Free Speech on ESMB

We certainly have free speech on ESMB.

But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?

Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.

If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?

Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.

For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.

But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the

possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.

We've almost all had experience with Scientology.

When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better

idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).

Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.

But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?

New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.

But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our

later interpretations?

Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.

I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.

But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.

We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.

And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).

I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.

We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.

I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.

Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.

Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.

But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.

Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."

Overall, I think we do a good job of it.

But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.

The Anabaptist Jacques

P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.
 

Jump

Operating teatime
We certainly have free speech on ESMB.

But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?

Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.

If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?

Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.

For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.

But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the

possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.

We've almost all had experience with Scientology.

When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better

idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).

Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.

But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?

New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.

But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our

later interpretations?

Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.

I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.

But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.

We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.

And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).

I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.

We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.

I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.

Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.

Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.

But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.

Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."

Overall, I think we do a good job of it.

But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.

The Anabaptist Jacques

P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.

Thanks TAJ. And nice to see you here again. :)

I think people get a fairer hearing here than many messageboards. And they will get a range of views/responses.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
We certainly have free speech on ESMB.

But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?

Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.

If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?

Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.

For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.

But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the

possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.

We've almost all had experience with Scientology.

When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better

idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).

Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.

But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?

New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.

But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our

later interpretations?

Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.

I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.

But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.

We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.

And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).

I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.

We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.

I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.

Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.

Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.

But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.

Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."

Overall, I think we do a good job of it.

But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.

The Anabaptist Jacques

P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.


:clap::clap::clap:

Your Posts always have given me moment to pause and reflect, think about my own "garbage" and/or laugh from true wit of your unusually gifted perspective, Mind and Heart. :yes:

I Grok you...as best I can. When I first came to ESMB I was "flailing down the backside of the wave" of the Hemorrhagic Brain Lesion/TBI that had hit me a few years before and it took me hours to make a Post as long as yours.

Youz gots GREAT Gooeynads, TAJ. I've learned from, laughed my ass off and am a better person by your presence here on this Board.

My Very Best Wishes To You Always In All Ways, :thumbsup:

Face:)

EDIT PS: Hones Injun...I had the thought a few days ago, "Where is TAJ? I hope he's Okay. We really need him right now."
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
I like the idea, the tolerance to inquiry, but I think it should be earned.

The existing tolerance astounds me already. I don't believe I would be half as tolerant as the exes who have been through it and live every day with the residual niggles and pain of the experience.

Perhaps, I over empathise. I don't like seeing people here hurt again.

My question is does any poster have an automatic right to tolerance? I would like to read tolerance and empathy for the existing board members, a genuine understanding from the inquirer. As I see it newly out and still in Scientologists are indoctrinated with an arrogance and self importance to make this very difficult. But not impossible.

Should the existing community change to suit the one, or the one change to suit the community? should the onus also fall to the inquirer to choose thecorrect community? The word ex in the title and a 10 minute browse through the threads should make the general tone of the board clear.

I'm rambling. Tolerance is a two way street imnsho.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
TAJ, some of the speech recognition software out there now is pretty damn good.

I have a Galaxy S3 phone I use and am amazed at how well it understands what I say. It's not accurate 100% of the time but close enough to make it worth using.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
We certainly have free speech on ESMB.

But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?

Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.

If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?

Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.

For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.

But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.

I think you are mistaking "tolerance" with "agreement", or perhaps "politeness".

ESMB is very tolerant, in the sense of your being able to express your honest opinion without being banned.

I've known boards where expressing disagreement with the board owner on some point might get you suspended if not permanently banned. THAT is intolerance.

I've seen instances where expressing the "wrong" opinion has people trying (or succeeding) to get you fired from your job in the real world (such as appearing on a list of donors to a group opposing gay marriage), or even put you at risk of physical harm. THAT is real intolerance.

Being allowed to express your opinion, does not mean that other people do not have an equal right to disagree strongly with it, and it does not make people who disagree "intolerant". It just means they have strongly different opinions.

PS: just because some of us disagree strongly with some of your opinions, doesn't mean we don't still love you.
 
I think you are mistaking "tolerance" with "agreement", or perhaps "politeness".

ESMB is very tolerant, in the sense of your being able to express your honest opinion without being banned.

I've known boards where expressing disagreement with the board owner on some point might get you suspended if not permanently banned. THAT is intolerance.

I've seen instances where expressing the "wrong" opinion has people trying (or succeeding) to get you fired from your job in the real world (such as appearing on a list of donors to a group opposing gay marriage), or even put you at risk of physical harm. THAT is real intolerance.

Being allowed to express your opinion, does not mean that other people do not have an equal right to disagree strongly with it, and it does not make people who disagree "intolerant". It just means they have strongly different opinions.

I am electing you the trainer for those who dare to tread this site, because I feel like I can say whatever I want to you and it doesn't bug you, even though I have disagreed with you strongly sometimes.
 

AngeloV

Gold Meritorious Patron
In my opinion every post declaring a person's 'wins' while using scientology's auditing, policies or procedures should be countered with an explanation of the dangers of said practices. Every one.

I'm not talking about ad-hominem attacks on a poster which are clearly prohibited by the rules of the board. I do mean explicitly pointing out why dabbling in scientology, even at the most perfunctory level, can lead one into wasting much time and money.

And I think it is important to do this so that anyone who has never been in the cult and is reading this board, can be encouraged to proceed with caution and skepticism. If these counter posts can keep one person, one young, idealistic person, from entering a cult church then that's a 'win' in my book.

LRH's dianetics and scientology are packed full of lies, exaggerations and deceptions. I was an auditor and a PC. I shouted at ashtrays and did TRs for hours. I was in the SO. I swallowed a lot of Hubbard's lies. I am quite aware of what 'wins' are and what they are not.

So if the reader has never been in scientology and is interested in finding out what it is, then by all means google it. There are hundreds of web pages containing the writings of Hubbard. But do not give any money to the cult because it is a criminal organization that has devastated countless people's lives.

The 'wins' and 'gains' described by some posters can be obtained via many, many other means. Don't try to achieve them using the methods, policies and procedures of a compulsive liar and con man.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
I think you are mistaking "tolerance" with "agreement", or perhaps "politeness". ESMB is very tolerant, in the sense of your being able to express your honest opinion without being banned.I've known boards where expressing disagreement with the board owner on some point might get you suspended if not permanently banned. THAT is intolerance.I've seen instances where expressing the "wrong" opinion has people trying (or succeeding) to get you fired from your job in the real world (such as appearing on a list of donors to a group opposing gay marriage), or even put you at risk of physical harm. THAT is real intolerance.Being allowed to express your opinion, does not mean that other people do not have an equal right to disagree strongly with it, and it does not make people who disagree "intolerant". It just means they have strongly different opinions.PS: just because some of us disagree strongly with some of your opinions, doesn't mean we don't still love you.
Undeniably there is freedom of speech at ESMB, I agree with you. Almost all my articles were posted here, which is not the case of some other websites. However, the mods removed my last article, the topic of which was torture methods that one would want to use on LRH. Perhaps, the topic was too radical even for ESMB
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
My question is does any poster have an automatic right to tolerance? I would like to read tolerance and empathy for the existing board members, a genuine understanding from the inquirer. As I see it newly out and still in Scientologists are indoctrinated with an arrogance and self importance to make this very difficult. But not impossible.


Personally, I think it's a good idea to err on the side of being overly tolerant to a newbie, regardless of what their viewpoint is.

I've visited message boards where posters are not very nice to newbies. The impression I would often get from them is that they are clique-y and you are only welcome if you are part of some kind of "in crowd".

I don't think that that's the case here, and I wouldn't want it to be.
 
M

Moderator 3

Guest
Undeniably there is freedom of speech at ESMB, I agree with you. Almost all my articles were posted here, which is not the case of some other websites. However, the mods removed my last article, the topic of which was torture methods that one would want to use on LRH. Perhaps, the topic was too radical even for ESMB
Forum Rules

1. Treat others with respect.
You are to respect every other user on the board despite any personal, religious and political differences. The following will not be tolerated:

Personal insults
Ad hominems
Threats or promotion of violence
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
We certainly have free speech on ESMB.

But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?

Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.

If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?

Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.

For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.

But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.


We've almost all had experience with Scientology.

When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better

idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).

Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.

But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?

New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.

But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our

later interpretations?

Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.

I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.

But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.

We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.

And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).

I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.

We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.

I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.

Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.

Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.

But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.

Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."

Overall, I think we do a good job of it.

But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.

The Anabaptist Jacques

P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.

Consider the posters on this board. 99.9% had a negative experience with Scientology.

If you try to sell an ice cream to a health freak, what do you get? A happy thank you? Most likely you will get a courteous no thank you. This is likely to change to a more hostile response if you persist - Witch is the main reason "hard sell" techniques sucks, they leave you with a ruined future market.

If you push a positive attitude of the tech to a bunch of ex loonies that currently views the "tech" in a very negative fashion you end up disliked, frowned at and shit happens, like banns and stuff. All very natural I suppose and a healthy part of forum life.

I am more interested in the flip side of the coin - Why would anyone want to sell ice cream to health freaks? Surely any man or woman can see where that leads.

Other then that, I can not really see where "free inquiry" is not being bashed on, and even when it comes to "pro-techies" it does take time before the bashing begins. Even then, it is allowed, as can be seen on the latest in CBS Weekly.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Consider the posters on this board. 99.9% had a negative experience with Scientology.

If you try to sell an ice cream to a health freak, what do you get? A happy thank you? Most likely you will get a courteous no thank you. This is likely to change to a more hostile response if you persist - Witch is the main reason "hard sell" techniques sucks, they leave you with a ruined future market.

If you push a positive attitude of the tech to a bunch of ex loonies that currently views the "tech" in a very negative fashion you end up disliked, frowned at and shit happens, like banns and stuff. All very natural I suppose and a healthy part of forum life.

I am more interested in the flip side of the coin - Why would anyone want to sell ice cream to health freaks? Surely any man or woman can see where that leads.

Other then that, I can not really see where "free inquiry" is not being bashed on, and even when it comes to "pro-techies" it does take time before the bashing begins. Even then, it is allowed, as can be seen on the latest in CBS Weekly.

It would also help if 90%+ of the pro-tek posters did not post messages rife with logical fallacies. Getting taken to task for spouting bullshit is NOT the same thing as getting censored.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
It would also help if 90%+ of the pro-tek posters did not post messages rife with logical fallacies. Getting taken to task for spouting bullshit is NOT the same thing as getting censored.

90% of the pro techers... You do know we are talking about like 3-4 people, right? I think we just succeeding in making the problem sound bigger then it actually is!

End of the day, what the moderators keeps pushing is the best cure all. Hit the fecking ignore button.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Consider the posters on this board. 99.9% had a negative experience with Scientology.

If you try to sell an ice cream to a health freak, what do you get? A happy thank you? Most likely you will get a courteous no thank you. This is likely to change to a more hostile response if you persist - Witch is the main reason "hard sell" techniques sucks, they leave you with a ruined future market.

If you push a positive attitude of the tech to a bunch of ex loonies that currently views the "tech" in a very negative fashion you end up disliked, frowned at and shit happens, like banns and stuff. All very natural I suppose and a healthy part of forum life.

I am more interested in the flip side of the coin - Why would anyone want to sell ice cream to health freaks? Surely any man or woman can see where that leads.

Other then that, I can not really see where "free inquiry" is not being bashed on, and even when it comes to "pro-techies" it does take time before the bashing begins. Even then, it is allowed, as can be seen on the latest in CBS Weekly.

Meanwhile, I've seen postings from people here about negative experiences on "Freezone" boards when posting negative views about LRH and the "tech". Over there, the doctrine is that the tech is good, and it's just DM who screwed things up.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
We certainly have free speech on ESMB.

But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?

Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.

If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?

Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.

For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.

But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the

possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.

We've almost all had experience with Scientology.

When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better

idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).

Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.

But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?

New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.

But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our

later interpretations?

Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.

I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.

But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.

We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.

Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.

And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).

I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.

We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.

I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.

Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.

Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.

But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.

Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."

Overall, I think we do a good job of it.

But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.

The Anabaptist Jacques

P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.

Thank you for taking the time and thought to type this message. It's an important one.
I don't necessarily agree with you that appreciation of the tech is not acceptable here. Personally, I have posted a number of messages supporting this or that area of Tech, and I have not been especially flamed for it.

It seems to me that those who blather on about how they are 'disliked' because they are Scn'ists need to take a look at their posting style, rather than the message that the Tek is OK, and they like it.

You know who you are.

The guys who come here newly are a whole differerent story than those who intentionally agitate the population here, and I agree that they should be treated gently until they have the opportunity that this Board presents for exploring the 'other side'.

My opinion, only. Thanks for the insightful post,TAJ.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Meanwhile, I've seen postings from people here about negative experiences on "Freezone" boards when posting negative views about LRH and the "tech". Over there, the doctrine is that the tech is good, and it's just DM who screwed things up.

Excactly! Is anyone surprised about that?
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
All that ever happens here is posting and reading. On the one hand, that means that nobody's getting burned at the stake, here. If people don't like what I post, they're not actually hurting me or even stopping me from expressing myself.

On the other hand, the only reason anybody posts anything here at all is to get some kind of response or feedback from other people. If the feedback is a mass of Dislikes and WTFs, and a string of posts all saying that you're totally wrong, then that's about as bad as anything can be, here. It's a low-bandwidth channel. The upside and the downside aren't all that far apart. Maybe there's a case to be made for weighing the moral impact of posting by where it falls within this narrow range of what can happen on a message board, instead of by where it falls in the range of interactions that are possible in Real Life.

If the guys in my local pub are always telling me I'm wrong, I might still go there for the beer and darts; but unless I've been missing out on some unusual features of this forum, there's no beer and darts here. If somebody gets nothing but criticism here, why would they stick around? It's hard to see a good reason.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I can't see any obligation for people to post enthusiastic props when somebody else posts something they think is nonsense, just to be nice. So maybe the only point is that message boards are inherently less able to accommodate diverse communities than pubs are. Maybe a kind of effective group censorship is inevitable.

Or maybe the point is that it may take special measures to maintain diversity on a message board. I'll abstain from any vote on whether maintaining diversity should really be a goal of ESMB. But if it were decided that diversity really was a serious goal, then maybe the board would have to make a collective decision to do a little more ignoring and a little less arguing, or something like that.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
It would also help if 90%+ of the pro-tek posters did not post messages rife with logical fallacies. Getting taken to task for spouting bullshit is NOT the same thing as getting censored.

I don't know how far logic will take you when exploring this stuff though. What do you do when someone is convinced, as Leon is for example, that he got good results on auditing OT3 even when you know that there isn't a geologist anywhere who gives any credence at all to LRH's scenario of volcanoes on earth 75 million years ago? Never mind the DC-8s or whatever else it was?

For my part, I'm happy to leave it at that, assume that something good did happen when those people ran OT3 and chalk the reason why as something else I don't understand about the mind and spirit (I'm not convinced that the placebo effect accounts for it).
 
Top