Internet Rips Apart Relief Society’s ‘Flirting Bingo’ Sheet

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree. It wasn't the making fun per se that gored my ox. Rather, it was the nasty, cutting remarks made by those who were making fun that got my dander up.

Agreed. I think, however, that @dsnell's intent was (perhaps naively) to simple show the responses, by way of humor, rather than to even necessarily agree with them. I, personally, think it was mistaken to not include commentary that people who would respond with such nastiness are the larger problem...but then it wouldn't be a fluff piece, which seems to be the intent. The problem, of course, is that the intent was that it be a light-hearted fluff piece but the message that came through was, unfortunately, "look at how stupid virtuous Mormon girls are!" So I understand. I just don't think that was the intent, in this case. Which, frankly, is a problem with a LOT of these articles. The intent isn't bad. The result, oft times, is.

Edited May 11, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Agreed. I think, however, that @dsnell's intent was (perhaps naively) to simple show the responses, by way of humor, rather than to even necessarily agree with them. I, personally, think it was mistaken to not include commentary that people who would respond with such nastiness are the larger problem...but then it wouldn't be a fluff piece, which seems to be the intent. The problem, of course, is that the intent was that it be a light-hearted fluff piece but the message that came through was, unfortunately, "look at how stupid virtuous Mormon girls are!" So I understand. I just don't think that was the intent, in this case. Which, frankly, is a problem with a LOT of these articles. The intent isn't bad. The result, oft times, is.

You may be right. Cooler heads prevail.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That being said, I don't think we, as saints, ought to be making fun of each other at all, which is my primary problem with this article.

What?!?  Why are we on the boards then?  I thought that was the whole point. Just look at almost any exchange between me and @MormonGator.

I think the issue here is that the author apparently believed that his article and the many internet reactions were "all in fun."  Whereas, some here thought it was "virtue-shaming."  That is why Bro. Snell doesn't get why we're offended.  He didn't mean it to be shaming.  He meant it to be the friendly teasing that many probably meant it to be.

The real disagreement here was that most of the internet responses were not "teasing." They were actually judgmental comments that were meant to diminish (more appropriate word here than "shaming") the value of girls who do find a chart like this "fun" or helpful.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Guest

[dsnell]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Oh, for heaven's sake. Really? That's the level of discourse you want? "You're personally insulting me, so I'm going to go the passive aggressive route"?

Does what I wrote have merit, or does it not? If it does not, then explain where I'm wrong, point by point. It shouldn't be hard. On the other hand, if I'm right, then respond to that with a real response, not some passive aggressive nonsense.

@Vort, I'm happy to engage in a respectful level of discourse with you, but as respect is something I have yet to feel from your comments in this discussion, I feel continuing it would only escalate tempers and cause more harm than good. It isn't a matter of you "personally insulting me" it's a matter of picking my battles. We can disagree without being disagreeable, but I feel like that's not the way things have gone thus far.

I do agree with @The Folk Prophet when he says that it's never appropriate to make fun of another person, for which I accept full responsibility as far as this article is concerned. That was unwise.

I understand that you're deeply offended, but believe me when I say that this was never intended to be a social commentary on virtue-shaming, and if that is what it has become then I sincerely apologize. As @TheFolkProphet said, it was meant to be a fluff article about a socially awkward bingo sheet, nothing more. Thank you, though, for bringing a wider perspective to my attention so that I can be more careful in the future.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What?!?  Why are we on the boards then?  I thought that was the whole point. Just look at almost any exchange between me and @MormonGator.

I think the issue here is that the author apparently believed that his article and the many internet reactions were "all in fun."  Whereas, some here thought it was "virtue-shaming."  That is why Bro. Snell doesn't get why we're offended.  He didn't mean it to be shaming.  He meant it to be the friendly teasing that many probably meant it to be.

The real disagreement here was that most of the internet responses were not "teasing." They were actually judgmental comments that were meant to diminish (more appropriate word here than "shaming") the value of girls who do find a chart like this "fun" or helpful.

The problem, of course, is that teasing only works when the person being teased is in on the joke and finds it funny. I've been the butt of many a joke where I'm sure the person thought they were just being funny but I had my feelings hurt.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The problem, of course, is that teasing only works when the person being teased is in on the joke and finds it funny. I've been the butt of many a joke where I'm sure the person thought they were just being funny but I had my feelings hurt.

Hence the final sentence in my last post.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hence the final sentence in my last post.

Hence my use of the words, "of course".

Edited May 11, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

The problem, of course, is that teasing only works when the person being teased is in on the joke and finds it funny. I've been the butt of many a joke where I'm sure the person thought they were just being funny but I had my feelings hurt.

I haven't been following this thread at all, but I have to watch out for this myself.  I often say things that sound much funnier in my head than they do when I say or post them.  It is only after I have said or posted something that I turn around and realize I had not been funny at all, but instead I had been a real jerk!

(Thank goodness you can delete past posts on this site!)

[Vort]

One thing I appreciate about interactions like this is how my thoughts get clarified

Years ago, I was part of a small discussion list where someone brought up a poster of Jesus with the words, "I never said it would be easy; I only said it would be worth it." I opined that I really disliked the poster because it was a false, made-up misquotation of the Savior. But that was not correct; someone else pointed out that we attribute all sorts of words and feelings to Jesus, both inside and outside the Church, and no one really minds. A Primary song says, "Jesus says love everyone..." But I don't recall where Jesus said such a thing. A friend clarified my thinking when he said something like, "The problem is that the sentiment is half-baked saccharine. It makes Jesus sound like a guy who writes Hallmark cards." And really, that was it. That's why I found the poster distasteful. It wasn't that the sentiment itself was false or unworthy; it's that it sounded like a motivational phrase, something similar to what you might see on an old '70s poster of a kitten hanging on to a tree branch by his paws with the emblazoned caption, "Hang in there!"

Something similar happened here. I found Brother Snell's column distasteful, but I didn't immediately understand exactly why. I knew it had to do with the sneering contempt I felt emanating from it. Initially, I attributed it to the idea of mocking the Relief Society teacher who made the sheet. But that wasn't quite it: As others noted, gentle teasing was fine, and in fact was likely in line with the tongue-in-cheek nature of the original bingo sheet. What galled me was what JAG, Carb, and TFP pointed out: That those doing the mocking were not at all engaging in gentle teasing, laughing along with the sheet's author at her clever joke, but were instead viciously mocking and attacking the author herself.

As others have mentioned, Brother Snell likely intended to engage in such light-hearted teasing. But because of the particular examples he used, the result was not light-hearted teasing at all. And so I was offended for the unknown sister who spent a few hours of her time coming up with a fun, light-hearted Relief Society activity to share with her sisters while they all laughed and then looked beyond the humor to the stark realities of dating and building relationships. Because however naively and artlessly (whether intentional or not) these were expressed, such social cues as physical contact and laughing at stale jokes are indeed foundational bricks in building those relationships.

So I appreciate those who helped me to see what was really bothering me about the column. And if I unjustly grouped David Snell in with those he quoted, I apologize for that. In my own defense, an author who freely associates himself with such people should not be overly surprised when he gets grouped with them. But I can believe that Brother Snell may have had no such intent, and simply picked many unfortunate examples to illustrate his attempt at light-hearted teasing.

[NeuroTypical]

Actually, I prefer this one.

Also, I believe the advice is best directed to the bird trying to eat his dinner.  Never give up, my dear predator bird, no matter how the prey resists.  

[Guest Godless]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Actually, I prefer this one.

Also, I believe the advice is best directed to the bird trying to eat his dinner.  Never give up, my dear predator bird, no matter how the prey resists.  

That pic reminded me of this video.

 

[Vort]

That is just super-nasty.

[pam]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

That is just super-nasty.

I agree

[Guest]

That pelican simply needed to drink some water.  It would drown the pigeon shortening the duration of the encounter.  The pelican must have some strong internal tissues to resist the claws and beak of the pigeon.

Instead, it chose to suffocate it rather than drown it -- after a long struggle that preceded it.  That was the stupid way to go about it.  What a bird-brain!

Edited May 12, 2017 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

Little known fact: The animal kingdom, populated by God with critters designed to operate in their spheres unable to sin, is full of horrible murdering racist rapist jerks.  You can find smart animals and dumb animals, but you can't find good animals and bad animals.  

Edited May 12, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Little known fact: The animal kingdom, populated by God with critters designed to operate in their spheres unable to sin, is full of horrible murdering racist rapist jerks.  You can find smart animals and dumb animals, but you can't find good animals and bad animals.  

The "natural" man is an enemy to God. We are, after all, animals too.