What is trolling?

[Alanzo]

That's really not necessary, and on the contrary is counter-productive.

If you disagree with someone you can attack their ideas and actions without having to attack them personally.

When you do make it personal and become an asshole than any points you make, even if valid, will not be accepted.

Do you think that when a person is presented with a fact, and that fact goes against his present beliefs, he will accept the fact just because he recognizes it as a fact?

No. In epistemology you learn that people believe facts, or they don't believe facts. And more often than not, they believe the facts that conform to their existing beliefs, and disbelieve facts that challenge their beliefs.

So in 20 years of presenting counterfactual information to both Scientologists and anti-scientologists, I have found that it really doesn't matter how polite you are in presenting counterfactual information - you will always be considered an asshole by them. The dissonance you generate in them always makes them feel uncomfortable. And they can reduce that discomfort by targeting and discrediting YOU.

So you have to have a sense of social courage to present people with counterfactual information. Because you will always reap the social cost for doing so.

That's why someone's got to be the asshole.

And this isn't just with regard to Scns and AntiScns. This is Dems, Repubs, Christians, Buddhists and Minnesota Vikings - Any human tribe.

The keys to getting through are not politeness, but clarity and repetition. I often fail at the first, but I rock at the second.

 

[He-man]

That's really not necessary, and on the contrary is counter-productive.

If you disagree with someone you can attack their ideas and actions without having to attack them personally.

When you do make it personal and become an asshole than any points you make, even if valid, will not be accepted.

My MAN!

Seriously I'm feeling some brotherly lovin groove coming on here! Can I vote for you in the next election for world President?

 

[He-man]

Do you think that when a person is presented with a fact, and that fact goes against his present beliefs, he will accept the fact just because he recognizes it as a fact?

No. In epistemology you learn that people believe facts, or they don't believe facts. And more often than not, they believe the facts that conform to their existing beliefs, and disbelieve facts that challenge their beliefs.

So in 20 years of presenting counterfactual information to both Scientologists and anti-scientologists, I have found that it really doesn't matter how polite you are in presenting counterfactual information - you will always be considered an asshole by them. The dissonance you generate in them always makes them feel uncomfortable. And they can reduce that discomfort by targeting and discrediting YOU.

So you have to have a sense of social courage to present people with counterfactual information. Because you will always reap the social cost for doing so.

That's why someone's got to be the asshole.

And this isn't just with regard to Scns and AntiScns. This is Dems, Repubs, Christians, Buddhists and Minnesota Vikings - Any human tribe.

The keys to getting through are not politeness, but clarity and repetition. I often fail at the first, but I rock at the second.

That's pure bull and you know it. You are merely giving yourself the right to use whatever means necessary to discredit who you perceive to be your opponent(s).

Are you going to grow a pair and apologize?

 

[Alanzo]

Ok. I always thought that using the term "cultural Marxism" was misleading and ugly, but everyone to his own.

The reason I posted a link to rational wikis page on "cultural Marxism" is because I think it is very important to understand where that term comes from when it is being used in discussions on the internet. I feel that branding people, social constructs, ideas or whatever as "cultural Marxism" to be at the very least a gross exaggeration of reality. I know the failing is mine, I will always have an issue with that. I do apologize if that comes across as overtly rude.

I added the schematics because I find it funny and it is a cute tribute to Marx's obsession over social triangles and how it reflects on how "cultural Marxism" is being perceived. I don't wish to add it, but I feel that I must, it is a misconceived perception because "social Marxism" doesn't really exist.

Bingo.

 

[Alanzo]

That's pure bull and you know it. You are merely giving yourself the right to use whatever means necessary to discredit who you perceive to be your opponent(s).

Are you going to grow a pair and apologize?

Oh you bet.

Watch for it.

Alanzo's "The Apology" is coming soon!

 

[Veda]

Ok. I always thought that using the term "cultural Marxism" was misleading and ugly, but everyone to his own.

The reason I posted a link to rational wikis page on "cultural Marxism" is because I think it is very important to understand where that term comes from when it is being used in discussions on the internet. I feel that branding people, social constructs, ideas or whatever as "cultural Marxism" to be at the very least a gross exaggeration of reality. I know the failing is mine, I will always have an issue with that. I do apologize if that comes across as overtly rude.

I added the schematics because I find it funny and it is a cute tribute to Marx's obsession over social triangles and how it reflects on how "cultural Marxism" is being perceived. I don't wish to add it, but I feel that I must, it is a misconceived perception because "social Marxism" doesn't really exist.

The latest version of Marxism in the West does exist - call it what you will - and your diagram is designed to convey that only a Nazi would find fault with it, and to show how that Nazi would see it.

It adds nothing to the discussion.

And speaking of tasteless propaganda, here's a blast from the past...

 

[Enthetan]

For those unaware of the Cultural Marxism theme that circles around in the alternative universe of the right: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

When somebody doesn't like an idea being spread around, but can't offer a good refutation, then the standard response is to try to label it racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic/anti-Semetic/whatever.

As far as Cultural Marxism, it was originated by a guy named Antonio Gramsci, a (non-Jewish) Italian and founding member of the Italian Communist Party.

So what is Cultural Marxism?

In a brief aside, what is culture? At the root, the culture of a people encompasses their values. What do the people think is admirable? What do they regard as evil? What do they regard as
ridiculous? Answer these questions, and you describe the culture. To really conquer a people, you need to change their culture so they think the way you want them to think.

From the above link:

Cultural Marxism is a branch of Marxist ideology formulated by the Frankfurt School, which had its origins the early part of the twentieth century. Cultural Marxism comprises much of the foundation of political correctness. It emerged as a response of European Marxist intellectuals disillusioned by the early political failures of conventional economic Marxist ideology.[1]​

The central idea of Cultural Marxism is to soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism after a gradual, relentless, sustained attack on every institution of Western culture, including schools, literature, art, film, the Judeo-Christian worldview tradition, the family,[2] sexual mores, national sovereignty, etc.[3] The attacks are usually framed in Marxist terms as a class struggle between oppressors and oppressed; the members of the latter class allegedly include women, minorities, homosexuals, and adherents of non-Western ideologies such as Islam. Cultural Marxism has been described as "the cultural branch of globalism."[4]​

While Marx's Communist Manifesto focused on the alleged class struggle between bourgeois (owners of the means of production) and proletariat (workers), Marx did address culture, which he intimated would change after his economic vision was implemented. Patrick Buchanan argues that Cultural Marxism succeeded where Marx failed.[5]​

Among cultural Marxists, the book Dialectic of Enlightenment is considered to be a central text.[6][7]​

An effective way for cultural Marxists to influence the culture is to infiltrate schools and indoctrinate students, which the Democratic Socialists of America explicitly endorsed in 2018.[8]​

 

[He-man]

The latest version of Marxism in the West does exist - call it what you will - and your diagram is designed to convey that only a Nazi would find fault with it, and to show how that Nazi would see it.

It adds nothing to the discussion.

And speaking of tasteless propaganda, here's a blast from the past...

Well I mean of you want to interpret that picture from the Stetersburg Times as propaganda and not parody/satire, be my guest Veda. I haven't read the whole article, as I don't live in that area, but from what you post, I perceive it as satire. And considering how Sea Org members march around the flag area, it doesn't feel tasteless at all to me.

Once I read the text below the picture I realize it's actual Scientologists protesting a newspaper in Nazi uniforms and once again Scientology becomes a parody upon themselves again. How perfectly joyful and hilarious. I love that we could share this moment together.

Sincerely, a big thank you for sharing this with me Veda.

There are Marxist political parties and action groups, yes. What exactly is your point with that? They don't call themselves "Cultural Marxists" The term was coined by the Nazis back in the dark age of the early 20th century in Europe, reinvented by the Neo Nazi movement and used today to shame people on the left and in the middle of the political spectrum into silence.

I'm a social liberal by the way. Hello!

 

[AD1950]

Today is the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

Even the leaders of these diametrically-opposed belief systems, were able to find some common ground.

Their mutual hostility was not an obstacle, when they agreed (in secret) to split Poland up.

So on ESMB, can we agree, to disagree?

 

[He-man]

Today is the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

Even the leaders of these diametrically-opposed belief systems, were able to find some common ground.

Their mutual hostility was not an obstacle, when they agreed (in secret) to split Poland up.

So on ESMB, can we agree, to disagree?

Who am I going to split @Enthetan up with? Any takers?

 

[Alanzo]

Who am I going to split @Enthetan up with? Any takers?

I'll take 10,000 of his posts and add them to my post tally, thus overtaking HH for the coveted top spot.

 

[He-man]

I'll take 10,000 of his posts and add them to my post tally, thus overtaking HH for the coveted top spot.

You would only leave an odd 5700 posts to me?

Fine. but then I want his title too. I always wanted to name meself "master of disaster" It's frikkin cool.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Thank you SO MUCH for making that distinction that it's MARTY who uses that term and not me.

Yes, I made that distinction. But sometimes you do act like we are in a cult.

And yes. Tribes can be defined by their enemies.

Yes, you've demonstrated that to us.

And yet, you said this just 2 sentences earlier:

"While many individuals here are strongly opposed to Scientology, what this group actually has in common is our opposition to the CoS.".

Yes, I wrote that, but it doesn't conflict with anything else I wrote.

Per Haidt's definition of "tribe" and and the thoughts he shared in the video, what binds the group together into a tribe is determined by what they share in common - something that matters to them. And what ESMB'er's share in common is not opposition to Scientologists, but opposition to the CoS.
They're two completely different things.

IF you wished to put a label on us at least use a more accurate one.

The purity of your adherence to the tribal narrative will be the determining factor on who gets rewarded with status and prestige, and other tribal benefits for conformity.

The tribe failed to ever inform me what was the proper tribal narrative, and maybe I was screwed out of some benefits.

What are the benefits?

And more importantly, what is the standard tribal narrative I need to follow to acquire those benefits?

<snip>
And the social costs will be meted out to those heretics, like me, who question and choose, and [gasp] CRITICIZE the tribal narrative: Bannings. humiliation, vilification, shunning.

I didn't know the tribal narrative, and hope I didn't deviate from it so none of those things happens to me.

You do admit that in addition to the information control that is run in some AntiScn groups,..."

I'm not going to admit to something I'm unaware of.

I spend very little time in other groups and/or forums about Scientology (besides ESMB) and am unaware of what's happened or not happened in those groups. I am a member of some groups, including Outer Banks. But am a member of many other FB groups that have nothing to do with Scientology.
And I spend a total of perhaps 5 minutes or less a week at Outer Banks. I've gone many months where I didn't go there at all. I've posted one post on the average less than once a month over there

Since you keep bringing up information control though I'll say this. Although I've chatted with Karen a number of times, both through PM's here as well as on Facebook, she never attempted to influence me during those chats about what I should or shouldn't post. Not once. The only information control I saw her exert at Outer Banks was to forbid discussion of politics or politicians, unless it directly pertained to the CoS. I'm not saying any other control did or did not happen, I have no idea, so haven't commented on it.

And while there was clearly an effort made to influence the way that Emma administers ESMB (per her postings on it), and for her to make it easier for Indie's to push Indie Scientology and/or make it well thought of, neither Karen or Emma ever attempted to influence me back channel, to change my attitude towards Indie Scientology or anything else. I also don't recall my postings about Scientology or anything else ever being moderated for that matter. And for anyone who's read my postings here over the years about Indie Scientology I doubt that they would ever characterize me as a friend. I butted heads big time with some Indie Scientologists and wrote some things where Emma probably should have moderated me for violation of the forum rules, but she never did.

So for those who were wanting information control here on ESMB I would flunk them for failing to handle me.

"...AntiScn also practices shunning and humiliation, right?

Yes, please report immediately to the ESMB chain locker.

Not necessarily on a scale like Scientology, but they practice it nonetheless. They even practice fair game:

I've not personally known any critic of Scientology to ever practice fair game. Anyone who has acted abusively towards others didn't do it as part of a tribe. Our tribal regulations don't permit it.

 

[Enthetan]

"Cultural Marxism" is the new "Secular Humanist"

What's that?

I don't know, but it sounds BAD.

Let's call everything we don't like, and everything we don't understand, "Cultural Marxism".

Short answer: Cultural Marxism attempts to change the culture, so as to make it more compatible with socialism. It does this by gradually shifting attitudes of what is good and what is evil, what is proper and improper conduct.

Look at current American popular culture. What thoughts and attitudes are currently unacceptable in "polite society"? What values will get you banned from public life? What can you do which will be considered so detestable that they make you unemployable?

Was what is currently considered unacceptable, the case 20, 30, 40 years ago?

 

[Alanzo]

You would only leave an odd 5700 posts to me?

Fine. but then I want his title too. I always wanted to name meself "master of disaster" It's frikkin cool.

Perfect. It's a deal.

 

[Free Being Me]

Do you think that when a person is presented with a fact, and that fact goes against his present beliefs, he will accept the fact just because he recognizes it as a fact?

No. In epistemology you learn that people believe facts, or they don't believe facts. And more often than not, they believe the facts that conform to their existing beliefs, and disbelieve facts that challenge their beliefs.

So in 20 years of presenting counterfactual information to both Scientologists and anti-scientologists, I have found that it really doesn't matter how polite you are in presenting counterfactual information - you will always be considered an asshole by them. The dissonance you generate in them always makes them feel uncomfortable. And they can reduce that discomfort by targeting and discrediting YOU.

So you have to have a sense of social courage to present people with counterfactual information. Because you will always reap the social cost for doing so.

That's why someone's got to be the asshole.

And this isn't just with regard to Scns and AntiScns. This is Dems, Repubs, Christians, Buddhists and Minnesota Vikings - Any human tribe.

The keys to getting through are not politeness, but clarity and repetition. I often fail at the first, but I rock at the second.

If you are as smart as you think you are, (I'm not commenting either way) you'd try a different tact. Instead of being a self-appointed asshole (your chosen self-applied word not mine) which amounts to basically alienating your target audience you could go in the opposite direction.

Encourage people to feel safe enough to be brave. To peel the $cio-cult onion. Tell their stories. Share experiences educating the public about $cientology inoculating them from joining and recognizing their front groups. Bring people together helping take $cientology down.

Or you could keep on keeping on reveling in hubris and divisions and dramas. The choice is yours.

 

[Enthetan]

Today is the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

Even the leaders of these diametrically-opposed belief systems, were able to find some common ground.

Their mutual hostility was not an obstacle, when they agreed (in secret) to split Poland up.

So on ESMB, can we agree, to disagree?

They weren't ideologically opposed, in any fundamental sense. Hitler considered himself a socialist. Nazi is short for National Socialist. The full name of the party was the National SOcialist German Workers Party.

The main conflict between Hitler and Stalin, was they each wanted to be the one in charge.

 

[lotus]

That's really not necessary, and on the contrary is counter-productive.

If you disagree with someone you can attack their ideas and actions without having to attack them personally.

When you do make it personal and become an asshole than any points you make, even if valid, will not be accepted.

That is the point
This is it
At The kindergarten, the nanny teach small kids to complain about what is done and what is said..not to call names.


A kid over 5 years old usually gets it.
No need for anthropology studies and anthropologists opinion to get it.

Very simple basic behavior rule to live among societies. When you constantly annoy and attack, you become annoying and not credible.

 

[AD1950]

Ideological conflicts included concepts of Lebensraum, Untermenchen (and just what to do, with the big bad armies that had been built up).

Add some Pervitin (that's GUK in Nazi), and the situation gets "verrry interesting"

 

[He-man]

They weren't ideologically opposed, in any fundamental sense. Hitler considered himself a socialist. Nazi is short for National Socialist. The full name of the party was the National SOcialist German Workers Party.

The main conflict between Hitler and Stalin, was they each wanted to be the one in charge.

That's amazing! Please enlighten me as to how the communist Soviet Union ideology included the idea that the "Arian" "race" were superior to the "Slavic" "race" and based its ideology on the "lebensraum" principle. I always thought they were all about them revolutions spreading like wildfire through the world.

No, please don't actually.

EDIT: Not trying to turn this into a political thread.