Discussion in 'Media' started by The Wrong Guy, Mar 4, 2013.
AKA, teh lulz?
"We came for teh caek and stayed for teh lulz," does that sound familiar?
Take your posturing moralizing self-importance and shove it up your arse.
Telling us all that you're morally better than other people isn't actually "speaking up for the victims", you know. It's just self-promotion.
No threesomes or foursomes either. I remember, while working on Personnel lines at the Int Training Org, a beautiful Asian lady from a Class V org who was denied executive qualifications because she and her husband once made it with another couple.
Hey, that's California
^^^^^ 100% agree
I am appalled at scilons demanding to know the name of the partner. No words can convey my disgust and contempt for them for that one.
Tony O is doing the world a service by publishing this in the manner he has.
Yes it does, and there is a lot of lulz to go around with just mocking Scientology at face value. But I'd rather leave the mocking of dirt normally kept in PC folders to the likes of OSA. And there's nothing wrong with exposing the truth, but when the truth is disturbing it's the fact that it's disturbing that should get traction - not the lulz factor.
Suppressing my free speech because you can't stomach open debate? Ha ha. Good luck with that. And thanks for playing the game.
Oh any talk about sex and I'm ready to crack a lame joke or two. Hurr, hurr, I said 'crack'.
Seriously though, you should read the article because Tony handled it pretty well, which ain't easy when you're quoting someone talking about fingering a gerbil. If anything I'd say he almost made the piece too dull because he was avoiding being salacious.
It's one thing to know Scientology is prudish, but another to see just how clinical and unemotional these statements are and I absolutely dread to think of the effect having to make such confessions would have on the victim of a sexual crime.
It's not nice, but it does need to be put in the public arena.
I'm sure he did, and I would expect nothing less from Ortega. But I'm abit under the weather and haven't mustered the energy to catch up on the latest scilon scoops since the end of last week.
FWIW, my beef was with the passing mention calling it "entertaining" and folks potentially loosing sight of what that leaked material actually represents to the people who endured it, not with the blog post itself. Also, herro nostalgia - it's times like this when I miss herro fiercely.
I miss herro too. Lazy-ass mods aren't taking their turns on the account.
Guinea pig. And I still want to know what happened to the poor creature.
If you can fool the E-meter, you can say what you want on this thing.
Of course, if one is fooled by the E-meter, it's a different story.
question on this, what if people confess to doing illegal things, sexual assaults or molestations, are these allegations swept under the run because of the religious confession aspect, or could $ci be looked at for covering up things after the fact?
maybe he got it from someone that legally shouldn't have taken it .... i would be careful with the cult if so.
Anonymous is not your friend ... fuck off
Good question. Makes me wonder what actions COS takes now, under DM's rule?
In the mid to late 70s, anyone found with prosecutable crimes outside COS by an org ethics officer would be offloaded from staff or, if public, put on an ethics program to resolve or make amends with any victims involved. (I hear this did not happen in the 60s, in fact, many ship recruits were criminals skipping the country) The 70s was one of the better time periods for individual ethics and justice for those outside scn hurt by scnists (unless they'd been Fair Gamed). Ethics officers/MAAs were not taped or videoed and used individual judgment. Since Scn wanted to use justice internally, without courts and jails, It didn't work perfectly, but at least there was some effort for a while to make Scns behave more responsibly and ethically in society.
The system quickly degenerated. By the 80s, rich public made excuses for not resolving issues and were pushed back on services. With less staff joining (70s were a recruitment boom period), standards for staff and individual ethics also bottomed out (like the 60s). The last I knew ('86), as long as crimes were disclosed, were old, and weren't against recruitment policy (not crimes against Scn), staff criminal history didn't matter.
Would be nice to hear from someone more recently out on how this has been working under DM's regime?
But now that there are documents floating, if something were to be stumbled across within the statute of limitations and a pending investigation, would $ci hold responsibility for a cover up? Can they be held liable for that stuff legally?
This is all hypothetical mind you, I'm just curious.
Well - yes, actually, now that I think about it. (you really make my brain work in the morning. lulz)
The life histories are out of session. They are not covered by priest/penitent privilege. Nothing in COS is covered by that these days & hasn't been since at least the early 80s. If something is said in session, a person receives an "I'm not auditing you" security check which eliminates the priest/penitent privilege of confidentiality.
In other words, everything disclosed in a security check, written documents or ethics interview is legally actionable.
Harboring a known criminal is a crime. The Catholic Church has paid millions in lawsuits over this issue. And lost.
Another Achilles heel for COS... I hadn't thought of this. Thanks.
We are Anonymous. We were weaned on /b/. We are immune to gore. We fap to pr0n. We do it for the lulz.
I heart Scino leaks like no other leaks in the Leakiverse.
Gottabrain's answered the question. I know that in the UK it would be against the law for the cult not to inform police if a member admitted sexual activity with a minor, even during auditing.
totally agree with you
This is what COS says. But AFAIK it has never been challenged in court. A judge would not be bound by COS rules. And the issue might be covered under employment laws and expectation of privacy.
Ethics is an essential part of the religious duties of any priest, so just because COS exempts itself doesn't mean the law would see it that way.
LOL. This is true. But Chanology was the merging of /b/ with moral faggotry. So there will always be two sides of the gore and pr0n coin here on WWP. Neither one rules. They simply coexist for the greater good. A diversified herd of cats, is still a herd of cats. Even if some of us moralfags are cancerous.
True. In the Catholic Church, for example, a parishioner does not have to be in the confessional box for information given a priest to be considered covered by penitent confidentiality. You'd think a judge would have some leeway to consider the surrounding circumstances. I've no idea what legal precedents there are for this, but privacy laws can be quite strict in different countries.
I understand your hesitation about the information. Even though it was presented in such a way as to be nearly clinical, I felt a certain discomfort with it and did not read beyond the first couple of docs.
However, I do support the right to publish this info as shocking as it is. There is no other way of putting it in the public eye and frankly the burden of prurience lies with the people who forced this information in the first place, not with those who must reveal it or those who read it after the fact. There is nothing titillating about those accounts. That's not penthouse letters there, those are innocent people forced to confess to things that are embarassing, yet all too human. The thought that SO officers get their jollies (humerous and otherwise) off this stuff is sickening.
Chanology was initially about about the dox and free speech for me. WWP conviently intersected with a whole bunch of other interests and I wound up here. But at heart I am probably a moralfag and that's one reason why I want to see scientology shut down- that and the fact that in all my internet life I've never laughed louder or better than the last 4+ years at this site, the lulz is no lie...
This "Church" truly deserves the label "sick" to go with "evil".
So, if I understand correctly, when Scientologists apply to do their OT levels then they have to go through this "confessional" process to prove they are fit and ready to start their OT levels. Then this "Church" has a huge amount of blackmail information on them. They might pass this onto the person's spouse, their children, their parents or their work colleagues or employers. Then when they start their OT levels and get onto OT 3 they realize it is a space-alien nut cult but there is nothing they can then do about it due to all the blackmail material except pay and carry on. And when they get "regged" on a frequent basis for large donations to "good causes" then they have no choice but to hand over their money.
This is a tax-exempt religion?
Doing it during auditing?
Here in Canada, priest/penitent doesn't cover a lot of crimes, nor does doctor/patient. (No doubt the lawyers have made sure to protect their lawyer/client privileges.)
yes, the same happen in italy.
Thanks God(does it exists?) Maybe, it happens because is also true that in Italy we've the "WonVaticano(what's worst?) that apply a great cultural-pression on people since the firsts days of life.
But let me say, that anyway, they continue with their bad works....in any situation...
Who's suppressing your free speech?
I told you to take your posturing moralizing self-importance and shove it up your arse. Which still seems like it would be a good idea to me. Telling us what a moral person you are compared to us scumbags does nothing to "help the victims", as you put it. You're deluding yourself.
I'm not suppressing your free speech - I'm insulting you. Quite a different thing. Disagreement is not censorship - your argument is ingenuous.
Rage will get you nowhere, unless your just trying to prove you're a retard. In which case. congratulations! Mission accomplished. Now go take your happy pills and commence with spewing the neverending hurr durr derpity derp.
ingenuous: (of a person or action) Innocent and unsuspecting
Did you mean disingenuous? Or are you simply insulting an 'innocent and unsuspecting' person? Sounds sort of rude to me, but maybe you are being disingenuous:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
her critic: disengenuous
OK, now we've got that out of the way
No rage here.
Yes, I did. My bad. I don't think that wolfbane really believes that he/she is being censored. Because clearly they're not.
I was criticizing them for assuming their own moral superiority over the rest of us.
That's not the same thing as either censoring them, or raeging at them.
guys please don't ruine this good discussion.
Insulting is not appreciated here(we allow only "for Sci" ones )
Please continue talking but quietly.... Thx.
We all should remember that the difference between "us" and "they" is that we are able to talk about all.
"United as 1, divided by 0"
That's all, don't forget, "we're legion"
Even families fight sometimes.
Anonymous is no one's friend.
Also: I found the contretemps an entertaining distraction from the OP and ensuing discussion, in a schadenfreude-Anon flavour kinda way. YMMV.
Also: New here, or is it just the socque du jour? You know who I mean.
I was merely trolling the inherent stupidity in calling the material in the article "entertaining" rather than disturbing. A successful troll elicits an emotional response akin to rage that typically proves the original point being called out was stupid. I got that, and my bad for trolling ITT when srs bizness was called for.
So no, I did not feel censored, nor was I being morally superior. I was merely showing compassion and empathy for the people who had to endure the psychological abuse those sexual histories reflect in case they were lurking here amongst us. I also assumed you (or whoever made the remarks I would enjoy reading the article because it was entertaining) didn't mean "entertaining" the way it came across and in the same fashion as you didn't mean "ingenuous." My remarks that seemingly set you off in a rage was meant to illicit a clarification on that point only.
If you feel strongly that that material truly is entertaining, then so be it. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I was merely expressing mine. Attacking my exercise of free speech with bizarre insults rather than explaining why you see it as entertaining is likewise an expression of free speech. And I respect that.
But I still see the material as disturbing and sickening, not entertaining. TonyO did an excellent job of presenting it in a dry fashion that as Malory sagely pointed out was dull in a sense, so again - not entertaining, and rightfully so. I also find it disheartening that no other media outlets picked this story up. The ugliness runs deep, but it deserves to be exposed and spread.
Scientology: It's always worse than you think.
You think that it's bad? No, it's worse than that.
This is the meta-truth of Scientology.
This is a classic. I have memorized it.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!