Panda Express sued over cult-like training program.

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Panda Express is a Chinese fast food chain in the US.


A former employee of a Panda Express in Santa Clarita alleges she was required to strip down to her underwear and hug a partially clad co-worker during a “cult-like ritual” at a 2019 training seminar sponsored by the company as a prerequisite to promotion.

The 23-year-old woman is suing Panda Restaurant Group, headquartered in Rosemead, and Alive Seminars and Coaching Academy in Pico Rivera for sexual battery, a hostile work environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sounds a bit like a combination of group processing and Sea Org face-ripping.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Panda Express is a Chinese fast food chain in the US.




Sounds a bit like a combination of group processing and Sea Org face-ripping.
I never told anyone to strip in the SO.

I heard rumors that people at gold were told to strip to their undies and then stand under cold air coming from AC vents as punishment. But at the time it was just rumors, I never saw anything even remotely like that at PAC.

People having to peel potatoes for days on end, clean toilets, run around big blue, getting hit on the head with keyboards... yeah I saw that shit. But nothing about stripping. If I would know of anyone told to strip, then I would have sent an out-2D report to myself and investigate ;)



Your news link doesn't work, it keeps saying I need to be a subscriber. Prolly because I'm outside the US.
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Your news link doesn't work, it keeps saying I need to be a subscriber. Prolly because I'm outside the US.
Here's another link


Or you can just search for "Alive Seminars".

The reason I posted about them, is they have a "feel" of having gotten some of their techniques from Scientology.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Or maybe from Communist "struggle sessions", which may be where Hubbard got some ideas from.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Here's another link


Or you can just search for "Alive Seminars".

The reason I posted about them, is they have a "feel" of having gotten some of their techniques from Scientology.
Thanks, that site worked fine.

That's pretty amazing to hear anyone in the real corporate world was doing worse things than PAC base guys. That's just crazy :ohmy:
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Or maybe from Communist "struggle sessions", which may be where Hubbard got some ideas from.
I know J.Atack has expressed an opinion that Hubbard probably read R.J Lifton's book on Maoist thought-reform and torture done on POWs:


I myself suspect it might have instead been Hunter's 1951 book on China (see link for full book free of charge):



But some similarities with the RPF or the little activity we all know as "Chinese School" feels all too similar for me to assume it was just random coincidence or Hubbard's "genius".
 
Last edited:

freethinker

Controversial

freethinker

Controversial
Here's another link


Or you can just search for "Alive Seminars".

The reason I posted about them, is they have a "feel" of having gotten some of their techniques from Scientology.
It resembles the Stanford Prison Experiment where one side is empowered to abuse another side and zealously does so.
 

freethinker

Controversial
Here's a woman who was fired because she looked at someone the wrong way according to the complainant.

 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Here's a woman who was fired because she looked at someone the wrong way according to the complainant.

It's the result of feminism and sexual harassment.

Used to be one was assumed innocent and had to be proven guilty. Intent was part of this.

Now, intent has nothing to do with it. Now it's all about the way something innocuous is perceived. Now one is guilty on accusations solely.

Started with sexual harassment and women's "feelings". Used to have to prove it with intent, like if you want the job be Kamala Harris demands. Then it became if you are perceived by the accuser you're as guilty...could be a screen saver or whatever.

This is where all the bs about "believe her" comes from and cross examination is "raping her all over again".

Here's the "Civil Liberties" union fighting to stop civil liberties by this very presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence.


So much for women having no power and male privilege.

Now this has morphed from rape culture and male privilege into systemic racism and white privilege.

This crap is uncivil, infantilizing and psycho ego worship.
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
Here's some more on this enantiodromia.


Taken as a whole, the ACLU’s lawsuit provides a veritable master class in precisely the sort of non sequitur–laced thinking that the organization once existed to oppose. It conflates “accuser” with “victim” and thereby assumes guilt as the default position. It presents an emotionally charged list of the negative effects that crime has upon the victimized (“depression, anxiety, and suicidality”), as if this has any bearing on the question of guilt, and as if such consequences do not also attach to the falsely accused. It proposes that the mere existence of rigorous due-process standards represents a boon to criminals and a “gutting” of the attempt to fight depravity. It casts statements in favor of due process as intrinsically callous or as suspiciously pro-wrongdoing. And, inexplicably, it attempts to impress an exogenous and unrelated crisis — the “global pandemic” — into the service of authoritarian thinking. Were the ACLU attempting an impression of a thoughtless law-and-order type, it could not have done a better job.​
___________________________​
Its peculiar motivations to one side, the legal argument that the ACLU is advancing is a preposterous one. The ACLU alleges that the regulations DeVos has outlined are “arbitrary and capricious” and violate the Administrative Procedures Act as a result. But, somewhat unusually for this administration, this change was carefully considered and painstakingly constructed. Not only did DeVos wait three years before rolling out her reforms, but she made sure to base them upon well-established precedents, the legal standing of which predates the formation of the United States. The only “arbitrary and capricious” provisions in play here are the ones that are being swept away.​
The ACLU also alleges that, by protecting the due-process rights of those who have been accused of sexual assault, the administration is violating Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, guarantees women equal educational opportunities. Or, put another way, the ACLU alleges that unless men who are accused of rape are discriminated against to the point at which their guilt is preordained, women will be unable to enjoy their own legal rights. Once upon a time, this line of argument was repugnant to the ACLU — and to the point at which it was happy to defend the speech rights of neo-Nazis who were explicitly trying to upset minorities. Now, it is not only happy to pick sides, but to pretend that it is doing so in the name of equality.​



Derail apology!!!
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
It resembles the Stanford Prison Experiment where one side is empowered to abuse another side and zealously does so.
Great comment! I haven't thought of it in these terms, but it makes perfect sense now that you mention it.
 

freethinker

Controversial
It's the result of feminism and sexual harassment.

Used to be one was assumed innocent and had to be proven guilty. Intent was part of this.

Now, intent has nothing to do with it. Now it's all about the way something innocuous is perceived. Now one is guilty on accusations solely.

Started with sexual harassment and women's "feelings". Used to have to prove it with intent, like if you want the job be Kamala Harris demands. Then it became if you are perceived by the accuser you're as guilty...could be a screen saver or whatever.

This is where all the bs about "believe her" comes from and cross examination is "raping her all over again".

Here's the "Civil Liberties" union fighting to stop civil liberties by this very presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence.


So much for women having no power and male privilege.

Now this has morphed from rape culture and male privilege into systemic racism and white privilege.

This crap is uncivil, infantilizing and psycho ego worship.
is the ACLU a legitimate institution? I think not, anymore than party politics is a legitimate institution. The Constitution did not provide for two parties where a majority of one side can hamstring the other. The Constitution created a Congress composed of a House and a Senate but did not create Democrat and Republican parties. if it isn't in the Constitution then it isn't legitimate.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
If it isn't in the Constitution then it isn't legitimate.
Sex is not in the constitution. Neither is chess. Cats are not there. Neither is coffee. :whistle:
 

freethinker

Controversial

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
There were a variety of people that had been "trained" in hubbard management technology (long pause while I apologize for the use of these words together), trying to earn fame and fortune through consulting. Silicon Valley and vicinity was where they were hunting, and I saw of a few make some inroads, and heard some stories. I would not be surprised to hear something didn't quite make sense and someone got sued because of it.
 

freethinker

Controversial
Aren't these the pursuit of happiness?

I mean, that's in the Declaration of Independence.
It's Karakorum being Karakorum and you know how that is.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Aren't these the pursuit of happiness?
2D is now the pursuit of happiness? Whoa, why wasn't I told that when I was in the SO?


I mean, that's in the Declaration of Independence.
But the declaration of independence is not in the constitution!

And I think we already established that if it isn't in the Constitution then it isn't legitimate. So the declaration is not legitimate. #BringBackTheBritishMonarchy
 

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
2D is now the pursuit of happiness? Whoa, why wasn't I told that when I was in the SO?



But the declaration of independence is not in the constitution!

And I think we already established that if it isn't in the Constitution then it isn't legitimate. So the declaration is not legitimate. #BringBackTheBritishMonarchy
Here! here! Meghan for Supreme Rula
 
Top