Here is some classic scientology “bubble-think”. It supposes that bad press equals interest in participating in scientology — rather than the newsworthiness of exposed abuses. With this logic the Catholic Church should be excited about the “interest” shown in Catholicism with the coverage of the ongoing pedophile priest scandal.
Not to be too logical about this — if this was in fact true, how come Battle Creek is unable to renovate the building they have had for more than a decade? And have virtually no staff or public?
Hubbard formalized this delusional mindset way back in 1958 in his HCO Bulletin titled “Signs of Success”. It is an article of faith that every scientologist “knows” to be true. When there is “bad PR” for scientology it is “proof” of how well they are doing. Because Ron says that only when we are “winning” do the “squirrels” scream. Of course, in this day and age, everyone who has left scientology and is exposing the horrors of abuse in the organization is deemed a “squirrel” despite the fact that nobody practices “offbeat scientology” in any form.
This is truly one of Hubbard’s most Orwellian concepts.
The proof of our good is that people say we are bad, and the more they say it, the better we must be.
Peacemaker, you’re SUCH an optimist, expecting FOOLproof to respond literately to a request for a dialog. He’s not ALLOWED to do that.His ‘scripture’ requires only ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK as that’s the only valid option.
Aquamarine, at least WE, out here, know the real stats: dead flat at the zero level for YEARS. Not that the clams still in COULD see the true stats, nor that they’d believe what they see since they’re so heavily invested in the idea that scn works, even a little bit … for some people, sometimes. They MUST believe that every place BUT here is booming, so can’t generalize from the empty, deathly-quiet orgs they SEE all around them. That scientology was a total failure would be too much for their shaky, weak egos to BEAR.
Todd Cray, the “interest” in scientology is even more accurately gauged: Look at their orgs. There’s no one home other than (sometimes) a few sad sacks listlessly manning the front desks.
Peabody:”Incident 1 was 4 quadrillion years ago.
That’s 4,000,000,000,000,000 years ago.
I don’t believe any estimate of the universe’s age because it changes, much like the predictions for the End of the Earth.”
What I’ve seen has pretty steadily approached 14 Billion years.Asfaar as I’m concerned, 13.7 and 13.8, both of which I’ve seen mentioned recently, are close enough as makes no matter to 14 Billion that I’m comfortable with using that figure. But Tubby’s wild outlier number is SO far off the mark! He couldn’t comprehend so MANY things, mis-duplicated most of the schooling he was supposed to have taken, but skipped out on to do other things which interested him (that day), like story ideas, flying, or even better, fictional flying stories.
Hubbard seemed to be obsessed with the past, going back ever further attempting to discover “the beginning of existence”, assuming such an event is possible. There are numerous speculations in theoretical physics about “existence” like what existed before the big bang.
Here’s something from an Objectivism type philosophy called Neo-Tech presented by Frank R. Wallace. Here’s a brief excerpt from wiki about Objectivism which was originally developed by Ayn Rand.
[Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral[3] and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights, including property rights.[4] In art, Rand promoted romantic realism. She was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except for Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and classical liberals.[5]]
Here is part of Wallace’s take on “existence”.
[The questions “Who Created Existence” and “Why of the Universe” are ancient, mind-subverting gimmicks of positing invalid, intellectually untenable questions that have no basis in reality. That false-question maneuver has been used by theologians and mystics for centuries.
………………………………………..(these questions) cannot or need never be answered because no causal explanations are needed for *existence* or the universe. Existence is axiomatic. It just exists; it always has and always will exist. Nothing created it and no causal explanation is needed or valid.]
Neo-Tech made money by selling pricey books promising Prosperity, Happiness and Romantic Love. Wallace trashed Scientology for it’s mysticism, yet later espoused a theory that million year advanced beings called Zon’s were influencing life on earth which got him trashed by true Objectivists. I guess book sales got slow and he needed a new twist.
I also would love it if critical thinking skills were more in evidence, and more especially scientific and mathematical literacy. Sadly the normal run of folk don’t believe in that sort of think. It’s NOT as bad as Tubby portrayed it, but nothing he offered as “evidence” ever was as bad as he portrayed it — except his scholarship, which I believe spawned his critically flawed ‘study tech’, which MIGHT be useful to an extremely small section of humanity (which would have included him, I guess.)
The guy couldn’t even pass an 100-level molecular physics course more suited to about 6th-Grade physical Sciences class, and “he and Algebra didn’t get along well”, or some such is how he put it once.
IMO, if you can’t do basic Math, you’re hardly house-broken, never mind being up to the level of “human” *I* was introduced to Algebra when I was sick in bed in 3rd grade; a way to keep me occupied and *quiet* for a few minutes. If course, ours was an engineering household, where Math and science were required subjects)
Whenever I run across something like this, I want to find a scientologist and ask, does this then apply to psychiatry as well?
Foolproof???
All fine, but this “success” doesn’t extend far enough into making raw public swalk into Scientology Orgs, Ideal or otherwise, to get audited or trained, now does it?
The cult can justify however they like that bad press means its succeeding, that bad press means its winning, that the SPs are ONLY howling because everyone is catching on to Scientology and loving it. That is what Hubbard says and so of course it has to be true.
Well, ok, but
WHERE’S THE BEEF?
Where are the freaking PEOPLE, about whom the SPs are so darned upset?
The SPs are gnashing their teeth, are they?
Because Scientology orgs are making a few clears every year, if even that?
The stats don’t lie.
Aquamarine:”WHERE’S THE BEEF?” There never was any beef, only the piece of blue sky Hubbard was selling. In my programming days, we might have called it “vaporware”, but that would have been an insult to vaporware, which SOMEone usually wanted to produce eventually. As I see it, Hubbard never intended to deliver on his promises and couldn’t have even if he’d tried. His basic premises were fatally flawed, and couldn’t have served as a foundation for anything other than the enslavement he did accomplish.
“Even heroes can have lice” so wrote the L Ron Hubbard — a writhing maggot embedded in mankind’s hide.
The “interest” in scientology is easily quantifiable, in more ways than one and with an investment of 20 minutes or less. A few easy tests that no one in the bubble will dare perform but everyone should BEFORE watching the Cult Shopping Network:
1. Log into your public library. Review what titles they–librarians trained to gauge public interest in various topics–carry on the subject. Check how many LRH titles (including his allegedly successful fiction) they carry. Then contrast this with other books/films on the group in your library’s catalog. Note the specific interest these books pursue (scientology ideology vs. corporate abuses).
For those not easily convinced, feel free to repeat this process with other public libraries, especially in areas where scientology is allegedly popular and “growing.” Maybe where an Ideal mOrg opened a year ago or so.
2. Go to an e-tailer such as amazon that makes bestseller lists for various topics. Look up what sells in the “scientology” list. Are those books on scientology ideology or on abuses and horror stories penned by exes.
Even if you want to dismiss exes and journalists indiscriminately, these lists show where the public INTEREST lies.
3. Google the topic. Whether you believe every result is again immaterial. This is just to gauge the interest the public exhibits in the topic.
4. Review the Alexa ratings of cult-operated sites (especially their main site where the sci-curious supposedly go after watching sciTV) and compare it with other sites focusing on scn corporate abuses.
Even just one or two of these tests will yield essentially the same results about the magnitude of public interest in scientology and the nature of that interest. As the fat man suggested: Believe what you SEE!
2.
Xenu’s son, the 6/ year being translated into 6/second is about on-par with Tubby’s math of the age of the universe (or at least THIS universe). To make his techniques sound impressive he used numbers whose actual magnitude were meaningless to him (or anyone else). What was it? 13 TRILLION years ago for Incident 1? Tough to have happen a universe whose calculated age is 13.7 Billion years…. That’s a number almost no one can truly wrap their minds around, but that wasn’t impressive enough for Tubby.
Incident 1 was 4 quadrillion years ago.
That’s 4,000,000,000,000,000 years ago.
I don’t believe any estimate of the universe’s age because it changes, much like the predictions for the End of the Earth.
scn wouldn’t be in the news AT ALL if it weren’t for its abuses being revealed.
The more scientology says the critics are bad, the better we must be.
Cat:
“It’s classic conspiracy-theory-style thinking, like the kind where the lack of evidence of something is offered as proof that evidence was destroyed by corrupt authorities. It’s not that corrupt authorities never destroy evidence; it’s that the standard of evidence is so bad to make such a claim. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It’s not evidence that evidence was destroyed. If you want to claim that, you have to investigate and find actual evidence to support or refute whether other evidence has been destroyed and if so, by whom.”
Oh, GAWD! These conspiracy theorists! carefully constructing such elaborate and complex stories to “prove” that they have the ‘inside scoop’ on events which no one else has any inkling of.
Remember, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ”
At a minimum, it means that you didn’t look hard enough or you tossed away evidence that didn’t support your preconceived notions.
Have you seen Alex Hirsch’s (creator of Gravity Falls) short argument with the Scientology Twitter account?
Best part: “Hmm who should I believe? Your one propaganda website, or literally all the evidence in the entire world? I tell you what @Scientology – you send me video of Shelly Miscavige holding today’s newspaper and I’ll take it all back. I’ll start holding my breath!”
Nice!
GEORGE:”He retains the harmful policies because he is basically a moron.”
I disagree. He retains them because he finds them useful, at least in the short term. Some, he twists to give him even more ‘power’ to do what he wants.
But NOTHING he does extends the reach or efficacy of scn, despite his claims. He’s only got what he’s carved out of what Tubby built up, and that’s getting smaller and smaller as he bleeds his whales dry.
OSD:”Scientology is truly a classic cult. “The proof of our good is that people say we are bad, and the more they say it, the better we must be.”
I just can’t get my mind around this. And I probably never will.”
Don’t bother trying. It’s illogical and counter-intuitive, acceptable only to those who NEED the cult to have value for their lives not to be wasted.
To a certain extent, I’ve held onto a very small bit of that even as I tried to shed the insanity and get my life back in some semblance of order. I don’t WANT to hop onto it, now that I’ve identified its existence, but it’s not as simple as saying, “BEGONE!” Oh, if ONLY!
But that’s another example of the magical thinking that Tubby instilled into us which is what I need to banish.
Oops! “hop onto it as an auto-correct from hold onto it. Fumbly fingers moving faster than the brain.
Of COURSE Tubby had to redefine every possible outcome to mean HE was ‘winning’ or that he was “right”. That sort of lying is required when all of your claims and promises fall completely flat. He lied about his scholarship, he lied about his ‘science’, and his ‘research’. When everything else fails and your lies come home to roost, compound the lies by redefining “abject failure” to be “UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS”.Yeah, that’ll work.
At least DM has given up on ever more-spectacular claims of superpowers. Most of the time, he doesn’t bother offering something, ANYthing, in return for the clapping seals’ money. The IAS, with all of its meaningless awards and titles, doesn’t pretend to DO anything, AFAICT. Perhaps it ‘supports’ scientology’s front groups — the same way I support my local sports teams: by yelling at the TV, which affects the game’s outcome not in the least.
MarcAnon:”Patron Victimorious”
I prefer Patron Victimaximus”, though I forget where I read it.
I haven’t yet donated enough Monopoly money to get to Patron Victimaximus. I’ll be stuck at Patron Victimorious until a wealthy relative dies or I remortgage my house 🤪
FPjr:””Maybe, just maybe, Scientology has become a Terra Implant station?”
I think you’re onto something, there. Ron IMO created the Bank and BTs so they could be audited out — at great expense and profit [to HIM, of course]. None of those things were ‘real’ and didn’t exist before he defined them.
“They can’t view other people helping others without going berserk.”
Pot, kettle, black?
Scientology, unfortunately is the antithesis of others helping others. They think help is out exchange. Charity, kindness, love, all those words are drilled out of you at the very beginning of your stint in scientology.
We, “the most ethical group on the planet” must lie, cheat, steal, and bankrupt ourselves, in order to … build more buildings? go up in status? get a gaudy bowling trophy? Come on, be honest with yourself, does anyone who has “advanced in status” truly believe they have done anything to “clear the planet”?
I find it hard to believe that Davey-boy isn’t secretly hating the things he’s been “forced” to do to gain and maintain his power. That could partially explain the extreme levels of alcohol reported in his daily diet: what the doctors might refer to as ‘self-medication’ to dull the aching void where his soul might have been found at one time.
What is hilarious is that Hubtard wrote two DIFFERENT takes on this. One was that when every one is attacking it is because Scamology is succeeding and the SPs are howling mad. The other policy stated that bad things only happen to scamology when they don’t produce positive results using the tech.
F’ing schizophrenic
Actually, he could have added into his “Signs Of Success” the point that IF the stats were up, if the stats were REALLY GOOD and still there was bad press – that would have made sense and proved his point. But without knowing the stats, getting terrible press is not an indicator of success – Jesus!
Aqua, Hubtard wasn’t that logical. He was what HE coined, a “biochemical personality”…
Blows the mind, Wyn.
“[they] only scream if we’re winning”.
Yeah, RIGHT! More truthfully, scn only screams like this when WE out here are “winning”. Here’s to scientology/DM’s impending meltdown as they pile on more and more logical inconsistencies in a futile effort to maintain that they’re RIGHT and everyone else in the world(the ‘wogs’) are, by definition, WRONG, especially when they’re forced to act in ways that violate their most-core, earliest beliefs.
Mike,
This reminds me of an Implant pair out of OT2:
WINNING IS LOSING
LOSING IS WINNING
Maybe, just maybe, Scientology has become a Terra Implant station?
Scientology is truly a classic cult. “The proof of our good is that people say we are bad, and the more they say it, the better we must be.”
I just can’t get my mind around this. And I probably never will.
Of course you can’t wrap your mind around this Old Surfer Dude, it’s because you are out of the cult and live in the real world 🙂 You’re in your happy place 🙂
(Question, is it a cult, a coven, a concentration camp?)
“When there is “bad PR” for scientology it is “proof” of how well they are doing.”
What a comfortable little bomb-shelter we’ve constructed here. If we see signs that we’re doing well, then we must be doing well. If we see signs that we’re not doing well like bad PR, that means we’re doing well.
Everything is perfect all the time. Nothing can convince you otherwise, because LRH has routed that thought back onto itself.
Of course, if you do something wrong and cause a flap you’re going to end up in Doubt and have to buy your way out. Nothing that moving up to Patron Victimorious won’t fix!
But even then, remember, the bad PR that you caused when you weren’t doing well is just more proof of how we’ll we’re doing.
Every six seconds?
In Michigann Google trends said that 6 people searched for Scientology TV in 1 year.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US-MI&q=scientology%20tv
Well, that’s close then. They got the 6 right, so they can create the “acceptable truth” out of that. scientology at its’ finest.
Michigan was actually doing better (still not good) before scientology.TV
Mike,
If you’re going to start bringing logic into this discussion, we’re going to be here a long time…..
First logic, then common sense sneaks in and pretty soon truth might even be introduced.
Oh wait, LRH has an answer for the ‘truth’ problem – just make it “acceptable”
Problem solved!
Chee:”If you’re going to start bringing logic into this discussion, we’re going to be here a long time…..
First logic, then common sense sneaks in and pretty soon truth might even be introduced.”
Trying to understand scientology using “logic” won’t work, as it’s an intentionally illogical study, having been based on magical thinking and nonexistent “minds” and BTs which never were, could not have existed.
I blew through OT3 in 3 days when I suddenly realized that in order to audit out the BTs, I first had to create them. And *that* realization kept my needle floating for awhile! LOL It also pointed me toward leaving.
I personally don’t believe that one can “remove” scn from our lives. They were REAL experiences. And, like most bad experiences, they will move to a position where they no longer have negative effects.
I met my wife while in and that was 42 years ago…which more than makes up for 16 IN scio!!! She is worth far more to me than whatever madness I experienced while in.
Notice that the brief Hubbard article is a Technical Bulletin. It’s not mere observation or opinion, it’s part of Scn scripture. Another part of Hubbard’s holy words is the “service facsimile.”
http://suppressiveperson.org/1975/01/01/service-facsimile/
Briefly, “SERVICE FACSIMILE, 1. these are called “service facsimiles.” “Service” because they serve him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image picture form. They explain his disabilities as well. The facsimile part is actually a self-installed disability that “explains” how he is not responsible for being able to cope. So he is not wrong for not coping.”
How convenient, ironic, and by Hubbard’s own words – – “aberrated” – – that Scios can explain away all the negative reactions they get from the public. In the Scn bubble world they’re winning, you see.
It’s an L. Ron Hubbard technical fact that everything that’s wrong with Scn can be explained with their own technology. What a vicious mind-effing circle that is.
To paraphrase that well-known Biblical proverb, “Scientologist, heal thyself.”
Wow. Unbelievable. There’s always something for a truly horrible leader that enacts truly horrible abuses and sufferings to hang their hat on.
Look dave! I’m screaming to the heavens about your abuses because I’m a squirrel. Never mind about the willy nilly over-the-top sec checking that you enacted onto OT 7 or before 7 or 8 or whenever you felt like it that was nothing short or pure mental torture, the SP declares of good people that took it upon themselves to find out what was really going on at the top of your church – the beatings, the false imprisonments, disconnecting family and loved ones or the plethora of other abuses that you dole out to whoever you feel like. I’m sure somehow the squirrels are responsible for you and your sociopathic tendencies.
Thank gawd that those still in that have something to lose can justify their “not finding out” about the abuses by wrapping their minds around that beauty of an HCOB above.
Chris and Mary: I didn’t interpret the SerFac in that manner. I understood it as a technique for personally avoiding responsibility for my own goofs. I can be a simple phrase. I still remember the woman who got me into it when she came home from doing the Service Fac level. I asked her, “How did you do?” She replied, “Well I found my service fac…but I’m not sure I want to let go of it. It works so well.” “Is it okay to tell me what it was?, I asked.
She said, “Whenever anyone told me I’d done something wrong, I would just look at them sadly and say, ‘Well I’m doing the best I can.” I realized today that I was making THEM wrong for something that I *had* done wrong but that was not okay for them to notice it!”
Then we both broke up laughing. It truly was one of the best surfacs I’d ever heard.
I can’t recall what my own was.
Hubbard could not even imagine the internet. He was incapable of seeing that a person could get a clear view of his “religion” on a computer. I doubt that Hubbard fully understood the benefits of a “search”. He certainly did not understand the concept of a database. Hubbard was in a WWII type of “secrecy”. Bad press in WWII did make people curious and that is where Hubbard put his reach to people. Hubbard did not understand that politics and life would become “polarized” after the podcasts and the You Tube shows proliferated. Even when you look at Hubbard’s research, you see a very limited scope because he did not have access to data. He had a few books and mainly relied on the Encyclopedia Britannica. For example, you find him totally confused on Original Buddhism because all he had was a few poorly translated sources which have been passed. It is unfortunate that modern Scientology is set into a limited mind set. The religion of Scientology has evolved into a private doctrine evolved by David Miscavige. He retains the harmful policies because he is basically a moron.
George:
“Hubbard could not even imagine the internet. He was incapable of seeing that a person could get a clear view of his “religion” on a computer. I doubt that Hubbard fully understood the benefits of a “search”.”
Tubby had no imagination, not even enough to construct a decent piece of fiction. At ‘best’, he stole reasonably good ideas from others who COULD think. He would have cried at the power of a smart phone to reveal the truth™ of scientology — which is that it’s all lies over lies, based upon more lies… “and it’s lies all the way down”
So, any press is good? Pedophilia, human trafficking, slave labor, holding people hostage in deplorable conditions. That really takes some creative thinking to believe that would being people into the fold , except pedophiles, masochists and sadists.
I meant bring people into the fold.
Peggy L:”So, any press is good? Pedophilia, human trafficking, slave labor, holding people hostage in deplorable conditions. That really takes some creative thinking to believe that would [bring] people into the fold , except pedophiles, masochists and sadists.”
And that dovetails neatly with the “perfect scientologist”, which is a sociopath with no human emotions, only complete subservience to scn’s goals and survival. no HE&R while doing HIS bidding.
geeze. I think I need a hug.
Correct! North Korea is a country that’s really, really winning! Press is terrible. Everybody hates the place. There you go!
Wait, I said that a little bit wrong…the PRESS hate North Korea. The PEOPLE, though, they love it!
Right Aquamarine, the people say they love it because, like the cult, the alternative to not say that is , well, you know.
Exactly, Peggy, and here’s your hug 🙂
Thank you! Hugs are the universal comforter.
It’s classic conspiracy-theory-style thinking, like the kind where the lack of evidence of something is offered as proof that evidence was destroyed by corrupt authorities. It’s not that corrupt authorities never destroy evidence; it’s that the standard of evidence is so bad to make such a claim. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It’s not evidence that evidence was destroyed. If you want to claim that, you have to investigate and find actual evidence to support or refute whether other evidence has been destroyed and if so, by whom.
By the same token, the presence of complaints is not evidence that people resent how good you are. It’s evidence of complaints. There are many possible reasons for complaints, so you need to investigate to find out what those reasons are. (Of course, in this case the reasons are often given right there with the complaint, but the cult’s answer to that is to make it a crime to read the complaints and reasons.)
I always come back to the idea that if people were taught scientific reasoning early enough, they would be less susceptible to cults. They’d at least have a tool in their toolbox that would enable them to recognize their flawed thinking once the hypnotic spell wore off.
I wish they taught Scientific Reasoning in school in two places, one in grade school at a gradient they could understand, and another in upper Middle school at a higher gradient. And if you want to continue on that theme, again in upper high school at a higher gradient. That would keep people from doing stupid things or at least a smaller number of stupid things.
I agree. I also wish our culture in general would become more literate in critical thinking skills and science. Can you imagine if more news outlets actually checked on stories before publishing & hyping them? In that sense, real journalism is similar to the scientific approach. I pretty much despair of this change happening in the current anti-intellectual environment, though. I just superstitiously cross my fingers for some day. 😏
Right on, Cat. News reporters and agencies above all else need to learn to think critically and to fact check, especially in today’s environment of fake news.
I wouldn’t blame the press. They know their markets; they’re supplying the red meat that their various markets crave, demand and buy. This country is getting dumber and dumber and more illiterate by the year. If more people demanded real facts with their “news” they would get it. What they appear to want is “infotainment” that feeds their already preconceived ideas and prejudices. That’s what sells. That’s the Far Right and that’s the Far Left in this country. They’re both equally bad. Accurate, nuanced reporting is not in fashion, apparently. The Wing Nuts rule. They want what they want when they want it and if they don’t get it they complain, loudly, or tune out altogether. Its kind of embarrassing to be an American nowadays.
Aqua, just giving the people “what they want” doesn’t excuse news reporters and news outlets from doing a good job and being unbiased and giving just the facts which have been fully vetted beforehand. This is how it used to be. An analogy would be: As responsible parents are we going to feed our kids sugar and fructose and junk food as a full time steady diet just because the kids like sugar and demand it? No, good parents don’t. So reporters and news outlets need to put out researched and vetted news rather than pander to the craven appetites of some people.
Who said anything about it being an excuse?
You’re preaching to the choir, here.
I don’t get my news from television.
And I might add that many print news outlets engage in bad fake news too. I wish journalists would get their integrity back and report the actual and verifiable news, as do we all.
Good luck with that. “News” is a business, just as straight entertainment is a business. Their purpose is not to inform you. Their purpose is to to SELL you something. If they inform you correctly along the way, fine. If correctly informing you threatens the sale of their product, you will not be correctly informed. They’re selling products and these products have their markets and the “news” is pitched to satisfy the various and varying demographics who buy their products. Sponsors rule, advertisers rule. This is why O’Reilly got kicked off the air. This is why Roseanne got kicked off the air. This is why PBS severed ties with Charlie Rose – not because of sponsors but because many who lean Left politically support PBS and his sex harrassment thing threatened donations. This is why Steve Bannon had to step down from Breitbart – their billionaire backer, Rebekkah Mercer, didn’t like the way he criticized Trump, so he was out of his keester pretty fast after Fire and Fury came out. This is why the Cult of Scientology targeted (unsuccessfully) the A &E ADVERTISERS who Sponsored Aftermath – to bully, shame and/or thrreaten them into dropping the show AND to get the general public to boycott their products.. If most people truly wanted to be informed, we would be. But the problem with being truly informed is that a person has to leave his or her comfort zone. Most people are incapable of leaving their comfort zones and just want to be “made right”. Anything they don’t agree with is “slanted” and very upsetting to them. Pissed off people stop reading, stop viewing. They’ll stop watching, they’ll stop reading that newspaper: they’ll cancel their subscriptions to that magazine. On the other hand, if they’re allowed to stay in their bubble, in their comfort zone, they’ll tell you that what they’re viewing or reading is NOT biased, no not in the least, its fair and accurate reporting!
cyndi, I think unfortunately that’s another place where influential religious groups push back against what might seem reasonable. I agree that we ought to teach things like critical reasoning and scientific method, but then kids might start asking questions that a lot of adults aren’t ready to address….
Confusion by word salad and redefinition are $cieno sacraments. Thankfully, the current $cientology management is very bad at Lron speak and even plain old English. Plus, they never return phone calls unless sales are involved.