Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_MsJack]

This forum is not a private club. Anyone can register and post.

And anyone can go into a public bar. This is more private than publishing a book is.

While I agree that public v. private are a spectrum, I disagree with you that they aren't "opposites." They're opposite ends of a spectrum. And on that spectrum, I would actually place a message board as even more public than either a bar or publishing a book. Unless the book becomes available for free somewhere on the Internet like Google books, a person still has to pay for said book and have it mailed to them in order to access the information contained therein.

But anyone with an Internet connection can access what's posted on a public message board like this one that does not require membership for viewing. They don't even have to leave their house nor do they have to pay a dime beyond the cost of their Internet subscription. They can log on in their underwear at 3 in the morning and read anything and everything that's being said here. Furthermore, the words said here get archived and stick around forever, so that people who arrive years after something was said can still read what was said.

None of this is true of your bar analogy. Yes, anyone can theoretically go to the bar and overhear what's being said, but they have to be in the same geographical location and they must be present at the time it was said, otherwise they won't hear it. Saying something on an Internet message board is far, far more public than saying it in a bar, and arguably more public than saying it in a published book.

Do you know what it doesn't say anything about? The quality of his apologetics.

Indeed. I never commented on the quality of William's apologetics. I also never called for his upcoming apologetic writings to be canceled.

That said, perhaps you should write to the Maxwell Institute and ask why a Christian organization might be reticent to publish the work of a man who spends his spare time calling women bitches and whores, making lewd comments about their bodies, and bragging about how his fellow academics enjoy his behavior. I imagine someone could explain it to you.

I'll leave aside the question of whether msjack posted this thread to hurt his reputation.

I posted this thread so that his own words would hurt his reputation. There's no question about that.

Celebrating it would still be wrong, as it indicates that one is in favor of the kind of PC nonsense that I am opposed to.

[SNIP]

And while people on this website may not control NAMI, they control their own behavior, and they celebrated when NAMI decided to revoke his publication (or whatever it was that happened).

I'm not really into magical hand-waving labels like "PC." So explain it to me: what is this thing called "PC nonsense" that you're opposed to? Be specific.

In any case, I agree that a lot of the celebrating over the news that I posted was in poor taste. However, William has been vulgar and rude to just about everyone on this forum who has expressed even the most mild disagreement with him, all the while bragging that his colleagues love how he behaves here and his upcoming arguments were going to be the salt of the earth for Book of Abraham apologetics. I'm not surprised that the people he's abused would celebrate over news that he's received some form of discipline for his behavior. I don't agree with the reaction, but I do understand it.

[_malaise]

While I agree that public v. private are a spectrum, I disagree with you that they aren't "opposites." They're opposite ends of a spectrum. And on that spectrum, I would actually place a message board as even more public than either a bar or publishing a book. Unless the book becomes available for free somewhere on the Internet like Google books, a person still has to pay for said book and have it mailed to them in order to access the information contained therein.

When I said that they are not opposites what I meant was that there are not categories "public and "private" that you can fit all activities in to. Something super private is at one end of the spectrum and something super public is at the other. I agree that message boards are more public than a bar, but less public than publishing a book. I believe that because there is an aura of "officialness" that comes from publishing a book that is not created when you make a post on a message board. When you publish a book you are entering something in the vast dialogue that exists among all other published authors working on their various subjects, and people attach more importance to it than they do to posting on a message board. Maybe public and private are not the best way to capture what I am saying. Publishing a book is more "official", let's say.

But anyone with an Internet connection can access what's posted on a public message board like this one that does not require membership for viewing. They don't even have to leave their house nor do they have to pay a dime beyond the cost of their Internet subscription. They can log on in their underwear at 3 in the morning and read anything and everything that's being said here. Furthermore, the words said here get archived and stick around forever, so that people who arrive years after something was said can still read what was said.

None of this is true of your bar analogy. Yes, anyone can theoretically go to the bar and overhear what's being said, but they have to be in the same geographical location and they must be present at the time it was said, otherwise they won't hear it. Saying something on an Internet message board is far, far more public than saying it in a bar, and arguably more public than saying it in a published book.


Indeed. I never commented on the quality of William's apologetics. I also never called for his upcoming apologetic writings to be canceled.

Whether or not you called for something and whether or not you wanted it are entirely different things.

That said, perhaps you should write to the Maxwell Institute and ask why a Christian organization might be reticent to publish the work of a man who spends his spare time calling women bitches and whores, making lewd comments about their bodies, and bragging about how his fellow academics enjoy his behavior. I imagine someone could explain it to you.


I posted this thread so that his own words would hurt his reputation. There's no question about that.

And you knew that this could hurt his ability to act as an apologist, therefore you wanted him to lose his ability to work in apologetics. QED

So explain it to me: what is this thing called "PC nonsense" that you're opposed to? Be specific.

Political correctness has a well understood definition; if you want to learn more about it then use google. I will say that I was talking about the desire to curb "offensive" content and stop people who have said offensive things from acting in certain official capacities.

[_MsJack]

Maybe public and private are not the best way to capture what I am saying. Publishing a book is more "official", let's say.

/agree

Whether or not you called for something and whether or not you wanted it are entirely different things.

I love a good exercise in mind-reading as much as the next person, but I'm pretty sure that I am the world's foremost authority on what it is that I wanted when I created this thread, and I've already explained myself repeatedly.

And you knew that this could hurt his ability to act as an apologist, therefore you wanted him to lose his ability to work in apologetics. QED

I wanted people to know about his poor behavior here. The specific consequences that might follow from making that information more widely available were never much of a concern to me.

Political correctness has a well understood definition; if you want to learn more about it then use google.

Lame. "Political correctness" is a magical hand-waving, catch-all term that people like to toss at pretty much any complaint that a woman makes about sexist or misogynist behavior. Your complaints about women passing the Sacrament down in Terrestrial are just as qualified for the common usage of "PC nonsense" as anything that I stated in my OP.

In any case, since you won't define your terms, it's hereby noted that you are in favor of men making lewd, misogynist, sexually harassing comments towards women in public without suffering any consequences for their actions. And I think that's pretty disgusting, malaise.

[_malaise]

I love a good exercise in mind-reading as much as the next person, but I'm pretty sure that I am the world's foremost authority on what it is that I wanted when I created this thread, and I've already explained myself repeatedly.

People act because of subconscious motivations all of the time, but I was saying that you might say one thing and desire another thing. It's not fair for me to call you a liar because I don't know anything about you, but I have always been a bit of a cynic.

I wanted people to know about his poor behavior here. The specific consequences that might follow from making that information more widely available were never much of a concern to me.

But if you knew they could follow from your actions you are responsible for bringing them about and can't claim you didn't want them to happen in some sense. If I want an abortion, and know that having one will kill my fetus, then I am responsible for killing me fetus when I have an abortion. I've never been persuaded by the doctrine of the double effect.

Lame. "Political correctness" is a magical hand-waving, catch-all term that people like to toss at pretty much any complaint that a woman makes about sexist or misogynist behavior. Your complaints about women passing the Sacrament down in Terrestrial are just as qualified for the common usage of "PC nonsense" as anything that I stated in my OP.

I don't think so. I am fine with complaining and with disagreement, but I am not fine with stopping people from attaining official positions because they are offensive (in most cases). This is not really your fault, though. You have a right to complain; our society has a PC culture that can't really be attributed to any single individual. And there is also the religious element to all of this-it makes some sense for a Christian to want someone with Christly attributes to represent their faith.

In any case, since you won't define your terms, it's hereby noted that you are in favor of men making lewd, misogynist, sexually harassing comments towards women in public without suffering any consequences for their actions. And I think that's pretty disgusting, malaise.

[_MsJack]

But if you knew they could follow from your actions you are responsible for bringing them about and can't claim you didn't want them to happen in some sense. If I want an abortion, and know that having one will kill my fetus, then I am responsible for killing me fetus when I have an abortion. I've never been persuaded by the doctrine of the double effect.

I don't think this analogy holds. Having an abortion results in the termination of the fetus something like 99% of the time, and even the ones that survive the abortion are sometimes left for dead by a clinic that doesn't want hundreds of thousands of dollars in neonatal medical bills. Only a terribly ignorant woman would have an abortion and then be surprised that her baby died from it.

In contrast, I had no idea what the results would be of my thread here. I envisioned any number of outcomes, and the possibility of William's work being canceled struck me as a distant one. After all, his behavior on these forums hadn't stopped him from presenting at FAIR last year or receiving glowing press coverage from the Mormon Times, so why should it have stopped him from publishing with the MI? The note I received last week informing me that his work was being canceled came as something of a shock.

I don't think so. I am fine with complaining and with disagreement but I am not fine with stopping people from attaining official positions because they are offensive (in most cases). This is not really your fault, though. You have a right to complain; our society has a PC culture that can't really be attributed to any single individual.

If you agree that I had as much right to complain about William's behavior as he had to engage in it, and you agree that I can hardly be blamed for the existence of what you call a "PC culture" where people are disciplined in one area of there lives for engaging in disreputable behavior in other areas of their lives, then I'm not sure who it is you're complaining to.

For my own part, I think it's a bad idea to allow people who privately engage in lewd, misogynist, or sexually harassing behavior to serve in other "official" capacities because doing so serves to discourage women from working with them and approaching them, thus creating fewer opportunities for women. There may be exceptions to this where stellar candidates are concerned.

And there is also the religious element to all of this-it makes some sense for a Christian to want someone with Christly attributes to represent their faith.

Indeed.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I hope you don't mind my saying what *I* think about your explanation and apology. Someone mentioned those to me when you posted them and I think I had already seen it when reading while logged out.

I see your explanation and apology as nothing short of a preemptive strike/tactical move on your part intended to provide you a legitimate ticket into this discussion regarding WS's language towards females on this board, allowing you to criticize WS without having your own credibility challenged.

Hello Ms. Girl,

I don't mind you chiming in with your opinion. It's fair you think what you think.

The bigger picture, in this instance, and in light of the tremendous amount of negative comments Mr. Schryver has made toward female posters on this board, is why won't he apologize, repent, and turn over a new leaf? After all, he is a devout follower of Jesus Christ and someone who holds the Priesthood. From what I can tell his behavior is anathema to what Mormonism teaches.

You see, I don't mind that you don't buy my apology because what I said to you was terrible. That's ok. But that's not the point of an apology. An apology offers absolution for one's sin if one is willing to make a genuine change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance_in_Judaism

I hope Mr. Schryver sees it the same way.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Silver Hammer]

“…the tremendous amount of negative comments Mr. Schryver has made toward female posters on this board …”

I have taken it upon myself to research this affair. My investigation is ongoing. I am making a list of “negative comments” Mr. Schryver has made toward female posters on this message board. I have exluded anything I find that has been misrepresented, like the “slut” and “whore” quote that was clearly bogus.

Other than calling harmony and beastie bitches (not sure he was too far off the mark on that one) which only happened a total of three times that I have found so far, my list is empty. There is no “tremendous amount of negative comments” that I can see.

I am mad as hell about this, because “useful idiots” have been fooled. They were warned about trusting the people from this place, and they rejected those warnings without investigation.

One thing is certain: Schryver has never written anything on this message board that is as bad as what you have written. Not even close.

Learning about this place and its participants has been very educational.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mr. Schryver,

You are pathetic.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_MsJack]

Sock puppets are pathetic, William. Knock it off.

[_Doctor Scratch]

For a long, long time, Will claimed that the M.I. apologists were staunch supporters, and even that they were amused by his online behavior. So... What's up with that? Was Will lying? Or is he going to step up to the plate and call out these (apparent?) hypocrites? Or what?