So it looks like Teal Swan is finally being exposed.

[Leo Gura]

But also, don't smear someone's reputation unless you got some evidence. Speculating about her is not appropriate. Bring the evidence or keep your mouth shut.

[billiesimon]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It's also possible that while her POV is great and her videos are great, she could be running a manipulative, power-hungry organization via her physical community. You'd have to know how much she charges her community members and how she wields power over them.

Recording videos is easy compared to running a physical commune. There is a possibility that her physical commune is abusive, exploitative, and toxic. But I have no idea. You'd need some deep insider experience of that.

Yes, that's a legit concern. I don't know honestly. 

[Thanks]

It surprises me how judgements go with all or nothing. Use some nice discerment, it's a high quality tool. Take that which serves you from Teal Swan and ignore what does not work for you. It's that simple. It is undeniable she has very high quality teachings that are key in understanding others and oneself. Yet I don't know what she does and it is not important for me. Also I am not going to throw stones or judge her because that for sure does not serve me at all. Also take into account that manipulation is always the case in this type of shows, they can sell you whatever they want to portray.

My overall point is stop standing in this moralistic pedestal criticising other people, even if they do wrong discard it, don't lose your life in such  pursuits. Use razer blade discernment of every teacher. No one is perferct according to sociciety standarts or your very own moralistic ideas of how any individual should or shouldn't behave and projecting that unto the world as the truth of human behaviour. Take that which serves you, leave aside that which does not, keep walking your path in silence and do your work.

[BlueOak]

Just now, Thanks said:

It surprises me how judgements go with all or nothing. Use some nice discerment, it's a high quality tool. Take that which serves you from Teal Swan and ignore what does not work for you. It's that simple. It is undeniable she has very high quality teachings that are key in understanding others and oneself. Yet I don't know what she does and it is not important for me. Also I am not going to throw stones or judge her because that for sure does not serve me at all. Also take into account that manipulation is always the case in this type of shows, they can sell you whatever they want to portray.

My overall point is stop standing in this moralistic pedestal criticising other people, even if they do wrong discard it, don't lose your life in such  pursuits. Use razer blade discernment of every teacher. No one is perferct according to sociciety standarts or your very own moralistic ideas of how any individual should or shouldn't behave and projecting that unto the world as the truth of human behaviour. Take that which serves you, leave aside that which does not

Couldn't agree more, i've thought about this time and time again, from politics to spirituality, to social issues. You have put it into a context of how I feel about much of life. People's need to see other's fall when they find disagreement, is reflected in all walks of life. Especially when there is no better alternative someone can point me to, its detrimental to the collective rather than helping it. I've been guilty of it myself in the past.

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Thanks said:

Take that which serves you, leave aside that which does not, keep walking your path in silence and do your work.

 

Lets say, there is a teacher who rapes his students, if we take your approach we would say "ohh, thats bad, but i don't care about that, because i only focus on the positive, and because everything is relative anyway, i have no ground to criticise that person on". In this case your approach generates more harm than good. You give this teacher more space to rape other students that are clueless about this issue.

So there are clear cases, when criticism is actually valid an appliable, especially, when that particular criticism is falsifiable.

27 minutes ago, Thanks said:

if they do wrong discard it

This is how a priest would get away, with child abuse and rape and with other nasty stuff.

[mmKay]

 

To give opinions about her y'all should watch this episode of hell on earth first. It's almost 3 hours but you get a first hand explanation of her upbringing with a cult leader. 

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Lets say, there is a teacher who rapes his students, if we take your approach we would say "ohh, thats bad, but i don't care about that, because i only focus on the positive, and because everything is relative anyway, i have no ground to criticise that person on". In this case your approach generates more harm than good. You give this teacher more space to rape other students that are clueless about this issue.

So there are clear cases, when criticism is actually valid an appliable, especially, when that particular criticism is falsifiable.

This is how a priest would get away, with child abuse and rape and with other nasty stuff.

You can always use hyperbole to make a point seem reasonable. It doesn't make it applicable in everyday life. People on mass are not going around listening to teachers who rape their students or tolerating it. 

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

You can always use hyperbole to make a point seem reasonable. It doesn't make it applicable in everyday life. People on mass are not going around listening to teachers who rape their students or tolerating it. 

We use exaggeration to make a point and to test the grounds. My whole point is that there is a time and space for crticism , you guys are saying there is no place for it, and thats why i need to make extreme examples to test if you really want to take that position.

Even the raping stuff that i brought up is applicapble and realistic in everyday life, especially if we are talking about cults and priest raping children and stuff. So it is actually applicable in every day life.

9 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

People on mass are not going around listening to teachers who rape their students or tolerating it. 

Stuff like this won't come out on its own, unless someone exposes it with evidence, and thats my point.

Edited June 16, 2022 by zurew

[BlueOak]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

We use exaggeration to make a point and to test the grounds. My whole point is that there is a time and space for crticism , you guys are saying there is no place for it, and thats why i need to make extreme examples to test if you really want to take that position.

Even the raping stuff that i brought up is applicapble and realistic in everyday life, especially if we are talking about cults and priest raping children and stuff. So it is actually applicable in every day life.

Stuff like this won't come out on its own, unless someone exposes it with evidence, and thats my point.

You are making a false equivalency. Nowhere in this discussion did anyone suggest anything like this was going on. This means the exaggeration doesn't help find the truth, it clouds the issue and means we will be (and are) discussing something completely unrelated to it. This one problem with personality politics, it rarely has much truth to it. 

Where did I say there was no room to criticize? I have been myself in a few posts. There is a huge difference between tolerating child abuse and disagreeing with a spiritual teacher's methods or manner, and if you are trying to argue otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

The advice of taking what helps you and leaving the rest, doesn't in any way negate criticism. It does however get you free of being hung up on seeing someone fail or fall because you disagree with their methods. I've seen countless people over all walks of life (including myself) insist others do things their way, and when they don't they take the mindset that everything about the teacher/politician/idea/subject etc is worthless, worse that they need to somehow take a fall. Life is rarely black and white like that unless you are using a gross exaggeration as you are.

[zurew]

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Where did I say there was no room to criticize?

Then why did you disagree with my post, that was all my point that there is a place and time to criticise thats it, nothing more to it. Thats why i said, that no one is above criticism, but i didn't mean either, that you can just run around and throw all kind of cricitism because you are happy to do it. If there is seriousness and ground to it, then it is time to criticise , but i agree with the 'take the good and leave the bad' approach' most of the time, but not all the time.

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Nowhere in this discussion did anyone suggest anything like this was going on.

I was talking about that there is a time to criticise  and razard was trying to negate that point (Or at least that was the impression that i got from him). Thats why i had to argue, because i simply don't agree with that.

13 hours ago, Razard86 said:

So you see how this goes? You can always criticize but what you criticize you yourself would have the same limitation. So how can you criticize someone for having the same limitation? I'll tell you this, I can play devil's advocate for ANYONE and construct any argument because at the end of the day an argument is just a perspective....just like my post and yours.

7 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Again...you criticize infinite intelligence. Also one more thing....you criticize yourself. So then, what makes you qualified to give criticism when you can't even meet your own standards? You make this too easy you know.

So every human is a hypocrite, but you think your criticism is valid. LOL.

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by zurew

[zurew]

29 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Where did I say there was no room to criticize? I have been myself in a few posts. There is a huge difference between tolerating child abuse and disagreeing with a spiritual teacher's methods or manner, and if you are trying to argue otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

Obviously i agree with you on this. All my arguments were directed at people that suggested that all criticism are untenable and that they have no place and no time (or at least, that was the impression that i got from them).

Now see, we can resolve our disagreements, if we elaborate on what we actually think. We don't even disagree but we argued because i was making an assumption about your position, and you were making an assumption about my positon. Maybe even Razard is agreeing with me, we will see, but this is how the nature of convos go. We have to make some assumptions and then we can hash it out later.

Edited June 16, 2022 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

   This has to be said again, as it's a really good rule of thumb:

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But also, don't smear someone's reputation unless you got some evidence. Speculating about her is not appropriate. Bring the evidence or keep your mouth shut.

 

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

16 hours ago, zurew said:

No one is above critisism and everyone can improve. When you are a central figure, your work will speak for itself, and at the end of the day, your work should defend you, from the unfounded critiques.

The most valuable thing you can get as a central figure, is a well thought out, good faith, constructive criticism.

Every criticism can be put on a spectrum and can be evaluated, how founded or unfounded it is. When it is backed by a lot of evidence, then it is maybe worth reflecting on.

For instance, some creator get a critique that he is very dismissive of opinions, that are different to his beliefs (and never elaborates why he disagree with his student, he just dismiss everyone all the time).

Lets say this teacher has 100 students and there are two scenarios.

Scenario 1: 50 students can show 30 videos where you can clearly see, that the teacher is actually being dismissive, and the teacher cannot provide one video that shows, that he actually evaluates his students opinions.

Scenario 2: One student can show only 2 videos when that teacher is being dismissive and the teacher to his defense, can provide 3-4 videos that showes he actually cares about other people opinions and he elaborates why he disagrees with something.

There is a massive difference between scenario 1 and scenario 2. Both can be put on a spectrum based on how much evidence and information is provided, and based on how much content you actually watched about that particular person.

Lets take scenario one, when half of your students give a critique to you, that is backed up by a lot of evidence, then maybe you should reflect on it, because something is most likely there.

 

Also, there are other situations that are very clear cut. For instance, there is a critique that a teacher is abusive. Someone can provide a video evidence about that teacher literally beating up one of his students so much, that the student fall into a coma. Now, even if you take your most good faith approach to interpret that video, you will end up with the same conclusion, so not everything is up for debate or up for interpretation.

   Not everyone benefits from some types of criticism, and no one is above criticism...except me

   The type of criticism you have as an ideal, the good faith, constructive criticism, while it's relatively a higher quality of critic, is a good type of critic. The main issue, is, what does this good faith constructive criticism cost the one doing the critic? Not only does this person has to have the necessary qualities, like critical thinking, and intrapersonal intelligence to be aware of self bias and preferences that distorts their reality projected onto the reality of that teacher, but also the critic, to give a constructive statement, has to have spent time and energy, physical, mental and emotional energy, to be able to design an advice that's tailored to the teacher's point of view and vision. That, plus other qualities needed to be good faith, and constructive, require more time and energy spent in training mid to long term to actually be willing to even steelman the teacher. This already creates differences in the commons, of what percentage of people can give this type of criticism, versus those who give another type. So, because of the high cost of time and energy needed for good faith constructive criticism, creates a demand for lower costing forms of criticism, which then makes those types of criticism, the bad faith and the less constructive and more emotional criticism more cimmon and favourable than the higher one.

   This is largely why criticism is untenable, because of the inverse proportionality of cost to benefits of giving higher quality criticism, versus lower quality criticism. On top of that, there's plenty of generalizations, distortions and deletions that a mind does to reconcile differences of view points, so that the differences of stage of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing, stares of being and life experiences in different domains of life, are reconciled by the tier 1's cognitive ability to distort those differences to suit their views. That and the highly contextual nature of reality makes criticism aleady a difficult task to be good faith at, and constructive at.

[zurew]

@Danioover9000 Do you disagree with this statement: "there is a  time and place, to make a criticism" ? All the other things are irrelevant.

[integral]

i'm still waiting for the evidence. I watched a bunch of videos and read a bunch of testimonies of people coming out.

One part are as they themselves state atheists who don't believe in anything she teaches because of New Age bullshit and are kicking themselves for falling into the trap she set for years, as they slowly "figured out" the logical issues in her beliefs to save themselves from her new age brain washing.

One part are people who had a general bad experience with the entire retreat not just her but literally every interaction they had with everyone was negative and took everything very personally in a very sensitive overblown way. The testimonies are scattered, never to the point and can't state anything clearly it's a lot of rambling.

One part are X-Jehovah witnesses, Who from there years of experiences in a different cult as they state fell victim again to Teal swans cult and all the signs are clear to them. 

One part are people who were already suicidal deeply traumatized before they went in there and her style strongly rubbed them the wrong way and made things worse.

it goes on like this. 

Send me some clear evidence.

Edited June 16, 2022 by integral

[StarStruck]

To run what she has one needs to develop the masculine archetype of leadership. Otherwise it is bound to be a huge shit fest with emotions and tampons and shit flying around. It is naive stage (semi) green that thinks if you put a bunch of stage green people together that it will be heaven on earth. 

[Ulax]

51 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

To run what she has one needs to develop the masculine archetype of leadership. Otherwise it is bound to be a huge shit fest with emotions and tampons and shit flying around. It is naive stage (semi) green that thinks if you put a bunch of stage green people together that it will be heaven on earth. 

Tampons flying around? Lmao

[Ulax]

Bruh, episode 3 of the documentary series is fucked. Teal looks really toxic. And its the sort of stuff that is bad regardless of context.

[ZenAlex]

1 hour ago, integral said:

i'm still waiting for the evidence. I watched a bunch of videos and read a bunch of testimonies of people coming out.

One part are as they themselves state atheists who don't believe in anything she teaches because of New Age bullshit and are kicking themselves for falling into the trap she set for years, as they slowly "figured out" the logical issues in her beliefs to save themselves from her new age brain washing.

One part are people who had a general bad experience with the entire retreat not just her but literally every interaction they had with everyone was negative and took everything very personally in a very sensitive overblown way. The testimonies are scattered, never to the point and can't state anything clearly it's a lot of rambling.

One part are X-Jehovah witnesses, Who from there years of experiences in a different cult as they state fell victim again to Teal swans cult and all the signs are clear to them. 

One part are people who were already suicidal deeply traumatized before they went in there and her style strongly rubbed them the wrong way and made things worse.

it goes on like this. 

Send me some clear evidence.

The evidence has already been displayed. 

If you do not wish to accept the evidence as clear proof, then I understand that. I cannot 100% prove anything. Nothing has been absolutely proven.

But testimonies from ex-members about terrible behaviour, the fact that she organizes things very similarly to a cult, and the documentary clearly showing questionable behaviour. These things ARE evidence. 

To just ignore at all is ridiculous.

Teal has made videos about the documentary explaining herself, but these videos could easily be filled with her lies and manipulation. The documentaries show questionable behaviour, her responses to them could easily be her own made up crap. 

Again, nothing is proven, but you should at least be somewhat open to the possibility of cult activity.

I am open to the possibility that teal is a misunderstood person, but I find that difficult to believe.

I BELIEVE based on evidence, but I admit I don't KNOW. 

I'd say the chances she's a cult leader are greater than the chances she is not. 

 

[integral]

56 minutes ago, ZenAlex said:

I am open to the possibility that teal is a misunderstood person, but I find that difficult to believe.

I BELIEVE based on evidence, but I admit I don't KNOW. 

I'd say the chances she's a cult leader are greater than the chances she is not. 

You're lying to yourself, you've made up your mind a long time ago and underestimate the counter-intuitive nature of everything. A unbiassed inquiry into this looks nothing like how you've used your intellect.

Edited June 16, 2022 by integral