Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Chanology?
KharBevNor:
Anonymous aren't protesting this because of moral objections. Their main issue is freedom of information, which is something anonymous is definitely not hypocritical about. Scientologys attempts to suppress criticism and free distribution of scientology docs are genuinely a serious threat to online freedom of speech. There's no double standards at play.
And Tommy, I think you will find that there are plenty of groups protesting other religions, though often ineffectively, and often from rather questionable stances of their own. Nevertheless, it happens. I remember reading only last month of Italian students protesting a speech by the pope because of his retrograde attitude to science. There are major figures and global and national organisations constantly speaking out against radical islam, catholicism, fundamentalist christianity, hindu nationalism, countless other groups. Maybe they don't make the press as much, but they're there. In a lot of cases this has to do with the fact that the battlegrounds are different, as are the people doing the protesting. In the case of a lot of this stuff most of the protest comes, naturally, from within the same culture. Also, there are all sorts of issues with white, christian backgrounded westerners protesting aspects of Islam, whereas Scientology is undeniably a distinctive product of the west.
IronOxide:
I am not critical of this movement because they are protesting the CoS. On the contrary, I feel that people need to raise awareness about the things that are happening in this church, but I feel that the protesters are mixed into three groups.
The first is the group that wants people to see what may be going on in this organization and feel that their actions are unacceptable. These are the people that you will see out and about with "Google Lisa McPherson" and "Salvation Should Be Free" signs. They are genuinely concerned about the actions of the church, and feel like they are wronging people, which I personally agree with.
The second group are the people who are "In it for the Lulz", these are the people that show up to the protests mindlessly quoting memes. These are the people carrying "Longcat is Loooooong" signs and carrying boomboxes to "Rickroll" the streets. They are just interested in generating chaos because they are not content with their lives and do not feel like contributing positively.
The final people are those who are intolerant of the core beliefs of the society and feel that it should be open to ridicule through that route. At a protest they are the ones shouting at entering and exiting members and are the people who will carry the "Lol Xenu" signs. They want to make fun of people because they find their beliefs too silly to be allowed in our society.
The first group is the only group that are in it for the betterment of society, they are actually trying to shed light on a situation that may be criminal or at least amoral. They are working to shed light on an organization that they feel are doing bad things. I find this respectable, and I would find it respectable even if I agreed with the actions of the CoS.
The second and third groups, however, are hurting their own cause more than they are helping it. They have found an organization that is easy to make fun of (like all religions). They are the ones who are just looking to attack a young religion. They want to hurt people just to hurt people. This is the activity of the group that I do not think is acceptable. Now, from the coverage of the "raids", I don't know which people are the most numerous. The news seems to revolve more around the first group, while the internet community is spending more time glorifying the second and third groups. I don't know which are better represented there because I was not at every protest in the world. Some people here want to better the world, some people don't want to change the world at all, and some people want to hurt the world. All three of these groups have banded together against one common enemy, and they are hurting their own cause.
calenlass:
--- Quote from: tommydski on 11 Feb 2008, 09:03 ---We all like to pretend there is an imminent and real danger, a bogey-man that we can project our own problems and insecurities upon.
--- End quote ---
Dude zombies are a real and imminent danger, but we are already talking about that other places.
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: IronOxide on 11 Feb 2008, 11:58 ---The second group are the people who are "In it for the Lulz", these are the people that show up to the protests mindlessly quoting memes. These are the people carrying "Longcat is Loooooong" signs and carrying boomboxes to "Rickroll" the streets. They are just interested in generating chaos because they are not content with their lives and do not feel like contributing positively.
--- End quote ---
I think you could well be completely wrong about these people. The role of the clown in protests is very well established, at any large demo you'll undoubtedly see groups of people who're either members of or adopting the general tactics of CIRCA. I'm actually quite taken with the tactic of rick rolling, it'd be enjoyable and the whole point of tactics like that are to create confusion and disorder, not necessarily to be easily understood.
Patrick:
The thing about the repetition of the 4chan memes? It's a morale boost for the people standing in the picket lines. Sure, it isn't a political proclamation, but that's what the signs are for. It gets real boring standing outside for several hours unless you've got something everybody can laugh about.
Also, in b4 somebody posts the "INTERNET SUPERHEROES" poster which describes 4chan's /b/ ("we are mindless 'me too'-ism"). Seriously? A 4chan-based protest without memes is like a tanning salon without skin cancer.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version