You know, lurkers to a given Web site discussion DO nab a good glimpse of priorities/focus of posters. I'm not talking about every single post -- but a sense of the corporate/collective "sense" of what's being emoted.
Are they provoked about a criminal?
Are they moved with compassion for victims?
Are they wanting to protect the GoP reputation with the oft-knee jerk reaction of blaming the liberal media -- or, the other convenient trick, just blaming the messenger -- the person who posted it?
Actually, that's what Svcw addressed in post#38 to Jean S: ...you seem to be only focused on the poster not the victims who apparently are mostly mormons. Why is that
What we've seen in this "microcosm" of thread dynamics of this sort is several posters (posts 2-->23) attempted to blame "liberal" Mormon journalists! (That was a rather strange position to find myself in...Me defending the conservative components of Lds journalists/editors @ KSL/Deseret News!)
When that tactic didn't work, posters took to attacking me -- many for simply posting this thread. There were 10 such posts between from posts #17 --> 44.
You can review 21 of these categorized comments in the chart below...
[I subtracted my comments, the James Holmes unrelated comments (#7, #34), and the tactical questions by svcw and CharlesWayneCT (#37, 38, 46)]... Hence, although I agree in part re: Chuck's reference to a "boilerplate" re: comments...or "political correctness" not being honored...this thread has made for a "good microcosm" of the dynamics of the "turf" posters felt the need to either protect -- or attack.
We actually see this same pattern expanded and exercised DAILY on FR on MANY threads!
| Posts attempting to convince others that Lds church owned KSL/Deseret News presented 'liberal' slant | Posts focusing on Defending GoP reputation | Posts focusing on Colofornian -- primarily for posting this thread | Posts focusing on MormonISM | Posts focusing on Romney | Posts focusing with perp-specific comments | Posts focusing on victims | |
| 21 overall Posts reviewed: # of sub-topics covered in these posts: | 9 (43%) | 9 (43%) | 10 (48%) | 4 (19%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) |
| Which post #s tallied above? | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 16, 21, 22 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 21, 22, 23 | 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 44 | 11, 18, 19, 41 | 19 | 21 | 3 |
This chart also readily addresses two questions Jean S asked in post #33: What in the heck are you talking about? perp advocacy? That comment makes no sense.
* When you see that there were 10 negative comments made about the thread poster -- and only one negative comment specifically made about the perp (Tammy8 in post #21), that is by sheer vacuum "perp advocacy." That is outright failure to condemn rape...
...and instead winds up turning ALL negative attention from the perp to the thread poster who shines a light on the perp (commonly known as "shooting the messenger.")
Instead of distancing themselves from an immoral GoP activist racist, they instead prefer to distance themselves morally from the thread poster.
Very interesting group psychology exercised here.
Likewise...
* When there is only a terse six-word focus on the victims (by Rktman) very early in the thread -- and only prompted by my comment in post #1 -- whereas nine attempts to protect the GoP by blaming the source (KSL/DesNews)...
...THAT is turning the attention from the victims to placing the blame on the media source that cast its light on this GoP activist! (also commonly known as "shooting the messenger")
LURKERS:
Want a compassionate unbiased conservatism that won't "knee-jerk" in putting political reputations above justice; above compassion and concern for the victims? (Well, it's getting MUCH harder to find in the GoP representation we're seeing on FR!!!)
A chart?
You have lost your mind.
Truly .
Get help for your hate.
You damage the site.
My first post made no comment about the thread poster, just my opinion about the general religion thread vs this particular thread.
I attacked you in another post, because you suggested that a freeper was sympathising with rapists. I’ve seen comments like that from time to time, but not on this thread — in context, the argument was simply an attempt to make people address the issue the way you wanted, by slandering them.
If this was news-activism, I’d discuss more why people might react negatively to the post; since it is a religion thread, I’ll let them do so if they wish.
I would say that, having done so much of the research, and having found that most of the thread posters reacted quite negatively to the thread, rather than as you wanted them to react, you might want to take that into account in your future postings, if you are bothered by what other freepers think about what you are posting.
I’m not saying you should care what other people think, just that you appear to be quite concerned about it, and if you are, maybe you should take a lesson by the harsh negative reaction you get to some of your posts.
I don’t think the mormon faith is a christian faith. As such, from a religious perspective, i see the danger in the appeal of such a religion to misguide people from the truth. As a presbyterian, I feel God has already chosen whom he will chose, so I fear more for my relationship with God than I do that one who would be saved might miss out because some non-christian faith might do too good a job.
Clearly others feel it is important to create a harshly negative opinion of this particular religion, and feel compelled to use any means necessary.
But this being a conservative site, and knowing that there are many good conservatives who vote for our cause, and are socially and politically part of the solution, who are followers of religions other than the true faith, I don’t feel the same compulsion to spend energy here attacking someone’s religion.
But some do, and I really need to remember to just ignore the hate-threads.