Clean up your act online, church tells Latter-day Saints

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Clean up your act online, church tells Latter-day Saints
New handbook additions condemn any “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images” posted by members.

As Peggy Fletcher-Stack notes, this is likely responsive, at least partially, to the DezNat yahoos.  

That said, folks like me will also need to give due heed to this counsel.

Quote

Memo to Latter-day Saint social media commenters: Your church has added strong wording to its General Handbook, condemning “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images online.”

There is no exception for those claiming to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including users associated with @DezNat (or Deseret Nation), who frequently employ harsh rhetoric and drawings of knives and guns to attack church critics or Latter-day Saint progressives.

If online threats “of illegal acts occur,” the new section says, “law enforcement should be contacted immediately.”

Very good.

Quote

Further, members should avoid “all statements of prejudice toward others,” the new wording says, linking to the handbook’s section on prejudice, which says, “This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation.”

Latter-day Saints should share uplifting content, the updated handbook says, and “strive to be Christlike to others at all times, including online, and reflect a sincere respect for all of God’s children.”

Good counsel for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

"Connected with this, an addition has been made in chapter 32 (“Repentance and Church Membership Councils”) to note that a membership council may be necessary when a Latter-day Saint threatens physical violence in person or online."

You could also lose your membership over these types of things

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"Connected with this, an addition has been made in chapter 32 (“Repentance and Church Membership Councils”) to note that a membership council may be necessary when a Latter-day Saint threatens physical violence in person or online."

You could also lose your membership over these types of things

I overlooked that part.

This is good stuff.  We have seen such inappropriate threats of violence, or endorsement/celebration of such violence, on this very board:

Quote

Quote

I think that if we are supposed to renounce war and proclaim peace, we should start the process by renouncing the inappropriate behaviors that can precipitate and culminate in war.  History has shown us, many times over, that politically-motivated and other widespread extra-legal violence are a harbinger of war.  Anarchy and the breakdown of the rule of law are harbingers of war.  

History has also shown us that if you don’t ridicule fascists into obscurity and beat them down they keep trying their comically inept attempts to take over until they get lucky and succeed. I am not advocating for war. I am advocating that Nazi punching is good. It works. It is the most American of activities.

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

Absolutely Not! I suggest it be more of a grass-roots individual initiative thing and not involve mobs at all.

Quote

You are advocating that people of one political stripe use arbitrarily-imposed labels ("fascist" and "Nazi") to justify the use of violence intended to silence and/or punish people of another politcal stripe.

No, I am suggesting people punch real fascists and real Nazis.

Quote

You are, as I understand it, a member of the Church (I don't know, but that's my assumption). 

I think this is a very problematic posture for a member of the Church to take.  It is not congruent with the counsel we have received from the First Presidency...

I am a member. At least they haven't booted me yet. Maybe if I punch more Nazis?

Quote

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence against other people, which is not congruent with "treat{ing} one another and all of God's children with respect, diginty and love."

I am following the Golden Rule. I make this broad declaration. If I ever advocate for Fascism, Nazism, or White Supremacy I want to be punched repeatedly until I stop doing that.

Quote

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence against other people, which is not congruent with "honor{ing} democratic institutions and processes" or with "obey{ing}, honor{ing}, and sustain{ing} the law."

I hope you reconsider what you are advocating here.

Sometimes the only way to sustain the law is to punch people who feel themselves not bound by its strictures and through secret combinations attempt to shield themselves from the consequences of their crimes. Fighting them within the system may not suffice as they do not consider themselves bound by the rules of the system.

In short:

I will never stop advocating for the punching of Nazis. Until they are all gone. Then I will retire and take up a new hobby. Probably advocating for the punching of mimes. I was going to say clowns but then I remembered that there were clown counter-protests in some parts of the world against fascists. A clown even punched a Nazi once.

 

Even the Joker is for punching Nazis. The Greatest Generation got that way punching Nazis. Punching Nazis is good. It is cathartic. It makes those crybaby Nazis make hilarious videos whining about how oppressed they are that are best viewed while consuming popcorn.

DOWN WITH FASCISM! DOWN WITH NAZIS!!!

How did this become a controversial stand?

And here:

Quote

Quote

Yours are unserious remarks about a serious topic.  I'll leave you to it, then.

I am being very serious with a touch of fun. Fascism often works within the system but its goal is to destroy the system. If it becomes entrenched and starts to take over action should be taken.

To put it in perspective God appears to have endorsed the American Revolution. The oppression and damage King George was threatening the colonies with is nothing compared to what fascists can do to it. I am not even advocating revolution. I am advocating punching them. Oh, and also deplatform them and humiliate them at every opportunity.

And here:

Quote

Quote

We've had this discussion before.  If someone were to label you a "Nazi" or a "fascist," and then proceed to beat you to a pulp and destroy or steal your property, I don't you would respond with "a touch of fun."

True, I would punch them back and even try to have a “touch of fun” doing it.

Quote

But here you are, advocating for such violence against other people summarily and arbitrarily targeted by violent mobs.  You have bragged about how you will "giggle" at and "cheer" such violence.

Yeah, punching Nazis is funny and people should rejoice when it happens. It is what united the Greatest Generation. Everyone should unite in joy at things that frustrate, stop, or harm Nazis.

They weren’t arbitrarily targeted. If I was laughing they were fascists at the least and probably Nazis.

Quote

Yours are unserious remarks about a serious topic.  Or else they are repugnant and vile comments that glorify and rationalize extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence, in flagrant contravention of the counsel we have received from prophets and apostles.  Or you are using unserious remarks to evade addressing the repugnant and vile nature of what you are advocating.

Why are you so worried about fascists and Nazis not getting punched? That seems more repugnant and vile then wanting to form a fist and landing a few jabs on a Nazi.

And here:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

 

Quote

Doesn't look like it.  You are using "a touch of fun" to gloss over the ugly and immoral nature of what you are advocating: the justification of and advocacy for extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence.

Like the Allies in World War 2?

 

No.  Not like.  The conduct of the Allies during World War II cannot be reasonably characterized as "extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence."

Surely you have heard of the Geneva Convention of 1929?  The "Rules of Land Warfare" promulgated by the War Department?  The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907?

What you are advocating is lawless, mobocratic violence and thuggery.  It is evil.  It is wrong.  Our ancestors endured the things you are saying you want to "giggle" about and "cheer" on.

Yours is an unserious and facile position.  That you are nevertheless apparently genuine and sincere in your desire to see such things is contemptible.

 

War “laws” are broken in every war. Repeatedly. So yes, extralegal. All wars are politically motivated. All wars are violent.

Punching Nazis is not wrong and my church ancestors did not just get popped in the mouth for advocating white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and wiping out all inferiors. I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

Now beating up fascists is contemptible? Oh boy. No wonder this nation is going down the toilet. We are okay with cops beating people, immigrants being beaten, suspects being murdered while in custody, incarcerated prisoners being mistreated inhumanely, and minorities being marginalized and denied equal protection under the law BUT don’t you dare punch someone who is out to destroy our government and laws completely and is trying to bring misery to millions. THAT WOULD BE WRONG! 

And here:

Quote

Quote

Punching Nazis is not wrong

You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a "Nazi" and beaten up for it.

Quote

and my church ancestors did not just get popped in the mouth for advocating white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and wiping out all inferiors. I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

"Yet."

The mind reels.  At least the #DezNat yahoos came to realize the danger - to their own reputation and livelihoods if nothing else - of advocating for wanton extra-legal violence.  Many have deleted their accounts and gone silent.  Meanwhile, you carry on with continuing threats of extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

I hope you reconsider what you are saying (threatening) here.

And here:

Quote

Quote

You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a "Nazi" and beaten up for it.

No, I would still be in favor on punching Nazis. I would probably have to punch the idiot (and possible Nazi) who claimed I was a Nazi too. But that is just a regular bump in the road for the dedicated Nazi Puncher.

Quote

At least the #DezNat yahoos came to realize the danger - to their own reputation and livelihoods if nothing else - of advocating for wanton extra-legal violence.  Many have deleted their accounts and gone silent.  Meanwhile, you carry on with continuing threats of extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

Wait, you think they stopped? That is adorable. They just went to different platforms where they think they can hide better and are continuing to spew hatred and plans for murder. They are fascists. That is what they do. Until someone comes along and punches them.

(Emphases added.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 15, 2021 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

As Peggy Fletcher-Stack notes, this is likely responsive, at least partially, to the DezNat yahoos.  

That said, folks like me will also need to give due heed to this counsel.

Very good.

Good counsel for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac I don't view you in violation of this direction.  You can strongly defend your beliefs but I do not think you are a bully, prejudice, etc.

[rongo]

While I don't personally act like this online (or in person), and while I agree that Church members should be paragons of behavior in all their dealings, I also think that the examples @smac97 cited above from this message board, and even Deznat, almost never (as in, really almost never) rise to the level of "online violence," "bullying," "threatening," or "abuse." I think society (and many Church members) have lost their minds, sense of humor, and resiliency, and emulate "snowflake" behavior that is mocked (and which almost nobody really wants to represent). Examples that are cited are a far, far cry from real threats, abuse, violence, and even bullying. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

While I don't personally act like this online (or in person), and while I agree that Church members should be paragons of behavior in all their dealings, I also think that the examples @smac97 cited above from this message board, and even Deznat, almost never (as in, really almost never) rise to the level of "online violence," "bullying," "threatening," or "abuse." I think society (and many Church members) have lost their minds, sense of humor, and resiliency, and emulate "snowflake" behavior that is mocked (and which almost nobody really wants to represent). Examples that are cited are a far, far cry from real threats, abuse, violence, and even bullying. 

I encourage you to go take a second look at the thread to which I linked.  The individual in question had said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists" and that the rioters "have killed no one and only caused a few injuries."

In other words, he was endorsing and celebrating actual violence, not merely conjectural or hypothetical violence (though in a few places he felt that their violent behavior had been "counterproductive").

See, I find it hugely problematic to justify violence by arbitrarily attaching labels to the victims of such violence, particularly politically-motivated and/or mobocratic violence.  If a mob gets to arbitrarily call anyone they want a nazi or a fascist, and then physically assault that person based on that arbitrary labeling, then that is . . . bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 15, 2021 by smac97

[rongo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I encourage you to go take a second look at the thread to which I linked.  The individual in question had said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists" and that the rioters "have killed no one and only caused a few injuries."

In other words, he was endorsing and celebrating actual violence, not merely conjectural or hypothetical violence.

See, I find it hugely problematic to justify violence by labels, particularly politically-motivated and/or mobocratic violence.  If a mob gets to arbitrarily call anyone they want a nazi or a fascist, and then physically assault that person based on that arbitrary labeling, then that is . . . bad.

It exists, but it's rare --- and everyone recognizes bona fide calls for violence, as opposed to humor (mostly bad attempts) or hyperbole. It's the trying to lump the latter in with the former that I find to be non-resilient. And, ironically, to encourage more of the same as a means to "trigger the snowflakes" among those who are inclined to do that. 

[ttribe]

Leave it to SMac to use this as a blunt instrument to shame @The Nehor.

I wonder if Kwaku El and the other 'Midnight Mormons' will actually heed this counsel?   Hmmmmm.

[The Nehor]

Still okay with Nazis getting punched.

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I encourage you to go take a second look at the thread to which I linked.  The individual in question had said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists" and that the rioters "have killed no one and only caused a few injuries."

In other words, he was endorsing and celebrating actual violence, not merely conjectural or hypothetical violence (though in a few places he felt that their violent behavior had been "counterproductive").

See, I find it hugely problematic to justify violence by arbitrarily attaching labels to the victims of such violence, particularly politically-motivated and/or mobocratic violence.  If a mob gets to arbitrarily call anyone they want a nazi or a fascist, and then physically assault that person based on that arbitrary labeling, then that is . . . bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

NVM

Edited December 15, 2021 by Tacenda

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

I encourage you to go take a second look at the thread to which I linked.  The individual in question had said (speaking of Antifa rioters) that he "reserve{s} the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists" and that the rioters "have killed no one and only caused a few injuries."

In other words, he was endorsing and celebrating actual violence, not merely conjectural or hypothetical violence.

See, I find it hugely problematic to justify violence by labels, particularly politically-motivated and/or mobocratic violence.  If a mob gets to arbitrarily call anyone they want a nazi or a fascist, and then physically assault that person based on that arbitrary labeling, then that is . . . bad.

It exists, but it's rare --- and everyone recognizes bona fide calls for violence, as opposed to humor (mostly bad attempts) or hyperbole.

With respect, I disagree.  The BLM/Antifa riots resultsed in billions in property damage, thousands of injuries, and hundreds of deaths.  And these took place all over the country over many months.

And the participant on this board - a self-professed member of the Church - bragged about how he liked to "giggle" about what had happened during these riots.

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's the trying to lump the latter in with the former that I find to be non-resilient.

Not sure with "latter" and "former" mean here.  I also don't know what "non-resilient" means in this context.

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, ironically, to encourage more of the same as a means to "trigger the snowflakes" among those who are inclined to do that. 

Not sure what you mean by "encourage more of the same."

I'm not encouraging any violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 15, 2021 by smac97

[BRMC]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

While I don't personally act like this online (or in person), and while I agree that Church members should be paragons of behavior in all their dealings, I also think that the examples @smac97 cited above from this message board, and even Deznat, almost never (as in, really almost never) rise to the level of "online violence," "bullying," "threatening," or "abuse." I think society (and many Church members) have lost their minds, sense of humor, and resiliency, and emulate "snowflake" behavior that is mocked (and which almost nobody really wants to represent). Examples that are cited are a far, far cry from real threats, abuse, violence, and even bullying. 

I agree with this.  The handbook also says to call local authorities when this occurs.  I think in most of the cases people lose their minds about, local authorities would shrug off because they aren't real threats.   

That said, it is a call to temperance, which I certainly could adopt better.

[MorningStar]

Good! I know a moron who needs to be booted if he doesn't knock it off. He got a visit from the FBI and Secret Service (long story) after I reported his threats. He's a constant embarrassment to his family and not even his parents will talk to him. 

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Still okay with Nazis getting punched.

Sadly, I figured this.

And who are the "Nazis"?  Anyone that anyone else arbitrarily and/or summarily designates as such.

I am ashamed that a member of the Church is doing what you are doing.  That you are doing to after having received clear instruction from the Brethren only makes it worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

You could also lose your membership over these types of things

As you should.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Still okay with Nazis getting punched.

I admire your sticking to your guns. 

Just leave the punching to Antifa. Except that they punch anyone and everyone, which rather dilutes their utility in this realm.

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sadly, I figured this.

And who are the "Nazis"?  Anyone that anyone else arbitrarily and/or summarily designates as such.

I am ashamed that a member of the Church is doing what you are doing.  That you are doing to after having received clear instruction from the Brethren only makes it worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, Smac, don't get too stressed over it. He didn't say he was going to punch, just that he was OK with the punching. Punching by proxy, you could call it, and who isn't in favor of cheering on a good punching? 

Adolf Eichmann never harmed a single Jew in all his life. That he helped organize and carry out the Holocaust shouldn't have been held against him, right? 

ETA: You quoted him, so I guess you knew what button you were pushing. Nazis should be punched, of course, not for being Nazis but for committing actual crimes. Otherwise we're into thought-police territory. 1984 here we come, with posters of Big Brother on every street corner.

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

33 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Good! I know a moron who needs to be booted if he doesn't knock it off. He got a visit from the FBI and Secret Service (long story) after I reported his threats. He's a constant embarrassment to his family and not even his parents will talk to him. 

Do I know the gent?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I admire your sticking to your guns. 

Just leave the punching to Antifa. Except that they punch anyone and everyone, which rather dilutes their utility in this realm.

Wrong.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sadly, I figured this.

And who are the "Nazis"?  Anyone that anyone else arbitrarily and/or summarily designates as such.

I am ashamed that a member of the Church is doing what you are doing.  That you are doing to after having received clear instruction from the Brethren only makes it worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am ashamed that there are so many Nazis in the church. We all have our shame to bear.

[MiserereNobis]

Ol' Neville was also against punching Nazis, favoring instead peace for our time.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong.

Wrong? The occasions of Antifa egregiously punching non-Nazis are legion. Practically every act of violence committed by Antifa is against non-Nazis. 

Unless... our cities are densely populated by Nazis, thus necessitating Antifa's actions? Or, perhaps one could say that Antifa's Nazi-punching confers Nazihood, thus justifying them.

So, is that persistent target of Antifa, Andy Ngo, a Nazi, or just Nazi-adjacent?

Never mind. I expect that this thread will be locked in very short order, as it seems to be at least partly directed at you.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ol' Neville was also against punching Nazis, favoring instead peace for our time.

Yeah, but at least the Nazis he was not advocating punching were actual Nazis, as opposed to Antifa's Nazis, who are largely nonexistent.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am ashamed that there are so many Nazis in the church. We all have our shame to bear.

Can you name any?

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Can you name any?

Yes.

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Wrong? The occasions of Antifa egregiously punching non-Nazis are legion. Practically every act of violence committed by Antifa is against non-Nazis. 

Unless... our cities are densely populated by Nazis, thus necessitating Antifa's actions? Or, perhaps one could say that Antifa's Nazi-punching confers Nazihood, thus justifying them.

So, is that persistent target of Antifa, Andy Ngo, a Nazi, or just Nazi-adjacent?

Never mind. I expect that this thread will be locked in very short order, as it seems to be at least partly directed at you.

A Nazi. He has shown he is perfectly okay with violence as long as it is directed at the right people. He is a fascist and could use a few more punches.

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, but at least the Nazis he was not advocating punching were actual Nazis, as opposed to Antifa's Nazis, who are largely nonexistent.

Right. I was just defending the overall principle, not any specific application to Antifa's.

I am surprised at the direction of this thread. The OP pointed out great directions from the LDS leaders. Then the OP quoted a specific thread from long ago and used the current directions as evidence to bolster an old argument. That was unexpected, honestly, and rather personal, since the thread was long gone.

Did you lose in court this morning, smac?  

Edited December 15, 2021 by MiserereNobis