YouTube $cilon troll lying techniques? We all love our youtube $cilon trolls. They always come with the same answers in the comments of our videos, mostly when they have to hear Hubbard talking wackiness. 1. That is so out of context 2. That voice is a fake 3. You misunderstand the meaning of the words of my messiah 4. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Lurk more (lol) and the such So I was wondering if we could put together a list of their lying answering techniques, debunk them a bit, provide some actual examples and maybe make a video about that. Might save us the time to debunk their thing everytime they come up with it...
Re: YouTube $cilon troll lying techniques? Sounds worthwhile, tactics will need to differ depending on who your intended audience is. If you want to convince the Scientologists making the replies directly, you'll need to be patient and find some common ground with them directly. The way Scientology is being presented and accepted makes it resistant to logic or reason. You'll do better by not confronting them directly on the charges and appeal instead to their sense of fairness, justice and compassion. If you remember Beghe's videos, he says over and over again, "these are GOOD people". He lists that as part of the problem. The mass of the church is likely well intentioned, just caught in the mind trap (Beghe calls it a thetan trap) of circular logic that isn't allowing them to escape. The insular dynamic springs from the fear that they can fall under the influence of OP's which will make them "unhealthy" in their faith. Since they have to rely on officials who've been convinced that the source for ANYONE'S spiritual troubles are OP's, they have a scapegoat which protects the integrity of the circular logic, both the adherent and the people they rely on to audit them. (Unless I miss my guess, scientologists audit each other, and are trained to audit early on. If so, then insular beliefs can be maintained without much interference from actual authoritarian members, because they will be reinforcing their faith with each other). Because of this, Chanology is disconnected from the Scientologists they are trying to reach. The argument is "you are being manipulated, bullied and cheated by those in authority". While essentially true, the perception from the scientologist individual is resistant to that statement because their belief is being reinforced by like minded, basically good people they know they can trust. The inertia of so many basic believers in what they are doing is enough to keep the organization on track with little influence from authority figures. To them, they will feel you don't understand, to them, the message they hear is different than the one you hear. Former scientologists are likely better prepared to reply to these arguments because they are armed with first hand knowledge. They DO understand, because they were there. Freezoners are invaluable as well because they still believe in the tenets, but disagree with the church's faith assets (their tech) being oppressively kept in the hands of a few. The Freezone schism is comparable to the Luther Reformation and Protestant Movements. The Catholic church held their "tech" away from the common believer behind latin ceremonies which were no longer understood, and coincidentally behind illiteracy (which was no fault of the church). Lutheran criticism was more effective in resolving this than say...Muslim or secular criticism because they understood each other better. Going back to Beghe, he has handed anyone who listens to his interview the tools which can be used by any scientologist to criticize their leaders with Scientology's basic beliefs. Scientologists are holding on because they've been promised a freedom that is worth having. Even out of scientology, Beghe is still a beleiver, using the tools he gained within scientology to criticize what is actually happening. "WHERE IS THE CLEAR!" he keeps asking. "It's a Thetan Trap!" Even outside of scientology, he still looks at the world with a scientologists eyes. Talk to more ex scientologists, more Freezoners and find out what it is like for the scientologist day in and day out. What is happening with disconnects, RPF and the hoarding of Faith Tools is not internally consistent within the belief structure of scientology. These fissures are exploitable cracks you can open wider with the right tools to make constructive change. Like most religions, scientology will always have some small internal consistencies which arise from it's early leaders interpretations. Like other religions, however, these imperfections can be glossed over with the understanding that you can respect early leaders even with the understanding that they are not perfect. Once scientologists can keep their reverence for early leaders while understanding that all people are fallible, the human rights issues can be clearly addressed without the clutter of religious intolerance or hate clouding the real issues. If your audience is the public at large I'd stay on target with the original arugment. A common debate tactic is to pull the argument away from areas where your case is weak, back into areas where it is strong. To the general public, religious freedom is sacrosanct, which makes convincing the average person difficult. They aren't going to check the facts very deeply themselves, as long as they go three steps into the argument and still find controversy, they'll remain uninvolved. You'll have to bring the audience back to the original point within two replies or you will lose them. A stronger tactic would be to find out for yourself why they feel that it is out of context, and why they feel you don't understand Hubbard or Miscavige, whoever they are representing. Don't reply to the reply, don't let them lead the argument, but reframe your original statement in a way that takes this into account. This way whenever someone enters the thread of the public debate, they see a powerful point made with a weak reply. Remember that in this tactic, you are not arguing to form the opinion of the scientologist, but to form the opinion of the witness. The strongest point you can make is one that convinces the audience that freedom of religion and religious persecution are non issues. This is a powerful point because people feel as strongly about religious abuse and exploitation as they do about freedom of religion.
