Protect LDS Children "The action" tomorrow

[_RockSlider]

Do you think you overreacted?

No, I think you did, though. Lacking the basic character to apologize, you then continued, and continue, to dig the hole deeper.

yep

[_Water Dog]

I don't think that Sam Young ever expected a response from the church. As I said previously, I think this is about collecting proof of the church's general refusal or indifference to a dialogue with it's own members. If I recall correctly, just prior to the march, the church released it's new policy. The policy falls short of what was being requested from the petitioners.

If what you say is true, that Sam is operating on ulterior motives, then the church is right to not respond to him. I believe him to have genuine intentions, and that he's a peasant throwing spears at the castle. I sympathize, but don't think he's going to penetrate the wall.

I also think it's presumptuous for anyone to "call" a 21 day protest on day 5 for any purpose.

Lots of football games are easy to call in the first quarter. I would love to be wrong and see a sudden burst of attention, but, yeah, that's not going to happen. We've seen this many times before. If you knew understood Mormon culture, it's arguable that this is a ill conceived approach to begin with. Go listen to the recent interview with Greg Prince on Mormon Stories, where he argues that Kate Kelly's activism set women in the church back by decades. He could be right about that.

I don't completely agree with him, agitation needs to happen and I think it does have an effect. But it's very much a double edged sword. The persecution complex is a thing. Sam is drawing some attention to the issue, and he's also sending people into their bunkers. Prince points out that leaders are not going to respond to public demands like this. Ever. Nor should they. I'm irritated with church leaders for a variety of things, but failing to come outside and sit in a chair with Sam while the cameras are rolling isn't one of them.

[_Water Dog]

Doc posted in other thread, but thought I'd respond here in "the action" thread since this goes to my point.

Is Sam Young still starving himself? See? I don't know. I have no idea and I don't care enough to internetz-serches to find out.

I think this is the reason why the Church will continue to hold out on the issue. The issue, while morally just, isn't something people are going to follow. The Church is pretty savvy in that it has a sort of run-the-clock-out strategy while most members who're comfortable in the Church view Sam and others as simply antagonistic toward the LDS institution.

Maybe. Not sure he ever was. You just have to take his word for it. He shows up for a few hours in the evening and rants. I don't understand the point of a hunger strike that takes place for a couple hours in the evening. He could be eating all night, who knows? Which isn't an accusation, but I'm describing how I envision most people reacting to this. I always thought a hunger strike was supposed to be a no joke, "I believe in this so much I'm willing to die over it" kind of protest?

If you want to actually get media attention, you have to camp out. Lock yourself in a glass box like David Blaine. It will go viral on Facebook on its own. It gets attention because it's a feat and display of suffering. It's graphic. People can't help but look. This person is hurting so much, over whatever the issue is, that they'd rather starve to death than continue on in a world where this issue persists. And the kind of thing someone in prison does, because they have no other options to #resist.

Sam's not doing that. A few exmos congregate on the sidewalk while he talks live to a dozen people on Facebook. The phrase "hunger strike" has gotten a few nothingburger responses in the media. That's it. Nobody is sharing it on Facebook. So far there is no material coming out of this that would go viral on social media. It's a dud.

But who knows, maybe two weeks from now Sam will be emaciated and the mere sight of him will draw attention. Or maybe he'll lose his faculties and say something really bad on camera that generates really bad press for PLDSC.

[_Jersey Girl]

Last night's live stream, now viewable on video.

https://www.Facebook.com/ProtectLDSChil ... 053648961/

This is one of the reasons that I wish Sam Young would publish certain speakers as separate videos. Starting about 30 minutes in, there is a female speaker--Judy Larson/Larsen. What she shares is critical in my view. She shares current accounts from Bishop's interviews, and also addresses (this is why I'm posting the link) how touching sexual abuse suriviors can trigger re-experiencing the event. The suggestion is offered that if one is moved to touch the child...hug, hold hand, or touch hand (those sorts of comforting gestures) that the adult ask the child if it is okay if they give them a hug, etc.

Respecting a child's right to set personal boundaries is exactly why we in ECE ask a child's permission first.

She discusses teaching children about appropriate boundaries and body autonomy.

In my view, this is one of the most valuable aspects of the movement. Educating the public about appropriate interactions between child and adult. I would have liked to see this as a stand alone video.

Knowledge is power.

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't think that Sam Young ever expected a response from the church. As I said previously, I think this is about collecting proof of the church's general refusal or indifference to a dialogue with it's own members. If I recall correctly, just prior to the march, the church released it's new policy. The policy falls short of what was being requested from the petitioners.

If what you say is true, that Sam is operating on ulterior motives, then the church is right to not respond to him. I believe him to have genuine intentions, and that he's a peasant throwing spears at the castle. I sympathize, but don't think he's going to penetrate the wall.

I said exactly nothing about Sam operating on ulterior motives and why you choose to frame it in such a way is beyond me.

What I am essentially saying is that I am observing a protest in which I see mult-purpose and value. Sam himself said at the outset that he didn't know if it would be a failure. That would depend on what one sees as failure.

Is it Sam not being physically able to continue the fast at his wife's determination?
Is it the empty chairs?

How could Sam's possible inability to continue the fast be a failure when it is the very thing that made this new protest different from the previous protest?

How could the empty chairs possibly indicate failure when it serves to compile a collection of proofs that the church has gone hands off regarding the concerns of it's own membership?

They key element, that I think you are ignoring completely, are the consciousness raising and the fruitful and educational discussions that are taking place simultaneously as a result.

In my view, it's not about Sam Young independently dropping dead on the sidewalk from starvation, the personal funds he devoted to this at the outset, or the fact that chair is empty. It's the layer upon layer, time after time, raising of awareness and the public discourse that matters most.

The protest is the centerpiece. It's not the whole table. All one needs to do is look at what is happening and consider the benefit.

ETA: Example. This post that I have written isn't for your benefit alone nor are the many other posts most of us make on this board. There's more possible benefit than just that of the person we're replying to. Same thing with the protest.

[_Jersey Girl]

Do you think you overreacted?

No, I think you did, though. Lacking the basic character to apologize, you then continued, and continue, to dig the hole deeper.

If you think I'm going to respond favorably to one who deceptively misrepresented my words so that they bore no resemblance to what I actually stated, who accused me of :

being a venonmous bitch
a total cunt
of circle jerking myself off

posted on a thread wherein the focal point was a protest regarding sexually explicit language and the generational eroding of boundaries, based on a complete and repeated misrepresentation of my words, then I'm afraid that the only apology you're going to get from me is that I'm sorry that you fail to acknowledge your own intellectual dishonesty here and that's fine, only don't expect me to honor it with an apology based on what I didn't actually say.

Here are two examples:

No, the question is what does any of this have to do with you being a venomous bitch? I offered my opinion that the hunger strike is a dud, and your reaction was to completely unload on me. I'm entitled to my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, it's no reason to be a total cunt.

I shouldn't have to spell this out. You're strutting around as this social justice hero that the rest of us should follow, talking about "walking arm and arm with me," and putting down any opinions that steal your peacock thunder. Screw you. You are nobody. You're not Mormon. I am. I was raised in the church. I grew up with worthiness interviews. Served a mission, married in the temple. I have a story on Sam's website. I have children exposed to these interview policies right now. I traveled to the march from out of state. I've donated money to PLDSC. I've contacted dozens of members and leaders in my area and had one on one conversations with them about PLDSC. I've gotten at least a dozen people, actual card carrying dues paying members, beside myself to sign the petition. Who the hell do you think you are? You think you're special because you hit the "like" button a couple times on Facebook? You're an SJW appropriating my culture for the sake of circle jerking yourself off. Screw you!

Of venom.

[_Jersey Girl]

Current press release.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NyaRVF ... pU4K0/view

[_Jersey Girl]

Doc posted in other thread, but thought I'd respond here in "the action" thread since this goes to my point.

Is Sam Young still starving himself? See? I don't know. I have no idea and I don't care enough to internetz-serches to find out.

I think this is the reason why the Church will continue to hold out on the issue. The issue, while morally just, isn't something people are going to follow. The Church is pretty savvy in that it has a sort of run-the-clock-out strategy while most members who're comfortable in the Church view Sam and others as simply antagonistic toward the LDS institution.

Maybe. Not sure he ever was. You just have to take his word for it. He shows up for a few hours in the evening and rants. I don't understand the point of a hunger strike that takes place for a couple hours in the evening. He could be eating all night, who knows? Which isn't an accusation, but I'm describing how I envision most people reacting to this. I always thought a hunger strike was supposed to be a no joke, "I believe in this so much I'm willing to die over it" kind of protest?

Why would you think that a hunger strike is about dying for a cause? A hunger strike is simply a non-violent protest of human suffering facilitated by human suffering. It's an act of solidarity. Did Ghandi die as a result of hunger strike?

If you want to actually get media attention, you have to camp out. Lock yourself in a glass box like David Blaine. It will go viral on Facebook on its own. It gets attention because it's a feat and display of suffering. It's graphic. People can't help but look. This person is hurting so much, over whatever the issue is, that they'd rather starve to death than continue on in a world where this issue persists. And the kind of thing someone in prison does, because they have no other options to #resist.

Where are you getting the idea of have to? Is it because you think of camping out 24/7 as more powerful? He's obviously fasting and coming to the mic when he's nearing the end of his day. Regarding the degree to which he is hurting, I think it's fairly evident in his live stream.

Sam's not doing that. A few exmos congregate on the sidewalk while he talks live to a dozen people on Facebook. The phrase "hunger strike" has gotten a few nothingburger responses in the media. That's it. Nobody is sharing it on Facebook. So far there is no material coming out of this that would go viral on social media. It's a dud.

Is viral the measure by which you judge the success of a protest? That's interesting.

But who knows, maybe two weeks from now Sam will be emaciated and the mere sight of him will draw attention. Or maybe he'll lose his faculties and say something really bad on camera that generates really bad press for PLDSC.

I think that the protest will last 21 days. I don't think that the fast will nor do I think that it should. His wife will do her best to see to it that he doesn't lose his mind or his health. She was smart to take on that role.

[_Jersey Girl]

Very insignificant increase in petition signatures, ~20k to ~21k.

According to today's press release, the number is actually 56K.

[_boris]

Very insignificant increase in petition signatures, ~20k to ~21k.

According to today's press release, the number is actually 56K.

Does it tally how many are members of the lds church?