Remove the Facebook posts

[_RayAgostini]

I posted this in Off-Topic on March 14 this year:

Social media rant may land you in court.

Whether it be here, Facebook, or even your own website, people need to realise that there can be real-life consequences for character defamation. It's not a joke.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dr Shades,

DCP didn't threaten litigation again, did he?

No, he didn't. This is all me.

[_Chap]

I am not very happy about the sudden emergence of a policy that takes the 'spirit of the rules' provision and extends it to the point where there is a risk that it will become impossible to guess in advance whether a post will fall within the rules or not.

Here's how to guess whether a post will fall within the rules or not: Does the post contain real-life information that might jeopardize a person's employment and/or ecclesiastical standing?

Or, put another way: If there's a chance that it can get someone fired, then it shouldn't be posted. Talk about it only via private message or chat.

If this was a discussion board about fishing or quilt-making, it might not be problematic to enforce such a rule.

But this is a board about discussing a religion, and that religion is, well, Mormonism. Part of that discussion necessarily involves certain people - of whom DCP is the chief - who have well-known and deliberately cultivated public personas, and effectively, work for church institutions. Their behavior, and its alignment (or lack of it) with the standards they proclaim is an essential part of the discussion that takes place here,

They could be fired for a whole variety of reasons, some of which might include sheer professional incompetence, and some of which may include arbitrary acts of moral panic or oppression on the church's part. If any criticism that might put possibly put their continued employment in jeopardy is forbidden, where does it end? May we no longer point out Gee's dubious scholarship and (shall we say) dexterity with ink colors, for instance?

I don't think a rule of this kind can be enforced predictably enough, given the nature of the employer, and given the central importance to this board of discussion of hypocritical behavior in and by church-dominated institutions.

[_Tarski]

It makes sense to me that this didn't need to be censored immediately in the first place but it also doesn't need to hang around on the internet in perpetuity so I agree with the eventual removal.

In fact, I think this socialcam thing is yet another bit of Facebook intrusiveness. It bugs me that one has to be so vigilant with Facebook. It's like they set traps. Total privacy should be the default in every sense.
So the second reason I support removing the DCP Facebook stuff is because I don't want to see us help Facebook/socialCam spread crap in this way before people are even aware of what is happening.

Lastly, I just want to say that if DCP was indeed interested in JayLo's ass then all the better for him. It is too bad this is seen as something so embarrassing but that is where certain large parts of society still are (repressed).
I certainly looked.

[_RayAgostini]

I don't think a rule of this kind can be enforced predictably enough, given the nature of the employer, and given the central importance to this board of discussion of hypocritical behavior in and by church-dominated institutions.

How does anyone determine what is "hypocritical behaviour" in this case? By you and others mind-reading what a person was thinking, or what their motives were, for viewing a certain video? Then posting on a message board about that person's "prurient behavior", in spite of their explicit denial that this was a factor?

[_Chap]

I don't think a rule of this kind can be enforced predictably enough, given the nature of the employer, and given the central importance to this board of discussion of hypocritical behavior in and by church-dominated institutions.

How does anyone determine what is "hypocritical behaviour" in this case? By you and others mind-reading what a person was thinking, or what their motives were, for viewing a certain video? Then posting on a message board about that person's "prurient behavior", in spite of their explicit denial that this was a factor?

All moral judgements are open to dispute. I take it you don't intend to stop making them in consequence of that? I haven't said anything about "prurient behavior" by the way.

[_RayAgostini]

All moral judgements are open to dispute. I take it you don't intend to stop making them in consequence of that? I haven't said anything about "prurient behavior" by the way.

Judging, reviewing, or criticising scholarship isn't making moral judgements.

This is, particularly when leveled at a high profile LDS scholar:

So Dan goes into the forbidden, which is unexpected of good, temple going Mormons. What's new? As discussed earlier, Utah leads the nation in online access to Porn, and it is hardly surprising to most of us who were once sexually repressed Mormons.

Instead of just owning up to this and admitting his fleshly weaknesses, he wants to sell us this story about how the only reason he watched this video was because he was looking after someone else. Seriously, Dan? Like you had no idea what the title of the video, of the thumbnail of the video implied?

Thank you Dan, for demonstrating once again just how convoluted and dishonest the apologetic mind can be.

[_Infymus]

Again, DCP is a Mormon Apologist that works at BYU as a professor.

He is a member of the executive council of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, a purely apologetic drivel organization.

Is paid directly or indirectly by the LDS Church to publish Mormon apologetic works, and even if he isn’t paid, the LDS Church looks the other way while Dr. Peterson posts tens of thousands of messages on forums as a Mormon Apologist.

Is an admitted agent for the SCMC (past, unknown if current).

Writes articles on both FAIR and NWI (formerly FARMS).

Posts an incalculable amount of messages on Internet Forums, including MAD, MDB, and various other websites (including but not limited to blogs and online news agency comment sections).

Writes hit pieces on both Mormon, Ex-Mormon and non-Mormons.

And like any other stinking politician....

He has made himself a public figure.

He has placed himself and his works into the public where it can be read by anyone.

He has written articles defending the LDS Church on open public forums.

He has openly attacked critics of the LDS Church on open public forums.

He has attacked critics of the LDS Church in private emails, and then had those emails published on Mormon Apologetic Sites (see SHIELDS).

He has registered on Social Networking sites where his actions can be publicly recorded.

God, the douche bag even has his own separate Facebook page so people can "Like" him.

I have to respect you Shades because it is your board and your rules. But DCP in this regard, this image, and most of his images which are posted all over the Internet just make DCP a public - targetable figure. Something that he loves.

The total depravity of those who disagree with me is an important article of my personal faith.

[_sock puppet]

Infymus, Chap, etc.,

Perhaps we could view it this way: Dr Shades is depriving DCP in some small measure of the attention he craves. After all, it was pictures of DCP that were taken down.

[_Kishkumen]

Infymus, Chap, etc.,

Perhaps we could view it this way: Dr Shades is depriving DCP in some small measure of the attention he craves. After all, it was pictures of DCP that were taken down.

In a bizarre way, there may be some truth to that, even though I doubt he could admit it to himself. Who could?