Tom wrote:Dr. Dobson’s counsel is more than simply “genuinely strange,” as the Proprietor says. (As an aside, I find it “genuinely strange” that the Proprietor can write that a USA Today story on Dobson’s passing and legacy “strikes me as balanced and fairly accurate,” given that it’s clear that the Proprietor knows very little about the man.)
I'd never heard of the guy, but it appears he is neutral in regards to Mormonism and so I doubt Dan needs to think about it much more deeply then Dobson being a political ally, as much as he's going to have one from within Ceeboo Christianity. Dobson was apparently impressed with Mormonism's prop 8 activities.
It's humorous to see like-minded conservative men pat each other on the back and elsewhere backing these ridiculous "boys detention" or "Putin army" type control tactics. What's funniest about it isn't how evil and opposed to usual portrayals of Jesus, but how ineffective they are. It may work to some degree for certain personality types. There are definitely "tough love" stories out there where the unruly youth gets beaten down by somebody bigger and then becomes the town Sheriff. But in general it doesn't work. There are more effective underhanded psychological tactics to keep people in line. Guilt is far more effective than a paddle. My parents were definitely on board with spanking but it rarely got that far. Maybe a few times dad lost it in the moment and "vacation elbow" kicked in for a fast, ineffective swat. They had far more power mastering the art of disappointment. Being "hurt" over actions or choices made that they considered wrong from a church perspective. They "forgave" me to the end for my choices, and only blamed themselves for my actions -- they failed me; that's how they looked at it. Far, far more effective to make a person think twice then bringing out the stick for a beating. That would've made leaving the easiest thing in the world. Again, such tactics might not work with every personality type, but in general, I think guilt is mightier than than the switch. If you're looking to run a cult; which is the case for Dobson and Dan.
Given how badly "beat down" discipline tactics actually work, even in the context of an authoritarian institution, the bias in favor of such tactics is psychologically revealing. I think it just shows how much such individuals are afraid of being disagreed with.
Gadianton, you make interesting observations but your final observation has a painful weight. I might hope for a more intellectually engaging observation but you made the one that makes a lot of difference in what people do and how influence can work.
Rivendale on a previous page asked, "how could you not be familiar with Dobson and his dominance on am radio in the 70 and 80s?" Not spoken to me but I was left surprised thinking I do not recall ever hearing him and was not aware of this radio power. I know I looked at a book or two of his and recognize the name. I did not think he was a person I was interested in following.
For a few decades I was sold on the idea that a moderately liberal take on Christianity was replacing narrow rigid habits. I was in a congregation that reflected that hope. However pressure of culture wars and the death of the pastor turned the tide the other way. More recently I am stunned by how deeply the current of change has flowed in the opposite way. People seem to be aiming at ways to be more rigid and right than the other guy.
And here are a few rude examples of this 'character flaw' from the Afore regarding the OP of this thread, a thoughtful poster whose contributions are always interesting to read, who goes by "drumdude":
...the pseudonymous poster who styles himself something like Dumb-Dud — over at the Obsession Board...
... “Dumb-Dud” pronounced...
...as my anonymous critic Dumb-Dud has astutely observed...
...Over at the Peterson Obsession Board a couple of months ago, the prolific poster who calls himself Dumb-Dud (or, anyway, something very like that)...
...At least one other researcher at the Obsession Board has independently performed the same analysis as Dumb-Dud, and has endorsed his conclusions...
That's just some from the last few months, and about only a single poster. He uses and allows his commentors to use similarly rude name-calling techniques against many here, which we should probably take as a good sign!
Something tells me Peterson's "character flaw" isn't disliking name-calling, but rather taking great pleasure in doing it, especially when he can cowardly name-call on a website where he can prevent people from responding.
And here are a few rude examples of this 'character flaw' from the Afore regarding the OP of this thread, a thoughtful poster whose contributions are always interesting to read, who goes by "drumdude":
...the pseudonymous poster who styles himself something like Dumb-Dud — over at the Obsession Board...
... “Dumb-Dud” pronounced...
...as my anonymous critic Dumb-Dud has astutely observed...
...Over at the Peterson Obsession Board a couple of months ago, the prolific poster who calls himself Dumb-Dud (or, anyway, something very like that)...
...At least one other researcher at the Obsession Board has independently performed the same analysis as Dumb-Dud, and has endorsed his conclusions...
That's just some from the last few months, and about only a single poster. He uses and allows his commentors to use similarly rude name-calling techniques against many here, which we should probably take as a good sign!
Something tells me Peterson's "character flaw" isn't disliking name-calling, but rather taking great pleasure in doing it, especially when he can cowardly name-call on a website where he can prevent people from responding.
Something tells me Marcus that you are making the kindergarten level mistake of expecting Peterson to practice what he preaches. When has there ever been any evidence of that?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The Afore, in 2022:
And here are a few rude examples of this 'character flaw' from the Afore regarding the OP of this thread, a thoughtful poster whose contributions are always interesting to read, who goes by "drumdude":
That's just some from the last few months, and about only a single poster. He uses and allows his commentors to use similarly rude name-calling techniques against many here, which we should probably take as a good sign!
Something tells me Peterson's "character flaw" isn't disliking name-calling, but rather taking great pleasure in doing it, especially when he can cowardly name-call on a website where he can prevent people from responding.
Something tells me Marcus that you are making the kindergarten level mistake of expecting Peterson to practice what he preaches. When has there ever been any evidence of that?
I would never expect Peterson to actually be consistent! I am merely reporting the inconsistency and I am fully aware of how repetitive an action that may be. The list of those he name-calls is long but distinguished.
When Peterson resorts to using silly childish made up names for posters, it means they’ve rattled him. They hit a nail on the head. They’ve posted something that has bothered him. So he has to minimise that by seeking to belittle their name. It’s just “Metcalfe is a Butthead” ad nauseum. Silly. Childish. Immature. Frat boy stuff for those lads that didn’t get into a Frat House. The only person it undermines when he does it, is himself. It’s a big “tell”.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I would never expect Peterson to actually be consistent! I am merely reporting the inconsistency and I am fully aware of how repetitive an action that may be. The list of those he name-calls is 
)