Double Standard--Question for Will, et. al. from MAD

[_Gadianton]

Will,

Sorry buddy, can't get out of it that easy. You were very clear earlier in detailing how a circle jerk works, with the "spilling the seed" and all. Obviously, no one thinks you are claiming that critics are literally participating in a circle jerk. It would be much like calling this place a "circus". No one would really think you meant there were lions and tigers here. It's what's called, a metaphor. Has Coggins taught you about metaphors yet?

So the incompetency and self-gratification you refer to as a circle jerk alludes to the mutual masterbation party. Likewise with your reference to whores with open sores and lice. Ok, I think maybe you get it now.

Despite your protests, then, what we know is that at least two FARMS participants find your perverted or misogynist metaphors and jokes funny. DCP is in the clear. But I wonder who the others are? It could be any of them...

[_Ray A]

Um, Ray....if you can explain to me how Will could possibly mean this to be taken as a non-obscene metaphor, I'm all ears.

Yes, but that's not the original interpretation placed upon it by some others, who included females as part of the "circle jerk". Apart from that, as already described from dictionary sources:

Also refers to a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion where little to no progress is made.
1. "I just walked in on a circlejerk yesterday; it was terrible!"
2. "Did you catch that board meeting? Man, what a circlejerk!"

[_Yoda]

Um, Ray....if you can explain to me how Will could possibly mean this to be taken as a non-obscene metaphor, I'm all ears.

Yes, but that's not the original interpretation placed upon it by some others, who included females as part of the "circle jerk". Apart from that, as already described from dictionary sources:

Also refers to a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion where little to no progress is made.
1. "I just walked in on a circlejerk yesterday; it was terrible!"
2. "Did you catch that board meeting? Man, what a circlejerk!"

Yes, and I would buy that IF Will had not taken it a step further and included the metaphor involving biscuits. There is no other reference for that metaphor except the crude one.

Also, as Gad stated in his previous post, Will took great pains to make specific references to "spilling seed", etc.

And, no, I'm too tired to go searching through for the specific posts tonight. LOL

[_Gadianton]

Will took great pains to make specific references to "spilling seed"

Which really just seals the deal against all possible doubt. But even without that, it isn't a choice between two unrelated definitions. One definition derives its existence from the other, and that's all there is to it. I think he's just worried now that FARMS is growing sex joke pervs rather than scholars. Well, let's face it, according to Will, they've done more laughing at crude jokes than they have published in peer-reviewed journals, right? So his only hope is damage control. What makes it so bad is that he himself revealed theim for what they are, and the critics had nothing to do with it. In fact, they were pretty shocked and have had a hard time believing Will is telling the truth.

[_beastie]

And, as has also been recently cited, Will also clearly declared he thinks we're all "buggerers". There was no metaphorical meaning there.

Look, there is no doubt Will deliberately uses double entendres. He obviously uses the phrase "circle jerk" in a metaphorical manner, but with a double entendre that we are all clearly buggerers, anyway.

It's not the CJ reference alone that I would be embarrassed about, if I were a fellow believer. It's also his tendency to respond to women in offensive and demeaning ways. When, for example, as a response to serious statements about a serious topic by a woman, a male responds "I'd love to see you in a T-shirt", or "I wouldn't want to see you in a T-shirt because you're old and have varicose veins", I suspect most women in general, and LDS women in particular, would find that very problematic and needlessly offensive and dismissive. It's also the fact that he uses sexually explicit metaphors so frequently.

But Will is probably right about one thing - I'm not sure I ever understood Mormon culture in general, and Utah Mormon in particular. Anti-shock once claimed that it's a pretty red-neck culture, in the end, and he may well be right.

At any rate, I think Will's telling the truth about some FARMers enjoying his spectacle. As I said, I base this on the surprising fact that many ZLMB believers used to secretly enjoy Pahoran. If I had been a believer on Z, I would have wanted him banned because he was a black mark on "my" side. But they didn't see it that way. They enjoyed him poking sticks in believers' eyes in a rude and malicious fashion. Maybe it is the Porter Rockwell phenomenon. Mormons tend to feel very persecuted, even when their "persecution" consists of criticism of their faith on an internet board that is designed to allow for criticism of their faith, for one thing. Combine that with the underlying frustration of the arguments they have to deal with (Mormons are holding the dirty end of this particular stick). Combine that with the belief that they are morally and spiritually superior to critics. Combine that with the teachings that apostates are evil sinners and Satan followers. Combine that with a somewhat red-neck culture. Voila! You get Pahorans and Wills and their cheerleaders.

[_asbestosman]

Does visiting this board make Will gay?

[_Runtu]

Does visiting this board make Will gay?

Yes, unabashedly, deliriously gay, it seems.

[_beastie]

Or at least unusually interested in gay sex.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What makes it so bad is that he himself revealed theim [FARMS] for what they are

Sigh.

On balance, I think this place is unsalvageable.

[Analytics]

*deleted*

(but keep it in your quotes if you wish to hold on to the evidence of my puerile behavior).