Buffalo wrote:His comments about his former ward where he was bishop (MS interview) struck me as condescending toward the poor as well, but I chose to take the more charitable view that it wasn't intentional. In light of his tactics on the comments section of Time, I think I gave him too much credit.
I don't believe it was intentional. Unfortunately that makes little difference.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Buffalo wrote:His comments about his former ward where he was bishop (MS interview) struck me as condescending toward the poor as well, but I chose to take the more charitable view that it wasn't intentional. In light of his tactics on the comments section of Time, I think I gave him too much credit.
I don't believe it was intentional. Unfortunately that makes little difference.
An unconscious disdain for the lower class? If that's what you mean, that seems fair.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
My comments over there were well-intentioned, but unfortunately I hurt some feelings, and things got pretty ugly. So I withdrew from the kerfuffle. Saying that I agreed with angsty's comments here does not constitute an attack.
Daniel Peterson wrote:A recent angle of attack on me that certainly shows some promise, though, and that has in fact been flourishing elsewhere already, denounces me for my allegedly snooty attitude here toward the rural Appalachian poor. This new theme fundamentally misconstrues my remarks, but, in portraying me as an out-of-touch elitist who holds poor people in contempt, carries a potentially very powerful propaganda bite -- and it has the delicious additional virtue of further defaming me personally while doing so under a veneer of actual relevance to the photos, captions, and essay. You might consider adopting it.
What a drama queen. Of course, he had to make special effort not to appear to do what he was in fact doing--returning condescension for perceived condescension on the part of Shumway--by editing his comments about Appalachia, something Doctor Scratch documented here. Unfortunately his overall tone, dripping with snark, condescension, and defensiveness undermines his self-apology. Oh well. Same ole, same ole.
Whatever his justifications, intentions, and so forth, I maintain that Daniel is not well served by such comments, especially when they are offered in a public forum like the TIME blog.
At the same time, I have to say that the attacks on Pahoran are below the belt. Why drag random apologists into this? As I said before, step back from this and it generally looks pretty bad. Schlegel's comments, however, are spot on, in my opinion. That John Williams guy offered plenty of civil and wise commentary too.
Exactly-- and thank you. I laughed when Dr. Scratch noted the edit (and thank you to you Scratch, by the way)-- it wasn't much of an improvement. It doesn't make sense in this context at all-- the fundamental problem being that Shumway is not an outsider. He is presenting a reflection on his experience. He's the only qualified authority on that-- not so with the many objectionable depictions of the "rural poor in Appalachia" that Peterson can only be referring to.
Further, either comment (whether the original or edited version) clearly indicates, indeed requires, a judgment about the subject matter being portrayed in a way that Peterson thinks indicates condescension. If Peterson thinks these portrayals of normal American living portray a condescending attitude, it must be because something about them doesn't meet his expectations and/or standards. I can't imagine what that could be, other than sheer economic/social snobbery (as suggested by his invoking images of "the rural poor in Appalachia").
Or maybe he's just lazy and didn't really mean what is actually entailed by what he said?
Runtu wrote:My comments over there were well-intentioned, but unfortunately I hurt some feelings, and things got pretty ugly. So I withdrew from the kerfuffle. Saying that I agreed with angsty's comments here does not constitute an attack.
LOL. Oh, Runtu. Always so conciliatory and self-effacing. I don't think you are the one with the problem here.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Buffalo wrote:An unconscious disdain for the lower class? If that's what you mean, that seems fair.
I think that there is, rather, a lot of discomfort with the snobbery that goes with anti-Mormonism. On some level, the apologists are also uncomfortable being lumped in with the unwashed masses of the chapel. It is the same kind of embarrassed response one gets to Three Nephite tales. It is easier, however, to thrust that discomfort onto someone who is now perceived to be an outsider. The apologists are just looking for the swipe against the Church in Shumway's little piece. They found it in, or perhaps projected it onto, the photographs and how Shumway apparently makes middle-class Utahns look like the Beverly Hillbillies to the exceedingly discerning or overly defensive eye.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist