Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Is Protesting Valid Communication?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your comments here all seem to miss the point that there need to be avenues for the gathering of intel on what is actually happening out in the boondocks so as to avoid big problems.  Leaders often do what most organization men do:  They make each other feel good with groupthink, wait for problems to get out of hand before dealing with them.  They follow the path of least resistance, and tend to listen to people who will give them predictable opinions.  They don't think outside the box.

This feels like an accurate description of what happened in the Church over the last decade or two that allowed voices like Dehlin, Runnels, and Young to become as loud as they have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

How do you interpret the first amendment?

To protect speech and ideas from government coercion or persecution. The idea that it logically follows that the best ideas will rise to the top in the process of civil discourse due to the wisdom of the people is absolute rubbish and makes me laugh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

WWJD?

Burn the wicked as stubble and start over. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You seem to be very anti-protest. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

Yes, you are wrong about that. My criticism is of the type and intent and efficacy (or lack thereof) of certain contemporary protest, and not of protests per se. And, I even went't so far as claim that even the contemporary protests I criticize should be constitutionally protected.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If only everyone would be reasonable and just let the Nazis speak..........

As idiotic as your false equivalency quip is, there is a kernel of truth in it.  Letting the worse among us speak and act out in the open, rather than forcing them to operate under ground, is a good thing . As the saying goes, sunlight is a great disinfectant. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2019 at 1:49 PM, bluebell said:

I’m not sure when you were a youth but in the 60s protesting was very popular as part of the counter culture and student movements. I think the difference today is that it’s popular across all groups in society, from youth to senior citizens. 

At least that’s how it seems. 

That probably because the youths of the 60's are senior citizens today.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

To protect speech and ideas from government coercion or persecution. The idea that it logically follows that the best ideas will rise to the top in the process of civil discourse due to the wisdom of the people is absolute rubbish and makes me laugh.

Yeh, it means freedom to preach atheism, LDSism, Scientology, or Nehorism.  8)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Leaders often have aversions to this or that, based on apriori conceptions, which themselves are enemies of being open to new ideas or to change.  I like the story of Pres McKay being willing to ask why Black Africans could not hold the priesthood, and actually making a serious search of Church archives for any authentic revelation on the subject -- there wasn't any.  However, his commitment to unanimity among the Brethren was such that a word from his long-time colleague and friend Joseph Fielding Smith was enough to stop him from opening up a Black African mission.

Closing the barn door after the mare has gotten out is not leadership.  Staunching the flow of blood in an emergency is no substitute for regular training to avoid accidents.

Your comments here all seem to miss the point that there need to be avenues for the gathering of intel on what is actually happening out in the boondocks so as to avoid big problems.  Leaders often do what most organization men do:  They make each other feel good with groupthink, wait for problems to get out of hand before dealing with them.  They follow the path of least resistance, and tend to listen to people who will give them predictable opinions.  They don't think outside the box.

When people don't listen to me, and things later come a cropper, I don't feel any sense of Schadenfreude.  I just get sad and wonder whether my opinions are worth expressing -- even if correct.

You didn't read Nibley carefully.  I attended that 1983 speech, and witnessed some of the Brethren on the dais looking discomfited.

I’m sorry, I can’t truly follow the conversation if you don’t answer my questions. I may be missing “the (your)” point, but you seem to missing mine also.

I agree with Nibley, and of course we can find the unskilled and uninspired among our fallible leaders, and from that we can draw, as you have, a picture of the ways they are motivated, the reasons they act (or not, or stumble), the heavy damage they incur and why they looked discomfited when hearing these principles (or perhaps it is caused by calculating the unintended collateral damage of well-intended but narrowly presented and unintegrated professorship). And how a TED talk can fix it all! Your summary (or is it allowing degrees of behavior?) of today’s Church leaders unfortunately uses management jargon from 1983, which I believe the Brethren learned about long ago and have kept current with the techniques, and are cognizant of avoiding leadership bloopers and blunders (if not 100% perfectly). Maybe I didn't read the article carefully enough to adopt your recall and interpretation from 1983.

As you identified training as a solution, what training do you think would have improved President McKay’s performance? Intelligence (define it :)!) gathering? What do you think even the most skilled and inspired protesters could have improved at the time to ensure their timely effectiveness (including Brother Nelson)? If someone had the answer and the key and didn’t use it, or use it well, they are accountable. Who was that scoundrel we should feel sad for? Yes, comebacks carry a lot of weight... set up and spike!

We have some pretty strong organizational behaviorists and executives among our top leadership, and while that certainly helps them out administratively, they typically downplay these principles and best practices in favor of inspiration in describing how they lead and how things really get done. Is that simply theater, a way to avoid accountability, or a way to appeal for the sheep to sustain them?

My comments on inspiration are to contrast with those comments favoring protest, not to exclude any supporting tools we have available. If the OP is about what goes on in the boondocks (you may need to clarify if you mean that metaphorically, which is fine and applicable), which according to one General and Stake Conference anecdote after another is often more inspired than what goes on in Utah wards/stakes, then yes, I have missed the point. But the leaders did indeed gather that much intel (and how do you think they got it?). I trust their intel about the bad habits of Utah saints is as good as their intel about the exemplary souls in the boondocks. Are you saying they haven’t done their homework or understand how to use big (and perhaps more importantly, small) data? How about using Deming’s Total Quality Improvement, is that mod enough?

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m sorry, I can’t truly follow the conversation if you don’t answer my questions. I may be missing “the (your)” point, but you seem to missing mine also.

I agree with Nibley, and of course we can find the unskilled and uninspired among our fallible leaders, and from that we can draw, as you have, a picture of the ways they are motivated, the reasons they act (or not, or stumble), the heavy damage they incur and why they looked discomfited when hearing these principles (or perhaps it is caused by calculating the unintended collateral damage of well-intended but narrowly presented and unintegrated professorship). And how a TED talk can fix it all! Your summary (or is it allowing degrees of behavior?) of today’s Church leaders unfortunately uses management jargon from 1983, which I believe the Brethren learned about long ago and have kept current with the techniques, and are cognizant of avoiding leadership bloopers and blunders (if not 100% perfectly). Maybe I didn't read the article carefully enough to adopt your recall and interpretation from 1983.

Maybe my take on that is all wrong, and maybe Nibley was just way out in left field as a grumpy malcontent and infant terrible who was just being tolerated.

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As you identified training as a solution, what training do you think would have improved President McKay’s performance? Intelligence (define it :)!) gathering? What do you think even the most skilled and inspired protesters could have improved at the time to ensure their timely effectiveness (including Brother Nelson)? If someone had the answer and the key and didn’t use it, or use it well, they are accountable. Who was that scoundrel we should feel sad for? Yes, comebacks carry a lot of weight... set up and spike!

Mayhap mothers in Zion should train their children to just say "No."  A little pioneer backbone could go a long way, rather than trying so hard to be agreeable.

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We have some pretty strong organizational behaviorists and executives among our top leadership, and while that certainly helps them out administratively, they typically downplay these principles and best practices in favor of inspiration in describing how they lead and how things really get done. Is that simply theater, a way to avoid accountability, or a way to appeal for the sheep to sustain them?

My comments on inspiration are to contrast with those comments favoring protest, not to exclude any supporting tools we have available. If the OP is about what goes on in the boondocks (you may need to clarify if you mean that metaphorically, which is fine and applicable), which according to one General and Stake Conference anecdote after another is often more inspired than what goes on in Utah wards/stakes, then yes, I have missed the point. But the leaders did indeed gather that much intel (and how do you think they got it?). I trust their intel about the bad habits of Utah saints is as good as their intel about the exemplary souls in the boondocks. Are you saying they haven’t done their homework or understand how to use big (and perhaps more importantly, small) data? How about using Deming’s Total Quality Improvement, is that mod enough?

I consider the boondocks to be anyplace outside the Church Office Bldg.  As for Mr Deming, never heard of him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

As idiotic as your false equivalency quip is, there is a kernel of truth in it.  Letting the worse among us speak and act out in the open, rather than forcing them to operate under ground, is a good thing . As the saying goes, sunlight is a great disinfectant. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree. The Nephites were much better off when the Gadiantons were a group of rogues and assassins operating underground. It got much worse when they held the Judgement Seats openly. Putting something into the light of day does not always cleanse it. Sometimes everyone just ignores it or (worse) joins in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, it means freedom to preach atheism, LDSism, Scientology, or Nehorism.  8)

Yes, but we should also throw rotten vegetables at people teaching the last item and make them social pariahs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. The Nephites were much better off when the Gadiantons were a group of rogues and assassins operating underground. It got much worse when they held the Judgement Seats openly. Putting something into the light of day does not always cleanse it. Sometimes everyone just ignores it or (worse) joins in.

Good point, though I was speaking as a general rule rather than absolutes. I freely admit that there are rare exception to the rule.

However, I don't think your example is one of those rare exceptions.

You will recall that, after their first failure, the Gadiantons were able to finally attain the judgement seat on their second attempt precisely because they went underground in the wilderness and amassed a sizable organization over 25 years.

Granted,  following their attainment of the judgement seat, the Nephites did join the band in increasing numbers such that the Robbers were able to take over the whole of the Nephite government in a matter of 2 or 3 years. (see HERE)  Yet, it took only a single prophet shedding the light of day on an assassin attempt, along with a  convenient famine, to see the eradication of the Gadiantons among the Nephites in a couple of years. (ibid)

On the second go around the Gadiantons again went underground by secreting themselves in the wilderness and mountains, where  they were able to flourish to the point that in the early days  of the war in which they fought against both Nephites and Lamanites, they had the upper hand, though ultimately, the Nephites did destroy them out in the open field of battle.

Sometimes, the light of day may cause some temporary growth in diseased ideas, but eventually, as a general rule,  the disinfectant of truth and light will prevail.

We see this with the national socialists (Nazis) and the globalist socialist (communism) of the 20th centuries. They flourished for a season, but eventually were destroyed--except for the useful idiots who failed to learn from history, and who have continued to grow underground for decades within the environs of media, public education, government bureaucracies and a certain political party, to the point where they have a stronghold in government and culture--at least for the time being. 

Even there the sunlight of disinfectant is beginning to shine in spite of major efforts to darken and silence it, and more and more people, particularly among minorities and generation Z, are seeing the Left as the disease that it is.

There is a reason that many on the Left wish to silence opposing views while many on the Right eagerly encourage open, honest, reasoned discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe my take on that is all wrong, and maybe Nibley was just way out in left field as a grumpy malcontent and infant terrible who was just being tolerated.

Mayhap mothers in Zion should train their children to just say "No."  A little pioneer backbone could go a long way, rather than trying so hard to be agreeable.

I consider the boondocks to be anyplace outside the Church Office Bldg.  As for Mr Deming, never heard of him.

Oh boy you got me! Thank you, thank you for the chuckle!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

There is a reason that many on the Left wish to silence opposing views while many on the Right eagerly encourage open, honest, reasoned discussion.

:lol: 

 

youre_serious_futurama.gif

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

:lol: 

youre_serious_futurama.gif

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

 

Not a valid argument or intelligent response, but evidently the best you can offer. Fools mock... ( Ether 12:26, Proverbs 14:8,9)

Ironically, you kind of made my point.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Not a valid argument or intelligent response, but evidently the best you can offer. Fools mock... ( Ether 12:26, Proverbs 14:8,9)

Ironically, you kind of made my point.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I did not make your point. I am not your perverse "Left" that does not want to respond intelligently nor is your inane comment that only one side is interested in debate hold any water.

Sartre's quote applies here though it was targeting something else:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

In the current US political discourse this sadly is how both sides argue and most (though not all) of the media is either hopelessly toadying to one side or the other or is so interested in getting perspectives from inane talking heads that they have abandoned any commitment to dig deep and report truth.

And when people make unchallengable general statements like you did that cannot be refuted I will fall back on my paraphrase of Ether:

Fools mutter but I shall mock.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, rockpond said:

This feels like an accurate description of what happened in the Church over the last decade or two that allowed voices like Dehlin, Runnels, and Young to become as loud as they have.

Now come on, let's give credit where credit is due: it was their personality!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I did not make your point. I am not your perverse "Left" that does not want to respond intelligently nor is your inane comment that only one side is interested in debate hold any water.

Sartre's quote applies here though it was targeting something else:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

In the current US political discourse this sadly is how both sides argue and most (though not all) of the media is either hopelessly toadying to one side or the other or is so interested in getting perspectives from inane talking heads that they have abandoned any commitment to dig deep and report truth.

And when people make unchallengable general statements like you did that cannot be refuted I will fall back on my paraphrase of Ether:

Fools mutter but I shall mock.

Those are some valid points. I will try and keep them in mind when reading your posts and considering responding to them in the future. 

Than,s, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...