DiscussMormonism.com

So Dan P. seems nicer and more reasonable on video, in person, (and in my experience, in private communication.)

Hmmm. What could that mean?

I do not wish to invalidate any negative experiences anyone has had arguing DCP or contradict any inside information that I am not privy to.
But, I have theory. I seems to me that Dan has somehow become a symbol for, or placeholder for, the whole apologetic enterprise --or at least the complex which includes apologists at FAIR, MI/FARMS and many of those who post at MAD (such as Hamblin, Pahoran, Jullian etc).

As such, it looks to me like many people impute all the bad apologetics they ever encountered to DCP, at least subconsciously. We even expect him to police other apologists. But people are always less likely to criticize people from their in-group (religion, party etc). That's just human nature.


He is the most prominent and becomes the focus of the frustration of critics and exmos. But when I try to be objective about it, his own arguments, attitudes and demeanor are often quite different from many other apologists (and often in a good way).

Look, suppose one tried to optimize the traits of reasonableness and niceness subject to the constraint that (1) the person is a believing Mormon, (2) the person has an educational background similar to that of DCP, (3) the person has the ordinary instinct to defend his in-group. Then I think one obtains a level of reasonableness and niceness approximately equal to that of DCP.

In other words, he is about what you should expect under the circumstances. He doesn't have some outstanding measure of meanness or unreasonableness.
He is about what some of us would have been if we had never finally changed our minds about Mormonism (the donuts part would come naturally to me too).

My theory: He is a placeholder for all apologetics and a convenient focus of exmo frustration. I know you all have examples, and so do I. But is there some confirmation bias? Remember, no person is entirely self consistent. This situation is exacerbated for those who feel they have been banned from MAD in part because of DCP. But even there, the fact is that we cannot say for sure whether the MODs just take it upon themselves to act, or whether DCP influences them to ban people. I suspect the latter is not usually true.

So there it is. The theory is that, for the denizens of these Mormon/Critic debate boards, there is an unconscious tendency to personify all of apologetics and even much of Mormonism in DCP.


If Dallin Oaks (or maybe Ballard) had been willing to come online and engage us for the past few years, guess who would have largely escaped all this derision? It would have gone to Oaks.

I also often feel frustration with DCP and would like to get him in the boxing ring as it were. But every now and then I think we should step back and put this whole thing is perspective: He's a Mormon apologist and believer and his critics are critics of apologetics and Mormonism. Whaddya expect?

Let's go after Hamblin or Shirts for a while just for a change (oh, well I guess they won't come here now will they? Oh, well.)

Tarski wrote:Let's go after Hamblin or Shirts for a while just for a change (oh, well I guess they won't come here now will they? Oh, well.)

Good post, Tarski. I think, however, that the reason people do not go after Hamblin and Shirts is because they generally do not come here to defend themselves even when they become a topic of conversation.

I think you have to take into the fact that many of MB apologists look up/suck up to DCP a lot and see him as a leader to be deferent to. That reinforces his symbolic status. He also tends to have a frustrating posting style because of his tendency to stay vague, use inneundo and gossip, sarcastically mock, stick to going after low-hanging fruit, etc. I think people get frustrated when comparing that against his reputation.

DCP does influence moderator behavior. To my knowledge, he has never requested anyone be banned, which is commendable, but he does let make it clear what sort of posts and posters threaten his continued posting, which the mods desperately want to keep because of his stature. Get into a tiff with DCP and that's a serious mark against you in terms of how the mods are likely to treat you. He really doesn't need to make those requests, and he isn't exactly falling over himself to stop the mods from exercising those biases.

I don't think that Dr. Peterson should police his own unless critics are willing to police their own, and they're not. I find a man on this website to be one of the rankest, nastiest human beings I've ever come across on the net and here no one bats an eye at his antics -- yet, they complain about nasty apologists. Blinded because the person that is vile is on their side. It's so simple to see the clan mentality play out on these boards!

Dr. Peterson is the poster child for apologetics and gets the brunt of all the wrath -- I don't think it's deserved.

Tarski, lovely thread!

It's an interesting dynamic, one I've speculated about before, as well. I really don't see a compelling reason to treat DCP as THE apologist, so to speak, for various reasons. It always does seem to come down to this, that he's a symbol for apologia. In addition, he does tend to condescension quite a bit, even while decrying it in others, which makes him a desirable target.

Of course part of that is that he's so visible, online, and is the editor of a major apologetic organ. But I also think DCP does his part in this by often exaggerating and generalizing more specific criticisms into the generic "yes, I'm evil incarnate" type of chorus.

I've told DCP before, although I am not sure he realized I was serious, that I don't particularly fault him for his abrasive behavior here, because he is under quite a bit of personal attack. It is just odd, sometimes, to see how much time he's willing to spend on the "yeah, I'm evil incarnate" type of dialog while refusing to respond to serious criticism about actual LDS claims that have nothing to do with his person or personality. Yes, yes, I know, he does his serious work outside internet boards, as many or most people do, but if you're going to participate on these threads anyway, it seems odd to so consistently refuse to address those - often legitimate - points while spending an appreciable amount of time on the "evil incarnate" business.

Having said all that, I readily admit that I have had many bad experiences in my past attempts to sincerely interact with internet apologists, and I have given up on that general idea, so feel more free to indulge in personal tit-for-tat than I was previously.

Moniker wrote:I find a man on this website to be one of the rankest, nastiest human beings I've ever come across on the net and here no one bats an eye at his antics -- yet, they complain about nasty apologists. Blinded because the person that is vile is on their side. It's so simple to see the clan mentality play out on these boards!).

Hey! I resemble..... I mean resent that remark.

I don't think DCP needs to police people on his own team. He's under no obligation to do so just because he happens to be a quasi-professional apologist. That said, I would concur with Gad that he displays some double standards. He also seems quite close to exercising a policy of not criticizing his own on the boards with respect to LDS apologia.

EAllusion wrote: He also tends to have a frustrating posting style because of his tendency to stay vague, use inneundo and gossip, sarcastically mock, stick to going after low-hanging fruit, etc. I think people get frustrated when comparing that against his reputation.

OK, I can see that. But even there, maybe confirmation bias is acting. Is he really always like that or even mostly? If it were true would it be deserving of the derision he gets. It's not like he is a Coggins/Droopy type character or something LOL.

I think there is at least a partial truth in what I said.

Moniker wrote:I find a man on this website to be one of the rankest, nastiest human beings I've ever come across on the net and here no one bats an eye at his antics . . .

I apologize. I'll try to be less rank and nasty in the future.

EAllusion wrote:I don't think DCP needs to police people on his own team. He's under no obligation to do so just because he happens to be a quasi-professional apologist. That said, I would concur with Gad that he displays some double standards. He also seems quite close to exercising a policy of not criticizing his own on the boards with respect to the LDS apologia.

Of course he displays a double standard. Yet, so what? The people here do the same thing for their team. Why expect him to live up to some standard that the posters here don't live up to?

~edited to add~
And posters here routinely call on him to apologize for other posters behavior.