DiscussMormonism.com

It's not unusual for forum posters to engaging in name calling *, but it seems far more prevalent among so-called-apologists. This seems to me to be a peculiarity of modern apologetics, both in print and on the Internet, though perhaps less so in the former. I can hardly imagine a scholar of the stature of B.H. Roberts doing this. It includes casting a cynical or sarcastic variation on someone's real or user name to imply they are stupid or ignorant. The frequency with which this is done suggests that modern apologists are so devoid of good arguments, that this is their last, desperate resort for a "win".


* "Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits."
>
>
>

It begins with the use of the ubiquitous "so-called" and progresses from there. "So-called" seeks nothing more than to undermine the credibility of the individual in question.

Fionn wrote:It begins with the use of the ubiquitous "so-called" and progresses from there. "So-called" seeks nothing more than to undermine the credibility of the individual in question.

Which individual? I don't even recall objecting to DCP's term "so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre". And use of TSCC (the so-called Church) isn't particularly offensive, in my opinion. I'm talking about repeated name-calling in an attempt to win an argument, because of one's inability to do so wholly on the merits of that argument.

Sorry, Ray, I should have been clearer. I was not directing that comment at you. Seriously, it's just what sprang to mind and now that I've gone back and re-read your post, I noticed you used it. LOL. My bad.

All I'm trying to say is that the use of "so-called" is an effort to undermine the individuals at whom it is directed. Like the use of the phrase "so-called intellectuals". Use of the acronym TSCC is simply returning in kind LDS, Inc's use of this particular tactic. But it does serve the same purpose, doesn't it? To undermine the church's alleged authority? Hey, I do use it on occasion, but still prefer LDS, Inc. as my preferred insult.

Name-calling does exactly what you said it does: it's a last, desperate resort to win.

I really do agree with you, Ray, I would just expand the idea to cover the phrase "so-called", even if it comes from ex-mormons.

Fionn wrote:I really do agree with you, Ray, I would just expand the idea to cover the phrase "so-called", even if it comes from ex-mormons.

I don't find that distracting or offensive, and as you note it's used by both sides. TSCC was a retort for such name calling. I've never seen Brent Metcalfe nor Dan Vogel resort to this, however, and there are some apologists who don't, like Mikwut. Even as a one-off it might be acceptable, but the repeated use of name-calling suggests to me that one is bereft of substance. I occasionally do it myself, but always in response to an initial barb thrown at me.

Ray A wrote:It's not unusual for forum posters to engaging in name calling *, but it seems far more prevalent among so-called-apologists. This seems to me to be a peculiarity of modern apologetics, both in print and on the Internet, though perhaps less so in the former. I can hardly imagine a scholar of the stature of B.H. Roberts doing this. It includes casting a cynical or sarcastic variation on someone's real or user name to imply they are stupid or ignorant. The frequency with which this is done suggests that modern apologists are so devoid of good arguments, that this is their last, desperate resort for a "win".
>

Given the stuff that is thrown at them, I think they actually show a lot of restraint. I especially think DCP has shown a tremendous amount of restraint toward Scratch.

Do the apostates call DCP a fat bastard because they are "devoid of good arguments" or just because they don't like him. It would be interesting to analyze the comments on this board and see which side resorts to name the most. We would then know which side is "devoid of good arguments."

dblagent007 wrote:Given the stuff that is thrown at them, I think they actually show a lot of restraint. I especially think DCP has shown a tremendous amount of restraint toward Scratch.

Do the apostates call DCP a fat bastard because they are "devoid of good arguments" or just because they don't like him. It would be interesting to analyze the comments on this board and see which side resorts to name the most. We would then know which side is "devoid of good arguments."

Shut up you fool! Okay, just kidding. It happens on both sides. But it seems rather odd, to me anyway, that someone supposedly intelligent, with a Ph.D (in comparison to dumb cab drivers), would constantly resort to this. I can't imagine Richard Bushman coming on here and name-calling, can you? It's not a matter, either, of "who does it the most". Someone like Bushman wouldn't even bother to enter such an atmosphere, much less stick around to trade insults. And don't tell me MAD isn't as bad as "here".

Ray A wrote:Shut up you fool! Okay, just kidding. It happens on both sides. But it seems rather odd, to me anyway, that someone supposedly intelligent, with a Ph.D (in comparison to dumb cab drivers), would constantly resort to this. I can't imagine Richard Bushman coming on here and name-calling, can you? It's not a matter, either, of "who does it the most". Someone like Bushman wouldn't even bother to enter such an atmosphere, much less stick around to trade insults. And don't tell me MAD isn't as bad as "here".

Both sides have their good ones (Bushman and Metcalfe) and their bad ones (names concealed, but widely known). Internet Boards that discuss controversial topics like politics and religion seem to deginerate into name calling. It's almost like a universal law of the universe.

By the way, I think even Brent fired off an insult at Will recently.

dblagent007 wrote:By the way, I think even Brent fired off an insult at Will recently.

Will is a particularly egregious example of the insulting apologist. With his meager bag of substantive material, he has to rely on something.

dblagent007 wrote:
By the way, I think even Brent fired off an insult at Will recently.

I would bet he didn't initiate it. My understanding is that Brent rarely posts because of the atmosphere in most forums. Sadly, Dan Vogel rarely posts anymore. I've seen him lurking on MAD a few times, then disappear without posting.