DezNat in the News Again

[smac97]

We have previously had a few discussions about DezNat:

September 2019: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?

December 2020: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2

November 2020: Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy

April 2020: Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 3

June 2021: Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 4

July 2021: Alaska Assistant Attorney General in "DezNat" Trouble

Here's the next installment: #DezNat users say they're defending the church; those they target say it's not Christ-like

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — #DezNat, short for Deseret Nationalism, is trending on Twitter. Many people who use the hashtag claim they are defending The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, and scripture. Others are trolling progressive Mormons, LGBTQ church members, allies, and feminists, a leading Mormon history scholar says. Some of their posts contain violent imagery and memes. A spokesperson from the church told 2News the group is "not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

 

One ProgMo's Message Sparks Internet Ire

“My intent is to make room for more people to feel at home as members of the Church,” says Dr. Julie Hanks, owner of Wasatch Family Therapy and a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“I push on the cultural norms.”

She wants women's voices to be equally valued in the Church and advocates for LGBTQ inclusion, even wearing a rainbow pin to church.

But this progressive approach has drawn criticism on social media, including people on Twitter using #DezNat.

“I became aware of DezNat, I believe last year as my social media following grew because they started posting negative things about me, or taking things out of context or claiming that I was trying to lead people away from the LDS church."

In an interview with 2News, Dr. Hanks admits the DezNat posts are free speech, but points out, "I don't think it's kind, I don't think it's helpful. I don't think it's nice. I don't think it's Christ-like, but they get to think what they think and, and say what they want to say."

DezNat is becoming a cautionary tale.

Quote

'Self-Styled Guardians of Orthodoxy'

Professor Patrick Mason is Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University.

Mason says the online DezNat movement includes people who see themselves "as kind of self-styled guardians of orthodoxy" against what they see as the church's dangerous opponents.

“They really believe that they're defending the leaders of the church and, and that [the church] needs to be defended from what they see as a progressive onslaught," he explains.

Who does DezNat think are the church's opponents? Mason lists people they see as too liberal, people who are not sufficiently supportive of church leaders, members of the LGBTQ community and their allies, and feminists.

2News Investigates spoke to multiple people who use DezNat hashtag. They argued some of the tweets are being taken of context, or are meant to be comic.

Hmm.  Perhamps more temperance in our online commentary is the order of the day.

Quote

A History of Extremist Factions

"There's been a kind of militant strain within Mormonism from the very beginning," Mason explains. "Of course, this is not unique to Mormonism or to Latter-Day, since this is true in every religious tradition."

“They will go after people very strongly, they'll use violent imagery. They'll talk about unsheathed bowie knives and other kinds of things.”

"There have also been posts that have had anti-Semitic or racist content, which I think they're borrowing from white Christian nationalism and from other sources as well," he adds.

Disturbing stuff.  And it's just weird to borrow from "white Christian nationalism," as I find those sentiments largely incompatible with the Gospel.  One of the best ways of overcoming racism and ethnocentrism is to serve a mission in another culture.  My father served in Argentina as a young man, and he and my mother later served missions in Samoa, Fabens, TX, and Zimbabwe.  My siblings and siblings-in-law have served missions in Brasil, the Philippines, Romania, Iowa, Taiwan, Vanuatu, Alaska, Florida, Missouri (St. Louis), Venezuela, among the Navajo, and Samoa.  I have a Hawaiian sister, a Tahitian brother, and a Samoan sister-in-law.  My brother raised two teenage refugee boys, both Muslim, from Afghanistan, and before that fostered two other boys from the Democratic Republic of Congo.  I have friends and acquaintances who have served in missions all over the world.  My sister and her husband (an MD) recently moved to Vanuatu (where my sister had previously served as a missionary) to provide medical services and training.  My daughter's best friend is a wonderful Muslim girl from Egypt (who came to Utah to attend BYU and ended up staying).  Kinda hard to develop or maintain racial/ethnic animosity when your friends and family are varied, and when you have served and come to love those from other cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

Quote

When #DezNat Enters Politics

In July, former North Ogden mayor candidate Gregory Smith told 2News Investigates he's used #DezNat to defend church teachings. A month later, he tweeted out, "Time to get our muskets," in response to an LGBTQ-related post. He later deleted his account.

Last summer, the Guardian reported that Matthias Cicotte, then Alaska's assistant attorney general, was tweeting racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic messages under the moniker, J Reuben Clark. It's unclear if Cicotte resigned or was fired from his job. He declined an interview for this story.

We discussed Cicotte in one of the earlier threads.

Quote

Anti-Defamation League: DezNat is Not a Hate Group

The ADL confirmed to 2News that they are tracking #DezNat, but does not consider it a hate group.

One ADL researcher called it a loose network.

“It seems to me that one of the reasons why a lot of these people posting under DezNat do so anonymously is because at least somewhere in them, in their heart of hearts, they know that they're actually not onboard with the church's current position," Mason says.

Yeah, that's a fair surmise.  Online anonymity can induce the Online Disinhibition Effect:

Quote

Online disinhibition effect is the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person.^[1] People feel safer saying things online which they would not say in real life because they have the ability to remain completely anonymous and invisible behind the computer screen.^[2] Apart from anonymity, other factors such as asynchronous communication, empathy deficit, or individual personality and cultural factors also contribute to online disinhibition.^[3][4] The manifestations of such an effect could be in both positive and negative directions. Thus online disinhibition could be classified as either benign disinhibition or toxic disinhibition.^[1]

I need to work on this for myself, even though anonymity is not one of the factors for me.

Quote

Church spokesperson Doug Andersen, in a statement to 2News, said:

This group is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church leaders have reminded its members--of all political views--to follow the example and the teachings of Jesus Christ in treating others with respect, dignity, and love. Anything that encourages or incites violence is contrary to the recent instruction given church leaders.

A good reminder.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 10, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

I wish the church leaders would be a little stronger in denouncing Deznat.

[california boy]

Quote

 

In July, former North Ogden mayor candidate Gregory Smith told 2News Investigates he's used #DezNat to defend church teachings. A month later, he tweeted out, "Time to get our muskets," in response to an LGBTQ-related post. He later deleted his account.

 

 

 

Wow where did he get that idea from?  Oh wait, an apostle who this guy thinks is giving him dog whistle instructions.  The fact that Elder Holland never clarified his remarks emboldens anti LGBT actions probably encouraged those kinds of posts. If Elder Holland really didn't mean to aggressively go against those that are LGBT, why the heck could he have not put out a statement to that affect?  Would that have been so difficult to do?  The fact that he didn't made me personally feel it was a very deliberate attack on the LGBT community.  I guess I am not alone.

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow where did he get that idea from?  Oh wait, an apostle who this guy thinks is giving him dog whistle instructions.  

"This guy thinks" being the operative phrase.  No reasonable and informed person would attribute to Elder Holland such "dog whistle instructions."

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

The fact that Elder Holland never clarified his remarks emboldens anti LGBT actions.

His remarks were pretty clear the first time around.  Context sure helps:

Quote

In 2014, seven years ago, then-Elder Russell M. Nelson came to campus in this same setting. His remarks were relatively brief, but tellingly he said:

“With the Church growing more rapidly in the less prosperous countries, we . . . must conserve sacred funds more carefully than ever before.

“At BYU we must ally ourselves even more closely with the work of our Heavenly Father. . . .

“A college education for our people is a sacred responsibility, [but] it is not essential for eternal life.”[9]

A statement like that gets my attention, particularly because just a short time later President Nelson chairs our Board, holds our purse strings, and has the final “yea” or “nay” on every proposal we make from a new research lab, to more undergrad study space, to approving a new pickup for the physical facilities staff! Russell M. Nelson is very, very good at listening to us. We who sit with him every day have learned the value of listening carefully to him.

Three years later, 2017, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, not then but soon to be in the First Presidency where he would sit, only one chair — one heartbeat — away from the same position President Nelson now has, quoted our colleague Elder Neal A. Maxwell who had said:

“In a way[,] [Latter-day Saint] scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think,” Elder Maxwell went on to say, “this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”[10]

Then Elder Oaks said challengingly, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.”[11] He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments, but the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Little did he know that while many would hear his appeal, especially the School of Family Life who moved quickly and visibly to assist, some others fired their muskets all right, but unfortunately didn’t always aim at those hostile to the Church. A couple of stray rounds even went north of the point of the mountain!

My beloved brothers and sisters, “a house divided against itself . . . cannot stand,”[12] and I will go to my grave pleading that this institution not only stands but stands unquestionably committed to its unique academic mission and to the Church that sponsors it. We hope it isn’t a surprise to you that your Trustees are not deaf or blind to the feelings that swirl around marriage and the whole same-sex topic on campus. I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.

If a student commandeers a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas in order to announce his personal sexual orientation, what might another speaker feel free to announce the next year until eventually anything goes? What might commencement come to mean — or not mean — if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long? Do we simply end up with more divisiveness in our culture than we already have — and we already have too much everywhere.

In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

But it will assist everyone in providing such help if things can be kept in some proportion and balance in the process. For example, we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.

Musket fire? Yes, we will always need defenders of the faith, but “friendly fire” is a tragedy — and from time to time the Church, its leaders and some of our colleagues within the university community have taken such fire on this campus. And sometimes it isn’t friendly — wounding students and the parents of students who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means. Beloved friends, this kind of confusion and conflict ought not to be. There are better ways to move toward crucially important goals in these very difficult matters — ways that show empathy and understanding for everyone while maintaining loyalty to prophetic leadership and devotion to revealed doctrine. My Brethren have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire, which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith. But we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.”[13] And while I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked, I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.

Nothing here can be reasonably construed as "dog whistle instructions" for "anti LGBT actions."

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

If Elder Holland really didn't mean to aggressively go against those that are LGBT, why the heck could he have not put out a statement to that affect?  Would that have been so difficult to do?  The fact that he didn't did personally feel it was a very deliberate attack on the LGBT community.  I guess I am not alone.

"Very deliberate attack."

You really want to join in with the DezNat yahoos in wresting Elder Holland's remarks?

I think this piece by Daniel Peterson gets it right: Elder Holland: What They Heard is Not What He Said

Quote

Elder Holland recently addressed the 2021 edition of BYU’s annual University Conference, a gathering to which all of the University’s faculty, staff, and administrators—even retirees—are invited.  He began and ended his remarks with his own story of falling in love with BYU—a story that, again, resonates deeply with me.  

It’s what Elder Holland said between his expressions of affection for BYU, however, that has generated controversy in some circles, and even bitter anger.  

He has been called irresponsible, a hater, and a bigot. His speech has been widely portrayed as an angry tirade against gays.  When a BYU student was videotaped muttering an anti-gay slur and pouring water on a sidewalk to erase a chalk rainbow, the headline in one national gay publication said that “The incident comes on top of a former Brigham Young University president urging the use of “muskets” to fight LGBTQ+ equality.”  It cited the explanation given by a national gay organization: “Elder Jeffrey Holland gave license for such conduct, using dangerous and warlike comments against LGBTQ students earlier this week.” 

“It looks like the muskets are out and being used to abuse the LGBTQ community,” said one anonymous critic of the Church on a predominantly atheist message board.  “If there is any justice, there has to be a special place in hell reserved for people like Holland.”

I would like to briefly comment on such curious reactions.
...
First of all, of course, he asked that employees of the Church’s flagship school be personally loyal to the standards and doctrines of the Restoration...
...

Referring to Elder Oaks’s appropriation of the imagery, Elder Holland importantly observed that “He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments”—just as, in fact, Elder Maxwell had applied the musket metaphor more generally.

“But,” Elder Holland continued, “the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

This is easily understandable:  Issues of gender, sexuality, and the nature of families loom very large today in our culture, law, and politics, and societal trends related to them clearly and increasingly clash with the standards and teachings of the Church.  Accordingly, Elder Holland’s own speech alluded fairly prominently to such matters—in, by my quick estimate, four of forty-four paragraphs of the published text:

“I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked,” he said, adding that “I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.”

In other words, the speech was not, as many have claimed, primarily devoted to issues of same-sex attraction.  He simply chose gender issues to represent the other areas in which the teachings of the Church come under attack, areas in which some members of the BYU faculty might be well situated to help.  And, I add, the speech was neither hateful nor angry; as anyone can learn by simply watching it online:

“My Brethren,” said Elder Holland, “have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire  which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith. But we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.””

Specifically referring to those who experience same-sex attraction, Elder Holland said,

“Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters.”

But, he also said, “we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.”

Compare Elder Holland: "Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters."

With California Boy: "{Elder Holland's instructions come across as} dog whistle instructions ... {calling for} anti LGBT actions."

Also California Boy: "{Elder Holland's remarks seem to have} aggressively {went} against those that are LGBT."

Also California Boy: "{I} personally feel it was a very deliberate attack on the LGBT community."

I invite each individual to read the above transcript of Elder Holland's remarks and decide for themselves whether California Boy's characterizations of those remarks are fair and accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 10, 2021 by smac97

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"This guy thinks" being the operative phrase.  No reasonable and informed person would attribute to Elder Holland such "dog whistle instructions."

His remarks were pretty clear the first time around.  Context sure helps:

Nothing here can be reasonably construed as "dog whistle instructions" for "anti LGBT actions."

"Very deliberate attack."

You really want to join in with the DezNat yahoos in wresting Elder Holland's remarks?

I think this piece by Daniel Peterson gets it right: Elder Holland: What They Heard is Not What He Said

Compare Elder Holland: "Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters."

With California Boy: "{Elder Holland's instructions come across as} dog whistle instructions ... {calling for} anti LGBT actions."

Also California Boy: "{Elder Holland's remarks seem to have} aggressively {went} against those that are LGBT."

Also California Boy: "{I} personally feel it was a very deliberate attack on the LGBT community."

I invite each individual to read the above transcript of Elder Holland's remarks and decide for themselves whether California Boy's characterizations of those remarks are fair and accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

The church has always had this passive/agressive attitude towards  the LGBT.  We love you, we just don't think you deserve your Constitution rights. We won't baptize your underaged children because we love you. We are calling you apostates, but we will call a "court of love.  We love you, but it is time to call to arms.

Obviously, there are some that do think it is a dog whistle or there wouldn't be these kinds of situations.  Do you really think it is just a coincidence that the former mayor of Ogden said " tweeted out, "Time to get our muskets," in response to an LGBTQ-related post."?  This is a former mayor of one of the biggest cities in Utah.

I get that you want to discredit what I stated.  Pretty normal for you.  But what you can't dispute is the facts of what actually happened as a direct result of Elder Holland's statement.  And you can't dispute that Elder Holland never clarified his statement.

Do you think any members of the Church might be a bit fearful if say the mayor of New York city had a beef with members of the church and publicly stated that it was time to get our muskets against the Mormons?  Do you really think that a speech 7 years ago shows context?

Edited December 10, 2021 by california boy

[LoudmouthMormon]

Actually, my small town's yearly Independence Day parade once had the LDS float, followed by the local black powder rifle club, dressed up as frontiersmen, firing their long guns up into the air.  Even though there was no shortage of suspicion and issues with us LDS folk, everybody (including me) thought it was hilarious. 

Reading through the source texts, there seems to be no shortage of clarification about how the talk of muskets and firing upon the enemy, is a metaphor about things like speech and supporting legislation.

Compare to lyrics of the SFGMC's song "A Message From the Gay Community", where it is pretty clearly spelled out that no, there isn't a single drop of metaphor in the claim "we're coming for your children", it should be taken literally, we really are going to get hold of their education and teach them things you do not believe, and here, let us crow about how and why we're literally doing it.

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

The church has always had this passive/agressive attitude towards  the LGBT.  We love you, we just don't think you deserve your Constitution rights. We won't baptize your underaged children because we love you. We are calling you apostates, but we will call a "court of love.  We love you, but it is time to call to arms.

Obviously, there are some that do think it is a dog whistle or there wouldn't be these kinds of situations.  Do you really think it is just a coincidence that the former mayor of Ogden said " tweeted out, "Time to get our muskets," in response to an LGBTQ-related post."?  This is a former mayor of one of the biggest cities in Utah.

Oh.  So the size of the population of Ogden somehow adds heft to his tweet?

I'm honestly surprised that you are aligning yourself with the thinking of DezNat yahoos.

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

I get that you want to discredit what I stated.  Pretty normal for you.

Actually, I am trying to discredit the DezNat guys.  That you are agreeing with some of them about this "dog whistle" crapola is a thing of your own making.

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Do you think any members of the Church might be a bit fearful if say the mayor of New York city had a beef with members of the church and publicly stated that it was time to get our muskets against the Mormons?

Red herring.  Strawman.  Bearing false witness.

Elder Holland didn't do this.

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you really think that a speech 7 years ago shows context?

You obviously didn't read the link I provided.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Actually, my small town's yearly Independence Day parade once had the LDS float, followed by the local black powder rifle club, dressed up as frontiersmen, firing their long guns up into the air.  Even though there was no shortage of suspicion and issues with us LDS folk, everybody (including me) thought it was hilarious. 

Reading through the source texts, there seems to be no shortage of clarification about how the talk of muskets and firing upon the enemy, is a metaphor about things like speech and supporting legislation.

Compare to lyrics of the SFGMC's song "A Message From the Gay Community", where it is pretty clearly spelled out that no, there isn't a single drop of metaphor in the claim "we're coming for your children", it should be taken literally, we really are going to get hold of their education and teach them things you do not believe, and here, let us crow about how and why we're literally doing it.

Yeah that is pretty funny that you would point out the song that everyone was all upset about on this site, but those same people seem to think that when Elder Holland does something similar, he is being picked on.  The difference is the Gay Mens Chorus actually clarified their parody.

Quote

The far-right conservative media found our “Message…” video and have taken it as their cause. This has all happened in the last 24 hours and it continues to pick up steam. They have taken the lyrics out of context to support a narrative that suits their intolerant and hateful needs. It is obvious the tongue-in-cheek humor is lost on many.

 

 

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh.  So the size of the population of Ogden somehow adds heft to his tweet?

I'm honestly surprised that you are aligning yourself with the thinking of DezNat yahoos.

Actually, I am trying to discredit the DezNat guys.  That you are agreeing with some of them about this "dog whistle" crapola is a thing of your own making.

Red herring.  Strawman.  Bearing false witness.

Elder Holland didn't do this.

You obviously didn't read the link I provided.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well that's it for me.  I have been fisked once again by Smac.

 

Quote

 

Fisking

Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument.

This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument.

Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole.

 

 

NO, I don't align myself with DezNation.  That is a falsehood taken out of context of what I actually wrote.

Believing it is a dog whistle DOES NOT MEAN that I agree with. what DezNation is doing or what it stands for.  It is ridiculous that you would twist my remarks to the point that you accuse me of aligning with an ANTI-LGBT group.  Really Smac?

And rather than answer my question to see if you can understand the affect Elder Hollands comments have on some in the LGBT community,

Quote

 

Do you think any members of the Church might be a bit fearful if say the mayor of New York city had a beef with members of the church and publicly stated that it was time to get our muskets against the Mormons?

 

you able it as a straw man and a FALSEHOOD?

Your constant fisking is extremely problematic when you take things out of context.  I am not going to interact with someone who takes things out of context and then applies his own bias agenda to what I actually wrote.   I will no longer reply to your posts on this matter.  

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your constant fisking is extremely problematic when you take things out of context.  I am not going to interact with someone who takes things out of context and then applies his own bias agenda to what I actually wrote.   I will no longer reply to your posts on this matter.  

I, can’t speak for others, would appreciate if you and anyone else who has said the same thing (no longer will respond) about him or someone else stuck with this resolve as the number of threads that are getting derailed into a discussion about Smac’s style and others as well is already too many imo. You have made your personal opinion clear, ignoring any of his or anyone else’s comments will show well enough you (or anyone else) do not value the approach.
 

 Just think, if you don’t respond in his topics he has no reason to dissect your posts, accurately or out of context.  

Edited December 10, 2021 by Calm

[Chum]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just think, if you don’t respond in his topics he has no reason to dissect your posts, accurately or out of context.  

Can this be reasonably read as Don't Feed The Troll?

[Chum]

I have a meme and culture question.

A million years ago, kids kept spamming my Minecraft server with DeezNutz references - which was too annoying to look up.  Was that DeezNutz meme spun off of DezNat?

If not, is it too late to make that happen?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Chum said:

I have a meme and culture question.

A million years ago, kids kept spamming my Minecraft server with DeezNutz references - which was too annoying to look up.  Was that DeezNutz meme spun off of DezNat?

If not, is it too late to make that happen?

Be the change you want to see in the world.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

NO, I don't align myself with DezNation.  That is a falsehood taken out of context of what I actually wrote.

Well, you are saying the same thing they are.  You are construing (distorting, really) Elder Holland's remarks as a "dog whistle."  You are saying that the DezNat guys are doing the same thing.

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

Believing it is a dog whistle DOES NOT MEAN that I agree with. what DezNation is doing or what it stands for.  It is ridiculous that you would twist my remarks to the point that you accuse me of aligning with an ANTI-LGBT group.  Really Smac?

Ideologically you don't agree with DezNat.  Sure.  Nor do I.  But when it comes to (mis)reading Elder Holland, you and DezNat are two peas in a pod.

I think reading Elder Holland that way is dumb and dishonest.

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

And rather than answer my question to see if you can understand the affect Elder Hollands comments have on some in the LGBT community,

This question: Do you really think it is just a coincidence that the former mayor of Ogden said " tweeted out, "Time to get our muskets," in response to an LGBTQ-related post."?

No, I don't think it was a coincidence.  I think some foolish people are distorting and decontextualizing what Elder Holland said.

DezNat is doing this, I think, to justify their stupid political sloganeering.

You are doing this, I think, to further justify your ongoing antipathy against the Church.

You and DezNat make strange bedfellows, to be sure.  But you're both doing the same thing: distorting and mischaracterizing Elder Holland's remarks.  Misappropriating those remarks to further your respective ideologies.

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your constant fisking is extremely problematic when you take things out of context.  

Meh.  You're the one aping the DezNat weenies. 

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not going to interact with someone who takes things out of context and then applies his own bias agenda to what I actually wrote.   I will no longer reply to your posts on this matter.  

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Chum said:

I have a meme and culture question.

A million years ago, kids kept spamming my Minecraft server with DeezNutz references - which was too annoying to look up.  Was that DeezNutz meme spun off of DezNat?

If not, is it too late to make that happen?

Pretty sure not. I think the phrase came from some kids screen name who got infamous for something. He probably got it from a Dr. Dre song from the 90s. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Chum said:

Can this be reasonably read as Don't Feed The Troll?

You have an odd definition of troll. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Chum said:

Can this be reasonably read as Don't Feed The Troll?

Statements like "{Elder Holland's instructions come across as} dog whistle instructions ... {calling for} anti LGBT actions" and "{Elder Holland's remarks seem to have} aggressively {went} against those that are LGBT" and "{I} personally feel it was a very deliberate attack on the LGBT community" seem calculated to be provocative.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, “It might have been.”

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Pretty sure not. I think the phrase came from some kids screen name who got infamous for something. He probably got it from a Dr. Dre song from the 90s. 

I knew someone here would set me straight.

[Scott Lloyd]

I’m no fan of or apologist for DezNat, but it occurs to me that if “progressive” individuals and parties would cease to push the baseless narrative that it’s only a matter of time before the Church of Jesus Christ begins to approve of same sex marriages and solemnize them in the temple, DezNat would lose much of its raison d’etre. 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have an odd definition of troll. 

I prefer nuanced.

I really do get whiffs of outrage bait in these threads. To be clear that's nowhere near as definitive as pics or a DNA test but we work with what we have.

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Statements like "{Elder Holland's instructions come across as} dog whistle instructions ... {calling for} anti LGBT actions" and "{Elder Holland's remarks seem to have} aggressively {went} against those that are LGBT" and "{I} personally feel it was a very deliberate attack on the LGBT community" seem calculated to be provocative.

Though incomplete, it isn't incorrect.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Though incomplete, it isn't incorrect.

Yes, I think it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m no fan of or apologist for DezNat, but…..

That is a fun phrase. You know what follows is going to be great and not at all blaming someone other than the Deznat people. Then it is blaming someone else for the Deznat people doing stuff.

 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a fun phrase. You know what follows is going to be great and not at all blaming someone other than the Deznat people. Then it is blaming someone else for the Deznat people doing stuff.

That almost makes me want to be not-clueless about whatever DezNat is.

splainer: Western US culture (actually all culture) inexplicably suffers a disfiguring stroke upon reaching the SE US.  I hope that explains why we're a little laggy down here.