--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Vaj, > > > > In arguments with you about meditation she takes the party > > line on TM, so you get a high dose of that. But IMO it is > > about the arguing, not the party line. > > For what it's worth, I agree. However, a very > common tactic as I see it is to argue the TM > Party Line, and then later claim that she was > just trying to "clarify" what that Party Line > IS. Then, after several rounds of posts in > which she *was* arguing the TM Party Line, and > rather strongly, she then acts offended and says > something along the lines of "I was just clari- > fying what the Party Line really is, and trying > to point out your intentional distortions of it. > What made you think that's what *I* believe?"
Lots of deliberate misrepresentation here. There's no "tactic" involved, unless Barry wants to consider fairness a tactic. TM critics like Barry and Vaj and Paul and John Knapp and Andrew Skolnick think it's perfectly OK to misrepresent the TM "party line" in the interests of making it look worse than it actually is. Not only is this dishonest, it's counterproductive if one is interested in getting to the bottom of what's wrong with the TMO. The more straw men one recruits, the easier it is to condemn the TMO, but the less it's the real TMO one is condemning. What Barry objects to is my clarifications. He doesn't like to have his straw men disabled, because he prefers not to have to deal with shades of gray; that's "hard work." He'd rather just demonize the TMO (and MMY and TMers). There's a great deal I disagree with or am not sure about with regard to the TM "party line." But that fact doesn't advance Barry's goal of trying to portray me as a TM "fanatic," so naturally he wants to obscure it. > To me this is a lot like someone spending post > after post after post "clarifying" the beliefs > of White Supremicists and then flying into a > rage when someone assumes that she's one, too. Of course, I don't "fly into a rage." Clarifying beliefs one doesn't agree with is an aspect of what's known as devil's advocacy. The point is to ensure that the target of criticism (or praise, in its original usage) is seen accurately. To claim that someone who is taking the devil's advocate stance secretly believes in what they are devil's-advocating for is the real "tactic" here; the goal, again, is to portray the advocate as a fanatic. If anyone is confused as to what I really believe, all they have to do is ask. I'm happy to share my personal support for, ambivalence about, or opposition to, as the case may be, any aspect of the TMO "party line." > > But the bottom line is that Curtis has nailed > it. It's not about the dogma per se, merely > about using it as an excuse to argue. >
