# CommunicatorIC 2013-06-19 19:45
Quoting Paul M. Foster:
Of course, these were wog groups.
Paul,
Are you sure you want to start your new Independent Scientology Membership Community by condescendingly denigrating, disparaging and disrespecting "wogs?"
Is it really the best way to maintain a friendly environment to post such denigration, disparagement and disrespect of "wogs" on a public forum on the Internet?
I could go to the corporate Church of Scientology if I wanted my non-Scientologist friends disrespected as "wogs."
Normally, I would not attempt to post such contentious and disagreeable content here. I thought, however, that I should have the confront to post here what I would say (and indeed have said) elsewhere.
I also think your community may want to give some thought to your group's use of the term "wog," particularly in the context where the clear implication is that wogs (and "wog groups") are inferior.
-- CommunicatorIC
# Thoughtful 2013-06-20 18:42
Yes, you are totally right. The word should not have been used because it has been used consistently by many as a pejorative term. And the fact is, we don't need it. I never use the term myself. Times have changed. Thanks for speaking up. I edited it out of the original comment.
Condescending attitudes, pejorative terms and arrogance have no part in any philosophy. Why? Because it defeats the very idea of "philosophy" which means love of wisdom. When we use terms that marginalize well-meaning people it defeats the purpose. Thanks to Communicator I/C and to Sandy for bringing it to my attention.