“gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

DCP has devoted a significant portion of his "career" to attacking and demonizing ex-Mormons. Surely you remember his FAIR Conference speech (and subsequent publication) entitled "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism"? The bulk of the piece consists of his castigation of RfM--which, at the time, was the most popular ex-Mormon website (I believe it has since been eclipsed by ex-Mormon Reddit). Here is a choice quote from the talk:

Daniel Peterson wrote:But this doesn’t exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people they don’t know and haven’t even met–against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the Church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor. Ordinary members of the Church–Morgbots or Morons or Sheeple, in the jargon of the board–are routinely stereotyped as insane, tyrannical, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, greedy, foolish, rude, poor tippers, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread–and I’m not making this up–devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants. Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of Church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring–who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster’s secret double life of contemptuous disbelief. It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger pointing and mocking found in the “great and spacious building” of 1 Nephi. Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood, deploying a supposed need for therapeutic self-expression as their all-encompassing excuse.


And remember how he used to keep a kind of "notebook" of quotes that he'd harvested from RfM? And how he used to frequently refer to RfM as "psychologically fascinating"? And, of course, have you ever perused the pages of SHIELDS?:

Gary Novak wrote:Dan Peterson recently had an email exchange with the author of the Moroni the Alien site. This week's Worst features all of Dan's correspondence with this fellow. I think it rather nicely illustrates exactly what the most rabid, howling-at-the-moon anti-Mormons are like.

Oh yes, if you have a pacemaker installed, you may want to refrain from reading. You may die laughing. For the rest of you, in order to help prevent laugh-induced injury, place pillows on the floor near your computer—and keep a box of tissues nearby. ROFL.


So this remark:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I think that you're not only misreading GQC, but that you're doing so in a demonstrably obvious way. He's not speaking in anger or hatred. He's speaking in sadness. As do I.


Can really only be seen as being stunningly disingenuous. "Sadness?" Yeah, right. If that's the case, then Gary Novak seems to have been seriously deceived, if not unhinged completely. So much of the older work of the Mopologists has this sort of "winking" quality, as if they are winking at some clandestine audience who thinks what they're doing is "funny." (Cf., e.g., "Text and Context," where DCP "jokes" that "Sodom and Cumorah are apparently not compatible"--in response, apparently, to LGBTQ+ personnel at Signature Books, which has published items that were critical of FARMS.)

This quote really sums it up:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm sorry to hear it. But, just as you hope that they will treat you more charitably, you should try to show them some charity, too. Your vocal departure from the faith and your public rejection of it has certainly caused them considerable pain and real awkwardness around you. Their reactions stem from that, do they not?


Why doesn't he say, "Just as *I* hope that they will treat you more charitably..."? Does he not care? I mean, he's just showing his true colors here, IMO. Let him lay out the reasons why Mormons are justified in their anger over people who exit the Church. Let him explain to the world why he is justified in being angry about that. Let's hear it.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Stem
God
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Stem »

Gadianton wrote:
Lynn Johnson wrote:David B: He doesn't say "despise" but rather says he was tempted to say it. Are you free of temptations?


How stupid can people be? If you nearly say that you despise somebody, but stop yourself, that means that you *do* despise them, but for the sake of maintaining appearances you hold your tongue.


I found it adorable they figured if they could just convince us that he really didn't mean despise when he said despise that should mean the whole despicable quotation would equate to anything other than divisive. Peterson's appeal to not wanting divisiveness while promoting it was absurd. Excusig it by saying he really just feels sad for the People he's attacking is disingenuous. If everyone argued that to excuse their personal attacks we'd have no discussion at all. What a goof.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Gadianton »

I'm sorry to hear it. But, just as you hope that they will treat you more charitably, you should try to show them some charity, too. Your vocal departure from the faith and your public rejection of it has certainly caused them considerable pain and real awkwardness around you. Their reactions stem from that, do they not?


lol. What a loser.

First of all, at least in my experience with this board, there are very few who get into it with their families and go full-blown Norton activist. For most, while families preach or drop hints, or break down in tears, the enlightened apostate avoids confrontation and knows to tread very carefully lest their family and friend relations are left in ruins. I've never disrespected my family or challenged them in the slightest. I don't despise them, nor do I consider them wrecks, or traitors, nor do they fall under my displeasure in any way. "Frustrating" comes to mind, "impossible" and a few other words at times.

In contrast, we have on record, DCP declaring that Cannon's insights are fantastic observations that he personally testifies to the truthfulness of in repeated observation of his own. In other words, on many occasions, he's been in the presence of either family or friends who have left the Church or lost testimonies, and thought of them as wrecks, traitors, and they fall under his displeasure, and he almost says but doesn't, that he "despises" them. Quite honestly, I call BS. I think he's too soft, and using an apologist fantasy of "braiding the whip" and driving his own family and friends from his home as a means to troll and get under the skin of critics online who he doesn't know. I don't think in his personal life he's the hardened braider of the whip that brags about being.

But second, lo and behold, his observations that critics are the ones who should start with charity are underpinned by his accusation of a "public rejection". Now lets see here, as I recall, the reason most cited by critics for staying anonymous is to avoid their families from finding out so that they can maintain the peace. And so he can't be serious, that in the general case, critics are the ones who first should show charity. They show charity, for starters, by carrying out the act of cowardice of not going public and throwing the whole thing in the face of their families, as the apologists demand, as it would punish the critic, since they are unable to win an argument.

They don't stop and think about the faithful TBMs this would hurt. But at least, he's on record now for seeing the connection between going public as an apostate, and hurting family members, and so next time he calls for a critic to reveal his true identity, he's really demanding that family be punished for the critics' actions.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Philo Sofee »

This not being able to see is precisely what most astonished me once I stopped being an apologist. I literally (and said so many times.....MANY times) ***COULD NOT SEE*** how weak, silly, and illogical the arguments and defenses for Mormonism actually are. One is literally without eyes when one is on the inside. This entire post and response is absolutely exhibit #1 for pure and unadulterated testimonial evidence that apologists CANNOT see the horrendous thing they are involved in. Mormonism literally BLINDS the brain. We have truly eye opening evidence to it right here. I KNOW Peterson is not lying, he really does not see it. But for all that it is still heinous. DCP promotes that, even if it is promoted blindly, it is promoted, and hence the heinous aspect of Mormonism.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21298
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Gadianton wrote:First of all, at least in my experience with this board, there are very few who get into it with their families and go full-blown Norton activist. For most, while families preach or drop hints, or break down in tears, the enlightened apostate avoids confrontation and knows to tread very carefully lest their family and friend relations are left in ruins.


Boy, this is true in my case. I have some really wonderful TBM in-laws that I love and respect. Last year my wife and I went to St. George to hike with my brother in-law. On the trip back he broached the topic of our apostasy and wanted to know what our issues with the Church were. I just straight up told him (and I'm paraphrasing here), "brother in-law, there is absolutely no way I'm going to talk about the Church's historical, doctrinal, and policy issues that led me to the place where I'm at today. You have a wonderful life, an awesome family, and I really believe your faith brings you a measure of happiness I'm simply not going to mess with. There is no way I'm going to talk about anything that might plant a seed of doubt in your mind or in your heart. I want you to stay focused on being an awesome dad. Our path is our own and I in now way want to disrupt or play a part where we sow dissension in your relationships. Let's just agree you have it good, we're happy with our worldview, and we just respect that."

And he dropped it. We haven't gone near the topic since, and we enjoy one another's company when we hang out. The key is he isn't an asshole who feels the need to lord his faith over us. He's truly a humble guy who has a great life and he's happy with that. He also sees the good things in us that he respects which allows us to have a mutually respectful relationship. He's not insecure.

When ____ like Mr. Peterson and The Midge think it's ok to 'mourn' and tear at their garments and toss dust on their heads all they're really doing is acting like assholes to let their apostate friends and families feel like they did something to them, that they hurt them. Give me a ____ break.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.

Stem
God
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Stem »

Couldn't help myself:

David B

Hey Dr Professor Peterson Ph.D. The clear message and promotion of divisiveness inherent in your post and then your subsequent effort to blame others (odd, I mean, you are the one who promoted an old quotation that clearly is divisive), got me wondering. Is there, in your view, a possible way to reconcile perspectives? I suppose I mean that between those who remain in the LDS Church and those who leave? I fear your promotion of divisiveness and your continued effort to dig in heels, perhaps speaks a bit to that. Maybe speaks to you growing a little more cold I know people have been nasty to you. I've seen it for years. It ain't cool. I've tried to defend you and your claims many times amongst those who you seem to perceive as your enemies. Curious why that was brought up by you in this.


DanielPeterson
David B, I don't agree that the quotation is exceptionally divisive and I certainly don't plead guilty to deliberate divisiveness.

David B: "Is there, in your view, a possible way to reconcile perspectives?"

Ultimate reconciliation between our diametrically opposed perspectives is probably not possible. I see the claims of the Church as true, for example, and you don't. I see the doctrines of the Restoration as very good, while you apparaently don't.

But civility and mutual attempts at listening are certainly possible.

David B: "Maybe speaks to you growing a little more cold"

Not even by a fraction of a degree.

David B: "I know people have been nasty to you. I've seen it for years. It ain't cool. I've tried to defend you and your claims many times"

Pretty much a hopeless task on your board, I'm afraid.

David B: "those who you seem to perceive as your enemies"

That's essentially how they've defined themselves, and their actions certainly fit. I would have to be completely comatose not to recognize them for what they are.

David B
Okliy dokily...you say it is not possible to reconcile. I disagree. THat's why I continue the discussion. But hearing that--the unwillingness to bend--says much. I did not realize one would hold such a view. Back in the day as an active Mormon I figured we'd need to bend and was hoping see it. I suppose that is largely why I find myself on the outs.

I'd agree with civility. I certainly think it's problematic, just to be clear one last time (I hope), to call the whole other group human wrecks and that God is displeased with them. I suppose if you are saying that you simply can't bend on that, then I can certainly see your lack of faith in reconciliation and what appears to be your confused view of what is civil.

All the best...until next time.



:biggrin: I got a flare for the dramatics.

Stem
God
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Stem »

This dude's saying I'm a Narcissist because I objected to the use of despise and Peterson gets after me for me suggesting he has a blind spot.

I think pretty much sums up the whole discussion.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Gadianton »

Stem wrote:I suppose if you are saying that you simply can't bend on that, then I can certainly see your lack of faith in reconciliation and what appears to be your confused view of what is civil.


Who was the audience to Cannon's observations? I'm just taking a wild guess here was that his audience wasn't 50% faithful Mormons and 50% apostates.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Lemmie »

This exchange just cracked me up:
LynnJohnson David B • a day ago • edited

Your indefatigable harangue makes me suspicious that you are emotionally fragile. I would suggest you find some help from a therapist who has specialized in treating people who think that everyone but themselves is responsible for their pain. You clearly are in a great deal of pain. Your method of thinking about the world is the immediate cause of that pain, and my evidence is your inability to read a clear prose sentence without attributing malign motives to someone you never knew.


−—
Dr. VelhoBurrinho LynnJohnson • 6 hours ago
Such a sweet way to say he was "buried before he died" using pop psychology you got off the internet.

:lol: Pop psychology indeed, fakely sweetened with that Wasatch Front passive aggressiveness!

On a more serious note, I read in one of LynnJohnson’s post that he actually is a psychologist, iirc. I really hope he is using a pseudonym, because that ____ he posted is enough to get his license pulled in my state.

User avatar
Dr LOD
Deacon
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:24 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Dr LOD »

Lemmie wrote:This exchange just cracked me up:
LynnJohnson David B • a day ago • edited

Your indefatigable harangue makes me suspicious that you are emotionally fragile. I would suggest you find some help from a therapist who has specialized in treating people who think that everyone but themselves is responsible for their pain. You clearly are in a great deal of pain. Your method of thinking about the world is the immediate cause of that pain, and my evidence is your inability to read a clear prose sentence without attributing malign motives to someone you never knew.


−—
Dr. VelhoBurrinho LynnJohnson • 6 hours ago
Such a sweet way to say he was "buried before he died" using pop psychology you got off the internet.

:lol: Pop psychology indeed, fakely sweetened with that Wasatch Front passive aggressiveness!

On a more serious note, I read in one of LynnJohnson’s post that he actually is a psychologist, iirc. I really hope he is using a pseudonym, because that ____ he posted is enough to get his license pulled in my state.


I was wondering if he was when I wrote that, but I kept thinking certainly I can't think of a competent professional in the MH field sounding like that unless they worked for the church, and had little exposure to the outside world.

Well if he really is the IRL psychologist he came off as a pompous idiot with that post.

User avatar
Maksutov
God
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Maksutov »

Lemmie wrote:This exchange just cracked me up:
LynnJohnson David B • a day ago • edited

Your indefatigable harangue makes me suspicious that you are emotionally fragile. I would suggest you find some help from a therapist who has specialized in treating people who think that everyone but themselves is responsible for their pain. You clearly are in a great deal of pain. Your method of thinking about the world is the immediate cause of that pain, and my evidence is your inability to read a clear prose sentence without attributing malign motives to someone you never knew.


−—
Dr. VelhoBurrinho LynnJohnson • 6 hours ago
Such a sweet way to say he was "buried before he died" using pop psychology you got off the internet.

:lol: Pop psychology indeed, fakely sweetened with that Wasatch Front passive aggressiveness!

On a more serious note, I read in one of LynnJohnson’s post that he actually is a psychologist, iirc. I really hope he is using a pseudonym, because that ____ he posted is enough to get his license pulled in my state.


I thought Mos were supposed to be champion exorcists. What do they need psychologists for? :eek:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Gadianton »

Stem wrote:This dude's saying I'm a Narcissist because I objected to the use of despise and Peterson gets after me for me suggesting he has a blind spot.

I think pretty much sums up the whole discussion.


You might be right about that. I mean, maybe a really good apologist, meaning not any of the crew over there, could soften the blow by working the context angle and limiting its relevance to its proper context, but even if so, certainly such an apologist could understand in any case, why it could be construed as offensive, especially when wielded as it was by the author. To suggest that finding the quote problematic makes one a narcissist and in need of therapy is totally stupid. Like, beyond stupid.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

I'm sure that others remember the hokey bonhomie between the Mopologists concerning a film they were jokingly going to make one day: Dan and Bill's Excellent Adventures in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell. (No, instead, they are making the Witnesses Movie. I leave it to you to decide whether this was a wise choice or not.)

In any case, it *is* very interesting to note that Dr. Peterson--who is, as I just noted, a key figure behind the Witnesses Movie--is now publicly saying things about how ex-Mormons are evil, and that he considers them "enemies," and so forth. Is that really what the LDS Church is about these day? I.e., picking fights, and drawing lines in the sand? Clearly identifying one's "enemies"?

I wonder what's behind his apparent change of heart, since, obviously, he's decided to drop the pretense. Those latest comments--which Dean Robbers has labeled "trolling"--are much more in keeping with the register he used to use during the heyday of FARMS. And is this "trolling," meaning that he's just doing that to get a rise out of people? Maybe so, but bear in mind that, as I just pointed out, this used to be one of the mains way that he operated. I linked above to a few examples of things that are in the same vein as what he's been saying lately, but I could very easily link to literally *hundreds* more such things. And *that* is what has got my curiosity piqued. What made him decide to drop the pretense? For the past ~7 years or thereabouts, he has tried very hard indeed to conceal those feelings (with quite a spotty track-record, IMO), and to act more like a disciple of Christ: he has seemingly tried to be nicer. He has posted fewer inflammatory items. I mean, sure: occasionally he'd cave in and we'd see the old DCP, who wore his arrogance on his sleeve and who viewed his opponents as sub-human, worthy of nothing more than his ridicule.

But like I said, you could sense him sort of tamping this all down over the past 7 years or so (or, it seemed to me that he was at least *trying* to contain this impulse). So why is it flaring up again now? I am, of course, going to have to speculate, but I am still wondering about the rumors pertaining to DCP's alleged retirement. I wondered in another post whether Dr. Peterson had done things to piss off his BYU department, and, concurrently, I'm now wondering if part of his "self-moderation" (as it were) on "SeN" was in response to pressures from his department. But, if his retirement is immanent, and there will therefore no longer be any possible consequences for his behavior.... Then maybe that's why he's cutting loose? Just a guess, but these latest remarks are certainly curious.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Dr LOD
Deacon
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:24 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Dr LOD »

Dan Peterson actually posted An identical post as this four years ago, at that time it brought little notice.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -ways.html

His post on John Lennon last week is also a repeat. It seems he is running out of ideas.

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by grindael »

Did Peterson talk about how many were helped along by way of blood atonement? I'm sure he and mental midget are all for that, too. Next thing you know DCP & MM will be going to the temple and swearing out blood oaths against Scratch and Lemmie. They sure have a rich field of former "authorities" to emulate.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Gadianton »

I have to give you this, my good doctors, it looks like this is another re-post, per Dr. LOD's discovery:

Reading over at the valuable Ether’s Cave blog run by my friend and former Maxwell Institute colleague Matt Roper, along with my friend and former Maxwell Institute colleague John Gee, I saw this.


lol. I think it's pretty well guaranteed then that the quote discovered was the most inflammatory quote they could find about people who leave the Church. So the link to the "old school" has been proven. Your suspicions as the BH Chair paid off again.

My only point, Doctor Scratch, is that the war, to my understanding, was waged on critics who probably weren't family and friends, or close associates. For someone to print the quote and then claim they observed this many times, we can't be talking about apostates like Metcalfe and Vogel, who they wouldn't have known long enough to make the kind of assessment Cannon is making. So according to the blog author's logic, he would have "many times" stood before people he knew, and thought of them as traitors, and "held back" himself from telling them how much he despised them.

I mean, I have to admit, if it were determined that the war with critics bled into personal relationships, that would be an extraordinary discovery. Sure, I totally agree the apologists think this about anonymous critics on blogs and the few others whose IRL they know but they aren't associated with them, but family and friends who leave, and many times?
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

Stem
God
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Stem »

I know this is gone and dead, but I wanted to point out one more thing that resulted from the discussion.
Fourfingered poster responded to me with:

the most divisive person in the universe is God


It was so funny to see them get so upset with me because I objected to the divisiveness in the George Cannon quote that Peterson promoted, only to take pride in their divisiveness.

They seemed to all settle on:
"how do you say he thought God despises...I mean he didn't really mean despise. The Spirit constrained him and he didn't say despises, he corrected that with God is so displeased with other people that aren't us. But yes you are a human wreck."

Oh come on, none of us were actually this foolish...were we?

User avatar
Paloma
Priest
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:26 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Paloma »

I just read that entire exchange and saw at least 4 different occasions where Peterson said something like "your reaction stems from ...". His repeated use of "stems from" is no accident, in my opinion.

My take-away: 1) He likes to play games (more important to him than the genuine human issues around how people feel and promoting mutual respect and understanding rather than divisiveness). 2) He's playing to an audience of two (Kiwi and Midgley). 3) He's signalling "I know who you are" ... something I observed repeatedly way back on the old Fair board when he and Hamblin, etc. seemed to be hounding and delightedly "outing" dissidents.

Maybe it would be better to not comment on this all-too transparent and childish use of an expression. But I feel compelled to note that, when trying to establish one's kindness and concern, it's counter productive to insert such games.

Stem
God
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Stem »

Paloma wrote:I just read that entire exchange and saw at least 4 different occasions where Peterson said something like "your reaction stems from ...". His repeated use of "stems from" is no accident, in my opinion.

My take-away: 1) He likes to play games (more important to him than the genuine human issues around how people feel and promoting mutual respect and understanding rather than divisiveness). 2) He's playing to an audience of two (Kiwi and Midgley). 3) He's signalling "I know who you are" ... something I observed repeatedly way back on the old Fair board when he and Hamblin, etc. seemed to be hounding and delightedly "outing" dissidents.

Maybe it would be better to not comment on this all-too transparent and childish use of an expression. But I feel compelled to note that, when trying to establish one's kindness and concern, it's counter productive to insert such games.



I caught the stem references too. I'm thinking he comes to the board enough and catches himself up with all the happenings. If he just put scare quotes around stem, he could have been more obvious.

Next time, Dan, just put "stem" in square quotes, please?

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21117
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Kishkumen »

Square quotes or scare quotes?
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

Stem
God
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: “gone missing”? Or just “buried before dead”?

Post by Stem »

Kishkumen wrote:Square quotes or scare quotes?


I couldn't decide. Either works. :smile:

Post Reply