#2: John Dehlin needs to cultivate an ideal 18-yo's sensibilities about what to do and not do on the internet.
Well of course she is not alone in that assessment. But it's a useful data point in addition to the evaluation of the woman in question, and the many others in the Facebook groups who spoke up in support of her.
The point is that there is etiquette and it needs to be learned.
So, I just ran this scenario by my wife who doesn’t follow this board, JD, ex-Mormon stuff, none of it:
Hey X, if we went to the lake and we took a bunch of pictures and for some reason you felt comfortable enough to post your bikini pics on your Facebook profile along with other pics of the day, and Y’s husband Z (we’re casual friends with Y & Z) ended up liking all your bikini pics, he didn’t like any others, just your bikini pics, what would your reaction be?
“I’d be thoroughly creeped out by it, I’d delete him from my friends group, and I’d give serious consideration to discussing it with Y. That’s some creepy-assed behavior.”
Straight up quote from my wife’s face. I think Meadowchik is tracking correctly on this one.
Hmm, being a long time Mormon Stories Podcast listener and a contributor to the Facebook group for years, after reading this Google doc, a few things seem clear to me. I offer these in a hopefully kind and respectful way, because I don't think John's read of what happened sounds very plausible but I do think he's trying to wrap his head around what happened in good faith. My read on the situation is this:
1. John doesn't know how Facebook groups work: In Facebook Groups, when someone replies to a post, it shoots that post up to the top of the group page since it is the most recently engaged-with post. Same with comments inside posts. There there are many comments within a post, it will make the most engaged-with comment the default comment that automatically displays beneath the post. (You'd have to click "View more comments" to see the full comment chain). What probably happened here is that people were engaging with that post, pushing it to the top of the group (as well as people's newsfeeds), and people were seeing this woman's post as the default post and replying to it, thus creating a feedback loop where more and more people were responding to that comment, shooting it to the top of more people's newsfeeds/Group pages, thus eliciting more engagement, rinse and repeat. The accusation there was some sort of concerted takedown effort here doesn't really comport with what's being described.
2. The subject matter of the post invited this type of discussion: I went back and found the very post this is referring to and read every comment. This post was John asking women to share ways in which ex-Mormon men could better treat women with dignity and respect. The woman in question responded with what essentially amounts to "Please don't do this [liking women's photos in quick succession]. It makes me uncomfortable." Whether or not this type of liking is objectively appropriate or not misses the point, I think. The point was that this woman found it made her uncomfortable and responded in good faith to a post requesting ex-Mormon women to share the very type of thing she shared.
3. John doesn't seem to appreciate the key differences between Facebook group community page and a physical workplace: The Mormon Stories Community Facebook group page is a place for people who listen to come together and comment and share about Mormon issues, discuss the podcast, etc. Its very purpose is to solicit engagement and discussion from listeners. John refers to this as his workplace and seems genuinely surprised someone would offer (constructive?) criticism about him on the Facebook group page, and others would add on to that discussion. But that is what pages like this are meant to do. If you go on a group Facebook page for just about any company brand under the sun, you will find people who sometimes post complaints about the brand. The notion that a Facebook comment offering a (what I took to be good faith) criticism is the same as someone walking through the front door of a physical workplace, pointing to John, and yelling "He liked all my bikini pics at once" for all co-workers to hear is obviously not true. Like I said, I've posted on the Mormon Stories Facebook group from time to time, and it wouldn't have occurred to me that talking about John in that space was verboten.
4. John appears to have trouble detangling constructive criticism from actual bad faith attacks: It must be really hard to be in John's shoes. He's such a visible public figure speaking out against the Mormon Church, and undoubtedly there are those official and unofficial LDS factions trying to undermine his work and shut him down. Years of that probably take a toll on a person. After a while, probably as a defensive tactic, I can see why John might distill all criticism about his work into "smears." I imagine it makes it easier to do the work he is doing to just have that as a mental default. And I don't blame him for it. But was this woman part of a concerted effort to undermine him and destroy Mormon Stories? Very clearly no. Did she round up a bunch of John-hating ex-Mormons to bombard the Facebook group at an opportune moment? Also very clearly no. People saw her original post and responded to it. There was nothing planned or sinister about it. And the criticisms were from people who like John and the work he does. From what I can see on the current post (since I guess he deleted some of these comments) people are saying things like "That's creepy" and "Why did you do this, John?" We probably all have different intuitions about what constitutes "proper" Facebook liking behavior. Some of it is generational, in my opinion. But people are entitled to feel creeped out by it, or feel it was insinuating something weirdly sexual. Whether it was John's intent or not, the way it made this woman feel isn't an absurd interpretation to me. I get why someone would feel that way. Seems like John should just take the L on this one, accept that not everyone views Facebook likes the same way, and take that into consideration in the future.
5. My unsolicited advice for John: Perhaps it's time to consider passing off moderation of the social media groups to someone else and focus on what you do best: the podcast. It looks like having to oversee the social media properties is taking a toll on you, and I'd venture to guess you're incurring a lot of stress as a result. It's probably also true that it's hard to view any criticism as constructive or in good faith anymore. I get that. You're seeing boogeymen around every corner. My advice would be to take a social media cleanse, pass off active moderation to others, and double down on the podcast. And probably don't like any woman's photos in quick succession again. You may feel like it is perfectly innocent act until your dying day, but the truth is that many women don't find it that way. And you don't know how doing that will make someone else feel. In my opinion, the default should be to not go on liking-sprees until you have personal knowledge that the person whose pics you are liking will appreciate and accept the like-spree. I bear my testimony that these things are true. Amen.
2. The subject matter of the post invited this type of discussion: I went back and found the very post this is referring to and read every comment. This post was John asking women to share ways in which ex-Mormon men could better treat women with dignity and respect. The woman in question responded with what essentially amounts to "Please don't do this [liking women's photos in quick succession]. It makes me uncomfortable." Whether or not this type of liking is objectively appropriate or not misses the point, I think. The point was that this woman found it made her uncomfortable and responded in good faith to a post requesting ex-Mormon women to share the very type of thing she shared.
Your 'objectively appropriate' point is a good one. Earlier this person was described as the type who will "inevitably go mental" if, as described in this thread, someone treats her in a way she finds uncomfortable and then she expresses her uncomfortableness. That was given as the reason to not risk making her uncomfortable, but in my opinion, that misses the point in the same way.
That’s your line in the sand? C’mon, man. Surely you can see a pattern has emerged, and at what point are you willing to admit there’s a there there?
- Doc
Aw, the good-ole atleast-he's-not-a-serial-killer defense. The last time a man slung that sort of excuse at me was, ironically, at the other board. From a believing Mo.
I've said it before, but for many Mormon women the choice to leave is complicated by the sexism on both sides of the border. Human beings tend to go where they feel safe. in my opinion even their subconscious will protect them from ideas which threaten their position of perceived safety.
2. The subject matter of the post invited this type of discussion: I went back and found the very post this is referring to and read every comment. This post was John asking women to share ways in which ex-Mormon men could better treat women with dignity and respect. The woman in question responded with what essentially amounts to "Please don't do this [liking women's photos in quick succession]. It makes me uncomfortable." Whether or not this type of liking is objectively appropriate or not misses the point, I think. The point was that this woman found it made her uncomfortable and responded in good faith to a post requesting ex-Mormon women to share the very type of thing she shared.
He asked for examples of what not to do. Someone showed him something he did that he should not do and he treats this as an attack on MS on the level of Pearl Harbor?
I think he's pissed he couldn't get away with his flirtations without someone calling him on it.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
He asked for examples of what not to do. Someone showed him something he did that he should not do and he treats this as an attack on MS on the level of Pearl Harbor?
I think he's pissed he couldn't get away with his flirtations without someone calling him on it.
Yeah, if I was asked how I might view the behavior described in the abstract, my very first feeling would be that this behavior is flirtatious. But it may also be generational. The "like a million pics" phenomenon is something my older relatives will do on my page from time to time, but it does strike me as a weird thing to do to someone of the opposite sex who you only know casually. My gut says that is creepy, but again, I'm guessing there are those 50+ years old who Facebook much differently than I do.
Her own evaluation: "he's trying to send a message."
I don't have a Facebook account, never have had, but I understand a little bit of how it works.
To me it seems clear that liking and then re-liking these photos can only be to send a message. I'm finding it hard to be charitable in the slightest towards it being anything other than a message, more specifically a flirtatious message or a signalling of interest...
Just to push back on the criticism that JD should know better given his past exploits and their effects on his marriage. Do we know for certain that he isn't in a polyamorous marriage? Just sayin'.
Fortunately, I understand Facebook provides ways for people to block creepy people. I wish there were something in offline life, that didn't involve going to a judge, that would provide people with the same type of protection.
You are a brand. And, honestly, you already messed up bigly. So, just stop. Do not do the stuff that any normal heterosexual dude might be tempted to do in his moments of humanity.
He doesn't seem to have any self control. He should definitely disentangle MS from JD. I would normally suggest he employ someone to run his MS Facebook stuff, but I think he's already done that one in the past, and I think that might create a whole new set of problems...
Yeah, if I was asked how I might view the behavior described in the abstract, my very first feeling would be that this behavior is flirtatious. But it may also be generational. The "like a million pics" phenomenon is something my older relatives will do on my page from time to time, but it does strike me as a weird thing to do to someone of the opposite sex who you only know casually. My gut says that is creepy, but again, I'm guessing there are those 50+ years old who Facebook much differently than I do.
Did the sister in question only post bikini photos? Or were there other photos of her doing extremely mundane things, dressed like a nun, which JD didn't like?
Just to push back on the criticism that John Dehlin should know better given his past exploits and their effects on his marriage. Do we know for certain that he isn't in a polyamorous marriage? Just sayin'.
In the Google Doc, he denies any interest in flirting (or more) with anyone other than his wife. So, I think we can infer that he is saying they are not poly.
