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.
Aw Chino, that’s so sweet!! Of course you know very well that MSP needs you at least as much as you need MSP. I think we’ve got a really great variety of different personality types and perspective here. 😀
Awww, he loves us enough to still take a jab at FPR. Warm fuzzies all around.
Chris H. — All in good fun among friends. “Only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about,” I always say. 😉
Chris H. – After observing your SOP in the ‘nacle, I’m curious as to your thoughts re the endgame.
As I mentioned at FPR, you seem to enjoy running interference for your co-religionists.
E.g., it’s apparently off-limits to openly discuss BYU prof Ralph Hancocks dark outlook over at Times & Seasons, because, well, hes a friend of yours.
And discussing editorial decisions at Patheos.com is also off-limits because, well, the gatekeepers are also your friends.
Not to mention your efforts at Clobberblog.com to characterize any discussion of Ardis Parshall’s antics as no more than unseemly dogpiling.
C’mon.
Whether it’s Ralph, Ben, Ardis, or me … we’re all grown-ups and I think we either speak for ourselves, or we don’t.
Let the chips fall and let the mantle pass to someone else. You were always already too smart and over-qualified for it anyways. Take it from a friend, chief of B.E.D. (Bloggernacle Enforcement Division) was never gonna be a good fit for you.
Not that I don’t understand why you dislike me. I’ve got a good 20+ years left in me and I intend to become the Julian Assange of Mormonism before punching out.
@ Chino – “the Julian Assange of Mormonism” ? That made me laugh while nodding my head in agreement. It occurs to me that I’ve thought of you that way for awhile now, though until this moment I didn’t have the right words for it. 🙂
Chino, if Chris H. thought that we were dog piling on Ardis, I would agree with that.
Well, snicker at my expense, but for awhile now, I’ve been hanging out at MSP hoping to find a Lisbeth Salander to join me. I guess we’ll see what happens once the 501(c)(3) is in place and the way forward becomes something to discuss offline at our undisclosed Scandinavian location.
Hellmut — Perhaps. But I also agree with Chino that Ardis is more than capable of taking care of herself and answering for her own posts. Ardis is a smart lady who has earned a huge following — not a little wilting flower, scared of the big, bad Internet.
My thanks to Chris, John C., John F., and Ronan for coming over here. The part that I don’t understand is if I am civil and usually constructive, why was I banned?
I understand that my arguments can be uncomfortable but, surely, that shouldn’t be a reason to ban someone.
Hellmut, I’m confident we’ll be in agreement once you’ve read this thread over at Ms. Jack’s place:
http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=4108
And, yeah, you’ve got every right to wonder why you were banned in the first place. That’s the nub at this point, as far as I’m concerned. Noumenal, phenomenal, empirical … whatever. The reality is that the stock in trade at both MSP and BCC is liminal.
And the point is that some folks prefer that the club house keep its back door locked.
Chino, my ‘snicker’ was one of delight (in case that wasn’t clear!). I will confess that I don’t agree with you all the time, but there are few people anywhere for whom I have more unqualified respect. 🙂
As for your Gadianton hideout, I wasn’t sure what to expect: mid-century modern? Ice hotel? Treehouse?
The place looks, er … cool. And I hope you find your Lisbeth. (Though I would hope not to see a “Salander Letter.”)
Does not a 51 comment post crapping on Ardis count as a dog pile? I am not opposed to dogpiles, I was just calling it what it was.
Chris H. — Perhaps so. The point is that you’re not a mod at clobberblog. There are plenty of blogs and sites that have themes and policies that are (in my own personal opinion) pretty crappy. But I like the variety on the Internet. I think there’s value in having lots of different types of venues, even ones that I would never run that way myself.
p.s. I’m just trying to help clarify Chino’s comment, but perhaps I shouldn’t — Chino’s a big boy too. 😉
I have no further judgements or remarks on other people’s behavior on other people’s blogs. If Ms. Jack and/or Ardis have anything to add at this point, they’re welcome to join in the meta-discussion. 😉
SOP? Not sure what that is.
I have not endgame. You are clear what your agenda is. I am not quite so driven.
I have never said that anything is off-limits. I will just come hitting on somethings. I figure you can take it.
I know that all of those people can speak for themselves. Never said they could not. Chino, you would sell out anyone and anything to achieve your endgame. I do not think you could possibly understand what I do and why I do it. My co-bloggers at FPR seem to welcome your contribution. I defer to them. If they can tolerate me, I guess they can tolerate anyone.
All of my interactions with Hellmut and chanson have been positive. However, Chino has always seemed to be the dominant voice around here.
Hellmut, I cannot explain why BCC does what it does. They do like to keep tight control on things. While this has a downside, it also makes BCC what it is.
What?? Sure, he provides lots of great content here, but who is the one who is neurotically driven to jump in at the slightest whiff of incivility or unconstructiveness? Not Chino, I say! 😉
Ok, ok, I think with that it’s time for me to step away from the keyboard for the night. G’night folks! 😀
SLK – When push comes to shove, expect to find me here:
Chris H.: SOP = Standard Operating Procedure
And yeah, I dish it out, so it’d be pathetic if I couldn’t stand up and take it, so …
Setting your ad hominems aside, for the purposes of discussion …
Perhaps you could expound a bit more on my agenda …
Or maybe explain how your truculence somehow serves the purposes of the restored gospel.
If you’ve got something to say, you and the entire bloggernacle are welcome to post here any time at your leisure. Or if you’d just like to drop by with comments, rest assured, they’ll never be censored.
It’s not my fault that you and your friends can’t return the favor.
When I have I ever censored you? Oh…wait…you are lumping the bloggernacle together as a monolith. As I recall, this is not appreciated when done to the “DAMU.”
“Or maybe explain how your truculence somehow serves the purposes of the restored gospel.”
I am sure that it does not. Never claimed that it did.
No need to set my ad hominems aside. I stand by them.
P.S.: Good grief.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? I don’t even know you except for our online exchanges here and elsewhere.
I take that back then.
Yes, Chino, people in that thread were totally reasonable. I am just concerned about people’s personal issues.
Lets just say, some personalities thrive on criticism and it is harder for others. In that sense, I very much appreciate Chris’s point.
“A gentleman would not ridicule an opponent, much less a friend, and an intellectual would not resort to personal attacks during an academic dispute.”
Says the chap who ran full speed to Main Street Plaza to grab a placard and a megaphone and then proceeded to publicly slag off a person who has been a consistent ally, defender, and friend (and then brazenly proceeding to reassure your readers that you still consider the object of your bitch-slap to be a friend). Don’t worry, though. Because here we’re engaged in an epic battle for Truth and Reason, in which two bloggers will settle the question once and for all of which one is more egregious in his simplistic misreading of the most over-cited and under-comprehended thinker in the history of western metaphysics. Seriously, Hellmut—you’re claiming some sort of moral high ground when it comes to pettiness after trying to turn a technical debate over Kantian terminology (which you in no way attempted to press into the service of pissing on the Mormon Church…) into some sort of intramural mock duel or a Junior-Smart-Guy Philosophy 101 penis-measuring contest?
Ronan might be guilty of misreading some guy’s misreading of Immanuel effing Kant, but trust me, there are worse things a man can be guilty of.
Hellmut, maybe you need to take a step back and maybe even get on the phone with your friend.
Chris H. is a head case. Ronan, on the other hand, has always struck me as a decent fellow.
I swear, MSP is such an echols chamber lately.
🙂
I am sorry, Brad. You need to reread my post. I will be glad to take responsibility for my actions. You are responsible for your imagination.
When you are ready for an honest argument, feel free to make your point.
“Chris H. is a head case.”
True. I am clinically diagnosed as such.
Chino, Chris H. certainly has a head on his shoulders and a fine one at that. I am not sure what I am supposed to do about that.
I would just ask that we not use Kant’s name in vain.
Don’t worry, Chris. I have it on good authority that Immanuel would be delighted. I might even be able to put in a plug for a guest post on FPR.
Back away slowly, Kaimi. Hellmut didn’t deserve to get banned from BCC. I didn’t earn Chris H.’s scorn. But somehow the believers are now showing up en masse to cheer on some dnouement that I fear involves the collapse of the MSP franchise. Rosebud.
On second thought, Brad, I apologize for being short with you. I am actually grateful for your visit and your comment, which I consider an indication of courage.
I also have to say, however, that your remark is unreasonable because the meaning that you attribute to my words is not in the text. It is also uncivil because you resort to a plethora of personal attacks and gutter language instead of advancing a substantive argument that would actually address my criticism.
I will deal with your post point by point throughout the day.
Err, huh?
On issues of banning, I generally agree. And on the question of why “somehow the believers are now showing up en masse,” I suggest that you check out the MSP twitter feed: “And invites faithful Mormon fans to drop by for a cordial chat. 3 days ago”
Oh, and Chris H. ought to lay off of the wacky tobacky. “Chino, you would sell out anyone and anything to achieve your endgame”? Sheesh.
Hey Kaimi,
Thanks for following our tweets, but you’ve apparently landed on the wrong thread.
It happens.
Here’s where that particular tweet (that you mention) actually leads:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/2010/12/01/open-thread-faithful-mormons/
Enjoy!
I’m aware of that, Chino. 🙂
I’m just saying that it strikes me as a little odd to invite Mormons to drop on by for a chat, and then in a comment on the _very next posted thread_, all of three days later, to complain that there are too many damn Mormons around the place.
That’s all. Otherwise, carry on.
This post isn’t any louder or any more public than the initial discussion on BCC. In terms of publicity, we are continuing at the same level. Only the venue has changed.
BCC chose to ban me during a discussion about an essay that bears Ronan’s name. Therefore, there is, unfortunately, no way to describe the events without mentioning him.
At no point did I say that Ronan banned me. The fact that he finds himself in this position is the fault of the people who banned me. Personally, I would not allow my peers to put me into this situation and whoever did that to Ronan treated him inconsiderately and ought to apologize to him.
I also did not “slag off” Ronan. I did ridicule the editors of BCC for their self-defeating foolish abuse of power.
I don’t know who deserves the blame. My feeling is that the responsible thing to do is to dissociate oneself from abusive and foolish behavior and some of them have done so, however tepidly.
With respect to your condescending remarks about Kant, you are not doing yourself a favor. Dismissing him so arrogantly, you are only hurting yourself when you are displaying a staggering amount of arrogance and ignorance.
I suspect that you are actually smarter than that. You are probably too angry to approach this matter rationally and civilly.
Mormonism is worth an epic battle or another but figuring out what Kant meant when he used the term phenomenon is not one of them. It is actually a fairly simple matter with little ambiguity where well meaning people can achieve agreement in a matter of minutes.
I do regret that I did not find a kinder way to explain the matter. I just did not consider the matter consequential beyond the narrow matter of a book review. It does not even have much mileage regarding Mormonism.
To the best of my knowledge, this would be the first time that close reading and careful reasoning are a moral failing. People call me to task for spectacular mistakes in Internet discussions at least once a quarter. Yes, it’s embarrassing but that’s not the fault of my critiques. It’s my fault if I advance bad arguments.
It’s also my benefit when people catch me, call me out, and correct me. They are providing a service to me that is well worth the embarrassment for which only I am to blame.
O yeah, I totally agree. That’s why I did not argue that it was a personal failure, just a technical mistake that can be easily remedied, especially, when you can benefit from open and relevant discussion with your peers.
Actually, Chris H’s comment raises interesting philosophical questions, doesn’t it?
Assuming that it’s true that Chino would sell out “anyone and anything” to achieve his endgame — err, isn’t the category of “anyone and anything” sufficiently broad so as to include “Chino’s endgame”? And if that’s the case, would Chino sell out his endgame in order to achieve his endgame?
This goes with the old chestnut, “could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?”
“Oh, and Chris H. ought to lay off of the wacky tobacky.”
Oh, and Kaimi W. should go to hell.
“Ronan, on the other hand, has always struck me as a decent fellow.”
On this, Chino and I agree. I am sure Ronan would be wise to distance himself from our endorsements.
Which explains why he’s here pissing everyone else off. Fucking genius.
It’s been fun, man. You own the URL and I’m not interested in spending time coddling basket cases (referring to Ardis and Chris H. in this instance).
For what it’s worth, you’d already won the Kantian argument well before BCC linked to MSP. The link was just icing on the apology.
And as far as my involvement is concerned, it ends when I can’t get a single co-blogger to back me up against this kind of bullshit:
“Chino, you would sell out anyone and anything to achieve your endgame.
I’ve supported every exmo project on the planet during the past two years with my time and/or money. I’ll keep on directing funds where I think they’ll do the most good, but as far as time, I have none left for MSP.
Rock on.
I don’t really have any comment concerning what’s going on between Hellmut and Ronan at BCC, nor have I paid careful attention to this thread.
Re: the “dogpile” on Ardis at my blog, I explained several times in that thread why I had started the thread (here, for example), and my explanations were never challenged by any of the people who complained about a “dogpile” or expressed discontentment with my decision to start the thread. The vibe I got from people was, “Okay, your reasons for starting this thread are valid, but I wish you hadn’t because . . . because . . . well, because Ardis is my buddy, darn it.”
When I started that thread, I couldn’t have known that it would get the reaction that it did. ClobberBlog only has a couple dozen subscribers and averages a whopping 229 hits a day. Part of the reason for the unusual interest that it got was the fact that it was linked in the sideblog at T&S—and I admit to not objecting when that happened. But it wasn’t something I anticipated when it all started. As far as I could tell at the time, the permas at T&S didn’t give a damn about what had gone down in that thread. (Several of them contacted me later to say they were sorry they hadn’t noticed what was happening on that thread and would have spoken up if they had.)
Now, I have always erred on the side of free speech in moderating my blog. I vehemently dislike closing threads, removing posts, deleting comments, editing comments, and banning people. In spite of that, I still deleted a comment (and one of Chris H.’s responding to that comment), asked people to avoid personal attacks on Ardis, and eventually closed the thread altogether after giving Ardis the chance to have the last word. Given my reasons for starting the thread and my feelings about censorship in comment moderation, I’m not sure what I could have done better, though I’m certainly open to constructive suggestions.
I have nothing to say about the exchange between Ardis & myself at T&S several weeks ago or the post she put up at her blog as a response; I think we’ve all said our peace and I consider the matter closed.
Chris H. is someone I’ve always respected, even when I don’t agree with him, and I believe he has his reasons for doing what he does.
Chino: What?? Who isn’t supporting you? That comment was so absurd and OTT, I didn’t think it justified a response. Honestly. Is this a hill you want to die on? We all love you, of course. This thread has gone right off the rails…? I think there are loads of hurt feelings and offense all over the place, it sucks. I like a Happy Christmas, I am all in the mood and loved up for the Yuletide. Join me for a warm feeling of love for all humankind… 🙂
I don’t know where the Ardis dogpile was (I miss all the interesting stuff), but I have to say, apropos of not very much, that I made an EXTREMELY similar argument and statement (as she has made in her Ms Jack-reaction post) when I was in grad school at Teh Why. And I got kudos and positive feedback and accolades for days (mostly from men, as she is). That was many years ago…
Anyhow, I can see what she’s saying, but she’s building a case for angels on heads of pins IMO. I do find it sad to see so much energy and intellect invested in shoring up loads of total. shite.
Jason,
Do not let me get to you. Even Kaimi, somebody I have met and like, thinks I am off my rocker. Maybe you are on to something.
Chino, you are the best. I am sorry that I let you down.
If Chris was serious about Chino and the agenda that would have been harsh. I assumed that it was supposed to be a joke, which is why I did not jump in but responded with what was supposed to be a joke.
I am an overly serious person and I often do not get banter, especially when I cannot observe body language.
Ms. Jack, it’s a pleasure to see you, as always. I just read your post and was appalled by how you have been treated and encouraged by the support that you have received from so many quarters. If I could have, I would have left a supportive post on your blog.
Chris: At the risk of melodrama, to quote Watchmen/Rorschach:
It’s been interesting, but I need to move on. I’m on the board of supervisors for Democrats Abroad in my country and it scares me when I get emails from HQ informing me that Merrill Oates racked up the best expat voting numbers for any country (Hungary) on the entire fucking planet.
There was a July 4th years ago when Merrill and I were the only two kids protesting Geneva Steel on the street outside the BYU stadium. Merrill has obviously continued to make an impact as an expat. What have I been doing? Arguing with people who think I’m evil? Gah. I’m done with that. I’ve got a DNC delegation to meet for lunch Monday and I’m going to move on from there. Best of luck to you and yours. I leave Mormonism and the Bloggernacle in your capable hands. It’s all good, right? FML.
By all means, Chino. Do what’s best for you.
I am just shocked by my own behavior and hope that I can make it up to you sometimes.
Chino,
I’m not an admin or anything, but I think pretty much everyone around here backs you up on this. It’s probably more that nobody thought it necessary to object to something so self-evidently false and just plain dumb. I would be disappointed if you left MSP, especially if it’s over something that was either a stupid joke or an even stupider flame.
I’m trying to figure out what kind of person would mistake my comment for either a dismissal of Kant or a critique of some argument Hellmut has made. Then I found my answer: the same kind of person who would mistake the original post here for an above-the-fringe, strictly intellectual continuation (simply at a new venue, mind you) of a civil conversation about Kantian metaphysics and vocabulary. If you think your “mentioning” of Ronan in this post was nothing more than the execution of a technical necessity that flows from his having authored the blog thread from which your participation was so capriciously and unjustly and abusively and self-defeatingly moderated, perhaps misreading is your problem after all.
Put differently, I could give a f#*@ about which of you has a better grasp of the exam study terms from a sophomore course on the German Enlightenment. For that matter, I also never (at least for the purposes of this thread) claimed to be either a gentleman or an intellectual. As far as I’m concerned, you need only think of me as someone who deeply values Ronan’s friendship, and who considers you to be a spectacularly unselfconscious ass for treating him the way you have in the past couple days. That is all.