People newly out of scientology & ESMB

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Random Thought: Steve has only just resigned from the CofS. Some who post here have been out for decades and seem to have little understanding of the current scientological mindset, IMO.

Scientology Today (lol) is NOTHING like Scientology Yesterday. I left 4 years ago and I am regularly astounded at some of the changes which have occurred within the CofS in that short 4 years. Of course, some of the basic tenets and ideology remain intact but I'm referring to the mindset being inculcated in the current crop of scientologists. They're bewildered!
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Random Thought: Steve has only just resigned from the CofS. Some who post here have been out for decades and seem to have little understanding of the current scientological mindset, IMO.

Scientology Today (lol) is NOTHING like Scientology Yesterday. I left 4 years ago and I am regularly astounded at some of the changes which have occurred within the CofS in that short 4 years. Of course, some of the basic tenets and ideology remain intact but I'm referring to the mindset being inculcated in the current crop of scientologists. They're bewildered!

Yes, that's what struck me reading Steve's report. It's quite mind boggling and I guess that's why I thought it such a good current view.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
It would be nice if there was a "Newly Out" section where the only types of people who could post are those that have been on the board from 0-3 months and "veteran" ESMB'ers that have passed some kind of "I'm OK, You're OK" test.

I know I'm guilty of just reading a post and replying to that instead of considering what the thread is, who started, why it was started, how what I say will impact the Thread/Other Posters/Original Poster/etc.

It's an idea ... but I don't think it would work. The Stories forum is the best place to start, but the best advice to anyone lurking or new is to read and read and read first. Get a feel for the place and the possible replies and discussions.

And we long time posters sometimes just need to remember how it felt, and that every post is from an individual on a life journey, not a representative of a particular mindset. IMO
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Here's a personal story related to this:

I remember having left Scientology long in the dust by the time the 2000's hit the calendar. Actually by the mid 80's. Then I went through a violent anti-Scientology stage. Which receded into quiet contempt, but little interest.

Something on the internet stirred my interest again one day. So, I started reading stuff on Steve Hall's website. Then Jeff Hawkins. Then Marty's. Maybe not in that order.

Kind of made me feel high, intellectually stimulated. I would sit at the keyboard, just enthralled by what was happening. That was something that usually only happens with close friends when we're having intimate conversations about life's most profound matters--or on private, invitation-only boards.

Steve pissed me off with a bit of dishonesty, so I left that site. Jeff closed his site to posting. Then Marty's attitude toward a poster named Kassapa sealed the deal with his site because I was getting tired of the unwillingness to look at the truth, to examine both sides of the issue.

Actually, it was not both sides. It was multiple sides.

So, I thought, what the heck. Let's see what ESMB is about.

Booom!

Fair or not, a poster here had better quickly dislike LRH and Scientology or be ready for a fight. So, a new person coming here, still impressed with either is likely to be driven off. Dulloldfart even warned me not to post positive stuff about LRH and Scientology.

So, I wonder, if one is truly discouraged from posting exactly what one thinks without being attacked, how is that different from Marty's site?

I know Veda likes to start threads encouraging individuals to expose their "true feelings" about LRH, Scientology or the Tech. All with the supposed purpose of coming to greater understanding I guess. Then the re-indoctrination begins. Expose your ideas and feelings so we can remold them into more acceptable ideas and feelings. Re-education at its most astute.

To me, ideas and feelings are just ideas and feelings. Anyone can have any idea or feeling they want. I encourage my kids to have a wide range of ideas and feelings. I encourage them to have contradictory ones if they feel like it. Why not? It's just an idea. Not that important.

It's just when those ideas become harmful behavior that I draw the line.

Thinking? Think what you want. Talk about what you want. Believe what you want.

As far as I'm concerned a person can believe that LRH was sent by God and that Scientology is man's only hope. I don't really care. I don't feel compelled to correct them.

If Scientology is so horrible because of the mind control of demanding agreement and "correct thought," how is it different to control minds here by vehemently corralling thought into "acceptable thoughts" and "unacceptable thoughts?"

Mostly, just to be honest (which is undoubtedly going to offend a few) my experiences here are not inspirational. Not a mental high. Much more pedestrian. Like glancing at the news to see what's happening.

And to get along, I mostly water down my posts.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

And I'm sure people leave because of having to watch what they say to avoid being shot down for disagreeing.

Which is a loss for all of us.
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
Random Thought: Steve has only just resigned from the CofS. Some who post here have been out for decades and seem to have little understanding of the current scientological mindset, IMO.

Scientology Today (lol) is NOTHING like Scientology Yesterday. I left 4 years ago and I am regularly astounded at some of the changes which have occurred within the CofS in that short 4 years. Of course, some of the basic tenets and ideology remain intact but I'm referring to the mindset being inculcated in the current crop of scientologists. They're bewildered!

That's a great point and I think it points to how hugely different various posters' perspectives and sensitivities are -- not to mention lurkers! It's just not feasible to ask that posters try to keep in mind an audience whose specific experiences and issues are essentially unknowable to them.

It is reasonable to keep in mind the sensitivities of the person one's addressing -- insofar as that person has made them known, or insofar as one can guess them from context (their newness out of Scn, for example).

I think the best anyone can do is to speak their truth in their way while maintaining some respect for the person/people with whom they're having the conversation. (And backing off when it seems appropriate or when they're asked to -- some people have that kind of tact and others just don't, unfortunately.)
 

Gib

Crusader
Random Thought: Steve has only just resigned from the CofS. Some who post here have been out for decades and seem to have little understanding of the current scientological mindset, IMO.

Scientology Today (lol) is NOTHING like Scientology Yesterday. I left 4 years ago and I am regularly astounded at some of the changes which have occurred within the CofS in that short 4 years. Of course, some of the basic tenets and ideology remain intact but I'm referring to the mindset being inculcated in the current crop of scientologists. They're bewildered!

Yes, I understand now what you are saying. And believe it or not, that is what Marty's place is trying to say.

What you saying is alteration of the tech. No?

This is called squirrel as Steve wrote in his blog, right?

So, from the viewpoint of somebody still "believing" as opposed to you not "believing" anymore. Right?

You have to go back to your viewpoints while in, and compare to present time, to compare the mindsets. Like newly trained young 20 year old auditors, they just get trained on GAT tech. These 20 year olds no nothing before GAT, thus they see scientology as it is. These folks do not have a history to compare scientology to, they just read and listen to "white scientology" on the basics and ACC's. It is mind boggling to say the least.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Here's a personal story related to this:

I remember having left Scientology long in the dust by the time the 2000's hit the calendar. Actually by the mid 80's. Then I went through a violent anti-Scientology stage. Which receded into quiet contempt, but little interest.

Something on the internet stirred my interest again one day. So, I started reading stuff on Steve Hall's website. Then Jeff Hawkins. Then Marty's. Maybe not in that order.

Kind of made me feel high, intellectually stimulated. I would sit at the keyboard, just enthralled by what was happening. That was something that usually only happens with close friends when we're having intimate conversations about life's most profound matters--or on private, invitation-only boards.

Steve pissed me off with a bit of dishonesty, so I left that site. Jeff closed his site to posting. Then Marty's attitude toward a poster named Kassapa sealed the deal with his site because I was getting tired of the unwillingness to look at the truth, to examine both sides of the issue.

Actually, it was not both sides. It was multiple sides.

So, I thought, what the heck. Let's see what ESMB is about.

Booom!

Fair or not, a poster here had better quickly dislike LRH and Scientology or be ready for a fight. So, a new person coming here, still impressed with either is likely to be driven off. Dulloldfart even warned me not to post positive stuff about LRH and Scientology.

So, I wonder, if one is truly discouraged from posting exactly what one thinks without being attacked, how is that different from Marty's site?

I know Veda likes to start threads encouraging individuals to expose their "true feelings" about LRH, Scientology or the Tech. All with the supposed purpose of coming to greater understanding I guess. Then the re-indoctrination begins. Expose your ideas and feelings so we can remold them into more acceptable ideas and feelings. Re-education at its most astute.

To me, ideas and feelings are just ideas and feelings. Anyone can have any idea or feeling they want. I encourage my kids to have a wide range of ideas and feelings. I encourage them to have contradictory ones if they feel like it. Why not? It's just an idea. Not that important.

It's just when those ideas become harmful behavior that I draw the line.

Thinking? Think what you want. Talk about what you want. Believe what you want.

As far as I'm concerned a person can believe that LRH was sent by God and that Scientology is man's only hope. I don't really care. I don't feel compelled to correct them.

If Scientology is so horrible because of the mind control of demanding agreement and "correct thought," how is it different to control minds here by vehemently corralling thought into "acceptable thoughts" and "unacceptable thoughts?"

Mostly, just to be honest (which is undoubtedly going to offend a few) my experiences here are not inspirational. Not a mental high. Much more pedestrian. Like glancing at the news to see what's happening.

And to get along, I mostly water down my posts.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

And I'm sure people leave because of having to watch what they say to avoid being shot down for disagreeing.

Which is a loss for all of us.

Interesting post. I agree with a lot of what you say ... not the part about Veda's info leading to "re-indoctrination" though. It is info that most people will never have seen or even considered, and good discussion isn't "re-indoctrination."

What is needed is balance ... with respect for all views ... and perhaps a dollop of kindness when the going gets rough. "If Scientology is so horrible because of the mind control of demanding agreement and "correct thought," how is it different to control minds here by vehemently corralling thought into "acceptable thoughts" and "unacceptable thoughts?" " ... well ESMB discussion is not about "correct thoughts" and never has been.
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
If Scientology is so horrible because of the mind control of demanding agreement and "correct thought," how is it different to control minds here by vehemently corralling thought into "acceptable thoughts" and "unacceptable thoughts?"

Without unpacking your entire argument, I have to take strong, strong issue with this particular point. There is just no comparison between the CoS' and ESMB members' versions of persuasion.

Neither ESMB as an institution nor anyone here has the slightest control over what you can or can't do, what you can or can't read, who you can or can't communicate with. You can choose not to participate without the vaguest possible threat of losing your existing relationships, your livelihood, or your spiritual freedom.

In other words, there is absolutely no real-world consequence if you refuse to follow what you see as the party line here. ESMB members have literally nothing but their words with which to compel agreement, while the CoS has an entire arsenal of threats implied or overt.

There is a gigantic difference between an individual (or group of individuals) expressing a strong opinion and attempting to convince you of its truth and a powerful institution that uses methods of coercive persuasion backed up by serious consequences to change the way you think.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Without unpacking your entire argument, I have to take strong, strong issue with this particular point. There is just no comparison between the CoS' and ESMB members' versions of persuasion.

Neither ESMB as an institution nor anyone here has the slightest control over what you can or can't do, what you can or can't read, who you can or can't communicate with. You can choose not to participate without the vaguest possible threat of losing your existing relationships, your livelihood, or your spiritual freedom.

In other words, there is absolutely no real-world consequence if you refuse to follow what you see as the party line here. ESMB members have literally nothing but their words with which to compel agreement, while the CoS has an entire arsenal of threats implied or overt.

There is a gigantic difference between an individual (or group of individuals) expressing a strong opinion and attempting to convince you of its truth and a powerful institution that uses methods of coercive persuasion backed up by serious consequences to change the way you think.

:clap::clap::clap::thumbsup:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

A couple of questions come to mind because my initial gut instinct to this theme is that it seems a slippery slope. By endorsing Martyworld, even with praise as scant as "a necessary evil" or "a stepping stone", aren't we also endorsing the application of yet more Scientology on people who have just escaped Scientology? That's the last thing they need.

Also, what's the difference between taking the piss out of "the things Scientologists say" on Facebook and taking the piss out of "the things Scientologists say" on Martyworld? They say the same sorts of things, they both promote L Ron Hubbard idiocy as fact, and they both want to Keep Scientology Working.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh that's silly. ESMB does provide that service, as much as it ever did, and better than any other Internet place ever has, and in an atmosphere of free communication.

IMO, you're making too much of this. It's not that bad.

MartyWorld is the next step for CofS true believers.

ESMB is their next step after that.

And that's good. :)

I have to disagree with you Veda. I agree with Emma on this one. (just so ya know Veda, the rest of this post is not aimed at you in any way. You have over all the years of this board's existence provided extremely helpful information to disentangle people from Hubbard's lies and machinations.)

When I got out at the end of 2007 there was no Martyworld. I came here to ESMB as my first landing spot. OCMB was another place - but it was not a friendly place from what I could see. ESMB was different then, it's much more like OCMB now.

There were many more tech tolerant posters on ESMB back in 2007, 2008. A few of them went to martyland as ESMB became ever more hostile to the subject of scientology, many just stopped posting and went on with their lives. So the balance shifted more to the anti-scientologists.

Someone newly out is not going to find ESMB a very friendly place. Dillpickle is a good example of how a new poster runs into trouble here. She was not a newly out though, just a new person to the board, but a scientologist. She held her own, but she came here thinking this was ex rather than anti forum and soon found herself in hot water because of her pro-tech beliefs.

There is very little tolerance here for Scientologists. Almost anything they hold to be true is going to be heavily criticized and ridiculed. I've been very active on the board for the last 4 months or so. I've seen the ripping. Hell, I've done my fair share of J&D too, it's my specialty. :biggrin:

It took me quite while to digest enough information to really get a handle on the subject. It wasn't a few months process either. I've been out almost 5 years and it has taken almost that long to get a really clear sort-out of some things.

I don't know that there is anything that can be done to make ESMB a better place for the newly outs. I do not think that going to Martyworld is a good first step. I do not think that those that go there will eventually migrate here, some will, many will not. I think it is much more likely that they will nestle into a comfy little group that prefers to keep drinking the magic-juice than to venture into the nasty wilds of SP-land and really find out about LRon.

I still think that there is something to the 'tech'. People have a right to believe what they wish. As long as they are not hurting others then they should be left alone to believe what they want.

It does seem that some are on a crusade to make ex-scientologists and will not tolerate anything less because of course they know better than this poor deluded Scilon. Seem to me it's a matter of respect. Many don't respect Hubbard or Scientology and that lack of respect is often vehement and leads to the person who is expressing their beliefs being disrespected or at least feeling that they are being shown great disrespect.

This board helped me a lot when I made my decision to leave the Co$.

Of late, I've been thinking that my time here is really done. I like to hear the latest news on things, but the shredding of anything 'tech' is really quite unpleasant and makes me think I should move on like many others have. This is no longer a place where one is free to discuss the good and bad, only 'it's bad', 'it's BS' is really acceptable. It is certainly valid to dissect what is wrong with Hubbard's stuff, but it's done, for the most part, in a rather hostile fashion. Some can take it (Gib for example), for many though, they will just put up shields and find somewhere else to hang.

I understand the enormous damage and hurt so many have endured from their participation in the Co$. Each of us had a dream of becoming a better person, making a better world. Help was betrayed. Good people destroyed. You have to get over it or it will continue to destroy you. I feel for people like Sharone. Hell, I feel for myself. When you've spent 30+ years believing in something like I did, dedicating your life to it and then you pull the plug - well fuck me - it sure isn't easy, especially when you're in your 50's and having a mid-life crisis to boot. It's not a couple month affair to get your head straight from something you have spent your life in since you were 19.

So I guess all I have to say is having some compassion and tolerance for the Scientologists that come here would make ESMB a better place for those just leaving the Co$. There are going to be a lot more leaving. Better to have them here than under Marty's spell, of that I have no doubt.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
It would be nice if there was a "Newly Out" section where the only types of people who could post are those that have been on the board from 0-3 months and "veteran" ESMB'ers that have passed some kind of "I'm OK, You're OK" test.

I know I'm guilty of just reading a post and replying to that instead of considering what the thread is, who started, why it was started, how what I say will impact the Thread/Other Posters/Original Poster/etc.

I often had the same general thought.

Kinda like the movie rating system, adapted for ESMB.

Each thread could have its own rating. . .


G – General Audiences. All ages admitted.
G - Good News! (Newly out Scientologists, only theta com about theta things)

PG – Parental Guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.
PG - Preclear Guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for PCs.

PG-13 – Parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
PG-13 - PCs strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for F/Ns.

R – Restricted. Under 17 requires an accompanying parent or adult guardian.
R - Reactive. Under misconceptions about Ron or OT requires an accompanying Auditor or Ethics Officer.

NC-17 – No One 17 and Under Admitted. Children are strictly prohibited from viewing the Film.
NC-1.1 - No one still on the Bridge Admitted. Clears & OTs are strictly prohibited from viewing the Thread.

X - Explicit material, adults only.
X - Explicit material, X-Scientologists only.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
A few angry individuals insist on their own right to badger others into conformance in the name of "free speech{. They see the board as a competition for the salvation of souls and are still on some sort of an evangelical mission to clear the planet.

Mark A. Baker



Oooooh! Low-toned posters!

I surely hope you will post who they are.

I definitely want to make a point of staying away from them!
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
From my wog perspective, I have to say 99% of the criticism of the "tech" and Hubbard that I see here doesn't seem at all vicious. Strong, absolutely. But go to any political website if you want to see really vicious criticism.

I wonder what degree of criticism wouldn't seem abrasive to someone who's used to thinking of even the slightest doubt of Hubbard and the "tech" as a crime against humanity.

ETA: Sorry, that was meant as a response to PirateAndBum.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
P&B - I've been here almost since the board started. In many ways it is waaaaay better than back then, when flame wars were almost daily as the first tentative balances were found. It ebbs and flows now depending on who happens to be around.

This particular issue has existed since the board started, and I meant my OP to be a reminder, is all. Your sentence states it nicely "So I guess all I have to say is having some compassion and tolerance for the Scientologists that come here would make ESMB a better place for those just leaving the Co$. There are going to be a lot more leaving. Better to have them here than under Marty's spell, of that I have no doubt. "

I hope that more people who have 'graduated" from the wild pro and anti swinging views post more often and help keep that balance right. :)
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Without unpacking your entire argument, I have to take strong, strong issue with this particular point. There is just no comparison between the CoS' and ESMB members' versions of persuasion.

Neither ESMB as an institution nor anyone here has the slightest control over what you can or can't do, what you can or can't read, who you can or can't communicate with. You can choose not to participate without the vaguest possible threat of losing your existing relationships, your livelihood, or your spiritual freedom.

In other words, there is absolutely no real-world consequence if you refuse to follow what you see as the party line here. ESMB members have literally nothing but their words with which to compel agreement, while the CoS has an entire arsenal of threats implied or overt.

There is a gigantic difference between an individual (or group of individuals) expressing a strong opinion and attempting to convince you of its truth and a powerful institution that uses methods of coercive persuasion backed up by serious consequences to change the way you think.

You'e correct about there being no comparison, however, there is something to be said for what he's trying to say there. If you want to be a member of ESMB then you best adopt an anti-scientology stance or face the consequences. What consequences? Redicule, being called stupid, brainwashed, deluded, etc. Well of course they can just choose to go somewhere else.

There was a time on this board where you could be tech favorable and you wouldn't get your head shot off every time you posted. That's the difference.

I guess it was Alan Walter's passing that heralded the shift (end of 2008). Alan was not a scio, but he certainly was a techy. He took his shots from time to time for sure, but he was a very popular ESMBer.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
And to get along, I mostly water down my posts.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

And I'm sure people leave because of having to watch what they say to avoid being shot down for disagreeing.

Which is a loss for all of us.

One day, and hopefully it will be before I die, I'll see people reach an understanding that you do not have to water down your opinion to remain civil & respectful.

"in my opinion LRH was a con man and many people are still under his spell" does not have to be delivered as "you are a stupid retard for still being a clam".
 
Top