "stereotypical liberal behavior" or "apparently too liberal", it makes me feel like my character is being attacked, even if I haven't said much in the discussion. I highly doubt that that is your intention, but it sometimes comes across that way. That makes me feel very defensive, until I calm down and realize that you probably weren't trying to attack anyone.
*I was actually a bit surprised that the Political Compass test gave me the score it did, because I'm very pro-military and pretty morally conservative, and I answered the questions that way. I would have thought those were things that a political quiz would have associated with being more conservative. Everyone I've talked to, though, has been surprised at how far down and to the left it put them, so I guess they just have a different zero point than we typically think of. I was, however, expecting to be in that quadrant.
you may not have intended it vorpal, but when you say something like "liberals are like this", and you mean it negatively, you are directly insulting me. i'm not a byu student, i'm not mormon, and i never will be. i am extremely liberal (though not on everything), and saying "I’m not really surprised that most everyone chose to attack me, rather than address the facts and issues I brought up, or criticize Dr. Smeed. It is, ironically, stereotypical liberal behavior. And I’m sure most of you are not all that liberal. Just, apparently too liberal." is belittling to me, a member of this community. it makes you seems small minded and rude. go back and read most of what you wrote. you STILL sound antagonistic against the writers and anyone who agrees with them. you also sound like anyone who is a liberal (like myself) is stupid and doesn't deserve to be heard. Dr. Smeed answered a question that was obviously rude and attacking the writers for no reason in a way that was rude as well. could he have been a bigger person and been nice? sure. but how do you feel when a bunch of people you DON'T KNOW attack you based on something you write on an online forum? it seems to me you get pretty offended, and though you may think you sound rational, your responses do come off as rude and angry, whether you intend them to or not. you always talk about living the gospel, but the quote i pulled above shows you're not living it perfectly. none of you are. and i'm certainly not. but i think we ALL owe it to each other to be respectful and understand each others' feelings. the writers know each other (for the most part) and are going to defend each other based on a real life friendship. many of the readers know them as well. those that are close in real life are going to know how a response is meant based on that relationship. you and i, having no such luxury, must be extra vigilant in how we respond to something because they won't know if we meant something in jest.
the writer's are not in a position of authority over us. we ask them questions, they answer. they're not the boss of us!! if we don't like their answers, we can move on to other forums. i think it's weird you say "I do get passionate (but stay logical) when I see someone in authority bully and mistreat another person, but apparently I am the only one who saw that." why do you think the writer's are authority figures? they're a bunch of broke, silly college students! i think they do a great service, but they're not authority figures.
also, when you're saying you're sorry to someone, you don't blame them for reading you wrong. it sounds like you're saying "sorry you were wrong. too bad for you." and you shouldn't come off so pompous. it really sounds like you think you're better than everyone else here, and maybe you do. but it's a really lame thing to want people to think about you. (i was going to use a more "liberal" word, but i don't want to get in trouble for bad language. using cleaner language is something being a member of this community has helped me with. thanks guys!!) seriously, go back and read this entry as if you don't know the person writing. if you still think it's fine, ok then. but i think you'll see where you come off as a pompous jerk and where you come off as a rationally thinking person. and it's not the latter as often as you'd like to think.
and, really, telling all of us to lighten up after writing such a response of such length just makes me say "practice what you preach, buddy."
the writer's are not in a position of authority over us. we ask them questions, they answer. they're not the boss of us!! if we don't like their answers, we can move on to other forums. i think it's weird you say "I do get passionate (but stay logical) when I see someone in authority bully and mistreat another person, but apparently I am the only one who saw that." why do you think the writer's are authority figures? they're a bunch of broke, silly college students! i think they do a great service, but they're not authority figures.
also, when you're saying you're sorry to someone, you don't blame them for reading you wrong. it sounds like you're saying "sorry you were wrong. too bad for you." and you shouldn't come off so pompous. it really sounds like you think you're better than everyone else here, and maybe you do. but it's a really lame thing to want people to think about you. (i was going to use a more "liberal" word, but i don't want to get in trouble for bad language. using cleaner language is something being a member of this community has helped me with. thanks guys!!) seriously, go back and read this entry as if you don't know the person writing. if you still think it's fine, ok then. but i think you'll see where you come off as a pompous jerk and where you come off as a rationally thinking person. and it's not the latter as often as you'd like to think.
and, really, telling all of us to lighten up after writing such a response of such length just makes me say "practice what you preach, buddy."
beautiful, dirty, rich
-
TheBlackSheep
- The Best
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:42 pm
- Location: Salt Lake County
Hey folks, let's lighten up. Let's not make Fred lock another one of these because we are incapable of being more civil to each other.
I don't mean to ever be a part of a Board writers cloud descending on dissension, and I apologize if I ever have. In the last thread I meant to respond to what was said about me specifically, and then I made a joke. I'm sure that the writers don't ever mean to gang up with each other on someone, but what everyone has said is true. I know the writers (most of them, anyway) and I am pretty good friends with a couple of them, and I know what it is like to be criticized by someone I don't know because of what I've written on the Board. I by no means believe that I'm smarter than anyone, but it's all very touchy. We know this. We know we respond overly harshly to attacks on writers at times. We've talked about it behind the scenes. We're trying to do better, on the Board itself at least. I am definitely not perfect, as almost everything I write has a tendency to come pretty heavily coated in sarcasm. Sauron, thank you for sharing the quote. I need to work on it, for sure.
Dear Vorpal Blade,
I'm doing my best to be very sincere here. If anything sounds sarcastic, it wasn't my intent. I'm trying to bury the hatchet.
I realized that you were joking. I also realized I hadn't been clear enough, so I tried to clear it up. It's fine that you see my motives differently than I do. We're very different people, and I recognize that sometimes I can sound pretty hypocritical. I'm a 20-year-old, not-quite-sure-who-she-is, work in progress.
I'd just really appreciate it if we could keep personal attacks out of it. My liberal-ness has nothing to do with the problems you have with me. Please don't connect it our political disagreements with my character, and please don't call me out on the basis of my character in this forum (which is what I feel like you've been doing). I just don't feel like it's appropriate. If you disagree with something I write or you just don't buy it (like happened with you quoting me on the last thread), just say so. I'll respond and we'll go from there.
There, now I feel all warm and kumbaya-y. Hopefully you all didn't see that as completely superfluous.
I don't mean to ever be a part of a Board writers cloud descending on dissension, and I apologize if I ever have. In the last thread I meant to respond to what was said about me specifically, and then I made a joke. I'm sure that the writers don't ever mean to gang up with each other on someone, but what everyone has said is true. I know the writers (most of them, anyway) and I am pretty good friends with a couple of them, and I know what it is like to be criticized by someone I don't know because of what I've written on the Board. I by no means believe that I'm smarter than anyone, but it's all very touchy. We know this. We know we respond overly harshly to attacks on writers at times. We've talked about it behind the scenes. We're trying to do better, on the Board itself at least. I am definitely not perfect, as almost everything I write has a tendency to come pretty heavily coated in sarcasm. Sauron, thank you for sharing the quote. I need to work on it, for sure.
Dear Vorpal Blade,
I'm doing my best to be very sincere here. If anything sounds sarcastic, it wasn't my intent. I'm trying to bury the hatchet.
I realized that you were joking. I also realized I hadn't been clear enough, so I tried to clear it up. It's fine that you see my motives differently than I do. We're very different people, and I recognize that sometimes I can sound pretty hypocritical. I'm a 20-year-old, not-quite-sure-who-she-is, work in progress.
I'd just really appreciate it if we could keep personal attacks out of it. My liberal-ness has nothing to do with the problems you have with me. Please don't connect it our political disagreements with my character, and please don't call me out on the basis of my character in this forum (which is what I feel like you've been doing). I just don't feel like it's appropriate. If you disagree with something I write or you just don't buy it (like happened with you quoting me on the last thread), just say so. I'll respond and we'll go from there.
There, now I feel all warm and kumbaya-y. Hopefully you all didn't see that as completely superfluous.
For what it's worth, I've found every post on this thread to be very calm and respectful, and I think that's how they're all meant. Especially considering the heat of some former circumstances, I believe we're all doing pretty well. Just a thought.TheBlackSheep wrote:Hey folks, let's lighten up. Let's not make Fred lock another one of these because we are incapable of being more civil to each other.
Unless that's what you meant. I thought it sounded like warning, but I guess you could mean in a general, message board-wide sense. In which case, I obviously agree.
-
Waldorf and Sauron
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:37 pm
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Thanks, NerdGirl, for your kind remarks. I really do appreciate them. And thank you for trying to take us beyond where we have been.NerdGirl wrote:Also, Vorpal: I really hope you don't ever decide to leave the message board, because I really do appreciate most of what you have to say and it makes me think about things I might not have otherwise thought about.
I'm really busy this week. I'm taking a class, eight hours a day, on intellectual property law. In the evenings I'm trying to plant my garden, spring comes early here. So, no time to think long and hard on my comments.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
It was good advice then, it is good advice now. How did you ever dig up that old post of mine? I'm continually impressed with you.Waldorf and Sauron wrote:All,
I found some extremely applicable advice in a question Vorpal Blade asked long ago:
From http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=26487.I was very impressed with Elder Robert S. Wood's talk in the April 2006 General Conference. The talk continues to make me think about my behavior in Internet forums. I personally needed to hear the talk. If I may quote a few lines from the talk: "Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?... Before you launch into your criticism, she said, you must first present the strongest case for the position you are opposing, one that the philosopher himself could accept....We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing 'straw men,' if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character.... It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt."
I think we could all work better at heeding that advice, whether we agree with vorpal blade, disagree with vorpal blade, or are vorpal blade.
-sauron
i was looking for information about whether popping your knuckles causes arthritis, and the board popped up in my google search. that was about...2 years ago. i like the board, even when i vehemently disagree with something that is said (which happens a lot). i appreciate getting a different perspective on what i think.Waldorf and Sauron wrote:I've been wondering about the non-LDS demographics of the board lately. I guess I'm just fascinated when this tight little ball of culture leaks outside of BYU/Mormondom. Can I ask how you came to start reading it?Imogen wrote:i'm not a byu student, i'm not mormon, and i never will be.
-Waldorf
beautiful, dirty, rich
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Foreman,
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to explain yourself. I think that is great. However, I’m not sure how to interpret a couple of things you wrote. Also, I feel the need to explain better how I feel about the things you mentioned.
I understand that the better board writers, like you, acknowledge their fallibility and human nature, as blasphemous as that may seem to some fans. Perhaps all the writers feel that way; I really don’t want this to be an issue. Some acknowledge it more freely in public than others. I don’t really think they need to acknowledge, as it is understand by almost everyone.
I agree that it is not only important what we say, but how we say it. I respect your right to not like the way I say things, and to criticize me for the way I say it. I do carefully consider all such criticism and try to change my behavior if I think it appropriate.
I understand that there are board members across the political spectrum. I applaud your tolerance and acceptance that everyone here is reasonably intelligent. That is the way I feel as well. Perhaps the reason I may not have mentioned it before is because I thought it was too obvious.
You say that “…but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.†I believe most people would agree with me that a person whose posts sound like that is both stupid and wrong. So, is the message here that I am stupid and wrong?. If I’m mistaken, feel free to explain where my thinking is wrong.
I don’t expect you to ever acquiesce to popular opinion. I don’t know what I said that gave you the idea that I ever thought so.
And now we come to the crux of the matter, at least for me. What I was trying to do was hold Dr. Smeed accountable for what he said, and the way in which he said it. I don’t like to point out a person’s faults, but I thought that for the good of the board I needed to say something. The fact that The Black Sheep acknowledges the seriousness of the problem and that it is being talked about behind the scenes, is I think some validation of the topic. I thank her for that. Unfortunately I can’t talk about the problem specifically without appearing to attack Dr. Smeed. I think this is the key point, discussing what Dr. Smeed did wrong in his answer is the idea of the thread.
Again, you can disagree with me about the way I went about doing this. I’m certainly not perfect, by any means. But I was trying to stay on topic by “attacking†Dr. Smeed. For the good of the board, and I think for the good of Dr. Smeed, for the same reasons you have given for criticizing me. I believe I am justified in saying much harsher things about how Dr. Smeed answered the question.
What you and some others did, Foreman, was to go beyond addressing how I criticized Dr. Smeed. You brought up other, unrelated, faults that you thought I had. When you try to deflect attention from the topic at hand - what and how Dr. Smeed answered the question - I think this enters the realm of ad hominem attacks. I realized that attacking me on unrelated perceived faults was a way of defending Dr. Smeed, but it is not a fair way, or a nice way to play the game.
I think I don’t need to belabor anymore my objections to Dr. Smeed’s manner of answering the question.
Thank you for reading my post.
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to explain yourself. I think that is great. However, I’m not sure how to interpret a couple of things you wrote. Also, I feel the need to explain better how I feel about the things you mentioned.
I understand that the better board writers, like you, acknowledge their fallibility and human nature, as blasphemous as that may seem to some fans. Perhaps all the writers feel that way; I really don’t want this to be an issue. Some acknowledge it more freely in public than others. I don’t really think they need to acknowledge, as it is understand by almost everyone.
I agree that it is not only important what we say, but how we say it. I respect your right to not like the way I say things, and to criticize me for the way I say it. I do carefully consider all such criticism and try to change my behavior if I think it appropriate.
I understand that there are board members across the political spectrum. I applaud your tolerance and acceptance that everyone here is reasonably intelligent. That is the way I feel as well. Perhaps the reason I may not have mentioned it before is because I thought it was too obvious.
You say that “…but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.†I believe most people would agree with me that a person whose posts sound like that is both stupid and wrong. So, is the message here that I am stupid and wrong?. If I’m mistaken, feel free to explain where my thinking is wrong.
I don’t expect you to ever acquiesce to popular opinion. I don’t know what I said that gave you the idea that I ever thought so.
And now we come to the crux of the matter, at least for me. What I was trying to do was hold Dr. Smeed accountable for what he said, and the way in which he said it. I don’t like to point out a person’s faults, but I thought that for the good of the board I needed to say something. The fact that The Black Sheep acknowledges the seriousness of the problem and that it is being talked about behind the scenes, is I think some validation of the topic. I thank her for that. Unfortunately I can’t talk about the problem specifically without appearing to attack Dr. Smeed. I think this is the key point, discussing what Dr. Smeed did wrong in his answer is the idea of the thread.
Again, you can disagree with me about the way I went about doing this. I’m certainly not perfect, by any means. But I was trying to stay on topic by “attacking†Dr. Smeed. For the good of the board, and I think for the good of Dr. Smeed, for the same reasons you have given for criticizing me. I believe I am justified in saying much harsher things about how Dr. Smeed answered the question.
What you and some others did, Foreman, was to go beyond addressing how I criticized Dr. Smeed. You brought up other, unrelated, faults that you thought I had. When you try to deflect attention from the topic at hand - what and how Dr. Smeed answered the question - I think this enters the realm of ad hominem attacks. I realized that attacking me on unrelated perceived faults was a way of defending Dr. Smeed, but it is not a fair way, or a nice way to play the game.
I think I don’t need to belabor anymore my objections to Dr. Smeed’s manner of answering the question.
Thank you for reading my post.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
-
Fredjikrang
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
I'm not Foreman, but I agree with him on how your post sounded, and that part in particular. The way that you categorically discounted a group called "Liberals" seems demeaning, and I think that many people who consider themselves liberal, or to have liberal leanings, could easily see that as you attacking them. To be honest, it also seems like you are treating the word/group "liberal" like it is dirty, and thing to be despised without question. That may not be your intention, but that is how it comes across.vorpal blade wrote: You say that “…but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.†I believe most people would agree with me that a person whose posts sound like that is both stupid and wrong. So, is the message here that I am stupid and wrong?. If I’m mistaken, feel free to explain where my thinking is wrong.
For instance, as someone who considers himself a conservative, what would you think if someone said.
It sounds like you are saying that being liberal is something despicable, like being a leper was. It sounds like a KKK member talking about African Americans with regard to morally reprehensible behavior. "It is, ironically, stereotypical black behavior." Or (And I know, I'm invoking Godwin's law, but the example is sound.) a Nazi or anti-semetist saying "It is, ironically, stereotypical Jewish behavior." In short, it sounds like you see liberals as "bad," and you are grouping many of the people on this board into that group, and associating them with behavior that they don't agree with. (Much like I just did with you and Nazi's and KKK members. ;D )I’m not really surprised that most everyone chose to attack me. It is, ironically, stereotypical conservative behavior. And I’m sure most of you are not all that conservative. Just, apparently too conservative. I think that rather than showing something about me, it shows something about you.
And as far as "Apparently this discussion group is more of a fan club for hero worshipers than a chance to give genuine and honest response. That is regrettable. I believe that everyone, including Board Writers, needs to be held accountable for what they write." I totally agree that Writers shouldn't get special privileges, and I have had more than my fair share of arguments with the Writers, but again, I think you are doing the majority of the readers and other Writers a disservice by saying that this forum is a "fan club of hero worshipers." We are here because we like the Board, yes. But to say that it is nothing more than a fan club filled with blind followers is frankly insulting. Once again, you are creating a group ("this discussion group") and then making it something despicable or undesirable at the least ("a fan club for hero worshipers.") It is hard to not see that as a personal attack. Which I'm sure it isn't, since that would be a "liberal" thing to do. ;D
Anyway, I hope you can see what I mean. And I'm sure that you don't intend for it to come across that way, so that's why I'm telling you that it does. So that hopefully we can avoid this whole mess in the future.
In regard to other issues. If you feel that the thread was not handled well by the board board Administrators, me in particular in this case, I would love to hear any specific complaints that you have. I feel comfortable with how it was handled, and think that I treated everyone fairly. If you have some suggestions about how you think I could have handled it better, I would be open to reading them.
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Thanks for being specific, Fred. I often wonder what people are talking about when they make sweeping generalizations about their opinions.Fredjikrang wrote:I'm not Foreman, but I agree with him on how your post sounded, and that part in particular. The way that you categorically discounted a group called "Liberals" seems demeaning, and I think that many people who consider themselves liberal, or to have liberal leanings, could easily see that as you attacking them. To be honest, it also seems like you are treating the word/group "liberal" like it is dirty, and thing to be despised without question. That may not be your intention, but that is how it comes across.vorpal blade wrote: You say that “…but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.†I believe most people would agree with me that a person whose posts sound like that is both stupid and wrong. So, is the message here that I am stupid and wrong?. If I’m mistaken, feel free to explain where my thinking is wrong.
I think you are taking this too seriously. People should be able to joke and tease and make fun of the stereotypes. Having grown up in the East, if that makes a difference, I'm use to conservatives being made the butt of the jokes. It's nothing personal, it's business. I think my teasing of liberals was extremely mild. Why are people being so sensitive?
Now, you say that you agree with Foreman about how my post - singular - sounded. Foreman used the word "posts" evidently referring to all my posts. He appeared to be referring to a systematic behavior, how I treat people in general. You can't establish a systematic pattern of behavior from one post, it seems to me. He portrayed me as a pretty bad (stupid and wrong) person. I don't think you agree with Foreman as I understand him, do you?
I'd laugh. Yes, that is stereotypical conservative behavior in the view of the stereotypical liberal. What I was saying is that a stereotypical conservative typically believes that attacking someone, because you haven't got a good argument, is typical liberal behavior. And the irony is that I well know that they aren't stereotypical liberals. And, of course, attacking someone because you don't have a real argument, is a tactic employed by both liberals and conservatives. Everyone knows that, or so I thought, so it was a joke. If you misunderstood me I don't really feel it is my fault. If you sincerely felt the jab and were hurt by it I'm really surprised. It would seem to me that you were trying to take offense. "Stereotypical" means to me "a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment." To say "stereotypical" is to point out that the view is oversimplified, prejudiced, and uncritical. So, come on, give me a break.Fredjikrang wrote:For instance, as someone who considers himself a conservative, what would you think if someone said.
I’m not really surprised that most everyone chose to attack me. It is, ironically, stereotypical conservative behavior. And I’m sure most of you are not all that conservative. Just, apparently too conservative. I think that rather than showing something about me, it shows something about you.
Good joke, Fred. I was frustrated by the fact that whenever I criticize a board writer I never get any support. Okay, it was unreasonable of me to expect that. Somehow I've missed your posts where you argue with the Writers. You are right, I was attacking the discussion group as a whole. I was about to leave this group out of disgust. Which makes staying around here rather awkward after telling you all off. So, I'm rather uncertain what I'm going to do. Nerdgirl half convinced me to stay. If someone actually thinks about what I write, without dismissing it out of hand, then it might be worth it to me to continue.Fredjikrang wrote:And as far as "Apparently this discussion group is more of a fan club for hero worshipers than a chance to give genuine and honest response. That is regrettable. I believe that everyone, including Board Writers, needs to be held accountable for what they write." I totally agree that Writers shouldn't get special privileges, and I have had more than my fair share of arguments with the Writers, but again, I think you are doing the majority of the readers and other Writers a disservice by saying that this forum is a "fan club of hero worshipers." We are here because we like the Board, yes. But to say that it is nothing more than a fan club filled with blind followers is frankly insulting. Once again, you are creating a group ("this discussion group") and then making it something despicable or undesirable at the least ("a fan club for hero worshipers.") It is hard to not see that as a personal attack. Which I'm sure it isn't, since that would be a "liberal" thing to do. ;D
I think you could have been less harshly critical of me. You shouldn't assume that I'm acting irresponsibly. Try to understand what I'm trying to do and say. When I think you really understand, then go ahead and blast me.Fredjikrang wrote:In regard to other issues. If you feel that the thread was not handled well by the board board Administrators, me in particular in this case, I would love to hear any specific complaints that you have. I feel comfortable with how it was handled, and think that I treated everyone fairly. If you have some suggestions about how you think I could have handled it better, I would be open to reading them.
-
vorpal blade
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:08 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Dr. Smeed says, "I feel that many principles of the Republican Party are incredibly far removed from the teachings of Christ, and even contradict and violate His words, but I'm not going to go out and vote straight ticket Democrat because of it."
I consider myself a conservative, not a Republican, but I do not know any principles of the Republican Party that are not consistent with the teachings of Christ. So, who agrees with Dr. Smeed and can give me a few examples of these many principles?
A quick google search of Republican principles brings up http://www.gop.com/about/imarepublicanbecause.htm Does anyone see something there far removed from the teachings of Christ?
I consider myself a conservative, not a Republican, but I do not know any principles of the Republican Party that are not consistent with the teachings of Christ. So, who agrees with Dr. Smeed and can give me a few examples of these many principles?
A quick google search of Republican principles brings up http://www.gop.com/about/imarepublicanbecause.htm Does anyone see something there far removed from the teachings of Christ?
vorpal,
reading through that i would think that most democrats would say they hold basically all of the same principles (aside from some variations on the role of government part). its just how the republican party has been acting on these principles that many take issue with. off the top of my head, ways the republican party is different than gospel teachings:
-stance on abortion
-stance on rights for homosexual couples
-stance on torture of enemy combatants
-stance on preemptive wars
-stance on corporate welfare
-stance on immigration
(i expect the inevitable question of how the republicans stances on these issues differ from gospel teachings, but its late so feel free to answer it for me anyone)
not surprisingly this same list could be made for democrats (either because their stance is essentially the same or because its on the opposite end of the spectrum). so i think dr. smeeds point (which i think you are intentionally being obtuse about but perhaps not since this is the internet and its hard to judge intent) is that neither political party aligns perfectly with the gospel (and both differ greatly in many ways). if either party aligned perfectly with the gospel, living prophets would certainly recommend it to us.
pro tip: if you want your remarks that could be seen as condescending to come off as a joke, either use them more often and be more over the top so people know you can't be serious, or use the ever useful "</sarcasm>" tags.
reading through that i would think that most democrats would say they hold basically all of the same principles (aside from some variations on the role of government part). its just how the republican party has been acting on these principles that many take issue with. off the top of my head, ways the republican party is different than gospel teachings:
-stance on abortion
-stance on rights for homosexual couples
-stance on torture of enemy combatants
-stance on preemptive wars
-stance on corporate welfare
-stance on immigration
(i expect the inevitable question of how the republicans stances on these issues differ from gospel teachings, but its late so feel free to answer it for me anyone)
not surprisingly this same list could be made for democrats (either because their stance is essentially the same or because its on the opposite end of the spectrum). so i think dr. smeeds point (which i think you are intentionally being obtuse about but perhaps not since this is the internet and its hard to judge intent) is that neither political party aligns perfectly with the gospel (and both differ greatly in many ways). if either party aligned perfectly with the gospel, living prophets would certainly recommend it to us.
pro tip: if you want your remarks that could be seen as condescending to come off as a joke, either use them more often and be more over the top so people know you can't be serious, or use the ever useful "</sarcasm>" tags.
-
Fredjikrang
- Never Coming Back?
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:59 am
- Location: Provo, UT
- Contact:
Probably because people can't tell if you are joking or not. It might seem kind of lame, but throwing an emoticon in there can really help clarify tone in conversational writing, such as this.vorpal blade wrote: I think you are taking this too seriously. People should be able to joke and tease and make fun of the stereotypes. Having grown up in the East, if that makes a difference, I'm use to conservatives being made the butt of the jokes. It's nothing personal, it's business. I think my teasing of liberals was extremely mild. Why are people being so sensitive?
Do I think that you are a "bad (stupid and wrong) person?" I don't think you are a bad person, and I think you are no more wrong or stupid, on the whole, than the rest of us. But I do think that your tone often comes across as condescending, or, as Foreman put it "absolutist and intolerant." I also think that sayingvorpal blade wrote: Now, you say that you agree with Foreman about how my post - singular - sounded. Foreman used the word "posts" evidently referring to all my posts. He appeared to be referring to a systematic behavior, how I treat people in general. You can't establish a systematic pattern of behavior from one post, it seems to me. He portrayed me as a pretty bad (stupid and wrong) person. I don't think you agree with Foreman as I understand him, do you?
is quite a logical leap. I don't think that is what he was saying at all, though he would have to answer to be sure. It seems to me that he was saying that you come across as "absolutist and intolerant," quite possibly unintentionally, not that you are either of those two things. And again, I would have to agree at least somewhat. It may be that we just aren't catching that fact that you are trying to joke, but that is definitely how some of what you say comes across.vorpal blade wrote:You say that “…but that's honestly what your posts sound like: that anyone who thinks differently from you is not of a different opinion, but is stupid and wrong.†I believe most people would agree with me that a person whose posts sound like that is both stupid and wrong. So, is the message here that I am stupid and wrong?
Again, it would probably be wise on your part to make it more clear when you are joking. I know that it did not seem like a joke to me, and I am willing to guess that most other people didn't catch that either, based on their responses to this thread. I'm not trying to take offense, but think about this. If no one understands a joke, then was it told well, or made in good taste?vorpal blade wrote:If you misunderstood me I don't really feel it is my fault. If you sincerely felt the jab and were hurt by it I'm really surprised. It would seem to me that you were trying to take offense. "Stereotypical" means to me "a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment." To say "stereotypical" is to point out that the view is oversimplified, prejudiced, and uncritical. So, come on, give me a break.
I've found that when discussing religion and politics it is wise to try extra hard to make it clear when one is joking, since an attack, or even a perceived attack, on those fronts tends to sting.
Let's be honest, you haven't really been around the Board all that long. ;D I've been reading and asking questions for almost five years now, and have definitely had disagreements with writers. I would point out some specific examples, but I don't have the time right now to find the few that actually posted.vorpal blade wrote:Somehow I've missed your posts where you argue with the Writers.
I'll try, but if you could give more tonal cues, it would certainly help. I'm not a mind reader, you know. ;Dvorpal blade wrote:I think you could have been less harshly critical of me. You shouldn't assume that I'm acting irresponsibly. Try to understand what I'm trying to do and say. When I think you really understand, then go ahead and blast me.
[img]http://fredjikrang.petfish.net/Fence-banner.png[/img]