Angry Apologists

[_Runtu]

Occasionally, we hear a certain someone talk about the sociology behind the "angry apostate." Usually, we're told that angry apostates have some other motive but adopt the group identity and the "atrocity narrative" to fit into the group of angry apostates. The standard example given is the anger and hurt expressed on RfM. Of course, when people object that these are stereotypes intended to invalidate the experience and feelings of exmormons, we are told that the certain someone wasn't referring to all exmormons but merely a small but vocal subset. If we're upset about the characterization, it must mean that we're part of the subset.

But I've wondered about the flip-side of this "sociological" observation. It seems to me that there exists a subset of apologists who clearly are angry. I was thinking that certain characteristics are common, but I wonder if there's a common "atrocity narrative" that is a mirror of the alleged exmo narrative.

I have some ideas as to what characteristics identify this subset of apologists, but I'm wondering if you have noticed the same thing. And I'm wondering if there's any scholarly literature we can use to identify this subgroup. What do you think?

[Alf'Omega]

I have some ideas as to what characteristics identify this subset of apologists, but I'm wondering if you have noticed the same thing.

Here are some things off the top of my head:

- Usually doesn't address the argument, only criticizes the arguer
- Claims to have answered questions they haven't
- Justify their behavior by claiming it's the same as exmos, but criticizing it in apostates anyway
- Actually, you can make a blanket statement: hypocrites
- They claim to be interested in exmo bad behavior, but it seems like they're more interested in exhibiting bad behavior themselves
- They actually think their qualifications indicate their arguments hold weight

And the #1 way to tell whether you're dealing with an angry apologist or not:

- Their arguments suck (assuming you can actually get one to come up with an argument)

[_Yoda]

Occasionally, we hear a certain someone talk about the sociology behind the "angry apostate." Usually, we're told that angry apostates have some other motive but adopt the group identity and the "atrocity narrative" to fit into the group of angry apostates. The standard example given is the anger and hurt expressed on RfM. Of course, when people object that these are stereotypes intended to invalidate the experience and feelings of exmormons, we are told that the certain someone wasn't referring to all exmormons but merely a small but vocal subset. If we're upset about the characterization, it must mean that we're part of the subset.

But I've wondered about the flip-side of this "sociological" observation. It seems to me that there exists a subset of apologists who clearly are angry. I was thinking that certain characteristics are common, but I wonder if there's a common "atrocity narrative" that is a mirror of the alleged exmo narrative.

I have some ideas as to what characteristics identify this subset of apologists, but I'm wondering if you have noticed the same thing. And I'm wondering if there's any scholarly literature we can use to identify this subgroup. What do you think?

Where's Wade? This thread is tailor-made for him to respond!

Hopefully, Tal didn't inadvertently chase HIM off! LOL

Seriously...I have wondered about this myself.

It always puzzled me why some folks on MAD seemed to get so....mad.

;)

[_Runtu]

Here are some things off the top of my head:

- Usually doesn't address the argument, only criticizes the arguer

I've noticed that. If you're an exmo and talk about the poster's tone, you're a net nanny or scold, but it's perfectly fine to do it if you're a believer.

- Claims to have answered questions they haven't

Yep. I love it when someone responds to a tough question with a yawn, as if that magically makes it all go away.

- Justify their behavior by claiming it's the same as exmos, but criticizing it in apostates anyway

This is the mirroring approach (see early Wade and current Ray A posts).

- Actually, you can make a blanket statement: hypocrites

There are hypocrites on both sides.

- They claim to be interested in exmo bad behavior, but it seems like they're more interested in exhibiting bad behavior themselves

I've always wondered why the "outrageous" quotes are always from exmos, usually from RfM, but it's rare to have a believer criticized for bad behavior.

- They actually think their qualifications indicate their arguments hold weight

I think that's true of a lot of people on both sides.

And the #1 way to tell whether you're dealing with an angry apologist or not:

- Their arguments suck (assuming you can actually get one to come up with an argument)

I've seen sucky arguments on both sides.

What I'm more interested in is discovering what makes them so angry? A few of the apologists I have met are some of the angriest people I've ever encountered. I wonder why that is.

[_Mister Scratch]

Occasionally, we hear a certain someone talk about the sociology behind the "angry apostate." Usually, we're told that angry apostates have some other motive but adopt the group identity and the "atrocity narrative" to fit into the group of angry apostates. The standard example given is the anger and hurt expressed on RfM. Of course, when people object that these are stereotypes intended to invalidate the experience and feelings of exmormons, we are told that the certain someone wasn't referring to all exmormons but merely a small but vocal subset. If we're upset about the characterization, it must mean that we're part of the subset.

But I've wondered about the flip-side of this "sociological" observation. It seems to me that there exists a subset of apologists who clearly are angry. I was thinking that certain characteristics are common, but I wonder if there's a common "atrocity narrative" that is a mirror of the alleged exmo narrative.

I have some ideas as to what characteristics identify this subset of apologists, but I'm wondering if you have noticed the same thing. And I'm wondering if there's any scholarly literature we can use to identify this subgroup. What do you think?

I think that juliann herself has outlined what the basic "Angry Apologist atrocity narrative" is. She has said (I believe) that it stems from the experience of trying to defend controversial aspects of Mormonism to no avail. This usually gets interpreted as bigotry, which leads to anger on the part of Mopologists. So where does the whole "cult" aspect of the theory figure in? Well, these Angry Apologists, being unable to cope with the fact that they cannot engage in fruitful dialog with critics (not with out the crutch of biased moderation, anyhow), totally reject their former civility and spiral down into anger.

[slipping on my juliann sockpuppet] Guys, this is what the experts are saying. Read it for yourselves, this has been documented in the academic literature. I'm not making this stuff up.

[_karl61]

Here are some things off the top of my head:

- Usually doesn't address the argument, only criticizes the arguer

I've noticed that. If you're an exmo and talk about the poster's tone, you're a net nanny or scold, but it's perfectly fine to do it if you're a believer.

- Claims to have answered questions they haven't

Yep. I love it when someone responds to a tough question with a yawn, as if that magically makes it all go away.

- Justify their behavior by claiming it's the same as exmos, but criticizing it in apostates anyway

This is the mirroring approach (see early Wade and current Ray A posts).

- Actually, you can make a blanket statement: hypocrites

There are hypocrites on both sides.

- They claim to be interested in exmo bad behavior, but it seems like they're more interested in exhibiting bad behavior themselves

I've always wondered why the "outrageous" quotes are always from exmos, usually from RfM, but it's rare to have a believer criticized for bad behavior.

- They actually think their qualifications indicate their arguments hold weight

I think that's true of a lot of people on both sides.

And the #1 way to tell whether you're dealing with an angry apologist or not:

- Their arguments suck (assuming you can actually get one to come up with an argument)

I've seen sucky arguments on both sides.

What I'm more interested in is discovering what makes them so angry? A few of the apologists I have met are some of the angriest people I've ever encountered. I wonder why that is.

I think fear almost always precedes anger.

[_beastie]

I think angry apologists are True Believers who are reacting to what they perceive as a personal attack on their being. They have so enmeshed their identity with their belief system, they have blurred the boundaries between self and Mormonism. So when Mormonism is attacked, they are attacked. Since their True Believerism prevents them from actually even being able to register or process, much less productively react to, what the critics are saying, they perceive the critics' arguments as logically worthless and hence, MUST be based in personal bigotry and bitterness.

I have concluded, over the years, that the angry apologists are really not "hearing" the critics' arguments at all. Their minds are processing out threatening information. I wondered how it was that apologists I've "know" (on the net) for years can repeat the same arguments, over and over, when the same arguments were demonstrated to have serious problems. (perfect example: the Book of Mormon horse issue) It's like they never really heard it the first time, so how could they possibly remember the outcome? This is why they feel justified saying "asked and answered" as if the critics' arguments had already been thoroughly refuted, when anyone BUT a True Believer knows that is not so. Even if one "chooses" to continue to believe, if one is not a True Believer, one recognizes the existence of serious critical arguments against Mormonism that have not been successfully refuted.

Having said that, I'm fully aware that apologists would feel completely justified saying the same thing about us. This could make me wonder about my own sanity, but knowing that my stance on these particular critical issues (like the setting of the Book of Mormon in mesoamerica) is supported by knowledgeable, objective outsiders helps me to put their response in perspective.

This is part of why I have concluded that, with minor exceptions, there really is no point to extended dialogue between critic and apologist.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think fear almost always precedes anger.

(Yoda voice) "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the apostate side!"

[_Some Schmo]

I think angry apologists are True Believers who are reacting to what they perceive as a personal attack on their being. They have so enmeshed their identity with their belief system, they have blurred the boundaries between self and Mormonism.

Well, to answer the "why are they so angry" question, I believe this likely hits the nail on the head. It seems to be a pretty common phenomenon for people to think they are what they believe ("I'm a Catholic" / "I'm a Jew" / "I'm a Mormon" - why isn't it "I believe in Catholicism" or "I attend a Mormon church"?)

It's sad, really. It's as though the belief is what's important to these people rather than the people themselves.

People can attack what I believe (and do) as much as they want. I invite it; it's part of how I learn. It's silly to regard a belief attack as a personal attack.

[_Scottie]

The one thing I have noticed is how trigger happy they are in labeling a new poster as a troll.

So what if someone IS a troll?? Wouldn't it be better to assume the best for each poster, answer the questions honestly and kindly. Are their ego's so fragile that the idea of a troll pulling one over on them is a serious threat? Who cares? Let the troll have him moment of glory. At least all the other serious questioners won't be offended and run off with a bitter taste in their mouth.