Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

Dan Peterson has weighed in on this issue (on 12/8) :

Quote

An item just went up this evening on the FairMormon website that may draw some attention.  I thought, in view of the recent controversy regarding certain videos, that at least a few of my readers here might perhaps be interested in it, as well as in the FAQ section that is appended to it:

“FairMormon Statement Regarding “This is The Show” Videos”

This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:

Stop it!

It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. . . .

Let us be kind.

Let us forgive.

Let us talk peacefully with each other.

Let the love of God fill our hearts.

“Let us do good unto all men” [Galatians 6:10]. . . .

We are not perfect.

The people around us are not perfect. People do things that annoy, disappoint, and anger. In this mortal life it will always be that way.

Nevertheless, we must let go of our grievances. Part of the purpose of mortality is to learn how to let go of such things. That is the Lord’s way.

Remember, heaven is filled with those who have this in common: They are forgiven. And they forgive. . . .

Guided by the Holy Spirit, we will learn from our mistakes. If we stumble, we will rise. If we falter, we will go on. We will never waver; we will never give up.

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

Sage words.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Because they are nannying, but are blind to it. Which is ironic because Juliann started the pinned nannying thread. Because apparently people on this thread were nannying, I'd say it's calling the kettle black. Unless I don't know exactly what nannying is meant on this board.

One more time. It hasn't changed since I ran the board as far as I know. It is running into a thread to lecture a poster about righteous behavior.  Use virtue signaling if you don't understand. 

Years ago we couldn't have a discussion on women's issues because of the nannies who would swoop in and lecture us about proper womanhood. It is meant to shut down a discussion not to engage the topic. Hope that helps. You can ask Nemesis if he agrees.

  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, juliann said:

One more time. It hasn't changed since I ran the board as far as I know. It is running into a thread to lecture a poster about righteous behavior.  Use virtue signaling if you don't understand. 

Years ago we couldn't have a discussion on women's issues because of the nannies who would swoop in and lecture us about proper womanhood. It is meant to shut down a discussion not to engage the topic. Hope that helps. You can ask Nemesis if he agrees.

I'm still not sure I understand the term "board nannying", but if you say it's the same as lecturing someone about righteous behavior; then aren't you doing the same thing when you lecture posters to stop "board nannying" or "mansplaining"?

M.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'm still not sure I understand the term "board nannying", but if you say it's the same as lecturing someone about righteous behavior; then aren't you doing the same thing when you lecture posters to stop "board nannying" or "mansplaining"?

M.

No.  Board/net nannying main purpose is to shut down discussion.  We have never allowed it and it’s ok to point it out as much as possible so posters know what behavior is at issue.  Think of it as a doable standard of one group being held to a different standard than the other.  On this board it’s typically used by critics or other LDS against defenders as a way to elicit shame for  “non-Christlike behavior”.  We level the playing field within reason by removing net nannying from the field. 
 

Nemesis

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'm still not sure I understand the term "board nannying", but if you say it's the same as lecturing someone about righteous behavior; then aren't you doing the same thing when you lecture posters to stop "board nannying" or "mansplaining"?

M.

Depends on if I’m accurate, doesn’t it? But if you want to make my attempt to define a very long standing board violation personal, calling me annoying or obnoxious, or attackIng might be more convincing. I’m sure I could come up with more labels if you need them, I’ll wear them. But saying calling out nannying IS nannying is....interesting. But what do I know. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, juliann said:

One more time. It hasn't changed since I ran the board as far as I know. It is running into a thread to lecture a poster about righteous behavior.  Use virtue signaling if you don't understand. 

Years ago we couldn't have a discussion on women's issues because of the nannies who would swoop in and lecture us about proper womanhood. It is meant to shut down a discussion not to engage the topic. Hope that helps. You can ask Nemesis if he agrees.

Thanks for this pleasant exchange of information, helpful! And BTW, I think I remember the discussion on proper womanhood, or we've had a few like that. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post

I think this whole thing could have been avoided if everyone involved heeded President Nelson's counsel to flood social media with seven days of gratitude, prayer and positive messages, and followed up with the Light the World social media campaign!

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

No.  Board/net nannying main purpose is to shut down discussion.  We have never allowed it and it’s ok to point it out as much as possible so posters know what behavior is at issue.  Think of it as a doable standard of one group being held to a different standard than the other.  On this board it’s typically used by critics or other LDS against defenders as a way to elicit shame for  “non-Christlike behavior”.  We level the playing field within reason by removing net nannying from the field. 
 

Nemesis

How many times did Juliann basically tell me to stop talking in this thread???

That seemed alot like trying to shut down discussion.

 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How many times did Juliann basically tell me to stop talking in this thread???

That seemed alot like trying to shut down discussion.

 

Where you shamed for not being Christlike? We’re you being held to a different standard  than what the board requires of everyone on this board?  i.e. back up what you post? If you say something and not expect it to be challenged and then try to avoid that challenge than there’s lies a problem.  

Nemesis

Link to post
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this whole thing could have been avoided if everyone involved heeded President Nelson's counsel to flood social media with seven days of gratitude, prayer and positive messages, and followed up with the Light the World social media campaign!

Tension is not the enemy. Good discussion can be very similar to Enos wrestling in prayer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Nemesis said:

Where you shamed for not being Christlike? We’re you being held to a different standard  than what the board requires of everyone on this board?  i.e. back up what you post? If you say something and not expect it to be challenged and then try to avoid that challenge than there’s lies problem.  

Nemesis

No, I am not talking about special treatment. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Nemesis said:

Neither was I.  

Yes, you said "If you say something and not expect it to be challenged and then try to avoid that challenge than there’s lies problem.  "

I am not talking about expecting such special treatment. 

I was mistaken when I thought I had answered a challenge but did not completely, and at one point I gave screenshots instead of links, but I consistently answered multiple questions and challenges willingly and yet was still told more than once to stop participating. 

 

 

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, you said "If you say something and not expect it to be challenged and then try to avoid that challenge than there’s lies problem.  "

I am not talking about expecting such special treatment. 

I was mistaken when I thought I had answered a challenge but did not completely, and at one point I gave screenshots instead of links, but I consistently answered multiple questions and challenges willingly and yet was still told more than once to stop participating. 

 

 

Next time report it so I can see it and pay attention.  Telling someone to leave a thread just because is not ok,  leave that to me and I will make that decision.

 

 I have very limited interest on posts (ie I don’t read every post), as you can see I only really have interest in one specific things which is why I never post and my alter ego hasn’t posted here in over a decade.  
 

Nemesis

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Next time report it so I can see it and pay attention.  Telling someone to leave a thread just because is not ok,  leave that to me and I will make that decision.

 

 I have very limited interest on posts (ie I don’t read every post), as you can see I only really have interest in one specific things which is why I never post and my alter ego hasn’t posted here in over a decade.  
 

Nemesis

Thanks.

Link to post
46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How many times did Juliann basically tell me to stop talking in this thread???

That seemed alot like trying to shut down discussion.

 

It's called a CFR. If you refuse to respond you are required to back down or leave the thread. As I recall you did neither. 

Link to post

I guess I didn’t understand how “nannying” was defined here. 
 

From the rules: Telling others how to behave or “net nannying”.

I took this literally as any time one poster was telling another poster what/what not to do. I didn’t know it had a narrower definition as stated in this thread. 

Link to post

Let’s get back on topic if you want a discussion on net nannying feel free to start one.  Also I never intended to strictly define it as some people that tend to blur lines would probably play with that line also. 
 

Nemesis

Link to post
40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, you said "If you say something and not expect it to be challenged and then try to avoid that challenge than there’s lies problem.  "

I am not talking about expecting such special treatment. 

I was mistaken when I thought I had answered a challenge but did not completely, and at one point I gave screenshots instead of links, but I consistently answered multiple questions and challenges willingly and yet was still told more than once to stop participating. 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

It's called a CFR. If you refuse to respond you are required to back down or leave the thread. As I recall you did neither. 

 

Just now, Nemesis said:

Let’s get back on topic if you want a discussion on net nannying feel free to start one.  Also I never intended to strictly define it as some people that tend to blur lines would probably play with that line also. 
 

Nemesis

This seems germane to the discussion...something about shutting down conversation using the admonition to take her "nitpicking" to another board...or something.

 

Link to post
6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

 

This seems germane to the discussion...something about shutting down conversation using the admonition to take her "nitpicking" to another board...or something.

 

It is germane for the entire board so best in another thread.  Why The invitation to create a new thread is one wishes and I wouldn’t be shutting it down due to my policy of not discussing moderation practices.  
 

nemesis 

Link to post
16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

 

This seems germane to the discussion...something about shutting down conversation using the admonition to take her "nitpicking" to another board...or something.

 

How is my correcting a false and misleading accusation after a refusal to give a direct answer to a CFR germane to anything except a personal disagreement? Half of the posts on the board are correcting misinterpretations. Was I not nice enough for you as I had to explain again what I clearly said the first time?  We are expected to be nice when our beliefs are attacked! I admit I'm not always good at it. 

Nice try, Tribe.  I think you hope to imply that taking nitpicking elsewhere means the person should leave rather than what they are doing....which is pretty much the same sort of purposeful twisting of words I was objecting to in the first place. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, juliann said:

How is my correcting a false and misleading accusation after a refusal to give a direct answer to a CFR germane to anything except a personal disagreement? Half of the posts on the board are correcting misinterpretations. Was I not nice enough for you as I had to explain again what I clearly said the first time?  We are expected to be nice when our beliefs are attacked! I admit I'm not always good at it. 

Nice try, Tribe.  I think you hope to imply that taking nitpicking elsewhere means the person should leave rather than what they are doing....which is pretty much the same sort of purposeful twisting of words I was objecting to in the first place. 

You specifically told her to go back to another board.  That much is clear.

Link to post
9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure we will.  After all, This is the Show is just a rebuttal of something else.  Rebuttals are the norm and video rebuttals of everything from religious claims to the best menu item at McDonalds are all the rage right now. 

There will be more rebuttals and there will be rebuttals of those rebuttals.  

That was a very strange video with the guy hanging up in a small corner box of the screen. The problem of the videos themselves works double against this reviewer. You have to know something about what they are talking about to understand the quick cutting back and forth. So when you take a portion of the quick cutting back and forth...and add more quick and back and forth with very bad audio....it completely lost me. 

The video of the Kwaku interview was touching and real. He is trying to make it in the world just like the rest of us and it looks like he did it largely on his own. I'm very interested to watch this young guy. He is smart, funny, very good looking and charismatic. And he does musical theater. It's one thing to complain about what he has done but the lying I have seen about him is appalling. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Tension is not the enemy. Good discussion can be very similar to Enos wrestling in prayer.

I find a lot of this "tension" not to be of a very functional variety. That doesn't mean there cannot still be resolution, or that the willing cannot take away a useful lesson from it. I'm sure there will be resolution (functionality), to the extent lessons are learned. My observation is that the dysfunction could have been avoided by following the invitations as extended (which may have been beyond the personality and developmental constraints of the parties involved). The tension would then be helpful.

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...