Id like to revisit something, from new perspective, and appreciate thought/discussion on it.
Any of us that were Scilon staff or SO especially, as well as well indoctrinated public understand and may have made our own the concept of "the defense of anything is untenable, the only solution is to attack". To some degree this does work to quiet attacks, especially earlier ... though does not seem so effective in current society and times. When I was in, this was almost a conditioned instinct. There is a whole lot that could be said, even using outside research, why this can actually stop attacks. Unfortunately, it is used in a very destructive and harmful manner by the Scilon empire, to break, degrade and silence critics, valid or not ... and in itself helps preserve the culture of abuse and makes internal reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. In this instance, I believe attacking the attacker is not a rational thought process, rather a conditioned defensive "reactive" mechanism.
I have been accused many times on this board of attacking the attacker in my response to certain people. This actually did a wonderful job of shutting me down and making me think about it, has happened many times over the past 5 years, so I have had lots of chances to look at things that happen in the real world, and I don't think it is so simple.
Someone is attacking you verbally or otherwise. It is fairly common cultural "knowledge", especially in the West, the best defense is a good offense. Part of the culture from sports to chess to business to inter-human relations.
Where does self defense, start and stop, for example vs Scilon programming attack the attacker?
How do we define proper defensive conduct vs self and other destructive conditioning?
What is the morality of all of this.
I'll give a specific example; Dexter Gelfand and I. Never met the guy, he lived in a totally different world to the one I wanted to be in (freezone/independent scientology), we lived almost 2,000 miles apart, we had no first hand information on each other. He came after me through the boards. At first I tried to ignore, he kept coming, then I tried to make fun of it, laugh it off, then I engaged. A person that was a friend of his contacted me and said that Dexter was really a great guy, just a little too enthusiastic to be Hitler Youth for Frank Pate. I can actually understand that, but don't think I had any way of resolving anything until certain things were brought to light publicly and officially. Yeah, then I gloated. Wasn't really very satisfying because of the consequences, a family will be broken ... children will be harmed because of the actions of their father, getting arrested, and probably to Jail for a long time. Financially they will be ruined, a woman will probably have to raise three children on her own. Yeah, the guy defrauded many people for millions of dollars, but the kids didn't know how their father was supporting them ... just not a good thing for other people, regardless of whether the Dad earned it or not.
And because of Deters position of authority in the freezone movement, and his use of that position to forward a hidden agenda, to some degree people were tarred with the same brush as he earned, and I am referring to good and decent people who are genuinely trying to make positive changes in their and other lives with Scientology ... right or wrong, I know there are good and honorable people involved.
In the real world, some people cower when attacked, go away, hide, ignore, run. Others respond with indignation, attacking back. Others, get really viscous and attack and try and destroy whoever attacked or wronged them. The last is very similar, IMHO to the Scilon culture.
Attorneys are part of the societal attack the attacker defense ... counter suits etc.
If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.
IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.
Any of us that were Scilon staff or SO especially, as well as well indoctrinated public understand and may have made our own the concept of "the defense of anything is untenable, the only solution is to attack". To some degree this does work to quiet attacks, especially earlier ... though does not seem so effective in current society and times. When I was in, this was almost a conditioned instinct. There is a whole lot that could be said, even using outside research, why this can actually stop attacks. Unfortunately, it is used in a very destructive and harmful manner by the Scilon empire, to break, degrade and silence critics, valid or not ... and in itself helps preserve the culture of abuse and makes internal reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. In this instance, I believe attacking the attacker is not a rational thought process, rather a conditioned defensive "reactive" mechanism.
I have been accused many times on this board of attacking the attacker in my response to certain people. This actually did a wonderful job of shutting me down and making me think about it, has happened many times over the past 5 years, so I have had lots of chances to look at things that happen in the real world, and I don't think it is so simple.
Someone is attacking you verbally or otherwise. It is fairly common cultural "knowledge", especially in the West, the best defense is a good offense. Part of the culture from sports to chess to business to inter-human relations.
Where does self defense, start and stop, for example vs Scilon programming attack the attacker?
How do we define proper defensive conduct vs self and other destructive conditioning?
What is the morality of all of this.
I'll give a specific example; Dexter Gelfand and I. Never met the guy, he lived in a totally different world to the one I wanted to be in (freezone/independent scientology), we lived almost 2,000 miles apart, we had no first hand information on each other. He came after me through the boards. At first I tried to ignore, he kept coming, then I tried to make fun of it, laugh it off, then I engaged. A person that was a friend of his contacted me and said that Dexter was really a great guy, just a little too enthusiastic to be Hitler Youth for Frank Pate. I can actually understand that, but don't think I had any way of resolving anything until certain things were brought to light publicly and officially. Yeah, then I gloated. Wasn't really very satisfying because of the consequences, a family will be broken ... children will be harmed because of the actions of their father, getting arrested, and probably to Jail for a long time. Financially they will be ruined, a woman will probably have to raise three children on her own. Yeah, the guy defrauded many people for millions of dollars, but the kids didn't know how their father was supporting them ... just not a good thing for other people, regardless of whether the Dad earned it or not.
And because of Deters position of authority in the freezone movement, and his use of that position to forward a hidden agenda, to some degree people were tarred with the same brush as he earned, and I am referring to good and decent people who are genuinely trying to make positive changes in their and other lives with Scientology ... right or wrong, I know there are good and honorable people involved.
In the real world, some people cower when attacked, go away, hide, ignore, run. Others respond with indignation, attacking back. Others, get really viscous and attack and try and destroy whoever attacked or wronged them. The last is very similar, IMHO to the Scilon culture.
Attorneys are part of the societal attack the attacker defense ... counter suits etc.
If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.
IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.