Scientology is all bad.
All BLACK!
Dillpickle - I think that there are three goups of people on ESMB.
The first group thinks that Dn/Scn is essentially a good thing, LRH is a saint, and Davey is the problem because he took something good and corrupted it.
The second group is seriously pissed off or seriously depressed at having been taken by the cult and refuses to acknowledge that there is anything good about Dn/Scn.
The final group tends to either be pragmatic or many years along on their way out. This group won't indulge in any sort of wheat/chaff exercise, but they won't deny that you had wins and that they were real (at least at the time). They won't deny that Dn/Scn can feel like it is helpful, and may still use some of the tools that they learned while in. But this group also tends to feel that the Tech is very limited, and will seek answers outside of the Tech. Because really, if your only tool is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.
-snip-
I think those of us in the third group know that if we dared to say something - anything - positive about anything to do with Scientology we will get jumped on from all sides, accused of being gullible, hypnotised, deluded, mistaken or just plain WRONG.
UF
I don't recall ever being jumped on either.
-snip for emphasis-
Since the people who most need to ponder this, probably won't, I'll jump to the finale:
Scientologists are trained to be sensitive to "attacks," and to do either of two things when encountering an "attack": 1) "Cut comm with entheta" 2) or "Handle."
The few Scientologists, routinely, on this board are pretty much in full time "handling" mode, in one form or another.
The rest have "cut comm with entheta" and are absent.
So, communication with Scientologists, or with someone still majorly under the influence of Scientology, is problematic.
That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:
Handle or Disconnect
There is no other option available "per the tech".
Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.
Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".
If this then do this.
If that, then do that.
It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.
In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).
That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:
Handle or Disconnect
There is no other option available "per the tech".
Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.
Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".
If this then do this.
If that, then do that.
It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.
In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).
I don't recall ever being jumped on either. But if I say there is anything good, it is usually because I don't want to invalidate someone's perception of a win. Also, I try to couple my "yes, I believe your wins are real" statement with an educational statement about how Lafatty ripped off Dianetics from legitimate psychology practices.
"Wow, you teleported during the purif?!"
"Awesome!!"
. . . [One] reality is that good decision-making is based on tailoring outcomes to the range of actual possibilities presented. As such, multi-valued systems are among those which constitute a best practices approach, since infinite valued systems are not a practical objective
Mark A. Baker
Which means no good decision can be made in Scientology because the range "of actual possibilities presented" is inherently limited to those defined by L Ron Hubbard.
Only for those, such as yourself, who see things that way.
Mark A. Baker
I have never said anybody's wins weren't real. Show me one instance where I was rude or insulting or ever claimed anything about the person's wins and I will apologise.
That wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Really, I was talking about the recurring theme on this board of how to be critical of Scn without running off the freshly out. Specifically, I'm referring to those freshly out who look at entheta sites like ESMB because they see outpoints with DM's style, but haven't really thought to question LRH yet. Really, if they're to the point where they are looking at ESMB, I can work with that.
I re-read Dillpickles intro thread, and I don't even really see any responses there that are outright invalidating. But there are plenty of these one or two sentence responses that got her hackles up a bit. Those responses seemed well-intentioned enough to me, but after the lengthy exchange I've had with her in the Total Spiritual Freedom thread I got the impression she felt a little attacked and/or invalidated.
Certainly, anyone is welcome to assume that I think LRH is a fraud, thief, plagiarist, madman, etc., when responding to me. But that assumption might not be shared with someone who is just barely looking here. Most will get there eventually (took Dillpickle all of a week, I think).
I understand that, NoName, but my honest opinion is that that particular poster continually straw-manned my arguments to make it look like I was attacking her despite me asking her not to and attempting to get her to address the actual points I was making or questions I was asking, which she never did.
**snip for brevity**
Far from being a victim I actually consider the opposite is true. Just my honest opinion - I am not trying to be offensive. I hope the other thread goes well, and I do not wish any ill to that poster. Good luck with it all, I do genuinely hope you can all help that person.
Afterthought: With the current intra-Scientology war, it's alright to say that some things in Scientology are bad but, inevitably, it's explained that these are not really Scientology, but Reverse Scientology.