Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Now explain how this works in real life.   How does this philosophy work when that weaker force sues the so called powerful one? Have you ever been sued? 

The lawsuit was frivolous. She lost in summary judgment in district then circuit court. In the meantime, it ran up over a hundred grand in legal bills for that oh so powerful FM. Fortunately, we were able to get pro bono help. The Utah LIghthouse made it a fundraiser which is probably why Tanner kept it going. Sort of an equivalent to Dehlin using overworked community resources like 911 to maintain a vendetta. These less powerful forces with far more money are forced to abuse courts and 911, I suppose. Anyway, a brand new lawyer with the newest bar license number in the state at the time now has his name on Tenth Circuit case law. Another powerful force, right? 

So how powerful do you think FM people were against a professional anti-Mormon business, Meadowchik? Do you know what it is like to know you will lose your home if the petty tyrant prevails, Meadowchik?  Do you know how long lawsuits go on? Do you realize that everyone Tanner named had to have a lawyer?  

BTW, this was such an egregious  lawsuit, a good law firm stepped up for the Circuit Court appeal that Tanner  filed. (She waited until the last day of the deadline to keep the fun going as long as possible.)  The Ralph Nadar foundation offered help because the Tenth Circuit was a donut hole that needed to be filled because only citizens in its boundaries weren't protected against people like the Lighthouse owners. 

How does your computer keyboard philosophy play out for the real people involved, Meadowchik?

You're really spiraling here and it is unpleasant to see.

Yes, I do have personal insight in these things. Btw I have the experience of the church trying to interfere with private civil suits.

I stand by my original statement.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I saw it and frankly the tone seems insincere and confusing.

But sure, the church "pinning posts" in its own way is imo a good idea.

Could it be because it was addressed and dismissed repeatedly and addressed the obvious. 
 

Nemesis

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

This is absolute nonsense.  And what makes it even more troubling, is that you are smarter than this.  Don't use sophistry to try and take cheap jabs at the LDS Church.  It is unbecoming.

You've taken it out of context. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You're really spiraling here and it is unpleasant to see.

Yes, I do have personal insight in these things. Btw I have the experience of the church trying to interfere with private civil suits.

I stand by my original statement.

Since anyone can claim anything they want on the internet.  Care to expand on that?  Such as circumstances? Did the church have a stake in the suit?

Nemesis

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Could it be because it was addressed and dismissed repeatedly and addressed the obvious. 
 

Nemesis

Then why re-address a serious topic so poorly? Do it right clearly when you have the opportunity. People will see the frustrated halfhearted post and get the wrong idea.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You're really spiraling here and it is unpleasant to see.

Yes, I do have personal insight in these things. Btw I have the experience of the church trying to interfere with private civil suits.

I stand by my original statement.

Civil suits aren't private. And I stand by my unpleasant spiraling statements. 

Link to post
Just now, Nemesis said:

Since anyone can claim anything they want on the internet.  Care to expand on that?  Such as circumstances? Did the church have a stake in the suit?

Nemesis

 

I've already gone over it enough on this board, back in 2016 when as a believing member I sought support and when it came up earlier this year. 

This board was very supportive by the way and I'll always appreciate it. Thank you for your part in that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, Meadowchik said:

I've already gone over it enough on this board, back in 2016 when as a believing member I sought support and when it came up earlier this year. 

This board was very supportive by the way and I'll always appreciate it. Thank you for your part in that.

Fair enough.

Link to post
49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I'm sure that knowing that the church would sometimes point CES teachers to FAIR on occasion also helped lighten the load.  

Warm fuzzies are all that is really needed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Civil suits aren't private. And I stand by my unpleasant spiraling statements. 

I meant private in the sense that it was between private individuals, not public figures, etc...

Link to post
25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

JD plays both sides public and private. 

This, this, this....

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I invite you to reconsider this position.  It does not seem reasonable.  The Church is not responsible for everything I do, notwithstanding my affiliation with it.

John Dehlin is not responsible for everything Mike Norton does.

And the FAIR is not responsible for an in-very-poor-taste video which one guy posted, and for which Kwaku posted a link on his private Twitter feed.

They are not.  As execrable as I find Mike Norton, I don't blame John Dehlin for everything he has ever done.  That is unreasonable.

How do you differentiate "aided" from "amplified"?

Thanks,

-Smac

You're turning a specific type of situation into something much more broad.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Then why re-address a serious topic so poorly? Do it right clearly when you have the opportunity. People will see the frustrated halfhearted post and get the wrong idea.

What, that we don't like board nannying?  It used to be such a problem that there was a rule against it...maybe there still is. It is meant to shut down discussion through shaming, it doesn't require any thought or effort so it's easy. And no, it is not making personal comments which everyone does. It is easy to get away with that by embedding it in a comment that relates to the topic. Nannying doesn't. It is pearl clutching and lord help me, I'm going to say Karen-ing. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, juliann said:

What, that we don't like board nannying?  It used to be such a problem that there was a rule against it...maybe there still is. It is meant to shut down discussion through shaming, it doesn't require any thought or effort so it's easy. And no, it is not making personal comments which everyone does. It is easy to get away with that by embedding it in a comment that relates to the topic. Nannying doesn't. It is pearl clutching and lord help me, I'm going to say Karen-ing. 

If you need an update on the board rules here’s the link.  And yes it’s there under “net nannying”

 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I've already gone over it enough on this board, back in 2016 when as a believing member I sought support and when it came up earlier this year. 

This board was very supportive by the way and I'll always appreciate it. Thank you for your part in that.

I'm glad of that and in that situation...but not remembering any details...a wealthy organization would have more power than an individual in theory. But it isn't always possible to buy justice when it comes to courts. Sometimes you do need the facts on your side. I understand your position in this circumstance.

But it has little to do with two competing entities, FM and MormonStories, that are at issue here. Implying that a donation gives the receiver super powers is a reach too far. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Step 2: Kwaku posted a link to the video on his private Twitter feed.

Kwaku's Twitter feed was then, and still is, public. Anyone can see it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As are you.  That was my point.

Step 1: Braden Herrmann created an in-poor-taste video and posted it online.

Step 2: Kwaku posted a link to the video on his private Twitter feed.

Step 3: Kwaku has elsewhere participated in videos that are posted to FAIR's YouTube channel.

Step 4: FAIR has not hosted or posted the Herrmann video, has not endorsed or ratified it, has not had anything to do with it except insofar as Step 2.

Step 5: You are nevertheless allocating fault/blame/culpability for the video in Step 1 to FAIR.

This is you "turning a specific type of situation into something much more broad."

Thanks,

-Smac

The nature of his work for FM makes his social media posts extremely relevant. This is not unusual and is common in many other volunteer or employee positions. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Nevo said:
Quote

Step 2: Kwaku posted a link to the video on his private Twitter feed.

Kwaku's Twitter feed was then, and still is, public. Anyone can see it.

Yes.  But that doesn't create culpability to FAIR for a video to which Kwaku provided a link in his personal Twitter feed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm glad of that and in that situation...but not remembering any details...a wealthy organization would have more power than an individual in theory. But it isn't always possible to buy justice when it comes to courts. Sometimes you do need the facts on your side. I understand your position in this circumstance.

But it has little to do with two competing entities, FM and MormonStories, that are at issue here. Implying that a donation gives the receiver super powers is a reach too far. 

I only responded to your question.

I did not say or imply FM has super powers via the church. But it can have more influence because of its mutual ties  (demonstrated in multiple ways) to the church. 

I am genuinely concerned about this direction it is taking with social media. I would like to be able to dismiss stupid videos and Deznet associations as passing things but unfortunately things can trend and cause real damage.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But that doesn't create culpability to FAIR for a video to which Kwaku provided a link in his Twitter feed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Other than noting FAIR's questionable judgment associating themselves with someone like him. It's not like they didn't know who he is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, juliann said:

What, that we don't like board nannying?  It used to be such a problem that there was a rule against it...maybe there still is. It is meant to shut down discussion through shaming, it doesn't require any thought or effort so it's easy. And no, it is not making personal comments which everyone does. It is easy to get away with that by embedding it in a comment that relates to the topic. Nannying doesn't. It is pearl clutching and lord help me, I'm going to say Karen-ing. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

Well, thanks, at least, for not saying "Ken-ing." :huh:  :unknw:

;):D:rofl::D

Link to post
43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I've already gone over it enough on this board, back in 2016 when as a believing member I sought support and when it came up earlier this year. 

This board was very supportive by the way and I'll always appreciate it. Thank you for your part in that.

It is the legal proceeding to evict a fellow Church member who defrauded and then defamed you? At wat level was the Church involved in the proceedings, and how did that affect the outcome?

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, thanks, at least, for not saying "Ken-ing." :huh:  :unknw:

;):D:rofl::D

Seasons Greeting to yoiu too!

"Here we come a-Ken-en-ing,
Among the leaves so green!"

(...or a-Karen-ing whatever) :D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The nature of his work for FM makes his social media posts extremely relevant.

Kwaku participated in the production of a few videos which FAIR posted.  That participation does not mean that FAIR is therefore forever after legally/ethically/morally culpable for everything Kwaku has or will say (or link to).  To say otherwise would be, as you said, "turning a specific type of situation into something much more broad."

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is not unusual and is common in many other volunteer or employee positions. 

Right.  Good luck trying to sue, say, the Salvation Army because one of its volunteers once posted something unpleasant on his private Twitter feed.

-Smac

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...