Sethbag wrote:Ever since Juliann started that vote, I've been refreshing my view from time to time to make sure I still could. So far so good. I wonder, I've posted in a few threads there lately. I wonder if Juliann considers me a bomb-thrower.
Probably, since you make such good points that the apologists can't defend against them. But I'd wager you're last on the list. You're male, for one. You write well, so that automatically makes it harder for them to rule against you. And you're moderately contentious, which is a big plus. If you're too contentious and go after the "scholars" all the time and make them uncomfortable by laying waste to their apologetics or outdoing their sarcasm, then obviously that's bad. But nearly just as bad I think for them are softer spoken critics who they feel aren't sincere because they'll sort of say positive things about the church or express spiritual beliefs but they come across (to them) as either patronizing or compromising church (Inet Mormon) teachings. And when the criticism or jokes come, they suspect foul play. Considering how often I attacked Juliann's points, and I wasn't nice about it at all, I just couldn't help myself, it's kind of amazing I never got queued (I'm sure it wouldn't be so easy now). I kind of attributed that to, other than being male, being what they expected critics to be, hard-nosed, vile and nasty, but without interacting with Peterson or Hamblin too much.