Gossip

[_wenglund]

I didn't read the replies to Wade concerning discussing an organization vs. discussing intimate things about a person. Someone else already probably covered it -- but I'm running outta the house and wanted to reply.

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

You take things as said about an organization as if it's a person. That does not fit my definition of gossip.

I did not make a statement about appearance to make myself feel elevated. I made a statement as to how I viewed there was an emphasis on this and I appreciate other places where there is not that emphasis. Why is this gossip?

Were the Church not comprised of people, and were your comments not about what people in the Church do, then your distinction between the Church and people may have some merit. However, it was, and so it doesn't--at least to me.

Anyway, I don't wish to get hung up on semantics and whether the term "gossip" or "stereotyping" is necessarily accurate in your specific case or not. Rather, my intent is to question the efficacy of talking presumably negatively (whether accurately or not--its up for debate) about other people when they, for the most part, aren't not privy to the discussion, and when the discussion, itself, is unlikely intended to, or will, affect positive change--regardless of what one may wish to call such discussions. If the discussion serves but to reflect poorly on people or groups of people, I am not sure there is value in such--call it whatever.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

for what it's worth, I think that one of the main things in the Church which contributes to this atmosphere of gossip is the secrecy. The LDS Church is a very secretive organization, and this sort of places people in a position where they are more likely to gossip.

I'm not sure there's a connection, Scratch. Why would secrecy contribute to gossip?

I think that an atmosphere of secrecy naturally leads to gossip and whispering. On the one hand, there is a desire to "keep things in the closet," and on the other hand, humans are naturally inclined towards curiosity. So, people gossip.

[_Moniker]

I didn't read the replies to Wade concerning discussing an organization vs. discussing intimate things about a person. Someone else already probably covered it -- but I'm running outta the house and wanted to reply.

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

You take things as said about an organization as if it's a person. That does not fit my definition of gossip.

I did not make a statement about appearance to make myself feel elevated. I made a statement as to how I viewed there was an emphasis on this and I appreciate other places where there is not that emphasis. Why is this gossip?

Were the Church not comprised of people, and were your comments not about what people in the Church do, then your distinction between the Church and people may have some merit. However, it was, and so it doesn't--at least to me.

Anyway, I don't wish to get hung up on semantics and whether the term "gossip" or "stereotyping" is necessarily accurate in your specific case or not. Rather, my intent is to question the efficacy of talking presumably negatively (whether accurately or not--its up for debate) about other people when they, for the most part, aren't not privy to the discussion, and when the discussion, itself, is unlikely intended to, or will, affect positive change--regardless of what one may wish to call such discussions. If the discussion serves but to reflect poorly on people or groups of people, I am not sure there is value in such--call it whatever.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I thought that would be your reply.

Is the Republican Party made up of people? Are their beliefs targeted? Their actions? Their policies? Certain things they emphasize are targeted as being inappropriate. How about the restaurant down the street? Can I talk about their food isn't as tasty as the other restaurant? I think one restaurant has a better dress policy then the other? Is this targeting specific people or the organization/business? They may not be privy to my discussion -- it may happen at the ballot box or where I spend my money... is this still not appropriate to talk about it? Make it a concern? Why is it seemed as not being able to affect positive change? If I have issues with a restaurant would they want to know? Would a political candidate want to know why I won't vote for them?

Would you answer my question?

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

[_The Nehor]

for what it's worth, I think that one of the main things in the Church which contributes to this atmosphere of gossip is the secrecy. The LDS Church is a very secretive organization, and this sort of places people in a position where they are more likely to gossip.

I'm not sure there's a connection, Scratch. Why would secrecy contribute to gossip?

I think that an atmosphere of secrecy naturally leads to gossip and whispering. On the one hand, there is a desire to "keep things in the closet," and on the other hand, humans are naturally inclined towards curiosity. So, people gossip.

If you are opposed to gossip please share some more personal information. You hide behind a veil of secrecy.

Or not, whatever.

[_wenglund]

I didn't read the replies to Wade concerning discussing an organization vs. discussing intimate things about a person. Someone else already probably covered it -- but I'm running outta the house and wanted to reply.

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

You take things as said about an organization as if it's a person. That does not fit my definition of gossip.

I did not make a statement about appearance to make myself feel elevated. I made a statement as to how I viewed there was an emphasis on this and I appreciate other places where there is not that emphasis. Why is this gossip?

Were the Church not comprised of people, and were your comments not about what people in the Church do, then your distinction between the Church and people may have some merit. However, it was, and so it doesn't--at least to me.

Anyway, I don't wish to get hung up on semantics and whether the term "gossip" or "stereotyping" is necessarily accurate in your specific case or not. Rather, my intent is to question the efficacy of talking presumably negatively (whether accurately or not--its up for debate) about other people when they, for the most part, aren't not privy to the discussion, and when the discussion, itself, is unlikely intended to, or will, affect positive change--regardless of what one may wish to call such discussions. If the discussion serves but to reflect poorly on people or groups of people, I am not sure there is value in such--call it whatever.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I thought that would be your reply.

Is the Republican Party made up of people? Are their beliefs targeted? Their actions? Their policies? Certain things they emphasize are targeted as being inappropriate. How about the restaurant down the street? Can I talk about their food isn't as tasty as the other restaurant? I think one restaurant has a better dress policy then the other? Is this targeting specific people or the organization/business? They may not be privy to my discussion -- it may happen at the ballot box or where I spend my money... is this still not appropriate to talk about it? Make it a concern? Why is it seemed as not being able to affect positive change? If I have issues with a restaurant would they want to know? Would a political candidate want to know why I won't vote for them?

Would you answer my question?

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

Okay, if you wish to ignore my previous response, then let me answer you again by saying: "It depends." For example, if non-Republicans talk amongst each other about indisputable facts and documented policy decisions regarding Republicans, with the intent of determining for themselves what approach among many may be most wise, then I would not consider that gossip. However, if a group of non-Republicans were to make negative value judgements about Republicans (particularly the kind where Republicans may strongly disagree)--say along the lines of "because Republicans don't vote for entitlement programs, the don't care about the poor, and put an emphasis of the rich", and gave no indication of wishing or attempting to improve condition for all parties conserned, then I would consider such to be gossip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

Oh, and of course there's the Strengthening the Members committee, that collects information about certain members and keeps it on file.

and trotting out a relatively obcure news clipping service.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know, I was thinking that perhaps it would have been wiser to originally name it the Relatively Obcure News Clipping Service (RONCS) instead of the Strengthening the Members Committee.
------

You can read about the most egregious recent example of Mormonism fostering "spying" on each other here. Ernest Wilkinson was president of BYU and actually set up a spy ring.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no37.htm

That was such a strange point in time. What were they thinking? Much better to have them chipped and capped upon entry nowadays.


...

[_Moniker]

I didn't read the replies to Wade concerning discussing an organization vs. discussing intimate things about a person. Someone else already probably covered it -- but I'm running outta the house and wanted to reply.

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

You take things as said about an organization as if it's a person. That does not fit my definition of gossip.

I did not make a statement about appearance to make myself feel elevated. I made a statement as to how I viewed there was an emphasis on this and I appreciate other places where there is not that emphasis. Why is this gossip?

Were the Church not comprised of people, and were your comments not about what people in the Church do, then your distinction between the Church and people may have some merit. However, it was, and so it doesn't--at least to me.

Anyway, I don't wish to get hung up on semantics and whether the term "gossip" or "stereotyping" is necessarily accurate in your specific case or not. Rather, my intent is to question the efficacy of talking presumably negatively (whether accurately or not--its up for debate) about other people when they, for the most part, aren't not privy to the discussion, and when the discussion, itself, is unlikely intended to, or will, affect positive change--regardless of what one may wish to call such discussions. If the discussion serves but to reflect poorly on people or groups of people, I am not sure there is value in such--call it whatever.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I thought that would be your reply.

Is the Republican Party made up of people? Are their beliefs targeted? Their actions? Their policies? Certain things they emphasize are targeted as being inappropriate. How about the restaurant down the street? Can I talk about their food isn't as tasty as the other restaurant? I think one restaurant has a better dress policy then the other? Is this targeting specific people or the organization/business? They may not be privy to my discussion -- it may happen at the ballot box or where I spend my money... is this still not appropriate to talk about it? Make it a concern? Why is it seemed as not being able to affect positive change? If I have issues with a restaurant would they want to know? Would a political candidate want to know why I won't vote for them?

Would you answer my question?

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

Okay, if you wish to ignore my previous response, then let me answer you again by saying: "It depends." For example, if non-Republicans talk amongst each other about indisputable facts and documented policy decisions regarding Republicans, with the intent of determining for themselves what approach among many may be most wise, then I would not consider that gossip. However, if a group of non-Republicans were to make negative value judgements about Republicans (particularly the kind where Republicans may strongly disagree)--say along the lines of "because Republicans don't vote for entitlement programs, the don't care about the poor, and put an emphasis of the rich", and gave no indication of wishing or attempting to improve condition for all parties conserned, then I would consider such to be gossip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi, Wade, I did read your previous post and responded to some of your points. I was rushed and wasn't too clear. I'll try again. Sorry!

You wrote:

Were the Church not comprised of people, and were your comments not about what people in the Church do, then your distinction between the Church and people may have some merit. However, it was, and so it doesn't--at least to me.

I replied that it is appropriate in many instances to talk about an organization/business comprised of people and the actions of the organization/business.

You wrote this:

Rather, my intent is to question the efficacy of talking presumably negatively (whether accurately or not--its up for debate) about other people when they, for the most part, aren't not privy to the discussion, and when the discussion, itself, is unlikely intended to, or will, affect positive change--regardless of what one may wish to call such discussions. If the discussion serves but to reflect poorly on people or groups of people, I am not sure there is value in such--call it whatever.

I discussed the value of discussing organizations and their actions and how it happens pretty much in everyday life. We make calls on where we like to eat, what we like to do. For instance, do you eat at Hooters? Would their dress code make you uncomfortable? Is it okay to say, "I don't think I'll eat at Hooters because I'm uncomfortable with the atmosphere and prefer a different restaurant"? I would say, YES! I see nothing wrong with that -- nothing stereotypical, nothing gossipy -- matter of fact nothing wrong with it at all. I see things every day that I can decide whether it is something I wish to participate in and how it appeals or does not appeal to me -- stating whether or not it does or does not is not stating anything poorly about the waitresses at hooters or the people that wear white shirts and ties to Church.

To carry this farther. If Cracker Barrel is discriminating against hiring black servers (this happened) is it okay to discuss the management decision? Read about it in the news and discuss the organization and decide to boycott that establishment until their policy changes? Is this wrong? Why? Is this discussing the people that work there? Is boycotting and deciding to discuss the matter not going to have a positive effect?

I hope that was clearer.

[_ludwigm]

for what it's worth, I think that one of the main things in the Church which contributes to this atmosphere of gossip is the secrecy. The LDS Church is a very secretive organization, and this sort of places people in a position where they are more likely to gossip.

I'm not sure there's a connection, Scratch. Why would secrecy contribute to gossip?

I think that an atmosphere of secrecy naturally leads to gossip and whispering. ...

If there is no information about something, people create one. I have learned this in socialism, which was another very secretive organization.

Oh, and of course there's the Strengthening the Members committee, that collects information about certain members and keeps it on file.

... and trotting out a relatively obscure news clipping service. ...

You know, I was thinking that perhaps it would have been wiser to originally name it the Relatively Obscure News Clipping Service (RONCS) instead of the Strengthening the Members Committee.

The meaning of "roncs" is "wreck", "debris" in hungarian. (smile)

[_Ren]

Well, I've always understood the term 'gossip' to emphasise discussing details about others that would be generally acknowledged as being 'personal' information. i.e. information that it is known the person (or group) involved don't / haven't announced publicly - and perhaps mentioned in confidence to one other person, or a small select group of people.

Discussing things about a person or group that the person or group themselves have made public wouldn't come across as 'gossip' to me. At least, that's not the term that would come to my mind to describe it. Even if the discussion in question was negative, and I thought badly of it - still - 'gossip' wouldn't be the first word to mind.

'Smearing' - sure.
'Attacking' - sure.

...but 'gossip'?

EDIT: Actually - I suppose if I imagine a 'town gossip' at work, they could well be talking about something that everybody knows, but just reaching 'further conclusions' and telling people about it, but behind the person's back. Hmmm - I suppose that would count as gossip too. But they'd certainly have to be doing it 'behind closed doors' to some degree.

If their making their opinion 'plain as day', then I still can't see it as gossip. That's pretty much 'getting back into someone's face'.
It could be plenty of negative things, but I wouldn't call it 'gossip'...

[_Moniker]

Well, I've always understood the term 'gossip' to emphasise discussing details about others that would be generally acknowledged as being 'personal' information. I.e. information that it is known the person (or group) involved don't / haven't announced publicly - and perhaps mentioned in confidence to one other person, or a small select group of people.

Discussing things about a person or group that the person or group themselves have made public wouldn't come across as 'gossip' to me. At least, that's not the term that would come to my mind to describe it. Even if the discussion in question was negative, and I thought badly of it - still - 'gossip' wouldn't be the first word to mind.

'Smearing' - sure.
'Attacking' - sure.

...but 'gossip'?

EDIT: Actually - I suppose if I imagine a 'town gossip' at work, they could well be talking about something that everybody knows, but just reaching 'further conclusions' and telling people about it, but behind the person's back. Hmmm - I suppose that would count as gossip too. But they'd certainly have to be doing it 'behind closed doors' to some degree.

If their making their opinion 'plain as day', then I still can't see it as gossip. That's pretty much 'getting back into someone's face'.
It could be plenty of negative things, but I wouldn't call it 'gossip'...

I agree, if there are things that someone announces it's not necessarily gossip. Yet, I think when a select group of people is told some information and then they discuss it behind the parties back, comparing notes, making assumptions about the party in which they are not privy, trying to come up with some "group story" from their limited knowledge and then passing that information about it is gossip. For instance if I was told personal information about a person in confidence I wouldn't go to my other friends within the "group" and say do you know so and so is going on with so and so?

I think that must be the gist of the issue: If you find amusement or titillation in other folk's lives you best get a better life or find a hobby.

I think the confronting is definitely a smear or an attack. What may be frustrating about the smear or attack made public is this "group story" that was created is just so incredibly different from the truth (maybe a few truths thrown in) that what should the target do? Defend themselves and have to tell the "truth" in a public forum? Why? Is it anyones business? Why does anyone care? What the hell business of it of anyones what someone else does or does not do? I think some people must be rabidly bored or just have an ugly nature to get excited about business that is not their own.

Here's my deal: If you tell me something I assume you share that with me and I should keep that confidence. I do not assume I know more about your business then you do yourself. I do not assume I must go and tell other people what I supposedly know (thinking I know the entire story) and then go and blab what was shared with me in confidence bout it in public to embarrass someone. I've been tempted. :)

'Course I may just be like Wade when I say, "That may just be me."