One day, over Christmas break, mfbukowski was bragging about how he was kicking some apostate ass over at the trailerpark in a debate on postmodernism.
Most people here will remember that I tried in vain over a long series of threads to explain postmodernism to Brother Bukowski, but he never came even remotely close to grasping it. Instead, he kept changing the subject to Pragmatism and trying to argue that it was superior to postmodernism.
As I kept reminding him, I was not trying to argue about the validity of postmodernism but rather was trying to explain what it was and discuss the appropriateness of applying it to Mormonism. That he couldn't grasp it or understand my intent led to quite a bit of frustration, and I finally gave up.
If realizing that someone is never going to understand what you're talking about is the same as getting your ass kicked, then I suppose I suffered a major ass-kicking.
I loved that too, runtu. Your patience with MFB in that thread was phenomenal. His inability to grasp concepts that I successfully teach to college freshmen every semester was astonishing.
But back to the topic at hand. I really appreciate Chris's remarks on treating each other decently in our discussions. One reason I never responded much to stem is that it struck me that out of the many things he never got, he never got that some of his own rhetorical predilections were pretty offensive and inaccurate. For example, his tendency to generalize about everyone ("you people," "this joint," etc.) when he was arguing with Buffalo or some other far from representative poster, or his standard condescending "how adorable" remark, or his odd insistence that any remark or response was "whimpering" or "whining." That last was the most baffling to me: someone would state their point forcefully and stem would describe it as "whimpering." What an odd and crappy way to signal one's disagreement.
The very very few times I responded to stem made it clear to me there was no way he could "hear" what I was saying. I daresay others had that experience with him as well and that---the inability to clearly communicate---characterized the stem experience. That's why I don't think any general lessons can be drawn from stem's farewell to the board. I think he was in many ways an anomaly.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
The very very few times I responded to stem made it clear to me there was no way he could "hear" what I was saying. I daresay others had that experience with him as well and that---the inability to clearly communicate---characterized the stem experience. That's why I don't think any general lessons can be drawn from stem's farewell to the board. I think he was in many ways an anomaly.
Yup. It seems to me that those who are able to remain self-confidently LDS - and willing to argue about it with critics- in this information-saturated age will tend to fall into two groups:
1. Those who are frankly too deficient in the ability to appreciate argument and evidence to realize what is staring them in the face - the kind of people who think a dialogue is taking place if people just take it in turns to talk.
2. Very smart people who have realized that there is some kind of way of wriggling off every hook, so long as one does not mind being highly flexible (shall we put it that way?) in the rhetorical stratagems one is prepared to use, and to do so on a more or less ad hoc basis.
Which was stemelbow ...?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I thought Stem arrived at this board guns-ablazing with a pretty bad attitude. Then, for a long period I think he mellowed out and tried to be conciliatory and discuss his views honestly. Then, recently, he reverted back into his initial persona.
I don't know why. I do know that people went after him even when he clearly was trying, which I didn't understand or like.
I don't think you need post with Chris-like kindness in all your interactions. As someone who doesn't make much of a distinction between online interactions and in-person ones, I think you should treat people as if they were actual people rather than fictional personas. Generally, that means being nice, but I personally don't have a problem with insults having an appropriate time and place. I don't really approve of LDST's rant against Stem. It strikes me as way over the top.
That said, nothing pisses off people trying to get a reaction out of you like being irrepressibly boy-scout like in your posting style. If you want to drive people like DCP nuts, be calm, kind, and rational no matter how much flak they give you or how they try to get under your skin. If you want to play that game, know how to play it.
EAllusion wrote:I don't really approve of LDST's rant against Stem. It strikes me as way over the top.
It was.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
I was, and still am, puzzled why most of you took so much time to respond to Stem. It was pretty clear what he was doing.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
I think you should treat people as if they were actual people rather than fictional personas.
Or symbols.
I don't understand this comment.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
LDSToronto wrote: I don't understand this comment.
H.
I think she means treating people as if they represent Mormonism in the abstract or whathaveyou. I don't think you should treat posters as if they are fictional characters unless they clearly are posting in a way to suggest they are adopting a character.
café crema wrote: Nonsense the LDS there gave as good as they got, there was no shortage of LDS mocking of Catholic belief on CAF.
The antimormon catholics are still mocking the LDS faith on that forum. The same old, same old is now occuring. The poor LDS come to that forum to defend their faith against all kinds of insults and misinformation. And when they counter, they are shown the door. What is unfortunate is that the site is a catholic apologetic site that allows attacks against all religions except the catholic church. It is a catholic taliban site.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith