"Y" on Mountain Above BYU Lit Up with Rainbow Colors

[Islander]

On 3/5/2021 at 11:26 AM, smac97 said:

That last tweet was plainly out of bounds and inappropriate.  But then, Pilkington publicly characterizing people who have different opinions as "the dumb close-minded few" and "Color the Campus" accusing anyone who disagrees with them of "hate" also seems out of bounds.

I would like to see more civility and mutual respect in these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Civility? Common sense? Pragmatism? Never. Those opposed to religious orthodoxy rely on acrimonious, verbally aggressive rhetoric and pejorative descriptors to vilify and silence the political opposition. Non-stop crisis mode and socio-political agitation are critical to overturning the social order. 

“Action comes from keeping the heat on. No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

Nothing new, these are tactics utilized by the communists, very successfully, since the 60's the world over. Americans have been, in general, quite ignorant and not very interested in what transpires outside their borders.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Now do the bachelor controversy where a girl’s life is being ruined for going to a “Southern Belle” themed party when she was still in high school.  Knee slapper.  And the funniest part?  Even after she’s apologized—they won’t leave her alone!  Ha ha ha!

Or when college students’ scholarships are being pulled for stupid indiscretions when they were teenagers.

Or how about those white women in Portland, Oregon whose small business was ruined because they were selling Mexican Food—cultural appropriation, you see.

Or how about that guy who lost his job for making an “okay” hand gesture at a traffic light.  You know what was funny about that one?  Guy was Hispanic and was just sitting in traffic not trying to bother anyone.

In an effort to show how dumb “cancel culture” is, you’re giving (coincidently) the dumbest examples currently available.  Normal people aren’t concerned with those examples.  There are surveys showing that not even traditional liberals are comfortable saying what they think anymore.  And real people are getting their lives ruined.

I know the nihilism appeals to a guy like you  with nothing to lose.  But some of us do.

I categorically refuse to feel sorry for anyone who voluntarily goes onto a reality TV show and then whines that their life is being dissected.

If you lose your scholarship get a student loan like everyone else. Are they entitled enough to believe they somehow ‘earned’ the scholarship? It was always subject to revocation. Grow up.

You are oversimplifying the Portland story. The story was about a couple of white women going to Mexico and bragging about how they harangued the locals to give them the “secrets” of tortilla making. No one even dug the story up. They told that story. They told the story about them being the worst kind of scummy tourists. Their story predictably backfired. That is not being cancelled. It is being shown the door because you are a jerk.

I have no idea why his company fired Cafferty. It has been a bit of a PR nightmare for them. Should they be forced to rehire him? California is an “at will” employment state. Might be unfair but hardly an example of a national phenomenon run amuck.

Those aren’t the dumbest examples. They are amongst the most prominent and that is sad. Normal people may not care about them but the movement screaming about “cancel culture” is mostly filled with abnormal people.

Nothing to lose? LOL!!!!!! Awesome. It is funny that when the finger of public disrepute is pointed at those with ‘something to lose’ the whole phenomenon is treated as a new and looming threat to all we hold dear. When you’re punching down it is somehow less of a big deal.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Islander said:

Civility? Common sense? Pragmatism? Never. Those opposed to religious orthodoxy rely on acrimonious, verbally aggressive rhetoric and pejorative descriptors to vilify and silence the political opposition. Non-stop crisis mode and socio-political agitation are critical to overturning the social order. 

“Action comes from keeping the heat on. No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

Nothing new, these are tactics utilized by the communists, very successfully, since the 60's the world over. Americans have been, in general, quite ignorant and not very interested in what transpires outside their borders.

Hello Senator McCarthy. Good to see you. I thought you were dead.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that according to The Daily. Universe article, the people supporting the LGBT community were more than willing to identify both their first and last names.  They were not ashamed for standing up and supporting the LGNT community.  While those doing the counter Proclamation on the Family protest were only willing to give their first names.  Maybe in their hearts they had some shame in what they were doing.  Maybe they questioned whether their position was really a Christ-like approach.

It is also interesting that the March 4th event was brought about because of the actions of the Church a year ago.  I wonder if it will grow each year like what happened with Prop 8. 

 

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't agree with the counter protest at all.  But I would not be surprised if the counter protest people did not want to give their names because they know that society as a whole does not agree with them and that a lot of people have the power to bully them for their views.

Here is a really good article on how society is now forcing people to choose silence (or anonymity) to protect themselves from the repercussions of espousing an idea or belief that a prominent group disagrees with.  It provides many examples to support its conclusions, which is--"In this ideology, if you do not tweet the right tweet or share the right slogan or post the right motto and visual on Instagram, your whole life can be ruined."

The idea that these people somehow know that they are being unChristlike and that's why they don't want their names known doesn't make sense to me.  It implies that their beliefs aren't sincere--that they are giving lip service to their religious beliefs but they don't actually believe them--and I don't think we can say that.  I think they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing.

I have some limited agreement with California Boy that activists are generally more respectable and credible if they stand behind their activism with their identities. 
 

But I also agree with Bluebell that with cancel culture being so pervasive and brazen these days, there is a very real threat and understandable fear that people face in going public, especially conservatives. With that in mind, I think it absurd to conclude that the reason the counter protesters did not disclose their identities is that they are ashamed of their position. 
 

Let’s take a comparison that is very close to home:

Throughout the many years I have been contributing content to this and its predecessor message board, I have invariably given my real name. Furthermore, because of my somewhat public persona in my career, it has been very easy for interested strangers to know or find out who I am. 
 

In contrast, California Boy, to my knowledge, has never disclosed his real life identity. Can one properly conclude from this that I am sincere in my comments here because I use my real name while California Boy is secretly ashamed of his comments because he doesn’t? 

[SteveO]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I categorically refuse to feel sorry for anyone who voluntarily goes onto a reality TV show and then whines that their life is being dissected.

If you lose your scholarship get a student loan like everyone else. Are they entitled enough to believe they somehow ‘earned’ the scholarship? It was always subject to revocation. Grow up.

You are oversimplifying the Portland story. The story was about a couple of white women going to Mexico and bragging about how they harangued the locals to give them the “secrets” of tortilla making. No one even dug the story up. They told that story. They told the story about them being the worst kind of scummy tourists. Their story predictably backfired. That is not being cancelled. It is being shown the door because you are a jerk.

I have no idea why his company fired Cafferty. It has been a bit of a PR nightmare for them. Should they be forced to rehire him? California is an “at will” employment state. Might be unfair but hardly an example of a national phenomenon run amuck.

Those aren’t the dumbest examples. They are amongst the most prominent and that is sad. Normal people may not care about them but the movement screaming about “cancel culture” is mostly filled with abnormal people.

Nothing to lose? LOL!!!!!! Awesome. It is funny that when the finger of public disrepute is pointed at those with ‘something to lose’ the whole phenomenon is treated as a new and looming threat to all we hold dear. When you’re punching down it is somehow less of a big deal.

You look totes reasonable.  Fantastic job.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hello Senator McCarthy. Good to see you. I thought you were dead.

Uncalled for cheap shot. 

[Islander]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Hello Senator McCarthy. Good to see you. I thought you were dead.

Well, yeah. I had to resurrect myself in order to explain to the uninitiated that there is no such thing as "new news....just old news happening to new people"... I can't think of who said that but it so thoroughly applies to the current socio-political climate.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Islander said:

Well, yeah. I had to resurrect myself in order to explain to the uninitiated that there is no such thing as "new news....just old news happening to new people"... I can't think of who said that but it so thoroughly applies to the current socio-political climate.

 

It appears it was Malcolm Muggeridge who said it. 
 

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/726614-all-new-news-is-old-news-happening-to-new-people

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Uncalled for cheap shot. 

It was more of a middle price range shot.

[AtlanticMike]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Shame and ridicule have always been used this way. The sudden concern is about who is being shamed and ridiculed. It is that people who have been using this tool for decades suddenly find themselves falling into the pit they dug for their neighbor and now they are calling “foul”.

Hey Nehor!!! I just fell into the pit I dug for my neighbor and found this bottle of brandy, send me your address and I'll ship it to you.😁😁😁

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

It is also interesting that the March 4th event was brought about because of the actions of the Church a year ago.  I wonder if it will grow each year like what happened with Prop 8. 

Nice church you’ve got here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it because you wouldn’t cave in to the mob. 

[AtlanticMike]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

So if I get angry that a male pastor preaches a sermon about how wives should never say no to sex and need to stay thin, no matter the size of her husband, so he doesn't stray, that means that I'm subconsciously aware that I have no good reason for thinking that he is wrong??

My sisters husband got really plump. Now she only has sex with him at night, when it's really dark outside. If that doesn't help, she imagines he's George Michael. 🤣

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I haven’t watched cable news in over six months other than a few clips. I prefer to read. Watching that stuff rots your brain and gives people the illusion they are well-informed when all they get is headlines pounded into their head repeatedly.. The only time I watched it for years was in the company break room and that is not a thing anymore.

Your statement is true about cancel culture but you are going the wrong way. Seriously the concept of “cancel culture” is one of the biggest grifts out there right now. It is a money machine. Take three recent examples going from more innocuous to downright funny:

First the Muppet Show. I loved the Muppet show as a kid and I watched some clips with my niece a few days ago. Still funny. The owners of the show and Netflix put it on Netflix but put a few short warnings at the beginning of a few episodes that had extreme caricatures of various cultures that can be seen as offensive. The shows were not pulled off the streaming site. They are more widely available than ever but somehow hordes are crying out that they were “cancelled”. How were they cancelled. I can literally go watch it right now and so can a massive proportion of America.

Then we the “Mr. Potato Head” scandal. It seems that the company that makes it decided to rebrand their brand as “Potato Head” instead of “Mr Potato Head”. They are still selling both Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head toys. The smaller logo on the toy just says “Potato Head”. People reacted as if they were stealing Mr. Potato Head’s gender or something. That is silly of course. Anyone who has both the Mr. and Mrs. toys knows that the parts are interchangeable and if every kid who has both has made some wacky combo. They have always been a weird toy. Also why does no one complain that the toys are built so you store the detached body parts in the toy’s butt? That has been going on for years. Seems like that should be setting off alarm bells. There were already videos of parents destroying their kid’s toys before the logo thing was clarified and I really wonder if that was deliberate. Seems like a good way to intentionally obsolete some toys so you can sell the parents who destroyed them new ones. Even if they do not buy Potato Head toys a disturbing amount of the toy industry is a monopoly.

Finally the funniest case of all. The Dr. Seuss controversy. I have it on good authority that some news stations were fixated on this for several days and I am pretty sure they weren’t slow news days. When you go over what happened it is downright ridiculous. The publishing house that owns the right to Dr. Seuss books decided to discontinue a few of the more obscure Seuss books that had some racist caricatures in them. They were not politically or socially pressured to do so and they had every legal right to make that decision. People went nuts about Dr. Seuss being cancelled by the “radical left”. In retaliation they bit at the publisher’s sales price on Dr. Seuss books and sales skyrocketed. Then they smugly laughed at this as proof that they are “fighting back”. So, to recap, they got upset over something and retaliated by spending a lot of money going to the people who did the thing they don’t like and generated lots of free advertising for them. We have the sad situation of at least one person in Congress posting a video of themselves reading a Dr. Seuss book in protest (not a no longer published one involving the ‘slanty’ eyes of Asians though). So they are throwing money at people to protest against the people they are literally giving money to. If I didn’t know better I would thing they are all deeply stupid.

So which side is getting mad and being little snowflakes about stupid petty stuff?

All of those were corporate decisions.

Oh, and I can’t mention Dr. Seuss without asking if they are sure that he would be their ally.

Again, seriously DID NO ONE Google that slogan before they started using it or was it deliberate?

My friend from  high school posted on FB that she ordered all of the Dr. Suess series from Amazon. 🙄

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is interesting to me, too.  It's as if there is a popular position and an unpopular one.  

I'm not sure that it has much to do with "shame."  Perhaps it has more to do with self-preservation.

If you dare subscribe to the unpopular position, you will find The Daily Universe - the student-run paper at BYU - describing the flyers for your "protest" as "controversial."  Meanwhile, no such slanted editorializing is used when describing the "Color the Campus" protest.

If you subscribe to the unpopular position, you will find The Daily Universe quoting someone with the popular opinion as characterizing you as "the dumb close-minded few."  Again, there is no corollary insulting characterization of the popular position.

If you subscribe to the popular position, KUTV does you the favor of re-publishing your social media advertisement of your protest.  You know, the thread of tweets that demanded that BYU (and, I think, those who subscribe to the unpopular position) not be an "obstacle," and that it/they is/are acting on "hate."

Or maybe they're cognizant of the "cancel culture" running rampant on college campuses these days.

Maybe they think some will try to use "cancel culture" tactics to punish them for the content of their speech because, well, that is already happening. 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be "controversial."

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be an "obstacle." 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be motivated by "hate." 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be one of "the dumb close-minded few."

It may just be that some Latter-day Saints want to advocate for an unpopular opinion, but not be targeted by cancel culture bullies.  I think it is interesting that "{n}o one else holding an umbrella {at the counter-protest} was willing to talk to The Daily Universe."  No one.  I think it may be because the student writers at The Daily Universe have - as is apparently S.O.P. for many actual and aspiring "journalists" these days - abandoned the intention of (and heck, even a pretense about or effort toward) producing "objective" news writing.  Advocacy journalism is the order of the day.

Additionally, it may just be that the counter-protesters are not really wanting to fight.  None of them seems to have slandered the "Color the Campus" folks.  None of them accused the protesters of "hate."  Maybe they wanted to share their viewpoint, but not bring down the wrath of the bullies who are out to shame and silence anyone who dares voice a divergent point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why is a newspaper obligated to treat an immoral position as neutral? Just because some people think it is moral to treat a day that affirms LGBTQIA worth as something to protest doesn't make it so.

Are you really upset that journalism has an opinion? Journalism has ALWAYS had opinions, they've just often been the prevailing opinion. Could it be that you're really just bothered that the prevailing opinion is not your own?

Indeed it shouldn't be that difficult to look back time or elsewhere and find newspapers taking the opposite approach, when/where the prevailing opinion was/is the opposed.

The ultimate question is what is right, it's not a problem if journalism treats what is generally understood to be right as right. So, is it right to affirm the worth of LGBTQIA individuals?

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 3/5/2021 at 12:01 AM, JLHPROF said:

Hmmm... weren't we just discussing this on another thread?  Would never have happened even 20 years ago.  Imagine 20 years from now.

I am afraid to find out what will be in 20 years, the world is spinning faster than we can keep pace. 

[Duncan]

Just now, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I am afraid to find out what will be in 20 years, the world is spinning faster than we can keep pace. 

sometimes societies move forward but sometimes they move backwards, who would have imagined people in 2020 fighting over toilet paper?!  highly industrialized nations yet fighting over basic necessities like TP and yeast

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I am afraid to find out what will be in 20 years, the world is spinning faster than we can keep pace. 

The world will continue to become more wicked, the Saints will become more prepared to meet Christ and simultaneously far fewer in number.  Just as prophesied.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

sometimes societies move forward but sometimes they move backwards, who would have imagined people in 2020 fighting over toilet paper?!  highly industrialized nations yet fighting over basic necessities like TP and yeast

Usually they move forward and backwards at the same time in different areas. Every generation has its pet virtues and vices.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Hey Nehor!!! I just fell into the pit I dug for my neighbor and found this bottle of brandy, send me your address and I'll ship it to you.😁😁😁

Nah, I am more into amphetamines but I appreciate the offer.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Why is a newspaper obligated to treat an immoral position as neutral?

Perhaps news journalists should be in the business of essentially purveying the news in a straightforward, accurate, dispassionate way, rather than presuming to pass moral judgments, particularly on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree.

Quote

Just because some people think it is moral to treat a day that affirms LGBTQIA worth as something to protest doesn't make it so.

So you'd be okay with a newspaper condemning "LGBTQIA," then?  "Morality" being very much an eye-of-the-beholder thing?  I sure wouldn't.

Or are you only in favor of slanted / partisan "news" reporting when your personal opinions align with the reporter's?  But at that point, we're not really talking about news anymore, are we?  We talking about opinions.

Quote

Are you really upset that journalism has an opinion?

First, I'm not "upset" either way.

Second, that you speak of "journalism" as having "an opinion" is quite illuminating.  I have generally understood "journalism" not as an entity capable of having "an opinion," but rather as "the production and distribution of reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence."

Third, I have no problem at all with a journalist having "an opinion" about, well, anything.  I likewise don't care if the waitress who served me a lovely bowl of tonkotsu ramen a few hours ago has an opinion.  But it would tend to be mildly irksome if she presumed to pull up a chair, sit down at our table and then lecture me about her personal opinions about a given social or moral issue, and also to tell me how I should think about that issue. 

See, I didn't go to the restaurant to hear a lecture about someone's sociopolitical opinions.  I went there to have a nice lunch with a friend.  So it is with "journalists" who, rather than giving me what I want, which is a fair, dispassionate explanation of events, instead presumes to inject their personal opinions / politics / judgments into the subject matter, and to let those personal opinions/politics/judgments heavily influence what is reported, how it is reported, and so on.  If I wanted "advocacy journalism," I'd ask for it.  As it happens, however, "advocacy journalism" is most of the menu.  Consider the menu from Monty Python's "Spam" sketch:

Quote

• Egg and spam
• Egg, sausage and bacon
• Egg and Spam
• Egg, bacon and Spam
• Egg, bacon, sausage and Spam
• Spam, bacon, sausage and Spam
• Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam
• Spam, Spam, Spam, egg and Spam
• Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato and Spam (vinyl record)
• Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam
• Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top, and Spam.

Replace "spam" with "advocacy journalism" and you'll start to understand my assessment of much of today's "news" outlets.  I sure would like to see a return to at least an attempt at or veneer of or nod to "just the facts, ma'am" journalism.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Fourth, I will admit that I have a different set of expectations for BYU students.  I would have hoped that they would give some measure of even-handed treatment to students and alums who are "protesting" by noting the contents of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.  Instead they, like you, presume to judge their "protest" as - to quote someone - "immoral."

BYU student "journalists" think that talking about The Family proclamation is "immoral."  "Controversial."  

Oh.

Quote

Journalism has ALWAYS had opinions, they've just often been the prevailing opinion. Could it be that you're really just bothered that the prevailing opinion is not your own?

No, it could not be.  It could, however, be that I think journalists should produce "reports on current events based on facts and supported with proof or evidence," to do so as objectively and clearly as possible, and to leave the editorializing and lecturing and moralizing to the Editorial Page. 

There used to be a distinction there.  Although never perfectly realized, there was at least an effort by newspapers to differentiate between "news" and "opinion."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

What Is the Difference Between an Editorial & a Newspaper Article?
Jennifer Spirko

It may be hard to separate the objective reporting of news articles from editorials and other opinions in a newspaper. Typically, editorials appear in a specially labeled section to make it easier for readers to tell news articles from opinion pieces.

Reporting the News

News reporters gather factual information, explains a guide by "The Boston Globe" newspaper. The product of their observation and research is a news article, which intends to inform readers. Today, journalistic standards call for reporters to be as objective as possible, although this was not always the case, according to Kathryn Walbert for the University of North Carolina School of Education’s Learn NC. Different papers often express a viewpoint, but this is usually done by choosing which stories to cover and which information to present; a news article typically does not come right out and express opinion. You find news articles throughout a newspaper, most obviously on the front page.

Commenting on the Issues

An editorial, on the other hand, may be based in fact, but its main purpose is not to inform, but to express opinion. Most newspapers, including "The Boston Globe" and "The New York Times," group these opinion pieces in a special section, an Editorial Page and an Op-Ed page, "opposite the editorial." Other types of opinion pieces, such as sports columns or movie reviews, may appear in different sections, but they usually are labeled in some way to show that they are not objective news. Editorials are a special category of opinion pieces that express the viewpoint of an editor or, at larger papers, an editorial board; as such, they represent the opinion of the paper as a whole, according to guides by "The Boston Globe" and "The New York Times." Because editorials do not represent just one individual’s opinion, they usually don’t list an author’s name.

"Today, journalistic standards call for reporters to be as objective as possible..."

Oh.  So what "standards" were being used by the student "journalists" at The Daily Universe?  After all, their writing is so obviously slanted that you aren't even bothering to suggest that it was sorta, and are instead going with a of-course-they-aren't-objective-and-you-are-silly-for-expecting-that style of argument.

Here's a bit from the "Journalistic objectivity" article on Wikipedia:

Quote

Journalistic objectivity is a considerable notion within the discussion of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity may refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. First evolving as a practice in the 18th century, a number of critiques and alternatives to the notion have emerged since, fuelling ongoing and dynamic discourse surrounding the ideal of objectivity in journalism.

For me, I like these ideas.  I would hope that journalists would purvey factual information to me, and that they would do with with "fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship."

Is the "news" coverage from the aspiring "journalists" at The Daily Universe fairly characterized as fair?  Disinterested?  Factual?  Nonpartisan?  Nope.  You and are in agreement on that.  We differ in that you think the lack of these characteristics is just fine and dandy.  I don't.

Quote

The ultimate question is what is right,

And part of getting to that "ultimate" question on a given topic is obtaining information about it that is fair / disinterested / factual / nonpartisan.  Then the individual can, if he or she likes, look for editorial opinions and the like, and also turn to religious leaders and other trusted voices.

As it is, however, many of today's "journalists" presume to dictate to the rest of us "what is right," which in the context of LGBT issues is often code for "this is my opinion, and if you vary from it you're a bigot."

Quote

it's not a problem if journalism treats what is generally understood to be right as right.  

If morality was a popularity contest, you'd have a point.  But it's not, so you don't.

Quote

So, is it right to affirm the worth of LGBTQIA individuals?

So, is it right to affirm the contents of The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7, 2021 by smac97

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

sometimes societies move forward but sometimes they move backwards, who would have imagined people in 2020 fighting over toilet paper?!  highly industrialized nations yet fighting over basic necessities like TP and yeast

So true, we have boxes of it now, with 48 rolls per box. We have taken food storage much more seriously, after seeing how quickly things can, and continue to change. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In contrast, California Boy, to my knowledge, has never disclosed his real life identity. Can one properly conclude from this that I am sincere in my comments here because I use my real name while California Boy is secretly ashamed of his comments because he doesn’t? 

Did your family have noting to do with you for 13 years because of what you wrote?  Were you not invited to any family reunions?  No baptisms of nieces and nephews because of what you wrote? Were you ever not invited to family missionary farewells because of what you wrote?

There is really only ONE reason why I don't use my name.  Things have finally calmed down with my family to the point where they actually include me in family events.  I don't trust them enough to be so open with them in expressing my views in a very public way on what it is like to be gay and the issues that I deal with.  Yeah, us gays still have to deal with a lot of fear and feeling of not trusting people's love.  

[california boy]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is interesting to me, too.  It's as if there is a popular position and an unpopular one.  

I'm not sure that it has much to do with "shame."  Perhaps it has more to do with self-preservation.

If you dare subscribe to the unpopular position, you will find The Daily Universe - the student-run paper at BYU - describing the flyers for your "protest" as "controversial."  Meanwhile, no such slanted editorializing is used when describing the "Color the Campus" protest.

If you subscribe to the unpopular position, you will find The Daily Universe quoting someone with the popular opinion as characterizing you as "the dumb close-minded few."  Again, there is no corollary insulting characterization of the popular position.

If you subscribe to the popular position, KUTV does you the favor of re-publishing your social media advertisement of your protest.  You know, the thread of tweets that demanded that BYU (and, I think, those who subscribe to the unpopular position) not be an "obstacle," and that it/they is/are acting on "hate."

Or maybe they're cognizant of the "cancel culture" running rampant on college campuses these days.

Maybe they think some will try to use "cancel culture" tactics to punish them for the content of their speech because, well, that is already happening. 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be "controversial."

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be an "obstacle." 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be motivated by "hate." 

To disagree with the "Color the Campus" position is to be one of "the dumb close-minded few."

It may just be that some Latter-day Saints want to advocate for an unpopular opinion, but not be targeted by cancel culture bullies.  I think it is interesting that "{n}o one else holding an umbrella {at the counter-protest} was willing to talk to The Daily Universe."  No one.  I think it may be because the student writers at The Daily Universe have - as is apparently S.O.P. for many actual and aspiring "journalists" these days - abandoned the intention of (and heck, even a pretense about or effort toward) producing "objective" news writing.  Advocacy journalism is the order of the day.

Additionally, it may just be that the counter-protesters are not really wanting to fight.  None of them seems to have slandered the "Color the Campus" folks.  None of them accused the protesters of "hate."  Maybe they wanted to share their viewpoint, but not bring down the wrath of the bullies who are out to shame and silence anyone who dares voice a divergent point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well this is the most encouraging post I have seen on this issue.  I had no idea that the idea of supporting the LGBT community was so widely accepted in the Church that those who don't, are fearful to give their names. Maybe change within the Church is coming sooner than I and many others expect.

What I can't quite understand is why you are supporting a group that organized a protest against treating LGBT students with respect.  Do you think members should support the LGBT community or not???  

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Can one properly conclude from this that ... California Boy is secretly ashamed of his comments because he doesn’t? 

Did your family have noting to do with you for 13 years because of what you wrote?  Were you not invited to any family reunions?  No baptisms of nieces and nephews because of what you wrote? Were you ever not invited to family missionary farewells because of what you wrote?

There is really only ONE reason why I don't use my name.  Things have finally calmed down with my family to the point where they actually include me in family events.  I don't trust them enough to be so open with them in expressing my views in a very public way on what it is like to be gay and the issues that I deal with.  Yeah, us gays still have to deal with a lot of fear and feeling of not trusting people's love.  

So the answer is . . . no, one ought not conclude what you previously concluded.  There are reasonable grounds for not wanting to be publicly named, and those grounds need not include being "secretly ashamed."

Can you allow that for the protesters?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 7, 2021 by smac97

[poptart]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Did your family have noting to do with you for 13 years because of what you wrote?  Were you not invited to any family reunions?  No baptisms of nieces and nephews because of what you wrote? Were you ever not invited to family missionary farewells because of what you wrote?

There is really only ONE reason why I don't use my name.  Things have finally calmed down with my family to the point where they actually include me in family events.  I don't trust them enough to be so open with them in expressing my views in a very public way on what it is like to be gay and the issues that I deal with.  Yeah, us gays still have to deal with a lot of fear and feeling of not trusting people's love.  

If it makes you feel any better, so do a lot of people nowadays with the doxing going on.  It amazes me, people know how bad things are getting and are still oblivious to it, not using your real name is plain common sense I think.  You were taught as a kid don't talk to strangers right?  When you're online everyone, even "friends" on facebook/social media really are strangers.  Think about it, longer you're apart from old friends and neighbors, more things change that you don't know about, all you see is the carefully constructed illusion they post about, none of the bad.  Anyone who rips on someone for not using their name?  Lets see what they do when someone digs up a facebook/social media post from way back when that may get them in trouble then waits for an opportune time to post/share it.  Doesn't even have to be theirs, can be family, friend or business associate.  

A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Not advocating for anything here, just my opinion.  BTW yeah it sucks.  LGBTQ people still have it really bad in a lot of the country as do POC, feel your pain.  Like I said, I do think deep down most people know it's bad, they just don't care.  Fact that you see it and are smart enough to act is a good thing.  I just sit back and watch, it's like the best spectator sport i've ever seen.  Best part?  It's free lol