Dr. Peterson and Greg Smith are apparently engaged in some kind of Skinny-L chit-chat about how non-LDS religious commentary is way more mean and "nasty" comparted to the stuff they say and write:
“Can you imagine,” Greg asks, “if I’d written, ‘Now, admittedly, [So-and-so] is a notorious simpleton, whose special combination of emotional instability and intellectual fatuity leaves him in a condition rather like a chronic delirium tremens; so it is not surprising that, on being somewhat unceremoniously roused from the parochial midden on which he had been contentedly reclining, his reaction [online, in a podcast, or whatever] should be puerile and vicious; but his perplexity and rage were genuine and understandable”?
No, I honestly can’t.
Since far more mild comments elicited reactions in some quarters like that captured in the photograph above [of an erupting volcano], I can scarcely envision what might have happened if we’d really been nasty.
Now, I found this very interesting. First of all, it's eyebrow-raising that these Mopologists are even having this conversation at all. Do they care that people accuse them of being "vicious"? It would seem that they do. Second, do they not realize the strangeness inherent in them (1) tracking down other examples of "nasty" prose; (2) sharing it with each other for the sake of commentary/criticism/high-fiving, etc.; (3) using said "nasty prose" as a means of comparison with their own "nasty" writing--and as a way of vindicating their own worst moments? Further, if the reactions are simply going to be ballistic and eruptive "in certain quarters," then what is holding them back? (Of course, the implication here is that they *are* holding back--that they really want to cut loose with all manner of explicit insult and invective--but that's another story.)
As you might have expected, the Comments on the posting were of especial interest:
somebodyz wrote:There are those who want to be offended by a word. They are looking for any means real or imagined. As you and Greg have witnessed and borne.
Quickmere Graham wrote:True. This is precisely why we should take a devil-may-care approach to our rhetorical style and actively seek to increase the possibility that such folks will be able to take offense at the things we write. We should point to other examples of snarky writers and insist that any offense taken to our “wit” means people are humorless or missing the point. When we show ourselves ready to give an answer, a defense, to any who asks us the reason for our hope, we must above all eschew meekness and fear, or as other translations have it, gentleness and respect. Brava!
DCP wrote:The point, QG, is that neither I nor Greg Smith have actually been nasty in our writing. Period.
I’m not defending vicious and insulting prose. I don’t write such prose, and I don’t endorse it.
Quickmere Graham wrote:You’re a saint Dan. We know you’ve never written a misfired word, ne’er uttered a sneer, never been too dismissive, never employed too much sarcasm in the name of wit, always been charitable, and above all, you’ve always made sure to answer with “gentleness and respect,” as the Pauline scripture which you’ve cited calls for.
DCP wrote:The simple fact is that I’ve been pretty restrained over the years, and that I’m not even remotely the villain that I’ve been portrayed as in certain quarters. Sneer all you want. It won’t change that fact.
Notice how he says, "I've been pretty restrained over the years." The clear implication here is, as I've said, that he's holding back. He has to bite his tongue in order to prevent himself from saying what he really means. And that's a scary thought. In light of all the stuff we've seen from him over the past couple of decades or so, can you imagine what sort of nakedly hateful and cruel things he's been bottling up, or reserving solely from the likeminded chaps at Skinny-L? One of the more nasty things he said that springs immediately to mind was his dismissal of Will Bagley as a "lying, venomous gasbag." There are also plenty of examples from the FARMS Review, along with all the SHIELDS stuff and his messageboard postings.
Ultimately, the posting is kind of sad. On the one hand, it suggests that these Mopologists are aware that there's a problem. On the other hand, it shows that they are positively unwilling to address it.