Open Stories Foundation---Dehlin, Money, and compensation

[Stargazer]

32 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

That's the spirit of love and acceptance Christ teaches, right?  Punching people in the face because of how they look (or how you think they look).  

Well, I don't know about this Dehlin character that is the subject of the discussion.  I've never checked out his work product, nor am I likely to.

However, I don't think the punchers really mean that they would punch based solely on how anyone looks.  They apparently have a great deal of bad feeling with the person, quite apart from appearance.  I take it that you've never felt like punching someone who was acting like a jerk? 

I think most of us have felt like punching someone in the face on select occasions.  And most of us who have felt like it have refrained, nevertheless.  Christ's teachings seem to say that ideally we wouldn't even think of punching someone, but recognize that merely refraining from doing so is at least acceptable, and is one step on the road to perfection.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

That's the spirit of love and acceptance Christ teaches, right?  Punching people in the face because of how they look (or how you think they look).  

Why do people keep trying to guilt trip me with this kind of tripe when I make jokey comments like this? Does this kind of sanctimonious and condescending drivel work on you or something?

Try again after I have actually punched Dehlin in the face. It might work then.....but I doubt it.  

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why do people keep trying to guilt trip me with this kind of tripe when I make jokey comments like this? Does this kind of sanctimonious and condescending drivel work on you or something?

Try again after I have actually punched Dehlin in the face. It might work then.....but I doubt it.  

The thing is, if Dehlin's ideologies aligned with what you wanted and/or believed, then you probably wouldn't make such  jokey comments or have a desire to punch him in the face in the first place. 

BTW, I won't hold my breath, I doubt you have ever been in a real fight or actually punched someone (which is a good thing). 😀

[Damien the Leper]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why do people keep trying to guilt trip me with this kind of tripe when I make jokey comments like this? Does this kind of sanctimonious and condescending drivel work on you or something?

Try again after I have actually punched Dehlin in the face. It might work then.....but I doubt it.  

Nevermind

Edited May 25, 2017 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind

Edited May 25, 2017 by Valentinus

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/22/2017 at 0:44 PM, stemelbow said:

... As I break it down this whole mess is just ridiculous.  Why she made it public?  it feels silly. 

 

Kinda like MormonLeaks.

What?

Oh.  

Sorry.  

Don't mind me.  

Carry on!  

P.S.: And I freaking swear ... I'm gonna punch the next person who says anything about punching anybody in the face, in the face. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Kinda like MormonLeaks.

What?

Oh.  

Sorry.  

Don't mind me.  

Carry on!  

P.S.: And I freaking swear ... I'm gonna punch the next person who says anything about punching anybody in the face, in the face. 

😂

[JulieM]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Incidentally, it just occurred to me Dehlin's output would be far more accessible if he were to boil his interminable podcasts into bullet-point lists of, say, half a dozen items each. 

How many of Dehlin's podcasts have you listened to? 

I admit that I've only listened to one, but I found it to be excellent and extremely well done and interesting.

 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why do people keep trying to guilt trip me with this kind of tripe when I make jokey comments like this? Does this kind of sanctimonious and condescending drivel work on you or something?

Try again after I have actually punched Dehlin in the face. It might work then.....but I doubt it.  

I don't know about anyone else, but I always assumed The Nehor wanted to punch each one of us in the face.  I was surprised to see he seems to have Dehlin above me on his priority list. 

[stemelbow]

has anyone ventured over and listened to Dehlin's podcast wherein he responded to all of this?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

has anyone ventured over and listened to Dehlin's podcast wherein he responded to all of this?

Have you found it? I watched a couple minutes of live video from his public facebook feed, but they had technical difficulites, said they were switching over to the mormon stories facebook page, and I never found it.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The thing is, if Dehlin's ideologies aligned with what you wanted and/or believed, then you probably wouldn't make such  jokey comments or have a desire to punch him in the face in the first place. 

BTW, I won't hold my breath, I doubt you have ever been in a real fight or actually punched someone (which is a good thing). 😀

There are lots of people I agree with ideologically with punchable faces.

I have only been in a few fights. I actually like a good fight but try to restrict it to sparring matches and mock fights. Keeps the injury count down.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know about anyone else, but I always assumed The Nehor wanted to punch each one of us in the face.  I was surprised to see he seems to have Dehlin above me on his priority list. 

You are right below that guy in the money costume who does late night commercials.

 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know about anyone else, but I always assumed The Nehor wanted to punch each one of us in the face.  I was surprised to see he seems to have Dehlin above me on his priority list. 

The list of people The Nehor wouldn't punch in the face is small and exclusive. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you found it? I watched a couple minutes of live video from his public facebook feed, but they had technical difficulites, said they were switching over to the mormon stories facebook page, and I never found it.

After I posted I went to Mormonstories expecting to see it there.  I don't facebook nor have an account, so I'm guessing I won't be seeing it if that's where it's found. 

Anyone know where it can be found?  If it'll be put on Mormonstories or something? 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The list of people The Nehor wouldn't punch in the face is small and exclusive. 

Those are the exact types of lists I love to get on. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

After I posted I went to Mormonstories expecting to see it there.  I don't facebook nor have an account, so I'm guessing I won't be seeing it if that's where it's found. 

Anyone know where it can be found?  If it'll be put on Mormonstories or something? 

The announcement didn't give a time, only that it would be today. 

[juliann]

I thought this was dying down when Money closed her FB comments. But I am hearing that reddit re-opened discussion. Apparently, they had closed areas because exmo women were objecting to men not taking the women's stories seriously.[ Given our struggles with them coming here, of great interest is a stinging rebuke by an emeritus mod, describing MormonDiscussions as an "asylum" that was a "cautionary tale" of what they didn't want r/exmormon to become.]

I am not gloating over one person being called out, I am encouraged to see this discussion finally happening from both sides. My hope is that it will be women who will reject the identity politics and begin to work together on a common problem to us all, sexism. If anyone really cares about it the finger pointing has to stop and it begins with the realization that sexism isn't owned by any one group, it is pervasive. It isn't a purposeful act but it does require awareness building. That cannot begin with those who can only respond with "But what about those other people! Look over there instead!"

So I hope to never have a discussion about discrimination against women that begins by discounting or questioning the women's accounts. The response has to be "we need to look into this" rather than "pppbt, she is not being truthful." 

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, juliann said:

I thought this was dying down when Money closed her FB comments. But I am hearing that reddit re-opened discussion. Apparently, they had closed areas because exmo women were objecting to men not taking the women's stories seriously.[ Given our struggles with them coming here, of great interest is a stinging rebuke by an emeritus mod, describing MormonDiscussions as an "asylum" that was a "cautionary tale" of what they didn't want r/exmormon to become.]

I am not gloating over one person being called out, I am encouraged to see this discussion finally happening from both sides. My hope is that it will be women who will reject the identity politics and begin to work together on a common problem to us all, sexism. If anyone really cares about it the finger pointing has to stop and it begins with the realization that sexism isn't owned by any one group, it is pervasive. It isn't a purposeful act but it does require awareness building. That cannot begin with those who can only respond with "But what about those other people! Look over there instead!"

So I hope to never have a discussion about discrimination against women that begins by discounting or questioning the women's accounts. The response has to be "we need to look into this" rather than "pppbt, she is not being truthful." 

I don't know how to get to the point where I see it as a positive thing to automatically assume a woman is correct and/or telling the truth simply because she's a woman speaking against a man. I don't see the intellectual honesty, open-mindedness, or fairness in that type of approach. This is precisely what Kate Kelly was calling for on the Money FB thread.

So while I recognize the sexism that exists in virtually every organization, and the need to address it in a constructive way, I feel like there needs to be a more reasonable approach than simply "Believe her!" instead of vetting the story/claims just like we would for every other person.

Help me to understand the value your approach.

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There are lots of people I agree with ideologically with punchable faces.

I have only been in a few fights. I actually like a good fight but try to restrict it to sparring matches and mock fights. Keeps the injury count down.

Good for you!  I think good sparring matches are good for the body and mind. I enjoy them as well!  

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know how to get to the point where I see it as a positive thing to automatically assume a woman is correct and/or telling the truth simply because she's a woman speaking against a man. I don't see the intellectual honesty, open-mindedness, or fairness in that type of approach. This is precisely what Kate Kelly was calling for on the Money FB thread.

So while I recognize the sexism that exists in virtually every organization, and the need to address it in a constructive way, I feel like there needs to be a more reasonable approach than simply "Believe her!" instead of vetting the story/claims just like we would for every other person.

Help me to understand the value your approach.

 

The default is to doubt women. Where you would say automatically assume a woman is correct "simply because she's a woman," what you are really saying is that you are automatically assuming the man is correct. Any change starts with language. 

The difference is that there are multiple accounts in this situation.( I should have added the disclaimer that there are, of course, exceptions.) Yet there are posters that will not consider a woman's account as evidence. It is dismissed from the get-go. That is why women are now stating that this has been going on for years at OSF. One said she knew at least a dozen women who had addressed this with OSF, to no avail. Yet the first to go public is immediately questioned and dismissed. 

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

So while I recognize the sexism that exists in virtually every organization,  

 

This is where it needs to start. But first, the manifestation of sexism has to be recognized and acknowledged.  That is where the head butting occurs. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know how to get to the point where I see it as a positive thing to automatically assume a woman is correct and/or telling the truth simply because she's a woman speaking against a man. I don't see the intellectual honesty, open-mindedness, or fairness in that type of approach. This is precisely what Kate Kelly was calling for on the Money FB thread.

So while I recognize the sexism that exists in virtually every organization, and the need to address it in a constructive way, I feel like there needs to be a more reasonable approach than simply "Believe her!" instead of vetting the story/claims just like we would for every other person.

Help me to understand the value your approach.

 

Some of the value might be that by giving the woman the benefit of the doubt (instead of the man), it makes it easier for the truth to come out.  

What i mean is, women typically have less social power than men do.  That's pretty much a given based on research.  So, all women, in disagreements with men, start out behind in some ways.  Basically, it's not a fair fight from the beginning and some 'affirmative action' can have value by helping to even the playing field, if nothing else.

That doesn't mean that women should always be believed after evidence has been put forth and information has been presented-it doesn't mean that we should take a 'the woman is always right' point of view.   From my perspective it's more of a "because it is very easy for you to be bullied/ignored/discriminated against, i'm going to assume you are telling the truth while i'm looking into this deeper."

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

The default is to doubt women. Where you would say automatically assume a woman is correct "simply because she's a woman," what you are really saying is that you are automatically assuming the man is correct. Any change starts with language. 

The difference is that there are multiple accounts in this situation.( I should have added the disclaimer that there are, of course, exceptions.) Yet there are posters that will not consider a woman's account as evidence. It is dismissed from the get-go. That is why women are now stating that this has been going on for years at OSF. One said she knew at least a dozen women who had addressed this with OSF, to no avail. Yet the first to go public is immediately questioned and dismissed. 

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. There is no logical reason why I must automatically assume the man is correct if I don't assume the woman is correct. I'm saying that a claim should be heard and considered based on merit, not based on the gender of the person making the claim.

I agree that there should be no default to doubt women. You seem to be advocating the default should be to doubt men. I think both are wrong even though I agree that culturally it has been more common to be prejudiced towards the man.

I think there is a tendency to question the first person (male or female) who is making a bombshell kind of claim. The claim itself can be destabilizing for people so it's natural to want some evidence. I don't see why that is a bad thing, assuming both men and women are treated the same.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

The default is to doubt women. Where you would say automatically assume a woman is correct "simply because she's a woman," what you are really saying is that you are automatically assuming the man is correct. Any change starts with language. 

The difference is that there are multiple accounts in this situation.( I should have added the disclaimer that there are, of course, exceptions.) Yet there are posters that will not consider a woman's account as evidence. It is dismissed from the get-go. That is why women are now stating that this has been going on for years at OSF. One said she knew at least a dozen women who had addressed this with OSF, to no avail. Yet the first to go public is immediately questioned and dismissed. 

I'd think if a woman came to me and told me she was being sexual harassed in some way, I'd think she was telling the truth.  It'd be my assumption, I think, unless I had some reason to doubt.  The problem is when it comes to harassment this might not be a he said/she said thing.  They both could be right or both wrong.  Some, men in particular, don't often seem to get when they are crossing the line of harassment and feel their behavior is harmless when it is not.  That doesnt' mean the man who might be accused in such a situation is lying about it.  The problem is he simply didn't see it as harmful when others and a victim did.  Who knows this might be the case here.  I haven't been able to follow some discussion from kate Kelly's facebook because I don't have facebook, but from what I've seen (I had a glimpse of it the first day) I don't see anything specific about what John did to anyone.  It's hard to feel convinced when allegations are less specific in a "he talks poorly to women" kind of way. 

With that said, if he has treated women poorly and has harassed many as they worked with him through OSF, well, that'd be terrible.  He'd get no pass from me.