7 ms·

4chan vs Scientology: really?

85 points by knieveltech 17y ago

dkarl 17y ago
It's the opposite of Gandhi's nonviolent resistance. Instead of acting as a moral foil, they act as a moral mirror. Both methods force to the surface judgments that people have already made but have avoided acknowledging. When people read about "a man slathered in Vaseline and covered in pubic hair and toenail clippings storm[ing] in and... desecrating a place of worship" and find themselves wondering which side they're on, they can't deny that they have little respect for Scientology.
skolor 17y ago
the last of the epic trolls Really, wired? My experience with 4-chan has generally been that whatever you say about/of/to them, they'll try their damn hardest to prove you wrong. Give them enough time, and order will rise out of the chaos that is Anonymous. Sure, it will eat itself, and descend back into the depths of madness eventually, but something will rise back into its place. I would bet, given another decade or two Anonymous, whether it be the 4-chan brand or from other meeting place, will do something that tops even this. As the Internet and networks in general are rising more towards the public eye, the memembers of Anonymous, who are mostly young, technologically adept individuals with questionable morals, will gain more and more relevance. Like it or not, there is a draw to Anonymous, and where there is technological interconnection it will exist and thrive.
- unalone 17y ago
  I'd bet they top themselves within a year or two. The chans may have peaked in size, but what that means is the people who are most interesting there are going to be finding new ways to branch out to avoid newfags. I'd bet they consolidate and end up with something even more intense than 4chan was back in the glory days.
  - skolor 17y ago
    You seem to be far more versed in the ways of 4chan. I have spent a few hours there a few times, long enough to understand the draw and that it wasn't for me, and I have several friends who spend time on the various boards there. Would you mind explaining a few things? I've seen "chans" refer to several things, both the various boards (/b/, /g/, /r/ and the like), and referring to individual people. Which way are you using it, and why (as opposed to using it the other way)? Peaked in size I understand that 4-chan servers tend to be very heavily trafficked, to the point that many people have said "DOS attack on 4chan? Is the internet on?" or something of similar meaning. Is this what you mean, or does it have to do with some kind of critical mass relation between Anonymous contributors and how much Original Content can be created/consumed (I would assume there is a peak point for that, although I don't have the slightest idea where that would be). news ways to branch out I was under the impression that 4channers held a generally negative feeling for any other boards, tending to call them "imitators" and the like. What makes you think that a sufficiently interesting person could change that, considering the anonymous nature of 4chan (thus making it impossible for any person to actually back up how interesting they were, historically). Back in the glory days I see this often, although it seems to be more a state of message boards in general than 4chan, although it does seem particularly loudly voiced on 4chan. Would you mind elaborating what those glory days were like, sense it certainly seems to me that some of the most impressive things to come out of 4chan have happened recently (Chanology, the Times poll rigging, and the like). Sorry if I read too much into what you said. I've wanted to ask someone about their 4chan experiences for a while, but none of my friends want to admit to much, so I was hoping the semi-anonymity of HN would help a little.
    - pyre 17y ago
      > I've seen "chans" refer to several things, both the various boards (/b/, /g/, /r/ and the like), and referring to individual people. Which way are you using it, and why (as opposed to using it the other way)? 'chans' refers to imageboard sites in general. 4chan arose out of a 'need/interest' in creating an English-language version of 2channel (2ch.net) from m00t who was a 'goon' from the SomethingAwful forums. It was originally 4chan.net until the domain was 'hijacked' by a hosting service, so then it became 4chan.org. Since then there have been multiple boards spawned from 4chan (since the image board software open source, though 4chan doesn't release their internal modifications to it to my knowledge): iichan.net 7chan.org 420chan.org etc. These are collectively referred to as the 'chans' much in the way that Unix-like operating systems are referred to as '* nixes' (edit: sorry only way to avoid turning it into italics). If you want to have a more comprehensive listing look to http://shii.org/2ch http://shii.org/2ch > Peaked in size I understand that 4-chan servers tend to be very heavily trafficked, to the point that many people have said "DOS attack on 4chan? Is the internet on?" or something of similar meaning. Is this what you mean, or does it have to do with some kind of critical mass relation between Anonymous contributors and how much Original Content can be created/consumed (I would assume there is a peak point for that, although I don't have the slightest idea where that would be). 4chan can be and is DDoS'd. The traffic to the site is MASSIVE (they've had to upgrade hosting several times and at least a couple of years ago or so they were constantly maxing out a 100Mbps connection), but they are occasionally taken down. Note that there is a significant amount of spam to the boards with links to malware or other sites trying to promote themselves (or just spam trying to 'flame' the 'community'). A number of DDoS attacks were initiated by way of uploading an 'image' that was just a javascript file with the extension changed. The text of the post then instructs the user to save it to '4chan.js' and double-click on it. Unfortunately there are a lot morons that do this and (at least the site admins claim) that this infects their computer somehow (I suppose the browser; most likely IE and Windows users) making them a 'zombie' in a 4chan-directed attack. The admins then need to try and post information on how users can remove this stuff from their computer. This is sort of ingenious if you think about it... The best way to DDOS 4chan is to infect all of its users with something that increases their normal traffic to the site 10 fold or more. > Back in the glory days I see this often, although it seems to be more a state of message boards in general than 4chan, although it does seem particularly loudly voiced on 4chan. Would you mind elaborating what those glory days were like, sense it certainly seems to me that some of the most impressive things to come out of 4chan have happened recently (Chanology, the Times poll rigging, and the like). This is just people being nostalgic to the past. There are people that claim that site was 'never good' and people that claim all of the 'newfags' are 'the cancer that is killing 4chan.' (At one point 7chan.org was hijacked to redirect cancer.org) 'Anonymous' is such a hodgepodge of differing opinion that you really can't get a single unifying view-point on anything. There are people that go on 'raids' to hijack people's emails and whatnot... and there are other 'Anons' that are referred to as 'white knights' that try and warn people that have been targeted. Sometimes 'glory days' posts are nothing more than trolls trolling other trolls too. You really can't take too much on the site seriously.
hungdaddy 17y ago
wow how old is this? Dated 2 days ago? Shouldnt it be like 6 months ago?
aarongough 17y ago
Anonymous's video proclaiming their intent is truly epic. It's interesting to note the lack of coherence and describable goals in cruise's video when compared to the Anonymous video. There's a Scientology church near where I live, and every time I see Anonymous members outside it I make it a point to stop and tell them that I think they're doing a good job... I always take heart when I see people standing up against something they think is wrong, regardless of their effectiveness.
- netsp 17y ago
  I don't really understand what it is about Scientology that pisses people off that much. You seem to be able to rally people against it more easily then you can against skinheads. What gives?
  - blhack 17y ago
    They're an easy target and they are very weird. Watch some of the videos of dissenters interacting with them. It's bizarre.
  - anr 17y ago
    Info here: http://www.xenu.net/ http://www.xenu.net/ "in respect and honour to all victims, and those who dare to stand up for them".
    - netsp 17y ago
      Some bits from that site which contain the closest thing to an answer to my questions. "What I have against the Church of Scientology (CoS) is its deceitfulness, its lack of compassion for its members (especially the hard-working staff), its aggressive hard sell, its arrogance, its attack on free speech, its litigiousness, its harassment of its critics, its lack of concern for families, its gross neglect and abuse of children, etc." "The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends." "On the surface the Church of Scientology seems reasonable. The insane content of it is only revealed to a person when the early stuff has done its work and made them more susceptible. After a short while a person "believes" that Scientology is doing them good. They are then persuaded to help their new-found group further by donating money and/or working for the organisation for almost no money. Many people do exactly that."Ethics" is used to good effect to trap a person. A person�s natural tendency to do good is worked upon. Yes - they want to be more ethical, but what is ethical? This is where a clever trick is pulled! "Ethics" is redefined by Scientology in such a way that to be ethical is to be a better Scientologist and obey the "church"." I don't have concise quotes for the other point so I'll try to explain them. The centre of the beef seems to be about how the church protects itself using litigation, influential contacts to control the information about it available to the public. It is very difficult to "prove" that Scientologists believe in any of that southpark stuff because their documents are copyright protected. "By using copyright laws the Church of Scientology withholds information about the teachings of its founder from the public. The public sees only a limited amount of information, information the "Church" feels will not harm its reputation to any great degree. Thus people are attracted into it based on this limited information and its seemingly fascinating possibilities. Once in, the existing members of that organisation have the opportunity to possibly erode the critical thinking faculties of the new member over a period of years. After that, the person has either left, been evicted or possibly their critical thinking faculties have been eroded to the degree where the absurd is accepted as spiritual truth."
JCThoughtscream 17y ago
It should be noted that the 4chan macroculture's rather divided as to whether or not Anonymous as protestors should really be considered Anonymous as representative of the *chan culture as a whole. 4chan's founder, Moot, has expressed a rather large level of disdain for the protest movement.
- ivanstojic 17y ago
  Even suggesting that Anonymous by and large takes any interest in what Moot thinks shows just how misinformed you are. There's more to a spear than just it's point.
  - gloob 17y ago
    This is rather off on a tangent, but it's rather entertaining watching people try and discuss the nature of Anonymous. I don't think there are any two people who have exactly the same perspective on the thing. They almost always end up completely talking past one another, heh.
  - JCThoughtscream 17y ago
    Suggesting that a segment of Anonymous /doesn't/ treat him as a figurehead is possibly equally misinformed. Actually, the only informed statement to make about Anonymous is that there isn't such thing as a capital-letter Anonymous. Considering them the funhouse-mirror version of Iain M. Banks's Culture is closer to the truth than otherwise.
    - jerf 17y ago
      I get a Stand-Alone Complex feel out of them, only with less mystery as to the source of the memes. That concept is closest to capturing the way highly ordered things happen far out of proportion to any individual plan. (I highly recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. It is one of the best near-future prediction shows I have ever seen, if not the best.)
  - pyre 17y ago
    Though the in-joke is that Anonymous is a 'hive-mind' it really couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a large collection of people. Sometimes certain 'movements' gain a critical mass needed to manifest themselves, but that's about it.
kingkawn 17y ago
this link sent me on a 2-hour bender. thank you.
- knieveltech 17y ago
  If it only took two hours, it wasn't a bender.

85 points by knieveltech 17y ago

dkarl 17y ago

It's the opposite of Gandhi's nonviolent resistance. Instead of acting as a moral foil, they act as a moral mirror. Both methods force to the surface judgments that people have already made but have avoided acknowledging. When people read about "a man slathered in Vaseline and covered in pubic hair and toenail clippings storm[ing] in and... desecrating a place of worship" and find themselves wondering which side they're on, they can't deny that they have little respect for Scientology.

skolor 17y ago

the last of the epic trolls Really, wired? My experience with 4-chan has generally been that whatever you say about/of/to them, they'll try their damn hardest to prove you wrong. Give them enough time, and order will rise out of the chaos that is Anonymous. Sure, it will eat itself, and descend back into the depths of madness eventually, but something will rise back into its place. I would bet, given another decade or two Anonymous, whether it be the 4-chan brand or from other meeting place, will do something that tops even this. As the Internet and networks in general are rising more towards the public eye, the memembers of Anonymous, who are mostly young, technologically adept individuals with questionable morals, will gain more and more relevance. Like it or not, there is a draw to Anonymous, and where there is technological interconnection it will exist and thrive.

unalone 17y ago
I'd bet they top themselves within a year or two. The chans may have peaked in size, but what that means is the people who are most interesting there are going to be finding new ways to branch out to avoid newfags. I'd bet they consolidate and end up with something even more intense than 4chan was back in the glory days.
- skolor 17y ago
  You seem to be far more versed in the ways of 4chan. I have spent a few hours there a few times, long enough to understand the draw and that it wasn't for me, and I have several friends who spend time on the various boards there. Would you mind explaining a few things? I've seen "chans" refer to several things, both the various boards (/b/, /g/, /r/ and the like), and referring to individual people. Which way are you using it, and why (as opposed to using it the other way)? Peaked in size I understand that 4-chan servers tend to be very heavily trafficked, to the point that many people have said "DOS attack on 4chan? Is the internet on?" or something of similar meaning. Is this what you mean, or does it have to do with some kind of critical mass relation between Anonymous contributors and how much Original Content can be created/consumed (I would assume there is a peak point for that, although I don't have the slightest idea where that would be). news ways to branch out I was under the impression that 4channers held a generally negative feeling for any other boards, tending to call them "imitators" and the like. What makes you think that a sufficiently interesting person could change that, considering the anonymous nature of 4chan (thus making it impossible for any person to actually back up how interesting they were, historically). Back in the glory days I see this often, although it seems to be more a state of message boards in general than 4chan, although it does seem particularly loudly voiced on 4chan. Would you mind elaborating what those glory days were like, sense it certainly seems to me that some of the most impressive things to come out of 4chan have happened recently (Chanology, the Times poll rigging, and the like). Sorry if I read too much into what you said. I've wanted to ask someone about their 4chan experiences for a while, but none of my friends want to admit to much, so I was hoping the semi-anonymity of HN would help a little.
  - pyre 17y ago
    > I've seen "chans" refer to several things, both the various boards (/b/, /g/, /r/ and the like), and referring to individual people. Which way are you using it, and why (as opposed to using it the other way)? 'chans' refers to imageboard sites in general. 4chan arose out of a 'need/interest' in creating an English-language version of 2channel (2ch.net) from m00t who was a 'goon' from the SomethingAwful forums. It was originally 4chan.net until the domain was 'hijacked' by a hosting service, so then it became 4chan.org. Since then there have been multiple boards spawned from 4chan (since the image board software open source, though 4chan doesn't release their internal modifications to it to my knowledge): iichan.net 7chan.org 420chan.org etc. These are collectively referred to as the 'chans' much in the way that Unix-like operating systems are referred to as '* nixes' (edit: sorry only way to avoid turning it into italics). If you want to have a more comprehensive listing look to http://shii.org/2ch http://shii.org/2ch > Peaked in size I understand that 4-chan servers tend to be very heavily trafficked, to the point that many people have said "DOS attack on 4chan? Is the internet on?" or something of similar meaning. Is this what you mean, or does it have to do with some kind of critical mass relation between Anonymous contributors and how much Original Content can be created/consumed (I would assume there is a peak point for that, although I don't have the slightest idea where that would be). 4chan can be and is DDoS'd. The traffic to the site is MASSIVE (they've had to upgrade hosting several times and at least a couple of years ago or so they were constantly maxing out a 100Mbps connection), but they are occasionally taken down. Note that there is a significant amount of spam to the boards with links to malware or other sites trying to promote themselves (or just spam trying to 'flame' the 'community'). A number of DDoS attacks were initiated by way of uploading an 'image' that was just a javascript file with the extension changed. The text of the post then instructs the user to save it to '4chan.js' and double-click on it. Unfortunately there are a lot morons that do this and (at least the site admins claim) that this infects their computer somehow (I suppose the browser; most likely IE and Windows users) making them a 'zombie' in a 4chan-directed attack. The admins then need to try and post information on how users can remove this stuff from their computer. This is sort of ingenious if you think about it... The best way to DDOS 4chan is to infect all of its users with something that increases their normal traffic to the site 10 fold or more. > Back in the glory days I see this often, although it seems to be more a state of message boards in general than 4chan, although it does seem particularly loudly voiced on 4chan. Would you mind elaborating what those glory days were like, sense it certainly seems to me that some of the most impressive things to come out of 4chan have happened recently (Chanology, the Times poll rigging, and the like). This is just people being nostalgic to the past. There are people that claim that site was 'never good' and people that claim all of the 'newfags' are 'the cancer that is killing 4chan.' (At one point 7chan.org was hijacked to redirect cancer.org) 'Anonymous' is such a hodgepodge of differing opinion that you really can't get a single unifying view-point on anything. There are people that go on 'raids' to hijack people's emails and whatnot... and there are other 'Anons' that are referred to as 'white knights' that try and warn people that have been targeted. Sometimes 'glory days' posts are nothing more than trolls trolling other trolls too. You really can't take too much on the site seriously.

hungdaddy 17y ago

wow how old is this? Dated 2 days ago? Shouldnt it be like 6 months ago?

aarongough 17y ago

Anonymous's video proclaiming their intent is truly epic. It's interesting to note the lack of coherence and describable goals in cruise's video when compared to the Anonymous video. There's a Scientology church near where I live, and every time I see Anonymous members outside it I make it a point to stop and tell them that I think they're doing a good job... I always take heart when I see people standing up against something they think is wrong, regardless of their effectiveness.

netsp 17y ago
I don't really understand what it is about Scientology that pisses people off that much. You seem to be able to rally people against it more easily then you can against skinheads. What gives?
- blhack 17y ago
  They're an easy target and they are very weird. Watch some of the videos of dissenters interacting with them. It's bizarre.
- anr 17y ago
  Info here: http://www.xenu.net/ http://www.xenu.net/ "in respect and honour to all victims, and those who dare to stand up for them".
  - netsp 17y ago
    Some bits from that site which contain the closest thing to an answer to my questions. "What I have against the Church of Scientology (CoS) is its deceitfulness, its lack of compassion for its members (especially the hard-working staff), its aggressive hard sell, its arrogance, its attack on free speech, its litigiousness, its harassment of its critics, its lack of concern for families, its gross neglect and abuse of children, etc." "The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends." "On the surface the Church of Scientology seems reasonable. The insane content of it is only revealed to a person when the early stuff has done its work and made them more susceptible. After a short while a person "believes" that Scientology is doing them good. They are then persuaded to help their new-found group further by donating money and/or working for the organisation for almost no money. Many people do exactly that."Ethics" is used to good effect to trap a person. A person�s natural tendency to do good is worked upon. Yes - they want to be more ethical, but what is ethical? This is where a clever trick is pulled! "Ethics" is redefined by Scientology in such a way that to be ethical is to be a better Scientologist and obey the "church"." I don't have concise quotes for the other point so I'll try to explain them. The centre of the beef seems to be about how the church protects itself using litigation, influential contacts to control the information about it available to the public. It is very difficult to "prove" that Scientologists believe in any of that southpark stuff because their documents are copyright protected. "By using copyright laws the Church of Scientology withholds information about the teachings of its founder from the public. The public sees only a limited amount of information, information the "Church" feels will not harm its reputation to any great degree. Thus people are attracted into it based on this limited information and its seemingly fascinating possibilities. Once in, the existing members of that organisation have the opportunity to possibly erode the critical thinking faculties of the new member over a period of years. After that, the person has either left, been evicted or possibly their critical thinking faculties have been eroded to the degree where the absurd is accepted as spiritual truth."

JCThoughtscream 17y ago

It should be noted that the 4chan macroculture's rather divided as to whether or not Anonymous as protestors should really be considered Anonymous as representative of the *chan culture as a whole. 4chan's founder, Moot, has expressed a rather large level of disdain for the protest movement.

ivanstojic 17y ago
Even suggesting that Anonymous by and large takes any interest in what Moot thinks shows just how misinformed you are. There's more to a spear than just it's point.
- gloob 17y ago
  This is rather off on a tangent, but it's rather entertaining watching people try and discuss the nature of Anonymous. I don't think there are any two people who have exactly the same perspective on the thing. They almost always end up completely talking past one another, heh.
- JCThoughtscream 17y ago
  Suggesting that a segment of Anonymous /doesn't/ treat him as a figurehead is possibly equally misinformed. Actually, the only informed statement to make about Anonymous is that there isn't such thing as a capital-letter Anonymous. Considering them the funhouse-mirror version of Iain M. Banks's Culture is closer to the truth than otherwise.
  - jerf 17y ago
    I get a Stand-Alone Complex feel out of them, only with less mystery as to the source of the memes. That concept is closest to capturing the way highly ordered things happen far out of proportion to any individual plan. (I highly recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. It is one of the best near-future prediction shows I have ever seen, if not the best.)
- pyre 17y ago
  Though the in-joke is that Anonymous is a 'hive-mind' it really couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a large collection of people. Sometimes certain 'movements' gain a critical mass needed to manifest themselves, but that's about it.

kingkawn 17y ago

this link sent me on a 2-hour bender. thank you.

knieveltech 17y ago
If it only took two hours, it wasn't a bender.