Warning To Members Here

[AerisVahnEphelia]

3 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Carl-Richard dang the decent mods get demoted. I guess in order to hold your positions as a mod you must fully represent the ideas of what the forum is saying it is. If you are not mod you can express yourself more.

there is a difference between criticizing and being actively destroying the image of what you're supposed to work forward to.

[Carl-Richard]

29 minutes ago, Harikrishnan said:

If I remember correctly, Nahm was speaking pretty incomprehensibly and constantly dropping cryptic metaphors that was becoming nuisance.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Him speaking "incomprehensively" I don't believe was the reason.

 

 

Quote

What he teaches is not what I teach.

 

He makes a lot of points that his "incomprehensive style" was to blame, but parts of his post and his overall behavior on the forum for the last 5 years points in another direction (and as if Leo himself didn't have a problem with people "not understanding" him; he did, still does, according to him).

There have been direct threats to ban people talking about non-duality; there have been people who were banned for talking about non-duality in a way that opposed Leo's teachings. It's all documented in the cult discussion thread which you will now get banned for participating in (in a way that does not agree with Leo).

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

@Sincerity Me too. I hold a similar position to you. Although, I don't think a clarification is necessary. Common sense is enough.

[Monster Energy]

Leo is right about everything.

I know that sounds crazy, and that’s why some of you feel threatened. You want to find a way to prove him wrong.

But if Jesus appeared and said he knows the truth about existence, many of you wouldn’t question him. You would simply believe him and say, “I follow you, my Lord.”

So why is it so impossible to even consider that someone else might have deep insight into existence?

 

[Sincerity]

3 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

Leo is right about everything.

You haven’t verified that. Don’t act cultish.

[AION]

This thread should be posted in the conformist mega thread. No phun intended. 

[Monster Energy]

32 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

You haven’t verified that. Don’t act cultish.

I actually love cults. Where do I sign up? 

 

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

I actually love cults. Where do I sign up? 

You have a "wrong" understanding of cults, I'm sorry 

[Monster Energy]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

You have a "wrong" understanding of cults, I'm sorry 

Darn it 

[Jodistrict]

I like the approach of "Unicult".  They admit up front that they are a cult and even put it in their name.  

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

I like the approach of "Unicult".  They admit up front that they are a cult and even put it in their name.  

Pfft, how can it be a cult if they (ostensibly) don't practice 'mind control' (only ironically), they are (ostensibly) free to leave, you can participate online, and everybody is a having a yolly ol' good time?

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Jodistrict]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Pfft, how can it be a cult if they (ostensibly) don't practice 'mind control' (only ironically), they are free to participate for free, free to leave, you can participate online, and everybody is a having a yolly ol' good time?

Notice that after they admit they are a cult, people immediately start questioning whether they are a cult.   Problem solved.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Jodistrict

[Basman]

Moderation here is sometimes bit like those parents at restaurants with their kids running and screaming. Just ban mfs already.

[Carl-Richard]

Anyone wanna join my new religious movement (NRM) thread? It's not a cult

(That's a joke, the thread doesn't exist 😃).

Edited 34 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Ulax]

I can get the frustration and irritation that unreasonable cult accusations must bring. And you have every right to call out their bs. I would find it exhausting and rage-inducing myself. And it annoys me when I see people make unreasonable or bad faith accusations agaist you.

You have done good work over the years to ensure actualized.org doesn't become cult-ish, and improved your communications on the forum as you said you would.

I have made criticisms of your actions before, but it is only fair I give you credit where it is due.

Some only appear to want to do the former. That said, I can also understand the push-back on this thread.

I think it would be right to mention that it is the unreasonableness of the accusations that you are against. Or that you will ban if the accusations are unreasonable, or clearly driven by bad-faith motivation. Being around here for a while I can understand where you're coming from but I could see a youtuber seeing this as an easy chance to jump to a negative conclusion and attack you. But also given the topics discussed here I don't think its right to completely close the door on cult criticisms being allowed.

A middle ground could be to make it a ban based on unreasonable, or bad faith cult accusations. Or a ban on cult criticisms on normal threads, and then there is a feedback thread that opens once a week, say on a sunday, where people could make criticisms. And you could do it where they need to make the criticism in a certain format. And if they don't then its bannable.

But again, I can understand not wanting to deal with the bs anymore.

[Ulax]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 

 

 

He makes a lot of points that his "incomprehensive style" was to blame, but parts of his post and his overall behavior on the forum for the last 5 years points in another direction (and as if Leo himself didn't have a problem with people "not understanding" him; he did, still does, according to him).

There have been direct threats to ban people talking about non-duality; there have been people who were banned for talking about non-duality in a way that opposed Leo's teachings. It's all documented in the cult discussion thread which you will now get banned for participating in (in a way that does not agree with Leo).

You make fair points, assuming the non-duality ban thing is true.

Except for the point about Nahm. Nahm deserved the demotion.

A guy could've been homeless, on food stamps and asking about how to find a job, and Nahm would've told him it was just a thought. Leo demoting him was very reasonable. And Leo was very lenient with him and gave him many chances.

[Ulax]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Just know it's not only about whether Actualized.org is a cult or not that you should be afraid to discuss openly. It's about discussing non-dualism, Enlightenment, in contrast to Leo's teachings. This fact I believe was well-established already 5 years ago when @Nahm was demoted. Him speaking "incomprehensively" I don't believe was the reason. It was him actively "undermining" Leo's teachings. History repeats itself.

Come on man. You make a reasonable argument before this and then make this Nahm argument again. i don't mean to be rude but this Nahm argument is a bit ridiculous. As I alluded to in my previous comment, the guy was giving cartoonishly bad advice in his mod position.

[Ulax]

12 hours ago, meta_male said:

@Leo Gura As someone who grew up in a cult, I don't think this helps your case. I understand you want respectful discussion but banning the label is going to make people who are undecided more suspicious. It would be healthier to address the concerns people raise and discuss the nuances of why Actualized could or could not be considered cult-like.

I get your concerns man. And I agree there is a place for allowing cult accusations, and I agree that suspiciousness  could arise.

But you aren't acknowledging that many of the accusations are either bad-faith or very unreasonable