Church apologizes for Racism!

[Jeffret]

For the small good the church does, in reality it psychologically enslaves people of all races by its' cult-like doctrines.

"Enslaves" really is a poor word choice, poor comparison, or poor analogy in this case. It diminishes the violence that was commonly perpetuated in the all too real American institution of slavery.

Similarly using the word "rape" to describe things other than actual rape diminishes the violence of rape and can cause distress to actual rape survivors. Or witch-hunts, though the memory on that is not as sharp. Legally we have the Freedom of Speech to do so, but in my ethical framework I don't think it's a compassionate thing to do.

I wish that those TBMs of African descent today, whose ancestors were badly discriminated against in the past and even those who are current day converts, could see that something like the apology hoax, though distasteful, is really nothing compared to the great hoax of Mormonism in general.

All of us who were and are being taken advantage of by this corporation that calls itself a church should direct our anger to the real cause of our pain.

Again, legally you can do so. Personally, I don't believe that's something I can ethically expect or demand or anyone else. And I certainly don't have a right to expect that they would comply with such a demand. I'm not going to tell the faithful Mormons among my friends and family members that they should direct their anger at the Church. Or leave it. And I'm certainly not going to demand it of total strangers. I've been a NOM for far, far too long to insist that I know what is best for other people or to claim that the Mormon Church is always bad for people.

To speak of "oppressors" is to remember what it's like to be shushed when bringing up polygamy or Adam/God in a gospel doctrine or priesthood class. To be told that women should be obedient to their husbands in all things. To obey leadership no matter how stupid they are. To give time, money, and endless labor to an organization that constantly reminds you, "We can get along without you, if you disagree with us." The church can get along without anyone so pay up or you won't be a forever family. If you don't do what we say, you'll be in Satan's power. You'll be evil.

You're starting to edge into a discussion of kyriarchy.

[Palerider]

I'm glad you give me this opportunity to clarify my meaning, because that's definitely not what I meant to convey.

Perhaps, but you did say it. One would have to go far afield to try to understand it differently. The problem is certainly not just Mr. Streeters' free speech it's that you attempt to shut down everyone's.

In the part where you quoted me above, I admit that I spoke somewhat imprecisely. I was attempting to communicate more colloquially than precisely. I apologize for being unclear. Let me try re-phrasing it for more precision, though always limited by the inherent imprecision in human language.

Subject to the limitations I sketched above Streeter has the legal freedom to say what wants. I can say what I want. You can say what you want. Others can also. From a legal perspective, a more precise word choice in that part you bolded "get a voice to say" might be "gets to impose", such as, "Neither Streeter nor myself really gets to impose on anyone else how they feel.."

Precisely the point I have already made but you seem to ignore. No one is trying to tell someone "how to feel". But we do have the right to disagree with that feeling and to voice it if we want. Some may be more adept than others at doing that, but they still have the right.

In my own, personal ethical framework, I strongly feel that I don't have the ethical right to tell others, and particularly to demand, how they should feel, who they should be mad at, or to do things that cause them harm or distress.

Good for you.


He hasn't claimed that his Freedom of Speech was abridged. He issued what was apparently a heart-felt apology.

Still missing the point here. What I'm arguing is your usurpation of our rights to express an opinion. The truth is you may have the right to tell us we can't say anything but can only listen, but luckily under the Constitution we have the right to argue that point and to express our opinion as well. Do you see the difference?

[Palerider]

Uhh ... not really. That's the duality I was talking about.

Well, I'm glad you finally realized there was a duality existing in the conversation but I'm just disappointed that you didn’t realize that you created it. If you go back and read a little more carefully there are numerous times where I mentioned that offering a different opinion didn't "automatically make one an oppressor". As I tried to get through to you, it is much more complicated than that.

Remember when I said (paraphrasing), "Some people commit sins on purpose others make mistakes out of inexperience or ignorance"? It isn't either or. You shouldn't put all people in one category because they have offered an opinion. But you have made all who offer a contrary or uninformed opinion into oppressors or at a minimum unethical in your view because according to your earlier statements they do not have the right to speak their mind.

Perhaps you didn’t intend for it to come off that way but, I'm not the only one who felt it.

I think initially your intent was to nobley inform the majority of the incorrectness of telling minorities how they should feel about a given situation but in doing so you somewhat ham handedly oppressed the majority group's right to have a say.

I think the minority are grown ups. I think they can defend themselves just fine. Take yourself out from between the two groups and let them have an adult discussion on the merits of the ideas expressed.

[Jeffret]

Still missing the point here. What I'm arguing is your usurpation of our rights to express an opinion. The truth is you may have the right to tell us we can't say anything but can only listen, but luckily under the Constitution we have the right to argue that point and to express our opinion as well. Do you see the difference?

Why do you keep trying to deny my freedom of speech? Why do you keep trying to tell me what I can and cannot say?

[Jeffret]

Well, I'm glad you finally realized there was a duality existing in the conversation but I'm just disappointed that you didn’t realize that you created it. If you go back and read a little more carefully there are numerous times where I mentioned that offering a different opinion didn't "automatically make one an oppressor". As I tried to get through to you, it is much more complicated than that.

You really, really need to go back and read more carefully. That's the duality that I said doesn't exist. I never claimed it existed. I absolutely never said that offering a different opinion makes someone an oppressor. Go back and read it. The only one who mentioned "oppressor" was you.

[Jeffret]

Palerider, why are you so upset at Streeter?

[Mad Jax]

Similarly using the word "rape" to describe things other than actual rape diminishes the violence of rape and can cause distress to actual rape survivors. Or witch-hunts, though the memory on that is not as sharp. Legally we have the Freedom of Speech to do so, but in my ethical framework I don't think it's a compassionate thing to do.

Given the climate today, where in America there are no survivors of true witch hunts, do you think it's still an inappropriate metaphor? Sadly, there are witch hunts in other places of the world in 2018. I'm just asking in the context of living in the western world. For instance, do you think the play The Crucible diminished the meaning of witch hunts by comparing it to the HUAC? I'm not doing this as a call out, I'm genuinely curious.

[Jeffret]

I think the minority are grown ups. I think they can defend themselves just fine. Take yourself out from between the two groups and let them have an adult discussion on the merits of the ideas expressed.

How do you expect to accomplish that when you totally reject everything one side says?

[Jeffret]

Similarly using the word "rape" to describe things other than actual rape diminishes the violence of rape and can cause distress to actual rape survivors. Or witch-hunts, though the memory on that is not as sharp. Legally we have the Freedom of Speech to do so, but in my ethical framework I don't think it's a compassionate thing to do.

Given the climate today, where in America there are no survivors of true witch hunts, do you think it's still an inappropriate metaphor? Sadly, there are witch hunts in other places of the world in 2018. I'm just asking in the context of living in the western world. For instance, do you think the play The Crucible diminished the meaning of witch hunts by comparing it to the HUAC? I'm not doing this as a call out, I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not a member of the aggrieved group so I really don't feel like I can speak for them. (Others may feel that their Freedom of Speech grants them the rights to speak for other groups. Or to tell them what to do. I do not.) I'll take a stab at what I think, though I'm certainly willing to be corrected by a member of the aggrieved group.

As with pretty much everything, I think it varies. As you and I note, there aren't any real witch hunts occurring in the U.S.A. However, as you note, there are still witch hunts occurring in some parts of the world. (Article from Wikipedia: Modern witch-hunts.) It's entirely possible that there are people living in the U.S.A. who have been victimized by witch hunts.

Personally, I think that the term "witch-hunt" should be used cautiously, almost solely to refer to actual witch-hunts, which can be very vicious and violent. I mean that we can use the term to describe a witch hunt. However, if we use the term as a metaphor or analogy for something far less violent, we diminish the term and disregard the actual violent experiences some people have experienced (some in different places and some in different times).

When I mentioned witch-hunts earlier I was primarily thinking of men who have been accused of sexual assault and harassment who have called the allegations against them witch hunts. I'm unaware of any man in America who has been chased down by terrified mobs and killed because of these sorts of accusations. There is little comparison to the violence some women have faced in actual witch-hunts.

Regarding Arthur Miller's excellent play, "The Crucible", I believe he created a valuable representation without minimizing the real horrors. He created a story that doesn't shy away from or diminish the violence pressed upon the victims in the actual Salem witch trials. He had in mind his then-current climate of McCarthyism and it's certainly possible to draw out some parallels. He brings us face to face with the violence and in some ways heightens it.

Here a couple of excellent articles on the topic:
Is sexual harassment just a witch hunt now? That’s absurd, and here’s why.

NO, #METOO IS NOT A WITCH HUNT

[Palerider]

Still missing the point here. What I'm arguing is your usurpation of our rights to express an opinion. The truth is you may have the right to tell us we can't say anything but can only listen, but luckily under the Constitution we have the right to argue that point and to express our opinion as well. Do you see the difference?

Why do you keep trying to deny my freedom of speech? Why do you keep trying to tell me what I can and cannot say?

I think this is beneath you. You know very well that's not what this says. I really don't want to question your literacy or comprehension skills but I feel like I'm being forced to.

[Palerider]

Palerider, why are you so upset at Streeter?

Where do I say that??? This is a wild inference.

[Palerider]

I think the minority are grown ups. I think they can defend themselves just fine. Take yourself out from between the two groups and let them have an adult discussion on the merits of the ideas expressed.

How do you expect to accomplish that when you totally reject everything one side says?

Again with a blanket assumption not verified by anything I have written. As a matter of fact if you would go back and read carefully I think you would find that I agreed with quite a bit of what you have written.

[Palerider]

Well, I'm glad you finally realized there was a duality existing in the conversation but I'm just disappointed that you didn’t realize that you created it. If you go back and read a little more carefully there are numerous times where I mentioned that offering a different opinion didn't "automatically make one an oppressor". As I tried to get through to you, it is much more complicated than that.

You really, really need to go back and read more carefully. That's the duality that I said doesn't exist. I never claimed it existed. I absolutely never said that offering a different opinion makes someone an oppressor. Go back and read it. The only one who mentioned "oppressor" was you.

So let me ask you:

If a member of the oppressed or aggrieved group has an opinion about where their pain has come from and I listen to their opinion, even acknowledge that I can see why they might think that way, but state my own opinion that perhaps they are incorrect in their assumption, am I acting in an oppressive manner according to you by stating my opinion? Because you have stated that I have no right to do so. Am I therefore an oppressor or am I just politically incorrect? Or is your implication that I should cowardly bury my own convictions and be a bobble head doll?

What is that saying about how evil thrives when good men do nothing?

You insist that you are unqualified to make judgments and that you make it a study not to do so and yet you have repeatedly judged me to be in error in this thread. Who really is the person who is disagreeing with and mis-stating everything the other side is saying?

[Palerider]

As an aside, I'd like to recommend a documentary by Janks Morton called "What black men think" for anyone who's still paying any attention to this sad thread.

I think you would find it very enlightening. Some hard language but worth it in the end.

[Jeffret]

If a member of the oppressed or aggrieved group has an opinion about where their pain has come from and I listen to their opinion, even acknowledge that I can see why they might think that way

Have you done that? In this particular instance. If you have I have definitely missed it.

(I'm going to be running really low on time again and very limited in my ability to reply. )

[Jeffret]

Why do you keep trying to deny my freedom of speech? Why do you keep trying to tell me what I can and cannot say?

I think this is beneath you. You know very well that's not what this says. I really don't want to question your literacy or comprehension skills but I feel like I'm being forced to.

You keep trying to tell me what I can and cannot say. How is that not trying to deny my Freedom of Speech?

(According to your definitions)

[Jeffret]

How do you expect to accomplish that when you totally reject everything one side says?

Again with a blanket assumption not verified by anything I have written. As a matter of fact if you would go back and read carefully I think you would find that I agreed with quite a bit of what you have written.

I've read back over it and I can't find it.

(More importantly the other side I was referring to doesn't include myself. It does include articles or quotes I've shared from others in the groups.)

[Mad Jax]

When I mentioned witch-hunts earlier I was primarily thinking of men who have been accused of sexual assault and harassment who have called the allegations against them witch hunts. I'm unaware of any man in America who has been chased down by terrified mobs and killed because of these sorts of accusations. There is little comparison to the violence some women have faced in actual witch-hunts.

It's a stretch, I think, but sex offenders are routinely murdered in prison in brutal fashion. There are a lot of falsely convicted people, so sex offenders are certainly among them. It's not mob mentality in the same way. It doesn't qualify as a witch hunt. Nevertheless, it is a situation where men do face violence from false accusations of sexual abuse. Very indirect, but people will stretch those kinds of arguments.

[Palerider]

Have you done that? In this particular instance. If you have I have definitely missed it.

(I'm going to be running really low on time again and very limited in my ability to reply. )

That's fine if you missed it, I wouldn't expect you to have been present throughout my life's history.

Don't worry about running low on time, the conversation has become pretty much a waste of time anyway.

As I said before, I think we just have a difference of opinion here.

[Palerider]

How do you expect to accomplish that when you totally reject everything one side says?

Again with a blanket assumption not verified by anything I have written. As a matter of fact if you would go back and read carefully I think you would find that I agreed with quite a bit of what you have written.

I've read back over it and I can't find it.

Keep trying, I bet you can do this if you use all your powers of concentration. Kind of tired of holding your hand here.... you're big, you can do this.