Answering an unanswered question about my OSA Operatives thread on ESMB v1.0.

Zertel

Active member
Do you mean Ad Homs?
Yes. That would be the proper terminology. In the green room before the show on MSNBC and CNN they discuss, "What about the sociopath shall we discuss today?" At FOX they discuss, "What aspect of deranged Democrats shall we discuss?" If you don't get too negative about it and just look at the absurdity it can be rather comical.

I played sports in high school and didn't have time to join the debate team so now I'm getting an overview of the terminology and rules of debate. :)
 

BTW

Active member
Yes. That would be the proper terminology. In the green room before the show on MSNBC and CNN they discuss, "What about the sociopath shall we discuss today?" At FOX they discuss, "What aspect of deranged Democrats shall we discuss?" If you don't get too negative about it and just look at the absurdity it can be rather comical.

I played sports in high school and didn't have time to join the debate team so now I'm getting an overview of the terminology and rules of debate. :)
"Reject buttons' is a more sophisticated way to negate and make your opponent subdue (compared to, rather obvious, Ad Hom).

Both are the Black Tools of Polemics.
 

Zertel

Active member
"Reject buttons' is a more sophisticated way to negate and make your opponent subdue (compared to, rather obvious, Ad Hom).

Both are the Black Tools of Polemics.
polemic

noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
adjective
Also po·lem·i·cal. of or relating to a polemic; controversial.
ORIGIN OF POLEMIC
1630–40; < Greek polemikós of or for war, equivalent to pólem(os) war + -ikos -ic

An "MU" rarely escapes my notice. Thank Xenu for the Study Tek. (joke) The word origin certainly gives the sense of the word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BTW

BTW

Active member
polemic

noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
adjective
Also po·lem·i·cal. of or relating to a polemic; controversial.
ORIGIN OF POLEMIC
1630–40; < Greek polemikós of or for war, equivalent to pólem(os) war + -ikos -ic

An "MU" rarely escapes my notice. Thank Xenu for the Study Tek. (joke) The word origin certainly gives the sense of the word.
I'm glad you learn!
(Sometimes, people, having learned Scn, stop learning)
 

Zertel

Active member
I'm glad you learn!
(Sometimes, people, having learned Scn, stop learning)
I quit Scn in 1982 and never read a word about what was going on until watching the HBO movie "Going Clear" in 2015 got me interested in taking a look. After reading and participating on some blogs for awhile an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance I came across was:

I should continue my intellectual and spiritual pursuits.........................but............................I can't trust anyone

I'm glad I as-ised (erased) that - haha

Betrayal of trust is common or maybe universal in cults.
 
Last edited:

BTW

Active member
I quit Scn in 1982 and never read a word about what was going on until watching the HBO movie "Going Clear" in 2015 got me interested in taking a look. After reading and participating on some blogs for awhile an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance I came across was:

I should continue my intellectual and spiritual pursuits.........................but............................I can't trust anyone

I'm glad I as-ised (erased) that - haha

Betrayal of trust is common or maybe universal in cults.
BETRAYAL OF TRUST.

Yes. That's what is Scientology's Aftermath.
 

Edwardo

New member
BETRAYAL OF TRUST.

Yes. That's what is Scientology's Aftermath.
Back on the old hobby horse, eh, Al?

A. A TRUE ex-Scientologist doesn't complain about Scientology or associate with any other ex-Scientologists.
B. Scientology and The Aftermath is a betrayal after trust.

Who would support those two statements?

1. BTW
2. Alonzo
3. David Miscavige
4. The nobbled version of Marty Rathbun
5. All of the above
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Patron With Honors, Unfortunately.
I'm glad you learn!
(Sometimes, people, having learned Scn, stop learning)
Doubtful that you are really glad. You put on a good show, but the game is still visible. The effluvium gives you away.
 

BTW

Active member
I must have misstated what I meant. (It happens at times). Never meant Leah Remini's "Scientology and the Aftermath". - I rather meant that Scientology is always Betrayal after Trust in the aftermath...
 

cleared cannibal

Well-known member
I quit Scn in 1982 and never read a word about what was going on until watching the HBO movie "Going Clear" in 2015 got me interested in taking a look. After reading and participating on some blogs for awhile an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance I came across was:

I should continue my intellectual and spiritual pursuits.........................but............................I can't trust anyone

I'm glad I as-ised (erased) that - haha

Betrayal of trust is common or maybe universal in cults.
Cognitive dissonance is what ALL exs go through. I have written before that I find it hard to agree with myself sometimes because Scn believes it. One has to come to the point that they accept Scn is right or at least you agree with them on some points.

Something Glenda said earlier on the thread about emotional and rational thought is something everyone struggles at time. I think if one listens to too many other philosophies it is hard to know your own. Hubbard realized this as did many others through history. A contemporary of Hubbard was Joseph Goebbles ,Nazi minister of propaganda. Goebbles would be proud of Hubbard and I am not so sure that Hubbard did steal this from him.

>>>“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
 

BTW

Active member
Cognitive dissonance is what ALL exs go through. I have written before that I find it hard to agree with myself sometimes because Scn believes it. One has to come to the point that they accept Scn is right or at least you agree with them on some points.

Something Glenda said earlier on the thread about emotional and rational thought is something everyone struggles at time. I think if one listens to too many other philosophies it is hard to know your own. Hubbard realized this as did many others through history. A contemporary of Hubbard was Joseph Goebbles ,Nazi minister of propaganda. Goebbles would be proud of Hubbard and I am not so sure that Hubbard did steal this from him.

>>>“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
 

cleared cannibal

Well-known member
It can be used to stop discussion but not necessarily.
Hitler is a good place cognitive dissonance could be Illustrated .

If Hitler did it is it bad? Some things even most things were but not all things. I think of Scn in this fashion. There are key words today which are used to end discussion

Misogyny , racist, conspiracy, climate denier. If these are used you are probably not going to have a rational conversation on or off line. I guess he is saying Hitler is used in this fashion. I would have to agree if you are talking about Trump and Hitler in same sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BTW

BTW

Active member
It can be used to stop discussion but not necessarily.
Hitler is a good place cognitive dissonance could be Illustrated .

If Hitler did it is it bad? Some things even most things were but not all things. I think of Scn in this fashion. There are key words today which are used to end discussion

Misogyny , racist, conspiracy, climate denier. If these are used you are probably not going to have a rational conversation on or off line. I guess he is saying Hitler is used in this fashion. I would have to agree if you are talking about Trump and Hitler in same sentence.
 

Edwardo

New member
I must have misstated what I meant. (It happens at times). Never meant Leah Remini's "Scientology and the Aftermath". - I rather meant that Scientology is always Betrayal after Trust in the aftermath...
I’m sure we can all buy that explanation.
After all, by definition, we are the kind of people who were once prepared to buy a bridge.
 

Edwardo

New member
He said:

You misread what he said Edwardo, give him a break.
Well, the A is capitalized in aftermath. It seems to me a remarkably unlucky slip if there was no malicious intent.

And I’ve seen other short replies that have some ambiguity, but actually put in the knife. Mostly from Alonzo back on ESMB, but I’d just read one from BTW on the TRUE ex-Scientologist thread that he was being pulled up about.

So, on the whole, if I were a trusting kind of soul, I might think I’d misread, but I’m more cynical these days.
 
Top