Anonymous vs Church of Scientology

[WanderingKnight]

Of course not. But, if a group starts with the ideology of cleaning up the world, and ignoring most of the major problems and concentrating on this one, yes, that would look not good.

Imagine a group starting out saying we will save all animals, and concentrate on a tiny insect population. That would only make me laugh. I am not feeling towards that group in such an exaggerated manner, but, they share a bit of that feeling, nevertheless.

You're misunderstanding their point. They're not trying to save the world. They're acting against what they (and I) consider to be an offense to their freedom of speech. They're acting against the CoS not because they want to save the world, but because they feel threatened by the CoS. At no point they stated that they want to rid the world of evil or something crazy like that.

I'ld not even go as far as you and forsee Anonymous' future of disorientation and fickleness, because it will end when the first idiots use this as yet another podium to pick a fight (like hooligans, who are relatively uninterested in the actual soccer/football game, yet are so much more interested in riots and brawling).

It is quite possible, yes, but using Freud's ideas about the attitude of individuals when forming a collective consciousness (which I don't share fully, but some things in his theory are interesting), you could argue that the lack of a definite leadership or figure to identify themselves with (and thus become united because of that identification), the conditions aren't the same as in a regular gathering of people. Hooligans, though they may not look like it, are highly organized in a vertical manner... something which doesn't exist in this type of gathering. I can't even think of a symbolism to attach oneself to but the concept of Anonymous, which is ambiguous at most... so I don't feel this will be your run-of-the-mill mindless crowd.

I really think this will be a unique social experiment in the history of mankind... though it might be nothing more than wishful thinking, I still want to believe this will be something very important. It sort of remembers me of the concept of a "Stand Alone" copy in GITS SAC... but that's maybe taking things too far

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Cats

"But then, the problems started..." the man slowly voiced in agony. The system you see, as he explained, was too cumbersome... it was hard to gather everyone to vote and some didn't show any interest. Eventually some started saying blasphemes things like we should choose a select group of people and empower them with executive power. It was put to vote and at 61.2% against, it was rejected and the fools hanged. Other suggestions followed... but our iron diplomacy did not falter and the fools were banished one by one. At some point a group voting against the death penalty came, but at 53.9% against they lost.

...
Hey here's a idea, how about a poll?
Yeah and make the votes all anonymous too! Jokes aside...
..
But as far of the cons of both organizations, thats to say the common wrongs, I think that story from Kino no Tabi illustrates the points I'm thinking of most perfectly.

I have to admit, Cats, you've got me confused about what your opinion is (and it isn't the first time). Based off of what I quoted just there, I got the impression that you were against the concept of Anonymous. But then you say:

Anonymous on the other hand, if it's real and not some makeshift gimmick by C-S -and I doubt my skepticism will go away any time soon- seems to represent the freedom ideal. Weather they exist or not, I think by heart I would root for them.

Which makes me believe that I misunderstood your Kino no Tabi reference.

But I'm glad that you mentioned that reference, because it is rather interesting. Specifically I'm interested in the part that I quoted, where they spoke of problems that developed. In my mind, that sort of scenario is what America is currently undergoing. People have lost interest in these issues, or they feel that they can't make a difference no matter what they do. So why bother? Try to go unnoticed so that a giant corporation won't litigate you into the ground, and maybe every now and then make a peep in the direction of the political candidate you think is the least evil and has the greatest chance of winning.

When the population feels that way, the idea of democracy fails. Further, the society is vulnerable to being taken advantage of. If the masses won't speak out against gross injustices or a pillaging of their rights, then why wouldn't it happen? Perhaps this is why I'm most excited about the idea of Anonymous. Yes, it's a force of change in itself right now. But to me, it's almost like so much of the younger generation suddenly had a revelation. They realized that they can make a difference, and that they have a voice. They're casting off apathy to get involved.

It's exciting because it's not just a group of young people - there have always been younger people involved in activism. These are largely internet users, the types of people who are exposed to a lot of material, a lot of information. I'll stop short of calling them more intelligent or more open-minded than the average person (I've certainly seen plenty of examples to prove otherwise), but many of them have no ties to any organization or any issue, really. I've seen political activists and environmental activists, and these types are almost entirely black and white. Democrats will almost always be for democrats (just for the sake of being democrats), environmentalists will always defend the environment (rather than attack injustices of corporations that lead to environmental abuse, or help the issue in some other way) - it's not that these forms of activism aren't valuable in themselves, but they're relatively static. If the people participating in Anonymous now are suddenly empowered and stay that way, then you suddenly find yourself with a lot of people who will be examining issues from a relatively unbiased perspective, and will lend weight to sides of on-going conflicts.

That's what Anonymous did here. The fight against the CoS isn't new. I've spoken to people who joined into Anonymous who have been fighting it for 10 years already. Anonymous has suddenly jumped into the fray on their end, and will likely (hopefully) make the change happen.

A society that will examine issues in an unbiased manner and then collectively do something about them - it's a beautiful thing. Perhaps politicians will be held accountable for their jobs, corporate injustices against the people will be properly retaliated against, and the society will strive to clean itself up and propel itself forward. I'm dreaming big, but if the group has enough success and enough fun with this campaign of theirs, it's not impossible that even some of those could happen.

[Vexx]

1) I loathe the Church of Scientology for a variety of reasons including their willingness to play extremely dirty against people who point out the scam and absurdity of the whole thing.
2) I loathe DDOS attacks like Anonymous is conducting because they squelch the freedom to express views or opinions. Opinions and views should die because they are shown as absurd, not because they are silenced.

I'd hate to see the CoS get a free martyr card in its "religion" pretense.
OTOH, the CoS has been repeatedly documented as silencing other voices that criticize their game.

Hmmmmm, I guess the real moral is that people who play dirty look funny when they cry foul at the inevitable response?

[WanderingKnight]

2) I loathe DDOS attacks like Anonymous is conducting because they squelch the freedom to express views or opinions. Opinions and views should die because they are shown as absurd, not because they are silenced.

The DDOS attacks have mostly stopped as most people in Anonymous have realized it's not going to help (besides the group having been joined by a lot of people who don't want to take part in the DDOS attacks).

[felix]

@ Ledgem ~ Maybe this will help you a little. It's not what I want you to see in it, but I hope it shows how I hoped you'd look at it.

(no it's not what one would call a analogy)

One simple interpretation.

• We are all part of humanity, burdened in the past by fear of animals and nature ("the tiran") we have matured and seeing greater things ("democracy") we move forward burning our past ("the hanging of the king") and archiving greater glory. ("the festival" / forgetting...)
  
  
• Soon in our path we start splinting into tribes, nations, continents ("the voting" / smaller factions splitting from larger factions / majorities dominating minorities by virtue of majority / gradual 2-sided conflicts forming as votes close to the 50|50 percentages)
  
  
• We eventually make decisions and take action and inevitably hurt ourselves in the process.
  • If you defeat your enemy today, won't he still be your enemy tomorow?
  • If you kill your enemy today, who do you think will be your enemy tomorow?
    The population is always 100% even if 40% were to die today.
    At the next vote the supposed majority may just be a minority.
    (as far as the previous one was concern)

I love Kino no Tabi for it's wealth of symbolism in those short stories. I don't think everyone sees the hidden symbolism within... but I'm sure everyone can.


You have to understand sometimes looking at the problem is not the solution! You can fight the C-S and at best, literally kill every one of them ("the path of justice" / if you'd be proud of such an act) or you can look at C-S and figure out what makes it tick and why people follow it... and fight it that way. Like I said I'm with Anonymous because I want to have the choice to chose how I fight and see my enemy, independent of the group. That's what I see in them... C-S is like the people of the country in the Kino no Tabi fragment, one voice, one vote, one choise.

[Kristen]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The DDOS attacks have mostly stopped as most people in Anonymous have realized it's not going to help (besides the group having been joined by a lot of people who don't want to take part in the DDOS attacks).

And hence, the hypocricy of the entire raid ends. Maybe I spelled that wrong. But, what's interesting is that the Ddos attacks were limiting the amount of say that the Church of Scientology had. By taking down their website, the group just limited their free speech.

Now that the Ddos has ended, I'm not for or against either side. I think that Anonymous is doing what they should have been doing from the start.

[aohige]

Regardless of whether you agree with CoS or not, or see them as social threat, DDoS attacks should never be promoted, or supported. Period.

I don't like CoS either, but I would never stoop down to the level of these moronic Anonymous or VIPPERS and their abusive ways.

[mist2123]

I dont like the way CoS work but DDos thats just low i mean I should dies because people thinks its stupid. I'm neutral, but hey they know whats coming to them.

I really really want to see Annon vs CoS fights for Lulz

[Crystal_Method]

Anyone who is actually interested in taking out scientology in a civil matter should watch this:

This Bunker guy is the man to be listening to, he's got all the right ideas and he knows how to find out things without doing anything wrong. Hence why he probably survived 10 years criticizing scientology without getting tremendously harassed.

[aohige]

^this man's words are wise, and considerate.
It is counterproductive to try to criminally shut down an institution, it simply falls back on you.
All those morons at Anonymous, that's suggesting various vandlization and structure abuse on top of the DDoS attack, needs to heed this man's words. If they don't, then we can conclude them to be no diffrent than any criminal hate groups such as Neo Nazi of America. They might be too young to acknowledge that, but they still need to be punished.

Originally Posted by mist2123

I really really want to see Annon vs CoS fights for Lulz

I do not, at least not in the illegal methods they are taking.
While it may be entertaining, it would produce nothing but harm in the society. No good can possibly come out of it.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by aohige

^this man's words are wise, and considerate.
It is counterproductive to try to criminally shut down an institution, it simply falls back on you.
All those morons at Anonymous, that's suggesting various vandlization and structure abuse on top of the DDoS attack, needs to heed this man's words. If they don't, then we can conclude them to be no diffrent than any criminal hate groups such as Neo Nazi of America. They might be too young to acknowledge that, but they still need to be punished.

Mark Bunker has been taken up as a hero within Anonymous, although he isn't actually a part of Anonymous himself. As I wrote earlier, Anonymous seems to be something of a revelation among the youth that they can have an impact on the world. Up until now, social activism was largely dead. People protested against the Vietnam War back in the 60's, and yet these days even when there is great discontent, nobody does anything. (Protests against the Iraq War are practically nonexistent compared to the protests against Vietnam.)

When Anonymous first realized that it could do something, people acted in the way that they knew how. Anonymous had previously operated as a group to harass and shut down minor websites before: this was what they knew, and it was reflected in their primary actions against the CoS. I'm not saying it was right, but that's what they did it for. From the very beginning, there were phases of "attack" against the CoS. Anonymous had calculated that it would need to do more than just knock a website offline - that was just a publicity stunt. The third phase, which is currently in progress, is to bring the "war" to the streets. As they've attracted attention, older protestors and critics of Scientology are advising the relatively young and inexperienced Anonymous, teaching them how to be efficient protestors. This is why there is a change in tactics and in their overall appearance.

However, change doesn't happen over night. There are still some within Anonymous who would like to expose and take down the CoS using questionable methods. I don't know what makes them feel so desperate as to use such methods - perhaps they feel that the power and corruption of the CoS has spread so far that this is the last resort. In America, the land where money and connections equate to power, there may almost be some truth to that. I don't really believe that the CoS' influence is so far spread that they can't be taken down legally, and I've been urging those wishing to do illegal activities to forego such means, or at the very least hold off on them and let the legal means work out first.

[aohige]

^
regardless of how "evil" they precieve CoS, they still have the freedom of speech.
To illegally contain their voices is just as "evil", if not even WORSE.

Sorry, but I've seen how immature Anonymous are, and I do not in anyway accept their defence. Desparate? hah! no, majority of the activity comes from wanting to amuse themselves. Trolls are harmless, but organized trolls are not. Especially when they break the law.
I feel exactly the same way with VIPPERs, moronic 2ch youth that does pretty much the same activity, shutting down blogs and whatnot that they do not like. They completely lack morality, and is no diffrent than stupid kids that think "hating others is cool" and join skinhead Nazi.
This may sound harsh, but I'm sorry, I absolutely DESPISE their like and what they stand for.
You wanna voice opinion anonymously? That's perfectly fine, that's what large anonymous boards are for.
You wanna break the law anonymously for fun? Please do us a favor and rid yourself from our society, stinking cowards.

Enemy of thy Enemy is NOT a friend.

[panzerfan]

aohige, I don't deny that there are moral and ethical considerations when one looks at Anonymous, but frankly, a discussion of morality to a mob with no uniform mentality becomes rather a moot point. Anonymous should not be addressed with moral attached to it, because it is a hedonistic existence that you should not attempt to put a face over.

Enemy of the enemy? It depends on how you choose to see it I suppose. From a pragmatic perspective, the advantage of Scientology can be much undermined through the dissemination of information, whether obtained legally or not by Anonymous, and it is fine as an instrument, for Anonymous is a conscience without moral or ethics, and it will be the party responsible.

I admit, it sounds as if that the burning of Rome by Nero is suddenly a good thing from this perspective. However, a society that cannot openly discuss these questions will fall into danger of stagnation, and it is incredibly dangerous for a society to not see itself in the mirror, especially in a time where the mentality of fighting against 'terrorists' are so prevalent and has continued on and on and on... as what's your chances of winning if you know not yourself nor do you know your enemy?

Mr. Mark Bunker has suffered tremendously against Scientology. He has to pay the legal fees and invest his time to defend his own reputation, which Scientology smeared. He was accused as a pedophile with a criminal record by the corporation and he has been spied upon. Scientology employed the approach of aggression without remorse against its critics, and even the government itself...

So yes, there exists peaceful, humane civil protest, and at the same time, there will also be the application of 'fair game' in reverse by an opposition to Scientology.

[aohige]

^
Ok, that's fine and all, and I actually agree with you.

But.

How does that affect one's ability and right to critisize Anonymous?
Regardless of whether you see them as some form of "necessary evil", it doesn't change the fact that they are despecable.
I need not have to "put a face" to dislike them, no?
You can't make me not "dislike" them, sir.

In case of CoS being the target, no, I can't say I feel any sympathy for them.
But that is not to say I would justify or even tolerate Anonymous' methods. And I shouldn't have to, if that's where you're going.

[panzerfan]

Code of Ethics is dependent on the profession and group affiliation, and that should be a conscious choice at the discretion of the said individual to associate with and thus follow... while moral stems from oneself and varies from one individual to another. The moment that an individual forces one's own moral or code of ethics upon another, he or she will repeat exactly what Tom Cruise claims that he does in this Scientology interview. Therefore, what you say is right, only that imposing moral value is a matter that goes both ways.

[aohige]

And how the hell am I going to "impose moral value" on them?
By visiting each Anonymous Coward that joined in the raid and smack them with some book resembling a bible?

You're jumping the gun, sir. You make it sound as if I have some "big brother" power to do so.
Criticising someone for an action, (and especially an illegal one at that) is that person's right. If you're saying you can't even criticize another, then that is what "imposing moral value" is about. You're missing the point.

[Jinto]

I have a few questions, after reading the new postings in this debate:

- Can a seemingly bad institution undermine an otherwise adequately working democratic systems?

- Which means can be justified by goals?

- Who decides what is immoral - does one need a voice to have a say in that matter?

- Can people be forced to change themselves, can it trigger heavy oppsition or even escalation?

- When is the time for a democracy to turn to a militant democracy in order to defend itself? Are demagogues able to steer events in such a way, that a militant democracy defeats itself (how to avoid this)?

- How can you control the activities of a group if there is no leadership. How does the idea of a loosely coupled interest group and the prohibition of DDoS or violence from within this group actually work?

- Is Kino no Tabi a role model. Can a fictionary scenario be a good argument in debate about real world problems? ( sorry, I couldn't resist, that one is just a joke )

- Is the enemy of one's enemy an enemy or a friend or just a tactical advantage, or a moral support to my enemy or good for nothing. Does one have any friends in the world, or is it full of enemies who think different (range of different thinking from slightly to extreme). How is enmity quantified and qualified?

Please feel free to answer or add questions (I don't want to evaluate or position myself in this matter, because the topic is too speculative for me atm. to develop a temporary POV. Though when reading the new postings, those questions above came up.)

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

- Can people be forced to change themselves, can it trigger heavy oppsition or even escalation?

As long as that person is abiding the law, no. You should be able to express any views without legal consequence.
(social consequence is another story, as it is inevidable to have diffrent impression on people)
Once you break the law, you should be facing the appropriate consequence by legal terms.
That is the basis of any functioning society, amirite?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by aohige

As long as that person is abiding the law, no. You should be able to express any views without legal consequence.
(social consequence is another story, as it is inevidable to have diffrent impression on people)
Once you break the law, you should be facing the appropriate consequence by legal terms.
That is the basis of any functioning society, amirite?

Depends. The law abiting morality is not the highest for a reason. Laws can never be perfect. The following 2 moral dilemmas will show you why:

Originally Posted by http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-moral-dilemmas

You are on holiday in Bali with your 18 year old son and wife. You have been there for a week and are ready to head home. All three of you are at the airport getting ready to board your plane, when an armed officer comes around with a sniffer dog. You have all your bags on a trolley, and the dog sniffs at both your wife and your bag, and passes over it, however when he gets to your sons bag, he begins to get a bit more active.

You look over at your son and he’s looking a little nervous. You know he’s smoked a little marijuana in his time, but generally, he’s a good kid, and you certainly didn’t think he’d actually be stupid enough to bring it back on the plane with him. At first you feel angry that he would do such a thing and start planning your responsibility lecture, but then you realize that you are in Bali, and they have a zero tolerance policy on drugs, meaning your son could be jailed for life, or worse, executed, if he does have some illicit materials in his bag.

You look at your wife and realize she has come to the same conclusion and has gone pale with fear.

The armed officer accompanying the dog is beginning to look more stern with every sniff the dog takes and looks directly at you and asks you to open to the bag.

You do, and as the officer begins to take things out of the bag, you see to your horror that there is a small quantity of marijuana stashed in with your sons belongings.

The officer looks at you and asks “Who’s bag is this?”

You realize you have to answer, but the answer won’t be easy. You see your wife in the corner of your eye, and she is about to step forward and claim it as her own; what do you say?
__________________________________________________ ______________

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

A society has rules to function in every day situations, or how should I put it... to function right most of the time. Human action however should not merely be driven by laws, since laws are static and can be applied unmoraly, but another problematic aspect is also possible, that unmoral behaviour can be protected by law.

Imo this question cannot be easily answered, there is no definite yes or no.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

Depends. The law abiting morality is not the highest for a reason. Laws can never be perfect. The following 2 moral dilemmas will show you why:



A society has rules to function in every day situations, or how should I put it... to function right most of the time. Human action however should not merely be driven by laws, since laws are static and can be applied unmoraly, but the opposit holds also true, that unmoral behaviour can be protected by law.

Imo this question cannot be easily answered, there is no definite yes or no.

Of course laws aren't perfect, nor are they end-all answer to everything.
But they are set in place for a society to function, and if you can't respect it... you should find a way to change it.
It's the fundamental rule set in place.

Anarchism never works.
Criminal activity, the type that's harmful to the society, cannot be justified. PERIOD. That's the end of my argument.
Now excuse me, I have an appointment to go rob a bank.