DCP quotes anti-Semite to describe this forum’s membership

[Physics Guy]

Belloc was a Roman Catholic chauvinist who would likely have classified Mormons among his barbarians. Mormons allege that Belloc’s Church was corrupt, especially in its medieval heyday when it built European civilization. Belloc would find in that allegation the destructiveness of barbarians, and in the Mormon delight in ritual and hierarchy he would see barbarian parasitism, consuming traditions that Catholics built over centuries.

Peterson can endorse one statement by Belloc without having to endorse all Belloc’s views, or even Belloc’s interpretation of that one statement. The fact that Belloc and Peterson would disagree about who were barbarians, however, shows the big problem with Belloc’s statement.

If somebody Belloc doesn’t like disagrees with Belloc, he calls that destruction. If they agree with him, he calls that consumption. So Belloc doesn’t have to argue, because it doesn’t matter what the people he doesn’t like actually say. Either way, they’re barbarians.

[Doctor Scratch]

I’ll just take a moment to remind the readers that Daniel Peterson accepted a substantial donation to Interpreter from yours truly in return for his plain and straightforward commitment to ignore this board and cease bad talking its members for the long term, and to encourage readers of his blog to do the same. That was years ago. Of course he broke that promise right away, and in so doing he is a proven liar. All of this is documented in threads below. So Dan, a hat tip and head nod to your shameless bad faith.

Great points, Dr. Moore. I wonder if it's safe to assume that he spent all the money on himself? We now know, after all, that donations to Interpreter wind up getting "laundered" through projects such as the ones produced by Redbrick Filmworks such that the money winds up getting spent on the President's food, lodging, and airfare expenses. In fact, I would say that it's fair to wager that this latest outburst with Belloc is yet another angry spasm stemming from the fact that he's been called out for essentially lying to Intepreter's donors about "where the money goes."

It's amusing to speculate on how minuscule his own "donations" to Interpreter actually are. Of course we can assume with pretty much 100% certainty that he spends far, far, FAR more than he gives, but how big is the discrepancy? I wouldn't be surprised if he only donates $20, and then turns around and charges $10,000' worth of expenses for his film "work."

[Kishkumen]

Belloc was a Roman Catholic chauvinist who would likely have classified Mormons among his barbarians. Mormons allege that Belloc’s Church was corrupt, especially in its medieval heyday when it built European civilization. Belloc would find in that allegation the destructiveness of barbarians, and in the Mormon delight in ritual and hierarchy he would see barbarian parasitism, consuming traditions that Catholics built over centuries.

Indeed. In a sense, Belloc is correct, no matter how bigoted he may be. The West was Catholic Europe for centuries, then it was exported through vectors such as Spanish and French colonialism. The Reformation is a late arrival, relatively speaking, and it is pretty much just a reaction to Catholicism, one that Belloc doubtless considered barbaric.

But, history and culture move on. Belloc's vision is nothing to hold onto.

Still, one must acknowledge that Mormonism is not the bedrock of Western civilization. It is a minor sect with a relatively small global membership. There are religions most of us have never heard of that greatly outnumber the ranks of the LDS Church.

How many people practice Kejawèn or Caodaism? There are 30 million Sikhs in the world. How important is Mormonism after all?

I am proud to be Mormon, but it is just a drop in the global spiritual bucket. At least Belloc had numbers on his side.

[Tom]

I’ll just take a moment to remind the readers that Daniel Peterson accepted a substantial donation to Interpreter from yours truly in return for his plain and straightforward commitment to ignore this board and cease bad talking its members for the long term, and to encourage readers of his blog to do the same. That was years ago. Of course he broke that promise right away, and in so doing he is a proven liar. All of this is documented in threads below. So Dan, a hat tip and head nod to your shameless bad faith.

Daniel Peterson has angrily responded:

Finally, here’s a note that will no doubt appear strange (and oddly vague) to most readers, but that I feel compelled to post: Over at The Usual Place, where character-assassinating accusations against me spring up continually like poisonous toadstools on the lawn after a warm autumn rain, I’ve just been angrily accused (yet again, although for the first time in several years) of having entered into an agreement quite a while ago with a person who occasionally posts there — and then of having brazenly violated that agreement. As is commonly the case, there are two sides to this story and, for the record, my side of the story differs from his. I kept the agreement according to my understanding of it. (I care about integrity. I even value my reputation for integrity, and I won’t let this anonymous public accusation stand publicly uncontradicted. !كفاية كده)

I’m not making this up. أنا أقول الحقيقة

[I Have Questions]

As a man of such integrity, presumably Dr. Peterson Man Of Honour will either return the money, or explain precisely what he thought he had agreed to in return for the donation. By not doing either one he hasn’t defended his integrity. It remains “uncontradicted”.

Given the well documented heap of evidence of plagiarism, this bit is hard to swallow… “I care about integrity. I even value my reputation for integrity…” Did he say it with a straight face?

[Dr Moore]

Some people struggle with accountability. When held to their word, they play victim. Dan Peterson is one of those people.

And if Dan objects to being called a liar by an anonymous pseudonym, then perhaps he should not have made an agreement involving money and his good word with said anonymous pseudonym.

[Doctor Scratch]

Some people struggle with accountability. When held to their word, they play victim. Dan Peterson is one of those people.

And if Dan objects to being called a liar by an anonymous pseudonym, then perhaps he should not have made an agreement involving money and his good word with said anonymous pseudonym.

He claims that his "side" of the story is different. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that his memory is selective? (Though that would go a long ways towards undermining his argument about the Witnesses....) In any case, the entire incident was effectively recorded in this thread. You can see clearly that he did not meet the terms of the agreement. (The notion that he ever would have been capable of refraining from making insulting comments for even *1 month* was always an absurdity.)

[Dr Moore]

Some people struggle with accountability. When held to their word, they play victim. Dan Peterson is one of those people.

And if Dan objects to being called a liar by an anonymous pseudonym, then perhaps he should not have made an agreement involving money and his good word with said anonymous pseudonym.

He claims that his "side" of the story is different. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that his memory is selective? (Though that would go a long ways towards undermining his argument about the Witnesses....) In any case, the entire incident was effectively recorded in this thread. You can see clearly that he did not meet the terms of the agreement. (The notion that he ever would have been capable of refraining from making insulting comments for even *1 month* was always an absurdity.)

Sure, he agreed to stop sh*t talking about this board in exchange for money. He agreed not only for himself, but to moderate his blog comments accordingly. That’s pretty simple. Nothing more. His agreement was contextualized in his own words as a desire to ignore this board. Look, when you squeeze an orange you get orange juice. What comes out is what’s inside. When you squeeze Dan Peterson, what comes out are prevarications, self-martyrizing, and slippery sophistry. He’s a damn liar. History will remember him that way because that’s who he is.

[Doctor Scratch]

It has been richly, richly satisfying to see the low viewership numbers for “Bowdlerizing Brigham.” And I laugh—loudly—every time I see him making passive-aggressive jokes about how “no Interpreter funds” were spent on his latest outing. LOL! I thought he had actual experience in fundraising? Can you imagine potential donors seeing him doing this sort of thing?? Cracking jokes about how he’s “not actually” pissing away their donations on himself? Yeah, well, *I* am laughing at least!!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Some people struggle with accountability. When held to their word, they play victim. Dan Peterson is one of those people.

And if Dan objects to being called a liar by an anonymous pseudonym, then perhaps he should not have made an agreement involving money and his good word with said anonymous pseudonym.

He didn’t actually deny it.