What made me leave?

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
No. "Victim" and "victimized" are YOUR words. Not mine.

I'm saying that sometimes people take aim at them and sometimes it gets ad hominem. And that whenever the recipient tries to defend him or herself, the whining and accusations of victimhood start. The only people painting FZers as victims are the ones criticizing them.

I'm sure you'll find it wasn't me who first used the "victim" label in this regard.

Otherwise, I see what you mean now, but beg to differ. I would suggest that when terms like "shoot the scientologist" or, more commonly, "bashing", is used by those defending FZ/Indies its a passive-agressive type response wherein the "attacker" is overtly labeled as violent while the "recipient" is covertly alluded to as having been "oppressed". This tactic is itself a sneaky ad hom. I take your point that there is an element of ad hom in some of the critical comments, although its usually of a humourous nature and between people that have a long history of messaging together. Overall, I do think there's an element of subtle manipulation from those playing the "underdog" and very often its a case of "the Scilon doth protest too much".
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm sure you'll find it wasn't me who first used the "victim" label in this regard.

Oh (she said innocently) was it one of the FZers or indies who used that term?

Otherwise, I see what you mean now, but beg to differ. I would suggest that when terms like "shoot the scientologist" or, more commonly, "bashing", is used by those defending FZ/Indies its a passive-agressive type response wherein the "attacker" is overtly labeled as violent while the "recipient" is covertly alluded to as having been "oppressed".

Some commentary is bash-free, so to speak, some is not. 'Pends on what's being said.


This tactic is itself a sneaky ad hom. I take your point that there is an element of ad hom in some of the critical comments,

An element ? Oh, good lord, Blip. I've seen things about the person's motives, appearance, lifestyle, job, allegations that they shouldn't be here, accusing them of lying, demanding private information from them, all sorts of things. That particular sort of comment contains more than an element. It's often quite strongly worded and highly negative and neither intended to be amusing nor amusing in any way, shape or form.

although its usually of a humourous nature


Blip, when I was a non CofS Scn'ist, I was accused of a number of things. And I assure you, the posts weren't humorous. I've also seen a number of things said about others that weren't humorous. The ad homs were quite similar to ones I see here and there amongst others where there was no Scn'ist in the mix. Ad hom is as ad hom does.

and between people that have a long history of messaging together.

Maybe in some cases, but probably not most of the time. I know of several people whose mere appearance on a forum would prompt someone into posting some very negative and highly personalized commentary- often with the result of getting suspended or contacted by a mod or admin. And in many of those cases, neither party had been PMing each other much, if at all.


Overall, I do think there's an element of subtle manipulation from those playing the "underdog" and very often its a case of "the Scilon doth protest too much".

Yep. The bitch deserved it. Out thar in her make up and short skirt.

I mean, the way you're telling it, the only recipients/subjects who shouldn't call anyone else out on posting ad hom commentary about them are Free Zoners/Indies. But if the inverse happens, it's magically not manipulative and doesn't constitute protesting too much.

THis sounds very much like a double standard.

The text says what it says. If you're in doubt on any of this stuff, then feel free to change the nicks and pronouns around and see how it seems then.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I also don't view continuing to post pro Scn postings as victimhood. It's just people posting their own opinions. They've been told by the admin that it's ok to do that.

Just because Mummy said they could play with the big kids doesn't mean their feelings won't get hurt.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Yep. The bitch deserved it. Out thar in her make up and short skirt.

So, in your mind, anyone who abuses a Scilon for posting Scilon nonsense in an Ex-Scilon message board is a rapist? Reductio ad absurdum I think that's called.

By playing the "poor me" card, the Scilons do themselves no favours. The opposite, in fact, yet they do it over and over and over again. It smacks of an agenda designed to reshape the behaviour of others. Nothing wrong with that if its overt; attempting to change cultural norms is a valiant activity, I do it myself. But I'm not sneaky about it and I don't bawwww when I get stymied. I change tactics. And I would suggest going around calling people bigots and attempting to play on the sympathy of others is a tech FAIL.

The quandary faced by the Scilons here is the same faced by critics trying to release people from the cult, specifically: how do you let a person know they're thinking isn't right (in your opinion) when they're thinking isn't right? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result isn't the way to go about it.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Just because Mummy said they could play with the big kids doesn't mean their feelings won't get hurt.

I wasn't talking about hurt feelings. If and when someone indicates that they have hurt feelings, you can certainly reply to such a post, if one's ever written. In the absence of such a post, then there's simply no such issue.

Bottom line, if someone has stuff said to or about them, they can respond. It makes no difference if that person happens to practice Scn or doesn't. Expressing dismay if one type of person responds because they are that one type of person is a neither here nor there/straw man type thing.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Bottom line, if someone has stuff said to or about them, they can respond. It makes no difference if that person happens to practice Scn or doesn't. Expressing dismay if one type of person responds because they are that one type of person is a neither here nor there/straw man type thing.

Huh? Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Otherwise, yep, sure, respond as you wish. Bursting into tears and calling the alleged offender a bigot, or a basher, or a hate monger, or a rapist isn't that effective, though.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
So, in your mind, anyone who abuses a Scilon for posting Scilon nonsense in an Ex-Scilon message board is a rapist? Reductio ad absurdum I think that's called.

Nah. If I wanted to say that I'd have said it. I'd have typed the words with my cute lil' fingers, which I didn't do. I was discussing the argument.

My meaning was/is this: saying something like they're practicing victimhood by continuing to discuss Scn is akin to someone saying that a hypothetical lady in a short skirt deserved what happened to her because she caused this by running around in a short skirt. It's the exact same argument.

I run a board, too. We have critics on there. I invited some of them and I also encouraged ones who were already there to continue to post criticism. I've seen ad homs directed at them, too, because they had the nerve to actually post criticism of LRH, Scn, CofS, etc, on a pro tech board. I moderated the ad hom posts like a mad motherfucker, I assure you. What I saw was this: much as I like the forum regulars there, I did see a double standard there in which ad homs against critics posting there were justified because of the position those people were taken.

Bottom line? If the person has a minority point of view, wherever they may be posting, some people will consider that that contributor deserves any ad homs he or she gets. This is true on my board with the critics. It's true of the Scilons here. It's true of a Democrat wandering over to a Republican board and getting trashed there. And not ONE of those ad hominators ever wants to own up to what they are doing. There's always an excuse.

By playing the "poor me" card, the Scilons do themselves no favours.


I highly doubt that disharmony does anyone any favors.

T
he opposite, in fact, yet they do it over and over and over again. It smacks of an agenda designed to reshape the behaviour of others.

Nah. It smacks of people defending themselves to those who don't want to hear it. It does promote disharmony of sorts, though, but they aren't the only ones fomenting disharmony. They'd be mo bettah off had they found a way to finesse...which is what I ended up doing. I never get in flame wars now.

I'd not fault anyone for defending themselves and that includes the critics who got butt fucked over on my board. But I could say that some finesse may work better.


Nothing wrong with that if its overt; attempting to change cultural norms is a valiant activity, I do it myself. But I'm not sneaky about it and I don't bawwww when I get stymied. I change tactics. And I would suggest going around calling people bigots and attempting to play on the sympathy of others is a tech FAIL.

Apart from the afore mentioned communication on my forum, I've seen quite a few non Scn'ists express great distress regarding their treatment by various Scn'ists attacking them. It's all the same thing, really. It's no more sneaky or manipulative than when anyone else does it.

I've also seen a lot of posts alleging that Scn'ists who were on the forums and who were the subject of much busy discussion had called people "bigots", yet no such epithets had been applied. So on that, yah, let's see some dox.


The quandary faced by the Scilons here is the same faced by critics trying to release people from the cult, specifically: how do you let a person know they're thinking isn't right (in your opinion) when they're thinking isn't right?

That's a no brainer. Just discuss the argument and comments posted rather than the person. Easy peasy.

Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result isn't the way to go about it.

True. They'd be much better off if they weren't so candid and upfront with you about how they felt. I'm not kidding.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Huh? Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Otherwise, yep, sure, respond as you wish. Bursting into tears and calling the alleged offender a bigot, or a basher, or a hate monger, or a rapist isn't that effective, though.



Yes, I do.

I did not refer to anyone as a rapist. I had assumed you'd recognize an analogy when you saw one.

I've not seen any tears here, in cyberspace.

I'm seeing a lot of suggestions from you as to what people have said, yet the dox ain't there. For example, you thought I was calling people rapists even though I typed no such thing and was making an analogy about an argument. I'm guessing that these other things people allegedly said also have a similarly suspect provenance. Though with some URLs provided, I can certainly be set straight on that.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Do you even know what a value judgement is?

Oh, never mind.

Frankly, IMO, the combined effect of your how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people schmoozing :wink2::wink2::wink2:, and your faux elite intelligentsia associate Mark A. Baker's insincere :coolwink::coolwink::coolwink: erudition, each used, in some misguided way, to forward your beloved LRH/Xenu Bridge (while denying doing so) is downright deadening after a while.

Since, realistically, I can't do anything about it, I'm going to try to avoid you both.

Further more I give a straight civilised answer to your value judgements
re myself and you pile on more value judgements and wrong indications
and disparaging comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I'm seeing a lot of suggestions from you as to what people have said, yet the dox ain't there. For example, you thought I was calling people rapists even though I typed no such thing and was making an analogy about an argument. I'm guessing that these other things people allegedly said also have a similarly suspect provenance. Though with some URLs provided, I can certainly be set straight on that.

For links, I suggest you set aside quite some time and use the search function. Either that, or keep your eyes open for the next week or so.

And - yes - if we were all civil to each other, this conversation might never have taken place.
 

SomeGuy

Patron Meritorious
I'm sorry, having a tough time assigning the label of victim.

There are real victims of scientology and a bunch of people disagreeing / insulting each other pales in comparison and actually distracts from real crimes/ real abuses.

Considering for like $12 and a couple of hours any one can set up a message board / blog I actually find the victim of message board discussions thing to be a farcical argument.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm sorry, having a tough time assigning the label of victim.

There are real victims of scientology and a bunch of people disagreeing / insulting each other pales in comparison and actually distracts from real crimes/ real abuses.

Considering for like $12 and a couple of hours any one can set up a message board / blog I actually find the victim of message board discussions thing to be a farcical argument.

Nobody is describing themselves as a victim. That particular nom de plume is being applied by others.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Blip, just a quick question; you do know that the word "victim" has a somewhat different meaning/colour in scio-speke?

To clarify; as I understand it conceptually, a "victim" per scio-speke is "someone who is choosing to be/remain effect rather than choosing be at cause". It's just another one of those weird scientological concepts which are at odds with general understanding.
 
Top