Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorChrisSick
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (702.1)
    If Anonymous is to be trusted for their video posts, am I the only one that sees a striking- albeit non-violent- likening to Warren's fictional Global Frequency.

    Which assumes they are everything they say they are, which I wouldn't.
    • CommentAuthorDracko
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.2)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    They do intend to take to the streets on the 10th of February, though. The media fallout should be interesting to say the least.

    I'm not sure if I should join or not. You know, for the lulz. Xenu does not forgive or forget either, and he has lawyers!
  1.  (702.3)
    I never imagined the people of the GF wearing Armani suits, blackface, and big Afros, which I'd bet that more than a few of Anonymous will be wearing if they do actually take to the streets on Feb. 10.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.4)
    Scientology recently bought a whole building in downtown Portland.

    I'd join the protests, but I'm afraid that the Clears would wheel out a 7 terawatt Tesla-coil powered e-Meter and "audit" us into puffs of purple smoke and drifting ashes.
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (702.5)
    Excepting that they're lacking any real chain of command(so far as I know), I wouldn't say the assumption's that far off base. I've seen quite a range of conversation on the various *chan boards, even in avoiding the /b/ boards, enough to know that some of the people posting are really fucking smart in their areas of expertise. (Un?)fortunately that doesn't seem to hold for the majority of the users and as such most of the conversations seem to fall off into extreme hypothetical nerdoff, memes, and/or fapping, meaning that they rarely end on a worthwhile note.
    •  
      CommentAuthororwellseyes
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (702.6)
    It's even more of an abstraction than the GF idea. That had an organizer, Miranda Zero, at least, this may have had one (or a group) but has since gone way beyond that. It's something anyone can join simply by saying they are part of it.

    A video popped up last week on youtube of some guy in the south ranting at the camera for anonymous to "stand down" and stop bothering scientology.



    In the comments people claiming to be anonymous started posting his personal information, including his address, the fact he's part of a GLBT group, his phone number, in the comments. And of course, there are just waves of response videos out there.

    Looking at some of those videos you see teens, adults, serious people, jokesters all copping to being part of this group. Some of the videos are like the one's Ellis has posted, threatening and chilling, others are just people riding a trend. But they're all looking to be part of the group in some fashion. It's really fascinating. And more than a little terrifying.
    •  
      CommentAuthorChrisSick
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.7)
    @ pi8you, that was really my question, I suppose. Could an internet based organization be almost like a real life GF, without the guns?

    Maybe it sounds silly, but couldn't a GF-style organization start up, somewhere within all the various internets with more of a goal in mind than leveling their WOW characters? I've gotten advice from lawyers and doctors on the internet from Suicide Girls of all places. So is it feasible that a dedicated group could try and push for change, using all their high end expertise and knowledge, totally anonymous, directed through some central hub? Maybe Anonymous isn't the group, but I'm wondering if there could be one, and if people would go for it?
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.8)
    It's certainly something I wouldn't mind seeing, and I suppose the current Vs Scientology is a good test of whether or not it can do anything in its current form, unfortunately as is, I think they need to be able to bring it into the real world as well. Net mobs certainly can certainly get loud enough to affect some change though...

    A couple weeks back, a conservative journalist went on the attack against the 'explict' sex scenes in Mass Effect, gamers raged at him, article's no longer on the original townhall.com site. Then Fox News goes and picks up on the story, and similarly lambasted the game for being completely explicit and ignoring the (very good) games journalist they called in for the game's defense. Again, the gamers raged, going so far as to take flood Amazon with thousands of negative reviews on a book by one of the panelists(on top of posting/spamming her email/phone number), even EA stepped up to the plate to request a formal apology for the gross inaccuracies contained therein, and now today, said panelist put out a quasi-apology(in the NY Times) making clear that she'd never touched the game prior to the panel, and was only told about what it contained from a third party, as well as saying that once she saw the actual sequence in question, thought it was tamer than what you'd find in Lost
    •  
      CommentAuthorJoeL
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.9)
    Maybe Anonymous isn't the group, but I'm wondering if there could be one, and if people would go for it?


    I think people, in general, are feeling more empowered now than they ever did before. Especially, since technology has lessoned the gap imposed physically by geographical location. So, now, people who are dissatisfied with something can rally and gain momentum faster, and work towards a change. Anonymous is just one example of that. The Gamers defending Mass Effect is another one.


    I don't think there will ever be one group in particular, that works toward the good of the common man because it's only ever necessary for things to change when enough people feel a change is necessary.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.10)
    If we applaud Anonymous for attacking Scientology sites, how can we then condemn people hacking Jewish or Gay sites?
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (702.11)
    kosmo, isn't the analogy a wee bit unfair, though, even for argument's sake.
  2.  (702.12)
    If we applaud Anonymous for attacking Scientology sites, how can we then condemn people hacking Jewish or Gay sites?


    There is a difference between doing things out of hate and prejudice (hacking hasidic, homosexual homepages), and doing something with a real, guided and educated purpose. Anonymous is not attacking Scientology because it's a minority religious group that they don't understand or are prejudiced against, they're attacking Scientology for specific, unethical actions, whether it be blackmailing, tax evasion, or defrauding followers out of millions of dollars. To suggest that all actions and intentions are equal is naive.

    If I were being honest, and I am, I would call out Anonymous for not going for enough. Why target Scientology alone, when the evils of other organized religions (let's say... Catholicism) far outweigh what Scientology has managed to do on it's short time of existence? Catholic missionaries move to help ailing African countries with the AIDS epidemic, and fail to spread real, medically-based, life-saving information about treatment and prevention because it contradicts their religious doctrine. That's one, small but vitally important point that needs to be addressed.

    Attacking an organization out of ignorance and fear is vastly different than attacking them for the intentional wrongs they take part in.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.13)
    "kosmo, isn't the analogy a wee bit unfair, though, even for argument's sake."

    I honestly don't think it is.

    There have been cases of hackers attacking gay websites.


    I'm sure they believe there actions are every bit as justified and ethical as the actions of the people attacking the Scientology site.

    For the record, I think Scientology is damn silly. I also think most other religions are damn silly. (I admit to having a soft spot for the Ba'hai.)

    I know that there are a lot of scams associated with Scientology but I think the authorities should be dealing with the specific individuals responsbile for them rather than vigilantes taking it on themselves to attack the whole group.

    Take a look at Message 702.6 - the hackers took it on themselves to out the guy who posted the message including putting up his name, address and phoen number as well as his sexual orientation. If the same tactics were used against him for, say, criticising Bush at moveon.org, I think we'd all condemn it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorStew
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.14)
    If we applaud Anonymous for attacking Scientology sites, how can we then condemn people hacking Jewish or Gay sites?

    Mr. Ellis also said, "I, of course, remain hopeful that Anonymous go after the Christians next."

    My wife and I were actually wondering if Anonymous were actually a part of another religion (Christians, specifically) getting some Youaction.

    To respond to the original question, though... too soon for GF. Not enough Oracle and too much Batman in the world.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008 edited
     (702.15)
    @ kosmo ah thanks for clarifying, at first I thought you drew a similarity between gay communities, jewish communities, and scientology sects.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCOMTE
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2008
     (702.16)
    In one sense the GF model of a world-wide rapid-response team does already exist on the informational level. Take for example this evening's State Of The Union Address (take it, please!). Within seconds of the words coming out of shrub's mouth, sites like Think Progress were able to fact-check and publically rebut many of his statements. In another example from just today, I was listening to a local call-in talk show on my NPR station, and people were emailing the host with refutations of his guests statements about the racial breakdown of the recent South Carolina primaries; pointing out where the guest was deliberately reversing post-election polling numbers to fit his predetermined conclusions, etc., etc.

    So, that part of the GF paradigm is already in-place, albeit in a de-centralized, uncoordinated form. Still, how short a step is it from that to a real coordinated, global rapid-response network capable of taking on political turmoil, natural disasters, weird medical emergencies, et al?

    Sounds to me like it would just be a matter of money, will, and a lot of really big guns.
  3.  (702.17)
    I think there's a vast difference between exposing what a secretive group is doing and a hate crime. Simply believing in Scientology's teaching isn't what's at issue, this group is focused on the Church as an institution, a business really.

    Scientology has been involved in some truly hinky business over it's rather short life. They've also used massive legal bullying and pressure to keep that business quiet. The media is scared to report on those stories for fear of lawsuits. The notion of people who know about what's going on exposing it, cutting out the traditional media and reporting structure is what makes this whole situation unique.
    •  
      CommentAuthorUnsub
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (702.18)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    The people who are attacking gay and Jewish groups are just as convinced that what they are doing is right and important as those fighting Scientology.
    You may see them as hateful and predijuced and maybe they are but they certainly don't feel that way. For a large group of people to engage in truly abhorant behaviour
    they need to have the best of intentions. In fact the Israelis have done a lot more harmful things this week than Scientology ever has. Scientology does not commit extra judiciary killings
    or cut of food and power to thousands of people for mass punishments.
    Compared to that Scientology scams a few gullible westerners and are legal bullies!
    The people who attack gays many of them think they are trying to save these people from eternal hell.
    The anti abortionists are some of the worst because they truly believe that they are saving babys from being massacred.

    That is why what you believe is right does not count for shit!

    It is your actions that count not your own reasons for them. If you do something evil it does not matter what your reason was because to someone with a different opinion it will just be an excuse. In the real world a fanatical nazi neocon who who leads by example and does not infringe on the rights of others is a better person than a altruist who dedicates their whole life to helping others achieve freedom but uses force, violence and corruption to achieve these ends. Usually though the worse the beliefs the more evil they are willing to do to achieve it.

    One exception for the altruist who uses any means would be if they were successful. The world loves a winner.
  4.  (702.19)
    unsub,

    First of all, I agree with you on a number of points. There are religions who commit atrocities far worse than anything that Scientology has even thought about doing (see my above post). However, that doesn't excuse Scientologists for their behavior, it just implicates the other religions further. Religions hold this special place in people's hearts, this "We must not attack or criticize people for their religious beliefs". That is bullshit. Religious beliefs are responsible for an unbelievable amount of pain and suffering and death. I'm sorry, but anyone who uses "ancient" texts to base their world view and morality on is bound to be wrong, and disgracefully so. It's pathetic that we as a race have come so far, and learned so much, and yet we're held back by the ignorance of religion.

    Even your last paragraph is true, it's just not relevant to the argument at hand. "Anonymous" isn't using force or violence to get their point across. They're pranksters, and they're very effective. The fact that we're talking about it right now, that the national media is talking about it, proves that they are, at least in part, successful. They are educating people, and they're bringing to light the fact that Scientologists aren't "just a little wacky" but that they are actually harmful.

    If a group were to try and do the same for the atrocities of Judaism, or Islam, and their attacks were aimed at groups and specific actions that are harmful of others, then I'm all for it. There is a difference, and I don't give a shit how much you argue this point, in doing something to fight injustice, and in doing something out of ignorance and intolerance. Do I think that all Muslims, Jews, and Scientologists are evil, and should be persecuted in the streets? Of course not. I do think they're all a little silly, and I do find it hard to trust the judgement of people who haven't outgrown their imaginary friends, and are incapable of looking at evidence and reason. But if those same people are carrying out harmful actions, then they deserve to be fought against.

    Someone mentioned that it's the place of the authorities to handle things like Scientology and fraud, not the people's. The fault in this is that the authorities won't ever do anything about it. The Church of Scientology is a blatant business, and have blatant tax-evasion practices, and blatantly scam people out of millions of dollars... but then again, so does the rest of Big Business. In America, at least, we're very, very supportive of Big Business and all of their shady little practices, and we're also fans of Big Religion, and all of their shady little practices. That's what makes Scientology so damned perfect. The German government refuses to recognize Scientology as anything other than a cult. That would be kind of cool, except I have a problem with governments making any decisions about what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a cult. Religious organizations should not have special protections above and beyond the protections guaranteed by the State to its people. At all.

    But that's not the point of this conversation, I guess.

    Anonymous isn't a terrorist group flying planes into buildings. They're not physically harming anyone directly. Their call to "take to the streets" on Feb. 10th isn't a call to violent action, or doesn't appear to be. Right now, they're taking on a campaign to educate people and to take on an institution that deserves to be taken on. I would feel the same if they were doing it to the Church of Latter-Day Saints or Wal-Mart.
    • CommentAuthorradian
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2008
     (702.20)
    It isn't anonymous taking to the streets on the 10th, they are trying to manipulate everyone to join.

    It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and whether the true anonymous are there in the 'anonymous uniform' of suit & afro etc or if they are hiding in plain sight in a crowd of non-anon they've gathered.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.