Smoot the Satirist

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_brotherjake
_Emeritus
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:46 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _brotherjake »

Sammy Jankins wrote:Well if you think it's good satire, what can I say? You're about the best satirist since Darth J stopped posting. Maybe I'm missing something.

Well the biggest mistake we could make is let someone like Smoot make it about Ex-Mormons and deflect attention away from Mormon truth claims. Ex-Mormons could overall be the scum of the earth and it still wouldn't make Mormonism true.

I appreciate the compliment, Sammy. Although, I should have been more clear with my comment--my "thumbs up" was more of a superficial, gut reaction to the blog post as an attempt at humor. In my experience, believers are all too often lacking in humor (likely a function of their expansive list of sacred, off-limits subjects, in my opinion), so it's refreshing to see a humorous piece written from a believing perspective as sharply done as this was. I should also mention that I'm hesitant to criticize Smoot's post because, as a satirist myself, I'm hyper-sensitive about dismissing satire critical to my worldview while producing satire of others'. I guess I don't really feel qualified to draw the line between effective/ineffective satire since my instinct is to draw it such that mine is on the "good" side and Smoot's is on the "bad" side.

Kish and Gadiaton's comments ring true to me--as pure satire, the piece seems to miss the mark both in its object of ridicule and its intended audience. It also seems to offer a pretty hollow message. What's the takeaway here? Ex-Mormons are dumb? Ignorant? Lazy? As you pointed out, none of that has any relevance to what I imagine the larger point of such a piece would be in the mind of the author, i.e. that belief in Mormonism is valid.

So, yeah. I should put a big fat asterisk next to my applause for Smoot.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Kishkumen »

brotherjake wrote:I appreciate the compliment, Sammy. Although, I should have been more clear with my comment--my "thumbs up" was more of a superficial, gut reaction to the blog post as an attempt at humor. In my experience, believers are all too often lacking in humor (likely a function of their expansive list of sacred, off-limits subjects, in my opinion), so it's refreshing to see a humorous piece written from a believing perspective as sharply done as this was. I should also mention that I'm hesitant to criticize Smoot's post because, as a satirist myself, I'm hyper-sensitive about dismissing satire critical to my worldview while producing satire of others'. I guess I don't really feel qualified to draw the line between effective/ineffective satire since my instinct is to draw it such that mine is on the "good" side and Smoot's is on the "bad" side.

Kish and Gadiaton's comments ring true to me--as pure satire, the piece seems to miss the mark both in its object of ridicule and its intended audience. It also seems to offer a pretty hollow message. What's the takeaway here? Ex-Mormons are dumb? Ignorant? Lazy? As you pointed out, none of that has any relevance to what I imagine the larger point of such a piece would be in the mind of the author, i.e. that belief in Mormonism is valid.

So, yeah. I should put a big fat asterisk next to my applause for Smoot.


I am glad I am not alone in seeing the good points in Young Smoot's efforts.

When it comes to the failure of establishment-oriented humor, I think the words of Alison Dagnes are applicable:

The nature of conservatism does not meet the conditions necessary for political satire to flourish: conservatism is harmonized and slow to criticize people in power, and it originates from a place that repudiates humor because it is absolute.


Now, I would actually take issue with her statement in this respect: the assumption that conservative=establishment. That is not necessarily the case. If however, one were to substitute "the establishment view" for "conservatism," then the statement would be well applicable to Young Smoot's blame-the-member attempt at satire.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:My beef is that the essays haven't been brought down to the ward level and used as fifth Sunday topics or integrated into the Sunday curriculum at all. Who really even knows what the exposure level is within individual wards to these essays? Not a clue. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. So I agree with you that until the church brings the essays into the ward and puts them front and center there are going to be many, including myself, that will ask..."What the heck?" "If you're going to go to all the trouble of writing these damn things, let's actually get them out in the open and have class discussions!"

I can not think of one instance in which any ONE of the 'juicy' essays have been used in ANY way for discussion/lesson material in my ward. And very few, if any, folks have brought up or even mentioned them. If they have been mentioned, it's been a passing comment and the lesson moves on.

Frustrating.

Regards,
MG


That is an interesting fact. I wonder why it is the case. My guess is that they were never intended for Sunday curriculum, but always conceived as being an official response for consumption and discussion outside of Church.


The essays are only meant for those who are having trouble with the issue brought up in the essays. Putting them in front of the general membership will only make things worse for them. It would educate many who are unaware resulting in many looking into it more and seeing the problem for what it really is. The problem of the Book of Abraham have been around for decades yet the church knew that most neither had the time, ability or inclination to learn as much as they could about it. So no need to create problems by addressing this to people who are not aware of it. The internet has changed all this, so the church looks to be finally trying to address it, but as usual wants to keep it to only those who are aware of it.

If you want to keep your, unaware of LDS apologia, friend a believer you don't send him to fair or farms any more then you would sites critical of church truth claims.
42
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

There have been some interesting new developments pertaining to this. Take a look, for example, at these items that were posted to the "Comments" section at "Sic et Non":

Ron Gould wrote:I trust that you've advised Stephen that these kinds of posts do not increase his chances of entering a program where a doctoral dissertation is a possibility.


DCP wrote:I doubt that posts like this have any influence at ALL upon his chances of entering a doctoral program.


And skipping down a bit:

Ron Gould wrote:This is a rather tangential issue, so this is my last comment on it. Please be more careful about how you prepare LDS youth for graduate school.


DCP wrote:Whoa! This is about blaming ME?

I didn't see THAT coming!

I guess I should have, though.

Look. I've never had Stephen Smoot as a student. I didn't make him launch a blog. I didn't even suggest it. I didn't hold a gun to his head while he wrote the particular post that you seem to regard as the modern equivalent of the Trojan War. I also don't think it's a big deal.

The way I prepare LDS youth for graduate school focuses on trying to teach them subject-matter knowledge, how to think, and how to write. That's my job, and it seems to me that that's what's needed for success in graduate and professional schools.

If, though, graduate admissions committees want to limit themselves to bland, politically correct, predictable, cookie-cutter repetitions of the ideologies that dominate academia, if they're so intolerant of different viewpoints that they refuse to tolerate different viewpoints, they'll certainly be able to find ways of doing it.

Might Brother Smoot's having a slightly controversial blog harm his chances of admission somewhere? It's conceivable. But it's at least as likely that his being a white Mormon male and coming from BYU will hurt him in that regard.

The world is like that. There are injustices and unfair people and jerks all over the place, and they have an impact. Bad things happen to good people.

But to depict Steve Smoot's simple, harmless little blog post as a potentially career-destroying Crime of the Century is either ridiculous or, if it's not, it's a symbol of the decadence of academia and society in our time.

And to hold me as in any way responsible for it is merely silly.


Very interesting! Is it possible that the example that the Mopologists have set will undermine the chances of people like Smoot and Rappleye? In a later posting, Ron Gould provided quite a fascinating link to at least one person who thinks so:

Tips for the future LDS grad school applicant
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _RockSlider »

Doctor Scratch wrote:...


ouch

Dan sure knows how to use up "friends", and those youth are so strong and full of energy.

wow, what an indirect smack down.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Kishkumen »

Smoot gets thrown under the bus. Ouch!

That was stunning.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Kishkumen »

The article Doctor Scratch linked to is full of wise advice for LDS students considering grad school. They would do well to read and follow that advice.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Smoot the Satirist

Post by _Lemmie »

No. 5 from the link:
You are asked by FAIR or Interpreter to author or co-author papers, write book reviews, or otherwise attach your name to something these organizations do: Serious risk, DO NOT DO THIS. Do not do this no matter how flattering, how exciting, how faith re-affirming, how methodologically sound you feel it to be. These are big red flags to grad school admission committees. They are even red flags to graduate programs at BYU from what I hear from colleagues there.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromo ... applicant/
Post Reply