Schryver-related comments from Once Again I missed the fun

[_Chap]

...

Now I've always thought -- silly me -- that when it comes to Mormon subjects, the views of Mormons ought to figure in there somewhere. Furthermore, if a Mormon actually has something original to say, then maybe having that Mormon's contribution heard might conceivably be more important than whether some random woman who might want to participate in the discussion would be comfortable talking to that Mormon.

Evidently such a view is not politically correct enough. Evidently, here in a forum whose sole reason for existence is "freedom of speech," the muzzling of a Mormon apologist for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality and content of his apologetics is a worthy goal, and its accomplishment is an achievement to be celebrated.

Isn't that right?

Regards,
Pahoran

MsJack exhibited a large number of unpleasant things that Schryver had written to or about women. One instance only he disavowed. The rest he owned to. He wrote the stuff, and she re-posted it publicly.

The Maxwell Institute became aware of Schryver's reposted material. They made a decision about it: evidently they considered that "having that Mormon's contribution" heard was less important than marking their disapproval of unmanly and unmannerly behavior. You could say they 'muzzled him' ... 'for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality and content of his apologetics'. It was a bunch of rather high-status LDS men who decided to do that, not a 'random woman'.

If you think they made the wrong decision, go and argue with them.

It is reassuring to see that there are a number of LDS posters here who disagree with you. Their (in some cases surprising) stand does much more to preserve the image of the CoJCoLDS than reams of posts from yourself. But is preserving the image of the CoJCoLDS really what you are about? There seems to be a fair chance that what you are really about is enjoying an scruple-free aggression trip licensed by the conviction that you are some kind of character from the Book of Mormon stories they teach kids in primary.

I believe that at least one of your church leaders has publicly counseled LDS against that kind of online behavior, and I can quite see why.

[_Pahoran]

Yes, I remember seeing something to that effect. I didn't reply to it at the time -- there are always too many posts for me to reply to them all anyway -- but I will address that point now.

I find it an astonishingly arrogant piece of feminist hubris to insist that no serious discussion on any subject should take place unless women "feel comfortable" participating, and that the women in question may predicate their comfort on the behaviour of a participant outside the venue of the proposed discussion. Such an approach assumes that the views of women are at all times the most important ones.

Now I've always thought -- silly me -- that when it comes to Mormon subjects, the views of Mormons ought to figure in there somewhere. Furthermore, if a Mormon actually has something original to say, then maybe having that Mormon's contribution heard might conceivably be more important than whether some random woman who might want to participate in the discussion would be comfortable talking to that Mormon.

Evidently such a view is not politically correct enough. Evidently, here in a forum whose sole reason for existence is "freedom of speech," the muzzling of a Mormon apologist for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality and content of his apologetics is a worthy goal, and its accomplishment is an achievement to be celebrated.

Isn't that right?

Regards,
Pahoran

So LDS women would feel comfortable, say, challenging the ideas of a man who has a history of attacking women's personal appearances and sexual attractiveness in response to being challenged?

I guess the church has changed since I left.

What part of what you wrote addressed any part of what I wrote?

Let us pretend for a moment that an LDS woman writing in an academic venue might feel uncomfortable challenging the arguments of a man who, in the rough-and-tumble of this message board, was sometimes (or even frequently) insulting to men and women he disagreed with.

Even though she is writing in an academic venue, and would expect to be responded to in the same venue.

And even though she has no real reason to expect that man's interaction in an academic venue to be the same as his message board behaviour.

Let's pretend that this argument is actually valid.

Why on earth does that mean that that man's arguments should never appear in an academic venue? Are there no men anywhere equal to the task of challenging his ideas? Aren't there any men engaged in Book of Abraham studies who might be brave enough to step forward and take on the bluebeard, and aren't they competent enough to do so? Is Book of Abraham/KEP studies a field dominated by soprano voices?

With that in mind, is the argument really valid? Is a person's interaction on a message board really a reliable predictor of their behaviour in a formal academic setting? Or of their writing for publication? Of of any of their in real life interactions, really?

Various people have told me that the Malefactor-in-chief is a nice guy in real life, and that I would like him if I met him. That may be so, but my only interaction with him is via this MB, and I've chosen to put him on ignore. Should he be silenced because I don't want to have anything to do with him?

Or does the fact that I'm a Mormon (ugh!) and a mere man (phut!) mean that my comfort level just doesn't count?

In other words: Is it so hard to just admit that Will was being punished for offending the MDB hagarchy?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

What part of what you wrote addressed any part of what I wrote?

The danger in pretending to be this stupid is that people might actually think you're this stupid.

Let us pretend for a moment that an LDS woman writing in an academic venue might feel uncomfortable challenging the arguments of a man who, in the rough-and-tumble of this message board, was sometimes (or even frequently) insulting to men and women he disagreed with.

Even though she is writing in an academic venue, and would expect to be responded to in the same venue.

And even though she has no real reason to expect that man's interaction in an academic venue to be the same as his message board behaviour.

And yet MDD participants objected to the vulgar Juliann pictures. Did you tell them that it shouldn't matter since it was a different venue?

Let's pretend that this argument is actually valid.

Why on earth does that mean that that man's arguments should never appear in an academic venue? Are there no men anywhere equal to the task of challenging his ideas? Aren't there any men engaged in Book of Abraham studies who might be brave enough to step forward and take on the bluebeard, and aren't they competent enough to do so? Is Book of Abraham/KEP studies a field dominated by soprano voices?

Who made the argument that Will's arguments should never appear in an academic venue?

I'd appreciate a direct link to that assertion. Thanks in advance.

[_Pahoran]

What part of what you wrote addressed any part of what I wrote?

The danger in pretending to be this stupid is that people might actually think you're this stupid.

Humour me, Beastie. Point out the connection, please.

Let us pretend for a moment that an LDS woman writing in an academic venue might feel uncomfortable challenging the arguments of a man who, in the rough-and-tumble of this message board, was sometimes (or even frequently) insulting to men and women he disagreed with.

Even though she is writing in an academic venue, and would expect to be responded to in the same venue.

And even though she has no real reason to expect that man's interaction in an academic venue to be the same as his message board behaviour.

And yet MDD participants objected to the vulgar Juliann pictures. Did you tell them that it shouldn't matter since it was a different venue?

Again, either I'm missing the point, or you are.

And I don't think I am.

The arguments would be parallel if and only if the argument made on MD&D was that the adolescent jackasses responsible for the Juliann pictures should never publish in an academic venue because no Mormon woman would feel comfortable interacting with them.

Was that argument made? Because I didn't see it if it was.

Might I also point out that the MD&D commentators gave due credit to those MDB posters who objected to the Juliann pictures. Were you planning to mention that, Beastie?

Let's pretend that this argument is actually valid.

Why on earth does that mean that that man's arguments should never appear in an academic venue? Are there no men anywhere equal to the task of challenging his ideas? Aren't there any men engaged in Book of Abraham studies who might be brave enough to step forward and take on the bluebeard, and aren't they competent enough to do so? Is Book of Abraham/KEP studies a field dominated by soprano voices?

Who made the argument that Will's arguments should never appear in an academic venue?

I'd appreciate a direct link to that assertion. Thanks in advance.

I'm not aware that anyone was tactless enough to actually make that argument. But it is implicit in the argument -- made by MsJack, and cited with approval by you -- "that someone with a history of misogynist comments would create a climate in which women would be discouraged to participate in discussion." And that MsJack's "Rita Skeeter" thread was the appropriate way to address that concern. And that the quashing of Will's article was something to be celebrated.

Did you really not make that connection?

As you yourself said -- paraphrasing me, but without attribution -- "The danger in pretending to be this stupid is that people might actually think you're this stupid."

And now: this derail about Will Schryver has gone on long enough. It's time for it to end. It has no real relevance to the OP. May I point out that the matter at issue is simply this:

This board's unfortunate and ill-considered tolerance for targeted personal attacks has had negative consequences for the board. Would it be better to discuss ideas and events instead? Discuss.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Let us pretend for a moment that an LDS woman writing in an academic venue might feel uncomfortable challenging the arguments of a man who, in the rough-and-tumble of this message board, was sometimes (or even frequently) insulting to men and women he disagreed with.

Even though she is writing in an academic venue, and would expect to be responded to in the same venue.

And even though she has no real reason to expect that man's interaction in an academic venue to be the same as his message board behaviour.

Let us pretend for a moment that an LDS woman writing on strictly moderated message board might feel uncomfortable challenging the arguments of a man who, in the rough-and-tumble of the internet, sometimes posted pictures of her with insulting and even vulgar captions on a different site.

Even though she is writing on a strictly moderated board, and would expect to be responded to on the same board.

And even though she has no real reason to expect that man’s interactions in a strictly moderated board would be the same as his off-site offensive pictures.

[_beastie]

I'm not aware that anyone was tactless enough to actually make that argument. But it is implicit in the argument -- made by MsJack, and cited with approval by you -- "that someone with a history of misogynist comments would create a climate in which women would be discouraged to participate in discussion." And that MsJack's "Rita Skeeter" thread was the appropriate way to address that concern. And that the quashing of Will's article was something to be celebrated.

Did you really not make that connection?

As you yourself said -- paraphrasing me, but without attribution -- "The danger in pretending to be this stupid is that people might actually think you're this stupid."

And now: this derail about Will Schryver has gone on long enough. It's time for it to end. It has no real relevance to the OP. May I point out that the matter at issue is simply this:

This board's unfortunate and ill-considered tolerance for targeted personal attacks has had negative consequences for the board. Would it be better to discuss ideas and events instead? Discuss.

Of course no one said it. It’s a strawman of your own construction. Jack even expressed surprise at the MI’s decision.

Personally, I didn’t care whether or not the MI – or any other venue – published Will’s material. My point was always that if the MI did associate with him in such a manner, that Will’s behavior would inevitably reflect poorly on that institution. That is a particularly difficult situation for an apologetic institution, which has a vested interest in at least the appearance of decency and morality. It is less problematic for institutions that don’t have that vested interest.

by the way, do you really not understand the difference between Will’s insults toward women and his insults toward men? It has been explained repeatedly, but you do seem to have a habit of ignoring previous posts and information offered therein. So I’ll explain it one more time: Will’s insults toward women are different in nature than his insults toward men because his insults toward women focus on their sexual attractiveness.

If you would like to discuss ideas and events, please start doing so yourself. In the many years I've known you online, you are one of the worst offenders as far as focusing on personality and character rather than issues.

[_Pahoran]

I'm not aware that anyone was tactless enough to actually make that argument. But it is implicit in the argument -- made by MsJack, and cited with approval by you -- "that someone with a history of misogynist comments would create a climate in which women would be discouraged to participate in discussion." And that MsJack's "Rita Skeeter" thread was the appropriate way to address that concern. And that the quashing of Will's article was something to be celebrated.

Did you really not make that connection?

As you yourself said -- paraphrasing me, but without attribution -- "The danger in pretending to be this stupid is that people might actually think you're this stupid."

And now: this derail about Will Schryver has gone on long enough. It's time for it to end. It has no real relevance to the OP. May I point out that the matter at issue is simply this:

This board's unfortunate and ill-considered tolerance for targeted personal attacks has had negative consequences for the board. Would it be better to discuss ideas and events instead? Discuss.

Of course no one said it. It’s a strawman of your own construction. Jack even expressed surprise at the MI’s decision.

Let's see.

MsJack started the Rita Skeeter thread because she was "concerned" about how terrible it would be if someone she didn't want to talk to got to publish about his own religion.

As a result of this, the target of her campaign didn't get to publish about his own religion.

But she's shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Suuuuure....

Personally, I didn’t care whether or not the MI – or any other venue – published Will’s material. My point was always that if the MI did associate with him in such a manner, that Will’s behavior would inevitably reflect poorly on that institution. That is a particularly difficult situation for an apologetic institution, which has a vested interest in at least the appearance of decency and morality. It is less problematic for institutions that don’t have that vested interest.

And evidently that argument worked.

by the way, do you really not understand the difference between Will’s insults toward women and his insults toward men? It has been explained repeatedly, but you do seem to have a habit of ignoring previous posts and information offered therein. So I’ll explain it one more time: Will’s insults toward women are different in nature than his insults toward men because his insults toward women focus on their sexual attractiveness.

And if he insulted men about their sexual attractiveness, that would make it all okay, would it?

Like any male cares whether Will thinks he's attractive or not. If you're going to insult someone, why waste bandwidth on an ineffective insult?

That wasn't the only way that his insults differed. Another way in which they differed was that Will frequently took standard (for-men) insults and modified them to apply to women.

The claim that Will was unnecessarily, even at times egregiously, insulting towards many people he disagreed with, is a fair cop. The claim that he is or ever was a "misogynist" is clearly a jack-up -- pun not intended.

And that really is my last post on the subject of the great anti-Schryver jihad.

If you would like to discuss ideas and events, please start doing so yourself. [Snip]

I'd be delighted.

So I shall ignore the obvious flamebait in the snipped sentence and ask: what do you think about my suggestion that the forum should discuss ideas and events, instead of dog-piling upon individual Mormon (of course) participants?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

MsJack started the Rita Skeeter thread because she was "concerned" about how terrible it would be if someone she didn't want to talk to got to publish about his own religion.

No. Read it again, this time for clarity. Publishing Will's apologia had nothing to do with Jack's concern.

As a result of this, the target of her campaign didn't get to publish about his own religion.

As a result of his comments, MI will not be publishing him. Some other publishing house could, or he could self-publish. If his arguments are that good, any number of publishing houses should be knocking on his door.

[_asbestosman]

Personally, I didn’t care whether or not the MI – or any other venue – published Will’s material. My point was always that if the MI did associate with him in such a manner, that Will’s behavior would inevitably reflect poorly on that institution.

Oh, you mean a group can be held responsible for the actions of one person? That's an interesting admission there. I wonder why it only seems to apply in that case. Perhaps I should read on.

That is a particularly difficult situation for an apologetic institution, which has a vested interest in at least the appearance of decency and morality. It is less problematic for institutions that don’t have that vested interest.

You mean like this board. I suppose that goes without saying. Of course, it's hard to think too highly of a board that doesn't have much of a vested interest in even the appearance of decency and morality--at least until the lights are turned on it.

by the way, do you really not understand the difference between Will’s insults toward women and his insults toward men? It has been explained repeatedly, but you do seem to have a habit of ignoring previous posts and information offered therein. So I’ll explain it one more time: Will’s insults toward women are different in nature than his insults toward men because his insults toward women focus on their sexual attractiveness.

When men are thinking about their own sexual attractiveness, they tend to tie it to things such as physical fitness, leadership, intelligence, and maybe a sense of humor or possibly compassion. Now, if Will is to insult us by calling us weak, cowards, fools, etc., what do you think his insults imply? Money probably fits in there too. Calling this place the trailer-park isn't a coincidence.

What Will did was wrong, vile, and inexcusable. However, was actually a misogynist? I'm not completely sure about that. He's certainly disrespectful to women, but he is also disrespectful to men. I will candidly admit that I found his insults to females to be the most troubling. However, I am now questioning whether that's because he's truly worse with women, or just because we as a society are less tolerant to that nonsense when directed at women.

You think I'm off base here? One person joked about Emma getting violent to Joseph about polygamy and that was generally laughed at. I pointed out that it's only funny because it's violence against men. People would be outraged if a man beat his wife just because she was sleeping around. That is the double-standard in our culture. I didn't want to harp on it at the time, but I do want people to be aware that it exists. Is it justified by the reality that woman are far more likely to actually be victims? I do not think so. Abuse is abuse regardless of how common or relatively common it is.

Also, I sometimes wonder if we're over-sensitive about misogyny. Nobody in his right mind would accuse Lucretia of misogyny for bringing up Pahoran's panties. However, when males hurl feminine words at other males, the cries of misogyny are loud. I personally think men simply shouldn't do it--there are other ways of being insulting to men without needlessly offending women. However, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of misogyny.

[_harmony]

However, when males hurl feminine words at other males, the cries of misogyny are loud.

Huh? What feminine words did Will hurl at other men?