Dealing with $cilons arguments

I suggest the creation, in the education forum, of a subforum called Handling $cilons arguments (or anything close to it).

There are some threads here and there, but i think it would be usefull to have a place
where we can discuss the best way to "handle" arguments IN THE REAL LIFE.

We should make it as practical as possible.
For instance :
> There is this message by a scilon in a forum : "bla bla bla..."
> How do I reply to it ?

or
> $cilon sait this to me at last protest : "bla bla bla" . I replied "bla bla bla".
> and it worked fine.
> I believe it's because I returned argument is such a way that... etc.

It may also contain everything concerned with rhetorics, etc.

Vote now!

THIS.

It'll give people a way to be unified about what answers they give pedestrians / the media, so we all have our facts straight and we're not telling them different things. This way there's less of a chance of an anon going on-camera and answering a question poorly, or in a way that makes it seem as though we're not serious about protesting.

/agree.
Its important not to launch into rants about just how crazy $cientology is. Let the public find out for themselves.
Operation: Snow White, Fair Game, Tax exempt status, forced abortions in Sea Org, and a few extra facts work just fine to inform them.

As far as a $cilon posting on the site goes, feed them to the Dome?
No seriously, I think a thread explaining how to respond to a $cilon is a good idea.

I'd love to see someone try an approach RED said she'd use, given opportunity.

She called it the inquisitive child approach. Instead of getting upset and confronting and getting in a big quarrel just start asking questions.. supplementing the gaps in her knowledge with the most powerful word in the English language; "WHY"

.. sorry I let myself get side tracked. I think it's a good idea.

Four anons for now are against.
Let me show you a REAL example of how it can be usefull.

See this video :
YouTube - Spy vs Sci Anonymous Houston Protest Cult of Scientology.

at 2:00, this happens:

Man in car: Y'all protesting someones' religion?
Anon: Yeah! Cause it's not really a religion! It's a Cult.

What will the layman believe: a bunch of masked people, or the latest ad he saw on tv?
This is Anon word vs a lot of people's belief (as one can think when not aware of what's going on).

FAIL.

A much better reply would have been (IMAO) :
Man in car: Y'all protesting someones' religion?
Anon : They say it's a religion. Do you know they have a secret service in it ?
Layman: What ? (You hook him. With Truth... if he's not a plant. If he's not troubled, he IS a plant! ;)
Anon: Yes Goggle OSA and RPF, the church's gulag.
Layman: the WHAT???
Anon: Gulag, yes. sort of... etc.

You induced curiosity, instead of producing a blockage "A says it IS, B says it is NOT, but I ain't got no way to make my mind. Forget it."

That's it.

As long as it teachs Anonymous how to do it right. Some anons are too overwhelmed with the annoying-SP model, where they just act stupid and scream "XENU XENU XENU"

It's fine to have your lulz, but if you can't empathize with a Scilon to make them understand what is going down, you're not helping Chanology. This is not just a protest, it's a rescue mission.

Originally Posted by wat

As long as it teachs Anonymous how to do it right. Some anons are too overwhelmed with the annoying-SP model, where they just act stupid and scream "XENU XENU XENU"

It's fine to have your lulz, but if you can't empathize with a Scilon to make them understand what is going down, you're not helping Chanology. This is not just a protest, it's a rescue mission.

I'm not sure to understand you, since you voted "no".
Using "efficient words" do not prevent empathy. They help making our point, nothing more nothing less.

I'm not in a "rescue mission". Don't like the religious background.

I try to have people awake.

I got a bit of flack a month or two back because someone, presumably a scilons, came on here and posted the typical scilon questions - why aren't you protesting something else, what gives you the right to criticize a religion, etc. The thread was all flaming, and I felt the answers ought to be addressed for 3 reasons:
1) it's good practice. While protesting, you *will* experience these questions, and it's good to be able to respond to them intelligently.
2) I do believe there are persuasive, sound replies to these objections - if there weren't, I would be persuaded by them!
3) There's the opportunity, however small, to change a scilon's mind. They believe these questions are valid, and their belief in the validity of those objections helps solidify their resistance to our influence. Any opportunity we have to reduce the grip that Organized Scientology has on them ought to be exploited for maximum effect.

I made the mistake of, without consulting any other mods, deleting posts that did not contribute, and encouraging people to answer the questions in earnest rather than flaming. Most of the posts in the thread were calling for it to be sent to the thunderdome. I do understand why what I did was unpopular, and will not be repeating that sort of behavior.

I'm not a tyrant - I'll repeat the idea that I'm nothing more than a janitor here - and so I yielded to overwhelming popular opinion. I still feel my view makes sense, however. There was a result from that drama, the creation of a megathread for answering and refuting precisely those questions. It's available for a couple reasons: any time a scilon posts a thread, we can reply with 'asked and answered' and link them there; and we can use the thread as a resource, if anybody encounters those questions and isn't quite sure how to respond. Unfortunately, I didn't follow it much after it reached that point, and I did not involve myself in composing responses in that thread.

It sounds like your proposal is similar. I suggest you look into the current state of that thread (I don't myself have any knowledge of it, and am too lazy/busy to go looking at the moment). Then feel free to make suggestions on how to improve it, what questions we should add to it, what answers should be improved upon, and how to improve the design of it (should it be more than a thread? Should it be linked in an FAQ? Should it be incorporated into the site's front page? etc).

I added my own option. Hope I'm not overstepping my role ;)

Originally Posted by Consensus

[A lot of good questions and...] I added my own option. Hope I'm not overstepping my role ;)

Well. Since you've got the TD button, it's ok with me, Consensus! ;)

About your questions...

We could have someone browsing all forums and trying to catch all stupid things being said.
A VERY big task. Too big for anyone I guess... Any volunteer ?... No.
Furthermore, it requires a lot of energy to spot the stupid...

I keep the idea of a forum. Maybe not in the education category. Many youngsters here may feel bad about education and all that stuff... We're not at school ya know.

Well. I'll dream on this tonight (its 11pm here). It's up to you for now.

Originally Posted by Amnon Nhymous

A much better reply would have been (IMAO) :
Man in car: Y'all protesting someones' religion?
Anon : They say it's a religion. Do you know they have a secret service in it ?
Layman: What ? (You hook him. With Truth... if he's not a plant. If he's not troubled, he IS a plant! ;)
Anon: Yes Goggle OSA and RPF, the church's gulag.
Layman: the WHAT???
Anon: Gulag, yes. sort of... etc.

FAIL AGAIN Googling OSA and RPF does nothing, try it.

Originally Posted by coslies

FAIL AGAIN Googling OSA and RPF does nothing, try it.

I just googled Office of Special Affairs and Rehabilitation Project Force and came up with a lot of useful info.

Are ya sure you're doin' it right?

Originally Posted by Amnon Nhymous

I'm not sure to understand you, since you voted "no".
Using "efficient words" do not prevent empathy. They help making our point, nothing more nothing less.

I'm not in a "rescue mission". Don't like the religious background.

I try to have people awake.

Oh, did I vote "no"? Disregard that, I mean to say "yes". Also, I meant "rescue mission" because we are essentially helping people who are trapped in the Org. Of course we are also protecting targets from CoS policies and gullible citizens from believing backwards nonsense.

Originally Posted by Amnon Nhymous

Well. Since you've got the TD button, it's ok with me, Consensus! ;)

About your questions...

We could have someone browsing all forums and trying to catch all stupid things being said.
A VERY big task. Too big for anyone I guess... Any volunteer ?... No.
Furthermore, it requires a lot of energy to spot the stupid...

I keep the idea of a forum. Maybe not in the education category. Many youngsters here may feel bad about education and all that stuff... We're not at school ya know.

Well. I'll dream on this tonight (its 11pm here). It's up to you for now.

How about we ask some of the ex's in here or a few people from ESMB? There may be some who left quite recently (so they would be up to date with current clam PR tech) who wouldn't mind putting their PR / INT / Public defender hats on for us and testing us out. Have a sub-forum, each thread a conversation as it would be on the street. At the end, ex members and anons can get together and see what could have been done better.

Fun to read, more fun to leap in and try to argue your point but even if just a handful are actually contributing the thread is there for everyone to get fresh ideas from and refer to.

Trouble is that text in threads isn't anything like trying to get a point over to, or tying to reach someone used to the TR's. Someone used to full on bull baiting for an hour or two before breakfast without so much as blinking won't be phased by me going "Yeah, but... erm, <insert killer outpoint here>."

I've seen Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince demonstrate Scientology's basic TR's... hang on, got a link somewhere, http://www.xenutv.com/trust/trdemo.htm . Perhaps we could even do a few short vids of what not to do or if we find the ultimate killer outpoint that stumps OTVII's every time we can video that.

Ex members training anon SWAT teams of debaters ... Armed with calm delivery of a small point that'll slip under their radar and make them go "Hmmm..." a couple of days later.

I've been told variations on this from pretty much all the ex members i've met.

Shouting "$cientology Blows Goats & little Davey Miscavige is Squirrelling the Tech!" really loud just puts their shutters up and they slip into bull bait mode. Now they know you're as mad and dangerous as they've been told but they have just the right training to cope with it. Thousand yard stare, slip away inside somewhere and wait till you stop.

But little, puzzling points like this (from http://exscientologykids.com/james1.html) might do better...

"At the end of tape 20 of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course LRH says:

"Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes,yes, that's wonderful. That would be, could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence."

But that this Orwell quote by LRH has been removed, edited, chopped out, from newer CD version of the same course."

Something they can go away and check later. Seemingly unimportant to us wogs, but editing source would be a major contradiction between what they've been told and what is staring them in the face. It seems it's a slow accumulation of things like this that starts them waking up. I think it's the way professional de-programmers work, gently, bit by bit with lots of time for the cult member's brain to assimilate the new information before the next small point comes along.

If we had a couple of these small, niggly outpoints handy, rehearsed even, then when we're out leafleting we could be much more effective when we meet a $cientologist. No big revelations right in front of us, but a slow burning fuse they can look at later in safety.

I think i may try and dig out a few more of these little contradictions, because the last picket we did it was quite common to find yourself giving a leaflet to a $cientologist. And to have a few simple, little things to talk about would have been easier than trying to defend my position from the tirade of anger, abuse and accusations they seem to be able to produce from nowhere.

Any thoughts anyone? I hate that lost opportunity feeling when an encounter ends up with just a few "Yeah but....!" from my side and a $cientologist walks off thinking they've won by basically shouting you down with generalisations, misrepresentations and accusations of not knowing the subject. Very frustrating!

Happened last Sunday... Anyone else come across this?

tl;dr

We could rehearse simple de-programming hooks and ask ex members to help us get it right.

^THIS!

I completely support this idea. The main reason is that it should greatly improve our Staturday. When refuting Scilon arguments it will be much easier to have all our ammo in one place. This way you don't have to spend as much time googling or searching for bookmarks. Not only that we can improve the overall quality of our arguments with relatively little effort. More higher quality harpoons = more downstat = more ethics cycles and fist enemas= more scilon staff blowing. This would also allow us to get newfags on board for staturday much quicker. Staturday does work people. Was asked to tell you what got my attn while I was in..

Somewhere a scilon is attempting to spin that negative PR. Imagine every anon as an eloquent argument refuting machine. Hell if it gets big enough it could even be mirrored into it's own site. You could call it something like the "Refutiator".