Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[Meadowchik]

This response is what's gross.

Predictable nonsense.

You have so much empathy for Dehlin but where is your empathy for women? Where is your "benefit of the doubt" for a person who remembers attention from a public figure?

[Lem]

Imagine being the kind of person who tracks likes in that way. Barf.

This response is what's gross.

Yes it is. This thread is discussing whether JD liking and reliking posts is appropriate when it makes the poster feel uncomfortable. This repeated and negative focus, instead, on the character of the person who feels uncomfortable is both irrelevant and inappropriate.

[Kishkumen]

You have so much empathy for Dehlin but where is your empathy for women? Where is your "benefit of the doubt" for a person who remembers attention from a public figure?

What empathy for John Dehlin? Empathy enough to call him out for being a dumbass? That much empathy? Enough empathy to say, "You made your bed, dude; get used to it." Maybe that much.

Of course, it is easier to have some measure of empathy for a person I slightly know, whereas I have no clue who it is we are talking about or why I should care that she was slightly discomfited by John's attention. She sounds potentially mental to me. Obsessively tracking likes on her sexy pics.

But, I don't know her. Maybe if I knew her I would think differently. Maybe empathy would come into the picture with data that could fill me in on the real deal here. Right now I just have to take your word for it that she is deserving of empathy, but I am seeing a number of strikes against her case as it is being related here, not to mention the fact that I object to the kind of attention it is being given in the first place.

[Kishkumen]

Yes it is. This thread is discussing whether John Dehlin liking and reliking posts is appropriate when it makes the poster feel uncomfortable. This repeated and negative focus, instead, on the character of the person who feels uncomfortable is both irrelevant and inappropriate.

Except it really isn't irrelevant or inappropriate. I think it is entirely relevant and appropriate to wonder what the hell people are doing behaving irresponsibly on the internet and then obsessing about the reactions they get from all over creation. I am on Facebook, so I do have some sense of what goes on there, and you wouldn't catch me doing any of the crap she allegedly had to do just to figure out JD was liking, unliking, and reliking her posts.

I thought the most appropriate reaction was DocCam's spouse, when she said she would block the guy and consider contacting his wife about it. THAT makes sense. Not this nonsense of deputizing people to carry on my cause on some random message board.

[Kishkumen]

Remember it is up to me to decide whether it is worth the risk for me to post X on the internet. If it doesn't work out so well, maybe I shouldn't post it. If the response causes me stress, such that I start scrutinizing the reactions of others really closely, or getting creeped out by certain reactions, then maybe I should just spare myself the grief and not do it.

And, hey, if I persist, then I can have a sense of proportion about the response to feeling creeped out. Block the creepers by all means. If it is a BIG stalky kinda deal, maybe the guy's wife deserves to know. Although personally I would probably see if he was willing to own up to the inappropriateness of it first and then stick to his commitment not to like those pictures again before I went to contact his spouse.

But seriously, this is a reason to hate bomb his Facebook groups and deputize people to bring this up again on DM?

Good grief.

[Kishkumen]

I have to say that I am thoroughly sickened by this idea that whoever has some beef with a public figure has some divine entitlement to be treated like a truth teller who is sticking it to the bad man and ought to have every benefit of the doubt.

I don't hold that to be true about DCP's detractors, by the way, and I also don't hold it to be true about John Dehlin's.

[consiglieri]

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.

Oh come now, meadowchick.

You claim to know the name of the woman in question but don’t get my reference to the “Boston Strangler”?

[pistolero]

She sounds potentially mental to me.

Wasn't sure which to reply:
a) Not everyone is as unhinged as Rosebud

or

b) JD seems to attract them doesn't he?


Not a big fan of "mental" as a word though. But if I complained about that, you would point to a rather large beam in my eye.

[Lem]

Kishkumen, I recognize this pattern of yours. Your last response to me was not even logical, because Doc's wife would have noticed the liking the same way the woman in the OP did, and yet you rip into her while lauding the other story. You've made multiple posts attacking the character of a woman who feels uncomfortable, when that is entirely irrelevant, and you know it. This tells me that you are just picking a fight, and I decline to accommodate whatever you are trying to work out.

[Kishkumen]

Why would she get the reference, consiglieri? I have seen this accuser in my mind's eye:



What would possibly make you think anything along those lines?