Stupid debate

Over on the post: An Open Letter to the Anti-AA Movement: What are you fighting for? I allowed myself to be pulled into a debate where I feel I was repeatedly misrepresented, and of course continued to reply, in order to set the record straight. It started out rather polite, but it devolved predictably. I cannot continue this debate, because it is rather pointless. Also, there was a technical problem with that page, so that all of the comments didn’t show up in order. So I moved them over here, in order, for anyone who wants to read the miserable thing – and to rid the original article of such nonsense. It’s probably a waste of your time to read this, but it might also be a good example of the trickery used by some to defend the status quo in “addiction/recovery.”

For easier reading, my words are in black, the other commenter’s words are in, I think, magenta (or light purple? Idk). Please don’t waste your time reading this. It’s futile. I’m only posting it here so that I won’t be told that I’ve erased those comments on the original page just to hide my “hypocrisy” or whatever. If you are going to read it, I ask that you read the original post first, in order to understand the context.  Here goes….

 george bertram says:

January 2, 2014 at 5:39 PM (Edit)

Addictions start with thinking disorders and do not end until the thinking disorder is corrected. AA participation “can” help correct the thinking disorder, but frequently does not, for many reasons; (several of which are repeatedly drummed about on this site). The Anti-AA message is long on criticism but very short on simple and effective solutions that work and offer no “group” support that can mean the difference between life and death for many. IMO, about 95% of what is posted on this site causes more harm than good.

This “ocean” of oblivious chatter easily confuses and “frightens” people with cognitive functioning that has been dramatically impaired by chronic substance abuse. This I consider extremely irresponsible. Of the many criticisms leveled against AA, I feel compelled to mention that I have rarely seen an AA site that openly criticize anyone else’s efforts to assist people in addiction recovery.

The only good thing about this site I can think of is that it has motivated me to complete my book that focuses on methods and principles that are scientifically effective, regardless of their source in AA, SMART, CBT, certain religious practices or any other source. I am including only those that are very simple and highly effective; (the disease concept, perpetual powerlessness and so forth are not in that category). However, its primary purpose is the same as the AA 12Step program was originally designed and applied, as a quick, simple way to help the acutely addicted to clear their mind, learn how to think effectively “for themselves” and learn from their own experience. The important thing is that it is designed to become a “self directed” program at the earliest possible time.

My hope is that the AA and NON-AA movements may be unified on truly common scientific grounds, instead of separated by their “differences”. I don’t know who started this “fight” but it is senseless and I intend to do my part to illustrate how unnecessary and foolish it really is. In the meantime, a message to the person still struggling to break free of an addiction: Just “take what you need and leave the rest” from AA, this Site or any other sources (counselors etc) that seem appealing to you and put together your own program of recovery. There is no “official” AA program and everyone who is successful in it or any other 12Step program practices only those parts that work for them, no matter what comes out of their mouth. The people who criticize AA fail to mention that all you need is one other person to form an AA or other 12Step group of your own and you can use their materials and do it however you want to, and don’t have to be exposed to rapists, or anyone else other than the 1 other person of your choice. Many people who attend AA and/or identify as members of AA abuse the program and are dangerous (as described on these sites) so do not hesitate to form your own AA group with people you feel safe to be around.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 2, 2014 at 6:18 PM (Edit)

Hi George,

Thanks for your input. It is sincerely appreciated.

However, I would quibble with this statement:

I have rarely seen an AA site that openly criticize anyone else’s efforts to assist people in addiction recovery.

I don’t know if you mean an official site of Alcoholics Anonymous or an unofficial 12-step centric site that nevertheless promotes AA’s views and is populated by AA devotees. I can’t speak for the former, but the latter is abundant. The idea that anyone could moderate or stay sober without meetings or without 12-step programs is regularly attacked and sneered at wherever mentioned by these people – actively. Anyone who thinks the reality of addiction and way to help people with it might deviate from the 12-step model is denounced as a quack, charlatan, etc. There is absolutely no shortage of such a message.

And even when there isn’t a specific target being denounced by the stepper, all deviations from the 12-step model are denounced de facto when it is claimed that either you do the 12-steps, or suffer the fate of “jails, institutions, or death.” I don’t know if you’d deny this fact or not, but I guarantee I have plenty of visitors to this site who can attest to the fact that the 12-steps are presented in this way.

I appreciate your wish that AA and NON AA movements be united on common scientific grounds, but I don’t think it’ll ever happen. AA has proven to be resistant to any sort of change. They cherry pick science that might support their model, and ignore data that indicates changes which should be made to their model. Their supporters in the research community try to create biased data to support their model – or else downplay or downright ignore results that would question the AA model. They are not only religious, they are a religion with a religious text which is treated as a bible and not to be questioned.

All of that aside, I sincerely wish you well with your book.

Obviously, I agree somewhat with your view that many anti-AAers fail to offer a solution. However, I think that sometimes the call for a replacement solution is misguided, because it rests on false assumptions …

– How do you propose to treat alcoholism then? I don’t propose to treat it, because it’s not a disease.

– Well then what kind of support group would you create? I don’t think we need one, because people with these problems are not necessarily weak or in need of “support.”

– Well then how can we help these people regain control of themselves? I don’t think they’re “out of control.”

– So you’d just put them in jail? When did I say that? I’d just let them live their lives doing what they want. If they asked me for help, I’d tell them to find new interests to occupy their time. If I were close to them (i.e. had the practical means to spend time and interact them), I’d join them in developing and pursuing those interests if they wanted a buddy. (however, before telling them to find new interests, I’d first have to combat all of the misinformation they’ve been fed that is holding them back)

(I’m not trying to insert the words of the preceding questions into your mouth – I’m just presenting them as common ways in which myself and others who are against the disease model are challenged)

-Steven

 

george bertram says:

January 3, 2014 at 3:07 AM (Edit)

In summary, you don’t think addiction is a serious problem, you think attempts to treat it do more harm than good so you want to tear down an organization that forces itself on no one and many people thank for saving their lives? If your premise was valid, your efforts are in vain because people can choose not to attend AA a lot easier than they can choose to stop drinking/drugging etc. Mt my purpose is not to debate but merely illustrate that you cannot argue that people are strong enough to do without AA or other “help” but need a website to help them realize this.

If you knew more about the history of AA, you would recognize that at least 50% of your complaints concern individual misinterpretations of AA literature, not the AA literature itself. There are flaws even in the literature, but AA as a fellowship formally resisted a medical disease model of addiction at the time NA was embracing it with both arms. Over the past 20 years it has unofficially found its way into AA through the outside influences of treatment facilities. In any event, I was able to find enough support in NA literature to:

1.. Openly reject the disease concept of addiction;


2. Openly reject the concept of perpetual powerlessness.


3. Identify as a “retired” drug addict.


4. Partipate in all levels of NA service despite obvious “differences”.


5. NA identifies its diversity of beliefs as its major strength.


6. Associate with LBGT members, and wiccans who imagined a coven circle when doing the AA lords prayer at the end of the meeting.


7. Never felt a weak moment in 11 years.

Believe me, there are common grounds that can unite the best of both worlds without changing AA in the least.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 4, 2014 at 5:48 PM (Edit)

Hi George,

Let me offer up some context on your first claim about me and my views: that I “don’t think addiction is a serious problem.”

I must remind you that your comment is placed within a website I’ve been authoring for close to three years. It is a website in which most of the content is devoted to understanding the nature of addiction. With that in mind, do you think it’s correct to say that I “don’t think addiction is a serious problem?”

Obviously, I do think it’s a serious problem. If I didn’t, then I wouldn’t spend so much time trying to clarify and convince people of its true nature. This is to say nothing of the work I do in the field of helping people with this problem or the personal experience I’ve had with it – I could go on and on about that stuff, but I think my efforts in writing the content of this website are certainly enough to prove that I think it’s a serious problem.

But that should be obvious – so why would you still believe I don’t think it’s a serious problem? My assumption is that you base that opinion on the fact that I believe that what we call addiction represents freely chosen goal-directed behavior rather than compulsive disease-driven behavior.

There are plenty of “serious problems” in this world that nobody associates whatsoever with disease. The fact that they don’t associate it with disease doesn’t diminish the seriousness of those problems.

On your second claim, you are correct. I do think that on the whole, the attempts to “treat” addiction do more harm than good.

On your third claim, you’re close to what I believe, but not all the way there. I do not want to tear down AA. I am happy for anyone who enjoys it and anyone who finds it helpful. However, they are spreading falsehoods about the nature of addiction, and they dominate the world of “treatment” for addiction. I do want to tear down that dominance. They have worked tirelessly to spread their model of addiction to the general public, whether through average recruitment efforts by average members; by officially AA encouraged recruitment efforts of contacting judges and lawyers and by setting up 12-step meetings in hospital detoxes and prisons (AA has printed pamphlets encouraging this); or by unofficial efforts led by Marty Mann and the NCA/NCADD (and publicly endorsed by Bill Wilson in The Grapevine) to lobby the government to fund 12-step based treatment centers, create research designed to prop up AA’s theories (Jelinek), and to generally spread their disease model of addiction through classic propaganda efforts (enlisting celebrities to do PSA’s; getting Eisenhower to declare some sort of alcoholism awareness week or some such thing; and of course convincing entertainers to create dramatic works that depict their view of alcoholism, Alfred Hitchcock being one example listed on the NCADD’s timeline on their website where they brag about these efforts). They have sought the dominance of their views, which are now firmly entrenched in the multibillion dollar treatment industry which happens to be staffed by countless 12-step devotees, and of which approximately 80% of the funding for said 12-step based treatment comes from government forces. That dominance is what I want to tear down. I want to tear it down because their views are wrong, and millions of innocent people are brainwashed into accepting these views as some sort of medical fact by this system every year.

Before you go accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist, know this: AA’s efforts are out in the open (especially with the pamphlets they’ve printed declaring their intent and recommendations). The NCA/NCADD’s efforts are out in the open – they brag about it on their website. I am suggesting no conspiracy. I am suggesting an unhidden, not nefariously organized, but rather sincere effort by true believers to do what they think is right: spread the 12-step model of addiction. They have been successful. But their concept of addiction is mistaken. It hasn’t led to better outcomes for those who adhere to it (as compared to those who don’t receive treatment or attend 12-step meetings). It has led to worse outcomes for many who adhere to it. I want to end their views’ dominance in our culture. But I am fine with them having their meetings for those who wish to be involved.

-Steven

 

george bertram says:

January 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM (Edit)

Steven: My reply to your post was limited to what you stated in that post. It seemed you were stating that alcoholism did not need to be treated, with group support or otherwise. In the broader context of your website, it does reflect that you do consider addiction to be a serious problem. Unfortunately, relatively minor misunderstandings (such as this one) , can create serious confusion and controversy, particularly when they are part of an “anti” agenda.

Again, many of your “observations” about individuals who attend AA meetings and identify as members are accurate, the influence of AA as an organization is terribly overstated. It does take meetings into Jails and accepts referrals from Courts, but it receives no money from anyone for these services and it exercises little if any control over what individual members or AA groups do; in other words, it has no “enforcement” powers. The organization considers itself as a “self correcting” program with corrections coming from the “bottom” up instead of from the “top” down. It is a perplexing structure and one no one expected to work when it was initially proposed; but it did and it spread like wildfire around the world. The reason the program in the “BIg Book” has not been “updated” is not because AA considers it “perfection” (none of the writers had more than 5 years sober when it was published) but it was “perfect” for the limited goals of the AA organization; ie. as a last chance option for people who had already tried religion, science and psychology and found no relief.

My point is that you are wasting a lot of valuable time and effort “tilting at windmills”. AA is simply not designed to change and the “anti” message is not a long term attractor and creates even more unnecessary confusion and controversy. Unless and until you build a better program and devote 95% of your time to promoting and improving it (SMART is a good example), you will probably accomplish far more harm than good. This can and is being done by many people both inside and outside 12step organizations, who certainly do not deserve any of the generic 12step bashing that is going on here.

I would encourage you to use metacognition, symbolic logic, cbt or some other rational method to evaluate your thinking in regard to the promotion and acceptance of AA bashing as an essential part of your addiction recovery program. To me, destruction is strongly associated with self-deception and usually involves resistance, controversy and massive waste of time, effort, money and resources (like War). It also seems very inconsistent with your stated goals (tearing down anything simply isn’t a worthy goal…..develop something better and people will abandon what doen’t work on their own). Self deception is one thing, deceiving others is another. Just check your thinking and see what you discover.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM (Edit)

George,

As I said, I want to tear down the dominance of AA’s views. Specifically, if you haven’t gathered the main part of those views that I’m fighting, it is: the idea that addiction is a disease. That idea says that people with drug and alcohol problems have a special weakness which makes them incapable of controlling their own behavior in regard to drinking and drugging.

This is a horrible thing to teach people. If you were to start from scratch today, and look at existing psychological research, especially work on attribution theory, explanatory style, self-theories, and expectancy theory – you would never develop and spread such a message as the disease/loss of control model of addiction. Never. It goes against everything we know.

That idea has created a boogieman. Many people are caught up in fighting this boogieman. Because of that idea, they do not know that they really are in control of their drinking and drugging – they think the boogieman controls it. They sincerely “feel” out of control – because the boogieman is in control. They end up more confused and lost because of that idea. You wanna talk about “tilting at windmills?” That’s exactly what AA’s and the recovery culture’s views persuade people to do.

The disease model has become so infused in the culture that it actually helps to create “addicts.” If people weren’t fearing and fighting the boogieman, then they would be left with the results of their choices, and they would be left facing the choice between finding better ways to spend their time, or knowingly choosing to continue a counterproductive behavior pattern. Without the disease model of addiction so firmly implanted in our culture, people’s experience with substance use problems would be drastically different.

No doubt, people would still have these problems. There will always be people who continue self-destructive choices – as there are in so many realms of personal behavior and choices (career and romantic relationships come to mind). But they wouldn’t have to feel weak and powerless. And many more people would make their changes much quicker, and much more permanently than they do now. You could still offer formalized help, but it wouldn’t be called “treatment”, and it would focus on: helping people analyze their choices, helping them develop new potential choices, and preparing them to pursue those choices – with new ideas and information (which is exactly what the program I teach, and which I’ve been tirelessly revising and further developing for the past two years – The Saint Jude Program – does).

You must understand though, that the dominance of AA’s message stands in the way of this. It infects people’s thoughts. If they believe it, then that belief hinders their progress. I realize you disagree, but please understand it is my position. My intention is not to just viciously tear down AA and hurt people’s feelings. I have some close friends and family members who enjoy AA. I don’t want to hurt or offend them or anyone. However, their views are wrong, and they’ve become embedded in the culture to a degree that they pose a serious obstacle to innocent people who unwittingly accept them because of their popularity. I want to undo their dominance in our culture.

-Steven

 

george bertram says:

January 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM (Edit)

Steven: Although I agree 100% that the disease concept of addiction is extremely harmful to many people, agree 100% that it should not be “taught” to anyone (particularly not those who are in the process of recovering from drug addiction) and support your hard work to develop an alternate program 100%, BUT I am confident that your complete lack of tolerance and outright attacks on the “personal beliefs” of many AA members is 100% INSANE. As my great uncle once told me years ago, “you work very hard and have a great deal of intelligence, but you would cause less harm if you did nothing at all because you have not developed GOOD JUDGMENT to go with it. Intelligence without judgment is the most destructive force there is.” You cannot absolve yourself of the harm you are needlessly causing by pointing out the needless harm being caused by some AA members. When Mother Teresa was asked to join in a march against the Vietnam War, she surprised everyone by declining, but explained, “when you have a march for peace, let me know and I will happily attend”.

When you are finished tarnishing the image of Saint Jude with hatred and intolerance and misrepresenting the message of individuals as the message of the AA organization, let me know. Your treatment concepts are fairly good and have potential, but your violent attitude towards the beliefs of others will destroy it, it may even destroy you and that unnecessary WASTE is so typical of addiction that it just really sucks. Reminds me of religious zealots in the Middle East and rural American, and the misguided souls who sometimes “preach” a similar message at AA meetings. War….what is it good for….nothing, absolutely nothing.

PS: Please research AA history and you will find that the AA organization successfully opposed Bill Wilson’s attempts to describe alcoholism as a “disease” for many of the same reasons you have stated and Dr. Silkworth published a medical report in 1959 that minimized “alcoholic psychology” and actually compared drinking too much alcohol with drinking too much buttermilk. Again, institutional AA materials that support your opinion and contradict your criticism.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM (Edit)

George,

You’re reminding me of something I must do – create a page addressing the opposing positions that AA is either:

– Its members
- Its literature

No matter what I attribute to AA, I have someone come along and refute me based on whichever of those positions is convenient at the time. If I quote the Big Book, then I’m told that AA is not the big book – it’s one alcoholic helping another, and there are many interpretations of AA ideas talked about in meetings. Therefore, whatever I read, I read it wrong. The members are what constitute AA, and they know how it really is.

If I quote the things commonly said by members, I’m also told that there are many interpretations, but that I should refer to the Big Book for the real deal. Or I should refer to the 12 and 12. Or I should definitely not refer to the 12 and 12, or I should not refer to the stories section of the Big Book, and only the first 164 pages, or whatever.

And often, I get both of these retorts together. Whatever is convenient at the time and can be slipped past the careless reader. Should I refer to Silkworth’s 1959 paper? Or should I refer to what he wrote for and still happens to be published in the Big Book? How am I to know.

Should I refer to where it’s said that you can’t control taking the first drink? Such as:

“The fact is that most alcoholics, for reasons yet obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. Our so called will power becomes practically nonexistent. We are unable, at certain times, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago. We are without defense against the first drink.”

and…

“Once more: The alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink. Except in a few cases, neither he nor any other human being can provide such a defense. His defense must come from a Higher Power. ”

or…
should I refer to the AA members who say you can control whether you take the first drink or not, and that the loss-of-control sets in after that first drink? How am I to know? Here’s how: if there’s some quote somewhere in official AA literature that “proves” me wrong, then that’s the one I should refer to. And if that doesn’t exist, then I should refer to the person who says “I was told that, but I didn’t take it seriously, and I believe the opposite, and I’m an active AA member so I am right, but that other guy who took it seriously is wrong, even though he is also an active AA member.”

Really, I should just let you tell me how it is, right? I should accept your simultaneous application of contradictory standards, right? For example, you’re telling me that there are some official AA writings I should accept that I’m disproven by on one issue, but that I should absolutely ignore them on the next issue and refer to your authority that you’ve ignored those same official materials and proceeded by believing the opposite and so your contradictory opinion is correct and is now the criterion of evidence about AA’s views on this next issue.

I have learned in my time discussing 12-step programs that they are the opposite of whatever I say at any given time that happens to expose something wrong and harmful about them, based on fluctuating standards of evidence that meet the convenience of my adversary.

-Steven

 

george bertram says:

January 5, 2014 at 7:55 PM (Edit)

I am not your adversary but repeating myself again would probably be a waste of time. I sincerely hope that you seek and accept professional guidance in regard to your posts and your website content. Addictions create a great deal of mental confusion and the disorganized content of this website is (primarily) a “hot mess” of jaded criticism, which this site actively promotes. I am an educated person, but at this time I’m still not sure what your “program” is or how it is supposed to “work”. From the way you described it, its essentially an AA “deprogramming” service of some sort.

On other hand, even though the AA program probably isn’t the “most” effective treatment program out there, it is fairly easy to understand; ie. it is a “cafeteria plan” offering many different suggestions that work for a wide variety of people who try a little of everything and then “take what works for them and leave the rest”. This has obviously “worked” for a great number of people and this aspect eliminates any “reason” for CONTROVERSY. How you and some of the AA nuts miss this and insist that it must be either ALL ONE WAY or the other is beyond me. This is exactly how “religious people” have given their religion a bad name; ie. by insisting that their way is the ONLY way, instead of just the way that works best for them. And why you can’t see yourself as a little Jihhadist dancing and yipping around in a circle inciting a “war” on AA beliefs, is likewise beyond my ability to comprehend.

My final comments: Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Example: AA insists it is not a “religious” program when its history, literature and a Federal Case all indicate that it is Christian in source and religious in its content. BUT instead of merely pointing out that this is a FALSE statement, the Clean Slate approach is to tell a few LIES of its own, such as: AA is a cult, when AA does not come anywhere meeting the definition of a cult. People are free to leave, start their own groups and do things however they want and control is exercised from the bottom up. This is the opposite of “cults” that exercise strict control over the beliefs and practices of their members, “from the top down”.

I want no part of a War of Deception with AA or with anyone else and hope that the casualties and waste are not as bad as I anticipate they will be. I need to finish writing “Free Your Mind from Addiction with Metacognition”. Peace Out.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM (Edit)

You’re being quite adversarial for someone who’s not an adversary. You clearly do want part of the war with AA, and you do want part in the debate, or whatever it is that you want to call it that will enable you to engage in it while pretending to be above it. You have come here and entered opposing opinions – what do you call that?

I quite enjoy this old piece by Arthur Cain: http://www.silkworth.net/magazine_newspaper/harpers_magazine_feb_1963.html

Clearly, I’m not alone in my assessment of AA’s dominance, potential evils, and tactics. That article is from 1963, by a guy who actually loved AA. His book is very good, and worth reading.

 

george bertram says:

January 6, 2014 at 8:13 PM (Edit)

I read this article some time ago but it was refreshing to read it a second time. I agree with close to 100% of what Mr. Cain states in this article and wish more people would adopt this view, but 50 years later, the problems he complains of remain the same, if not worse. So my approach is to “do something” to repair the problems with AA and other 12Step groups from the outside in, since change is exceptionally unlikely to come from within them, and do so in a way that will not weaken what they have to offer to the millions who like them “just the way they are”. I am not at war with anyone, I am building something that will function independently of them, but influence them to make positive changes. I am doing it without attacking their beliefs or trying to “destroy” their influence.

If you want to characterize those efforts as a “war” or adversarial venture, you may do so, but I will not react by misrepresenting anything. That is the problem, trying to fight lies with lies is an exercise in futility, everyone loses, no one really wins. Here is a perfect example:

1. You cite Mr. Cain’s work as support for publicly calling AA a cult and encouraging people to avoid this dangerous cult.
2. Although noting that AA can lead people to adopt “cult like” belief systems, Mr. Cain also states that: “Alcoholics Anonymous should not be a cult for the retardation of the “arrested” alcoholic. I do not suggest for a moment that a single A.A. quit the fellowship. On the contrary, I strongly urge sticking with it. To anyone who is having trouble with alcohol I say: try A.A. first; it’s the answer for most people.”
3. Despite any comments Cain makes regarding cult like symptoms (that are actually identical to religious practices) he obviously would not recommend that people would benefit from remaining in a “real” cult, and he expressly urges them to stay in AA.

No matter how you may attempt to explain this glaring example of dishonesty away, it is not an exception, as most of your references to supporting literature on this site are likewise false or misleading. I’m not sure if you are so deep in self deception that you can’t see this or if you have intentionally decided that dishonesty are justified by the evils of AA you seek to end by your war against it.

Either way, you simply don’t have any credibility. Please get your thinking checked by someone qualified to help you before you try helping anyone else.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 7, 2014 at 12:16 AM (Edit)

George –

I’m not here to argue whether AA is a cult or not. I used the word twice in this article. The first time I used it, under the heading “Missing The Point”, was to recount a post I saw on social media which I thought missed the point: “I saw a post on Facebook that compared AA to Narconon (the rehab based on Scientology). It drew several comparisons – that both are cults, based on a personality (Bill W or L Ron Hubbard), based on teaching from an old book, etc.” And then I moved on to what I thought was the important problem to beware of (pushing people into the same problematic model of addiction under a different name).

The second time I used the term, here’s what I said: “those of you who are against 12-step programs because of its cult-like aspects.” Did you get that? “Cult-like aspects.” This article, as far as I’m concerned, is not about AA’s cult status. If that’s what you think, you’re way off the mark.

It seems more like you want it to be about calling AA a cult, so that you can knock down that idea. I’m not wedded to the word “cult.” I know I’ve used it before, but rarely, and always with caveats. You are the one who has used the term multiple times here while addressing me. There are other people here who are really into portraying AA as a cult – please take it up with them. This site primarily seeks to show people that the disease/powerlesness/loss of control model of addiction is wrong, and that they are in control, and that they can change if they want on their own ability.

I would love to know how my comment below was misrepresenting anything. Here’s the part where I turned your words upon you (I feel the need to recap this as well because the threaded comments are not working on this page for some reason):

“You’re being quite adversarial for someone who’s not an adversary. You clearly do want part of the war with AA, and you do want part in the debate, or whatever it is that you want to call it that will enable you to engage in it while pretending to be above it. You have come here and entered opposing opinions – what do you call that?”

Since you didn’t get the point, let me spell it out for you in full detail. YOU came here saying you didn’t want to “debate” – but then you proceeded to debate. You also said you didn’t want to be “part of a war” – and you proceeded to pick a fight. When I said “or whatever it is that you want to call it that will enable you to engage in it while pretending to be above it” I was indicating that you were doing exactly what you said you weren’t doing and didn’t want to be a part of. I was highlighting your hypocrisy and high horse posturing.

Then I simply added this:

“I quite enjoy this old piece by Arthur Cain: http://www.silkworth.net/magazine_newspaper/harpers_magazine_feb_1963.html

Clearly, I’m not alone in my assessment of AA’s dominance, potential evils, and tactics. That article is from 1963, by a guy who actually loved AA. His book is very good, and worth reading.”

I would love to know exactly how I “misrepresented” anything in those 3 sentences (the quotes I used around the word “misrepresented” are to indicate that it’s a term you used, and that I am specifically responding to, FYI). Please, enlighten me, because I don’t understand you.

You said that I “cite Mr. Cain’s work as support for publicly calling AA a cult.” Did I say “Clearly, I’m not alone in my assessment of AA as a cult”???? No, I did not. I said, of the Arthur Cain link “I’m not alone in my assessment of AA’s dominance, potential evils, and tactics.” Now, you may choose to focus in on the parts of that piece that use the word “cult”, but I was citing it for the points of mine from this article and comment thread that it supports. Since calling AA a cult was not a point of mine anywhere on this page, that should be a WONDERFUL INDICATION that I was NOT citing him to support a point that I DIDN’T MAKE HERE. Get it? Read the article. He makes a ton of great points in it. He also makes some recommendations I disagree with. I never said I was in full agreement with Arthur Cain – but the article is great, and his book is worth a read – as I said already – when I posted the link – that time when I didn’t say anything about cults.

He also says in that article – as you pointed out – that people SHOULD “try A.A. first; it’s the answer for most people.”. Was I citing him because I recommend that? Of course not. I recommend that if people haven’t gone, then they should stay away from it, and that if they like it and believe it works for them, then they should keep going. But by your logic, because I posted a link to that article, I must be recommending people “try AA first.” I would never make such a recommendation.

If anyone is being “dishonest” here – it is you. You have brazenly “misrepresented” me as presenting the argument that AA is a cult, when I have done no such thing here. And this is why all of your high horse posturing is utter nonsense. You’ve come here to fight, pretend you’re above it and not really fighting, and then attribute straw-men to me that you proceed to knock down.

The way you keep telling me to seek professional help is really touching and classy though.

I’ll also add this – other than one other commenter who said “war stories” you were the first person to use the term “war” here on this page. I was the second person to use the term – in response to your use of it. You seem obsessed with it, and you use it in quotes as if it’s the language I’m using here – one more silly tactic you use to distort what’s going on here. It’s really quite disgusting.

-Steven

 

george bertram says:

January 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM (Edit)

Steven: I am not debating you or anyone else, I was simply trying to analyze your positions and in that process discovered that you are either dishonest or delusional. I generally do not waste my time debating or discussing anything with dishonest or delusional people, no matter what “views” they express. Its simply a waste of time. I will, however, take about 60 seconds to specifically identify clear “evidence” of serious dishonesty or delusion in your rather frantic denial of dishonesty or delusion.

Specifically, you claimed that I “brazenly misrepresented you as presenting the argument that AA is a cult, when I have done no such thing here.” HOWEVER, on the “ABOUT” page of this website, you express your “views” on a number of topics, for the express purpose of making sure that no one “misrepresents” your views in any way. On that page, you expressed this view: “I take the position that the 12-step ways are ineffective at best, harmful and counterproductive at worst – and the the organization as a whole, is a dangerous cult.”

I am not going to search through your website and itemize all the incidents like this that I have noticed. I regret only that you are repulsed and disgusted when the truth is clearly revealed to you, but on the other hand, the truth generally pisses you off before its set you free, so maybe that’s a good thing. You have a great deal of knowledge that could be put to good use, but you are wasting that potential if you do not first develop good disciplined judgment. I can assure that I am sincere in suggesting that you get help from someone you trust in this area, if only to serve as a “mirror” that could reveal these discrepancies to you on a regular basis. Until you do, you will probably continue chasing your tail in long winded contradictory opinion statements that remind me of the AA nuts you despise so much. Different opinions but same childish gibberish that most eventually recognize as such.

Hope you get your thinking disciplined and reduce all this duplication down to about 2 paragraphs that would cover all your problems with AA in a condensed easy to understand way, so that you can then move on to develop and discuss your more effective methods of “managing” addiction.

 

Steven Slate says:

January 7, 2014 at 4:14 PM (Edit)

George –

I really feel like I should just be deleting your comments at this point, because you’re willfully misrepresenting me.

Here’s the play by play:

– I did not make the argument anywhere on this page that AA is a cult.

– You pretended that I did, because I posted a link to an article by Arthur Cain, that although it is titled “Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure”, makes a myriad of points about AA that are similar or even identical to points I have made on this page. Not only did I not cite Cain’s article to support calling AA a cult on this page (because I did not call them a cult on this page), I haven’t cited the Cain article to support such an assertion anywhere on this site – ever. (However, I may cite it in the future, if I decide to write an article about AA’s cult status.)

– I Replied, by telling you that I’m not arguing their cult status here, and thus not citing Cain to support that.

– I never said I don’t think they’re a cult, or that I haven’t called them a cult before. What I tried to convey is that it’s certainly not what I’m arguing now, and it’s certainly not a main issue I am concerned with. I do think they are basically a cult – but I also barely care about that issue. Which I thought I conveyed with this line: “I’m not wedded to the word ‘cult.’ I know I’ve used it before, but rarely, and always with caveats.” I was thinking exactly about what I said on my “About” page when I said that…

And by the way, here’s the full passage from my “About” page:

Alcoholics Anonymous, related groups, and Twelve-Step philosophy and methods – This site does not exist to “bash” AA. However, the purpose of the site is to offer alternative views of, and solutions for, addiction. The 12-step way being the norm, and generally not being effective, necessitates criticism on my part though. So I will criticize it, without hesitation, whenever appropriate. It’s not fair that everyone should be fed the 12-steps and told that it is the only way when there are clearly better options available. I take the position that the 12-step ways are ineffective at best, harmful and counterproductive at worst – and the the organization as a whole, is a dangerous cult. With all of this said, I do not hold this against all 12-step members. Many of them do not behave or even think in a cult-like manner. Many of them are fine people. I don’t know how they do it, but I think there are many with such strong personalities that they are able to resist all of the madness and use the group for support. That’s good for them, I salute them, and I would never try to convince them to leave the group. However, I would suggest that anyone thinking of attending a 12-step program of any kind should simply stay away from it, and don’t bother getting involved.

I never said here that I don’t think they are a cult, or that I have never called them a cult. I said here that I’m not arguing that point here, and that the cult aspect is not my concern. My concern, which should be ABUNDANTLY clear, is that people aren’t taught that they are weak and helpless and in need of some outside force to change them, and that this is what we should be concerned about with 12-step programs, and make sure that we don’t let our distaste for 12-step programs lead us to recommend “alternative” programs that essentially say the same thing.

Congratulations, you’ve expertly trolled me better than I think anyone ever has. You should be proud.

Also, BTW – nobody needs to “manage” their “addiction.”

-Steven

 

george bertram says:

January 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM (Edit)

I think anyone who reads the posts with an open mind will reach the same conclusion, and that’s why you feel like deleting them. This a place for people to “vent” their frustrations with people they encounter at AA meetings and that’s about it. At some point (if you don’t relapse) you will eventually figure out that the AA organization is nothing more than a “friendly ghost” that you can curse, protest against but never change, at least not from the outside. The creation of such a durable organization in modern society is actually a very rare phenomenon and I suspect the leaders of the anonymous internet movement may have actually tapped into its potential power. But I digress, for its obvious you do not have the capacity to set aside your obsession with your predetermined “agenda” long enough to grasp such concepts. Our goals are actually very very similar, you are just pursuing yours in ways that have no chance of ever working. So, delete away if its too much for you to bear….or just keep running around going: BOOOOO! The friendly ghost of AA is going to get you if you go in there!!!!!!

ps: I did not make the comment “anywhere on THIS PAGE” that AA is a cult??? I think I just heard every girl who has ever appeared on the Bad Girls club scream WEAK SAUCE! at the same time, lol.