Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

A Black mormon kid who had done some good videos? Why traffic with a Black guy who has done videos on race and priesthood when there are so many white ones around? What questionable judgment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

"Someone like him?"

"Who he is?"  

What do these mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
3 minutes ago, juliann said:

A Black mormon kid who had done some good videos? Why traffic with a Black guy who has done videos on race and priesthood when there are so many white ones around? What questionable judgment.

You got me to laugh out loud. I needed that. Was not expecting that response at all. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

What does DezNat have to do with FM videos made by a Black member. Aren't they supposed to be white nationalists? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

So do we get to question your questionable association with Jason since he has questionable associations with Norton? Where does this guilt by association stop.  
 

Nemesis

Link to post
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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?

That civil case concerned the tenant refusing to pay utilities. The stake president refused to give us our temple recommends and wanted us to drop the case. If I remember correctly though the bishop helped to resolve that one and the SP later apologized. The tenant had lots of mental issues and applied alot of pressure over many months to local leaders, so I can understand the SP's frustrated reaction even though it was wrong. 

So anyway, the case was dropped voluntarily, thanks to the bishop's help. 

 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

So do we get to question your questionable association with Jason since he has questionable associations with Norton? Where does this guilt by association stop.  
 

Nemesis

Last I checked, I haven't commissioned any videos from Jason (not sure which Jason you mean) or Mike Norton. Your point would be better taken had I done so. Color me surprised that FM commissioned videos from these knuckleheads with their own history of irresponsibility. And what does one of them being black have to do with anything?

Edited by jkwilliams
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Last I checked, I haven't commissioned any videos from Jason (not sure which Jason you mean) or Mike Norton. Your point would be better taken had I done so.

Jason G, but you are a supporter of his services.  Shall we continue down to radio free Mormon.  
 

Radio free Mormon has a questionable affiliation with Jason who in turn has a questionable association with Norton so should we should dismiss and hold consig and rfm accountable for that association. 
 

Nemesis

Link to post
11 minutes ago, juliann said:

What does DezNat have to do with FM videos made by a Black member. Aren't they supposed to be white nationalists? 

Fair Mormon's new edginess is the link between DezNat (via Hannah Seriac) and Kwaku's retweeting a violent video. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Jason G, but you are a supporter of his services.  Shall we continue down to radio free Mormon.  
 

Radio free Mormon has a questionable affiliation with Jason who in turn has a questionable association with Norton so should we should dismiss and hold consig and rfm accountable for that association. 
 

Nemesis

Oh, that Jason. Haven't talked to him in several years, but no matter. I'm not talking guilt by association, just that FM chose a couple of people with questionable histories to host their videos. If my LDS friends are correct, the product is about what I'd have expected from them. Oh, and by all means, if people want to see my association with Radio Free Mormon, they can listen to the latest podcast featuring yours truly. I'm not ashamed of that association at all.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, that Jason. Haven't talked to him in several years, but no matter. I'm not talking guilt by association, just that FM chose a couple of people with questionable histories to host their videos. If my LDS friends are correct, the product is about what I'd have expected from them. Oh, and by all means, if people want to see my association with Radio Free Mormon, they can listen to the latest podcast featuring yours truly. I'm not ashamed of that association at all.

Sure you are.  You are shamming a group for associating with another group.  One group is only hosting their work.  As far as I know they are not paying for those videos.  
 

Nemesis

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That civil case concerned the tenant refusing to pay utilities. The stake president refused to give us our temple recommends and wanted us to drop the case. If I remember correctly though the bishop helped to resolve that one and the SP later apologized. The tenant had lots of mental issues and applied alot of pressure over many months to local leaders, so I can understand the SP's frustrated reaction even though it was wrong. 

So anyway, the case was dropped voluntarily, thanks to the bishop's help. 

 

I understand how horrific that is. I had to sue a ward member who cheated me as my lawyer after my husband died. The bishop took pity on her and told me that I had refused to let her pay the money back (??) and held out his cupped hands saying, "her fate is in her hands." No, her fate was in her checkbook.   The day before the court date was to be set, she folded and paid back most of the money. But only after I turned her into the Bar. The moral of the story is, local church officials should never, ever get involved in legal disputes or take sides. The courts will do that. I know so many horror stories. But not once did I ever look at this beyond the bad choices of one bishop. He also apologized. Years later. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Sure you are.  You are shamming a group for associating with another group.  One group is only hosting their work.  As far as I know they are not paying for those videos. 

Nemesis

Judging by what I hear from a lot of LDS friends, I think it was a mistake for FM to host their "work." I don't always agree with Fair, obviously, but I have long respected that they have tried to seriously and compassionately engage the issues that so many church members find distressing. Hiring these guys just seems way out of character. It's not shaming anyone for me to say so. Heck, I'm not being nearly as harsh as many of my LDS friends.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Fair Mormon's new edginess is the link between DezNat (via Hannah Seriac) and Kwaku's retweeting a violent video. 

Oh for heaven's sake. Are you really that desperate to defame FM? Now you are getting into libel. How do you think you would do in court trying to make a connection between a personal tweet and FM? Any better than the Tanners? 

Link to post
1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Hiring these guys just seems way out of character. It's not shaming anyone for to say so.

There you go again with hiring.  As far as I know they are not being financially compensated for their videos.  Could be wrong but I would think they put their money elsewhere than producing short meme videos.  Maybe @Calmcan verify. 
 

Nemesis

Link to post
Just now, Nemesis said:

There you go again with hiring.  As far as I know they are not being financially compensated for their videos.  Could be wrong but I would think they put their money elsewhere than producing short meme videos.  Maybe @Calmcan verify. 
 

Nemesis

I stand corrected. Either way, I don't think hosting these videos was a good move. As I said, it seems way out of character from what FAIR's mission is supposed to be. I probably should shut up, since I haven't seen the videos, just the reaction from a number of rather horrified LDS friends. I trust their assessment, but I don't plan on watching the videos.

And for the record, I am not saying anything about the violent video posted by someone else. FAIR shouldn't be judged guilty by association, as you say. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Judging by what I hear from a lot of LDS friends, I think it was a mistake for FM to host their "work." 

They are of very mixed quality. They may take them down and it's all gone tomorrow.  

The issue here is the hypocrisy and double standards of those who are supporting and engaging in the very same things they are claiming to object to. Especially coming from someone as compromised as JD. That is what is lasting. And that is what is going to be made the topic, I suspect. It is time for people to walk their walk if they think they are entitled to judge others for what they do. 

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

I understand how horrific that is. I had to sue a ward member who cheated me as my lawyer after my husband died. The bishop took pity on her and told me that I had refused to let her pay the money back (??) and held out his cupped hands saying, "her fate is in her hands." No, her fate was in her checkbook.   The day before the court date was to be set, she folded and paid back most of the money. But only after I turned her into the Bar. The moral of the story is, local church officials should never, ever get involved in legal disputes or take sides. The courts will do that. I know so many horror stories. But not once did I ever look at this beyond the bad choices of one bishop. He also apologized. Years later. 

 

I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

We had some really great friends, also church members, who helped us through our ordeal. One of my memories of their help was the topic of my most recent thread here in fact. "When the Friend of My Enemy is My Friend."

By the way, I was talking about the FM thread with my son this evening and told him I really believe the good faith discourse about the church between believers and nonbelievers can be productive. 

I am committed to steering towards wherever I might have influence. I think we can be true allies in that sense.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand corrected. Either way, I don't think hosting these videos was a good move. As I said, it seems way out of character from what FAIR's mission is supposed to be. I probably should shut up, since I haven't seen the videos, just the reaction from a number of rather horrified LDS friends. I trust their assessment, but I don't plan on watching the videos.

And for the record, I am not saying anything about the violent video posted by someone else. FAIR shouldn't be judged guilty by association, as you say. 

JW, I'd value your opinion on the BOA video. I thought it was pretty good. (Others were awful....but the BOA one makes me wonder if there might be a place for this type thing with the youngins')

Link to post
Just now, juliann said:

They are of very mixed quality. They may take them down and it's all gone tomorrow.  

The issue here is the hypocrisy and double standards of those who are supporting and engaging in the very same things they are claiming to object to. Especially coming from someone as compromised as JD. That is what is lasting. And that is what is going to be made the topic, I suspect. It is time for people to walk their walk if they think they are entitled to judge others for what they do. 

I have nothing to say about John Dehlin. I don't think I've ever exchanged words with him, and I haven't paid enough attention to him to form an opinion one way or another about his personal failings. If what I've read here in this thread is true, he's got some major issues. 

And it's a far cry from saying I think hosting those videos was a mistake (if nothing else in branding, as the OP notes) to saying I condemn the entire organization and attack them for association with a violent video (neither of which I've done). 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

JW, I'd value your opinion on the BOA video. I thought it was pretty good. (Others were awful....but the BOA one makes me wonder if there might be a place for this type thing with the youngins')

I'll check it out, though my opinion is hardly worth a warm bucket of spit. I don't spend a lot of time on Mormon issues anymore. Don't remember what spurred me to read this thread. I guess I'm just getting old. We've had a very stressful couple of months in our family, so this kind of thing takes a back seat. Things are looking up, as my granddaughter seems to be recovering nicely. But long term, we don't know.

Edited by jkwilliams
  • Like 2
Link to post
7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm sure most of them do as well. :)

I’m glad you took this in jest.  
 

This whole thing is way blown out of proportion and filled with Dehlin drama.  All because he got bent out of shape for the satan picture with this face on it.  
 

They other stuff I’ll defer to the pinned post on the front page of this folder. 
 

Nemesis

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...