If you have to ban somebody over religious differences, it is probably a good idea to wait until the debate about what constitutes a bad religion is over.
When you argue that religion provides a special path to the truth, you are not helping yourself by prohibiting your rhetorical opponent’s speech. You see, people who have a measure of truth can defend their position on the merit of the argument.
So when you shut them up with prohibitions, you demonstrate your ignorance more conclusively than any advocate ever could.
I appreciate your frustration. When Ronan dangled the carrot of “reasonable” religious “truth” in front of you, you got all excited at the prospect of an intellectual justification of religious truth claims. It is unfortunate this expectation had to be disappointed because Ronan misinterpreted the work of Peter Vardy, which rests on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. I was the proverbial bearer of bad news who assumed that his Christian friends were tougher.
I regret that you banned me because I like those of you that I know and it pains me that you would embarrass yourselves and our community in that way.
It is doubly unfortunate since I found out about your ban when I posted the following comment that now languishes in your moderation cue:
The Book of Mormon is actually a lot stronger than the Vardy of this post.
One can reasonably argue that something like the light of Christ empowers our imagination to capture the noumenon but that is something quite different from experience.
The light of Christ would be a rational asset that makes properly sense of our observations.
Mormonism has considerable resources to be a force for good. We don’t need to misread Peter Vardis to find them.
For my part, I will continue to consider you friends, although I must admit that that would be easier if your actions would not contradict your words quite so obviously.
Is this bizarro week at MSP or something?
” I leave Mormonism and the Bloggernacle in your capable hands. Its all good, right? FML.”
FML is new for me. Now I know. I now also now the stupider might actually be a real word.
Funny thing is that the respectable folks in the bloggernacle seem to think that my tactics are not effective. If you storm off from commenting on the ‘nacle and doing your MSP thing, you will have proved them wrong…and me right. I do not mind.
That said, threatening to leave certain blogging circles during a tense post is common. I have done it twice. You will be back.
Brad, you might want to reread what you said about Kant:
You want to dish it out but you can’t take it. You want to call people on the carpet but you won’t take responsibility for your actions. Mote and beam, anyone?
Your behavior is displaying the classical hallmarks of a bully. I hope that you will present yourself in a better light when your anger will no longer suppress your reasoning skills. You will find that manners will help in this regard as well.
Chris, lets give Chino some space, please.
Saying Kant is too often invoked by people who don’t comprehend him qualifies as arrogantly dismissing him? Does that kind of interpretive rigor obtain in the logical universe that led you to conclude that you were disinvited from participation at BCC because Ronan and/or his cronies were intimidated by devastating light that your mastery of Kantian categories cast upon our pitifully transparent efforts to coral the great German thinker into some kind of half-assed effort at Mormon apologetics?
“Oh no, Hellmut’s about to expose our little charade. I can’t stop him. His knowledge of Kant is just. too. powerful. Quick, BAN HIM!!!”
In all seriousness, I’m not criticizing the validity of any of your arguments about Kantian metaphysics. I really couldn’t care less what you do or don’t understand about the topic. But next time I need a lesson in manners or in not letting anger interfere with the use of pure reason, I’ll be sure to look up the author of this post.
Ms. Jack, I agree that you’ve explained yourself already. I’m sorry that it got brought up again, and I’m doubly sorry to have implied that you need to add more about it here.
So, why were his comments (and other related comments) sent to circular file? In all honestly, it kind of did look like you guys were saying “Oh, no, Hellmut made us look stupid — shut him up!!” If that’s not the case, then this is a misunderstanding, and we can work it out calmly. I agree that the drama surrounding this minor incident has been pretty out-of-proportion.
Kaimi, I appreciate your wit, and I’m glad to see you here. I have to admit that I’m little disappointed to see you come by just participate in the drama thread, and not in our friendlier discussions.
Same to any others who have come by to gloat and revel in the drama of “bizarro week at MSP” — I’ll ask you nicely not to, thanks.
No, it doesn’t, Brad. But saying that Kant is the “most over-cited and under-comprehended thinker in the history of western metaphysics” is dismissing the relevance of his work and his ability to express himself clearly.
As for my arguments about Kant and Vardy, they were narrowly focused on the meaning of the words. Any larger challenge that you are reading into my words is an imaginative leap.
>So, why were his comments (and other related comments) sent to circular file? In all honestly, it kind of did look like you guys were saying Oh, no, Hellmut made us look stupid shut him up!!
That’s a good question and deserves an answer.
None of Hellmut’s comments were deleted, so if he made us (=me) look stupid, BCC has let that stand for all eternity, or at least until al-Qaeda sets off their EMP. After an initial rash and rude response, for which I subsequently apologised, I accepted Hellmut’s correction and made another effort at summarising Vardy. I think, if you are fair, that there is no evidence here for BCC censoring Hellmut’s intelligent explication of Kant. I also expressed my dismay to Hellmut at this post here at MSP — which I think to be unfair — but did so privately.
So why has he been banned? Those who hold the bannination stick at BCC would be best placed to answer that, but I can honestly say that this spat is not the foundational cause. I imagine that it has something to do with what is believed to be both Hellmut’s stance towards Mormonism and his efforts to promote the same online. I highly doubt whether any further correspondence on this matter will be entered into, however. Such is BCC’s fascism. I have opposed our banning habits in the past, towards Hellmut among others, but now find it’s not really worth my energy. BCC doesn’t like the DAMU — that’s about the sum of it really. You are free to dislike us too. But please, leave Kant out of it. As I think I have explained, this really has nothing to do with that ol’ Koenigsberger and suggestions that it does are silly.
Brad, I appreciate your concerns for Ronan. Let me try one more time to put your concerns to rest by decoding the text carefully. You complain:
I appreciate that. I wouldn’t want to see that happen to my friend either. Lets check if that actually happened.
If you look at my text, you will see that the first three paragraphs do not mention anyone’s name. Instead, I am using the personal pronoun, second person, “you.” I mention Ronan for the first and only time in paragraph four.
Let me suggest that burying Ronan’s name in the fourth paragraph deemphasizes his prominence in this affair. There’s more evidence in support of that claim.
When I invoke Ronan, I juxtapose his name with the pronoun “you.”
If Ronan is dangling the carrot in the front of you then the pronoun must apply to somebody other than Ronan.
This becomes even more clear here:
I say that I consider you friends, which is plural, the singular would be friend. I am not talking about an individual but a group. Assuming that Ronan does not yet use the royal we and given that he is an individual, that sentence does not apply to him as an individual.
I am speaking to whoever banned me and to the people who are associated with that decision, in other words, the editors and authors of BCC. According to the rules of grammar, that affects Ronan only insofar as he is a member of that group.
If Ronan or anyone else wants to dissociate himself from the self-destructive foolishness, there are any number of ways to do that. BCC authors could speak out. They could leave BCC in protest or anything in between.
Let me point out, Brad, that is actually what I did when an individual on a message board ridiculed John F for weeks on end. The perpetrator was not even a member of my team but merely somebody I talked to.
After appealing to the offender several times privately, I left that forum with the statement that I could not be associated with people who insult my friends or human beings generally.
I am not saying that to brag but since you are repeatedly accusing me of hypocrisy, it would be nice if you could understand that I am actually trying to walk the talk.
The people who really humiliated Ronan are the individuals who interfered in his work by banning a friend who had annoyed them. I don’t allow my friends to treat me like you guys have treated Ronan. What you have done to him is worse than what you have done to me or anything that I have done. As Ronan’s friend, you should be ashamed of yourself and for your peers.
If you really want to defend him, you need to go to BCC and confront the people who are undermining the integrity of his work.
Thank you for your forthright response, Ronan, which I largely accept. Let me take exception to one point.
I am afraid there is. Because BCC banned me in the middle of a debate, I could no longer respond to other people’s replies.
As a humanist you must realize that context matters, in this particular case, in more than one way.
Let me sharpen that, Ronan. Actually, there is little evidence that I was banned for anything other than my role in the Kant debate.
I can understand that people are frustrated with me but I would be surprised to learn that I showed up at BCC more than five days in 2010.
As for the recent posts, there was my remark about fiscal disclosure and transparency. In 1984, you would have been allowed to say that in Pravda about the Soviet Union but you can’t say that on BCC? That’s just not plausible. You guys would have to have a thin skin indeed.
So the preponderance of the evidence is that somebody lost it over the Kant debate.
Hellmut,
This tendency to compare the comment policies of some tiny little Mormon blogs with 1984 or the Soviet Union is perhaps a little dramatic. Your clarification about Kant was duly noted and, once I’d cooled down, accepted. Hardly the actions of Pravda.
BCC tends to ban ardent DAMU-ites. Your reappearance on threads about “bad religion”, including a comment which quite innocently (not) took a swipe at LDS finances, simply put you back in the frame (or not, as it happens). But look, BCC vs. the DAMU is an argument we have had for years and I can’t be bothered with it this peaceful Sunday afternoon. Let’s leave it be and be happy in our own corners of the internet. BCC is a faithful Mormon blog; MSP has a banner image with Joseph Smith being visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just don’t think we can get along.
I’m guessing the Kant thing was just a proverbial straw, and I believe Ronan was not the instigator and was likely a defender. I think BCC would happily ban all known DAMU participants, they’ve certainly never been coy about that fact. It’s not personal, it’s who you associate with.
wry,
I’m not going to be dishonest. I was angry at what I perceived to be Hellmut’s condescending “corrections” and so had him mod-ed so I could craft my catty comment in peace. This was not very mature behaviour and I apologised, retracted, and revised. However, you are right: this then became the proverbial straw for the BCC powers-that-be to keep another ardent DAMU-ite off the blog. I can’t say that this policy makes me feel warm and fuzzy; however, I have come to realise that the bannination stick may be all that has kept BCC a relatively safe place for faithful Mormons to gather. It’s blunt and it hurts some people and I’m sorry about that. It may not be Kantian (!), but I think Bentham would understand, and I am, after all, an Englishman. Now please, there’s cricket to watch.
Ronan, it is very big of you to make this admission. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed, unless anyone here would like to apologize for turning what might have been a simple misunderstanding into an unfortunate fight.
“As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed”
Which is not to say that the topic is banned or the comments closed. 😉
Thanks, Ronan. I don’t think there has been any misunderstanding at all.
On a different topic, notice, the Pravda comment was about the absurdity of the situation, not the identification of one medium and the other.
Wry, not at all. It’s just my personal opinion (as a semi-bystander) that all of the points in this he-said-he-said have been thoroughly covered, and no further clarification is needed (or helpful). If everybody wants to kiss and make up (and bring Chino back, dammit!!) I would be totally down with that. 😉
I apologize for only commenting on the drama thread, Chanson. I clicked over from Jason’s link on FB because with a comment like that, how can you not? But yes, I ought to participate more around here, you have some fine folks.
It is hard not to respond to my comments…though ignoring me appears not to be a difficult.
Hey there, Chris, how’s it going?
Well, thanks. I have enjoyed the thread.
Kaimi — Perfectly understandable. I look forward to seeing more of you around here! 😀
Chris — I’m glad you enjoyed the thread. I guarantee your contribution was not ignored or unnoticed.
chanson,
I was just poking at Kaimi.
Oh, OK. Sorry.
Wow, that was weird. I’m calm now, if slightly embarrassed that I let Henrichsen get under my skin. Sorry for the sideshow.
If it makes you feel better… Millennial Star has banned me as of today. Maybe you and Geoff B. can work together on the issue of dealing with me.
Love,
Christopher Todd Henrichsen
I can say thus far, that I have the dubious honor of having been banned about three times – but never anywhere important.
OK, that was really just a token comment to email subscribe to the thread. Carry on.
SANIMA, Seth.
Chino, I am glad that you are feeling better. It was a harsh thing and you had every right to feel hurt.
Really, Chris? Why did they ban you?
The conventional wisdom has it that the Internet is creating echo chambers of like minded people. Mormon blogs, however, have to beat other types of Mormons away with a stick.
Perhaps, it’s because we are all member missionaries.
I earned it. I more or less told Geoff B what I think of him. We have been through this before. My favorite part of getting moderated is that I can continue to make comments that only the permas will see. Uncensored in a different way.
SANIMA?
I feel bad because I’ve never been banned anywhere. I think I shall take up trolling for a few days so I can see what it feels like.
Smiling and Nodding In Mild Agreement, Seth. A mild form of LOL.
Hey, Wry! I didn’t troll anywhere. Substantive, rational, and polite contributions will do the trick. We are talking about Mormonism, after all, where people think that transparency for non-profit organizations ought to be a taboo.
It’s not too hard wry.
All you really have to do is persistently play devil’s advocate on a forum where exmormons are trying to have a “therapy session” and don’t welcome being contradicted. People who are trying to lick each other’s wounds often don’t appreciate the guy who comes in calling for people to be reasonable.
You’ll be banned eventually.
The only blog or Web site that I have been banned from in the past decade is . . . By Common Consent.
They removed the ban later the same day. Still, congratulations, BCC. You’re one of a kind.
I do think Ronan has a good point re: MSP and its “flying spaghetti monster” banner. I think we all know that I don’t believe in the First Vision or the historicity of the Book of Mormon any more than the ex-Mormons here do, but some of those headers are seriously lacking in class. If inviting friendly discussion from believing Mormons is one of your goals, that is the wrong way to go about it.
Seth — I don’t think it’s so much a Mormon/ex-Mormon thing. There are just some sites where people won’t tolerate being contradicted.
Jack — Good point. Even if we mean it as a joke, we shouldn’t necessarily be starting off on the “Hey, can’t you take a joke?!” foot if we want a reasonable discussion. I think most of the banner images are OK, but maybe we should think twice about the FSM one.
People who are trying to lick each others wounds often dont appreciate the guy who comes in calling for people to be reasonable.
I’m pretty sure that’s not why we sometimes fail to appreciate Seth R., or the role he plays.
Showing up and demanding that someone summarize a bunch of comments for you because there are just too many for you to read, for instance, or because you’d have to make a few extra mouse clicks, is not the behavior of the guy who comes in calling for people to be reasonable.
Out of curiosity, has Seth R ever been banned here? Can he really speak to what it takes to get one’s commenting privileges revoked, even temporarily, at MSP?
chanson, personally, the only ones that strike me as being in poor taste are FSM and the “no archaeological evidence” one. I think all the others are fine.
Holly, Seth wasn’t talking about MSP.
I know that my contribution has not been positive on this thread, but I think that Jack makes a good point about those two banners.
Hellmut, I would never call you a troll, you are far from it. I just figured, for me, it would be the fastest way to get banned. And really, I don’t want to invest all the years you have into building credibility, trust, rationality and friendships, only to get shut out all the sudden. Kinda sucks. 🙁
Ms. Jack — I’ve been thinking about your comment all the way home, and the funny thing is that I came up with a slightly different pair. I was going to say the FSM-first-vision and the baptism one. (Though I’d hate to give up the baptism one, because I think it’s hilarious!) But both of those are just randomly mocking moments that Mormons hold sacred, hence I could see how they could easily be interpreted as “In your face, Mormons!” — which isn’t the message we mean to send.
As far as the archaeological evidence is concerned, that’s not really a sacred point. Plenty of Mormons have sought the evidence, and most Internet Mormons are aware that the archaeological evidence is a big problem for the BoM (hence openly discuss other ways of having faith in the BoM). So on some level, it seems like it it’s not a big deal to joke about.
However, that’s just my one opinion. Anyone else out there have an opinion on this? Should we reconsider some of the more questionable banners? And, if so, which ones?
I hadn’t even seen the baptism one (I think I was always scrolled down at the wrong moment). Okay, that one is now #2 on my list.
I could weigh in further on why I disliked the archaeological evidence one, but in honesty, you should probably let your believing Mormon readers weigh in.
No, don’t get rid of any the banners. OK, they mock others’ beliefs. But they don’t say anything about the ontological or metaphysical ramifications of holding those beliefs. Not a one of them is as offensive as the insistence that you must hold certain beliefs to be acceptable to god.
the basic Mormon position that “Unless you think and act as we do, you will exist in spiritual darkness, and God will therefore deny you blessings in this life and the next,” denigrates the beliefs, choices and actions of everyone who isn’t Mormon. It is “questionable” in a way that the banners here never can be. So until TBM sites renounce that position entirely, I don’t think MSP should get rid of something that makes so many of its longtime participants smile.
Holly — That’s a valid point, and I want to be sure to emphasize the following: Our primary constituency here is the exmo community — not pandering to stray, offended believers.
That said:
True, yet I would rather hold MSP up to a higher standard. So the other guys are offensive — so what? That doesn’t mean we have to lower ourselves to that level or even close.
To me, this is just a simple little thing like ProfXM changing his name from “exmoron”. It was such an annoying distraction to have to debate it with the TBMs that came by that it was easier just to change it.
p.s. I deleted your comment where you mentioned a punctuation correction (after making the correction). I don’t think that deletion will automatically redirect your further comments to the moderation queue, but email me if it does, and I’ll fix it.
yet I would rather hold MSP up to a higher standard. So the other guys are offensive so what? That doesnt mean we have to lower ourselves to that level or even close.
That’s my point: We’re already at a much higher standard. Our basic position is: believe what you want. The universe won’t treat you any differently; you won’t be punished or rewarded for all eternity, so it’s entirely your choice. But here’s a funny drawing that explains how we see one of the fundamental myths we were taught during our stint as believing Mormons.
That is a higher standard. And I get tired of being told that our higher standard is actually a lower standard.
OK, the FSM one is probably kind of blasphemous, but I think that’s a good thing. I don’t like sacred cows. Anyway, if that’s too much for someone, I doubt that they’ll feel very comfortable here anyway. MSP is never going to be a warm fuzzy place for the more strait-laced kind of TBM.
OTOH, I think the archaeology one is clever and funny on both an ex-mo and mo level. (I.e., if those guys really existed, who knows but that they might have said something like that? 😉 )
The baptism one is probably no worse than the stuff Matsby does. Besides, it’s making fun of the picture, not of baptism. (Remember, a picture of Jesus isn’t Jesus.)
Holly — True, it already is a higher standard.
To me, a couple of them look like they might possibly be laughing at Mormons (not with them) and then saying “What? Can’t you take a joke?” And I hate it when people do that. But maybe I’m misinterpreting.
Kuri — That is an excellent point that it’s making fun of the picture — which is actually a pretty dang funny painting (that is not central to anyone’s faith).
I could just as well argue that the people at BCC are already living a higher standard because they don’t have banners making fun of ex-Mormons. Who cares if they ban a few of you just for the hell of it?
Anyways, this is a site for an intended audience other than me (story of my life) and I realize that my opinion only counts for so much, so do what you like. I just know that if an ex-Christian site had a banner of Raptor Jesus or LOLs photoshopped onto famous Protestant artwork, you wouldn’t get me to touch it with a ten-foot pole.