2-10-08: Day of protests against Scientology

[CaptainChewbacca]

Hmmm....anyone else finding the ED Wiki, with its huge Project Chanology section, difficult to access?

They're being hit with massive DDoS attacks.

[Tanasinn]

with 4chan leading the charge, whose dismissive centrist horseshit attitude towards atheists is something I've had to deal with and personally find more irritating than the fundiest of fundies.

If you had to "deal with" anything on 4chan, then congrats: you got trolled.

[TithonusSyndrome]

with 4chan leading the charge, whose dismissive centrist horseshit attitude towards atheists is something I've had to deal with and personally find more irritating than the fundiest of fundies.

If you had to "deal with" anything on 4chan, then congrats: you got trolled.

I'm not talking about having encountered this attitude on 4chan, because yeah, that would be obvious trolling, but that's the goddamn point; these people don't stand for anything other than trolling people. If you asked them to describe the nature of the universe, you'd just get a lot of snickering and some references to some memes. The fact that they're taking on Scientology doesn't mean they're striking a blow for rationality, they're just taking their trolling game to the next level. All the ballyhooing over "striking a blow at Scientology" is not only just a lot of fanfare over some peanuts demonstrations, it's playing into their attention seeking.

[Warsie]

Hmmm....anyone else finding the ED Wiki, with its huge Project Chanology section, difficult to access?

as others said, it's being DDosed. use partyvan.info instead

Any organization would be asking a lot of questions if they just got hacked and protested. It doesn't mean the organization has become seriously weakened, or that its long term prospects are significantly damaged.

that is possible as well.

especially not with 4chan leading the charge, whose dismissive centrist horseshit attitude towards atheists is something I've had to deal with and personally find more irritating than the fundiest of fundies.

huh? Explain.

but that's the goddamn point; these people don't stand for anything other than trolling people. it's playing into their attention seeking.

actually the current anonymous encompasses the entire internet (well a large portion of it). digg, SA, Fark, all jumped into this with the *chans as well as 'normal' people who know jack shit about the internet.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If this video is true, its pretty crazy. I looked, and apparently the viewcounts on all anti-scientology related vids on YouTube have been frozen, but it hasn't really happened to other videos. Rather distressing, I'd say, YouTube is Anonymous' main way of getting info out.

[General Zod]

TithonusSyndrome

If you go into any of the *chans with expectations of any sort of serious discussion then frankly you're as big of an idiot as the people you're decrying.

[Warsie]

TithonusSyndrome

If you go into any of the *chans with expectations of any sort of serious discussion then frankly you're as big of an idiot as the people you're decrying.

There have been plenty of 'serious' discussions on /b/, ranging from psychology, to the effectiveness of communism, zoology and the like.

Sometimes it may be phrased in the chan dialect but that doesn't take away from it.

[General Zod]

There have been plenty of 'serious' discussions on /b/, ranging from psychology, to the effectiveness of communism, zoology and the like.

Sometimes it may be phrased in the chan dialect but that doesn't take away from it.

There can be, but anyone who gets incensed at serious discussions being laden with memes or not taken seriously on a *chan is precisely the type of person whom the phrase "lurk moar" applies to.

[TithonusSyndrome]

TithonusSyndrome

If you go into any of the *chans with expectations of any sort of serious discussion then frankly you're as big of an idiot as the people you're decrying.

And yet that still wouldn't be stupid enough to miss where I said that I never expected to get an honest answer on 4chan itself, or any chan for that matter. The fucking point is that these people are just a bunch of tittering hit-and-run trolls who try to paint their opponents as being uptight pedants whenever they try to get an honest answer out of them, in a forum outside of any of the chans where hopefully some channer can offer any kind of insight into why they go after who they do. All I've ever heard from them amounts to the equivalent of the South Park school of centrist sniping. It's easy for these cowards to decry the apparent flimsiness of both Christianity and atheism when they're perched on the safety of the fence. Not many people are used to wielding arguments in that direction, it's the perfect position for an emotional hemophiliac to take up.

Do I expect serious discussions from the chans? Hell no, not once. I don't even expect a lone channer to give me a good reason for their antics if I got them alone and encouraged them to be serious, and that's the point. These people aren't offering any view of the universe in exchange for their pestering Scientology, they're just getting their rocks off by being trolls. Ludwig von Mises said that, “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.” Without any worldview offered in place of Scientology's, the same applies here.

[TithonusSyndrome]

There have been plenty of 'serious' discussions on /b/, ranging from psychology, to the effectiveness of communism, zoology and the like.

Sometimes it may be phrased in the chan dialect but that doesn't take away from it.

There can be, but anyone who gets incensed at serious discussions being laden with memes or not taken seriously on a *chan is precisely the type of person whom the phrase "lurk moar" applies to.

I know how 4chan works. It's a lawless no-logic zone people come to giggle and titter at memes in, but when they log off, can they defend their social or political stances? Or do they still live in 4chan's mindset even then and just try to brush off the demand for reasoning?

[General Zod]

I know how 4chan works. It's a lawless no-logic zone people come to giggle and titter at memes in, but when they log off, can they defend their social or political stances? Or do they still live in 4chan's mindset even then and just try to brush off the demand for reasoning?

Does it really matter? It's not as if anyone goes to a *chan to practice their debating skills.

These people aren't offering any view of the universe in exchange for their pestering Scientology, they're just getting their rocks off by being trolls.

Why the fuck do they have to offer an alternative view? All that matters is one is clearly wrong and dangerous. Also, quoting obscure philosophers and treating their claims as authoritative truths with no real reasoning behind those claims is hardly a good way to make a point.

[Warsie]

snip

Um....they explain everything on partyvan.info, etc. They laid it all in detain on the project chanology page. They talk about ony destroying the institution, not the religion.

And now, anonymous encompasses much more than the *chans now.

There can be, but anyone who gets incensed at serious discussions being laden with memes or not taken seriously on a *chan is precisely the type of person whom the phrase "lurk moar" applies to.

k

[TithonusSyndrome]

I know how 4chan works. It's a lawless no-logic zone people come to giggle and titter at memes in, but when they log off, can they defend their social or political stances? Or do they still live in 4chan's mindset even then and just try to brush off the demand for reasoning?

Does it really matter? It's not as if anyone goes to a *chan to practice their debating skills.

And all too often, people don't go to anywhere but chans. Do you think it's a good idea that people keep substituting spammy nonsense for proper argumentation?

These people aren't offering any view of the universe in exchange for their pestering Scientology, they're just getting their rocks off by being trolls.

Why the fuck do they have to offer an alternative view? All that matters is one is clearly wrong and dangerous.

They've commented on far more than just Scientology, though. These are the same people who would just as readily DDoS the Richard Dawkins board or some other atheist website if the notion caught their fancy and they were looking to scoop up some "lulz". As I said before, they don't believe in anything but trolling, and they never leave the safety of that no-supporting-evidence zone.

Also, quoting obscure philosophers and treating their claims as authoritative truths with no real reasoning behind those claims is hardly a good way to make a point.

Strawman Fallacy. If you'd care to demonstrate how I sang Mises' words to the rafters as an unalterable truth, then go ahead. The man simply raises a good point that requires consideration, and his statement doesn't deny that noting a shitty belief system for what it is isn't good in and of itself, but it's hardly comprehensive. The only thing that the chans do comprehensively, though, is shoot down the claims of others on specious arguments for their own personal amusement and sense of one-upmanship.

[General Zod]

And all too often, people don't go to anywhere but chans. Do you think it's a good idea that people keep substituting spammy nonsense for proper argumentation?

If they do they are easily weeded out. I'm not sure what you're bitching about except to bitch for the sake of bitching.

They've commented on far more than just Scientology, though. These are the same people who would just as readily DDoS the Richard Dawkins board or some other atheist website if the notion caught their fancy and they were looking to scoop up some "lulz". As I said before, they don't believe in anything but trolling, and they never leave the safety of that no-supporting-evidence zone.

Care to make any other sweeping generalizations while you're flailing about? Hint: Not everyone in the *chans thinks alike.

Strawman Fallacy. If you'd care to demonstrate how I sang Mises' words to the rafters as an unalterable truth, then go ahead. The man simply raises a good point that requires consideration, and his statement doesn't deny that noting a shitty belief system for what it is isn't good in and of itself, but it's hardly comprehensive. The only thing that the chans do comprehensively, though, is shoot down the claims of others on specious arguments for their own personal amusement and sense of one-upmanship.

Nonsense. He doesn't make a point, he makes a claim with no supporting reasoning whatsoever. If you had any reasoning to back up all these claims you're making you might actually have a point yourself instead of a weak-assed appeal to authority attempt.

[TithonusSyndrome]

And all too often, people don't go to anywhere but chans. Do you think it's a good idea that people keep substituting spammy nonsense for proper argumentation?

If they do they are easily weeded out. I'm not sure what you're bitching about except to bitch for the sake of bitching.

"Weeded out"? Since when do the chans ever reject people for being escapist morons who live in a world of memes and nothing else?

They've commented on far more than just Scientology, though. These are the same people who would just as readily DDoS the Richard Dawkins board or some other atheist website if the notion caught their fancy and they were looking to scoop up some "lulz". As I said before, they don't believe in anything but trolling, and they never leave the safety of that no-supporting-evidence zone.

Care to make any other sweeping generalizations while you're flailing about? Hint: Not everyone in the *chans thinks alike.

I'm sure there are some anomalous outliers that do nothing to affect the overall makeup of the boards. The simple fact is that if the chans or Anon or whoever were in favor of a position other than just trolling for the sake of trolling, they'd have expressed it by now.

Strawman Fallacy. If you'd care to demonstrate how I sang Mises' words to the rafters as an unalterable truth, then go ahead. The man simply raises a good point that requires consideration, and his statement doesn't deny that noting a shitty belief system for what it is isn't good in and of itself, but it's hardly comprehensive. The only thing that the chans do comprehensively, though, is shoot down the claims of others on specious arguments for their own personal amusement and sense of one-upmanship.

Nonsense. He doesn't make a point, he makes a claim with no supporting reasoning whatsoever. If you had any reasoning to back up all these claims you're making you might actually have a point yourself instead of a weak-assed appeal to authority attempt.

Okay, you tell me how the centrist "equal opportunity offender" bullshit of the chans promotes anything constructive in the stead of the people it criticizes, because somewhere along the line they'll have to make hypocrites of themselves given that they've shat on literally everyone they think they can get a rise out of. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, and if escapist meme-laden bullshit is all the chans are offering in place of Scientology's insane horseshit, then throw me a lifeline, because I'm drowning in pots and kettles.

[General Zod]

"Weeded out"? Since when do the chans ever reject people for being escapist morons who live in a world of memes and nothing else?

I wasn't talking about weeding them out in the *chans you twit. I was talking about weeding them out elsewhere; which you know, your claim about whether or not they use critical reasoning skills outside of the chans was talking about?

I'm sure there are some anomalous outliers that do nothing to affect the overall makeup of the boards. The simple fact is that if the chans or Anon or whoever were in favor of a position other than just trolling for the sake of trolling, they'd have expressed it by now.

They have. You just either haven't been paying attention or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Okay, you tell me how the centrist "equal opportunity offender" bullshit of the chans promotes anything constructive in the stead of the people it criticizes, because somewhere along the line they'll have to make hypocrites of themselves given that they've shat on literally everyone they think they can get a rise out of. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, and if escapist meme-laden bullshit is all the chans are offering in place of Scientology's insane horseshit, then throw me a lifeline, because I'm drowning in pots and kettles.

I see you can't get over the stupid "but it has to offer an alternative!11!!!!" bullshit. When something is objectively harmful, removing it is a net benefit regardless of whether anything is offered as a substitute in return.

[TithonusSyndrome]

"Weeded out"? Since when do the chans ever reject people for being escapist morons who live in a world of memes and nothing else?

I wasn't talking about weeding them out in the *chans you twit. I was talking about weeding them out elsewhere; which you know, your claim about whether or not they use critical reasoning skills outside of the chans was talking about?

Then it would've certainly helped for you to say so, asshat. Besides, that's a bullshit excuse to keep on letting a hive of morons keep sprouting. We have very few places in society or even in online culture that discriminate against people for lacking reasoning skills, not nearly as many that penalize impolite people.

I'm sure there are some anomalous outliers that do nothing to affect the overall makeup of the boards. The simple fact is that if the chans or Anon or whoever were in favor of a position other than just trolling for the sake of trolling, they'd have expressed it by now.

They have. You just either haven't been paying attention or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Now it's my turn to call you out on your horseshit fiat claim, except this time I'll be on solid ground. If Anon supports a particular worldview and you've seen this to be so, then give us the link. Unlike the Mises quote, which I posted simply because I thought he worded it better than I would've and not to appeal to his authority, I'm not making any claim to know the contents of people's heads.

Okay, you tell me how the centrist "equal opportunity offender" bullshit of the chans promotes anything constructive in the stead of the people it criticizes, because somewhere along the line they'll have to make hypocrites of themselves given that they've shat on literally everyone they think they can get a rise out of. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, and if escapist meme-laden bullshit is all the chans are offering in place of Scientology's insane horseshit, then throw me a lifeline, because I'm drowning in pots and kettles.

I see you can't get over the stupid "but it has to offer an alternative!11!!!!" bullshit. When something is objectively harmful, removing it is a net benefit regardless of whether anything is offered as a substitute in return.

Bullshit. If Anon's public profile is raised due to this stunt, causing their ranks to swell with more escapist trolls and their perception in the public to be a wholly positive one that inoculates them from criticism, then you're goddamn right I want an alternative. We don't need the internet to be any more saturated than it is with shitbrick morons who live by the imbecilic saw about internet debating being like the special olympics.

[General Zod]

Then it would've certainly helped for you to say so, asshat. Besides, that's a bullshit excuse to keep on letting a hive of morons keep sprouting. We have very few places in society or even in online culture that discriminate against people for lacking reasoning skills, not nearly as many that penalize impolite people.

I would have figured it was implied, considering what I was responding to. But clearly you're illiterate.

Now it's my turn to call you out on your horseshit fiat claim, except this time I'll be on solid ground. If Anon supports a particular worldview and you've seen this to be so, then give us the link.

It's been posted multiple times in various threads, I'm fairly sure even this one. Go and educate yourself before spouting inane gibberish. Also, Worldview != position. But please, strawman more.

Unlike the Mises quote, which I posted simply because I thought he worded it better than I would've and not to appeal to his authority, I'm not making any claim to know the contents of people's heads.

Yet you can somehow make the claim as to what the majority of the *channers motivations are. Good one.

Bullshit. If Anon's public profile is raised due to this stunt, causing their ranks to swell with more escapist trolls and their perception in the public to be a wholly positive one that inoculates them from criticism, then you're goddamn right I want an alternative. We don't need the internet to be any more saturated than it is with shitbrick morons who live by the imbecilic saw about internet debating being like the special olympics.

So you disagree that removing something objectively harmful is a net positive regardless of the lack of an immediate alternative? Nice to know.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Then it would've certainly helped for you to say so, asshat. Besides, that's a bullshit excuse to keep on letting a hive of morons keep sprouting. We have very few places in society or even in online culture that discriminate against people for lacking reasoning skills, not nearly as many that penalize impolite people.

I would have figured it was implied, considering what I was responding to. But clearly you're illiterate.

How in the fuck could you have possibly figured that anything of the sort was implied? We were talking (or at least I was, no clue what you were trying to do) about what was permissible in the chans and ONLY in the chans, fool.

Now it's my turn to call you out on your horseshit fiat claim, except this time I'll be on solid ground. If Anon supports a particular worldview and you've seen this to be so, then give us the link.

It's been posted multiple times in various threads, I'm fairly sure even this one. Go and educate yourself before spouting inane gibberish. Also, Worldview != position. But please, strawman more.

What the fuck kind of rat turds did the mad scientist who did your lobotomy put in your head? This is just more anti-Scientologist blustering. Yes, I know they don't like Scientology, thanks very much, Captain Non Sequitur. Most anons don't appear to warm to Christianity or atheism any better, either. What the fuck kind of position, worldview, or whatever term you want to bawl over some semantic whoring does that leave them with?

Unlike the Mises quote, which I posted simply because I thought he worded it better than I would've and not to appeal to his authority, I'm not making any claim to know the contents of people's heads.

Yet you can somehow make the claim as to what the majority of the *channers motivations are. Good one.

Oh, but you can? All I can go on is what their record of behavior points to, and so far, hiding behind the old canard about the internet being "srs biz" and spamming and trolling nonsense is literally synonymous with the very title of being a channer.

Bullshit. If Anon's public profile is raised due to this stunt, causing their ranks to swell with more escapist trolls and their perception in the public to be a wholly positive one that inoculates them from criticism, then you're goddamn right I want an alternative. We don't need the internet to be any more saturated than it is with shitbrick morons who live by the imbecilic saw about internet debating being like the special olympics.

So you disagree that removing something objectively harmful is a net positive regardless of the lack of an immediate alternative? Nice to know.

Except there IS an alternative at hand, you dishonest cocksucker. Maybe you've heard of it - it's called empiricism? DW said earlier that the best criticism of Scientology available is that their claims are flagrantly anti-scientific, not that they're contrary to social norms or the intuition-based barometer of "normalcy" maintained by a rabble of trolls. With one criticism, you leave behind a foundation for critical thinking, with another, you leave behind escapist jackassery.

[General Zod]

[
What the fuck kind of rat turds did the mad scientist who did your lobotomy put in your head? This is just more anti-Scientologist blustering. Yes, I know they don't like Scientology, thanks very much, Captain Non Sequitur. Most anons don't appear to warm to Christianity or atheism any better, either. What the fuck kind of position, worldview, or whatever term you want to bawl over some semantic whoring does that leave them with?

Once again, who fucking cares? You have yet to refute the point that removing something objectively harmful is a net benefit. I'll take your fast response to mean that you haven't actually bothered reading the link I gave though.

Oh, but you can? All I can go on is what their record of behavior points to, and so far, hiding behind the old canard about the internet being "srs biz" and spamming and trolling nonsense is literally synonymous with the very title of being a channer.

I have claimed no such thing. ALL I have claimed is that you are making sweeping generalizations and that not all *channers think alike. Which seems to be far more latitude than you're willing to give.

Except there IS an alternative at hand, you dishonest cocksucker. Maybe you've heard of it - it's called empiricism? DW said earlier that the best criticism of Scientology available is that their claims are flagrantly anti-scientific, not that they're contrary to social norms or the intuition-based barometer of "normalcy" maintained by a rabble of trolls. With one criticism, you leave behind a foundation for critical thinking, with another, you leave behind escapist jackassery.

Speaking of dishonest cocksuckers, I'm waiting on you to refute my point that removing something objectively harmful is an immediate net benefit, asshat. So stop putting words in my mouth and throwing out red herrings in an attempt to dodge the point.

[TithonusSyndrome]

[
What the fuck kind of rat turds did the mad scientist who did your lobotomy put in your head? This is just more anti-Scientologist blustering. Yes, I know they don't like Scientology, thanks very much, Captain Non Sequitur. Most anons don't appear to warm to Christianity or atheism any better, either. What the fuck kind of position, worldview, or whatever term you want to bawl over some semantic whoring does that leave them with?

Once again, who fucking cares? You have yet to refute the point that removing something objectively harmful is a net benefit. I'll take your fast response to mean that you haven't actually bothered reading the link I gave though.

I looked at it, all right, and I saw some forum with a lot of anti-Scientology material on it, leading me to see that, SURPRISE! Anons don't like Scientology. Am I to believe that this is all there is to an anon's life - hating Scientology? Oh, and as for removing something objectively harmful and not having a superior alternative at hand, I seriously cannot believe you need an explanation ready as to why this is shortsighted and ill-fated. I'm simply going to guess that you've been living in a cave with your fingers in your ears since long before the invasion of Iraq.

Oh, but you can? All I can go on is what their record of behavior points to, and so far, hiding behind the old canard about the internet being "srs biz" and spamming and trolling nonsense is literally synonymous with the very title of being a channer.

I have claimed no such thing. ALL I have claimed is that you are making sweeping generalizations and that not all *channers think alike. Which seems to be far more latitude than you're willing to give.

I've seen the cross-section of backgrounds that channers come from on the sites themselves, I'm willing to believe that a good chunk of them are there simply because they wanted to make the most of the momentum against Scientology, myself included. But if it still amounts to raids being conducted against atheist websites or any other group, religious or otherwise that they simply want to provoke for the same reason a schoolboy pulls a small girl's hair, then fuck them.

Except there IS an alternative at hand, you dishonest cocksucker. Maybe you've heard of it - it's called empiricism? DW said earlier that the best criticism of Scientology available is that their claims are flagrantly anti-scientific, not that they're contrary to social norms or the intuition-based barometer of "normalcy" maintained by a rabble of trolls. With one criticism, you leave behind a foundation for critical thinking, with another, you leave behind escapist jackassery.

Speaking of dishonest cocksuckers, I'm waiting on you to refute my point that removing something objectively harmful is an immediate net benefit, asshat. So stop putting words in my mouth and throwing out red herrings in an attempt to dodge the point.

"Red herrings"? I don't believe I'm the one trying to dodge the fact that being an escapist kook is little or no improvement over being a... well, an entirely different breed of escapist kook, especially when there's an alternative to your bullshit Black or White Fallacy that buries both of them completely.

[General Zod]

I looked at it, all right, and I saw some forum with a lot of anti-Scientology material on it, leading me to see that, SURPRISE! Anons don't like Scientology. Am I to believe that this is all there is to an anon's life - hating Scientology?

No more than hating Christianity is all there is to Richard Dawkin's life.

I've seen the cross-section of backgrounds that channers come from on the sites themselves, I'm willing to believe that a good chunk of them are there simply because they wanted to make the most of the momentum against Scientology, myself included. But if it still amounts to raids being conducted against atheist websites or any other group, religious or otherwise that they simply want to provoke for the same reason a schoolboy pulls a small girl's hair, then fuck them.

If Anons had any type of centralized leadership or guidance, you might have a point. . . .except there is no such thing. So any type of central, universal plan that they can all follow is rather difficult.

"Red herrings"? I don't believe I'm the one trying to dodge the fact that being an escapist kook is little or no improvement over being a... well, an entirely different breed of escapist kook, especially when there's an alternative to your bullshit Black or White Fallacy that buries both of them completely.

Speaking of black and white nonsense, you're the only one insisting that it must be between memes or Scientology just because it's anon starting the protests. . .as far as I'm aware nobody has ever seriously suggested replacing Scientology with memes but you.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I looked at it, all right, and I saw some forum with a lot of anti-Scientology material on it, leading me to see that, SURPRISE! Anons don't like Scientology. Am I to believe that this is all there is to an anon's life - hating Scientology?

No more than hating Christianity is all there is to Richard Dawkin's life.

I can open a biography on Dawkins' life and see that for myself. Anons don't come off as anything other that a pack of giggling trolls incapable of taking anything seriously, and if there's evidence to the contrary other than your say-so that applies to more than just a small percentage of participants, then I haven't seen it.

I've seen the cross-section of backgrounds that channers come from on the sites themselves, I'm willing to believe that a good chunk of them are there simply because they wanted to make the most of the momentum against Scientology, myself included. But if it still amounts to raids being conducted against atheist websites or any other group, religious or otherwise that they simply want to provoke for the same reason a schoolboy pulls a small girl's hair, then fuck them.

If Anons had any type of centralized leadership or guidance, you might have a point. . . .except there is no such thing. So any type of central, universal plan that they can all follow is rather difficult.

Other than "tee hee memes are funny," of course. Seriously, if they had absolutely nothing in common then they would have never stuck together long enough to marshal any kind of attack on Scientology, or anything for that matter. The fact that they did goes to show that they have at least one thing in common - a set of intuitive norms that they can't defend if asked for a thorough explanation which Scientology happens to violate.

"Red herrings"? I don't believe I'm the one trying to dodge the fact that being an escapist kook is little or no improvement over being a... well, an entirely different breed of escapist kook, especially when there's an alternative to your bullshit Black or White Fallacy that buries both of them completely.

Speaking of black and white nonsense, you're the only one insisting that it must be between memes or Scientology just because it's anon starting the protests. . .as far as I'm aware nobody has ever seriously suggested replacing Scientology with memes but you.

What else would a channer suggest? I haven't seen them offer anything to fill the vacuum in the lives of the people they would deconvert, and if you see no danger inherent in just letting people drift from one irrational belief system to another after you clamp down on the first one instead of giving them some critical thinking skills, then know that you're just tackling one strain of the disease and doing nothing to wipe out the disease in it's entirety.

[Rye]

Watching the various threads over at enturbulation, it seems that youtube really are going the censoring route. The "Anonymous Message to Scientology" video, that had 2.4 million views (and would therefore presumably be the top video if you looked for scientology on youtube) got taken down for a nebulous "terms of use violation" (I presume some scientologist flagged it and then emailed them a letter demanding it be taken down, then drowned them in legalese), and with the bizarre "glitch" that had a load of scientology vids not gain any views or get on the "most watched/discussed" lists really makes me wonder.

What else would a channer suggest? I haven't seen them offer anything to fill the vacuum in the lives of the people they would deconvert, and if you see no danger inherent in just letting people drift from one irrational belief system to another after you clamp down on the first one instead of giving them some critical thinking skills, then know that you're just tackling one strain of the disease and doing nothing to wipe out the disease in it's entirety.

From what I saw, they want to replace Scientology with stable family life instead of cultish disconnections and relocations. It's hardly something to bemoan.

[CaptainChewbacca]

YouTube took down the original 'Anonymous Message to Scientology' video, which had 2.4 million views, due to a 'terms of use violation'. Now there's over 100 copies of the video up.