"The rules aren't a request. They're rules. u/ToweringIsle, you can try again. Just keep it down".
--FellowHuman007, explaining to me why a comment of mine had to be removed from his post.
Ha. Cute. You like removing comments so much, why don't you go ahead and remove every comment over there, and return that whole sub to the Alaya consciousness from whence it came.
No, there will be no "trying again" or "keeping it down". That doesn't work for me. My response to you was exactly fine as it was. (I'll reprint it below, in context, in case anyone wants to see what was so unacceptable that it required censoring).
But I'll tell you what we can do, is to finally shine the light of dialogue back onto your sub, in the manner as you have tried to do to ours.
Simple question: What was it you three were hoping to accomplish via this project?
Was it to discourage us from speaking out? Because that hasn't happened. Having a common foil is galvanizing and rewarding. We're even more engaged now than we were before you showed up, thank you.
Even any subtle attempts at influencing and intimidating people via private message serve as valuable teaching moments when they are exposed as the inappropriate acts that they are.
Was it to debunk something, or make some kind of point? Well, the only thing you're looking to debunk is Whistleblowers itself, and we don't feel like we need debunking. Our efforts as a support group stand on their own, thank you very much, and don't require your understanding, or approval. If you don't "get it", that's your problem.
Was it to teach us something about the religion, so as to remind us of the beauty that lies within, or some such? Well, if we were interested in hearing a ten cent Gosho lecture, we would still be in the SGI, talking to people who are into that sort of thing. But we aren't, are we? Not saying you shouldn't go ahead and do that, if that's what drives you, but there's no way any of those lectures could possibly be material to anyone here.
Did you think you were going to somehow shame us, by modelling good behavior? Well that went out the window right quick, didn't it? And therein lies the problem: the behavior you are modelling -- with all the censorship, tone policing, rigidity, and keeping the discussion to only a few sanctioned topics -- is behavior that each of us here already recognizes. Hmmm...where have we seen it before? Oh right -- it's exactly how they conduct business in the SGI, which (to remind you once again) happens to be the exact thing each of us here is trying to escape. We already have a set impression of how we feel about that type of rigid, authoritarian, bureaucratic bullshit, and when you come along and do us the favor of exemplifying it for us, such a display can only reinforce our understandings. You're not doing anything to change anyone's mind.
In particular, people exit the SGI because it's not an environment where one can have a free thought. It's stifling. If you want to think freely, you have to step outside. And the same could be said for the microcosm of it that you've established.
I think you would have done well to actually learn something from the woman whose work here you are so gormlessly critiquing, as opposed to just coming in swinging. She could have told you, quite plainly, that not only is doing this sort of thing far more work than any of you were probably anticipating, but also that there are many ways to mess it up, and that the chief way to do that is to shut people down and dampen their enthusiasm for even being there. Say what you will about her, she makes people here feel listened to and appreciated, and she takes the time to respond intelligently, which keeps people coming back.
If somebody already knows what kind of generic response they are going to get from a person, an organization, or a message board, there's little to get excited about. Not to get too personal about it, but what she displays is a kind of intellectual curiosity that cannot be faked, which is why not everyone can do what she does in terms of holding people's attention. Not everyone can express a unique point of view because not everyone has a unique point of view. And in this cute little drama we are enacting, it's you guys who are having to play the role of defending conformity, scripture and pre-arranged thoughts based on predetermined conclusions. In a word, religion.
So what kind of satisfaction could possibly be derived from maintaining a spoof of another, far more interesting message board? There's always the option to reach out for human sympathy, I suppose, by sharing personal accounts. It's a big part of what we do here as well, and probably the closest thing to a valid purpose that you site could be said to have.
You couldn't actually be trying to impress the SGI, could you? You know they don't support or even appreciate any such independent efforts, right? You're doing this completely on your own, and they really would rather you didn't -- coincidentally for all the same reasons we here are happy that you did.
Perhaps your main motivation in this is just to talk shit? Vent spleen? Argue? Get some ya-ya's out? Am I getting warmer?
Nothing wrong with it. Man after my own heart. You want to send some back the other way. But if that's all there really is to it, you may as well drop the facade of trying to highroad people, or chide them for their own lack of manners, before others start calling you out for being not only a troll, but a disingenuous one.
Whoops, too late.
I guess the real purpose for your sub is as a form of subtle intimidation, kind of like a "hey buddy, I see you over there...". Nothing overt, mostly passive, but still an attempt to dissuade by creating an observational presence. Which is exactly the intention behind sending those aforementioned private messages. Even just messaging someone to say hi how are ya can be an incredible act of passive aggression, depending on the intent.
But, so be it. It's just another example of the kind of lessons in boundary setting, learning to say no, and generally standing up for oneself that are already part and parcel of what we're going through in our real lives, so if you want to help us reinforce those, we can add that to the list of ways in which your sub fits into our scheme.
Anyway... one way or another, we seem to be straddling some sort of mental divide. For my part, I'm not quite sure what you guys are hoping to get out of your endeavor (which leads me to suspect you don't quite know either), and you -- as expressed over and over by the incredulous tone of your own posts, as well as a propensity to misread, misinterpret, and generally miss the point of virtually every topic we raise -- can't seem to fathom what role Whistleblowers exists to fill in this world.
I mean, I've told you, a number of times, but you seem rather deaf to it all, as if it's something you can't allow yourself to hear.
Assuming you do want to better understand the nature of what this sub is about, and are thus debating in good faith (debatable), the place to begin is with the occasional expression of utter gratitude posted here, from someone new, claiming that the discovery of this message board was exactly what they needed at the time, either to answer a question or to relate a personal experience understood only by a relative few. Don't overlook those posts. Pay attention to them. Then consider that most everyone here has been that person at one point or another, and there you have that, if anything, which unites us.
You see, the primary reason Whistleblowers needs to exist (and it would be nice if you could actually pay attention this time) is because something NEEDS TO EXIST WHICH IS UNIQUE TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF A PERSON LEAVING THE SGI. There is nothing else out there for that particular community. Done. There it is. I could stop there. It needs to exist because there is nothing like it. Your sub does not need to exist. It will go away and no one will miss it. Ours, on the other hand, does.
There needs to be a place where people can discuss the particulars and the peculiarities of participating in something so unknown, so fringe and so obscure, that likely one's own friends and family know jack all about it. Maybe a person who has been through something similar (a cult, that is, in case you forgot what we are talking about) can relate to most of the basic principles of mental and social control, but no one could relate to this particular brand of weird foreign shit unless they've actually been through it themselves.
So a person who leaves ends up feeling isolated. Alone. Probably guilty, confused and mixed up in the emotions. This is NOT a good thing, you see. It makes us frowny face to think about, and to witness. People leaving a practice don't deserve that, just for trying something and deciding to move on. They likely had the best of intentions and did nothing wrong.
In a more general sense, think about what a predator does -- someone in power, for example, or someone trying to take advantage of a child -- when they really want to scare someone: They tell them "No one will believe you. No one can help you. Who are you going to call?". Or they'll say, "This is all your fault. If you tell anyone, you'll get in trouble".
Being isolated mentally like that is the worst position a person could find themselves in, and people who leave the SGI, especially if they were in deep, face a very real version of it. They could be ostracized. They're probably very superstitious and concerned with bad luck from leaving (and, to this point, the SGI is undoubtedly guilty of putting this type of fear into people -- it is not an innocent religion). And they don't have anyone to "call", even if just to relate to someone.
Maybe YOU don't give a shit about the feelings of someone who has left your religion, because, let's face it, the nature of religion is to make people callous and indifferent towards those who have left the group. From your perspective, I'm willing to wager, the plight of someone leaving your particular religion doesn't bother you all that much. Your perspective is probably something more detached, like this:
"Welp, they're on their own now. I don't wish them any harm, but at the same time I'm not going to lose any sleep over what happens to them. They made their cause, and that's their karma, and they have to live with it, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..."
What do you think a Jehovah's Witness would think about a support group for ex members? Or a Mormon? Or for that matter a Muslim, Jew, Christian or any other religion? Would they be supportive of the idea? Sympathetic to it?
Of course not. You think your callousness is unique in any way? But some of us are trying to cultivate an attitude of actual compassion here, as opposed to the patina of compassion that comes from simply belonging to the same organization as someone. I don't know who anybody is on these boards, but regardless, there is a distinct beauty in the experience of hearing and responding to a real person's genuine concerns, especially if it's something you feel you can speak on.
It's a cool concept. People come to find healing and tell their own stories, and can stick around, if they so choose, to hear and support others. Organic. Some people get what they need in a relatively short time, and for others, the journey takes a little longer, or a lot longer, as it takes on different forms and enters the mental sphere. What starts out as a process of recovery can expand into a journey of individuation, of trying to figure out what you really believe, and learning to trust in your own version of events as opposed to solely accepting what you're told to believe.
Of course there are many ways in the world to find oneself, and many places where one could do it. This just happens to be ours, owing to this shared experience, as well varying degrees of interest in the wide-ranging subject matter.
And we make each other laugh. I know that's what bugs you most about it, is how much fun we have in the service of irreverence. Seriousness hates mockery. That's why, the moment you moved into your own forum, the first rule you established is that we're going to be nice around here, goshdarnit! Only polite discussion allowed. It's why you play these stupid games about which posts are allowed to stand. And it's also why the jumping-off point for most of your critiques is to find the meanest thing one of us has said and condemn their having said it.
But sorry not sorry, the irreverent and sometimes profane nature of the discussion is absolutely essential to the aforementioned healing process. Cults thrive on a tense atmosphere of fearful self-censorship disguised as politeness, and for your typical escapee, it might not be until the first time they hear something blatantly disrespectful said about something previously unassailable that they realize, "hey, I'm not not actually in that thing anymore!" Super important. If we were to maintain in-group levels of respect for all of the same sacred cows, we wouldn't be doing such a good job of distancing ourselves from the group, now would we? Asking us to temper our speech is tantamount to asking us to cease functioning, and we both know that.
To put it another way, the ability to speak one's true feelings without fear -- fear that the sky is going to cave in, or that bad luck is going to be visited upon you, or fear of what disapproving people might think, say or do -- is the essence of the healing process. It's how people break out of superstition.
That's also what this forum is about: the basic principle that SUPERSTITION IS BAD. Superstition is defined as placing undue belief in the importance or effectiveness of something. It is, by definition, not a good thing. If one were placing the correct amount of importance in something, it wouldn't be superstition. As you can imagine, it's a very blurry line in practical reality, especially as most issues of metaphysics are poorly understood in the current phase of human society, but still there are some things that are blatantly over the line of superstition.
Nichiren Buddhism is one of those things. When you tell someone that a single chant -- or the act of chanting, if you will -- is the singular requirement in this life for personal growth and spiritual development...that's quite obviously past the line of due importance, wherever it may be. If the only importance being assigned to the practice were that it is a relaxing thing to do, it clearly wouldn't be a superstitious act at all. But the expectations don't stop there. People are encouraged to set the expectations for this practice higher, and higher, to encompass any aspect of reality, and even beyond the point where the concepts become woo-ey and cease to make sense. This why I would say the practice and the lifestyle are built on a foundation of unchecked superstition, and are therefore likely to be detrimental to people's lives. Superstition weakens our capacities, blurs our self image, and makes it difficult to stay focused on that which we can change. The chanting itself is addictive enough, but it's the superstition attached to it that can really drive a person off the rails. So that's one version of events, at least, for why someone would unequivocally not recommend this practice, and would actively (or passively) discourage others from taking it on.
Beyond that, there's a certain archetypal significance to be found in speaking out against injustice and broken systems. By speaking out against one cult leader, your words echo in the direction of every cult leader. It's done on behalf of every person, everywhere, stuck in any variation of this same situation -- people you will never meet or even know about, but somehow your heart resonates with them. And yes, for some of us, this is about celebrating the natural, peaceful decline of religion itself as a mode of thinking no longer needed by humanity. I would never presume to think that my words are themselves changing anything in the world (because I'm not trying to be superstitious), but it does give me satisfaction to write about it.
By the way, that whole "we can't allow posts of a certain length" ruling is a flimsy device to employ. My comment was noticeably shorter than the post itself. It wasn't the length of what I said that cheesed you, it was 100% the tone and content. You didn't like me being dismissive of you on your own sub.
Okay, I've answered your question. You go now.
(Postscript)
For everyone else, here is the original comment below, which was sufficient to get one censored from MITA. It no longer feels important now, but still worth reproducing on principle.
For context, this dude was doing one of his Whistleblower recaps, and he told me I was being petty in my latest by making fun of the way the German philosopher Goethe said something, as quoted from the World Tribune. As usual, he read it wrong -- I was making fun of how the publications speak.
"Read more closely, please. My objection was not to the Goethe quote itself. He was a genius.
What I was highlighting was the phrasing employed by the writer for the World Tribune. That person, in the present, was the one who chose to deploy the phrase "wished to harmonize", which I chose to mock as something no contemporary person would actually say.
And why do we mock this? Allow me to explain. In analyzing the SGI's propaganda, we come across a preponderance of what are known as "dogwhistles": phrases which covertly imply alignment with a certain ideology.
To use an example from the present day, let's say someone takes issue with the current U.S. President; that person might be inclined to parse his speeches and comments very closely to look for specific words or phrases that might signal a deeper or more hidden message. If he were to employ the phrase "law and order", a critic might jump on that phrase with a robust interpretation: It could mean that he's aligned against the protesters, and the current protests in general. Perhaps it's a backhanded way of calling the protesters criminals. If that critic wanted to push the interpretation even further, they might say that such a phrase is signalling support of both racism and fascism. They could point to any number different phrases and single-word choices and claim them to be "dogwhistles" for particular ideologies -- which is the right of a critical thinker in a free society.
Of course those who support the President might take the opposite tact, and downplay the relevance of those same word choices, or assign to them a positive significance. "What's wrong with law and order?", they might ask. And so it goes.
This is what we are doing with the SGI. In studying it, we have identified whole long lists of particular phrases which apparently exist only (or more commonly) within the context of their unique publications, and we point them out (rightfully so, I would say, but you might not agree) as "dogwhistles". So if, say, a contemporary American teenager were to use one of those exact phrases...
"How are you doing today, Timmy?"
"I am advancing victoriously with my mentor, thank you very much!"
...it would get our attention because it's not something anyone our in our culture actually says. As a result, we could feel confident in knowing exactly what that person was really trying to indicate, which is that they are aligned with the SGI. It's obvious. They used one of the SGI'S most prominent dogwhistles.
Get it now?"
Hai." - Towering Isle of the Reddit SGIwhistleblowers
No comments:
Post a Comment