Comments by "nozrep" (@nozrep) on "Former Scientologist explains Scientology | Aaron Smith-Levin and Lex Fridman" video.

yes and my opinion is that he sort of like, does it on purpose and intentionally, for the sake of the conversation, for the sake of “playing dumb” on purpose in order to allow himself and the audience to be better educated by the conversation. Just my opinion though.
4
@End420Prohibition you must not be educated on the history of why that exists in the first place then
2
closet. and maybe. But maybe you are not listening closely and maybe you are not seeing that he is intentionally asking simple questions or taking the side of a scientologist for the sake of the conversation. Which is the same thing Lex does in a most of his podcasts. He intentionally takes the other side and asks the challenging question to the guest, yet does it without being disrespectful and does it without starting a silly and pointless argument, somehow. How he does it I do not know. I just know that he does it.
1
lol is that a Bill Clinton bobblehead right next to Lex and his microphone?😂 It could be someone else’s bobblehead but my initial thought was Bill
1
chirp chirp😂🦆🦃gobble quack
1
it is a slippery slope, per se. Tons of non profits exist, tax free, regardless of “religion”. What about all the evil Soros non profits for example, funding forced chemical castration of “trans” children who are not of legal age to decide? Amongst all the other evil tax free non profits? So, my point is, it is possible to expose Scientology for the crap that it is while not stripping its non profit status. If they are actually criminal and actually fraudulent, then yes, they should be stripped. But there has not yet been a “smoking gun” of criminality. Imo, “we” need to focus on that part of it more than tax status. Once scientology is exposed as fraudulent and criminal, all the other “cards” fall too, including tax status.
1
yes it does seem so. Yet also there is existent in the arena of conversation, a tactic of conversation whereby, one particant will intentionally “play dumb”, intentionally “act naive”, on purpose, for the sake of the conversation. This tactic of interactional conversation can, in theory, allow the audience and other participants to be able to better listen to and to be able to better understand the person being interviewed that they may educate us better and teach us better.
1