While Peter and I disagree on
many points, check for example the first debate I had with him on
the issue of the German discrimination, I
admire and respect Peter because, unlike so many anti-cultists or
arsers, he *is* able to make appropriate distinctions and
engage in honest discussions. He makes here a series of excellent
points, and I can back him up entirely on the representation he
makes of my viewpoint. Most of the posts below were made while I was
away from ars.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
jbwebb <jbwebb@gramercy.ios.com>:
>As someone who does find you, well not so obnoxious as hard-headed, I find your views unyielding to the point of absurdity in how far you will go to defend your stance. Your mind is never, never swayed by intelligent debate. It's the same story, day in, day out. I sit here and read studied, thoughtful, comprehensive and intelligent rebuttals to your posts, yet you never, never, never say - "Hey - you're right, I never looked at it like that," or even something like "You could
be right, but I just can't get over my prejudice."
For what it's worth, I hate Scientology with a vengeance. I think
it's a corrupt and totalitarian organization that preys on the
weak and innocent.
However, I have to say that I've not seen many 'thoughtful, comprehensive
or intelligent' rebuttals of Bernie's posts yet. I've seen people putting
different viewpoints forward, but that doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
>Another point that I find really stubborn about you is
how you are always on the side of the cult and the anticultists are "worse" than the
cults.
I'm not sure that Bernie *is* on the side of the cult or not, as yet.
My readings of his posts so far, suggest that he's attempting to be
even-handed. It seems to me that he's one of what must be thousands
of Scientologists who left the cult and who *don't* feel damaged by
the experience, and while that's not a point of view that's represented
very often here, it's certainly one that I find of interest.
My feeling is that many people dislike Bernie because he highlights
contradictions and hypocracy that people would prefer to ignore.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
drink@yourown.risk.com (bc):
>I hereby apologize to Bernie, and everyone else on this thread, for the flame. I will (really!) attempt to refrain from continuing the flamewars. My problem with Bernie, as I stated above, is his insistence that accounts of negative experiences are basically not valid. I think ALL experiences, positive and negative, are valid. All interpretations thereof will occur between the ears of the interpreter, and nowhere else. My *PERSONAL* opinion of those who have positive experience with the cult, is just that--my personal opinion. I've always tried to keep that clear in my posts--that everyone is *ABSOLUTELY* entitled to their own opinion--but that means that I am entitled to mine, too, Bernie.
I appreciate that that's how you respond to Bernie's posts, but
I don't think that's his intention - or at least, it isn't how
I read him.
While he does have a tendency to challenge other people's
experiences by claiming his own are different, ultimately
he's making the same argument as Judith, ie, that knowledge
and the experience of *any* single individual are very
different things. If one of the goals of people posting
here is to try to reach some sort of secure knowledge (which
will only ever be provisional) then you really do have to
take both into account.
What seems to make Bernie so furious is that there is a
real resistance to people posting experiences that *aren't*
as negative as yours - even when the person posting is no
longer under the sway of the cult. And there's a tendency
to completely dismiss one side, without making any attempt
to evaluate the data critically, while any claim that is
critical of the cult will be embraced, no matter how
ludicrous.
A final point: while people *are* entitled to present their
experience and have that respected, by offering it up here,
they *should* expect that it be subjected to critical
scrutiny. This isn't a closed support group for ex-cultists,
but a forum for discussing Scientology, and as such, any
information should be evaluated carefully, regardless of the
source.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Peter:
>>Personally, it doesn't bother me to see people slamming the cult, but I'd be a fool if I didn't recognize that the more extreme examples that are posted are unlikely to be *representative* samples of most members experience.
drink@yourown.risk.com (bc):
>Agreed. But do you consider the *representative* sample of most members' experience to be positive, or negative? (Assuming a "representative sample" exists, that is.)
I don't have a view, largely because I don't believe I've ever
had the data from a representative sample. My own view of the cult
*is* shaped by those people who have had negative experiences.
However, that's tempered by a feeling that many of those who
remain in still feel they get something positive from the cult
(I find it hard to comprehend why, but there you are) and a growing
suspicion that many people leave feeling that they've been overcharged
perhaps, but still feeling broadly positive about the tech and
the people they met there. Again, I don't understand this either.
My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership
is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede. I
really wish I could get a better handle on this complexity, but
whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about
their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by
a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc. You've talked
about how *you* believe Bernie's posts invalidates other people's
experiences, but given that he's a single individual posting from
a different viewpoint, I find it hard to grasp just how much of a
problem that can be, given the overwhelming support that ex-clams
get on this group. It seems to me that it must be far harder for
someone whose experience is completely contrary to the bulk of the
views expressed here to post. If you want to talk about the
invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an
objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand
that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience
with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being
able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their
bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole
issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says
that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
>My short experience with the cult was negative. Most of the ones I have seen here are negative. Most of the ones I've seen in e-mail exchanges, web pages, books, and personal (IRL) discussions have been negative.
If you hang around with critics, you really shouldn't be surprised
that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way
of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As
I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts
is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of
their position.
You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting to you, or angers
you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a
group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really
think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself?
particularly when it became clear that you weren't going to be
allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have
to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because
your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort
of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting
to genuinely understand what the other person is saying?
My guess is that you wouldn't stick around very long either.
>I'm not claiming to have done a scientific survey;
I've just talked to people and read things. I'm not saying everyone ends up dead in the basement of the Ft. Harrison--I'm just saying that I firmly believe that the negative FAR outweighs any positive that *may* exist. IMHO.
With regard to Scientology as an organization, I'd agree completely.
However, I'm not at all convinced that the same thing is true of
people's experience of the cult. Or rather, I'm pretty sure that
most of those who stay in for any length of time do so because
they have a positive experience. I don't buy the mind control
theory - I think that's an excuse that people use to explain
behaviour that they aren't very proud of. I believe they stay in
because they get something positive, and they leave when the
experience turns negative. And I think that the better grasp we
have of what it is that people find positive about the cult, the
better able we are to point out the flaws. But you really can't
get at that unless you actually listen to what those people have
to say.
>>How many coroners reports have you seen? How many
members of the cult do you suppose there are? In light of the disparity between these two things, why is his argument so difficult for so many to accept?
>I've seen one coroner's report. That's one too many.
His argument is difficult to accept because it is delivered in the guise of a sermon, rather than a discussion. I suppose I am probably guilty of the same offense.
Indeed, but it's hardly an uncommon one in these parts. I take
your point about his tendency to preach, but I think it's hard
to put forward an unpopular point of view in this newsgroup.
Take a look around sometime, and see what happens to those who
does.
Personally, I believe that without exposure to a broad diversity
of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding
much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying
people for holding different views, you can't expect them to
stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is
are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
>Sorry 'bout that--I never really thought I was preaching to the choir. I just want the truth to be known. If Bernie feels he is delivering the other side of that truth, more power to him. That's not going to make me stop speaking my mind.
I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you think about according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that
point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you.
That's all.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Peter:
>>My point is that the reality of the experience of cult membership is far more complex than this group is prepared to concede.
seekon@ix.netcom.com (Number 3):
> that's a claim that i don't believe is true, and i
challenge you to demonstrate it. to be clear, the challenge
concerns what the group is prepared to concede.
The above is my opinion based on my impressions of reading the
group over a period of several years. I couldn't demonstrate it
conclusively, without going to the trouble of doing a huge
content analysis of a representative sample of posts, and I
dont have either the time or the inclination for that. What I
will say, is that I've certainly been guilty of it myself in
the past and I don't think that I was at all untypical.
>> I really wish I could get a better handle on this
complexity, but whenever anyone *does* appear here who is prepared to talk about their positive experiences, they are immediately leapt upon by a huge string of fuckwits, ranting OSA, clam, etc.
> that also is not true. the people
who politely come in to talk are met with a polite and generally moderate
response. there have been a number who have done so, although not so many recently. that's not to say that they aren't
substantially outnumbered, and that the critics don't provide a
significant challenge to their belief structure. even new posters,
unless they are particularly clueless, are heard for several
posts before what you characterize as the ravening pack assembles.
I'll concede that this may be a more accurate characterization.
Nevertheless, you concede yourself that it isn't long before
the ravening pack *does* assemble. When that does happen, I
doubt many people will be prepared to stick around for very
long and engage in meaningful discussion. I can count the
number that I've seen in the past on one hand.
>>If you want to talk about the invalidation of experience, it seems to me that you should take an objective look at *that* process - although I can quite understand that someone who *has* had a particularly negative experience with the cult might not want to. But my own feeling is that being able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
> what exactly is the 'cultic
mindset' that they are stuck with? characterize how it operates, so that i can see it to.
A tendency to divide the world into 'friend' and 'enemy',
a tendency towards paranoia and conspiracy theory, a refusal
to consider information that doesn't fit in with the
group's paradigm, a tendency to elevate particular individuals
above the rest of the group, a belief that the ends justify
the means.
All these tendencies are currently observable among critics
here on ARS.
>>If you hang around with critics, you really
shouldn't be surprised that all of their views are critical, but we really have no way of knowing how typical or how representative those views are. As I said, anyone trying to express a contrary view in these parts is rapidly set about by a mob insistant on proving the folly of their position.
> i think that is way too simplistic.
have you been set about by a mob insistant on proving your folly?
My position isn't *that* contrary to the dominant set of ideas
here on ARS. *I'm* not saying that the experience of Scientology can
be good for you.
>>You've implied Bernie's invalidation is upsetting
to you, or angers you. How do you suppose you would feel if you were posting in a group where poster after poster did precisely that? Do you really think you'd stick around very long to try and explain yourself?
> i am reminded about my curiousity
about why bernie would do that, which you poo-poohed.
Did I? I don't believe I did. But I believe I can provide you
with an answer to your question - or at least, I can tell you
what I've how Bernie respond to that here on the group. He
says that he's got a particular interest into the cultic
mindset. What is it that makes people want to join such groups?
He believes (much more strongly than I do, perhaps) that he
can see that mindset at work here on ARS among people who had
been members in the past and have left, but still retain
features of the mindset.
>>particularly when it became clear that you weren't
going to be allowed any latitude in your account - and so were going to have to define precisely every single ambiguous word you posted, because your opponents weren't prepared to engage in discussion on the sort of terms that most people take for granted when they are attempting to genuinely understand what the other person is saying?
> whether you like it or not, if you
are going to present new, different, contrary views, you are going to have to make them clear in people's minds to have an effect. you are going to have to address the ambiguities that arise from the new view being presented. you have to be very
careful about being misunderstood.
That's not my point though. My point is that it goes *way*
beyond that reasonable request for clarification to a pedantic
nitpicking that actually stifles the possibility of meaningful
discourse, because some posters here just aren't that skilled at
argument, and so they believe that picking them up on every
word with a possible ambiguity of meaning somehow shows their
opponent up as having a weak position. In fact, it doesn't,
they are the people with the weak argument, but they never get
to learn that because they are surrounded by people who will
never concede anything good about those who they see as the
opposition.
And at the same time, the thread becomes unreadable because it
gets bogged down in all this boring nitpicking, and the *real*
argument that is in there somewhere never even gets touched.
I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it happens
frequently enough to be a major irritation to me.
>>Personally, I believe that without exposure to a
broad diversity of opinion, one really isn't going to get very far in understanding much, and when you've got people regularly abusing and vilifying people for holding different views, you can't expect them to stick around for long. What we've *all* got to ask ourselves is are we going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
> returning to judith's epistemology
topic, you need more than exposure to opinion. you need exposure to data - you need a way to acquire other people's experiences, you need a way to structure those experiences in a way that accomodates your own, and you need a way to assimilate or internalize them. exposure to opinion may provide ways of structuring data, but if that's all you get, and if it is too much at variance with your own structuring and experience, it looks empty or in error, and it gets rejected. this is not even bad, from an evolutionary perspective.
Indeed, but I've been studying the cult for twenty years,
off and on, so I'm familiar with the data, I know all about
the negative experiences, etc. More recently I've started to
wonder about the credibility of some of the claims that I've taken for granted, and that's one of the reasons that I may
seem to have been siding with Diane. She's the only
person here who *isn't* a scientologist, who is prepared to
do basic research on these issues and post her findings. And
I agree with Bernie when he points out that the vilification
she's undergoing as a result of this process *is* indicative
of a cultic mindset.
Yes, I know that there are personal differences between Diane
and some posters, but that isn't how the criticisms are couched.
The implication is that anybody who posts information that
undermines the credibility of a critic is an OSA plant. There
seems to me to be an exact parallel here, with the argument that
anyone who publishes objective but positive data about Prozac
is in the employ of Psychiatry. Both sides are opposed to full
disclosure of the data, and to an honest evaluation of all the
evidence.
>>I'm not asking you to. I'm just asking that you
think about according the same sort of respect to someone who expresses that point of view as you'd expect others to accord to you.
> i think we've found a replacement
for peter nathan hass, lo these many months :-)
Don't be too sure. I'm probably just being contrary. Next week, I'll
probably be assaulting clams and dissing Diane and Bernie along
with the rest of you.
bc:
>>I'd suggest you back up a paragraph and read what I wrote. I said "...unwilling to listen to anyone else relate their negative experiences *WITHOUT SEMANTICALLY PUMMELING THEM FOR IT*" (emphasis added for the reality-impaired).
Diane Richardson:
>What do you mean by "semantically pummeling"? Do you really think that anyone who questions your assertions is doing that to hurt you --invalidate you? I see things differently.
>The opportunity to analyze long-held opinions, defend those opinions in debate, and ultimately alter those opinions, reassess those opinions, or reaffirm them, is a great learning experience for me. It's one of the things that has kept me from wallowing in the same rut for a lifetime. It's my opportunity to learn and grow wiser.
Um, a big "me too" here.
It's funny, because when I was suggesting that ARS as a group
does this when current or ex-$cienos with a positive experience
of the cult post here, Seeker was arguing that this wasn't the
case. What really happens is that people politely challenge
their assumptions, but the poor Scieno's just can't take it.
Here, though, we have bc complaining because when Diane does
to critics what ARS does to Scientologists, it constitutes
invalidation by "semantic pummelling". But *everything* that
we do here is "semantic pummelling". That's what we do here -
argue and debate. If Diane's arguments are weak, there's no
shortage of people here to jump all over her and point that
out. In fact, even when they aren't weak, there are enough people
here who lack the insight into the difference between a 'good'
(ie, logical and coherent) argument and a poor one to take a
shot at it anyway. It hardly seems reasonable to whine about
'semantic pummelling' because she tends to decisively defeat
such people in argument.
My biggest disappointment with ARS at the moment is the way that
Diane is being jumped on because of this tendency to question
assertions. When she did it to Scientologists, she was a hero.
When she does it to critics, she's a witch.
Going back to Seeker's question about the features of a cultic
mind-set, it seems to me that point illustrates a key feature
of such a mind-set. When faced with information or arguments that
challenges their belief system, people with a cultic mind-set will
not only refuse to assess it, they will also attempt to dismiss
the person who is actually presenting the information. Bernie
does it and so it's obviously because he's OSA and has some sort
of agenda. Diane does it, and it's because she's bitter about her
personal relationships, or because she's diagnosed bipolar. This
is *precisely* the same style of argument that the cult uses when
it claims that the reason people like Dennis, Arnie, Jeff Jacobsen,
etc. have attack the church because they are really criminals with
something to hide.
The cult resorts to these DA tactics when they don't have good
arguments *against* their opponents, and the same thing, it seems
to me, is true of those critics who engage in the same tactics.
If they could win the argument on it's merits alone, then they'd
do so, it would be apparent to everyone reading, and they could
feel smug about having demonstrably crushed a fallacious argument.
What happens is that they *don't* win the argument, and so they
seek to DA their opponent in some way in an attempt to make
themselves feel better over having been made to look foolish in
public.
Anyway, my point is that what BC calls 'semantic pummelling' is
really the best tool that we have. ie the ability to ask questions,
to challenge basic assumptions, to point up the flaws in each
other's logic. If we don't subject *all* claims to the same
rigorous testing, then we have to accept $cientology's argument
that critics are biased, bigoted and operate a double standard.
Mind you, I note that several people - Pope Barwell, Dennis and
one or two others *have* been arguing in favour of adopting double
standards with regard to the treatment of Scientologists re. outing
and posting logs, so perhaps some people are also prepared to argue
in favour of double standards with regard to the evaluation of
evidence as well. Maybe they're right. Maybe wog claims *shouldn't*
have to meet the same rigorous standards we expect from $cientology.
Maybe we should just adopt the principle of 'whatever is true for you..'
because refusal to do so is 'invalidating'.
But you know what? That all sounds like *clam-talk* to me. YMMV.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Peter:
>> But my own feeling is that being able to do so would indicate that somebody had moved on from their bitterness, and was trying to get a wider perspective on the whole issue, and in that sense I *do* agree with Bernie when he says that many ex-cultists are still stuck in the cultist mindset.
John Ritson <john@jritson.demon.co.uk>:
>There is a Catch-22 here. If a person gives 'bitter' testimony that is liable to be discounted because they are still stuck in the cultist mindset. If they say that some things were good, some were bad, and it is not too important to them these days, then this is evidence that they have achieved the necessary wider perspective, but can also be taken as evidence that whatever it is that the 'bitter' people are protesting about is not really too bad.
I don't think that's quite what I was getting at. I don't have
any problem with people telling us about their horrendous
experiences with Scientology, *nor* do I think that that alone
is indicative of a cultic mindset.
My problem is when somebody else comes along and says 'well,
my experience was different', and that person isn't able to
acknowledge the possibility that it *might* be different for
other people. This says nothing at all about the overall goodness
or badness of the cult itself, or the fact that it has engaged
in evil actions, it simply reflects an ability to take all the
data into account rather than automatically dividing the world
up into pure good and pure evil.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
>>I still think that the word "lie" is not
appropriate when you're talking about someone's opinion. You can call someone's opinion "wrong," but calling it a "lie" implies that Bernie
is deliberately forwarding an untruth. Do you really believe that's what he's done -- express an opinion that he doesn't believe himself?
drink@yourown.risk.com (bc):
>Yes. See above. Where does this "cult" exist, outside of Bernie'simagination? Does even Bernie actually *believe* such a thing exists? Or is it just a cheap rationalization? Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, it still smells like a lie.
I don't believe Bernie *does* believe it exists as a cult
in the literal sense (though I'm just guessing here.)
I think he's using the term 'cult' as an analogy to make what *I*
believe is a very reasonable point about the similarities in
thinking between some members of the 'close knit group' that you
acknowledge, and cults themselves.
I've already outlined what these parallels are earlier on in
the thread, in response to a request from number 3 to do so,
so I won't go into them all again.
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
