Chan discussion

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Rebecca800

What's a chan? (sorry if that's a stupid question )

Lol oh wow.

Well, if you really must know, the most popular "chan" is 4chan.

As Kaleido-whathisname just mentioned, it is basically "the cesspool of the internet" where every user is 100% anonymous and thus prone to posting things that are, let's just say, not socially "acceptable" so to speak.


Mark Zuckerberg recently criticized 4chan.org for being a bad place basically, and the 4chan owner who is a young 20-something guy (I believe) basically rebutted him and said that anonyminity allows for creativity and stuff like that.


And it is true, 4chan is basically the "starting point" of tons of internet memes. They invented Lolcats and Rickrolling and tons of other stuff that then spreads around the internet.

But at the same time, because of the anonyminity, there are plenty of disgusting things posted on there as well, anything from child porn (although this is banned by the moderators, it still gets posted) to pictures of mangled bodies for shock value and tons of other stuff.

There is also a lot of "personal army" gathering that happens on 4chan. Basically what this means is if a company or an individual does something bad to someone, the victim goes onto 4chan and posts the personal information of the perpetrator on there, and thus hundreds or thousands of anonymous users decide to harass the perpetrator. This can be good or bad, depending on your perspective. I saw one case where a magazine editor had ripped off an article from a website. The website owner came to 4chan and posted about it, and then 4chan users proceeded to spam the magazine's blog comments and facebook page with bad reviews and harassment and stuff like that.

Also, awhile back there was a video of a US soldier throwing a dog over a cliff in Iraq. I believe that video originally became popular on 4chan because of the users' outrage, and thus a whole media debacle occurred as "traditional media" started talking about it, and the soldier involved was eventually discharged from the army.


So... 4Chan is a very entertaining website to visit but at the same time, it will de-sensitize you to a lot of horribly scarring things that just become "normal" after spending too much time on there.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Lol oh wow.

Well, if you really must know, the most popular "chan" is 4chan.

As Kaleido-whathisname just mentioned, it is basically "the cesspool of the internet" where every user is 100% anonymous and thus prone to posting things that are, let's just say, not socially "acceptable" so to speak.


Mark Zuckerberg recently criticized 4chan.org for being a bad place basically, and the 4chan owner who is a young 20-something guy (I believe) basically rebutted him and said that anonyminity allows for creativity and stuff like that.


And it is true, 4chan is basically the "starting point" of tons of internet memes. They invented Lolcats and Rickrolling and tons of other stuff that then spreads around the internet.

But at the same time, because of the anonyminity, there are plenty of disgusting things posted on there as well, anything from child porn (although this is banned by the moderators, it still gets posted) to pictures of mangled bodies for shock value and tons of other stuff.

There is also a lot of "personal army" gathering that happens on 4chan. Basically what this means is if a company or an individual does something bad to someone, the victim goes onto 4chan and posts the personal information of the perpetrator on there, and thus hundreds or thousands of anonymous users decide to harass the perpetrator. This can be good or bad, depending on your perspective. I saw one case where a magazine editor had ripped off an article from a website. The website owner came to 4chan and posted about it, and then 4chan users proceeded to spam the magazine's blog comments and facebook page with bad reviews and harassment and stuff like that.

Also, awhile back there was a video of a US soldier throwing a dog over a cliff in Iraq. I believe that video originally became popular on 4chan because of the users' outrage, and thus a whole media debacle occurred as "traditional media" started talking about it, and the soldier involved was eventually discharged from the army.


So... 4Chan is a very entertaining website to visit but at the same time, it will de-sensitize you to a lot of horribly scarring things that just become "normal" after spending too much time on there.

Actually despite the chans being a generally crappy, racist, misogynistic and terrible place I think they are an important element of freedom of expression especially because everyone posting on the site is anonymous. An anonymous group is really the only thing that can stand up to corporate tyranny and if that means racists and sociopaths get to post what's on their mind freely, so be it. Freedom comes at a high price.

Sorry to derail the thread, I just thought that was an important thing to say

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Actually despite the chans being a generally crappy, racist, misogynistic and terrible place I think they are an important element of freedom of expression especially because everyone posting on the site is anonymous. An anonymous group is really the only thing that can stand up to corporate tyranny and if that means racists and sociopaths get to post what's on their mind freely, so be it. Freedom comes at a high price.

Sorry to derail the thread, I just thought that was an important thing to say

That is sort of the argument by Moot for why 4Chan is a beneficial part of society.


I don't know what to think exactly. On the one hand, freedom of expression is important. BUT, freedom of speech has never protected "hate speech" by law. Just because we have freedom of speech, does not mean you are allowed to say anything, such as slander someone. That is still illegal.


Part of me thinks it is beneficial to have an anonymous group, but part of me thinks that those individuals are also too scared to take responsibility for what they are posting.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

That is sort of the argument by Moot for why 4Chan is a beneficial part of society.


I don't know what to think exactly. On the one hand, freedom of expression is important. BUT, freedom of speech has never protected "hate speech" by law. Just because we have freedom of speech, does not mean you are allowed to say anything, such as slander someone. That is still illegal.


Part of me thinks it is beneficial to have an anonymous group, but part of me thinks that those individuals are also too scared to take responsibility for what they are posting.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Well the thing about 4chan is, it's not the only site in its kind. The very nature of the internet lends itself to identity ambiguity amongst its users. You can't really know for sure that I am who I say I am on the internet, despite a seeming appearance of wanting to have a little bit about myself known and taking responsibility for what I say.

4chan also presents an interesting case for freedom of speech concerning the incidents with the Church of Scientology. Some 4chan users started actively protesting this "religion" (Scientology would sue the pants off me if the saw me putting that in quotes!) via DDoS attacks on their websites, actual meetups infront of churches or centers to carry out organized protests etc after discovering some rather sinister stuff about Scientology mostly concerning brainwashing and legal harassment and extortion taken to extremes by the Church. The anonymous group makes an unstated yet compelling philosophical argument that not only must we have freedom of religion in a civilized society but freedom from religion (and consequentially arbitrary moral codes). This is probably getting way too abstract but for example I think it is wrong for children to automatically become members of their parent's religion. For example baptism, in my opinion, is a violation of human rights because it sets the stage for indoctrination and mental manipulation of the child. You should have the right to be free from that kind of manipulation until you know enough to make an informed decision.

[Brutha]

Some 4chan users started actively protesting this "religion" (Scientology would sue the pants off me if the saw me putting that in quotes!) via DDoS attacks on their websites, actual meetups infront of churches or centers to carry out organized protests etc after discovering some rather sinister stuff about Scientology mostly concerning brainwashing and legal harassment and extortion taken to extremes by the Church.

The fight of "internet activists" against Scientology isn't a particular recent event but predates the creation of 4chan.

When the 4chan people started their project against Scientology they did a lot that's plainly illegal. It not really clear that this type of activism is healthy.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The fight of "internet activists" against Scientology isn't a particular recent event but predates the creation of 4chan.

When the 4chan people started their project against Scientology they did a lot that's plainly illegal. It not really clear that this type of activism is healthy.

Well considering how unhealthy Scientology is to many of its participants, not to mention it's based off of a deliberate attempt to screw people (you probably know L. Ron Hubbard created the Church because he thought it would be an easy way to make millions of dollars) and considering the Church's use of highly unethical 'fair game' legal tactics I'd say this is one of those special situations where malevolent activism is a fantastic idea. There are countries that won't even legally recognize it as a religion

[Brutha]

There are countries that won't even legally recognize it as a religion

In Germany we don't recognize them as religion.

That however doesn't mean that it's morally right to commit crimes in an attempt to combat the organisation.

Resistance of small groups against big group is romantic but in the end you get anarchy when nobody respects the rule of law.

Stable NGO's like Amnesty International who can operate in the sunlight are more powerful than a group like Anonymous.

[ZephyrusX]

Never heard of chan before. Thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Well considering how unhealthy Scientology is to many of its participants, not to mention it's based off of a deliberate attempt to screw people (you probably know L. Ron Hubbard created the Church because he thought it would be an easy way to make millions of dollars) and considering the Church's use of highly unethical 'fair game' legal tactics I'd say this is one of those special situations where malevolent activism is a fantastic idea. There are countries that won't even legally recognize it as a religion

Kale; I'm not sure how two wrongs make a right? Just out of principle first of all, if you gave people the right to engage in 'malevolent activism' every time they encounter something they deem unhealthy, where would it stop? Some people would malevolently harrass me for walking my dog

More importantly, how inclined would other people be to take you seriously if you responded with unlawful action? In my mind, any activisim that is successful would get people to listen and to change their perception and behaviour on the matter. Does chan do this?

Are these chan people acting with good intentions? Or are they just trying to justify them selves in acting like an ass by pointing out 'Hey! These guys are worse than I am! What is the big deal?' That doesn't work in my books

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In Germany we don't recognize them as religion.

That however doesn't mean that it's morally right to commit crimes in an attempt to combat the organisation.

Resistance of small groups against big group is romantic but in the end you get anarchy when nobody respects the rule of law.

Stable NGO's like Amnesty International who can operate in the sunlight are more powerful than a group like Anonymous.

Well Anonymous isn't a group whose membership can be gauged since as long as your identity is hidden you're basically a part of 'Anonymous' making it not cohesive by any means so because of that any action committed by an individual doesn't necessarily make Anonymous accountable for that. Now there's a good chance that there are probably specific 'active' individuals in raids, Ddos attacks and the people who made HBGary look like a bunch of fools. This might be a semi cohesive group but rather than calling themselves Anonymous it's more akin to using the ambiguity as a barrier toward accountability. In an age where your identity is pretty much everything, anonymity is real power, accessible to anyone regardless of moral code, social standing or anything personal.

Amnesty International, while an excellent organization and all that, is bound by having a central focus, human rights. They are also bound by having to define what human rights means when they move to defend it. Anonymous is not hamstringed by accountability like Amnesty International. Not being bound to a moral code affords one power of will. And of course not being bound by law (not entirely free from law, though they do try) means your actions won't be hampered by it until the moment of legal retribution (which instead of taking responsibility for, they shamelessly run away from).

Anonymous has always existed, 4chan just started the meme of it being a recognizable group but there have always been groups who afforded themselves no name in order to more effectively bring about a desired result whatever it may be. Nothing romantic about that.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Never heard of chan before. Thanks for posting.



Kale; I'm not sure how two wrongs make a right? Just out of principle first of all, if you gave people the right to engage in 'malevolent activism' every time they encounter something they deem unhealthy, where would it stop? Some people would malevolently harrass me for walking my dog

More importantly, how inclined would other people be to take you seriously if you responded with unlawful action? In my mind, any activisim that is successful would get people to listen and to change their perception and behaviour on the matter. Does chan do this?

Are these chan people acting with good intentions? Or are they just trying to justify them selves in acting like an ass by pointing out 'Hey! These guys are worse than I am! What is the big deal?' That doesn't work in my books

They are effective. Less people will be apt to join Scientology now because of internet memes and the revealing information hacked from their sites exposing how laugh out loud ridiculous their secret initiatory levels of knowledge are. They also exposed the more serious side of legal extortion (legal doesn't always equal morally good, lawyers for Scientology have carried out some pretty dodgy lawsuits), brainwashing of Scientology members and the serious abuses of Sea Org members.

They didn't do this the legal way. In this situation, the law was working against Anonymous and was working for a very twisted organization. So Anonymous simply disregarded the law. As someone who doesn't hold the rule of law as a metric for morality, I think they did the right thing.



The law simply isn't always an effective antidote to, well, evil. Often times evil people make the law work for them. There are some people who believe that these people can and should only be combatted via the law. There are others who think that sort of thing wastes precious time and that it might save a lot of people a great deal of pain and suffering to just disregard laws stating that you just can't hack into someone's email accounts to find proof of corrupt intent. Or can't shut down a website that is a recruitment post for a cult because that would be wrong because they legally have a right to operate the site.

[Brutha]

Less people will be apt to join Scientology now because of internet memes and the revealing information hacked from their sites exposing how laugh out loud ridiculous their secret initiatory levels of knowledge are.

Those documents got public before the 4chan guys got involved and started Project Chanology.

The law simply isn't always an effective antidote to, well, evil. Often times evil people make the law work for them.

If you lose the public debate than evil people can make the law's work for them. If you win the public debate you can change the laws.
Winning a public debate is much easier when you are acting from moral high ground.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

They didn't do this the legal way. In this situation, the law was working against Anonymous and was working for a very twisted organization. So Anonymous simply disregarded the law. As someone who doesn't hold the rule of law as a metric for morality, I think they did the right thing.

The law simply isn't always an effective antidote to, well, evil. Often times evil people make the law work for them. There are some people who believe that these people can and should only be combatted via the law. There are others who think that sort of thing wastes precious time and that it might save a lot of people a great deal of pain and suffering to just disregard laws stating that you just can't hack into someone's email accounts to find proof of corrupt intent. Or can't shut down a website that is a recruitment post for a cult because that would be wrong because they legally have a right to operate the site.

In my mind, it is not so much about ‘following the law’ as it is about commanding the respect of the public, and if you cannot command the respect of other people, how much authority and power do you really have? You said that being able to operate outside of moral codes and law confers power of will (I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this though?). But I’d argue that operating within the realm of moral codes and law confers you even more power as it allows you to derive authority from other human beings. The law and morality, however, isn’t something that is static. Sometimes laws become outdated in relation to human morality (ie. Laws against being homosexual, or more recently, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage) and they no longer command the respect of people; they no longer have any authority. So they eventually change.

Or can't shut down a website that is a recruitment post for a cult because that would be wrong because they legally have a right to operate the site.

To give you an example, I come from an academic background and profession that is really big on intellectual freedom and the freedom of expression. Although I don’t care much for the COS, I also do not care so much for activities that deny the right to intellectual freedom and expression. Not only because doing so denies people the right to express and be who they are (regardless of whether I like it), but also because it implicitly assumes that the general public cannot ‘fend’ for themselves in this world of information, and so, ‘big brother’ has to intervene on their behalf by denying certain rights to speech. It is a rather condescending and paternalistic attitude. People can educate themselves on COS and decide for themselves if they want to join. The only legitimate course of action I feel I have is to disseminate my own point of view and hope that it influences other people. But I have to respect their right to make their own informed decisions.

I’m not overly familiar with court cases against the COS, but I’m going to hazard an assumption that the law was not so much in ‘cahoots’ with the COS. It seems more probable that the defendant violated some sort of law or morale code that the court sanctioned., which comes back to my original point: how much power and authority do the these 4chan people actually have if they are operating outside of moral codes?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Are these chan people acting with good intentions? Or are they just trying to justify them selves in acting like an ass by pointing out 'Hey! These guys are worse than I am! What is the big deal?' That doesn't work in my books

Anonymous is not an organization with intentions. There are individuals who become part of anonymous at any one time and they have individual intentions and motivations which are sometimes shared with other anonymous individuals. Anonymous as a whole, is not a cohesive group with a cohesive vision other than that everyone should have the right to hide their identity regardless of their intentions. Regardless because, if your identity is really hidden then no one should know your intentions anyway. Although this means people have more room to be nasty and horrid, it also gives a great deal of freedom to the individual who is anonymous. This is an important thing to understand before you try to understand anything else about a chan.

Anonymous also does not stop at 4chan. Anonymous is everywhere on the internet. I'm anonymous, to the effect that my IP is not my real IP and you do not know for certain whether my personal information is real or a false front. That's a valuable freedom, one that no one should take lightly.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Those documents got public before the 4chan guys got involved and started Project Chanology.
If you lose the public debate than evil people can make the law's work for them. If you win the public debate you can change the laws.
Winning a public debate is much easier when you are acting from moral high ground.

Yes but Project Chanology and 4chan were very instrumental in them becoming memes. Whereas only a small percentage of people would have either stumbled upon the information or sought it out on purpose, now the reality of the COS is known worldwide.

Anonymous did make this debate public and they seem to be winning this one.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Brutha what's your opinion on Anonymous taking down MasterCard and PayPal's websites after they blocked donations to Wikileaks?

In my opinion, even if the actual attack was not really effective (the sites were just down for 20 or so hours) I do not think as many people would have found out about Mastercard and Paypal's actions had they not been attacked.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

In my mind, it is not so much about ‘following the law’ as it is about commanding the respect of the public, and if you cannot command the respect of other people, how much authority and power do you really have? You said that being able to operate outside of moral codes and law confers power of will (I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this though?). But I’d argue that operating within the realm of moral codes and law confers you even more power as it allows you to derive authority from other human beings. The law and morality, however, isn’t something that is static. Sometimes laws become outdated in relation to human morality (ie. Laws against being homosexual, or more recently, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage) and they no longer command the respect of people; they no longer have any authority. So they eventually change.



To give you an example, I come from an academic background and profession that is really big on intellectual freedom and the freedom of expression. Although I don’t care much for the COS, I also do not care so much for activities that deny the right to intellectual freedom and expression. Not only because doing so denies people the right to express and be who they are (regardless of whether I like it), but also because it implicitly assumes that the general public cannot ‘fend’ for themselves in this world of information, and so, ‘big brother’ has to intervene on their behalf by denying certain rights to speech. It is a rather condescending and paternalistic attitude. People can educate themselves on COS and decide for themselves if they want to join. The only legitimate course of action I feel I have is to disseminate my own point of view and hope that it influences other people. But I have to respect their right to make their own informed decisions.

I’m not overly familiar with court cases against the COS, but I’m going to hazard an assumption that the law was not so much in ‘cahoots’ with the COS. It seems more probable that the defendant violated some sort of law or morale code that the court sanctioned., which comes back to my original point: how much power and authority do the these 4chan people actually have if they are operating outside of moral codes?

The respect of the general populace isn't worth as much as you think. We are talking about a majority of people who do not often pair informed and intelligent perspectives with their respects, rather they give respect to something that has been repeated often to them or something that exhibits authority.

You also sabotage your own argument by admitting that just because you lack respect for someone or an organization does not give you any legal right to ruin them. Having a lack of respect is not a big deal for a group that has no central code or image to uphold. Anonymous can afford to just "not give a ****". Though if you knew a bit more about the COS you would understand why people are trying to sabotage them. You say you're in favor of freedom of intellectual expression. The COS has a policy called "Fair Game" which tells members they must do everything in their power to destroy those who slander Scientology. Members who are trying to leave the COS are considered Fair Game. This is a malicious cult that bullies its members and has caused emotional, physical (regular beatings with wooden rods are administered as punishments) and mental trauma to hundreds of people (in the Sea Org, minors are often forced to work through intimidation tactics, doing physical labor for 16 hour days via some legal loophole). Children of parents who join the COS often send their kids to the Sea Org, believing it is an 'honor'. Google some Sea Org members accounts of their time, it's not pretty.

Scientology also has blood on its hands. Lisa McPherson was a Scientologist who died of a pulmonary embolism while under the care of the Flag Service Organization (FSO), a branch of the Church of Scientology. Following her death the Church of Scientology was indicted on two felony charges “abuse and/or neglect of a disabled adult and practicing medicine without a license”,putting under trial the nature of Scientology beliefs and practices. The heated controversy included regular pickets outside Scientology offices on or around the anniversary of her death until the year 2000.
The charges against the Church of Scientology were dropped after the state’s medical examiner changed the cause of death from “undetermined” to an “accident” on June 13, 2000.
A civil suit brought by her family against the Church was settled on May 28, 2004.

The courts seemed to be in favor of Scientology and let them get off the hook until the family pursued a civil suit.

Peaceful protesting done in front of Scientology buildings by 4channers was watched heavily by riot police when it first started. I am digging for videos of the first few protests on youtube but the amount of police relative to the amount of protesters (20 at most) is a bit disturbing. Oddly enough, as protests have gotten larger the presence of police has gotten smaller. Scientology members have been caught assaulting protesters repeatedly yet there are zero accounts of protesters assaulting members of the COS. They are a cult, plain and simple. They are getting away with a lot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ because of legal loopholes that require a great deal of time and money to circumvent (the COS has both a great deal of time and money so only a very dedicated special interest group could reasonably dismantle the Church legally). Anonymous stole secrets from the COS and posted them everywhere, they also defaced and removed a few Scientology websites. They didn't go to law enforcement with what they stole, instead they just shared it with the internet until mostly everyone knew what a ridiculous farce the COS was.

[LostMyMap]

Chan? I like Jackie Chan.


whut?

No, seriously, your description pretty much seemed like what Usenet was, a bazillion years ago. But then it became pretty much just spam posts.

[Brutha]

The respect of the general populace isn't worth as much as you think. We are talking about a majority of people who do not often pair informed and intelligent perspectives with their respects, rather they give respect to something that has been repeated often to them or something that exhibits authority.

No, we aren't.

Brutha what's your opinion on Anonymous taking down MasterCard and PayPal's websites after they blocked donations to Wikileaks?

In my opinion, even if the actual attack was not really effective (the sites were just down for 20 or so hours) I do not think as many people would have found out about Mastercard and Paypal's actions had they not been attacked.

I think Rop Gonggri summarized a position on Anonymous attacks in his 27C3 keynote:
People ask me “Anonymous… That is the hackers striking back, right?” And then I have to explain that unlike Anonymous, people in this community would probably not issue press release with our real names in the PDF metadata. And that if this community were to get involved, the targets would probably be offline more often.

This is a mental maturity issue: our community has generally succeeded in giving black belts in computer security karate only to people that have proven a certain level of mental maturity. Yes, some of us could probably do some real damage to Paypal and Mastercard. But then we also understand that no good comes from that.

The public acceptance of Wikileaks in the US is less than it was before the Cablegate and Anonymous became involved.
I wouldn't put all the blame on Anonymous but their activism made it a lot easier to frame Wikileaks as a bunch of hackers instead of seeing them as journalists.

Yes but Project Chanology and 4chan were very instrumental in them becoming memes. Whereas only a small percentage of people would have either stumbled upon the information or sought it out on purpose, now the reality of the COS is known worldwide.

The idea that COS is a dangerous cult was already quite popular before Project Chanology. The South Park episode about Xenu aired earlier and the talking points about the crimes inside Sea Org are older than Project Chanology.

The problem with those memes is also that they don't accurately depict the day to day practices of the majority of the members of Scientology. The majority of members of Scientology don't know what you are talking about when you talk about Xenu. As a result it's hard to convince them that Scientology is bad.

The average person still doesn't know why doing those 'flunk'-disassociation techniques is a bad idea.
Talking about Xenu is much more fun than going into the details about what's wrong with the actual day-to-day practices of Scientology.

[ZephyrusX]

Anonymous stole secrets from the COS and posted them everywhere, they also defaced and removed a few Scientology websites. They didn't go to law enforcement with what they stole, instead they just shared it with the internet until mostly everyone knew what a ridiculous farce the COS was.

I'm not convinced that memes are useful either. For some people, their first reaction in speaking to a COS member may be to laugh and to walk away because they have this idea that the COS are ridiculous or dangerous. But since memes carry little explanatory value, they are not going to help the people who will actually talk to a COS member or read their literature. It is this group of people who are 'at risk' of joining a cult that you ought to be worried about. Disseminating memes doesn't allow people to make informed decisions.

If the Anonymous people disseminated information that provides explanatory value and allowed people to make informed decisions, then that would be cool. But I am questioning the extent to which they successfully do this.

I'll check out Project Chanology some time and share my opinions.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I'm not convinced that memes are useful either. For some people, their first reaction in speaking to a COS member may be to laugh and to walk away because they have this idea that the COS are ridiculous or dangerous. But since memes carry little explanatory value, they are not going to help the people who will actually talk to a COS member or read their literature. It is this group of people who are 'at risk' of joining a cult that you ought to be worried about. Disseminating memes doesn't allow people to make informed decisions.

If the Anonymous people disseminated information that provides explanatory value and allowed people to make informed decisions, then that would be cool. But I am questioning the extent to which they successfully do this.

I'll check out Project Chanology some time and share my opinions.

Memes are kind of like advertisements for an idea. When you hear of one and it implies something like "COS is a dangerous cult" you look into it and oh would you look at that, turns out it is a dangerous cult! That's how I see them as useful, at least in this scenario. It allows you to make the decision to go get informed. People are less likely to do independent research on something that doesn't immediately effect them unless they are pushed to, whether by a meme or other means.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Memes are kind of like advertisements for an idea. When you hear of one and it implies something like "COS is a dangerous cult" you look into it and oh would you look at that, turns out it is a dangerous cult! That's how I see them as useful, at least in this scenario. It allows you to make the decision to go get informed. People are less likely to do independent research on something that doesn't immediately effect them unless they are pushed to, whether by a meme or other means.

That is an interesting point and it seems it would work so long as the explanatory infomation is easily accessible for people to pursue. But then, why do people keep joining the COS?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

That is an interesting point and it seems it would work so long as the explanatory infomation is easily accessible for people to pursue. But then, why do people keep joining the COS?

The COS has semi effective means for recruitment. They offer to give you a free 'audit' which is sort of like a psychic cold reading and a personality test. You are told you have certain 'flaws' like a subtle anger problem or perhaps you are having trouble focusing and that Scientology courses can help improve these flaws. It's all done very nonchalantly but they spend a lot of time doing the audit. The auditor, being a brainwashed believer, genuinely cares about the audit's outcome. Here, this guy sought out an audit just to see what the process was like, it's an interesting read:

My First Scientology Audit Shaun O Connor

Also I have a book recommendation for you. It's called Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. It's an in depth overview of how memetics work and if you don't quite understand the concept of memetics certain elements of this whole situation may not make as much sense. Since memetics are everywhere it's also a great book for broadening your perspective on how information interacts with the brain. You can probably find a free .pdf of it.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

No, we aren't.

It depends. Today's youth certainly sympathize with Anonymous. Many of them are anonymous. The respect of someone working professionally as a journalist, computer technician, politician or other fields directly related to this situation is going to be worth more than the respect of 'everyone else' since these people are making critical decisions that will affect its outcome. Yet 'everyone else' does, at least in the majority, merely listen to news reports concerning Wikileaks and Anonymous, knowing next to no detail whatsoever so their respect, though likely negative relative to the spin many media sources put on both Wikileaks and Anonymous, is not worth much because they won't be making as many critical decisions relative to the situation. The majority of people didn't even know Wikileaks existed before they released the Afghan War Diaries. However, they probably had heard of Anonymous before, likely in a negative light considering past events linked to Anonymous so as soon as there was an association between Wikileaks and Anonymous, well you already got the picture.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think Rop Gonggri summarized a position on Anonymous attacks in his 27C3 keynote:
People ask me “Anonymous… That is the hackers striking back, right?” And then I have to explain that unlike Anonymous, people in this community would probably not issue press release with our real names in the PDF metadata. And that if this community were to get involved, the targets would probably be offline more often.

This is a mental maturity issue: our community has generally succeeded in giving black belts in computer security karate only to people that have proven a certain level of mental maturity. Yes, some of us could probably do some real damage to Paypal and Mastercard. But then we also understand that no good comes from that.

The public acceptance of Wikileaks in the US is less than it was before the Cablegate and Anonymous became involved.
I wouldn't put all the blame on Anonymous but their activism made it a lot easier to frame Wikileaks as a bunch of hackers instead of seeing them as journalists.

I'd agree that these attacks are definitely more akin to a tantrum than a strategical move to give an internet blog parade of negative publicity to their blacklisting of Wikileaks, but regardless of the maturity of the participants and their intentions that is exactly what they succeeded in doing. It is possible the attacks did have that goal in mind though.

And yes for any negative publicity that MasterCard and Paypal reaped from the attacks, Wikileaks received its due share by being associated with Anonymous and having that idea of Wikileaks being an organization of hackers (and not journalists who sometimes hack for information) reinforced.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The idea that COS is a dangerous cult was already quite popular before Project Chanology. The South Park episode about Xenu aired earlier and the talking points about the crimes inside Sea Org are older than Project Chanology.

The problem with those memes is also that they don't accurately depict the day to day practices of the majority of the members of Scientology. The majority of members of Scientology don't know what you are talking about when you talk about Xenu. As a result it's hard to convince them that Scientology is bad.

The average person still doesn't know why doing those 'flunk'-disassociation techniques is a bad idea.
Talking about Xenu is much more fun than going into the details about what's wrong with the actual day-to-day practices of Scientology.

I'm going to go out on a pretty stable limb here and say it was the South Park episode which inspired Project Chanology. As far as 'flunk' disassociation techniques, the South Park episode was by far the worse of the two. Project Chanology actually had and continues to have a moderately serious approach to depicting Scientology as a dangerous cult. It is saturated with memes, but there is an undercurrent of seriousness to their efforts to make damning evidence stick. You can't say that about South Park. And though previous organizations and individuals did have a much more structured and rigorous approach toward exposing Scientology, they lacked the clout of sheer numbers Anonymous has. While far from perfect, Anonymous has so far been the most effective antidote to Scientology.

Also in defense of "flunk dissociation" techniques, the sheer absurdity of Xenu tantalizes peoples curiosity. I'd go as far as to say the absurdity of the memes is actually helpful rather than harmful (barring individual basis where a person simply has one of those personalities devoid of curiosity). Members, both prospective and indoctrinated may be led to wonder if there's any truth to the ridiculous allegation and regardless of whether they become convinced that that's what Scientologists actually believe looking into it will inevitably lead them to the more serious allegations against the COS such as the Sea Org abuses, legal fiascos, the death of Lisa McPherson etc.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Also I hope you won't be irritated by me bringing this talking point up again, but on the off chance that Wikileaks is a covert operation by either the CIA or some other organization with hidden interests then Anonymous are accidental heroes who may have unknowingly thwarted plans for Wikileaks by derailing the structured image the media was building for Wikileaks. Stranger things have happened.

But you can pretend I never said that if you want.

[Brutha]

Also I hope you won't be irritated by me bringing this talking point up again, but on the off chance that Wikileaks is a covert operation by either the CIA or some other organization with hidden interests then Anonymous are accidental heroes who may have unknowingly thwarted plans for Wikileaks by derailing the structured image the media was building for Wikileaks. Stranger things have happened.

The actions of Anonymous were very predictable. I don't say that in retrospect but I actually went to 4chan directly after the cable to see how things start. I also spoke on this day a few days before it started about the issue.

At that point the only question was whether the mature people who can do actual damage participate in the attacks or whether the 4chan crowd will be alone.

There a good chance that Wikileaks is real and the CIA thought about labeling Wikileaks as hackers.
How do you do it? You provoke the 4chan crowd.

The don't have their own strategic agenda and are therefore someone else's pawns.

When you hear of one and it implies something like "COS is a dangerous cult" you look into it and oh would you look at that, turns out it is a dangerous cult!

Alice has heard about "COS is a dangerous" cult. Bob is a Scientologist. To Alice Bob seems like a decent person. Alice becomes curious about whether Scientology is really bad and asks Bob about it. Bob says that it's not really about the Xenu stuff but about doing "communication training".
He recommends that Alice tries on of the "communication trainings". In those "communication training" she will be confronted with those flunk techniques.

There also the issue of producing political problems for Scientology. In Berlin there an Anonymous group that has the manpower to do regular demonstrations.
They didn't went through the trouble of summarizing the fact based case against Scientology in German language to convince policy makers to tap phones or forbid Scientology as an organisation.

Yet 'everyone else' does, at least in the majority, merely listen to news reports concerning Wikileaks and Anonymous, knowing next to no detail whatsoever so their respect, though likely negative relative to the spin many media sources put on both Wikileaks and Anonymous, is not worth much because they won't be making as many critical decisions relative to the situation.

I'm the last person to claim that the democratic processes in the US work as they are supposed to. The US is however still a democracy.
If you would have a situation where no good democrat would defend the actions of the Obama administration a primary challenge in 2012 would be much easier.
When the US congress rewrites their secrecy laws the position of the mainstream media matters as well.

While far from perfect, Anonymous has so far been the most effective antidote to Scientology.

The Greece government banned Scientology in Greece. Do you somehow think that the ban isn't effective?

Nation states can be quite powerful when they decide that they don't like an organisation.

It depends. Today's youth certainly sympathize with Anonymous. Many of them are anonymous.

The amount of people who identify themselves as members of the movement is quite small.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Also I have a book recommendation for you. It's called Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. It's an in depth overview of how memetics work and if you don't quite understand the concept of memetics certain elements of this whole situation may not make as much sense. Since memetics are everywhere it's also a great book for broadening your perspective on how information interacts with the brain. You can probably find a free .pdf of it.

Thanks; sounds interesting.

[Velorien]

Brutha, if you personally were to dedicate your time and energy to bringing down the Church of Scientology, how would you do it?

[Brutha]

Brutha, if you personally were to dedicate your time and energy to bringing down the Church of Scientology, how would you do it?

There are two different issues about Scientology:
1) The day to day practices of average members.
2) The organisation itself.

Brainwashing through disassociation techniques is also done by other groups. Given that we are here on a very alternative forum it might make sense to articulate standards that define what behavior happens to immoral and what's reasonable.

Is it immoral to recommend someone to cut of his family ties? Why?
Is it immoral exert pressure on your members to tell their friends about your group?

Having common ethical standards for alternative groups would be a good thing. If you could make those standards a consensus where a lot of organisations sign up you could afterwards go with those standards to your legislature and point to bad organisation that violate the standards.

Teaching disassociation techniques without informing people of their dangers could be a violation of the law the same way that a doctor violates a law when he prescribes a medicine without telling a patient about the side effects.

As far as the second issue goes it's more of a local matter. Did the Church of Scientology do something that's clearly illegal in Germany? Is there reason to doubt that one could evidence of illegal behavior through a police raid on their headquarters?

If either of those are true than I would write up a clear case and go through the proper channels. Speaking to the police. Speaking to local politicians.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The actions of Anonymous were very predictable. I don't say that in retrospect but I actually went to 4chan directly after the cable to see how things start. I also spoke on this day a few days before it started about the issue.

At that point the only question was whether the mature people who can do actual damage participate in the attacks or whether the 4chan crowd will be alone.

There a good chance that Wikileaks is real and the CIA thought about labeling Wikileaks as hackers.
How do you do it? You provoke the 4chan crowd.

The don't have their own strategic agenda and are therefore someone else's pawns.

I don't think anonymous is so easily led. Consider the community's reticence to becoming anyone's "personal army". Anonymous not having their own agenda makes them feral, not easily manipulated.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Alice has heard about "COS is a dangerous" cult. Bob is a Scientologist. To Alice Bob seems like a decent person. Alice becomes curious about whether Scientology is really bad and asks Bob about it. Bob says that it's not really about the Xenu stuff but about doing "communication training".
He recommends that Alice tries on of the "communication trainings". In those "communication training" she will be confronted with those flunk techniques.

There also the issue of producing political problems for Scientology. In Berlin there an Anonymous group that has the manpower to do regular demonstrations.
They didn't went through the trouble of summarizing the fact based case against Scientology in German language to convince policy makers to tap phones or forbid Scientology as an organisation.

This is all assuming A = Not a Scientologist and B = Scientologist. A having no B to quantify their suspicions about Scientology will probably go to the internet to learn more about Scientology. Not everyone knows a Scientologist. Those who do, may still go to the internet first.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The Greece government banned Scientology in Greece. Do you somehow think that the ban isn't effective?

Nation states can be quite powerful when they decide that they don't like an organisation.

I should have said for the U.S. specifically. The U.S. government evidently won't be doing much to stop Scientology. I don't expect much from the UK either.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The amount of people who identify themselves as members of the movement is quite small.

Well yeah, that's the whole point of being anonymous.

[Brutha]

I don't think anonymous is so easily led.

It depends what you mean with easy.
The narrative of the war against Wikileaks was strong enough to draw them in. The fact that Wikileaks was DDoSed invited DDoS as restitution. For Anonymous it was a clear provocation and they felt for it within a week.

After John Barlow's "You are the troops" tweet it was clear that Anonymous would follow the call and join the conflict.

I should have said for the U.S. specifically. The U.S. government evidently won't be doing much to stop Scientology. I don't expect much from the UK either.

When nobody is doing the necessary lobbying governments usually don't act.

In Germany most of the activity against Scientology goes back to the advocacy of a person in Hamburg who's job it is to deal with people who leave cults.
I'm not familiar with the way Scientology got banned in Greece but there a good chance that the process was driven by a handful people.

In the UK I could imagine that you would get similar results to Germany if you would have a few mature people who understand how democracy works in practice and who care about the issue.

In the US it might be true that you lack real organisation who can deal with social issues that aren't called "the war on drugs".

Trying to build organisations who can operate in the sunlight would however still have a better chance than the kind of activism that the 4chan crowed does.

Well yeah, that's the whole point of being anonymous.

I don't mean public identification but self identification.

A having no B to quantify their suspicions about Scientology will probably go to the internet to learn more about Scientology.

Scientology recruits a lot of it's new members through personal relationships.
Scientology members tell their friends how Scientology changed their lives for the better and encourage them to join.
If Alice isn't contact which anyone from Scientology she probably doesn't think about joining Scientology anyway.