The Derogatory Labels of Scientology

[Cat's Squirrel]

Thanks, those sound right. Have to say though that mooning at the CofS sounds entirely appropriate.

 

[Jakadak]

backflasher = something to do with mooning people;

H E & R = a government department;

Intel connected = makes computer chips (ie - a nerd).

Although I could be wrong :confused2:

Neo

No, that's right Neo !!

 

[Whitedove]

backflasher = something to do with mooning people;

H E & R = a government department;

Intel connected = makes computer chips (ie - a nerd).

Although I could be wrong :confused2:

Neo

I love this thread! Never realised until I see it how much degradation we were subjected to.

 

[Neo]

No, that's right Neo !!

Yeh, I thought so

 

[cinamingrl]

~~~

 

[Smitty]

Revised List of derogatory scientology labels

Up to 155 derogatory labels now.

Aberrated
Airy-Fairy
Antag
ARC Breaky
At Effect
Backflasher
Bad Indicators
Banky
Being a Body
Being a PC
Below 2.0
Better Off Dead Club A
Better Off Dead Club B
Biochemical Personality
Blowy
Buttered all over the Universe
By-passed Case
Case on Post
Casey
Caved-In
Cleared Cannibal
Counter Intention
Deadfiled
Declared
Degraded Being
Dev-T
Dilettante
Disaffected
Dispersed
Dog PC
Doing Amends
Downstat
Dramatizing
Drug Case
Dub-In
Enemy of Scientology
Entheta
Ethics Bait
Ethics Particle
Expelled
Ex-Sea Org
Fair Game
False Attester
False PTS
First Dynamic Oriented
Freeloader
Full of BPC
Glib
Glutz PR
Government-Connected
H E & R
Half-Minded
Has Black PR
Has Evil Purposes
Has False Purposes
Has MUs
Has Other Fish to Fry
Has Suppressive Traits
Hat Dumper
Having to Have Before You can Do
Homo Sapiens.
Humanoid
Hyper-Critical
Implanter
In a Lower Condition
In Glee
Individuated
Intel-Connected
Joker and Degrader
Keyed-in
Low Havingness
Low-Toned
LSD Case
Mass of Circuitry
Media-Connected
Merchant of Chaos
Missed Withholdy
Mission Ineligible
Motivating
Motivatorish
Namby-Pamby
Nattery
Needs to be Handled
No Case Gain
No Overts Case
Nothing to do with Me Club
Occluded
Off-Line
Off-Policy
Off-Purpose
Off-Source
On a Circuit
On a Hobby Horse
One-One
Open Minded
Other Determined
Other-Intentioned
Out of Valence
Out-2D
Out-Ethics
Out-Ethics Cat
Out-Exchange
Out-FO 38
Out-Keeping Scientology Working
Out-Pointy
Out-PR
Out-Qualled
Out-Ruds
Out-Security
Out-Tech
Pantywaist
Potential Trouble Source
Presenting a Body
Psych Case
PTS to the Middle Class
PTS Type 1
PTS Type 2
PTS Type 3
PTS Type A
PTS Type B
PTS Type C
PTS Type D
PTS Type E
PTS Type F
PTS Type G
PTS Type H
PTS Type I
PTS Type J
Pulled it In
Raving SP
Raw Meat
Reasonable
Red Tagged
Restimulated
Ridgey
Rock Slammer
Running a Can't Have
Running a Must Have
Serv Facky
Slow Case Gain
Solid
Source of Trouble
Spun In
Squirrel
Squirrely
Suppressive Person
Sweetness and Light
The Who
Theetie-Wheetie
Tiger
Total SP
Under Comm Ev
Under Non-Enturbulation Order
Unreal
Whole Track Psych
WOG

 

[Voltaire's Child]

So what. Hubbard was just trying to codify existing phenomena. A lot of those labels are similar to psychiatric labels. And, they, of course, are trying to do the same thing- codify existing phenomena.

 

[Free to shine]

So what. Hubbard was just trying to codify existing phenomena. A lot of those labels are similar to psychiatric labels. And, they, of course, are trying to do the same thing- codify existing phenomena.

You have to be joking!

 

[Voltaire's Child]

No, I wasn't. I read the list posted in the thread.

 

[degraded being]

No, I wasn't. I read the list posted in the thread.

Species: Troll.
Subspecies: Defender.

Caracteristics: Obsessive/compulsive

Habitat: Enemy territory.

Behaviour patterns: Gets it's teeth in and will not let go.

Affectionate nature so can be a nice pet.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Fluff's not a troll, she sticks to the point. A troll is someone who tries to divert the topic and introduce irrelevancies in order to prevent something being said or muddy the waters so as to obscure it or reduce its impact. You'll never see her doing that.

It'd be a very dull board if everyone agreed on here.

 

[degraded being]

Fluff's not a troll, she sticks to the point. A troll is someone who tries to divert the topic and introduce irrelevancies in order to prevent something being said or muddy the waters so as to obscure it or reduce its impact. You'll never see her doing that.

It'd be a very dull board if everyone agreed on here.

Well, yes, she doesn,t divert the topic. But there is a lot of defence of scio either directly or thrown in with a message.

He is a direct defence:

"So what. Hubbard was just trying to codify existing phenomena. A lot of those labels are similar to psychiatric labels. And, they, of course, are trying to do the same thing- codify existing phenomena."


This is about all the alienating terms that Hubbard came up with people who don't agree enough with scio or do not comply enough.

So fluffy demands the freedom to have different viewpoints but defends the scio practice of alienating people with labels that leave a person cut off, outcast from true belevers. A little hypocritical???

And my "troll" label is about the persistence of her demands that all viewpoints be heard and that people who have favourable attitudes to scio be heard without being criticised.

How many times does it have to be said. It is an EX board.
Fluffy already gets to say what she wants. She is heard. Sometimes people will disagree with her. So what. She can answer the disagreement if she feels like it without having to complain about the fact that she has been diasgreed with. THAT PART IS THE TROLLISH PART. Not that she's here. Or that she expresses her views. Or that she has different views to others sometimes. Or that others have different views than her sometimes. Just her message that people here should fall in with her ways to the effect of being nice to her level of expectation about the topics. Many people have a very different idea about how nice they want to be on the subject of accepting aspects of scientology.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Yeah, but not everything in this list is an invalidation of pcs or public. "Dog pcs", for example, is a term used to refer to an incompetent auditor who says his pcs are "dogs" when the truth is that he can't audit properly. (My first auditor and I had a laugh at that one which is why I remember it). Similarly, some of the phenomena listed do refer to case conditions ("running a can't have", for example.) It's not all one way traffic.

 

[degraded being]

Yeah, but not everything in this list is an invalidation of pcs or public. "Dog pcs", for example, is a term used to refer to an incompetent auditor who says his pcs are "dogs" when the truth is that he can't audit properly. (My first auditor and I had a laugh at that one which is why I remember it). Similarly, some of the phenomena listed do refer to case conditions ("running a can't have", for example.) It's not all one way traffic.

Case conditions? A lot of them are "case conditions" aren't they? Defining people as having "case conditons" which are derided and believed to prove that a person is inferior to others is....................(insert your own word here).

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Well IMHO anyone who uses other people's case conditions to invalidate them has their Grade 4 out.

Seriously, case condition is a sensitive and difficult subject even if it's used honestly, which of course it isn't in the CofS. Does case exist at all? I maintain that it does. As a rough start, I define my case as the sum total of all the things I'm creating in present time which I'm unaware of (or at least not fully aware of) and which prevent me from making the most of my potential in life or which (thanks to *Ram Dass for this insight) create suffering for others. The condition of that is my case condition.

I think it's a useful concept when you're trying to find out how to help someone but it shouldn't be bandied around casually with a view to invalidating someone you disagree with.

*He refers to it as impurity, but it's broadly the same thing.

 

[Free to shine]

Well IMHO anyone who uses other people's case conditions to invalidate them has their Grade 4 out.

Seriously, case condition is a sensitive and difficult subject even if it's used honestly, which of course it isn't in the CofS. Does case exist at all? I maintain that it does. As a rough start, I define my case as the sum total of all the things I'm creating in present time which I'm unaware of (or at least not fully aware of) and which prevent me from making the most of my potential in life or which (thanks to *Ram Dass for this insight) create suffering for others. The condition of that is my case condition.

I think it's a useful concept when you're trying to find out how to help someone but it shouldn't be bandied around casually with a view to invalidating someone you disagree with.

*He refers to it as impurity, but it's broadly the same thing.

Why seperate out your thoughts and emotions and call it something like "case"? They are you, you are you. Experience you fully in the moment and without judgement, just observation. Labelling thoughts in a derogatory way is thought control. Hubbard was good at that.

 

[Pixie]

Why seperate out your thoughts and emotions and call it something like "case"? They are you, you are you. Experience you fully in the moment and without judgement, just observation. Labelling thoughts in a derogatory way is thought control. Hubbard was good at that.

Well that's the sanest thing I've read in a while. Thanks for that. The 'experience you fully in the moment without judgement, just observation' was just what I needed to hear in this moment. Wonderful stuff... Perhaps there is a part of us that's trying to get away from ourselves in some way.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Species: Troll.
Subspecies: Defender.

Caracteristics: Obsessive/compulsive

Habitat: Enemy territory.

Behaviour patterns: Gets it's teeth in and will not let go.

Affectionate nature so can be a nice pet.

DegradedBeing, this is a thread on a discussion board. I posted to it. That's really all there was to it.

If you're saying that I'm a troll, then you've just ended up with egg on your face. My story is all over the 'net, as is my name and location. I've met a number of critics who've come out and said so publicly. People with different viewpoints than you are not trolls.

I'm sorry you consider this to be enemy territory. I think this is a really great forum and as an EX CofS member (as most others here are) I'm all for it and feel very comfortable here with the many new friends I've made and the many things I've learned about CofS. In fact, because of this forum, I now know what to do about the calls we've been getting from AOLA. I'm going to start giving them the 1-866-XSEAORG number. If it weren't for ESMB, I wouldn't even know about that. I also learned more about Hubbard's shameful history here. Kudos to ESMB and to critics and critical forums everywhere!

PS: I bet I've been expelled more than you!


http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=202&highlight=When+I+was+on+staff

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1894&highlight=second+expulsion

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, yes, she doesn,t divert the topic. But there is a lot of defence of scio either directly or thrown in with a message.

Yes, DegradedBeing. I do defend Scn. I'm a Scn'ist. Although, I must say, it is a toss up between how many posts I've written that were of the apologist variety and how many I've written raking Hubbard and CofS over the coals.

He is a direct defence:

"So what. Hubbard was just trying to codify existing phenomena. A lot of those labels are similar to psychiatric labels. And, they, of course, are trying to do the same thing- codify existing phenomena."


This is about all the alienating terms that Hubbard came up with people who don't agree enough with scio or do not comply enough.

Look, D, Everyone has a right to their opinions and to post them. So what if not everyone has the same thoughts as everyone else? Hey, if it weren't for that fact, I'd not have ultimately started looking at other ideas which led me to leave CofS. So I rejoice in diversity.

So fluffy demands the freedom to have different viewpoints but defends the scio practice of alienating people with labels that leave a person cut off, outcast from true belevers. A little hypocritical???

I don't "demand the freedom". I have the freedom. And so does anyone else around here. I am in favor of freedom of speech and I personally defended critics and criticism to the OSA reps sent to handle me.

Perhaps you should have asked me why I said what I said. But you didn't.

The reason I wrote that post is this: When I saw the thread title, I thought "Right on!" I was thinking of the crap like seeing SPs behind every bush and barrel, Scn'ists who constantly call people 1.1, the "biochemical personality" and "illegal pc" and "PTS III" labels. So I was like, whoa! Great point! Then I read the list. Boy, what a mess. It had all sorts of terms that describe (or attempt to, if you like) mental phenomena. There was everything in there but the goddamned kitchen sink. So, no, there's no way I'm going to agree with a post like that. I thought of all the psych courses I took in college (and, yes, I'm PRO psychiatry and PRO psychology, thank you very much) and what happened in my family and recalled all the labels THEY have. And some of those are pretty damn definite. And I thought "What the fuck is the difference?" Just different theories.

So my problem with that huge long laundry list is just that. That it's a huge long laundry list. It includes the exclusionary terms you guys are trying to decry-and I'm right there with you on that- but it also lumps in a lot of terms that attempt or purport to describe existing mental/emotional/psychological or spiritual phenomena. And I thought that did not make sense and I'm sticking with that.

So you want to make me into the bad guy who thinks Ron was right about everything and thinks Scn never practiced exclusionary practices that fucked people up? Well, that's not me. And if you'd have bothered to ask me you'd have found that out.

And my "troll" label is about the persistence of her demands that all viewpoints be heard and that people who have favourable attitudes to scio be heard without being criticised.

I have no objection to Scn being criticized. At all. I just don't think people should write a bunch of ad hominem stuff about others and the rules of conduct are what they are. I didn't write them, you know.

How many times does it have to be said. It is an EX board.

I, too, am an ex member of CofS. I'm also a vocal critic of not just the present CofS midgetment but of Hubbard, too. Further, when I posted a poll to try to ascertain the demographic here, non CofS Scn'ists were NOT in the minority. But even if they were, Emma allows them to be here and so must you.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2258&highlight=demographics

Fluffy already gets to say what she wants. She is heard. Sometimes people will disagree with her. So what. She can answer the disagreement if she feels like it without having to complain about the fact that she has been diasgreed with.

Yes, I can answer the disagreement. But if the disagreement includes ad hominem statements, it will not go well for anyone who does that.

THAT PART IS THE TROLLISH PART. Not that she's here. Or that she expresses her views. Or that she has different views to others sometimes. Or that others have different views than her sometimes. Just her message that people here should fall in with her ways to the effect of being nice to her level of expectation about the topics. Many people have a very different idea about how nice they want to be on the subject of accepting aspects of scientology.

Is that clear enough?

Yes. You're saying anyone who does not act the way you think they should is a troll. Unfortunately, you've not done your homework.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Why seperate out your thoughts and emotions and call it something like "case"? They are you, you are you. Experience you fully in the moment and without judgement, just observation. Labelling thoughts in a derogatory way is thought control. Hubbard was good at that.

Well, why not, though? Psychiatrists and psychologists do it all the time. It's part of their art, their science. And it's fine that they do so. So I think others can do so, too, and in fact they do. Hubbard wasn't the only one to (attempt to) emulate them.

This doesn't mean he was always right. He wasn't. He used labels to hurt people.

As I said, when I first saw this thread title, I was like "Yay! Goooo!" til I saw the huge laundry list with everything thrown in and undifferentiated. I am very sure that if a number of you guys were to read some psychiatric textbook or the DSMIV, with all the many many terms and descriptions they have for things, you'd not bat an eye. And although the mainstream mental health field has helped a great many people, I bet one could find many examples in history of times those labels really fucked people over. However, they do more good than harm, and so, it just is what it is. And so it goes with Scn and Dn.