DiscussMormonism.com

Beastie brought out these points on another thread, and I think they are worth addressing in a separate topic:

Beastie wrote:These people are angry about the way they were treated by the folks that are so vocal and seem to control FAIR/MAD. They were already going through a very difficult period due to doubting the belief system that fed their entire world view - that is never an easy experience - and they know that the issues they're struggling with are important. So being told, on top of that already existing internal struggle, that something is wrong with THEM, and being treated like a troll - is so hurtful that it creates an extremely jaundiced attitude towards internet apologists. This is part of the seed of their later behavior.

I remember being told years ago, privately, why Pahoran was the way he was. I was told that when he first participated on ARM, he was actually very nice and didn't attack people. In fact, Pahoran himself alluded to the "old Pahoran" at times. But then he was mistreated by some critics, and decided to start attacking instead. Did it ever occur to you that some of the exmormon "Pahorans" were created in the very same way?

If you really are simply interested in bad behavior over religious issues, and not just accumulating bad behavior on the "other" side in order to discredit them, then you would study the bad behavior of your own tribe, too. But I've never seen you do that.

Would you, Dr. Peterson, and several of you here, such as BC, Asbestosman, and any others who have some influence on MAD address this issue?

Looking at the last few threads, I think the venom has really gotten out of hand.

And I'm not claiming complete innocence here, either. When I get my feelings hurt, I strike out, too.

Maybe we really should all just take a step back for a moment.

Many of us are parents, but we're acting like children.

Would it kill us to be a little more polite with each other?

Seriously....I know that if someone disagreed with me, if they started out their post by saying, "I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree and this is why..." I would be less likely to feel like I was being attacked personally.

I was told when I posted on FAIR/MAD that I was just too thin-skinned to be posting on boards like this. This message came from fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints....people I have been taught all my life to trust.

Even amidst all of the strife that has happened here, I have felt more welcomed and more accepted on this board than on an apologetic board that is suppose to be "church member friendly".

I find that both ironic and sad.

Are you trying to be a net nanny, or something? ;-)

I agree with you. A lot of the time I think these boards are less about the subject matter (in this case Mormonism) than they are about personalities and group membership. Acknowledging that, I think we could all stand to be a little kinder to each other.

Runtu wrote:Are you trying to be a net nanny, or something? ;-)

I agree with you. A lot of the time I think these boards are less about the subject matter (in this case Mormonism) than they are about personalities and group membership. Acknowledging that, I think we could all stand to be a little kinder to each other.

That's why I'm glad you're back, Runtu!

LOL

You and I have always been "net nanny partners in crime"!

;)

liz3564 wrote:Would you, Dr. Peterson, and several of you here, such as BC, Asbestosman, and any others who have some influence on MAD address this issue?

I don't think I have much, if any, influence on MAD. What precisely are you looking for me to do?

Would it kill us to be a little more polite with each other?

Runtu recently made a post wherin I responded that I often crave frankness but then cringe when I receive it. Yet even in frankness one can attemp politeness. Nevertheless, some people cannot read certain things no matter how nicely you state them without being offended. Saying Joseph Smith was a con-artist hurts no matter how you attempt to soften the blow.

Seriously....I know that if someone disagreed with me, if they started out their post by saying, "I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree and this is why..." I would be less likely to feel like I was being attacked personally.

My own personal take is to try reading that into all replies unless there is strong evidence that a personal attack was intended. I also tend to avoid stating that I respectfully disagree, but it's not that I wish to be rude. Instead I merely try to avoid condescension, unless I happen to feel that the other person started the attack. I believe in tit-for-tat communication although I'm not big grudges nor of continuing a fight when I fell tempers get too hot.

As for influencing others, I just don't think it's my place. I think the way it should work is for those with the concerns to speak to those they are concerned about. If communication is impossible, perhaps that's for the best. True, it may be to the detriment of others who are further offended by their rudeness, but I really don't think there's anything I can or indeed ought to do about it myself--other than maybe trying to cure myself of the sick sense of amusement when Pahoran rips into someone, but even then it's only fun for a bit. I don't like tempers to flare.

I have nothing relevant to add. But why stop now?

I think the tone and anger evident at MAD does scare people away sometimes... Perhaps it does here too?

I just was startled at the level of rage I witnessed there at times. The paranoia was pretty rampant, and to some people no matter what I said, or did, I was always an angry anti-Mo.

Book of Mormon:

I have nothing relevant to add. But why stop now?

I think the tone and anger evident at MAD does scare people away sometimes... Perhaps it does here too?

I just was startled at the level of rage I witnessed there at times. The paranoia was pretty rampant, and to some people no matter what I said, or did, I was always an angry anti-Mo.

Interesting how perspectives are so subjective.

Having followed both boards for the past year, I don't think there is any comparison between the two when it comes to anger, rage, and paranoia. Those three elements are frequently seen here, and seen but seldom on the MAD board. There is no comparable analogue there for posters like Mercury/Vegas, Potty-mouth Porter, and Slow Schmo. There are several bona fide idiots there (I won't name names, because I actually feel sorry for them) and there are a few of what I would call "hard ball" players, like Pahoran. But the MAD board welcomes critics like Chris Smith and The Dude and Dan Vogel who don't get all riled up and frothy-mouthed like the "now-banned" tended to get. They give as good as they take, and they do it within fairly broad parameters of acceptable behavior. There are a handful of posters that I don't think should have ever been banned, but it's not my board, so I really don't have much say in the matter. I will say this, I can understand why the majority of the TBM-type MAD posters would never post here. They can't understand or deal with the depth of hostility that manifests itself frequently on this board. I'm thick skinned enough that it doesn't affect me, as is DCP and the handful of others who brave the piranha-infested waters here in Shadyburg. But most of them would never come near this place. Plus, it is not a place (for the most part) where one can engage in any truly serious discussions about substantive matters. Why? Because it always quickly devolves into a rabid-dog-pile on anyone attempting to argue in favor of a conventional believer's point of view.

I will gladly engage The Dude or Dan Vogel or Chris Smith or Don Bradley in a discussion about something of substance. But when we do engage in substantive discussions, we always do it on the MAD board instead of here -- presumably because they also sense that it's a better environment for that kind of discussion.

When I come here, it's to be snarky or to interact with The Dude or Kimberly Ann or whoever in a more playful, almost meaningless fashion. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the people here. But I won't engage in discussions of substance with people who seriously think that believing LDS are brain-damaged Morgbots, or something of the sort.

Anyway, that's my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.

Hi William. I was often accused of being an anti-Mo. When I am nothing of the sort. I loved that board, and the posters there! I was practically run outta town by a few posters that felt it necessary to personally attack me.

I also always had to defend myself! I was always asked to defend LDS (when I'm not LDS or ex-LDS or actually anything!) even after stating repeatedly that I have no qualms with good people believing what they wish. I still feel that way!

I had no allegiance and felt I was fair to everyone, and yet that wasn't good enough? There are some wonderful people that post there. Very genuine, caring people that were extremely kind to me. But there is the same thing here.

I recall one time I was trying to soothe things over with one poster (this was after a thread was going on about how racist Southerners were) and told him I apologize, and was being completely sincere! I immediately felt guilty for all and any offense I had given, sent a goody basket through an online service to my local LDS mission and made sure I tried to make amends!

The poster ridiculed me and told me essentially, "yah, right ." Doubted the sincerity of my apology and continued to be rude. That level of assumed hostility to anyone not LDS was something I felt very often.

Imagine the conundrum I impose on them. Here is an LDS member and yet he speaks of many things which many see hedonistic and evil.

Nephi, I hope they are kind to you. I would say 99% of them over there are very kind people that recognize that they need to be generous and loving. The other bit just sort of ruin it.