Disqus - Latest Comments for bobcaswell

Re: Ep 531 – Infant General Conference Oct 2018

Bob Caswell — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 17:35:16 -0000

Hey now, I’ll have you know I gave “First Man” the same rating as “A Star Is Born.” ;)

But truth be told, you’re right, Cooper’s looks win me over more than Gosling’s...

Re: Ep 532 – Open Letter to John Dehlin: The Smackdown

Bob Caswell — Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:34:16 -0000

Haha, that would be fun. How many turtles down should we go? Then Hamer and Scott could do a smackdown of the smackdown of the smackdown! ;)

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:58:04 -0000

I thought we gave some country agnostic examples. The far left often assumes intent prematurely (and sometimes is guilty of thought policing) and often wants disproportionately harsh punishments for certain offenses they feel. In certain cases, a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" mob mentality approach to justice is encouraged. Then there's the issue of identity politics and intersectionality, which -- if taken seriously -- doesn't end well as a solution. There's also the idea of mandating equality, etc. I guess I don't have specific examples for Finland, but if you study trends here in the US and/or many governments from history, you can see how these are not just philosophical concerns.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:43:05 -0000

I think you need better "far left" examples before assuming the person in the middle is silly for being in the middle. This was part of our point. The unintended consequences of the far left are more subtly subversive and often times aren't recognized as problematic until they get past a certain point of no return. It's much easier to criticize the far right because they are blatantly abhorrent and typically awful even in small doses whereas the far left can be perceived as benign (rather erroneously, I think) when in small doses. But let me also be clear that it's not a competition (to me): they are both bad.

You are also promoting the frustratingly inaccurate fallacy that being in the middle = being ok with normalizing racism at least a little. I think this is a straw man argument and have yet to meet a moderate who would articulate their position in this way. You don't need to be closer to one side to fully reject the worst ideas of the other side.

Ironically, the assumptions in your comment are actually proving the point of how once you get too far into the left, you start playing subtle (but eventually dangerous) games akin to thought policing. It's a classic left tactic to be worried about other non-lefters normalizing racism rather than worrying about how and why they are so concerned about what they think others are thinking about in the wrong way just based on said others not self-identifying with enough of a left label...

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:21:49 -0000

Thanks for the feedback, Melissa. I sometimes feel the same about participating in liberal spaces, especially when I get abstract feedback that I'm doing it wrong.

Re: Ep 516 – Smackdown: The Unwritten Order of Things

Bob Caswell — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 02:17:56 -0000

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Paul and Lisa. You are right to point out the significance of this talk as the origin of the Gawd awful approach to funerals in Mormonism. I did think of the connection back to my sister's experience/episode but didn't want to bring it up again, lest I draw too much attention to myself. But you commenting here really does validate / reiterate that point as the main reason this talk is up there on the "worst of all time" list.

Re: Ep 515 – Movie Review: Church and State

Bob Caswell — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:20:44 -0000

Thanks, Cal357! Let us know if there are any movies in particular you are interested in us discussing.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:20:37 -0000

I did look at it, and I'm not refuting it. I just don't find it compelling as reasoning to discredit Peterson. This brief summary has nothing to do with the vast majority of Peterson's thoughts and ideas. And where it is relevant, I don't think it's contradictory. I'm not sure that Peterson made a case for how university de-platforming is exclusively against conservatives. But for anyone who has made that point, sure, this refutes that. Sounds good.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 12:16:17 -0000

Thanks for commenting, Kristin, and for all the nice words! I'm so glad you found this both engaging and thought-provoking.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:07:29 -0000

Lol, evidence is mixed... doesn't that mean it supports me as much as you think it supports you? Confirmation bias much? Notice how I'm not invoking evidence because I don't think it's particularly clear here. It's, at best, your word: mixed.

I just take Peterson at face value, listen to him in full (for whatever particular context), chew on it a bit, contemplate, etc. and ultimately go on with my life. I'm not subscribed. He didn't change my life. And, sure, he can overstate things. I'm simply advocating for more than dismissal, never mind my partial worry about character assassination by association. Honestly, I'm not really sure what we're even talking about here, half the time. I just know you want me to know that you really like evidence. And who doesn't? I love it too.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 21:40:45 -0000

So let me get this straight, you've identified one report that suggests "campus speech protests don't only target conservatives," a claim none of us had on this podcast. But it is enough of a basis to believe that we think there is an international communist conspiracy because we are willing to entertain a discussion on ideas that Jordan Peterson has, many of which are unrelated to this.

Independent of that, you are referencing other anecdotes and Kate Kelly, no less, on how this isn't about feelings. Leaving aside the irony of referencing Kate Kelly in defense of not letting emotion into a discussion, you then go back to your report and remind us that you have evidence even if said evidence a) doesn't really contradict anything we said b) isn't particularly convincing as a reason to ignore Peterson unilaterally and c) doesn't do anything to support your claim that "he's ordinary."

This still leaves me unconvinced of much of anything.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:17:21 -0000

I'm not sure what you're arguing for, Brett. It's clear that you have a negative opinion of Peterson, that's for sure. And it seems true that issues at universities like this would likely persist/exist independent of him.

But I disagree that the intersection of those two thoughts leads to a "nothing to see here" conclusion.

Re: Ep 514 – Of Left and Right and Grumpy Old Men

Bob Caswell — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:20:52 -0000

Thanks for the correction, Brett. I'm intrigued by your quick and implied assessment that this should be divorced from any association with what Peterson himself warned and talked about. Reading between the lines, I think you'd like to imply that this was already a thing, not related to Peterson or his ideas, and that "petty tyranny [of] tenured professors," as you called it, has little to do with the Peterson context.

I think that's a possible explanation, but I'm not convinced by it.

Re: Ep 506 – Seven Deadly Heresies: The Smackdown, Part 5

Bob Caswell — Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:04:53 -0000

Yes, I touched on that briefly on the podcast. And to be fair, defining this isn't exclusively a Mormonism problem even if Mormonism exacerbates it. It's just hard to know what doing good for good actually means and where it is / isn't nullified based on externalities and other variables.

That said, my over-analysis shouldn't be confused with thinking it's a bad idea... just that while we all strive for this, whatever it is, I'm not ready to concede that it's so pure and simple as assumed when brought up.

Re: Ep 506 – Seven Deadly Heresies: The Smackdown, Part 5

Bob Caswell — Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:31:28 -0000

Thanks for sharing, John. I think your thoughts on #6 are overly simplistic. Good for the sake of doing good, especially in a Mormon context, has two major problems. I think it's kind of similar to the concept of your calling and election made sure.

First of all, it's difficult to define 'for goodness sake" independent of a myriad of other variables. And second of all, it's still all predicated on the one true Church philosophy as well as the Celestial Kingdom doctrine itself. Meaning, it's difficult to claim transcendence here if your belief structure must remain the same before and after you transcend.

Put another way, if you really were only doing good for goodness's sake, it'd be hard for me to be convinced that you're also an active believer in Mormonism because, paradoxically, you'd have to give up some of the core beliefs in order to truly be in that transcendent state.

Re: Ep 503 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 2

Bob Caswell — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:00:46 -0000

Scary and spot on question, dblagent007. DT is the quintessential negative manifestation of JP's points and, in my view, is partly why this "survival" version of truth is problematic in broader contexts (ironically, since JP constantly wants us to expand the context of any given situation to make his point stronger wherein here's a case where that methodology proves the opposite point, e.g., DT is all about survival of his ego via metaphorical truths, as he sees them, for what he's trying to accomplish).

Re: Ep 503 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 2

Bob Caswell — Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:08:08 -0000

Hi Bill, thanks to you and your wife for the comment! I'd like to quibble with her characterization, though. Just because "giving" 10% to Mormonism isn't equivalent to "giving" to a charity... well, I think that's a moot point, given the context and circumstances surrounding the two forms of giving. Lemme splain:

At least for me, as an active TBM, the difference between giving to the Church and giving to charity generally was philosophically super tiny at best and non-existent at worst. That is, I thought I was giving to charity when giving that 10%, the government certainly confirmed that as well.

Now on the other side as an ex-mo, sure, based on my views and beliefs now, it's a night and day difference. But that's beside the point. The point being, while in the Church, I was actively giving at least 10% to charity because that's what I believed I was doing. It doesn't matter that I view what I was doing then differently now, I did it and thought it was what it was. And that's super powerful.

So let's look at me now today. I know better, but I still like the idea of giving to charity, in principal. But guess what? I don't really do it anymore. At least, like I said, not even close to like I did when I thought I was giving to charity before.

Re: Ep 502 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 1

Bob Caswell — Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:53:24 -0000

Thanks for your thoughts, Delaney Darco, and that was me with the bridge point. :)

Re: Ep 502 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 1

Bob Caswell — Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:40:42 -0000

I'm not sure how or why you were labeled spam, but I was able to bring both of your comments back. Sorry about that.

Re: Ep 502 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 1

Bob Caswell — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:04:50 -0000

This is like those times when I wondered, but who watches the Rated R movies in order to edit out the bad parts for audiences at BYU?! And then the editor could answer, well, with the Spirit of discernment and my righteousness keeping me in check, don't worry, padowan, just worry about what you should do if/when you see this without my help in the big bad world.

Re: Ep 502 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 1

Bob Caswell — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:19:51 -0000

That's totally fine, just wanted to help you clarify what you really meant: you are speculating that Heather and John are more likely to agree with you and then calling that "clear-eyed" and then saying that you also like that you can tell them apart from the others.

But again, that's your preference, bias, and projection. It has little to do with who is equipped here as well as who is what gender or sexual orientation.

Re: Ep 502 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 1

Bob Caswell — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:11:59 -0000

That's fine that you don't like discussing content from people with baggage when there are better alternatives for you. But you are projecting and wanting to have a meta-discussion on what's worthy of discussion according to you. Uh, case closed, we've chosen to discuss it already. You should know that we may yet choose to discuss Peterson again at some point in the future. Those episodes will be clearly labeled each time (as these are), so you can just skip them, no need for all of us to discuss your contention of what's worthy of discussing. We already have a solution for you. :)

Re: Ep 503 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 2

Bob Caswell — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:06:45 -0000

Ironically, Brett, dozens of comments later... I still don't know what you think about, you know, the discussion we had, i.e., Peterson vs. Harris versions on truth. It's not in your approved list of Peterson topics, but it's also not part of what you hate about him (as far as I can remember).

Just curious if at some point you'll share an opinion on the topic at hand. :)

Re: Ep 502 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 1

Bob Caswell — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:44:52 -0000

Brett, thanks for expounding. I can see what you're getting at with the Hugh Nibley comparison, although I find Peterson's musings much more useful and interesting.

I take issue with your Heather and Hamer point, though. It's a bit condescending. The advantage of having Hamer or Heather on is because they both have great perspectives independent of their gender or sexual orientation. You are implying that we hetero white men discussing Peterson are ill-equipped and at a disadvantage for this discussion -- even though we were simply discussing the nature of truth -- because we are hetero white men. And that Heather or John automatically would be oracles of wisdom on the topic.

Incidentally, we talked to John last night about this briefly. And he was like, Jordan who? Hadn't heard much of anything about him, let alone read his book. If I can be snarky for a second: What I'm trying to say, Brett, is that any points you think you are making here would be a lot stronger if you'd find a woman or a gay person to make them for you. ;)

Re: Ep 503 – Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Truth – Part 2

Bob Caswell — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:57:22 -0000

I remember that, and it was useful at the time. But interestingly, my perspective has changes a bit since then... I think even when good is not unique and is coming from a source associated with some things that are not good, well, if you're careful, you can get still get value out of non-unique good wherever you find it.

For example, if I praise the LDS Church for something good (but not unique) it did, that doesn't mean that I'm broadcasting my acceptance of everything about them that is not good. Same for Peterson.