Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

What is your rebuttal to accusing Seriac of being DezNat when she is on record denouncing them in August? That is kind of ..... despicable.

I would ask her why she continues to retweet DezNat material. 

 

 

Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Hanna's Twitter feet on August 12:

Seems pretty reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

That isn't a denouncement but nuance isn't allowed in the hate game that is being played here so I am sure this will be sufficient for her haters to continue to paint her as some kind of terrorist so they can throw it at the church. Not really knowing anything about DezNat other than what I am seeing here, that Dehlin racist video is the most DezNat thing I've seen yet. 

edit: This is what I referring to 

11 August 2020

DezNat and Why the Fight for Affirmation Matters

 

 Tyler Perry

Update: After speaking with Hanna Seariac, she has denounced the DezNat movement, and I have apologized for the insinuation that she is a part of the movement. This article has been changed to reflect that.
Edited by juliann
  • Like 2
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

One thing that might need clarification is the timeline of what Dehlin did and when. It looks like Dehlin saw the video on Friday night, and started contemplating whether he should call the cops then.

Saturday morning at 7:58 he reached out to Cardon and said he'd like to be a guest on his show.

Then at 1:21 pm John called 911 (I've been told that in most areas, it is appropriate to call 911 for a non-emergency--when they answer the phone they ask if it's an emergency and if it isn't they politely transfer you to the non-emergency line).

So the narrative that John called 911 and then reached out to Cardon is not quite right--he reached out to Cardon while contemplating calling the cops, but several hours before he actually did so.

The "narrative" is that John Dehlin felt that the video was a legitimate threat, such that he had to contact law enforcement (911, even) and complain about Kwaku and Cardon.

That narrative is rather hard to square with John Dehlin, while feeling his and his family's safety had been threatened by Kwaku and Cardon, nevertheless contacted Kwaku and Cardon about him coming on their show.

I will be quite surprised if Mr. Dehlin actually does go on their show.  My sense is that he is not quite accustomed to being in any discussion over which he does not have primary or sole control.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I would ask her why she continues to retweet DezNat material. 

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  What "DezNat material" are you referencing here?  Links, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Analytics said:

One thing that might need clarification is the timeline of what Dehlin did and when. It looks like Dehlin saw the video on Friday night, and started contemplating whether he should call the cops then.

Saturday morning at 7:58 he reached out to Cardon and said he'd like to be a guest on his show.

Then at 1:21 pm John called 911 (I've been told that in most areas, it is appropriate to call 911 for a non-emergency--when they answer the phone they ask if it's an emergency and if it isn't they politely transfer you to the non-emergency line).

So the narrative that John called 911 and then reached out to Cardon is not quite right--he reached out to Cardon while contemplating calling the cops, but several hours before he actually did so.

1. So Dehlin sees the video Friday night, Saturday mulls over the possibility of calling police, sends Cardon a private message wanting to be on his show, then decides to escalate to 911? The more you explain this, the less sense it makes.

2. Where have you heard that it’s appropriate to call 911 for non-emergency? Sometime within the past 10 years Utah even came out with an ad series against this with a slogan that was something like (paraphrasing): “Save a life, stop a crime, or report a fire.” Something like that, trying to emphasize when it’s appropriate to call. But I suppose if we take the charitable view of Dehlin’s weekend pontification over the issue opened his eyes to the imminent death threat, then called and reported those three people, then later suggests it wasn’t those three people he was afraid of. 
 

You have to admit that none of this makes sense, and continues to make less sense with each passing explanation. The only thing that makes sense is that Dehlin is trying to cover each previous step with more ludicrous ones. Which, to be fair, seems to be working for him. At least in part. 

Edited by Judd
  • Like 3
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I would ask her why she continues to retweet DezNat material. 

 

 

You better come up with something better than that if you are going to continue with this smear. I'm taking your word that DezNat is something worse than Nazis. I'm asking you to stop but next time you do this I'm reporting you on Godwin's Law. 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Really. Knock it off.

No, thanks.

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm sure it's opinion the church supports every other noxious label you can think of but there is a Godwin's Law rule here. 

More projecting. No thanks to that too.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

One thing that might need clarification is the timeline of what Dehlin did and when. It looks like Dehlin saw the video on Friday night, and started contemplating whether he should call the cops then.

Saturday morning at 7:58 he reached out to Cardon and said he'd like to be a guest on his show.

Then at 1:21 pm John called 911 (I've been told that in most areas, it is appropriate to call 911 for a non-emergency--when they answer the phone they ask if it's an emergency and if it isn't they politely transfer you to the non-emergency line).

So the narrative that John called 911 and then reached out to Cardon is not quite right--he reached out to Cardon while contemplating calling the cops, but several hours before he actually did so.

If he believed the video was a legitimate threat to his safety then why call the person, who he later told the cops was responsible for the threat, and ask to be on his talk show?  I'm not sure the timeline really matters if the issue is whether or not Dehlin personally believes the video and Kwaku/Cardon are legitimate threats.

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

 

You have to admit that none of this makes sense, and continues to make less sense with each passing explanation. The only thing that makes sense is that Dehlin is trying to cover each previous step with more ludicrous ones. Which, to be fair, seems to be working for him. At least in part. 

Are his followers OK with him calling an emergency line for this? There really are people complaining about busy lines on the SLC 911. It's not a joke. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm curious what that minor difference that makes to you.  

The real question is...when did he broadcast the video himself in this timeline? I heard he is claiming his lawyer told him to keep the dangerous meme that would bring murders to his home visible. 

I think the issue is that once you report somebody to the police, a certain bridge has been crossed: after calling the police, you can't reach out to the person you reported and pretend like nothing had happened; doing so would make you look crazy. Cardon painted the story like that. What Dehlin did was more reasonable: he reached out out and tried to resolve the situation before he called the cops. He only called the cops after 5 hours had passed without a response from Cardon.

Dehlin saved and broadcasted the video late Friday night. His friend who happens to be an attorney suggested he do this because he thought it was important for other people to be able to see it too so that they could understand how serious it was. I can't say that is bad advice--publicizing it has resulted in pretty wide-spread condemnation, despite Cardon finding the video to be funny.

  • Like 2
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

CFR

You need to respond to smac's CFR. It is a legitimate request given the serious nature of your continuing smears. This is a second request. You are playing coy games with your drive by blurts and it is unbecoming.

 

Quote

 

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  What "DezNat material" are you referencing here?  Links, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think the issue is that once you report somebody to the police, a certain bridge has been crossed: after calling the police, you can't reach out to the person you reported and pretend like nothing had happened; doing so would make you look crazy. Cardon painted the story like that. What Dehlin did was more reasonable: he reached out out and tried to resolve the situation before he called the cops. He only called the cops after 5 hours had passed without a response from Cardon.

Dehlin saved and broadcasted the video late Friday night. His friend who happens to be an attorney suggested he do this because he thought it was important for other people to be able to see it too so that they could understand how serious it was. I can't say that is bad advice--publicizing it has resulted in pretty wide-spread condemnation, despite Cardon finding the video to be funny.

But Cardon didn't make the video.  Why did Dehlin need to wait for a response from Cardon before calling the police to report a video someone else made?

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think the issue is that once you report somebody to the police, a certain bridge has been crossed: after calling the police, you can't reach out to the person you reported and pretend like nothing had happened; doing so would make you look crazy. Cardon painted the story like that. What Dehlin did was more reasonable: he reached out out and tried to resolve the situation before he called the cops. He only called the cops after 5 hours had passed without a response from Cardon.

Dehlin saved and broadcasted the video late Friday night. His friend who happens to be an attorney suggested he do this because he thought it was important for other people to be able to see it too so that they could understand how serious it was. I can't say that is bad advice--publicizing it has resulted in pretty wide-spread condemnation, despite Cardon finding the video to be funny.

Do you find it believable to maintain a fear for his safety on one hand while being the only party who is publishing a video that is supposed to be life threatening? Anybody who has been at this for any length of time knows that manufactured scandals (and even some real ones) are a flash in the pan, only to be reinvented the next go round.  I suspect the unintended consquence for Dehlin and his ilk is that their aggressions are going to be monitored and databased much more closely now. 

Link to post
42 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Apparently, I am in the minority when it comes to the video retweeted by Kwaku and Ellis. I do find it distasteful. However, I also don't understand how it can possibly be perceived as a threat of violence. The bat was labeled (according to different sources) StoneXVI or This is the Show. How a production company or series of YouTube videos would inflict violence on John Dehlin is beyond me.  Maybe John is actually terrified that these videos will somehow kill him. But as far as I am concerned, this is blatantly a ploy for attention. Just another example of the double standard at play. 

 

I don't think that anyone could seriously argue that a video would inflict violence. I don't think that that's the point.

However, it is not unknown for violent people to take their cue from a statement by someone they admire, and act, or threaten to act, on it.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  What "DezNat material" are you referencing here?  Links, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

As has already been documented here, she retweets posts with DezNat hashtags. You may disagree, but I think that is inappropriate.

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Please explain what you think DezNat is so bad that the church is being damaged by it. Educate us.

On a personal level, DezNat continually paints "exmos" and "progmos" as the enemy. More broadly they have a pattern of drawing equivalence between alt-rights positions and "following the brethren." It is a brand of religious nationalism that is unhealthy for a worldwide church, and it is frequently paired with violent imagery.

Link to post
Just now, Malc said:

I don't think that anyone could seriously argue that a video would inflict violence. I don't think that that's the point.

However, it is not unknown for violent people to take their cue from a statement by someone they admire, and act, or threaten to act, on it.

If that is what Dehlin is worried about then why continue to broadcast the video when everywhere else has taken it down, ensuring that as many people as possible see it?  Wouldn't that increase the chances that a violent person would act on it?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But Cardon didn't make the video.  Why did Dehlin need to wait for a response from Cardon before calling the police to report a video someone else made?

Wasn't the Cardon video responding to Dehlin's request a...response? It just wasn't quick enough? Is that what Dehlin is saying? 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, juliann said:

You need to respond to smac's CFR. It is a legitimate request given the serious nature of your continuing smears. This is a second request. You are playing coy games with your drive by blurts and it is unbecoming.

 

 

And you need to respond to mine.

Link to post
Just now, Analytics said:

I think the issue is that once you report somebody to the police, a certain bridge has been crossed: after calling the police, you can't reach out to the person you reported and pretend like nothing had happened;

Nobody is saying you can't.  Rather, I think the point here is that "reach{ing} out to the person" you have told the police has published an actual and legitimate threat to your safety rather undermines your claim that you think the threat was actual and legitimate.

Just now, Analytics said:

doing so would make you look crazy. 

Well, perhaps not "crazy."  Perhaps "dissembling."  

John Dehlin called 911 about a "threat."  That he simultaneously chatted with the threateners about coming on their show kinda makes his claimed concern about the "threat" to come across as fatuous.  Specious.  As having an ulterior motive (publicity, sympathy, fundraising, making his ideological opponents look bad, etc.).

Just now, Analytics said:

Cardon painted the story like that.

And it seems that the story is, in fact, "like that."

Just now, Analytics said:

What Dehlin did was more reasonable: he reached out out and tried to resolve the situation before he called the cops. He only called the cops after 5 hours had passed without a response from Cardon.

Analytics "painted the story like that."

Just now, Analytics said:

Dehlin saved and broadcasted the video late Friday night.

Which could be construed a number of ways.

Just now, Analytics said:

His friend who happens to be an attorney suggested he do this because he thought it was important for other people to be able to see it too so that they could understand how serious it was.

I'm sort of skeptical of this.  

Did the attorney also tell Dehlin to post the video with this description?

Quote

Kwaku El of FairMormon just tweeted this.

(Warning. Super violent.)

A friend advised me to call the police. Your suggestions?

For the record, Kwaku is funded by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints via the More Good Foundation and FAIRMormon.

Your suggestions?

What legal purpose would there be for an attorney to tell his client to described Kwaku as "Kwaku El of FairMormon" and "funded by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints via the More Good Foundation and FAIRMormon" and ask for "suggestions" from YouTube commenters?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Please explain what you think DezNat is so bad that the church is being damaged by it. Educate us.

Also, Wheat and Tares did a lengthy post about DezNat and its origins (and similarities with other times in church history) which is imo an accurate summary: https://wheatandtares.org/2020/08/08/deznat-and-the-latter-day-saint-vigilante-tradition/

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...