I'm sort of in between these too thoughts. On one hand, yes, engaging someone to refute their claims can sometimes make things worse. On the other, failing to correct or challenge those postings can leave the public with a lesser opinion of our fraternity.
It's the latter I lean towards. For decades we've been told to not engage with the conspiracy theory nuts, but that basically allowed their wild claims to go unchallenged. Without counter arguments, the rest of the world will just naturally assume the conspiracies are right.
But, in this instance (I don't know the brother, or the postings on social media) I would assume that the brother is simply proving that the suspension or expulsion was warranted.
That's very true, I would always say that an argument on social media only ever entrenches one's belief in one's own stance, and the same applies to the other side - if a brother has been expelled from the craft and feels aggrieved about it, it's very improbable you'll convince him that his expulsion was a correct decision on behalf of Grand Lodge by arguing on FB.
However, if the brother is spilling lies and unfounded accusations about the place and deliberately putting Masonry in a bad light in a public forum, a few calm and eloquent brethren could point out the obvious fallacies in his comments for the benefit of the profane who may be reading it
I believe that arguments online are not to convince the challenger but rather to convince the audience. I'm not sure what the rules say, but just as the arguments and results of a criminal trial are available as public information, I don't see why we can't publish the details of his expulsion for the public just as it is read aloud in lodge to prevent masonic clandestine communication.
Sooo…after tonights meeting I was able to find out the brother in question. Very surprised, but from the posts, I get the impression that the issue was over co-masonry. Anyone that has known me for any length of time knows my position on that particular issue. But he was a good brother and a man I had known for years. Sad to see him go but yeah, definitely burning bridges there.
I do not believe we should engage on social media. There are the proper channels for that and if the attack occurs after those channels have been exhausted then it will do nothing but harm to our Fraternity by showing dissent and engaging.
By all means a friend of the Brother expelled may speak privately with him but avoid social media comments like the plague. Only more harm will result.
I knew of a WV Grand Master who was expelled when it was discovered that he posted "inside sight only" info on an open electronic Website?
Powerful words... Thank you.
Your words always seem to hit home. Especially on this topic.
I'm sort of in between these too thoughts. On one hand, yes, engaging someone to refute their claims can sometimes make things worse. On the other, failing to correct or challenge those postings can leave the public with a lesser opinion of our fraternity.
It's the latter I lean towards. For decades we've been told to not engage with the conspiracy theory nuts, but that basically allowed their wild claims to go unchallenged. Without counter arguments, the rest of the world will just naturally assume the conspiracies are right.
But, in this instance (I don't know the brother, or the postings on social media) I would assume that the brother is simply proving that the suspension or expulsion was warranted.
That's very true, I would always say that an argument on social media only ever entrenches one's belief in one's own stance, and the same applies to the other side - if a brother has been expelled from the craft and feels aggrieved about it, it's very improbable you'll convince him that his expulsion was a correct decision on behalf of Grand Lodge by arguing on FB.
However, if the brother is spilling lies and unfounded accusations about the place and deliberately putting Masonry in a bad light in a public forum, a few calm and eloquent brethren could point out the obvious fallacies in his comments for the benefit of the profane who may be reading it
I believe that arguments online are not to convince the challenger but rather to convince the audience. I'm not sure what the rules say, but just as the arguments and results of a criminal trial are available as public information, I don't see why we can't publish the details of his expulsion for the public just as it is read aloud in lodge to prevent masonic clandestine communication.
Sooo…after tonights meeting I was able to find out the brother in question. Very surprised, but from the posts, I get the impression that the issue was over co-masonry. Anyone that has known me for any length of time knows my position on that particular issue. But he was a good brother and a man I had known for years. Sad to see him go but yeah, definitely burning bridges there.
I do not believe we should engage on social media. There are the proper channels for that and if the attack occurs after those channels have been exhausted then it will do nothing but harm to our Fraternity by showing dissent and engaging.
By all means a friend of the Brother expelled may speak privately with him but avoid social media comments like the plague. Only more harm will result.