Will Schryver wrote:Had you all been content to stick with the verifiable truth, you might have hoped to convince a few more of the “much-holier-than-thou” among us (Hodges, Bokovoy, et al.) that Will Schryver has been, on rare occasions, a PG-13-rated “naughty boy” who has not shown compunction to employ oblique innuendo and ambiguous double entendre in his repertoire of message board rhetorical devices.
Will, I've not intended to be "holier-than-thou." I should point out that I've been brash and combative online in conversations. Sometimes I still am (though usually this happens on Facebook now, I don't really do message boards any more). So I'm not perfect, I don't claim to be. But I also started to see the fruits of my tone and decided it would be best to make an effort to change some things, apologize to some people, and try to approach things better. Morally I felt it was right, and pragmatically I felt it was more effective. Granted, it hasn't solved all my problems. I'm still occasionally mentioned or made fun of by certain people here, but I don't really come here any more anyway. When I do it's when people point things out to me that they think I might need to see.
All this being said, I've criticized some of the things you've said online, I see it as too bad that you've built this online persona for yourself and I don't know if it holds up in your day-to-day interactions with people. I know sometimes my own bad moods instigated in online conversations have spilled over into real life, and it's one reason I wanted to change things for myself. This thread focuses on misogyny, and while I think the things you said were horrible I've also seen people egg you on. Nicknames, teasing, and things like that, even the people you attack are not entirely free of some blame. I'm not trying to blame the victim, but it seems slightly more colorful than the thread suggests. I don't think that excuses the stuff you've said, I think it helps contextualize it. [I now notice that beastie even pointed this out herself in the thread, with her own responses to Will that egged things on a bit.] I also don't buy the attempt to tie this into some larger narrative about the patriarchal structure of Mormonism. This goes beyond the objective of simply pointing out things Will has said that are inappropriate and hoping he'll stop acting like that. I think he's capable of it.
More disturbing to me are the insinuations of unnamed supporters of yours who laugh about the sexist jokes you make. That, as far as I've ever seen, is simply not true. For the record, when Will was part of the FAIR email list (which neither of us are a part of anymore) I don't recall an instance where any women from this message board were brought up, or really much about this board generally. That could be a memory problem on my part, but I do think I would recall if there was any inappropriate jokes and backslapping because I was sort of a prig back then about complaining about snark and tone and so forth. I'd be interested if Will would be specific, who is chuckling with him on this stuff? He can't really use the excuse that he holds it in confidence because he's the one who brought it up to begin with, thus implicating potentially everyone who he has worked with including people at FARMS (NAMI) and FAIR. I want the record straight that I never saw anyone there encouraging this sort of thing at all.
Finally, I'm more concerned with Will's repeated comments about being able to discern apostates, fifth columnists and so forth, and when I objected to this he said I was naïve and so forth. It is typical of Will, in my experience, to insinuate things with just enough space for plausible deniability, such as when he implied there were people watching David Bokovoy who would impede his academic potential in the workplace, etc. That's just straight up wrong, and actually disturbing to me, and I said as much on the MAD board and to the mods there.
Anyway, I don't really have interest in pursuing this more. If things are called to my attention that I could correct I'll do so, though. Not because I'm being holier than thou, but because despite my imperfections I don't want people to think that Will is more known, important, or relevant than he really is, as far as I'm concerned. Honestly it is embarrassing to have to talk about it, it feels like junior high school.
Just as Trevor’s “Silence Schryver” gambit ultimately failed in its objective and only served to dispel the mirage of his own false reputation, so now has MsJack chosen to break herself on the same stone.
Parenthetically, this is the sort of hyperbolic rhetoric that I find very "Mister Scratch-esque," and it's really lame to me. Why make it so existential? Anyway. To you all I offer the same advice I've offered to people attacked by Mister Scratch. Just don't look. Don't respond. Let it go. If the people here were really so terribly offended or hurt they might be able to make the decision to quit paying attention to Will. It's obvious that he enjoys this stuff, sort of like a game. No need to demand public apologies. He knows where to find you. In the meantime, just ignore him. Demands for repentance ring about as hollow as Will's denial that he's done anything wrong. Just don't look.
Just more evidence that this whole soap opera is a sad affair, as Will deliberately tries to stir the waters, saying
Either way, you've crossed the line now. There's no turning back. You'll have to ride this wave all the way in, for better or worse. I hope you're up to it.
Watch out for the rocks ...
and Scratch dutifully responds to the game with
That sounds an awful lot like a threat, Will. What is it that you're suggesting here, exactly? That MsJack is going to be targeted for a smear campaign by the Maxwell Institute?
Same old, guys.
Just don't look.
