What's new

The ESMB Unpopular Opinions Thread

chipgallo

Patron Meritorious
Way back in the dark ages of the interwebs, before Google, even before AMAZON, there was a newsgroup called "ARS" (short for, alt-religion-scientology).

Lots of people found each other there, some good inside information was shared, and the critical community grew.

Then OSA stepped in, and started trolling the site. Valuable threads were derailed or outnumbered, generally with nonsense. The signal-to-noise ratio became less bearable, detracting would-be readers from returning to ARS.

Will this be allowed to be the fate of ESMB?
Around 1990 or '91, a.r.s. was available on the military site where I had a UNIX shell account. The text description in the text newsreader was "He's Dead, Jim." It eventually made a paradigm shift possible for me away from fence sitting, which ESMB continued in many ways. A major difference is that a.r.s. was unmoderated, which is where the "alt" hierarchy differed from other USENET newsgroups. It was possible to "shout people down" by piling on, shaming or bullying, outing the anonymous posters, etc., yet it took the OSA minion many years to refine their techniques to the point where some can be effective at levels of disruption that the crude Kobrin cancellation message against a.r.s. pales in comparison to.

Effective moderation takes willing volunteers who understand what they are looking at. There need to be enforceable rules which are agreed upon by posters. Typically a complex rule set eventually falls by the wayside (and here I am speaking from the viewpoint of a former moderator on several less volatile boards who walked away from the role) and can drift into vendetta and bias. It is damn hard to be fair and ESMB has mostly succeeded for longer than I would have predicted.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Finding one's ruin is a sales technique used in every area of commerce. You can not sell something to someone until they know the problem they are solving by buying it.

Again, deciding to take action to fix the thing in your life that is "ruining" it, is a position of strength, not weakness.

In most cases, the decision to improve your "ruin" using Scientology led to real improvement in the life of a Scientologist.

It's only when you stop questioning Scientology and adopt the blind loyatly they increasingly require of you, that you are fucked.

A similar thing has happened here on ESMB. There is an abundance of unquestioning blind loyalty here.

It happens to anyone stop questioning, doesn't stand up to threats and who just does whatever they can to fit in and be seen as "ethical" by their fellow group members.

Yes. Scientology does it on purpose. But the cult member stereotype of "you joined at a vulnerable time in your life" is, more often than not, false.
I have to say it is an interesting concept, that one is coming in strong and only fucked once the doors are jammed shut. It is incorrect in that Scientologists prey on the perceived weak individuals, as such, it would be misguiding to speak of someone coming from a position of "strenght". Scientology has a process on how to get people hooked, it does increase with a "gradient" yes, but still - The process begins on the streets.

Wether the decision led to an improvement for a majority of those people is extremely debatable.

Is it that you are allergic to simplifications? Do you expect everything to be dished out fully? Whatever the case I still recommend going on the path of academic studies and all that jazz rather then trying to have a serious discussion on it here. Honest like.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
For an individual who takes action to improve their life and/or the lives of others, absolutely that is a position of strength, and I would admire anyone with that purpose.

But the CoS is the very last place I'd send someone with that purpose.

However, if they were seeking an affordable solution on how to clean windows, I might send them there. :cool:
It doesn't matter if you would recommend them or not - and your virtue signaling that "the CoS is the very last place I'd send someone" is duly noted. This is the UNpopular opinions thread, remember?

The decision to improve your life is a position of strength and not weakness.

The idea that cult members join cults at a vulnerable time in their lives is a stereotype.

And the acceptance of that stereotype walls off your own decision making TO YOURSELF about why you got into Scientology and what you were getting out of it. It makes you think you were not operating on your own power of choice.

It is a dehumanizing stereotype that Tony Ortega continually runs on Exes.

And it's really bad.
 
Last edited:

He-man

Hero extraordinary
It doesn't matter if you would recommend them or not - and your virtue signaling they "the CoS is the very last place I'd send someone" is duly noted.

The decision to improve your life is a position of strength and not weakness.

The idea that cult members join cults at a vulnerable time in their lives is a stereotype.

And the acceptance of that stereotype walls off your own decision making about why you got into Scientology and what you were getting out of it. It makes you think you were not operating on your own power of choice.

It is a dehumanizing stereotype that Tony Ortega continually runs on Exes.

And it's really bad.
The stereotype is also very true.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is called the ESMB Unpopular Opinions Thread. Criticism of Tony Ortega and questioning the stereotypes that Exes have been given to accept about themselves is very unpopular here on ESMB at this time.

If you feel queasy when someone voices an unpopular opinion that questions your belief system, don't come here. Use the "Ignore Thread" function.
Interesting. You actually think that you can make a comment here and no one is allowed to disagree. This is a wonderful deviation from normal commenting policies. You should know that a (non-administrator) member of ESMB cannot dictate who can express which opinion, even on "their" thread.

I believe you started this thread, thinking that you will have total control over it, to avoid challenges to your postings.

Now, how will you attack me? Which logical fallacy will you use: Ad hominem? Strawman? tu quoque? black-or-white?

I'm thinking you'll use the best one: :ignore::hysterical:
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK, here's a very unpopular opinion: I think the 2 hour "blinkless" TR 0 confront was wonderful.

Once I got through all the twitching and visual stuff, it was (to me) just like meditation. After that, I loved being tapped to help someone go through that drill. First, it was great not to have to try to read those damned LRH bulletins and fiddle with bits of trash and Second, well ... meditation.

No, it wasn't a trance or hypnotism, it was calmness. I was perfectly aware of everything going on around the course room but not distracted.

I felt I got more control over my body and could tell the body to "calm down, relax". I enjoyed it very much.

:hide:
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Very true?

ESMB: Vigorously defending the self-destructive stereotypes we've all accepted about ourselves.

Nice.
Whale, I don't go by ESMB, I go by He-man. Way cooler name then ESMB.

I shure hope you see my point there about stereotypes. It's not hidden wery well. It's right on the surface, between the whale and the ESMB! Did you get it?
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
OK, here's a very unpopular opinion: I think the 2 hour "blinkless" TR 0 confront was wonderful.

Once I got through all the twitching and visual stuff, it was (to me) just like meditation. After that, I loved being tapped to help someone go through that drill. First, it was great not to have to try to read those damned LRH bulletins and fiddle with bits of trash and Second, well ... meditation.

No, it wasn't a trance or hypnotism, it was calmness. I was perfectly aware of everything going on around the course room but not distracted.

I felt I got more control over my body and could tell the body to "calm down, relax". I enjoyed it very much.
When I need to calm down I do OT TR 0. It works but I usually fall asleep, just like I did in Scn :D
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Finding one's ruin is a sales technique used in every area of commerce. You can not sell something to someone until they know the problem they are solving by buying it.

Again, deciding to take action to fix the thing in your life that is "ruining" it, is a position of strength, not weakness.

In most cases, the decision to improve your "ruin" using Scientology led to real improvement in the life of a Scientologist - or else they would have never become a Scientologist.

It's only when you stop questioning Scientology and adopt the blind loyalty they increasingly require of you, that you are fucked.

A similar thing has happened here on ESMB. There is an abundance of unquestioning blind loyalty here.

It happens to anyone who stops questioning, doesn't stand up to threats, and who just does whatever they can to fit in and be seen as "ethical" by their fellow group members.

Yes. Scientology does exploit the loyalty you willingly give them. Eventually, they make you work against your own self-interests. But you are, and always have been, in control of your own loyalty.

But the cult member stereotype of "you joined at a vulnerable time in your life" is, more often than not, false.
Hey! This is poop!

Screen Shot 2019-08-21 at 11.06.41 AM.jpg
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Unpopular Opinion: The overwhelming majority of children born to Scientologists do NOT follow their parents into Scientology.

Therefore, those 2nd Gens who become Scientologists, and remain so as adults, do so on their own power of choice.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
The idea that you are going to take effective action to improve your life is a position of strength, not weakness.

By accepting these stereotypes about yourself, you have allowed your whole life to be redefined for you in the most self-destructive ways.

That would be fine if these re-definitions were true.

But in the overwhelming majority of individuals, they aren't true.
Taking action to improve means a deficiency (weakness) has been noted. Sure it's a good thing to decide to improve. The wisdom of one's chosen vehicle for that desired improvement is another story. In my own case I could say that at 19 I was vulnerable to recruitment because I lacked critical thinking skills and general worldliness. Not to mention a very hot blonde that was doing the selling...

I think it's quite fair to point out the scientologist suicides that occur. Because the claims of scn are that they have THE solution to mental health, that they should take over the field of mental healing, that they are the experts on the human mind. Scientologists believe these things, they also believe that "mainstream" mental health is to be avoided at all costs. In fact their spiritual eternity is at stake should they fall into the hands of the "psychs". The contracts they have you sign before allowing you on service have you give the org the right to intervene in such matters.

So yeah, I think it is quite fair to point out the massive failure of the "tech" that the suicide of a scientologist reveals.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
You've changed my point. I never said this. I said that going to a psychiatrist for the treatment of depression is not a guarantee you will not end up committing suicide - and Tony Ortega never mentions this.
Why should he mention it? I consider that fact to be common knowledge. What isn't common knowledge is that scientologists believe scn can handle any mental condition. That false belief can and has proved fatal to a number of scientologists. Could they have been avoided if they had gone with mainstream medicine? We'll never know, but we do know that the promised workable 'tech' didn't come to the rescue.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I think it's quite fair to point out the scientologist suicides that occur. Because the claims of scn are that they have THE solution to mental health, that they should take over the field of mental healing, that they are the experts on the human mind. Scientologists believe these things, they also believe that "mainstream" mental health is to be avoided at all costs. In fact their spiritual eternity is at stake should they fall into the hands of the "psychs". The contracts they have you sign before allowing you on service have you give the org the right to intervene in such matters.
So yeah, I think it is quite fair to point out the massive failure of the "tech" that the suicide of a scientologist reveals.
I'm glad you brought this up.

What is the suicide rate of Scientologists? Like suicides per 1000 Scientologists per year?

How does that suicide rate compare to the annual suicide rate of the mainstream society?

If your point is that even 1 scientology suicide proves scientology doesn't work, then okay.

But the more important point is to compare the Scientology suicide rate to the objective benchmark of overall suicides in the mainstream society. Only when you do that and see if Scientology suicides are higher, or lower, can you really make a valid point either way.

Tony Ortega NEVER does this. And neither does any other anti-Scientologist I've seen who discusses Scientology suicides.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Unpopular Opinion: The overwhelming majority of children born to Scientologists do NOT follow their parents into Scientology.

Therefore, those 2nd Gens who become Scientologists, and remain so as adults, do so on their own power of choice.

Oh really? The majority of children I know who were born to Scientologists did follow their parents into Scientology before they were adults, and so were denied any power of choice whatsoever. The point is moot since the decision to not be a Scientologist were never presented to them. A majority of them has blown since, with severe repercussions to their private life as a result.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Oh really? The majority of children I know who were born to Scientologists did follow their parents into Scientology before they were adults, and so were denied any power of choice whatsoever. The point is moot since the decision to not be a Scientologist were never presented to them. A majority of them has blown since, with severe repercussions to their private life as a result.
I wish you would read my unpopular opinions as I write them, and not as you want them to be..
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
I wish you would read my unpopular opinions as I write them, and not as you want them to be..
I did. You stated that a majority of children do not follow their parents into Scientology.

Therefore, those that chose to remain as adults, do so by their own power of choice.

I wrote it up using me own words so you can check my superior level of understanding. :D
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Unpopular Opinion: Your own power of choice is never diminished or destroyed by any Scientology 'brainwashing technique' - throughout your recruitment, membership, and departure from Scientology.
 
Last edited:

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Unpopular Opinion: Your own power of choice is never diminished or destroyed by any Scientology 'brainwashing technique - throughout your recruitment, membership, and departure from Scientology.
Does that also apply to the children who were forced into the Sea Org because their parents were to afraid to say no to the "church"?

Does that also apply to the memebers of the Sea Org?

Does that also apply to the people who were sent to the RPF?

Are you honestly saying that none of these were being brainwashed - witch resulted in a diminished power of choice?
 
Top