Elder Berry's recent thread on Robert Kirby's temporary suspension from the SLC Tribune showcases diverse opinions on the timely topic of questionable (or worse) male behaviour towards females in the workplace and the community.

Reference:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2154689,2154689#msg-2154689

Some posters clashed due to widely differing takes on the incident involving Kirby and a woman at a work function (they don't share the same workplace but were at the same event). The thread is full and closed now before I could put in my second 2 cents worth on it. I wanted to reply to one of the later exchanges, as follows.

I can't totally judge the Kirby incident because I don't have all the information I need to be fully informed about it. Elder Berry states that he doesn't like Kirby and gives his reasons, quite apart from the incident that led to Kirby's suspension from work. SL Cabbie states that Kirby is his longtime friend. Of course it would be difficult to find fault with a pal, especially publicly. However, the work incident occurred at this new time of #MeToo and as such gets wider play than it might otherwise. To me it is good that the issue of men behaving inappropriately (understatement) towards women is getting more attention now and comprehensive, serious discussions are ongoing, finally. Again, I recognize that it would be tough to see a friend named and shamed publicly and difficult to be objective about it.

I don't know Kirby personally. I've read only a few of his columns here through the years. As I said, I'm lacking knowledge of every fact about what went on during the incident under discussion. My reaction here is more about what I observed in the Mormon Church as a short term "convert", what I've read from exmos here for years about their Mormon experiences, and how I feel about RfM.

On his thread (referenced above), Elder Berry said in part:

"Only in Mormonism can a male celeb roofie a young female and have her remain conscious through the entire ordeal."

(I confess to not knowing entirely what this actually means but I think I get the gist of it).

SLC replied, in part:

"You folks are raised for years dishonestly "bearing your testimony," and obviously it affects your honesty in adulthood."

Cabbie. I had quite a negative reaction to reading this statement. I don't really know how to express it. It just sounds off. "You folks" is who? And it sounds like you are setting them/us apart from yourself. Is that because you're a nevermo (although an honourary exmo it has been said)? Re bearing testimony, BICs have no choice, obviously, about which faith they are born into. As children they go where their parents take them and learn what the adults inculcate into them. We've read the accounts of very young children being led by a Mormon parent up to the stage to recite words they've been taught that they don't even understand. So I wouldn't say the child was "dishonestly" bearing testimony. As BICs grow up in the church they continue to be taught to bear testimony and are outright told that in the bearing of it they will come to believe it if they don't already (even as a convert I heard that one). At what age do any of us start to question what our parents, teachers, faith leaders and other societal influences impress upon us? To me, if you believe what you are taught from the cradle then it's not "dishonest" to parrot it out when called upon, or coerced, to do so. To say that such an involuntary process causes dishonesty in exmos is a mischaracterization, in my view.


SLC:

"That's a nonsensical piece of hyperbole, Elder B (S?); I've mentioned before having "walked" with Kirby through his wife's battle with cancer (they were guests at my parents house, even), and for you to insinuate something like this is deplorable."

I'm sorry to hear about Kirby's wife, Cabbie. It sounds like you were a good friend to him in an exceptionally difficult time.

It is going to be impossible for you to see this incident, and our discussion of it, in anything like an objective way. There doesn't actually seem much point in carrying on if we're going to devolve into personal insults. Of course you are going to be affronted on behalf of your pal. But that doesn't mean the other opinions are incorrect. To be blunt, the fact of Kirby's wife's cancer does not count either for or against him in this instance. Maybe you meant to indicate something I missed. But other than that, the illness is a side issue. Even if you meant something like his wife is/was sick and he wouldn't dream of even looking at another woman, or something to that effect, that type of defence doesn't hold up. Men in all walks of life and positions have been seen to say or do any number of inappropriate things despite their life's circumstances and relationships.


SLC says to Elder Berry:

"You've wound up "validating" what DCP and the FARMS/FAIR crowd says about RFM..."

This is the comment that propelled me to respond. My jaw actually dropped. Low blow in general but especially from you, Cabbie, given your years of criticizing, mocking and debating (in absentia) DCP (Mormon apologist) and his work and opinions.

One comment on one day by one poster about one subject validates the professional mopologists?

And especially as your ire is directed towards Elder Berry who is a valued RfM contributor (judging by the many positive comments he receives), an exmo wrestling with his own Mormon issues, being BIC, being in a part-member family since he departed from the church, having a daughter out in the mission field, which he regrets while also worrying about her safety and future, a good resource for fellow posters here and generally presenting as a funny, creative, intelligent, knowledgeable person.

Honestly, if you didn't know Kirby and just read the newspaper article about his behaviour that evening and subsequent suspension from work for cause, you would likely have a vastly different take on him, his actions and words, his suspension and the wider issues in general.

So even your (literally jaw-dropping) DCP jab I am going to put down to the understandable difficulty you would have in seeing your friend in a negative light. But we're just expressing how it comes across to us. As exmos. As engaged, thoughtful people in this dawn of #MeToo - long overdue and 100% justified.

I appreciate your pleasantries to me through the years, Cabbie, as fellow posters, and I'm not meaning to pick a fight. But it wouldn't be honest of me to overlook the DCP comment, which I think is meant as a major insult, and which comes across that way, just because we've been friendly (as much as one can be online, never having met or spoken).

I am not going to get too wrought up over the Kirby thing, except to weigh in on my opinion about it in general. But I fully support MeToo and the need for it and my comment on EB's thread to the effect that it's past due or about time. It is (understandably) much easier to see things from the other side if one has experienced unwelcome attention, unwanted advances, words or actions or incidents that shock, hurt, devalue, embarrass, sicken, abuse, threaten and lastingly damage you merely because of the reality that you are at the wrong end of an imbalance of power, that you become the object of someone's unwanted attention, that they take advantage of your weaker position or confusion in the moment or the fact that you are socialized to not make a fuss, do as instructed by the boss, keep quiet, overlook a "mistake", give second chances, disbelieve what your ears hear or your eyes see, all in the name of keeping the peace, being respectful, obedient and not causing a scene in public. For those fortunate enough to have never been assaulted, by word or action, male or female, it can indeed be difficult to understand what happens, why, and the effects of abuse on a survivor. Listening to survivors is a good way to gain more insight about it.

It's a huge societal problem for a large number of people. It's time to talk about it. For as long as it takes. And the change that's gonna come? It's glacial. So far. Nevertheless, they persist.

Cabbie, for your friend Kirby the timing was off, to his detriment but by his own doing. [Edit to clarify: By "timing was off", I mean the day has come when an appropriate standard of behaviour between men and women is more defined, expected and enforced]. For victims/survivors everywhere the timing (of the #MeToo message) is more than absolutely exactly right.

Regarding any slurs against RfM from any source: I'm with Eric, Board Founder, and the countless wonderful posters who have informed me, amused me, embraced and commiserated with me through the years and who get me to think. Not an easy assignment. But I appreciate every one of them. I don't thank them enough. Eric, by his vision, commitment to this free and active discussion board and the work he has put into it for a couple of decades now, has helped more people than a missionary army does in 188 years of wandering around hoping to stumble over someone who may accept free scriptures from strangers when much more they could use a hot meal, a kind word or a true friend.

I'm curious about what you're referring to, Cabbie, when you mention "what they [DCP et al] say" about RfM. Of course I know it's bound to be deeply negative. I feel sorry for them.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2018 03:09PM by Nightingale.

Thanks for chiming in Nighty. I appreciated your thoughts on the subject.

I appreciate your comments and agree with most of them. But I do have a question with this one.

"Cabbie, for your friend Kirby the timing was off, to his detriment but by his own doing."

What do you mean "the timing was off"? Was he delivering a joke to his victim? I believe she is his victim. Even just touching lightly a woman (or man) makes them a victim without a single verbal advance. It is unwanted and any person in their right mind would understand that the chances of advances being wanted are fairly low in this day and age and with the POTUS we have.

I've never understood how consent and consensual understandings are so difficult for some people. My abuser I believe thought he was paying (he likened it to dating) me for his molestations with spending time with me, flattering my 12 year old mind, food and adult movies. I found some posts of his where he likened what he does in grooming young boys to dating them. It was devastating to me since I had a fantasy that he was locked up for life after he got caught molesting boys in the 80s.

I felt just like Kirby's victim and went along with the abuse. I find this interesting. So many victims talk about being trapped into doing what they would otherwise not do. Putting anyone in that situation is horrible and something Cabbie should never tacitly or otherwise condone even for a friend.

I meant timing was off with the advent of MeToo. No longer, hopefully, will these types of incidents be brushed off as inconsequential. It wasn't meant as a joke or attempt to minimize.

I agree that even friends shouldn't be given a pass. Just acknowledging that being friends may cause some to excuse it.

Correction too: I didn't intend to indicate that MeToo includes males (as far as I know it does not). But I said females and males in some places to recognize that both are prospective targets to predators.

Sorry to be unclear, EB. Too, I understand how close to home these types of incidents are to many of us. Of course a defence of the offending party would provoke negative reactions.

He was also representing the Tribune at a public event. Most people wouldbm get in trouble for making public suggestive remarks to a stranger or anyone else at work.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I meant timing was off with the advent of MeToo.
> No longer, hopefully, will these types of
> incidents be brushed off as inconsequential. It
> wasn't meant as a joke or attempt to minimize.

Thanks for your clarification. It was weird to read your post and seem to read some kind of downplaying based upon time.

> I agree that even friends shouldn't be given a
> pass. Just acknowledging that being friends may
> cause some to excuse it.

Reminds me of bishops testifying in court for accused and never for victims. One judge in Utah I read once said in all his years on the bench he never saw a bishop vouch for a victim.

> Sorry to be unclear, EB. Too, I understand how
> close to home these types of incidents are to many
> of us. Of course a defence of the offending party
> would provoke negative reactions.

Emotions run high. I need to disclose that I've never been a fan of Kirby and I don't see him as any kind of friend of RfM.

And I certainly want to "validate" the pain and trauma of your abuse. I have no doubt that it was hellish, far worse than the physical trauma I was raised with. Being able to even "bring it up" is a courageous act in my book.

JMO, but that "issue" is what "profoundly colors" your perception of what the lady Kirby interacted with experienced. She was a grown woman, asked to participate in a "clown routine" by a "known clown," that's all.

Okay, it backfired. Some jokes lay eggs, alas. But does that mean we shouldn't make them? I think not...

Your dismissal of her experience by characterizing it as a Clown Routine by a Known Clown is exactly the problem.

You're welcome to "side with the victim," but that's strictly your opinion, and for you to attack me for having a different one is in violation of board rules.

Seriously...

Attack you?

You stated: "Your dismissal . . . is the problem."

That's a personal attack, honest... It's also your opinion, and I don't share it.

/remedial school teacher voice off

Moreover, I didn't "dismiss" anything; I simply pointed out I had a different P.O.V. and perspective...

Quite a few who chimed in disagreed, and I give them the right to their own views, but I'm going to retain my own. And even though my views have changed substantially over the decades, my "attitude" has been consistent. Probably why they were never able to baptize me despite all their efforts...

And I'll stand on what I said about the sheer hypocrisy of the attacks on Kirby.

For a lot of people, apparently, recovering from Mormonism means learning how to take a joke.

Sounds like in your opinion a personal attack is an opinion:

"That's a personal attack, honest... It's also your opinion, and I don't share it."

Male Mormon "insensitivity" is legion here in Zion. I felt attacked, and moreover, I find your disavowal of that reality to be utterly dishonest.

Sorry about your feelings...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And I certainly want to "validate" the pain and
> trauma of your abuse. I have no doubt that it was
> hellish, far worse than the physical trauma I was
> raised with. Being able to even "bring it up" is a
> courageous act in my book.

I appreciate that. Some people could accuse my 12 year old self with facilitating my own abuse. I wasn't in love with the man. I was attracted to people my own age. What I loved was the affection I got that I never had felt before and other affection I very rarely felt at home and only as a small child.

I was molested by my sister when I was small. I learned that allowing people to touch my naked was the route to affection I desired. It has colored my sexuality for sure because I have adult hindsight. What was once so disturbing to me as a child has become a part of my sexual psyche. I am not an abuser. I'm still that 12 year old boy in many ways. To think I had a fantasy for decades of my abuser's death or permanent incarceration when my own father is a convicted child molester and was in jail for only a year only 5 years after my own abuser was caught.

> JMO, but that "issue" is what "profoundly colors"
> your perception of what the lady Kirby interacted
> with experienced. She was a grown woman, asked to
> participate in a "clown routine" by a "known
> clown," that's all.

Now about clown coloring. This either needs explanation or I see you writing off abuse as a joke. Nothing I read from her indicated this. She seemed to be wanting to "play along" with Kirby because he is a celebrity and she was in an inferior position. Like personal assistants getting abused this woman felt like she was under control and under the spell of Kirby. I know what that is like as a child. Perhaps my inner child is speaking and this grown women wasn't vulnerably used by Kirby?


> Okay, it backfired. Some jokes lay eggs, alas. But
> does that mean we shouldn't make them? I think
> not...

When some one is "in on the joke" then they are giving consent. This isn't that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2018 12:18PM by Elder Berry.

SL Cabbie is spot on here. Good for you!

When you justify clowns in professional settings everything becomes a circus. I don't think locker room talk is something people would want in a public or professional arena. It tends to upset people more nowadays.

Clowns talking sexist trash for fun (or their idea of a public circus) sounds like "Clockwork Orange" from men who think they are immune from "treatment"(social repercussions) for their treatment of others.

I'm reminded of my very Mormon mentor's comment he made in a group years ago about something his wife said. I can't remember it exactly, of course, but here's the synopsis:

"Self, I said; there must've been a lot of truth in what she said because it sure pissed you off."

My advice to you is look up the definition of "process comments"; your rhetoric is full of them. Per a PhD psychologist friend/mentor of mine: Process comments are avoided in ordinary conversations because the the agenda is "to control."

That's obvious to me; I "triple check my motives" (as a "recovery tool" i.e. inventory), and I'll invite you to examine your own motives here. Okay, you had a "negative reaction." Is that my problem or yours? (/insert "boundary speech")

Your "perceptions" of what took place are inherently "different" than mine, that's all.

I'll stand on what I said: Kirby doesn't deserve the "trashing" he's received here; I've seen dozens if not hundreds of his columns linked here and praised, and the sudden "about face" is d***ed immature, IMO. But as I said before, feel free to hang onto those perfectionistic expectations...

Just don't impose them on me, thank you. And I'm sorry, that's a pretty nasty insult when you said "Of course it would be difficult to find fault with a pal, especially publicly." We're friends, not family, honest.

And you'll have to "do your own work" if you're curious about what happens when one engages "Danny Boy" Peterson (stole that from someone else I think the world of, and I hope he takes it as a compliment). My close friend "Jesus Smith" (who "gave up" on this site because he kept getting censored) and I engaged him a couple of times elsewhere. I don't remember the "exact pejorative" he used to describe RFM, but it was pretty nasty.

I'll bet the price of a cab ride from here to B.C. that when he reads what's happening here he laughs his fat hiney off.

And that, fair lady, is why I said this kind of brouha is doing the apologists' work for them.

Saying it may be difficult to find fault with a pal is a very nasty insult? One: That was meant to indicate understanding that it's not all black and white but more complex. Two: It wasn't meant as an insult. At all.

# another "clinical speech"

Feelings aren't facts, but yes, I felt insulted (and "patronized"). I'll offer that statement as an opportunity to present you with an "opportunity to acquire some enlightenment."

One of the "stories" I shared with Kirby--just recently, and it was a bonding experience; we aren't regularly that close of friends, honest, but we do appreciate each other--was how I made a joke years ago and it backfired horribly.

God wasn't exactly "even-handed" when he handed out senses of humor, I guess.

I can't deal with the psychobabble Cabbie. Please quit trying to psychoanalyze me. It makes it difficult and undesirable to try and have a decent conversation. If that's what you want. I'm not sure I do any more. I tried.

Is typical of what I saw as "denial" back when I worked in treatment.

I see you as using it as an excuse not to consider what I said. I didn't ask you to "accept" it. I asked you to consider it. You dismissed it out of hand, instead.

Um, actually, she did consider it, and responded, in the post directly below, which was posted two hours before your response above. She actually responded in considerable detail, as nightingale is wont to do.

I also agree nightingale.

Members of the Alcoholics Anon religion are indoctrinated to evangelize their faith with such things as “recovery tools”

They carry no scientific nor credible therapeutic aid.

They also get a tunnel vision, promoting their faith. Much like Daniel Peterson, attempt to claim scientific credibility with the BS they promote.

To quote Ron White, “You can’t fix stupid”

Uh oh.

Now you are a narcissist.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm reminded of my very Mormon mentor's comment he
> made in a group years ago about something his wife
> said. I can't remember it exactly, of course, but
> here's the synopsis:
>
> "Self, I said; there must've been a lot of truth
> in what she said because it sure pissed you off."

I'm not "pissed off". I merely expressed shock at your highly insulting comment about RfM, based on zero reason.


> My advice to you is look up the definition of
> "process comments"; your rhetoric is full of them.
> Per a PhD psychologist friend/mentor of mine:
> Process comments are avoided in ordinary
> conversations because the the agenda is "to
> control."

I can answer you now that my howls of laughter have died down. I am THE LEAST controlling person I have ever known or heard of. So much so that people actually try to teach me how to do it but I fail every lesson. Live and let live is my watchword. Maybe that's why I totally suck at being a fundamentalist of any faith I've tried.


As for my "rhetoric" (which it isn't), what is this now - a writing class?


> That's obvious to me; I "triple check my motives"
> (as a "recovery tool" i.e. inventory), and I'll
> invite you to examine your own motives here. Okay,
> you had a "negative reaction." Is that my problem
> or yours? (/insert "boundary speech")

1. I don't do recovery tools.

2. I had no "motives" in writing this post. I was responding to your gross insult re RfM. If not for that, I wouldn't even have started a thread to address your comments from another, closed, thread.

3. I didn't say my reaction to your insult was a problem to me or to you. It was an introductory statement to the points I wanted to bring out.

4. This is not a formal recovery meeting, Cabbie, with "recovery tools" and "boundary speech". Does anybody ever critique and grade your posts? Didn't think so. Not allowed to be grammar, spelling or word police here.


> Your "perceptions" of what took place are
> inherently "different" than mine, that's all.

I have no perceptions of what took place. I read the article that Elder Berry linked which described in reporter-speak an overview of why Kirby was suspended. That is the sum total of my knowledge and I made that very clear in my remarks.


> I'll stand on what I said: Kirby doesn't deserve
> the "trashing" he's received here; I've seen
> dozens if not hundreds of his columns linked here
> and praised, and the sudden "about face" is d***ed
> immature, IMO.

For that one incident, Cabbie, he does. However, and we can quibble over words but I don't want to, I do not consider that he was "trashed". There is no rule of the universe that because some posters have enjoyed and/or discussed his columns in the past he gets a pass when he does something over the line enough that he receives a three-month suspension from work. You cannot give someone a pass on a screw-up because he is a writer you enjoy. That would be like bemoaning Harvey Weinstein's victims because he made good movies (if you thought he did). The two entities are completely separate. And people can walk and chew at the same time: they can BBQ a mean burger AND beat their wife. You can't ignore the second due to the first.


>But as I said before, feel free to
> hang onto those perfectionistic expectations...

I don't know if you are directing this at me or everyone who wasn't 100% supportive of Kirby on EB's thread. Where did I say that I expect anyone to be perfect? (In fact, quite the opposite - I say frequently that nobody's perfect). And stating disagreement with a person's bad acts is in no way "perfectionistic". Rather, it's a way to indicate that you don't agree with what they said or did. There's a lot of that going around lately and it's a good camp to be in. The more people talk about acceptable vs unacceptable behaviour the more victims/survivors can feel vindicated and supported and perhaps the more people will learn about how to conduct themselves well in dealings with people in general, women in particular (as that is what the conversation centres on lately).


> Just don't impose them on me, thank you.

What on earth? What standards am I imposing on you and how exactly am I doing that?

And anyway, the standard to NOT abuse others? Horrors. What expectations.


>And I'm sorry, that's a pretty nasty insult when you said
> "Of course it would be difficult to find fault
> with a pal, especially publicly." We're friends,
> not family, honest.

Answered in a separate post. (You think I would deliberately say something to insult you nastily? I thought you knew me better. Apparently not).


> And you'll have to "do your own work" if you're
> curious about what happens when one engages "Danny
> Boy" Peterson (stole that from someone else I
> think the world of, and I hope he takes it as a
> compliment). My close friend "Jesus Smith" (who
> "gave up" on this site because he kept getting
> censored) and I engaged him a couple of times
> elsewhere. I don't remember the "exact pejorative"
> he used to describe RFM, but it was pretty nasty.

I don't understand the statement about DCP. As for Jesus Smith. I remember him. I enjoyed his presence here. I have no idea what happened that he didn't like. The only "censorship" here is whatever needs to happen to keep posts within the board rules. By all means, try to defend what you said by disclosing a private interaction you had with a disgruntled ex-poster and criticizing RfM (again) with it. Nice.


> I'll bet the price of a cab ride from here to B.C.
> that when he reads what's happening here he laughs
> his fat hiney off.

What the hell does this have to do with tea in India, China or my Aunt Fanny's house? Another insult to RfM?


> And that, fair lady, ...

Is calling me "fair lady" akin to a certain US politician referring to "the lady" that he is going to listen to and then purposely ignore? If you meant it dismissively, well that goes with the general tenor of your comments since EB put up a post about Robert Kirby who in your book deserves a free pass for questionable conduct.

As for your re-interpretation of your extremely negative comment that prompted this thread, this is what you originally said (on Elder Berry's closed Kirby thread):

"You've wound up "validating" what DCP and the FARMS/FAIR crowd says about RfM."

This is how you've changed it, in this thread:

"And that, fair lady, is why I said this kind of brouha is doing the apologists' work for them."

Those two sentences are in no way equivalent.

You can't change up what you say, thereby starting a circular argument and hope nobody notices.

After all this, now you say you and Kirby aren't really good friends? Unless I am misunderstanding you? (If so, be assured it is not on purpose. I have been trying to follow your thoughts and positions).

The subject of discussion on the other thread was that Robert Kirby crossed lines at a work function for which he was justifiably suspended from work, in line with his company's policy. Of course we are going to discuss this. The fact that some posters have enjoyed his columns/opinions about Mormonism and have talked about them here in no way grants him a protective bubble to prevent us from noticing and discussing his suspension and the reasons for it.

Is that your point? That by merely discussing it we are being "judgemental"? That we shouldn't have mentioned it? That he gets a free pass?

That was my point. That with the groundswell created by the MeToo wave nobody gets a free pass. Not any more.

are right behind you.

Thank you so much, cl2. I always appreciate you as well as your interesting posts.

Nightingale is always insightful, always gentle.

me too

Kirby admitted to giving an illegal, controlled substance to the woman. He has admitted giving it to others.

He's nothing but a drug pusher. Don't be surprised if he gets some attention from Federal Law Enforcement before long.

SL Trib would be wise to fire his mormon butt now. He's ridden the "I'm a rebel mormon" crap long enough. Either get with the program or get out, like his wife. He's milking it for money and it is wearing thin. More now that his real persona is showing.

JoeSmith666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SL Trib would be wise to fire his mormon butt now.
> He's ridden the "I'm a rebel mormon" crap long
> enough.

He has had a long ride. It would good for it to be over and someone else perhaps less sexist take his place.

There are plenty of Mormon rebels out there and these folks of the fringe need some time in the center ring of the Mormon rebel circus.

This clown needs to go.

I'm not sure there's a draw for someone who sits on the fence with regards to mormonism. Things have changed and the old, "awe shucks, it's not so bad" theme is worn out.

I totally agree. And all the old sexist clowning around is wore out as well.

In a more egalitarian world gender is less something to clown around with than to respect in a person in my opinion. It is a spectrum not a bipolar designation of the man pinching the pinup's bottom with his cheeky grin.

I don't mind that he stays in the church. That is a personal choice. It isn't what I would do,but then I am not him.
I do enjoy many of his columns and I think calling him a pusher is a little over them too. He has a persciption and didn't take money.However, I did take offense at this sexist comment. Will I still read his stuff? Probably,but he disappointed me

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will I still
> read his stuff? Probably,but he disappointed me

I read his stuff from time to time to gage a bit what the tiny vocal minority is feeling but I don't do it often. He is tiring in his defenses of the theocracy and oligarchy.

His reasonings while entertaining in their ridiculousness are too much weird "wisdom" for my tastes. This is why he smacks me as an apologist in this pseudo-apostacy.

For example, he once said that he only listens to leaders he respects. Wow. So much for being Mormon. Why just constrain yourself to them. How many crappy leaders have we all suffered? What is the point. Crap wisdom from Kirby abounds.

Bottom line is that it is upnto him whether he remains in the church. He probably hasnt had the negative experiences thatsome of us have had. The.church does work for some and Kirby seems to takenwhat he likes and ignores the rest. It isnt what I would do, but I am not him.

I'm not sure why you're sticking on the point of him being required to leave the church. I haven't heard of people demanding that he leave. I think people simply dislike him sticking with it and being so critical of it at the same time. There's the same tension with all who are openly critical.

I've wondered how people who know what they obviously know about the church can stay. Of course we see lots of reasons people do here on RfM.


Reasons often involve money.

I think people like Kirby and Quinn seem to have a specialized niche that involves writing about Mormonism. They are in the position where the majority of their "customers" (not all) will accept them if they are still Mormon. If they were officially "antis" a lot of Mormon readers would dismiss their work and the money to be made would decrease.

Very true. And the implications of that are pretty distasteful to many of us. But still, no one is insisting they give it up. We just see it for what it seems to be...

Yep.

Double yep. And using celebrity to "clown around" or engage in celebrity "locker room talk" is a sign of how much license these people think they have in providing services to these customers. They have their Mormon pass.

One thing that doesn't seem to have been addressed, and it has nothing to do with Robert Kirby, the human being: that would be Robert Kirby, the product used to make money by SLTrib.

Businesses like to make money; most businesses don't practice frivolity. Sure, some can because they make so much money, but the SLTrib is not in that situation.

During Kirby's hiatus, they will no doubt watch their balance sheet closely. Will 'clicks' diminish sufficiently to color their judgment of Kirby? If there is a discernible decline in 'clicks' (not to mention subscription sign-ups and renewals) it makes sense that they will bring him back to see if his drawing power was the difference. That's a no-brainer.

But if there is no diminution of 'clicks' and income, why would they bring him back? Oh, okay, maybe for old times sake. But I bet he'd be on a very short leash if he hadn't been already.

I personally don't care anymore. Sure, forgive and forget (like anyone ever practices that in their heart of hearts).

One thing about the #MeToo movement is that famous individuals are being blackballed regardless of the perceived economic advantages of not doing so. Various actors, directors, and producers, many of whom are very talented, have been cut from tv shows and movies in production or had their productions canceled altogether; see Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, Danny Masterson, etc. all these men had shows in production and they were either cut out or canceled, probably incurring a financial loss for the production companies and a loss in popularity for the entertainment product.

Hollywood is becoming more ruthlessly intolerant of these shenanigans, and it’s high time, I say. I think in the past bad actors and bad behaviors were much more tolerated; no longer. If I had to guess, studio execs and their ilk are weighing the long term effects of NOT getting rid of these deviants, and deciding that suffering the financial losses in the short term earns goodwill and admiration from the public due to the zero-tolerance perception they garner from the public with regard to sexual harassers and predators.

Now is this Kirby incident quite on the “#MeToo” level? That’s up for debate, I don’t personally think so. I think you’re right in that the Tribune will need to assess how his absense will affect their bottom line. I’m not especially familiar with how his popularity affects the paper, although I assume he is rather popular.

I don’t see this as being a case like the ones cited above, where the Tribune needs to cut its losses because the long term effects of keeping on this guy will hurt the paper. His actions were foolish, and maybe he deserves to be fired, but I could see how it could go either way.

Something one should keep in mind with these individuals is that when bad actions come to light, very frequently people discover that the specific incident currently being publicized is merely the only action widely or publicly known; often past indiscretions and crimes come out. I think no examples are necessary here, for a lot of famous men lately a trickle of accusations has quickly turned into a deluge, and this has been covered widely in the news. If it turns out Kirby has some history of cracking tawdry jokes to women he hardly knows or passing out THC edibles, he probably needs to go.

Well put, start to finish.

I would add that EOD's post and your second paragraph are reconcilable. In short, I do not believe Hollywood would be cutting ties to those abusers if it were not in their financial interests to do so.

When social values change sharply, businesses have to react immediately or they lose money. That's what's happened. The returns from having the name Weinstein on (what are often very good) movies just went from a big net positive to a big net negative. So too the profitability of having Kevin Spacey in a show.

Those companies respond to monetary incentives, nothing else. If it were not for better judgment and sensitivity in the broader culture, nothing in Hollywood would have changed.