Perils of Being a Mormosphere Influencer

[Marcus]

I've read the post, and good to see you by the way, Reverend. I lack the direct experience to respond to much of this, as I have no social media -- I think I lasted about 2 weeks on Facebook. Red flags all over the place.

Same here.

[Kishkumen]

I've read the post, and good to see you by the way, Reverend. I lack the direct experience to respond to much of this, as I have no social media -- I think I lasted about 2 weeks on Facebook. Red flags all over the place. I'll be honest here, from what you described of this individual, if you valued the friendship, then you should have never had made the comments. And after the first comment, you had your answer about where other comments would go, which means you either secretly wanted it to go in that direction or feared the worst but thought you might get away with it. I don't think you are surprised of the outcome.

I'm not saying it's your fault, I did have a similar sort of thing a few weeks ago with that guy in my neighborhood. What you end up asking yourself is, "Am I good with a one-way friendship?" If the answer is yes, then people who lack self-awareness, rationality, and empathy will take full advantage of that so better be good with it. If the answer is no, then maybe you risk the offenses because the tradeoff is at least they know somebody disagrees with them. It sounds like this guy is a classic one-way-street like Dan. It's not possible to have a normal friendship with such a person so you have to decide if you want that person in your life for whatever reason, you have to play 100% on their terms. There is no right or wrong answer here to if you want such a person in your life, only the realization that it's their way or the highway if the answer is yes. I have family members for whom that answer is "yes" so I play by their rules.

I think all this is largely human nature in general and isn't Mormon specific. However, authoritarianism does amplify the problem. Episode Six of Pluribus explains this well. Koumba Diabaté takes on the role of the authoritarian leader (Brigham Young) everyone in the kingdom bends over backwards to please. The stunning revelation is that he's okay with it. It reveals that in the Church, this charade where everyone plays their role and is fake is a consciously accepted reality, a feature of the institution. Sure, there's something satisfying to the narcissistic mind with somebody is forced to shine their shoes when they don't want to and must pretend they enjoy it. However, the core issue is loyalty. If a friendship is real based on real sincere feelings, then what happens if the feelings change? Loyalty can take the worst case scenario, that the feelings aren't even necessarily good, and keep the situation going in a stable manner.

I don't know that I would say I wanted that outcome. The two situations were, to my mind, very different. In one case, I was talking about the never-ending tension between apologists and ex-Mo influencers. I can understand that attracting negative attention, although I was surprised to find that what I thought were fairly anodyne observations were interpreted as me being a "prick." The second involved more of an internal beef between LDS people of different views regarding history and doctrine. I would get into it further, but I really didn't want to make this about this person.

That said, I have to acknowledge the truth of what you are saying. As usual. You are a wise and insightful person. I think you are correct to say that this is one of those one-way friendship things. When people present themselves as big authorities on or defenders of Mormon stuff, they often don't take kindly to differing or disagreeing views. But then there are those people who just don't brook disagreement very well at all, and I have since come to understand from an anonymous source that this is definitely the case here. It looks like I am not the only person to have been dealt with in this way by this particular defender of the LDS faith. That was disappointing to learn, but at the same time it is not extremely surprising to encounter such a phenomenon in this terrarium again.

LOL. Guess I failed not to make it about the person. Shucks. Let me rephrase: I don't want to reveal this person's identity, and I don't want to aggravate any perceived beef with this person.

ETA: I realize I said the second case was essentially the same as the first, which is why Gadianton responded as he did. I am saying that it was in the way I indicated soon thereafter, but not in the other ways that I outlined above.

[Kishkumen]

I have called you much worse things than that. Did that bother you? Or, is it just that there is a lack of professional allowance or etiquette in the Facebook space that bothers you?

Whiskey, I would feel hurt if you did not call me worse. That's a badge of honor. In this case, I would say that the reaction was a departure from the norms of what I thought the relationship was. I made statements of my general position or philosophy not aimed directly and personally at the OP poster, and very quickly I was accused of being a prick. I mean, I know when I am aiming to be a prick. I also know when I am doing my best to contribute in a diplomatic way. To my understanding, this was much more the latter and not intended as the former at all.

If politics was the topic, or Trump, there is always the possibility that you were a prick.

What a relief for us all to learn that it was not about Trump.

Before you jump my crap for saying so. Let me give that some definition. If the conversation included your conclusions about Trump, as if they were fact.... If the conversation included your conclusions about Trump voters, as if the conclusions were fact.... or if the conversation included any assertions about people that you have never met, no matter how well written or what your intentions... the other side of that is that you are damned prick or piece of crap.

OK. LOL! (By the way, I think you are right about making assertions about others. Wish I were better at avoiding that.)

If you were called a prick over a conversation only about the classics, we need to know more. This could make it into the screenplay.

I find it charming and heartwarming that you think so.

Now, my guesses hunches and experience. People that once sat back and politely listened to some ivy tower lesson in what is correct or not, are sick of that crap. They are burned out. Some of them really want the lecturer to F off and some of them just want to tell the lecturer to F off. And the clutching over being told to F off, when it used to be just fine to whine about climate change making it hard for transexual people to get a job in the NFL is also off-putting, to say the least. You disagree, but just hear me out, the folks that thought they were just doing us all a favor by being pretentious lecturing pricks, don't like being called a prick. And the folks receiving those lecturers, are figuring out how fine and fun it is to tell the pretentious folks to eat a dick. This is not a Mormon thing, at all. It is a "we accept your conditions" thing.

You could be onto something there. It had nothing to do with climate change or gender ideology, but I have a hard time avoiding the professorial voice. The person in question is a fellow academic, so I thought my words about Mormon issues would be taken in that spirit, but boy was I wrong!

[Whiskey]

I have called you much worse things than that. Did that bother you? Or, is it just that there is a lack of professional allowance or etiquette in the Facebook space that bothers you?

Whiskey, I would feel hurt if you did not call me worse. That's a badge of honor. In this case, I would say that the reaction was a departure from the norms of what I thought the relationship was. I made statements of my general position or philosophy not aimed directly personally at the OP poster, and very quickly I was accused of being a prick. I mean, I know when I am aiming to be a prick. I also know when I am doing my best to contribute in a diplomatic way. To my understanding, this was much more the latter and not intended as the former at all.

If politics was the topic, or Trump, there is always the possibility that you were a prick.

What a relief for us all to learn that it was not about Trump.

Before you jump my crap for saying so. Let me give that some definition. If the conversation included your conclusions about Trump, as if they were fact.... If the conversation included your conclusions about Trump voters, as if the conclusions were fact.... or if the conversation included any assertions about people that you have never met, no matter how well written or what your intentions... the other side of that is that you are damned prick or piece of crap.

OK. LOL! (By the way, I think you are right about making assertions about others. Wish I were better at avoiding that.)

If you were called a prick over a conversation only about the classics, we need to know more. This could make it into the screenplay.

I find it charming and heartwarming that you think so.

Now, my guesses hunches and experience. People that once sat back and politely listened to some ivy tower lesson in what is correct or not, are sick of that crap. They are burned out. Some of them really want the lecturer to F off and some of them just want to tell the lecturer to F off. And the clutching over being told to F off, when it used to be just fine to whine about climate change making it hard for transexual people to get a job in the NFL is also off-putting, to say the least. You disagree, but just hear me out, the folks that thought they were just doing us all a favor by being pretentious lecturing pricks, don't like being called a prick. And the folks receiving those lecturers, are figuring out how fine and fun it is to tell the pretentious folks to eat a dick. This is not a Mormon thing, at all. It is a "we accept your conditions" thing.

You could be onto something there. It had nothing to do with climate change or gender ideology, but I have a hard time avoiding the professorial voice. The person in question is a fellow academic, so I thought my words about Mormon issues would be taken in that spirit, but boy was I wrong!

Great responses. Thanks.

[Rivendale]

The constant tension between apologists/faithful and critics has a strange dynamic that appears to rise from the cultural influence to avoid the appearance of confrontation. But I have witnessed many meltdowns on social media by very prominent believing content creators and critics. The difference? The believing side will almost always go back and delete their comments and pretend it didn't happen. Some of them weaved a tapestry of obscenity that rivaled any locker room talk. I had it happen to myself from a believing co-worker that called me a lying POS for claiming Joseph practiced polygamy. I sent him the gospel topics essays and he apologized and blocked me on Facebook. If Rod Serling were alive there would be no shortage of content today.

[Kishkumen]

The constant tension between apologists/faithful and critics has a strange dynamic that appears to rise from the cultural influence to avoid the appearance of confrontation. But I have witnessed many meltdowns on social media by very prominent believing content creators and critics. The difference? The believing side will almost always go back and delete their comments and pretend it didn't happen. Some of them weaved a tapestry of obscenity that rivaled any locker room talk. I had it happen to myself from a believing co-worker that called me a lying POS for claiming Joseph practiced polygamy. I sent him the gospel topics essays and he apologized and blocked me on Facebook. If Rod Serling were alive there would be no shortage of content today.

The struggle for respectability is ongoing, and it will continue to yield a high casualty count.

[Physics Guy]

It seems to me that apologists—for anything—are likely to be anxious, themselves, about the thing they are trying to defend.

I don't want to go all deconstructionist to the point of saying that black really means white, but I think the deconstructionists do have a point, that asserting something usually implies that the thing needs asserting, which implies that it is in some doubt, which implies that there exist substantial arguments or evidence against it. Apologetics is always a bit self-undermining this way. It admits that a case needs to be made. If the verdict were obvious, there would be no need for apologists.

One scenario in which things do get asserted without implying doubt is in teaching. Teachers spell out things to students, not because the things are in doubt, but because the things are complicated and the students do not yet understand them. So naturally every apologist would like to be—and be seen as—a teacher, rather than an apologist, who explains undoubted truths to people who just don't yet understand them.

The apologist's effort to seize the role of a teacher, however, is really just an echo of the basic effort to defend their assertions as true—and so the same self-undermining happens on this level, too. People who are really acknowledged as teachers don't have to campaign for their status; it is people who might just be posing as teachers who have to lay claim to the role. Every dropped name, every impressive reference, every ostentatiously intellectual turn of phrase: they're all self-undermining assertions that remind everyone that this doesn't go without saying.

I think it must be exhausting, and stressful. And unfortunately the stress is not self-undermining, but self-reinforcing. Any awareness of how much effort one is expending, to defend something which ought to be unassailable, focuses still more awareness on how much more assailable the thing seems to be than it should.

Apologetics is a tough row to hoe. Who would take the job? Perhaps some people will do it just because they really feel called to do it, but my guess is that the ranks of apologists are disproportionately populated by people for whom the anguish is less of an added burden, because they are feeling it already, anyway. They're struggling to convince themselves, about whatever it is. I'm not surprised if it makes them quite edgy.

[Whiskey]

It seems to me that apologists—for anything—are likely to be anxious, themselves, about the thing they are trying to defend.

I don't want to go all deconstructionist to the point of saying that black really means white, but I think the deconstructionists do have a point, that asserting something usually implies that the thing needs asserting, which implies that it is in some doubt, which implies that there exist substantial arguments or evidence against it. Apologetics is always a bit self-undermining this way. It admits that a case needs to be made. If the verdict were obvious, there would be no need for apologists.

One scenario in which things do get asserted without implying doubt is in teaching. Teachers spell out things to students, not because the things are in doubt, but because the things are complicated and the students do not yet understand them. So naturally every apologist would like to be—and be seen as—a teacher, rather than an apologist, who explains undoubted truths to people who just don't yet understand them.

The apologist's effort to seize the role of a teacher, however, is really just an echo of the basic effort to defend their assertions as true—and so the same self-undermining happens on this level, too. People who are really acknowledged as teachers don't have to campaign for their status; it is people who might just be posing as teachers who have to lay claim to the role. Every dropped name, every impressive reference, every ostentatiously intellectual turn of phrase: they're all self-undermining assertions that remind everyone that this doesn't go without saying.

I think it must be exhausting, and stressful. And unfortunately the stress is not self-undermining, but self-reinforcing. Any awareness of how much effort one is expending, to defend something which ought to be unassailable, focuses still more awareness on how much more assailable the thing seems to be than it should.

Apologetics is a tough row to hoe. Who would take the job? Perhaps some people will do it just because they really feel called to do it, but my guess is that the ranks of apologists are disproportionately populated by people for whom the anguish is less of an added burden, because they are feeling it already, anyway. They're struggling to convince themselves, about whatever it is. I'm not surprised if it makes them quite edgy.

The teacher is a type of apologist. Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert are other types. I think religious apologists are also diverse.

[Morley]

The teacher is a type of apologist.

Not true. By definition, apologetics relates to the defense of religion or faith. When I teach high school English grammar, I'm not engaging in apologetics--no matter how much you might want to torture the definition.

I think that in PG's contrast of apologetics and teaching, he's referencing the innate defensive attitude that's ubiquitous in apologetics and absent in teaching. When I teach a course in College Algebra there's not too much I have to explain about how it stacks up against competing theories of mathematics.

Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert are other types.

From this I gather that you think political opinion shares the same foundation as religious faith. Meh. I'm not convinced.

I think religious apologists are also diverse.

Sure.

[Whiskey]

The teacher is a type of apologist.

Not true. By definition, apologetics relates to the defense of religion or faith. When I teach high school English grammar, I'm not engaging in apologetics--no matter how much you might want to torture the the definition.

I think that in PG's contrast of apologetics and teaching, he's referencing the innate defensive attitude that's ubiquitous in apologetics and absent in teaching. When I teach a course in College Algebra there's not too much I have to explain about how it stacks up against competing theories of mathematics.

Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert are other types.

From this I gather that you think political opinion shares the same foundation as religious faith. Meh. I'm not convinced.

I think religious apologists are also diverse.

Sure.

Nah. My point was, even if poorly made, to agree with Physics guy that the apologist who seeks the role of teacher is a type of apologist. There are other types, like just the raging and raving lunatic mouthy loud idiots like Jones, Limbaugh, Maddow and Reiner, for example.