Non CofS Scientology

[Gadfly]

No, I don't claim that every non CofS Scn'ist (and, no, they aren't all called Indies) has the same caliber of virtue as myself, husband and friends.

For one thing, I'm not in that number (of non CofS Scn'ists), though I was, at one point.

I name people as examples to show how it can vary, so that generalizing of individuals there doesn't really work.

Plus there are some assholes in the non CofS Scn scene. So your election to use the word "every" misrepresents my POV there, as well.

In the cult, you don't get much variance. It's frowned on, it's drummed out of existence when found due to KSW and DM's madness. I mention the latter because if all one did was be a KSW Scn'ist, one wouldn't do so well with him, either. Nobody who doesn't abide by whatever the flavor of the week in CofS happens to be is going to do well. But one thing they do have to do is never question authority, never dissent. And everyone ultimately does have to dance to the same tune, even if DM- and Hubbard before him- occasionally change the record/CD/MP3.

Elsewhere one does get variance. It's demonstrable but I'd be pretty piss poor at backing up my point if I didn't provide some examples of people.

I consider it to be analagous to the following hypothetical situation:

suppose I knew a churchie who was pretty hostile to critics, skeptics, exes, etc but actually decided to hear me out with a somewhat open mind. I mean, this hypothetical guy would still have his biases, but suppose he tried to listen anyway at least somewhat. And he'd say some stuff about evil critics and cite some examples. Now, suppose he actually didn't fuck it up and found a relatively decent example of some fucked up shit a critic did- not some made up OSA bullshit. So he'd go, hey, Claire, what about Cat'O'Nine"Tails (I made this nick up) and the rock he threw through a Scn'ist's window? (this, too, made up). See what they're like, Claire?

Well, I'd give an example of a critic I know who uses his airplane to help children who need transplants. I'd give him an example of critics I knew who donated money to help someone who was out of work.

Those would be examples of people who are critics who are nothing like he says. Maybe he'd respond citing the crappy mean rock throwing guy. I'd respond that hey, ok, but you cannot generalize that all critics are a certain way because of that one guy. I've given examples of some cool shit and given a few more hours of sleep and some caffeine, I could think of more. So he'd say, maybe, are you saying that all critics and exes are these wonderful altruistic people and nobody is bigoted or mean? I'd say, not at all. There's all sorts of different people involved, though, if you want my opinion, most of them are the nice sort and not the rock throwing sort. I'm giving you examples because you were generalizing about critics and exes. And you can't do that because, unlike the cult to which you belong, they are not answering to a centralized authority that is making them be a certain way and they are individuals.

Now, of course, where this hypothetical analogy doesn't quite cut it is that it does omit the other crucial difference- CofS is a toxic cult belonging to a hypocritical COB and his henchmen- whom he doesn't even treat well and critics are not only free and independent people but they are also coming from a stance of helping the abused. That totally got left out of my analogy but the purpose of it was to show an hypothetical debate about the folly of generalizing people who aren't in CofS and that individual behavior ranges and also that it can be difficult to claim this if one doesn't have at least some examples.

Good post. It handled me.

 

[Smilla]

Good post. It handled me.

Me too - the room seems brighter now

 

[Infinite]

No, I don't claim that every non CofS Scn'ist (and, no, they aren't all called Indies) has the same caliber of virtue as myself, husband and friends.

For one thing, I'm not in that number (of non CofS Scn'ists), though I was, at one point.

I name people as examples to show how it can vary, so that generalizing of individuals there doesn't really work.

Plus there are some assholes in the non CofS Scn scene. So your election to use the word "every" misrepresents my POV there, as well.

In the cult, you don't get much variance. It's frowned on, it's drummed out of existence when found due to KSW and DM's madness. I mention the latter because if all one did was be a KSW Scn'ist, one wouldn't do so well with him, either. Nobody who doesn't abide by whatever the flavor of the week in CofS happens to be is going to do well. But one thing they do have to do is never question authority, never dissent. And everyone ultimately does have to dance to the same tune, even if DM- and Hubbard before him- occasionally change the record/CD/MP3.

Elsewhere one does get variance. It's demonstrable but I'd be pretty piss poor at backing up my point if I didn't provide some examples of people.

I consider it to be analagous to the following hypothetical situation:

suppose I knew a churchie who was pretty hostile to critics, skeptics, exes, etc but actually decided to hear me out with a somewhat open mind. I mean, this hypothetical guy would still have his biases, but suppose he tried to listen anyway at least somewhat. And he'd say some stuff about evil critics and cite some examples. Now, suppose he actually didn't fuck it up and found a relatively decent example of some fucked up shit a critic did- not some made up OSA bullshit. So he'd go, hey, Claire, what about Cat'O'Nine"Tails (I made this nick up) and the rock he threw through a Scn'ist's window? (this, too, made up). See what they're like, Claire?

Well, I'd give an example of a critic I know who uses his airplane to help children who need transplants. I'd give him an example of critics I knew who donated money to help someone who was out of work.

Those would be examples of people who are critics who are nothing like he says. Maybe he'd respond citing the crappy mean rock throwing guy. I'd respond that hey, ok, but you cannot generalize that all critics are a certain way because of that one guy. I've given examples of some cool shit and given a few more hours of sleep and some caffeine, I could think of more. So he'd say, maybe, are you saying that all critics and exes are these wonderful altruistic people and nobody is bigoted or mean? I'd say, not at all. There's all sorts of different people involved, though, if you want my opinion, most of them are the nice sort and not the rock throwing sort. I'm giving you examples because you were generalizing about critics and exes. And you can't do that because, unlike the cult to which you belong, they are not answering to a centralized authority that is making them be a certain way and they are individuals.

Now, of course, where this hypothetical analogy doesn't quite cut it is that it does omit the other crucial difference- CofS is a toxic cult belonging to a hypocritical COB and his henchmen- whom he doesn't even treat well and critics are not only free and independent people but they are also coming from a stance of helping the abused. That totally got left out of my analogy but the purpose of it was to show an hypothetical debate about the folly of generalizing people who aren't in CofS and that individual behavior ranges and also that it can be difficult to claim this if one doesn't have at least some examples.

I understand that, for you, a statement which appears to include *every* class of person being described, usually in disparaging terms, seems unfair because you are personally aware of individuals within that class to whom the statement does not apply. Fair nuff.

The trouble with your endlessly pointing this out is that it does not negate the original, generalised statement. Rather, it confuses the discussion by atomising the topic right down to the level of individuals within the class. The reduction of a discussion down to personalities is a classic Scientology tactic used to distract from an inconvenient truth. A classic example is Anne Archer's "do I look brainwashed to you?". John Sweeny's silence was the perfect response.

Now, were it the case that the exceptions you cite spoke up and publicly countered the positions taken by the M&M Show opinion leaders you might have a valid point. Lets take the Indie Dependent position on KSW, for example. Can you point to any recognised Indie Dependent who has spoken out against KSW and said that so far as they are concerned it has no place in the way they practise Scientology? If so, I would love to see it and, having done so, promise to moderate my own comments in regard to the Indie Dependent's, IMHO, inevitable morphing into a dangerous cult. I would, of course, have to maintain extreme prejudice in light of the "acceptable truth" doctrine but it would be a start.

Its because critics make a point of arguing and taking varying positions on all sorts of things that generalised statements about them are hard to make applicable. Agent Pubeit is a good example. Yes, an Anon comitted an almost indecent act and got arrested and got convicted. But, that same Anon got hammered by most other Anons for being such a fuckedarse. Anyone who now seeks to generalise Anonymous as "criminals" based on Agent Pubeit's stunt will only suffer FAIL.

Over at the M&M Show, you don't get much variance. The public position is "KSW is king" and there is little, if any, discussion of its merits. If you are now saying that there are Indie Dependents who do not apply KSW in their Scientology practises then you are actually under mining those people because it implies they are two-faced; on the one hand, they publicly support "KSW is king" but, hypocritically, don't apply it privately.

At a personal level, logic and tactics and positions aside, I suspect you are a tiny bit similar to me in that we both have a tendency towards contrarianism. I do it to test my own positions on things with those who bother to engage. Usually, I get additional reasoning for the validity of my position and, more often that I'm going to admit, I have to reconsider my position. Plus, I like a good squabble every now and then when good will is present. With you, however, when countered I see a scampering into weasel words and dismissive one-liners and protracted efforts to redefine what you originally said. I have wondered on occasion if you might be the most misunderstood person on the internet. Why not lighten up a bit, make sure, as far as anyone can, that you mean exactly what you said, and, hey, every now and then, concede a point or two. Just for shits and giggles.

 

[Boomima]

And the problem with that, Smilla, is that one person's "cult" is another person's religious orthodoxy. Hostile attitudes to minority religions leads to communal isolation as often as does voluntary isolation among religious groups in order to maintain "communal purity". Both forms of isolation are destructive of larger social relationships; history has made that very clear.

In the case of judaism, much of the origins of anti-jewish sentiment historically stems from jewish traditions opposing inter-mixing with non-jewish communities.

If you can't brook the idea that someone for whom you care has disparate views of religion or spirituality than yourself, then perhaps the problem does not lie with them.


Mark A. Baker

This almost sounds as if you are blaming Judaism for anti-Semitism. In any case, it is not true of Christian anti-Semitism.

 

[Smilla]

This almost sounds as if you are blaming Judaism for anti-Semitism. In any case, it is not true of Christian anti-Semitism.

No need to take it seriously - Mark was just trying to push my buttons because I'm Jewish, and had made a post he didn't like

 

[Mark A. Baker]

This almost sounds as if you are blaming Judaism for anti-Semitism. In any case, it is not true of Christian anti-Semitism.

How familiar are you with historical anti-gentile/anti-jewish sentiment in the ancient world? Judging from your remark, it doesn't sound very likely. Modern feelings of prejudice are a derivative of very long standing conflicts in beliefs & ideology going back literally thousands of years. The rise of christianity simply exacerbated long existing tensions already well-developed in antiquity.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

How familiar are you with historical anti-gentile/anti-jewish sentiment in the ancient world? Judging from your remark, it doesn't sound very likely. Modern feelings of prejudice are a derivative of very long standing conflicts in beliefs & ideology going back literally thousands of years. The rise of christianity simply exacerbated long existing tensions already well-developed in antiquity.


Mark A. Baker

Translation:
You don't know what you are talking about.
People have long standing grudges.
I am erudite.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I understand that, for you, a statement which appears to include *every* class of person being described, usually in disparaging terms, seems unfair because you are personally aware of individuals within that class to whom the statement does not apply. Fair nuff.

Right. It's not my stance that they're all perfect. Where FreeBeing gets that idea, I dunno. It wasn't anything I wrote. I've written a lot of things taking issue with various FZers.

My point is that YMMV. It's individuals, just like with, say, Lutherans. I did provide examples because I know forum contributors invariably would ask for such.

The trouble with your endlessly pointing this out is that it does not negate the
original, generalised statement. Rather, it confuses the discussion by atomising
the topic right down to the level of individuals within the class. The reduction
of a discussion down to personalities is a classic Scientology tactic used to
distract from an inconvenient truth. A classic example is Anne Archer's "do I
look brainwashed to you?". John Sweeny's silence was the perfect response.

Well, it is my thread. And you decided to come to it and read and response.

Some people- such as yourself, such as FreeBeing, and a number of others- do atomise the topic right down to the level of individuals in the class. They do this, they do that. So I responded from that standpoint.

If one is opining that non CofS Scn'ists are a certain way, then if someone else opines "not necessarily" then it would only make sense to provide examples.

Now, were it the case that the exceptions you cite spoke up and publicly
countered the positions taken by the M&M Show opinion leaders you might have
a valid point. Lets take the Indie Dependent position on KSW, for example. Can
you point to any recognised Indie Dependent who has spoken out against KSW and
said that so far as they are concerned it has no place in the way they practise
Scientology? If so, I would love to see it and, having done so, promise to
moderate my own comments in regard to the Indie Dependent's, IMHO, inevitable
morphing into a dangerous cult. I would, of course, have to maintain extreme
prejudice in light of the "acceptable truth" doctrine but it would be a start.

They aren't exceptions. They are examples. And Steve Hall and Pierre Ethier are examples of the other sort. From my experience- considerable- it does not appear that the majority of them are like the latter than the former. I think it varies. I think it's individuals. And part of the reason I say this is that it's not centralized. And that's exactly why I would not be for a reformed CofS - a church 2.0 as Fancy so succinctly phrased it. And I wasn't for that even when I was an Indie.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Claire. I would never vote for you to be a cult leader as you never seem to stop standing up for a person's right to be and think as a true individual.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Yah, plus when people were trying to give me their money, I'd be like, have you paid your car payment? What about your rent? Didn't you tell me you wanted to go on vacation?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Claire. I would never vote for you to be a cult leader as you never seem to stop standing up for a person's right to be and think as a true individual.

Depends on the cult ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9VWxIRIkRc

And here is another cult that I imagine Claire would be qualified to lead ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHezlnht-I


Mark A. Baker

 

[Free Being Me]

As mentioned, Marty has had a lot to say about the FreeZone - and others he considers to be especially squirrel - but a lot of his message is forwarded by his offsiders:

. . . "Responsibility of Leaders", and all that.

<<<post moved to a begin a new thread - Emma>>>

Paranoid psychopath
View attachment 5262

Nothing to worry about, these two non CofS scientologists come with character references:

People keep painting non CofS Scn'ists with the same brush as the goose stepping RPFing FreeLoader debting culties and it's wildly inaccurate.

 

[Boomima]

How familiar are you with historical anti-gentile/anti-jewish sentiment in the ancient world? Judging from your remark, it doesn't sound very likely. Modern feelings of prejudice are a derivative of very long standing conflicts in beliefs & ideology going back literally thousands of years. The rise of christianity simply exacerbated long existing tensions already well-developed in antiquity.


Mark A. Baker

I wrote two conference papers on it but what the heck do I know?

I love how when someone disagrees with you it is because they are either hopelessly ignorant OR (when you are less charitable) hopelessly stupid. You ever want to dialogue; you only want to lecture. They are not the same thing.

It's boring and mildly irritating.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I wrote two conference papers on it but what the heck do I know? ...

Then the role of open & active hostility in antiquity by jews towards non-jews in promoting anti-jewish feelings among non-jewish cultures and the subsequent deliberate development of anti-semitism under christianity as cultivated by the christian church as a long term feature of western societies should have been obvious.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Claire Swazey]

I always loved reading about Jewish history- the small extent to which I have done, at any rate. I so admire them. (That's not sarcasm).

Think about it- most groups who were on the receiving end of so many concerted attacks, pograms, genocide, occupation(s)- they aren't even around anymore.

I know that's not what you were saying, Mark, but it's just something I wanted to say just now.

 

[Smilla]

If the topic is Jews, we might as well have a song in Hebrew.

[video=youtube;ea7ZWzdBswc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea7ZWzdBswc[/video]

 

[Mark A. Baker]

If the topic is Jews, we might as well have a song in Hebrew.

[video=youtube;ea7ZWzdBswc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea7ZWzdBswc[/video]

No, despite the slight historical digression the topic hasn't changed, but the song is always welcome.

BTW, Smilla, when will you grace us with some of your performances? Or is this one one of yours?


Mark A. Baker

 

[Smilla]

No, despite the slight historical digression the topic hasn't changed, but the song is always welcome.

BTW, Smilla, when will you grace us with some of your performances? Or is this one one of yours?


Mark A. Baker

I've already posted some of my work here but without saying so...

By the way, Ninet Tayeb, in the song above is of Moroccan Sephardi lineage.

-------------------------------------------------------

English translation of the song above:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SHE KNOWS[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]She knows, people always tell her
people just interfere with her
what to wear, what to eat
what is right, what is not right

They whisper what they think
they take part in as they want
how is it forbidden, how much is allowed
if it's possible or not

You shall do and go, learn
and you'll see how in a moment,
in a moment one captures the world
scream out, be quiet,
just come, come, return to me

Yes, she knows
that he always listens to her
that he's the one showing her
showing her the truth, what to take what to give
and if you're listening, maybe you know
how one continues from here

You shall do and go, learn...[/FONT]

 

[Claire Swazey]

Nothing to worry about, these two non CofS scientologists come with character references:

I do not consider character references to be synonymous with examples of people who do or don't do things. It appears that you are unaware of that, though, even though it's been explained to you several times.

 

[Infinite]

. . . They aren't exceptions. They are examples. And Steve Hall and Pierre Ethier are examples of the other sort. From my experience- considerable- it does not appear that the majority of them are like the latter than the former. I think it varies. I think it's individuals. And part of the reason I say this is that it's not centralized. And that's exactly why I would not be for a reformed CofS - a church 2.0 as Fancy so succinctly phrased it. And I wasn't for that even when I was an Indie.

Nah. Indie Dependents are Indie Dependents and, as such, are also KSW Kool Aid slurping Martyites all singing from the same song sheet. Check out out Martyworld to observe uniformity of thought and the celebration of their own specialness. The FreeZone has elements who would love to impose that sort of control on its own public dialogue but can't. And that's because the FreeZone genuinely is most made up of differing individuals. Tell me this, do you think Dexter Gelfand will be invited to the next Indie Dependent gathering to give a demonstration of using skype for auditing? Will there be a panel discussion / debate on the merits of KSW post cult? Not likely, eh?