We were all good up to that point. Need to clarify a few things. I don't consider you, or me, the target audience of apologetics on any topic. You are not the type to suffer fools gladly. Not at all. You may entertain the fools arguments. That is not the same as being the intended audience of their apologetic moves. DCP is not trying to sway you, neither is Kid Rock or Rob Reiner. Celebrity promoters and politicial boosters have some swagger and sway in some circles even if you and I are nto susceptible to it. Same with apologists for the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.Morley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 27, 2025 3:36 pmMaybe I'm wrong, but I don't see celebrities as tools of apologetics. (Though some of them are certainly tools.) They're so far removed from any hint of experience, education, or expertise, that I'm not sure why anyone would assign them any credibility. Why would anyone think that Barbra Streisand or Kid Rock have any particular insight into anything dealing with politics, science, or morality? Why would I care who Bad Bunny endorses for US President? What deep well of wisdom do any of them bring to the table? If any of them wanted to discuss music or experience in rehab, I might listen. But tuning in to a celebrity soliloquy about whether there are WMDs in Uzbekistan, maybe not so much.
Morley, you is way better than that. Complain? I complained about the things Rob Reiner said? Uh, if I did, I had no idea I was complaining about it or that I even had a complaint. I commented on it. I said he was in the ditch saying dumbass crap. But complained? Nah. I think him and Keith O are, or in the case of Rob, was, absolutely awesome mascots of the liberal lunatic fringe. I say the same thing about Schmo and most the whackassadoodle left fringe here. Say your schtick and say it proudly.
Bad writing. My bad. Okay. My point is that apologetics is used to funnel the argument toward a specific conclusion for a specific audience. Apologetics is narrowing the conclusion to make you have a testimony that these dumbass pictures confirm this dumbass story so you know that this dumbass church is true. Same for apologists telling you that Trump is bad but Monica Lewinsky's ex boyfriend's wife is good. Or that Trump is bad but Willie Brown's wife's husband's girlfriend is good. In the case of moderation on this forum, and other forums, the moderation is meant to narrow the field and topics so that the community is more homogenous on the intended conclusion. In this forum's case — be an ex Mormon democrat or else. In the other Mormon forums — be a believer or else.
I am not convinced that we are in disagreement. I am more convinced that I did not make my point clearly.
Apologetics is now, in my opinion, a core part of the media and it is also a core part of marketing or products and ideas. Whether the presence of apologetics led to the toxic brew or whether it was spawned by the toxicity, I have no clue. They co-exist. My point is simply that as long as the the arguments lack real substance, there is a void filled by apologetics. As long as counter arguments are banned or disallowed or not funded or not shared, apologetics and lies may fill the void. As long a "fu ckface stupid" is an understood pejorative and accepted part of the vernacualar for half the country, prepare to have apologetics step in along with the apathy.
