The Aftermath Last Night

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
My point is that it is not true that you were victim shaming and victim blaming when you were asking for overts as an auditor.

And that truth is no longer important to you.

You're sticking with the Aftermath tribal narrative. Whatever they say - you forward and defend now. Whether it's true or not.

When you hold a woman (or girl) responsible for getting raped, and make her apologize to the rapist, is that victim blaming?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
And you are sticking with your unsubstantiated theories. Whether they are true or not.

The "truth" I knew as an auditor was not the whole truth. And what is this "tribal narrative" you keep talking about? Are you just pissed because I'm not in your "tribe"? FYI, I'm not in anybody's "tribe." I make it a point to stay on good terms with everyone in the ex community, though you are making that difficult right now.
Sorry. I'm trying to get my point across as plainly and as simply as I can.

Over time, these oversimplifications and rejections of the nuance you know to be true are corrosive to your soul.

At least they were for me.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
You calling out Alanzo to be running the church's errands is as tiring as Alanzo himself. Gods, give me strength to sustain this level of troll shaming. It's too damn high.
For me, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, I'm going to say that it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Absolutely.

Are you capable of recognizing that I am not making that point?
Go back and find your misunderstood word. I didn't accuse you of making that point. :)

You wrote above:

"It matters whether Scientology is victim-blaming and victim-shaming, as Aftermath is claiming."

I was just curious as to whether you believed holding a woman responsible for getting raped and making her apologize to the rapist was victim shaming.

From a Scientological perspective, a person is always responsible for anything bad that happens to them, including getting raped.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
From a Scientological perspective, a person is always responsible for anything bad that happens to them, including getting raped.
This is a convenient revision and oversimplification of your own past beliefs as a Scientologist. It's convenient because it lets you fit in well with other anti-Scientologists. You disagree with them less, are able to bond with them more.

It's simple, easy to quote and say like a slogan. It also gets your sense of injustice going.

But again, it's a rejection of nuance. And it's just not true.

As just one example: remember the four flows? Done to self, Done to others, Others done to you, Others done to others?

Why did those exist if everything should have simply been "Stuff you did"?
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Go back and find your misunderstood word. I didn't accuse you of making that point. :)

You wrote above:

"It matters whether Scientology is victim-blaming and victim-shaming, as Aftermath is claiming."

I was just curious as to whether you believed holding a woman responsible for getting raped and making her apologize to the rapist was victim shaming.

From a Scientological perspective, a person is always responsible for anything bad that happens to them, including getting raped.
Yep! You pulled it in and you are to be handled with either ethics conditions or SP\ PTS tech.

Either way you are responsible or you mother; because she disagrees with Scientology
 
Last edited:

Free Being Me

Crusader
This is a convenient revision and oversimplification of your own past beliefs as a Scientologist. It's convenient because it lets you fit in well with other anti-Scientologists. You disagree with them less, are able to bond with them more.

It's simple, easy to quote and say like a slogan. It also gets your sense of injustice going.

But again, it's a rejection of nuance. And it's just not true.

As just one example: remember the four flows? Done to self, Done to others, Others done to you, Others done to others?

Why did those exist if everything should have simply been "Stuff you did"?
How long are you going to keep trying to psychologically/emotionally manipulate people here? FYI: It's not working so don't bother.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
This is a convenient revision and oversimplification of your own past beliefs as a Scientologist. It's convenient because it lets you fit in well with other anti-Scientologists. You disagree with them less, are able to bond with them more.

It's simple, easy to quote and say like a slogan. It also gets your sense of injustice going.

But again, it's a rejection of nuance. And it's just not true.

As just one example: remember the four flows? Done to self, Done to others, Others done to you, Others done to others?

Why did those exist if everything should have simply been "Stuff you did"?

My view on "responsibility" is per the "scriptures". It's not a revision. :faceslap:

I guess you were just a low responsibility case. :p


RESPONSIBILITY, 1. the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics. - L. Ron Hubbard

By the way, I'm not bonded with a single individual because of their view on Scientology, positive or negative.

But your attempt at gaslighting is noted. :duh:
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
My view on "responsibility" is per the "scriptures". It's not a revision. :faceslap:

I guess you were just a low responsibility case. :p


RESPONSIBILITY, 1. the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics. - L. Ron Hubbard

By the way, I'm not bonded with a single individual because of their view on Scientology, positive or negative.

But you're attempt at gaslighting is noted. :duh:
There are a lot more definitions of responsibility in Scientology. This isn't the only one.

A lot of them are bullshit. Some of them are insightful. But again, that's not the point.

The point is that you have revised your understanding of your own beliefs when you were a Scientologist in order to fit in better with your new group of Anti-Scientologists. And, further, the point is that your new revision of your beliefs on "victim-shaming" in Scientology as part of the tech are not true.

And you don't care.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
There are a lot more definitions of responsibility in Scientology. This isn't the only one.

A lot of them are bullshit. Some of them are insightful. But again, that's not the point.

The point is that you have revised your understanding of your own beliefs when you were a Scientologist in order to fit in better with your new group of Anti-Scientologists. And, further, the point is that your new revision of your beliefs on "victim-shaming" in Scientology as part of the tech are not true.

And you don't care.
You have no idea as to what my beliefs were back then. You're insistence on my beliefs being other than what they were is gaslighting.

One of my favorite LRH references from when I was a Scientologist was entitled "Full Responsibility", which I'll link to if I can find a copy online.

LRH made it pretty clear though in many references that one can only go OT to the extent that one can take full responsibility along the dynamics.

OT's are not supposed to play the victim card. Ever.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
You have no idea as to what my beliefs were back then. You're insistence on my beliefs being other than what they were is gaslighting.

One of my favorite LRH references from when I was a Scientologist was entitled "Full Responsibility", which I'll link to if I can find a copy online.

LRH made it pretty clear though in many references that one can only go OT to the extent that one can take full responsibility along the dynamics.

OT's are not supposed to play the victim card. Ever.
I remember that Def of full responsibility. It was originally published in the early 50's and people freaked out about it and lrh withdrew it. He brought it back later. There were other definitions of responsibility than you quoted, just as I said. That one was bullshit.

Some were insightful. But you can't mention those now - even though you know they exist.

Because everything MUST be bad about scientology for you now, just as earlier, when you were a scientologist, everything MUST be good.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I remember that Def of responsibility. It was originally published in the early 50's and people freaked out about it and lrh withdrew it. He brought it back later. There were other definitions of responsibility than you quoted, just as I said.

Some were insightful. But you can't mention those now - even though you know they exist.

Because everything MUST be bad about scientology for you now, just as earlier, when you were a scientologist, everything MUST be good.
I did not believe everything was good back when I was in, nor do I believe everything was bad now that I'm out. You're postings about my attitudes and beliefs concerning Scientology from both my time in as well as now are pure 100% unadulterated bullshit.

That definition I gave was present during my entire time in, and it was the appropriate definition for the use of the word in many HCO PL's and HCOB's.

There are many more references on "victims" as well. As a staff member we were not ever allowed to play the victim card, no matter what.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
the only task of a staff in to apply tech
No matter what..him\her as an individual
Is concerned...the individual doesn't exist

KSW is the main reference
LRH made it a 3rd 4th dynamic thing
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
There is a new post up at the Mike Rinder's Blog

The Aftermath Last Night

Thank you to everyone who watched the show last night, and to all those who were on social media. All the kind thought and good wishes and thanks were a bit overwhelming but greatly appreciated. A new chapter has begun, and as things unfold we will be sure to keep you informed as soon as […]

Continue reading...
In replying to this post only, I saw the show and think it's great. But I also realized something. Let me see if I can explain it.

Leah's aftermath series is about a minority of victims of scientology as created by dead L Ron Hubbard, specific victims for specific things.

What I realized was that the majority of victims of scientology are the thousands of people who were public, or staff members, that were chasing the goal of clear, and then OT, and the Bridge to Total Freedom. Since actually 1950. And most are gone.

I mean all these people who got involved whether involved for a few days, a few years, decades, probably never experienced what the people on the Aftermath Series experienced. But what the majority experienced, to a greater or lessor degree, was a waste of time, money, effort, decisions in life, etc, these can never be explained fully, really, in a court of law.

But, the proof is that , for if the goal of clear, and OT and a Bridge to Total Freedom, as a religion, were true, then everybody who got involved in scientology would be still involved.

Hubbard said the word is more powerful than.......

And hence I keep saying no clears, no OT's, no Bridge to Total Freedom.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
My point is that it is not true that you were victim shaming and victim blaming when you were asking for overts as an auditor.

And that truth is no longer important to you.

You're sticking with the Aftermath tribal narrative. Whatever they say - you forward and defend now. Whether it's true or not.
Alanzo
RE: Asking for overts, from a Scientology point of view is 'putting the pc at cause"

No it is not.that is a conmans way of claiming and masking what auditing is doing very sly fat shyster that Hubbard was.. it is a loaded question .it is asserting-blaming (putting at affect) the pc for (a priori) of having been bad cause and introverts him to look for something he might be ashamed of.....'do you still beat your wife?'

As regards the first casualty of war is truth... that is not the truth either...I think it more likely that truth is a casualty then lies/misunderstandings are used to create wars.

Just like your loaded question "in the 12 years since he's(Mike Rinder) been out - has he NEVER REVEALED a crime? is that really true...or are you willingly trying to make truth a causalty and insert the lie..NEVER REVEALED....to start a war?

I essentially asked you about this loaded question/assertion of yours before and you still have not 'discussed it' . Did you intentionally not answer my question? It leads me to think you are very disingenuous. I would think someone with your intelligence would rise to the debate,,,,but ...sadly...you carry on with your attacks buried within. Would you care to tell me which police department you have had discussions with regarding the murders you mentioned, or have you NEVER REVEALED the murder?
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
<snip>

I mean all these people who got involved whether involved for a few days, a few years, decades, probably never experienced what the people on the Aftermath Series experienced.
<snip>
If you mean the last episode then I agree. (Otherwise, I don't.)
IMO, most of the last episode was about sexual crimes.
 
Top