Ironically - wait, no, that's not it. What am I trying to say? Oh yes. Coincidentally, which does not mean the same thing as ironically, last weekend I posted about an assignment I wrote about memes I had made, and then a few days later I was looking through the hard drive from my computer that died in 2014 (not to be confused with my computer that died in 2013, my computer that died in 2015, my computer that died in 2019, and my computer that died a couple weeks ago) and found a couple more that I had forgotten about. Well, there was this one, which I hadn't forgotten about as such but which wouldn't have been the best choice for a secular college assignment even if it had come to mind at the time.

I've probably shared that here before. You know, I was just so frustrated with all the people I saw regurgitating that talking point who weren't scientists, didn't know anything about DNA except how to spell it, and made no attempt to acknowledge or engage with anything already written on this subject by people far more educated than them about why DNA testing can neither confirm or disprove the book's claims. That was before the Church's website had its own essay on "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies". A year or two ago, I was in this Christian evolutionist group on Facebook where some guy who may or may not have been an actual scientist said that the missionaries had shared it with him, and because of his a priori assumption that my religion is ridiculous, he was sure it must be misleading and would somebody please refute it for him? In the time that I observed the thread, nobody attempted to do so, but people did helpfully provide additional unrelated reasons why my religion is ridiculous.

And then there were a couple I had forgotten about. In late May and early June, I chatted with a girl I met in the Facebook group "The Awesome Mormons' Secret Society of Awesomeness", which constituted an embarrassing proportion of my social life for years. I still interact to several people from that group more than almost anyone I went to school with. This girl isn't one of them. But I chatted with her for a while, and she sent me a bunch of pictures of herself which were also in a folder on the hard drive. I don't remember how that got started. I'm pretty sure I didn't ever say "Please send me pictures of yourself." But she did, and I praised her beauty and I think that's why she kept doing it until she got tired of me. In a couple instances, I turned her pictures into memes and sent them back to her.

Smoother than the chunky peanut butter on your chunky peanut butter toast, that's me. But speaking of the genetic plausibility of the Book of Mormon, the foremost LDS apologetics organization FairMormon has changed its name back to FAIR. Now, though, instead of "Foundation for Apologetics Information and Research" it stands for "Faithful Answers, Informed Response". This is because most normal people don't know what apologetics is and wonder what they're apologizing for.

President Scott Gordon noted, "At this time of name changing, we have also done some reflection and subsequent course adjustment.... This means avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language." You may remember that once upon a December I wrote a post blasting their CES Letter videos, which were full of personal attacks or derogatory language, and their subsequent doubling down against the backlash by disabling comments, banning dissenters from their Facebook page, and issuing a damage control statement. I acknowledge that my blog has also had its share of personal attacks or derogatory language, but I think it's fair (pun intended) to hold the foremost LDS apologetics organization to a higher standard. I'm sure it did far more damage than me by making itself and the Church look bad. President Gordon's statement makes no mention of the videos, which FAIR has now quietly removed. It hasn't yet apologized for banning me from its Facebook page for criticizing them, but that's okay, I know people are busy. I'll wait.

Although FAIR has lost my respect, it did me a lot of good in the past and I hope it does more good for people in the future. And I don't share or understand some Saints' blanket condemnation of apologetics. Of course it isn't science or straightforward scholarship because it works backward and looks for evidence to fit an assumed conclusion, but that's okay sometimes. It can be done well or it can be done poorly. Trying to prove a religion by such means would be dishonest - but demonstrating plausible grounds for the religion, acknowledging that faith ultimately lies outside the scope of empirical evidence and reason but showing that it is nonetheless compatible with them, is necessary and desirable. In the example above, good apologetics assert (correctly) that DNA testing, because of its limitations and the unknown variables and shifting populations and genocides over a couple thousand years, can tell us little or nothing about the Book of Mormon. Bad apologetics, which also exist, assert that DNA testing proves Native Americans in the Midwest are direct descendants of Israelites.

Another purpose of apologetics is to respond to criticisms of the religion which may be objectively wrong or may just be founded on interpretations that are up for debate. If the critics are right about everything and the apologists are wrong about everything, as those Saints who disdain all apologetics seem to imply, then the Church has virtually no redeeming value and why are they still in it? Of course, I doubt they really belief this logical conclusion of their contempt. I think they have more in common with one Salt Lake Tribune commenter who posed the rhetorical question, "Why does the truth need apologists?" And I get the straightforward assumption embedded in his question. Why can't the truth speak for itself? Why does it need to be explained and defended so much? But his assumption is erroneous. The truth is, anything confusing and/or controversial needs apologists. Even science needs apologists. For example:

Critic: Vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue.
Apologist: No, they don't. Several vaccines are developed in cells grown from cells taken from two fetuses that were aborted for unrelated reasons in the 1960s, but refusing to save millions of lives with the vaccines won't un-abort them.

Critic: Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that systems will lose energy and go from order to disorder, not the other way around.
Apologist: No, it doesn't. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system because it constantly receives more energy from the sun. Your logic would preclude ordinary water droplets from forming into intricate snowflakes.

I am not a scientist, but I am a science apologist. I don't pretend to have credentials or do groundbreaking research in my own right but I do have enough expertise in a few areas to explain misconceptions or misrepresentations of people who don't. For that reason, I have no regrets about my time spent in a major that wasn't English. And apologists like me are needed. A field of science is not less true because people may not understand some aspects of it, or because they may choose to fixate on anomalies and as-yet unsolved mysteries to delegitimize the entire thing. Granted, the actual scientists can do the apologetics themselves too, but I imagine they get even more freaking tired of it than I do and would like to get back to doing actual work like saving us from this pandemic.

Quote of the day, from the chat of Dialogue's Zoom Sunday school this morning: "Darius [Gray] is sharing the real Easter message right here: the resurrection means that Christ wins over the worst that the most powerful men in the world can do. The resurrection is a holy middle finger to oppression and death. It is the destiny of the restored church to overcome racism"

[Stuff stuff stuff] Choose at least one internet meme (preferably something that you have personally interacted with). How does your example meet the above criteria of memes as described by Shifman? (250-300 words)

​Because I don't have close friends and didn't get a smartphone until 2017, I've always lagged well behind my own generation and didn't even know what a meme was until the latter half of my freshman year - 2012. I joked in a Facebook status that I was going to sue the creators of "Socially Awkward Penguin" for plagiarizing my life. This coincided with my discovery of a now-defunct Facebook page called "USU Memes". The memes used standard templates known across the internet, but understanding them usually required insider knowledge from the USU community. I submitted a few of my own based on true stories and through that platform I'm sure they got more attention than anything I've made since, especially since social media algorithms have a personal vendetta against me.

They all follow the photo + caption format. The first two memes are stock character macros that rely on readers' knowledge of previously established conventions. The first one can be understood by anyone who's seen the movie, but the second one would confuse the uninitiated as to why this particular text is juxtaposed over a picture of a penguin. Both templates had been circulated, imitated, and/or transformed many times before and since. For the last one, I think the meme would be the popular movie quote itself, "It's a trap!" The particular image of Admiral Ackbar wasn't a widely used template like the other two (though it was a template, as you can tell by the background pattern, which I certainly didn't have the expertise to create myself).
​
Here's a meme that I made last year, relying on knowledge of the convention of transplanting the "Scumbag Steve" hat onto other people's heads. The hat itself is so iconic that it carries connotations of scumbaggery independent of the character himself.

I was at exactly 300 words, so pretty please don't penalize me for going over, but I really want to share one more that I made because I think it deserves a lot more attention than it got. It doesn't follow a specific template except for the convention of taking movie or television quotes, often verbatim, and juxtaposing them with a subsequent image that changes the context in a surprising and humorous manner. Sometimes this is a one-off thing, like mine, but sometimes it becomes popular and everyone circulates, imitates, and/or transforms that particular quote.

An abstract is a self-contained, short, clear statement that describes a larger work (whether existing or proposed). Scholars are often asked to submit an abstract of their work to be considered for publications or presentations.... [Stuff stuff stuff] ​Abstracts are typically written in the present tense, even if you haven't done the research yet! (e.g. "this research shows" rather than "this research will show"). [??? Okay.] Also, try to dial down on the use of uncertain language whenever possible (e.g. "looking at  X from this perspective might be is useful for thinking about Y". 

(Only my long abstract is included here because the short one is the same thing but with most of the sentences removed.)

Folklorists have written extensively on how gender is portrayed in toys such as Barbie dolls and GI Joes, and subverted (or not) by the children (and adults) who play with them. Ostensibly more gender-neutral toys such as Legos have received less attention. On the surface this makes perfect sense. Traditional Lego minifigure (or “minifig”) bodies are shaped the same, male or female, and are obviously not meant to approximate real human body types, exaggerated or otherwise. Nobody has any concerns about them promoting unrealistic body image. The company also has a policy against including realistic modern weaponry (a category which does not cover swords, cannons, lightsabers, squid launchers, etc.) or glorifying realistic violence in its sets.

However, there are still notable differences in how often male and female minifigs appear, how they are dressed, and/or their roles in the storylines that accompany some product lines. It is also well known that the Lego company markets most of its products far more heavily to boys on the assumption that they will be more interested than girls. Product lines marketed to girls (e.g. Belville, LEGO Friends) use minifigs shaped more like traditional plastic dolls and focus on stereotypical “girl” colors, settings, and plotlines. This raises the question of whether the Lego company is correct in its assumptions about male and female interests, or is excluding many potential customers based on debatable cultural constructs. In this paper, I show that the truth is somewhere in the middle – its girl-marketed products enjoy some popularity among the target demographic, but girls are also more receptive to the mainstream sets than the company supposes. It would be wise to include them more in marketing and to produce more diverse and numerous female minifigs in the first place.

Legos, even more so than Barbies, lend themselves to many varieties of creative play for children and adults alike. By design, the bricks and other pieces in any Lego set can be reconstructed into other things contingent on the builder’s imagination, and the company actively encourages this. It often showcases builders’ creations and sometimes sponsors contests. In recent years the internet has provided a larger venue than ever for people to share “My Own Creations” (MOCs). As part of my research, following a similar pattern to those who have studied Barbies and GI Joes, I determined that the gender demographics of people uploading MOCs are more balanced the company would expect, and that their portrayals of various male and female minifigs often differ from the originals sets and storylines where those minifigs originated.

I also found similar results in other areas such as Lego computer games and movies, and brickfilms – stop-motion films made with Legos, which have become ever more popular and easier to make with the rise of YouTube and digital camera technology. Brickfilms offer the same creative flexibility as MOCs, but have the added advantage of including a clear story and personalities for the minifigs involved. Here, too, girls and (more often) women have taken full advantage of this creative outlet and not limited themselves to the pink products.

Writing Notes:
A Playlist that 100% Accurately Describes What Happens Every Single Time I Experience Writer's Block During a Pandemic
​
By C. Randall Nicholson

Collective Soul – Run

This is perhaps the saddest happy song or the happiest sad song I’ve ever heard. It captures my feelings about the you-know-what and sometimes life in general – simultaneously adapted to and completely drained by it. There’s no sugar-coating how much it sucks, but what can you do?

Rammstein – Keine Lust

Although this song gets me pumped enough to wrestle a grizzly bear (which cannot be found in Utah – thanks, Frank Clark), the title translates to “No Desire”, which is the amount of desire that I have to write when I don’t have any desire to write.

Sami Yusuf – Make Me Strong

I echo Sami’s words, pleading with God to make me strong, though for me the stakes are undoubtedly higher than whatever he had in mind. I’m trying to write a masterpiece, after all, while he probably just needed help with grocery bills or something.

Kansas – Carry On Wayward Son

God’s response to me, or my response to myself, depending on your beliefs. tl;dr: Man up and just do it.

Adriano Celentano – Prisencolinensinainciusol

In this satirical song, the title of which I swear I spelled correctly on my first try, an Italian singer puts on a fake American accent and sings gibberish that sounds like English even to a native English speaker. This symbolizes the gibberish that I write when I’m forcing myself to write even though I have keine lust to do so.

Natasha Bedingfield – These Words

With a bit of revision, I manage to mold the gibberish into something more coherent, but these words still look like something a third grader would write. I console myself that at least they’re less cringe than the time I parodied Cheap Trick’s “Dream Police” as “Sweet Calise”.

Haddaway – What is Love [10 hour version]

This song represents all the intrusive thoughts, YouTube videos, and social media breaks that interrupt my writing time. Maybe just imagine it’s playing in the background the entire time all these other songs are playing.

Alanis Morissette – Perfect

As I continue to revise, Alanis, from inside my head (come on, we all fantasize about her), ridicules me for not producing work that measures up to her standards of quality. I could make a snarky comment about her voice being less than perfect, but I choose to be the bigger person here.

Alison Krauss & Union Station – When You Say Nothing at All
Alanis takes a break to soothe her vocal chords, and laughs in disbelief as her friend Alison goes even further by mockingly pretending to love me and passive-aggressively suggesting that my attempts at self-expression are worse than nothing. “Ooh, that’s cold,” Alanis mumbles, still giggling. “I think you crossed the line with that one.”

Scatman John – Scatman (ska-ba-bop-ba-dop-bop)

Just when all hope seems lost, Scatman makes the naysayers shut the hell up with his poignant reminder that I, too, can rise above my weaknesses to create beautiful words. And like they say, bros before singers whose names start with “Al”, so I listen to him and take renewed confidence.

Saint Etienne – Nothing Can Stop Us

I am invincible. I will persevere. I can do anything I put my mind to, as long as it falls within the limited range of talents and skills that I possess, such as writing.

Las Bibas From Vizcaya – (Do You Have) The Force – Pt I & II

Having found my groove, I let writing flow from my fingertips like the Force. Writing surrounds me, penetrates me, and binds my thoughts and the computer together. Insert obligatory joke about midi-chlorians here.

“Weird Al” Yankovic – Hardware Store

In the bridge to this song, Al sings a list of rhyming hardware store items too fast for most mere mortals to match even mentally, which is symbolic of how articulate and amazing my writing has become after sufficiently revising and finding my groove. He’s exempt from the rule about singers whose names start with “Al” because his first name is Weird. And so is my writing.

Ozzy Osbourne – I Don’t Wanna Stop
​
It’s past my bedtime, and my current mental activity will make it impossible for me to sleep for at least two hours because God hates smart people, but I’m having too much fun! I’ll write right now and suffer later.

I got a root canal, and I'm so happy to have it over with! It wasn't exactly pleasant to pay over a thousand dollars for the privilege of laying back with my chin tilted all the way up and a sheet of rubber prying my mouth open for an hour and a half, although I'm sure some people are into that. And reading on the waiver that root canals only have a 90% success rate even if the receptionist hadn't already told me "It will be tricky, but we'll do our best" didn't put me in the best mood. Virtually no actual pain in the tooth, though. And now it will never hurt again because the nerves are gone, if I understand correctly. (Not that it was hurting at all before the dentist "fixed" it earlier this year.) I went about my day and then all of a sudden I felt some wistfulness, even regret, over the fact that these little parts of my body have been removed for the rest of my life and been replaced with plastic or wax or whatever. It's just a little sad.

With daylight savings time messing me up like always, I'm not in the mood to write much or do anything that isn't sleep. I'll be lucky to have recovered by this time next week. So I thought I'd just comment on a few of the recent cancel culture controversies that make life worth living.

Gina Carano

As I mentioned in a previous post, she's a garbage human and deserves what she got for spreading dangerous medical misinformation and conspiracy theories. It's just a shame that the future course of "The Mandalorian" has to be dictated by real world political crap. Cara Dune is a cool character. Rumor has it she'll be replaced with Hera Syndulla of "Rebels" in her live-action debut, though, and if that happens I can't complain too much. Hera is a cool character and she's not another bleeping human.

Mr. Potato Head

This is a really stupid controversy. Mr. Potato Head and Mrs. Potato Head are still characters. They have not been made gender-neutral. Their overarching brand name, however, has been changed to Potato Head. And there will be a playset later this year that lets you make a Potato Head family with two dads or two moms, but you don't have to, so chill. People are really freaking out because one company has taken a small step toward no longer acting like male is the default status for every living thing.

Dr. Seuss

I truly regret the apparent necessity of no longer publishing six of this great man's books. Although he was horrifically racist toward Japanese people in his World War II political cartoons, he called out American anti-black racism in the same cartoons. But I seem to remember another controversy years ago when people discovered that he used the n-word once in the 1920s. People are complex, okay? I haven't read the books in question in a long time. I remember half of the examples of racism cited from them, and I remember not giving them a second thought and not realizing they were racist until it was brought to my attention to the books no longer being published. I'm not sure if that makes it less of a big deal, or more. Children are susceptible to stereotypes. Maybe the books should still be published but with warning labels and marketed toward adults alongside "The Seven Lady Godivas". Yes, Dr. Seuss wrote a book for adults called "The Seven Lady Godivas" and yes, it's a picture book.

Lecrae

Oh wait, what's this? Conservatives are the ones trying to cancel Lecrae and boycott his Christian rap music over his political views? How interesting. Okay, look, I know it's really strange that a black man doesn't support the party that defends police brutality and pretends racism doesn't exist, but get over it.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

Due to an oversight that accidentally violated church policy, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's family donated to Joe Biden and other Democrats in his name. (He can vote for whomever he wants, but as a General Authority, he isn't supposed to campaign for or donate to anyone.) After this got media attention the other day, conservatives, again, were the ones shocked and outraged to discover that when the First Presidency said "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties", they actually meant that principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties. People who think their political views are the gospel went ballistic about him "voting against life" and supporting "baby killers" and not worshiping the same god they do. (Donald Trump, in case that isn't obvious.) Some are threatening to cancel him by leaving the Church, and to them I say, please do, and while you're at it, piss off into the sun.

Pepe Le Pew

I'll just repeat what I wrote on Facebook earlier today because why waste time duplicating effort? Apparently the deleted Pepe Le Pew scene from "Space Jam 2" - a movie that doesn't need to exist, and for that matter I don't know why we insist on pretending the first one is a good movie instead of the unfunny poorly acted feature-length commercial that it actually is*, but whatever - is actually about him getting put in his place and learning that consent matters. So why on Earth would they want to delete that??

Pepe Le Pew exists. I don't think he's a great character or that the one joke he's based on gets funnier after the first fifteen times, but he exists and he won't stop existing or suddenly be forgotten just because he's no longer in this one movie. The scene that was cut seems to me like the only reasonable way to deal with that reality and send a clear message, especially to impressionable children, that we have evolved as a society and that some of the messaging in his cartoons, which still exist and will still be watched regardless of anything, was wrong. (And dismissing it as "normal animal behavior" in a cartoon franchise that presents normal animal behavior about as accurately as Donald Trump presents normal human behavior is just too stupid for words.) Instead they're just sweeping it under the rug and not addressing or fixing anything. Le sigh.

*One of my Facebook friends disputes this. I'll grant that it's not an objective fact like my political views are, so I'll let that slide.

Latter-day Saint Charities recently donated $20 million to UNICEF's push for two billion vaccine doses in 196 countries by the end of the year. I applaud such an initiative. It is absolutely unacceptable for only wealthy countries to get the vaccine while the rest continue to suffer for God knows how long. Naturally, the anti-vaxxers whose existence blights this planet are confused and upset at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all over again, and I've had many opportunities to pass along my post "Follow the Prophet, Even When He Shills for Big Pharma", which has upset some of them even more. When I wrote it, I harbored no illusions that it would change anyone's mind. Trying to convince an anti-vaxxer of reality is like trying to convince a rock to do jumping jacks. I know that, and yet I've still wasted some time arguing with them, and I'm not proud of myself and I'm really trying to stop.

The best I could hope for was to cut through their mental gymnastics and rationalizations about the officiality and unambiguousness of the Church's position on vaccines, and expose them to the full force of the cognitive dissonance they warrant and deserve for knowing that it isn't run by delusional anti-science conspiracy theorists like them, and convince them to have some integrity and admit that they disagree with an official and unambiguous Church position. Even that was expecting too much of them, but I tried. At least when left-wing members disagree with the Church on something - always for reasons that are a lot less stupid - they have the cajones to say they disagree with the Church on something. They don't lie and pretend it's one guy's opinion that isn't binding on anything. Really, the logical leap from "The First Presidency ackowledged that vaccinations are a personal decision" (true) to "The First Presidency didn't endorse vaccines and encourage all members to get vaccinated" (bull) is so blatantly wrong that I'm sure even most of the anti-vaxxers making it know it's wrong. They're just trying to stave off the cognitive dissonance at all costs. And they hate me when I don't let them do that.

More than one person was upset with me for mocking the grieving parents of hundreds of thousands of children who have suffered from vaccine injuries. No, I'm mocking parents who are so stupid that if their kid gets vaccinated and then gets hit by a car two years later, they call it a vaccine injury. More than one person was upset with me for not showing Christlike love to people with a difference of opinion founded on lies that presents a constant direct threat to public health throughout the country, and especially to the lives and well-being of children whose only sin was being born to such idiots. Oh, isn't it funny how anti-vaxxers were always like "Why does my child need to get vaccinated to protect your child" but now they're pretending to know how herd immunity works? We don't need the vaccine, we need everyone in the world to get sick, several million people to die, and the healthcare system to collapse so we can achieve herd immunity. The virus has a 99.9% recovery rate with no long-term side effects or any negative outcomes besides death whatsoever, but the rate of abnormally serious side effects from the vaccine is - well, it's a lot lower than .01%, but that's still a lot because it just is! Or something. I'm only pretending to comprehend their thought process, if they have one.

Last week we workshopped the first thirteen pages of my essay "Things That Rhyme With 'Elise'", which maybe I'll post on this website and maybe I won't. And I just want to say that the workshop was a great experience for how it contrasted with my experience last time I had a class from Jennifer. Last time, as I've mentioned, I was not adapted to the flash non-fiction format she made us use where every detail has to have some deeper layer of meaning, and my classmates didn't understand when I was trying to make jokes in my writing and decided to assume I was stupid instead. I felt eaten alive. This time, everyone gushed about how great it was. I mean, workshops always start with saying what you think is working well in a piece anyway, but you can tell if everyone really liked a piece because they have so much to say. They thought it was funny and sweet and had all these brilliant things going on - some of them intentional on my part, some subconscious, and a few coincidental but I'll take them anyway. My one favorite line from all verbal and written feedback combined is: "I love the way you write about Calise, I feel like I'm falling in love with her with you."

Of course, as this is a little less than half of the current length of the essay, they couldn't see where I was going with it or which seemingly random details will turn out to be important - some even questioned whether Talease, interesting though she is, really matters to the story I'm telling, and oh how I wish I could answer that in the negative - so I'm impressed with the volume of useful feedback they were able to provide regardless. I felt bad having to split it up and make it less powerful, but I'd feel worse making them respond to 28 pages in one go. I was going to do this essay and another essay about something else, but this one will swell to fill as much space as I can give it, and it's what my heart needs me to write about. I've had to be very selective with details and try to choose representative ones that present a good picture and also take the time to dwell on key scenes and not just jump along from one point to another like "The Rise of Skywalker", and there's the whole show vs. tell balance and scene vs. summary balance and so on. My classmates are invested now and they're excited to read the second part and see how this adorable love story will play out.

Yeah... I feel bad about that.

I wish I could make up a different story, to satisfy them if not myself, but I can't because unlike anti-vaxxers, I have some integrity. So the second part is going to break their expectant, excited hearts. I feel like a box of puppies is looking up at me with such love and trust in their eyes as I'm about to shoot them all. I suppose this is a skill I can carry over to my preferred venue of fiction writing. I'll get people to love my characters and root for their success and read with baited breath to see what happens, and then I'll do terrible things to my characters, kill them off even, and my readers will cry and curse me and keep buying my books. I mean, I want my books to be funny, so I won't be too extreme with that direction. But it's a good skill to have and it looks like I have it. I feel so bad.