4Chan launches embarrassing attack on devout Christians on Facebook(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
4Chan launches embarrassing attack on devout Christians on Facebook
http://thenextweb.com/2009/08/22/4chan-launches-attack-christian-evangelists-facebook/
16 comments
Now we find out that HN is really full of the immature that think it's hilarious to break into peoples stuff and vandalise it, just to see if you can make them cry.
I genuinely thought people here would have more compassion and sense of decency than 4chan.
I genuinely thought people here would have more compassion and sense of decency than 4chan.
Human beings are a clannish people. Acting badly towards an unpopular group is seldom frowned upon. If the victims were some popular group, I am sure there would be outrage rather than lulz.
Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians.
Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians.
"Acting badly towards an unpopular group is seldom frowned upon."
Your argument is disingenuous. Some groups are unpopular for good reason - because they do bad things, or make society worse for everyone else. When these groups are treated in a negative manner by society, it is proper and healthy, as it helps to discourage the groups spreading.
If you were to hear someone at a party loudly proclaiming the inherent criminal nature of blacks, would you afford him the normal respect upon encountering him later? Would you be terribly upset if you later heard that his web page had been hacked? I think not. He's not from just another group, one which happens to be randomly unpopular. He's from an inferior, dangerous, poisonous group and the more society can do to make such groups feel uncomfortable continuing in their ways, the better.
Christians, I'm afraid, are one of these groups. Even today, in 2009, they are continuing in their insane anti-science, anti-education campaign to throw the world back to the dark ages. Attempting to delegitimise evolution. Denying the fossil record and the age of the world, and by proxy all of geology, astronomy, and many other sciences. Campaigning against equal rights for gays. Opposing important medical research. Trying to weaken the boundary between (their) church and state. Encroaching on free expression. The list goes on and on.
It benefits society for damaging groups such as this to be reduced and one day eliminated. One of the tools we have to do this is that of humour/humiliation - to turn the group into a laughing stock. 4chan are simply the volunteer actors in this instance. You might not approve of their specific methods, but it's a job which needs to be done one way or the other and anything is better than nothing.
"Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians."
Two millenia later, it's a disgrace upon humanity that there's still even such a thing as Christians. But yep - still whining.
Your argument is disingenuous. Some groups are unpopular for good reason - because they do bad things, or make society worse for everyone else. When these groups are treated in a negative manner by society, it is proper and healthy, as it helps to discourage the groups spreading.
If you were to hear someone at a party loudly proclaiming the inherent criminal nature of blacks, would you afford him the normal respect upon encountering him later? Would you be terribly upset if you later heard that his web page had been hacked? I think not. He's not from just another group, one which happens to be randomly unpopular. He's from an inferior, dangerous, poisonous group and the more society can do to make such groups feel uncomfortable continuing in their ways, the better.
Christians, I'm afraid, are one of these groups. Even today, in 2009, they are continuing in their insane anti-science, anti-education campaign to throw the world back to the dark ages. Attempting to delegitimise evolution. Denying the fossil record and the age of the world, and by proxy all of geology, astronomy, and many other sciences. Campaigning against equal rights for gays. Opposing important medical research. Trying to weaken the boundary between (their) church and state. Encroaching on free expression. The list goes on and on.
It benefits society for damaging groups such as this to be reduced and one day eliminated. One of the tools we have to do this is that of humour/humiliation - to turn the group into a laughing stock. 4chan are simply the volunteer actors in this instance. You might not approve of their specific methods, but it's a job which needs to be done one way or the other and anything is better than nothing.
"Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians."
Two millenia later, it's a disgrace upon humanity that there's still even such a thing as Christians. But yep - still whining.
> He's from an inferior, dangerous, poisonous group ...
> Christians, I'm afraid, are one of these groups ...
> they are continuing in their insane anti-science,
> anti-education campaign to throw the world back to
> the dark ages.
I'm afraid you are lumping lots of people into a single group, and many of those people don't have the characteristics you claim. I know many, many, many Christians who are active scientists, who not only accept the fossil record but actively argue that it, and evolution, are correct, who do not deny equal rights to individuals whose personal choices they disagree with, ... the list goes on.
In short, you appear to have the rabid, indiscriminate anti-something-I-disagree-with stance of which you accuse them. Many Christians do not hold the beliefs you ascribe to them, and you are largely demonstrating your ignorance.
There are several things in main-stream Christianity with which I do not agree, but I have at least investigated enough to know that your views as expressed here are very wrong. It's almost as if you have got all your opinions from the tabloid headlines.
> When these groups are treated in a negative manner by society, it is proper and healthy, as it helps to discourage the groups spreading.
Can you back that up? My impressions is that mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger and more comitted (as long as you don't perform outright genocide against the group, of course).
Anyway, you jump from disagreement with a viewpoint (criminal nature of blacks, creationism) to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob. I don't know what this line of thought is called in English, but I don't think it is something nice. If I happen to disagree with your line of thought (and indeed find it dangerous to society), would that make it okay for me to throw rocks through your windows in the middle of the night?
(Just read your profile: "Part of the cancer that is killing Hacker News". I suspect I have been trolled. This is why we cant have nice things.)
Can you back that up? My impressions is that mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger and more comitted (as long as you don't perform outright genocide against the group, of course).
Anyway, you jump from disagreement with a viewpoint (criminal nature of blacks, creationism) to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob. I don't know what this line of thought is called in English, but I don't think it is something nice. If I happen to disagree with your line of thought (and indeed find it dangerous to society), would that make it okay for me to throw rocks through your windows in the middle of the night?
(Just read your profile: "Part of the cancer that is killing Hacker News". I suspect I have been trolled. This is why we cant have nice things.)
You haven't been trolled, I added that as a joke in response to previous accusations of trolling! That said, I was definitely in "devil's advocate" territory, I just didn't like the GP's attempt to blithely equate all possible groups.
"mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger "
"Mob persecution" is going way too far. I meant general disapproval, not rocks through windows. And I disagree it makes them stronger. The example I am thinking of is unemployment, which is pretty looked-down-upon in most western cultures. You're not going to be lynched for being unemployed, but do you proudly admit it at parties? No. That is the kind of "soft pressure" I advocate being placed on the religious, not outright oppression.
"you jump from disagreement [..] to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob"
Again overstating my claims. Not "any kind of random harrassment and persecution", of course. Instead, fairly mild teasing and a general air of disapproval.
"mob persecution of unpopular groups typically only makes them stronger "
"Mob persecution" is going way too far. I meant general disapproval, not rocks through windows. And I disagree it makes them stronger. The example I am thinking of is unemployment, which is pretty looked-down-upon in most western cultures. You're not going to be lynched for being unemployed, but do you proudly admit it at parties? No. That is the kind of "soft pressure" I advocate being placed on the religious, not outright oppression.
"you jump from disagreement [..] to the conclusion that a group is "poisonous" and deserves any kind of random harassment and persecution from the anonymous mob"
Again overstating my claims. Not "any kind of random harrassment and persecution", of course. Instead, fairly mild teasing and a general air of disapproval.
You say he is "overstating [your] claims" yet you wish the death of all religious people? You flame and then smother so that you can flame once more it seems.
Hm, rereading it now, I admit I could have put that better. I didn't mean the elimination of all religious people, ie. by death, I meant the elimination of religion. Just like when people say they want to eliminate poverty, they don't mean they want to kill all the poor people.
However it was poorly put, so apologies for the confusion.
However it was poorly put, so apologies for the confusion.
So basically you find you can't use logical discourse or demonstrate your truths scientifically and so resort to ad hominem attacks?
[deleted]
I'm hoping it's just because this is the weekend, and most of the real hackers have something better to do.
While I think that breaking into people's stuff and vandalizing it is horrible, in the specific cases I've seen(such as the one in the article), no actual harm is done. All the victim has to do is change their password and inform people that someone else obtained their password and that they were not the ones who posted the untoward messages and photos. If the attackers have permanently taken the account by changing the password and email address, that solution is not possible, but then it's not really the scandalous posts that are the issue, is it?
Except you don't actually know that no harm was done. What if this person that this happened to was married (that is not a fun conversation to have even if it didn't happen), or because of what was posted they lost their job. You have no idea. I am sorry this isn't a joke it is vandalism.
I never said that this was a joke, funny, not vandalism, or even not a horrible thing to do. Your example of a person losing their job over this is a good argument that harm can result from this kind of vandalism. However, I do think there is a distinction between an event causing someone to lose their job and their boss making an incorrect assumption about an event(in this case, that their employee actually posted an untoward message) and firing them. It's still horrible to break into someone's account and cause "them" to say something which will cause them to lose their job, but the vandal is not the only one at fault in that situation. No employer should fire someone for a post on facebook that appears to be written by them without first at least making sure. Realistically, they might.
Regarding the case of a married person, if you don't trust your spouse enough to know that they're not having anal sex with some other man, or at least enough to consider that less likely than that their account was compromised, you shouldn't be married to them.
Regarding the case of a married person, if you don't trust your spouse enough to know that they're not having anal sex with some other man, or at least enough to consider that less likely than that their account was compromised, you shouldn't be married to them.
I've occasionally obtained a coworker's password (If I see the keyboard and their fingers, I can see the password). However, in my case I've always taken the "Fly on the Wall" approach. It's like people watching at the mall, but you discover the unseen. Like the 29 year-old marketing girl is a sexual deviant and nympho maniac, but still loves her husband of 9 years and their 7 year-old son. The CEO is a 44 year-old man child suffering a mid-life crisis and his wife got pregnant again because she was afraid he would divorce her for someone younger like his friends have done. Secretly he fears his wife will discover the reason he hired the marketing girl was because she reminded him of a younger version of her. And my 31 year-old coworker is a bigger geek than I ever could imagine and absolutely clueless all this and more is going on around him.
We live in a matrix, not the Wachowski ripoff matrix, but the one that hides the real world with fake smiles and shallow conversations. This isn't news to most people. I get my kicks on looking at it from time to time. That said, I would never go to the level of logging in anonymously at a public wi-fi and vandalizing someone's life.
My favorite password to figure out was an old boss's: 8675309
It's one thing when they make sense alphabetically or an alphanumeric with a few numeric permutations, it's another when it's an 80's song older than you with 5,040 permutations :) Coincidently, Tommy Heath became a computer analyst and moved to Portland, Oregon after the band broke up.
We live in a matrix, not the Wachowski ripoff matrix, but the one that hides the real world with fake smiles and shallow conversations. This isn't news to most people. I get my kicks on looking at it from time to time. That said, I would never go to the level of logging in anonymously at a public wi-fi and vandalizing someone's life.
My favorite password to figure out was an old boss's: 8675309
It's one thing when they make sense alphabetically or an alphanumeric with a few numeric permutations, it's another when it's an 80's song older than you with 5,040 permutations :) Coincidently, Tommy Heath became a computer analyst and moved to Portland, Oregon after the band broke up.
Like the 29 year-old marketing girl is a sexual deviant and nympho maniac, but still loves her husband of 9 years and their 7 year-old son. The CEO is a 44 year-old man child suffering a mid-life crisis and his wife got pregnant again because she was afraid he would divorce her for someone younger like his friends have done. Secretly he fears his wife will discover the reason he hired the marketing girl was because she reminded him of a younger version of her. And my 31 year-old coworker is a bigger geek than I ever could imagine and absolutely clueless all this and more is going on around him.
Did you actually secretly go through their computers and dig up all this very private information about them? Seriously?
Because if you did, then you're not quite normal yourself.
We live in a matrix, not the Wachowski ripoff matrix, but the one that hides the real world with fake smiles and shallow conversations
It's possible to have Real Friends, though, with whom you can have heartfelt conversations about anything.
Did you actually secretly go through their computers and dig up all this very private information about them? Seriously?
Because if you did, then you're not quite normal yourself.
We live in a matrix, not the Wachowski ripoff matrix, but the one that hides the real world with fake smiles and shallow conversations
It's possible to have Real Friends, though, with whom you can have heartfelt conversations about anything.
Nah, it was at startup and I just diverted emails to a collector gmail account that separated the spam from the useful stuff. It would label each one and then another coworker and I would star the interesting ones. Did this for about 6 months until I decided the stuff going on behind the scenes meant the company was screwed and we both moved on. The one I told was a former coworker from another company who shared an equal distrust.
Real Friends yes. I do not consider people I work with close friends, nor should you. Friends and work don't mix. Acquaintances perhaps...
But that was the most extensive I've ever gone. I wouldn't have messed with their personal lives. Those decisions are their own business.
Real Friends yes. I do not consider people I work with close friends, nor should you. Friends and work don't mix. Acquaintances perhaps...
But that was the most extensive I've ever gone. I wouldn't have messed with their personal lives. Those decisions are their own business.
It would label each one and then another coworker and I would star the interesting ones. Did this for about 6 months until I decided the stuff going on behind the scenes meant the company was screwed and we both moved on.
Well, it still sounds like you were eavesdropping on e-mail conversations. Was that the case?
Real Friends yes. I do not consider people I work with close friends, nor should you.
True, colleagues aren't often close friends, I'm aware of that. They can become rather close though, if you just happen to be compatible to that extent. True story! Happened to me once.
Friends and work don't mix.
Work and being "like friends" can mix though. I've experienced a working environment where all the people in the same room talked to each other just like they'd talk to their personal friends. Before I heard the first casual fucks thrown around, I didn't know what I had stumbled upon.
There'd be dialogue along the lines of:
All in all, it was quite awesome, in fact. I hope I'll be able to work in an environment like that again some day. Everyone was sensible and intelligent too!
As for Real Friends, I can talk about absolutely anything with my best friend, and about almost anything with a few others.
I wouldn't have messed with their personal lives.
Their personal lives are just that - personal. They're not a source of entertainment for you.
Well, it still sounds like you were eavesdropping on e-mail conversations. Was that the case?
Real Friends yes. I do not consider people I work with close friends, nor should you.
True, colleagues aren't often close friends, I'm aware of that. They can become rather close though, if you just happen to be compatible to that extent. True story! Happened to me once.
Friends and work don't mix.
Work and being "like friends" can mix though. I've experienced a working environment where all the people in the same room talked to each other just like they'd talk to their personal friends. Before I heard the first casual fucks thrown around, I didn't know what I had stumbled upon.
There'd be dialogue along the lines of:
-"Hey the build is fucked up! Who wants to confess?"
-"What does it say?"
-"<error message>"
-"OK, I want to confess. I'll fix it now"
"What.. The.. *FUCK* is going on here?!" -"Fucking Java Server Faces is a piece of shit"
All in all, it was quite awesome, in fact. I hope I'll be able to work in an environment like that again some day. Everyone was sensible and intelligent too!
As for Real Friends, I can talk about absolutely anything with my best friend, and about almost anything with a few others.
I wouldn't have messed with their personal lives.
Their personal lives are just that - personal. They're not a source of entertainment for you.
Their personal lives are just that - personal. They're not a source of entertainment for you.
I agree with everything up until that. It was work email, the personal stuff was just a side effect. I was more curious in the actual status of the company since the CEO was sidestepping questions. The personal stuff should never have been there to begin with. Besides, knowing someone screwed on the conference table after work hours is useful knowledge when you sometimes eat lunch in the conference room. If the antics happen to be entertaining that's just icing on an otherwise disappointing waste of time and money.
I agree with everything up until that. It was work email, the personal stuff was just a side effect. I was more curious in the actual status of the company since the CEO was sidestepping questions. The personal stuff should never have been there to begin with. Besides, knowing someone screwed on the conference table after work hours is useful knowledge when you sometimes eat lunch in the conference room. If the antics happen to be entertaining that's just icing on an otherwise disappointing waste of time and money.
Well, my understanding of all this is that:
1) You were actually eavesdropping on e-mail conversations. 2) The people being eavesdropped on used their company-provided e-mail accounts. 3) You found out lots of really personal stuff about the people. 4) Your "defense" here is that they shouldn't have been talking about personal stuff on their company-provided e-mail accounts.
Correct?
Now, assuming that I've got it right, let's go through these again:
1) This is bad, mmkay? 2) This is likely to happen at, you know, workplaces. 3) Again, people's personal matters are personal. 4) This is a bit more complicated:
I'm sure you agree that by default, whenever you send an e-mail, you don't expect it to be read by anyone else besides the intended recipient(s). That's just the way people perceive e-mail - that they're sending "letters" to others.
But basically now you're saying that because these people were sending e-mails from a company account, they should expect them to be read by people other than the recipients, and therefore should avoid talking about anything personal?
It's true that some shitty companies do read their employees' e-mails, so this argument has some merit, but not all of them do. I wouldn't want to work at a company that I'd expect to be reading my e-mail all the time.
At the workplace in question, do you think people had any reason to suspect their mails were being read by others? Were they the kind of people who would even be aware of the possibility?
You said you were just trying to find out how fucked the company was, but did you really think there was nothing wrong with your approach?
Besides, knowing someone screwed on the conference table after work hours is useful knowledge when you sometimes eat lunch in the conference room.
Cute, but I'm sure the table is cleaned daily.
1) You were actually eavesdropping on e-mail conversations. 2) The people being eavesdropped on used their company-provided e-mail accounts. 3) You found out lots of really personal stuff about the people. 4) Your "defense" here is that they shouldn't have been talking about personal stuff on their company-provided e-mail accounts.
Correct?
Now, assuming that I've got it right, let's go through these again:
1) This is bad, mmkay? 2) This is likely to happen at, you know, workplaces. 3) Again, people's personal matters are personal. 4) This is a bit more complicated:
I'm sure you agree that by default, whenever you send an e-mail, you don't expect it to be read by anyone else besides the intended recipient(s). That's just the way people perceive e-mail - that they're sending "letters" to others.
But basically now you're saying that because these people were sending e-mails from a company account, they should expect them to be read by people other than the recipients, and therefore should avoid talking about anything personal?
It's true that some shitty companies do read their employees' e-mails, so this argument has some merit, but not all of them do. I wouldn't want to work at a company that I'd expect to be reading my e-mail all the time.
At the workplace in question, do you think people had any reason to suspect their mails were being read by others? Were they the kind of people who would even be aware of the possibility?
You said you were just trying to find out how fucked the company was, but did you really think there was nothing wrong with your approach?
Besides, knowing someone screwed on the conference table after work hours is useful knowledge when you sometimes eat lunch in the conference room.
Cute, but I'm sure the table is cleaned daily.
> or because of what was posted they lost their job.
And this is why I can't help but sympathize with 4chan on this. I agree it's not pleasant for people involved, and that overall it's an unethical thing to do... but. From a social point of view, on a large scale and timeframe, what 4chan does stretches the limits of what is socially accepted. Means aside, their purpose in this is to make a parody of christian social inhibitions. Not exactly evil, and arguably not even mean.
And this is why I can't help but sympathize with 4chan on this. I agree it's not pleasant for people involved, and that overall it's an unethical thing to do... but. From a social point of view, on a large scale and timeframe, what 4chan does stretches the limits of what is socially accepted. Means aside, their purpose in this is to make a parody of christian social inhibitions. Not exactly evil, and arguably not even mean.
[deleted]
Another solid reason why you should never use the same password for multiple sites. To do so, you are effectively trusting every single site in the chain.
I read enough HN and Codinghorror to know that many sites have no clue how to handle passwords in a secure fashion.
I read enough HN and Codinghorror to know that many sites have no clue how to handle passwords in a secure fashion.
I stupidly got caught out a few years ago when Reddit left all their passwords in plain text, and then got hacked. I was dumb enough to have been using the same password on Paypal at the time, not quite understanding how Paypal was linked to my bank account.
This is why I like SuperGenPass (http://supergenpass.com/).
Yes, that's the lesson everyone should take from these kinds of incidents. We all know not to do it, yet it's so easy to use the same password on multiple sites. Use this as a lesson to learn from.
Will 4Chan someday evolve into Vinge's 'Friends of Privacy', filling the net with lies to create doubt about all the revelations available online? (Personal info chaff, of a sort.)
('Friends of Privacy' is a anonymous mass group in Vinge's Rainbow's End.)
('Friends of Privacy' is a anonymous mass group in Vinge's Rainbow's End.)
No, if anything they'd become the opposite of the 'Friends of Privacy'. I've browsed /b/ a bit; they like few things better than exposing the personal information on some personal vendetta or merely 'for the lulz'. I like lulz as much as the next guy, but phone harassment and impersonation are not so much lulz as simply criminal.
4Chan, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
(to borrow from Obi-Wan)
(to borrow from Obi-Wan)
Yes, mocking people on the internet and making dirty jokes is certainly the pinnacle of human depravity. The KKK? Neo Nazi's? No, the most wretched people are giggling undergrads, sitting in dorms, trying to gross each other out.
And quoting Star Wars? - Go outside. - Walk to the library. - Read a book.
Repeat until you stop day dreaming about owning a light saber or riding shotgun with Han Solo.
And quoting Star Wars? - Go outside. - Walk to the library. - Read a book.
Repeat until you stop day dreaming about owning a light saber or riding shotgun with Han Solo.
I might be off base here, but I suspect the poster you replied to was attempting to be humorous, rather than expressing a philosophical truth about how 4chan users are actually the most evil thing in human history. Provided I'm correct, your response strikes me as a little like walking up to a six year old playing with a Rubik's cube and telling him how it was produced by slave labour in China. You might well be correct, but the context switch is rather jarring.
(edit: typo)
(edit: typo)
As gloob figured out, it was primarily a joke, though I find your vehement disgust with my use of a Star Wars quote to be a bit disturbing. Besides, sci-fi nerds generally read a lot so the library bit doesn't even make sense... and who wouldn't want to own a light saber (though I can't say it's something I actively daydream about)?
However, in defense of my statement, 4chan is the only place I've ever seen photos of a nude, decapitated woman posed in sexually suggestive positions, and it would probably take you 5 minutes of browsing /b/ to find drawings of girls under the age of 10 having sex.
(edit: typo)
However, in defense of my statement, 4chan is the only place I've ever seen photos of a nude, decapitated woman posed in sexually suggestive positions, and it would probably take you 5 minutes of browsing /b/ to find drawings of girls under the age of 10 having sex.
(edit: typo)
But they didn't take those pictures, or kill the woman. They didn't even know them, or much about them probably. They found a picture on the internet, and they posted that same picture to another part of the internet. Truly moral outrage should ensue.
Since you are a sci-fi fan, here is a sci-fi reference.
Neo takes the blue pill. He finds out what the 'real' reality is, behind the bullshit fabricated reality. The stuff about the dead lady? That actually happened. Stuff far worse happens every day. If that makes you uncomfortable, or outraged, or whatever negative emotion you are expressing, you are just angry at reality. Don't blame 4chan.
Since you are a sci-fi fan, here is a sci-fi reference.
Neo takes the blue pill. He finds out what the 'real' reality is, behind the bullshit fabricated reality. The stuff about the dead lady? That actually happened. Stuff far worse happens every day. If that makes you uncomfortable, or outraged, or whatever negative emotion you are expressing, you are just angry at reality. Don't blame 4chan.
I'm reasonably sure you are the person closest to being outraged about anything in this discussion, heh. He was being funny, not raving about how 4chan is the root cause of all evil. And in any case, the fact that actively evil people exist independent of 4chan is orthogonal to whether the site is legitimately "a hive of scum and villainy."
this is simultaneously awful and hilarious.
I don't understand how it is hilarious, though I've been told my sense of humor is a bit odd.
Inflicting pain and embarrassment on complete strangers by stealing their log in information and violating their privacy - is that your idea of a good time?
Empathy pro-tip: ignore who the target was, and pretend the attack happened to someone close to you. How does that make you feel?
Inflicting pain and embarrassment on complete strangers by stealing their log in information and violating their privacy - is that your idea of a good time?
Empathy pro-tip: ignore who the target was, and pretend the attack happened to someone close to you. How does that make you feel?
How does that make you feel?
If my friend had a fake message posted under his or her account, I would probably not feel all that bad. The issue of password reuse aside, it is really not a big deal. "Haha, my account got hacked, I didn't actually have sex with him!" and that's the end of it.
Some people try to add wayyy too much meaning to their lives...
If my friend had a fake message posted under his or her account, I would probably not feel all that bad. The issue of password reuse aside, it is really not a big deal. "Haha, my account got hacked, I didn't actually have sex with him!" and that's the end of it.
Some people try to add wayyy too much meaning to their lives...
Some people try to add wayyy too much meaning to their lives...
Yeah, those people who have some kind of standards and live their life for some higher purpose, they're really taking this entire living thing way too seriously. They should just laugh it off when somebody takes their identity and has them say things they never would.
Did I get that right? Is that what you're saying?
Yeah, those people who have some kind of standards and live their life for some higher purpose, they're really taking this entire living thing way too seriously. They should just laugh it off when somebody takes their identity and has them say things they never would.
Did I get that right? Is that what you're saying?
Having your identity childishly hacked is unlikely to interfere with your ability to live for a higher purpose. It might temporarily make it appear as though you were breaking your standards, but are appearances really what matter to standards-upholding folk?
>They should just laugh it off when somebody takes their identity and has them say things they never would.
What advantages are presented by alternative approaches?
>They should just laugh it off when somebody takes their identity and has them say things they never would.
What advantages are presented by alternative approaches?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's some text on a web page. Do something useful with your life, if it means that much to you.
What else can they do? It's the Internet -- it doesn't really mean anything.
You sound like you're trying to be sarcastic, but read plainly that sounds pretty reasonable. Especially since $DEITY would, being omniscient, know all about the deception and not dock them any Heaven Points.
Hell, isn't being oppressed what religious people like? They should welcome this as an opportunity to show their unconcern with worldly things. $DEITY will be most impressed. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of his tests.
Hell, isn't being oppressed what religious people like? They should welcome this as an opportunity to show their unconcern with worldly things. $DEITY will be most impressed. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of his tests.
Sorry -- you're spinning off into religion-land. That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that the entire purpose of a life, any life, is what value you give it. If you like trees, or unicorns, or puppies, or whatever -- that's really all you have: your definition of yourself. For somebody to assume your identity and make statements that go against everything you stand for -- whatever your value system -- that's about the worse thing you can do to a person, save actually physically harming them.
This has nothing to do with religion or Christianity, except, I guess, that people think it's funny to pick on Christians in a way that would be reprehensible if done against any other group. Would you like to imagine what kinds of jokes we can make against ethnic groups? Minorities? People who are retarded?
It's obvious that these "jokes" wouldn't be funny at all. Why the brain freeze when it's done against Christians?
I'm saying that the entire purpose of a life, any life, is what value you give it. If you like trees, or unicorns, or puppies, or whatever -- that's really all you have: your definition of yourself. For somebody to assume your identity and make statements that go against everything you stand for -- whatever your value system -- that's about the worse thing you can do to a person, save actually physically harming them.
This has nothing to do with religion or Christianity, except, I guess, that people think it's funny to pick on Christians in a way that would be reprehensible if done against any other group. Would you like to imagine what kinds of jokes we can make against ethnic groups? Minorities? People who are retarded?
It's obvious that these "jokes" wouldn't be funny at all. Why the brain freeze when it's done against Christians?
I'm saying that the entire purpose of a life, any life, is what value you give it. If you like trees, or unicorns, or puppies, or whatever -- that's really all you have: your definition of yourself.
Right, and not what other people think of you or your opinions. Unless you also consider a purpose of your life is what other people think of you and your statements.
Right, and not what other people think of you or your opinions. Unless you also consider a purpose of your life is what other people think of you and your statements.
You can't separate the religion out of it. This kind of joke wouldn't work against anyone else. It's only because of their bullshit "hard line on (something allegedly bad)" or from making a big deal about their piety and "clean lifestyle", that they're susceptible to such pranks in the first place. Reasonable people unconcerned with maintaining a squeaky clean image would indeed just laugh it off.
I think it's fine to mock stupidity in all its forms, so the archaic superstition of religious belief is fair game. I'd be equally fine with mocking racism, homophobia, any other religion, etc - all of which, you'll note, would also be susceptible to this kind of attack. Coincidence?
Anyway I think you're well aware of my views from other discussions so I won't repeat myself.
what kinds of jokes we can make against ethnic groups? Minorities? People who are retarded?"
Christianity is a choice, unlike membership in the other groups you've mentioned. That changes everything.
I think it's fine to mock stupidity in all its forms, so the archaic superstition of religious belief is fair game. I'd be equally fine with mocking racism, homophobia, any other religion, etc - all of which, you'll note, would also be susceptible to this kind of attack. Coincidence?
Anyway I think you're well aware of my views from other discussions so I won't repeat myself.
what kinds of jokes we can make against ethnic groups? Minorities? People who are retarded?"
Christianity is a choice, unlike membership in the other groups you've mentioned. That changes everything.
You said you wouldn't repeat yourself yet you can't seem to help it, eh?
Let's say I choose to believe in the Great Pumpkin. I mean I really believe in him. I've got the wall stickers, posters, the book of the great pumpkin -- everything. Now -- aside from your predilection for belittling people who don't live up to your intellectual expectations, do you think it's right for you to take over my FaceBook account and start a long diatribe about how the Great Pumpkin sucks?
Don't you see how that's worse than just being an asshole? You're taking over somebody's persona on the net and making them trash their own value system.
That's not civil conversation. That's not even mocking people you think are stupid. It's a whole other level of nastiness altogether.
Let's say I choose to believe in the Great Pumpkin. I mean I really believe in him. I've got the wall stickers, posters, the book of the great pumpkin -- everything. Now -- aside from your predilection for belittling people who don't live up to your intellectual expectations, do you think it's right for you to take over my FaceBook account and start a long diatribe about how the Great Pumpkin sucks?
Don't you see how that's worse than just being an asshole? You're taking over somebody's persona on the net and making them trash their own value system.
That's not civil conversation. That's not even mocking people you think are stupid. It's a whole other level of nastiness altogether.
I think that the point is that believing in the Great Pumpkin that hard is inherently absurd, and if you're going to carry on shaping your life around your belief in it, you should understand that some other people will think it's absurd, and steel yourself for some ridicule.
I think breaking into people's stuff to mock them is being a pretty big asshole, but I don't think it's worse than being an asshole.
I think breaking into people's stuff to mock them is being a pretty big asshole, but I don't think it's worse than being an asshole.
The problem is that when people get into things that hard they tend to only 'stick to their own kind.' It's really easy to be sucked into things really hard like that when you're only around other people that believe in it that hard. Why do you think that most cults have compounds, and that in some cults you're not allowed to talk to outsiders?
"do you think it's right for you to take over my FaceBook account and start a long diatribe about how the Great Pumpkin sucks?"
I can't believe I'm hearing this. Yes? Of course? I mean, I don't condone people hacking FB accounts, of course. But why do you think a belief as ridiculous as that deserves any protection whatsoever?
I'm not really singling out Christianity, either. If someone hacked a known homophobe's Facebook account and posted photoshopped pictures of them sucking cock, or got into a racist's account and started talking about their black girlfriend, I'd applaud, and couldn't give a damn about "making them trash their own value system".
And the funny thing is, if the opposite occurred and, say, a right wing nutcase hacked my FB account and could say whatever they wanted - they couldn't really do any damage, because my entire self-image isn't founded on maintaining some ridiculous social façade. It would be an embarrassing security lapse, possibly provoke some mild teasing from friends and family, and life would go on.
=======
UPDATE: Man, I am a really bad debater. I'm coming across pro-vandalism and anti-peaceful-tolerance here. Despite my views on religion that's not what I wanted to say; my argumentative position is drifting towards the extreme to oppose Mr. Markham. If I were a better debater, I'd be able to resist that - we're well into "devil's advocate" territory for me by now.
I do not condone these attacks. I wanted to make the point that I don't consider these attacks to be particularly hurtful or serious, and that anyone who is seriously upset "when somebody takes their identity and has them say things they never would" should lighten up.
I got a little too far into "asshole mode" above too. I won't change it now but actually, I wouldn't support defacement of this Great Pumpkin believer's page. Why? Because my whole actable complaint against religion is that it's intolerant. I strongly oppose religious superstition, of course, but that's not a legitimate reason to take action against them. Simply being stupid is not evil, in and of itself. Intolerance, however, is the actable offence and that's what legitimises attacks upon religion. Now if the Followers of the Great Pumpkin had a political agenda against other segments of the worlds' population, that would be a casus belli.
I would like to say, though, that if you hold beliefs that seem to make you a favourite "lulz target" then you should probably re-examine them.
I can't believe I'm hearing this. Yes? Of course? I mean, I don't condone people hacking FB accounts, of course. But why do you think a belief as ridiculous as that deserves any protection whatsoever?
I'm not really singling out Christianity, either. If someone hacked a known homophobe's Facebook account and posted photoshopped pictures of them sucking cock, or got into a racist's account and started talking about their black girlfriend, I'd applaud, and couldn't give a damn about "making them trash their own value system".
And the funny thing is, if the opposite occurred and, say, a right wing nutcase hacked my FB account and could say whatever they wanted - they couldn't really do any damage, because my entire self-image isn't founded on maintaining some ridiculous social façade. It would be an embarrassing security lapse, possibly provoke some mild teasing from friends and family, and life would go on.
=======
UPDATE: Man, I am a really bad debater. I'm coming across pro-vandalism and anti-peaceful-tolerance here. Despite my views on religion that's not what I wanted to say; my argumentative position is drifting towards the extreme to oppose Mr. Markham. If I were a better debater, I'd be able to resist that - we're well into "devil's advocate" territory for me by now.
I do not condone these attacks. I wanted to make the point that I don't consider these attacks to be particularly hurtful or serious, and that anyone who is seriously upset "when somebody takes their identity and has them say things they never would" should lighten up.
I got a little too far into "asshole mode" above too. I won't change it now but actually, I wouldn't support defacement of this Great Pumpkin believer's page. Why? Because my whole actable complaint against religion is that it's intolerant. I strongly oppose religious superstition, of course, but that's not a legitimate reason to take action against them. Simply being stupid is not evil, in and of itself. Intolerance, however, is the actable offence and that's what legitimises attacks upon religion. Now if the Followers of the Great Pumpkin had a political agenda against other segments of the worlds' population, that would be a casus belli.
I would like to say, though, that if you hold beliefs that seem to make you a favourite "lulz target" then you should probably re-examine them.
"I would like to say, though, that if you hold beliefs that seem to make you a favourite "lulz target" then you should probably re-examine them"
The only way to not be a target is to believe in "nothing". He who stands for nothing will fall for anything. That's not a good way to live.
The only way to not be a target is to believe in "nothing". He who stands for nothing will fall for anything. That's not a good way to live.
Hm, I don't think so. For example, if someone strongly believe in freedom of speech, I can't see how that would be an easy target for the kind of mockery seen in today's pranks.
The whole idea of (today's) "lulz" is to make people who are defensive about something react in a completely over the top manner. Rational people are rarely defensive and don't tend to overreact, so they are rarely targeted, and it would be a failure if they were. Hence, if you have a belief that tends to make you overreact defensively when teased about it, it is probably flawed. That was my point.
The whole idea of (today's) "lulz" is to make people who are defensive about something react in a completely over the top manner. Rational people are rarely defensive and don't tend to overreact, so they are rarely targeted, and it would be a failure if they were. Hence, if you have a belief that tends to make you overreact defensively when teased about it, it is probably flawed. That was my point.
[deleted]
Nice catch.
We can agree that identity theft is bad, that identity theft that trashes somebody's reputation is worse. We can also agree to disagree on mocking people. As you pointed out, the entire problem with religion is that it is intolerant. Once you become intolerant yourself in opposition, you lose the basis for your argument.
I'd like to see everybody re-examine their beliefs on a regular basis, no matter what they believe. In fact, it's the ones that don't do this that I worry about.
BTW -- don't cut your debating skills short. I wrote three replies to you before I came up with the last one. All the others had me going over the deep end and taking positions that were far afield of what I wanted. Perhaps today you're just a lousy re-writer.
We can agree that identity theft is bad, that identity theft that trashes somebody's reputation is worse. We can also agree to disagree on mocking people. As you pointed out, the entire problem with religion is that it is intolerant. Once you become intolerant yourself in opposition, you lose the basis for your argument.
I'd like to see everybody re-examine their beliefs on a regular basis, no matter what they believe. In fact, it's the ones that don't do this that I worry about.
BTW -- don't cut your debating skills short. I wrote three replies to you before I came up with the last one. All the others had me going over the deep end and taking positions that were far afield of what I wanted. Perhaps today you're just a lousy re-writer.
"Once you become intolerant yourself in opposition, you lose the basis for your argument."
Ah, that's the Achilles' heel of liberalism right there, isn't it? Actually, I think we must make an exception for intolerance. The goal is not just to promote tolerance at the level of the single person. It's to maximise it society-wide. With that perspective, intolerance is identifiable as a cancer in the system, and must be excised.
"taking positions that were far afield of what I wanted"
Ha. Sounds familiar! There's a fine art to maintaining one's argument, even in the face of in extremis counterargument pushing one further and further away from one's core position. It's an art I have not yet mastered. Elsewhere on this site you'll find plenty of examples of my being suckered into making spirited defences of unsavoury things while trying to defend some much more noble principle. Perhaps the format of this site's discussion is simply unsuitable to making complex arguments with deep roots, especially given the expedited timeframes for making a response anyone is likely to read.
A fews years ago I tried starting to write a book which would describe all my beliefs, and why I believed them, derived from as close as I could get to first principles. I abandoned the project when it became an organisational nightmare; trying to justify what I thought in one area turned out to have links to 10 other areas and after a while I didn't know whether I was trying to enumerate and codify my answers to moral questions or writing a blueprint for "my perfect society". Anyway it was completely unmanageable and I gave up.
I've given some concepts in graph theory and structured data a lot of thought since then and I should probably try again. Most of my beliefs can, I believe, be encoded in a directed acyclic graph. I should attack the problem again not as a book but as a web site, so I can just post a link to the appropriate section here and save a lot of time, while also keeping the discussion formal and free of scope-creep.
That would also satisfy your requirement for belief self-scrutiny. What could be more rigorous than explicitly enumerating and justifying - and thus throwing open to public scrutiny - every founding element of every belief you hold?
Damn, I really should get started on that ..
Ah, that's the Achilles' heel of liberalism right there, isn't it? Actually, I think we must make an exception for intolerance. The goal is not just to promote tolerance at the level of the single person. It's to maximise it society-wide. With that perspective, intolerance is identifiable as a cancer in the system, and must be excised.
"taking positions that were far afield of what I wanted"
Ha. Sounds familiar! There's a fine art to maintaining one's argument, even in the face of in extremis counterargument pushing one further and further away from one's core position. It's an art I have not yet mastered. Elsewhere on this site you'll find plenty of examples of my being suckered into making spirited defences of unsavoury things while trying to defend some much more noble principle. Perhaps the format of this site's discussion is simply unsuitable to making complex arguments with deep roots, especially given the expedited timeframes for making a response anyone is likely to read.
A fews years ago I tried starting to write a book which would describe all my beliefs, and why I believed them, derived from as close as I could get to first principles. I abandoned the project when it became an organisational nightmare; trying to justify what I thought in one area turned out to have links to 10 other areas and after a while I didn't know whether I was trying to enumerate and codify my answers to moral questions or writing a blueprint for "my perfect society". Anyway it was completely unmanageable and I gave up.
I've given some concepts in graph theory and structured data a lot of thought since then and I should probably try again. Most of my beliefs can, I believe, be encoded in a directed acyclic graph. I should attack the problem again not as a book but as a web site, so I can just post a link to the appropriate section here and save a lot of time, while also keeping the discussion formal and free of scope-creep.
That would also satisfy your requirement for belief self-scrutiny. What could be more rigorous than explicitly enumerating and justifying - and thus throwing open to public scrutiny - every founding element of every belief you hold?
Damn, I really should get started on that ..
> given the expedited timeframes for making a response anyone is likely to read.
I think that you just need to not be so concerned with this... Unless, of course, you're talking about taking a week to write something out. If you're talking about "if it's still on the frontpage," I tend to use the 'threads' link at the top to frequently check on any responses to my posts.
I think that you just need to not be so concerned with this... Unless, of course, you're talking about taking a week to write something out. If you're talking about "if it's still on the frontpage," I tend to use the 'threads' link at the top to frequently check on any responses to my posts.
I agree, but at the last part: heliocentrism before it was cool.
You're taking over somebody's persona on the net and making them trash their own value system.
Well, the victims still have their own value systems, I wouldn't say this stunt trashed it for anyone. But..
That's not civil conversation. That's not even mocking people you think are stupid. It's a whole other level of nastiness altogether.
This I agree with completely. I feel sorry for religious people just as much as the next sensible guy, but what the 4chan people did is not funny, it's not commendable, it's just world-class douchebaggery.
Well, the victims still have their own value systems, I wouldn't say this stunt trashed it for anyone. But..
That's not civil conversation. That's not even mocking people you think are stupid. It's a whole other level of nastiness altogether.
This I agree with completely. I feel sorry for religious people just as much as the next sensible guy, but what the 4chan people did is not funny, it's not commendable, it's just world-class douchebaggery.
Luckily Christianity is a choice. Take over a Muslim's account and post raunchy items on it and that person might end up dead.
How about posting items that insinuate someone is a child molester. Or that they're gay. Or a terrorist. All of these could endanger their lives, even in a western country.
Religion and ignorance, in all their forms, are a curse upon mankind and should be mercilessly eradicated.
Religion and ignorance, in all their forms, are a curse upon mankind and should be mercilessly eradicated.
> Religion and ignorance, in all their forms, are a curse upon mankind and should be mercilessly eradicated.
There is so much to know we are all ignorant. Some of us realize we are ignorant and some are so full of themselves they think they know everything.
You might notice that countries that ban or curtail religion want the people to depend upon the government (either do what the government says or starve). Any sort of organized Religion is the closest thing to a social safety net that is not government run. Until recently, even the United States didn't have a social safety net.
When I was in my teens and 20's I thought the same way as you. Then I became less ignorant. I know I don't know what I don't know and I don't go around pretending to know everything.
There is so much to know we are all ignorant. Some of us realize we are ignorant and some are so full of themselves they think they know everything.
You might notice that countries that ban or curtail religion want the people to depend upon the government (either do what the government says or starve). Any sort of organized Religion is the closest thing to a social safety net that is not government run. Until recently, even the United States didn't have a social safety net.
When I was in my teens and 20's I thought the same way as you. Then I became less ignorant. I know I don't know what I don't know and I don't go around pretending to know everything.
> When I was in my teens and 20's I thought the same way as you. Then I became less ignorant. I know I don't know what I don't know and I don't go around pretending to know everything
But that's not the case with most religion. Most religion says, "We know everything. The answers to everything in life is $DIETY!" Look at all of the Evangelicals that run around trying to force their religion on everyone else, and becoming 'soldiers for Jesus' or whatever it is they do in the 'Jesus Camps.'
I can see your point with religion being a 'social safety net,' but that is historically true because it's the best way to bolster membership. When people are down on their luck and maybe feeling like the world is against them, $DIETY's followers are there to help pick you up and tell you that $DIETY is the meaning of life while they help you out.
But that's not the case with most religion. Most religion says, "We know everything. The answers to everything in life is $DIETY!" Look at all of the Evangelicals that run around trying to force their religion on everyone else, and becoming 'soldiers for Jesus' or whatever it is they do in the 'Jesus Camps.'
I can see your point with religion being a 'social safety net,' but that is historically true because it's the best way to bolster membership. When people are down on their luck and maybe feeling like the world is against them, $DIETY's followers are there to help pick you up and tell you that $DIETY is the meaning of life while they help you out.
> soldiers for Jesus' or whatever it is they do in the 'Jesus Camps.'
I have seen that on TV but never in real life. Those people exist somewhere, likely in Texas and I almost forgot, Pentecostal churches are like that. People have different needs I suppose, I find that sort of thing a little too intense.
> $DIETY's followers are there to help pick you up and tell you that $DIETY is the meaning of life while they help you out.
That was my expectation. In real life people just want the items you are giving out (from doing food programs, etc)
Religion (whichever it might be) is something you have to live as a core-set of values that make up yourself (I do a bad job myself) and when you do well, other people are interested, and when not, not so much.
People who go on TV, tell everyone what they shouldn't be doing, then end up doing the exact things they said people shouldn't be doing, were not living it. You will never find the people living it on tv because they are far too busy. People on TV are out for self-glorification but people have free will.
I am more of a Methodist liking person, it is boring (and as such draws a more senior crowd but) Wikipedia sums it up well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley)
"Under Wesley's direction, Methodists became leaders in many social justice issues of the day, including the prison reform and abolitionism movements."
Imagine there are 20,000 Churches in the United States. Here are some of the outside items the church I go to does, http://www.foothillsumc.org/Ministries/Outreach/default.aspx, just times that by 20,000. Now magically erase all sorts of religions. Now try to replace that with government workers. It can't be done. Everything serves a purpose, just because you don't like it doesn't automatically mean it's all bad.
I have seen that on TV but never in real life. Those people exist somewhere, likely in Texas and I almost forgot, Pentecostal churches are like that. People have different needs I suppose, I find that sort of thing a little too intense.
> $DIETY's followers are there to help pick you up and tell you that $DIETY is the meaning of life while they help you out.
That was my expectation. In real life people just want the items you are giving out (from doing food programs, etc)
Religion (whichever it might be) is something you have to live as a core-set of values that make up yourself (I do a bad job myself) and when you do well, other people are interested, and when not, not so much.
People who go on TV, tell everyone what they shouldn't be doing, then end up doing the exact things they said people shouldn't be doing, were not living it. You will never find the people living it on tv because they are far too busy. People on TV are out for self-glorification but people have free will.
I am more of a Methodist liking person, it is boring (and as such draws a more senior crowd but) Wikipedia sums it up well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley)
"Under Wesley's direction, Methodists became leaders in many social justice issues of the day, including the prison reform and abolitionism movements."
Imagine there are 20,000 Churches in the United States. Here are some of the outside items the church I go to does, http://www.foothillsumc.org/Ministries/Outreach/default.aspx, just times that by 20,000. Now magically erase all sorts of religions. Now try to replace that with government workers. It can't be done. Everything serves a purpose, just because you don't like it doesn't automatically mean it's all bad.
> Religion and ignorance, in all their forms, are a curse upon mankind and should be mercilessly eradicated.
These attacks were not on religion, they were an attack on religious people. This is the equivalent of saying "Communism should be mercilessly eradicated" and immediately killing as many citizens of communist countries you can find.
APPEND: ...while ignoring the Politburo!
These attacks were not on religion, they were an attack on religious people. This is the equivalent of saying "Communism should be mercilessly eradicated" and immediately killing as many citizens of communist countries you can find.
APPEND: ...while ignoring the Politburo!
That is a completely invalid analogy. People are citizens of a country by accident of birth. Religious people, especially in a free country like the USA, choose to be such.
To correct your example, it would be like eradicating communism by killing all the self-confessed communists you can find. Which actually sounds pretty effective, if brutal.
To correct your example, it would be like eradicating communism by killing all the self-confessed communists you can find. Which actually sounds pretty effective, if brutal.
A nice try, headingin the right direction but ending up in the ditch. Your analogy speaks of killing all the self-confessed communists you can find.
The attacks on Christian facebook accounts were a drop in the bucket, they were a few of the self-confessed Christians who happened to use the same name and password on Facebook that they did on a dating site, hardly all anyone could find.
The whole thing reminds me of skinhead teen-agers getting drunk and anonymously vandalizing homes with spray-paint at night. Hardly a blow to eradicate anything and much more like vandals desperately trying to dress up their lust for destruction in noble robes.
The attacks on Christian facebook accounts were a drop in the bucket, they were a few of the self-confessed Christians who happened to use the same name and password on Facebook that they did on a dating site, hardly all anyone could find.
The whole thing reminds me of skinhead teen-agers getting drunk and anonymously vandalizing homes with spray-paint at night. Hardly a blow to eradicate anything and much more like vandals desperately trying to dress up their lust for destruction in noble robes.
It's only because of their bullshit "hard line on (something allegedly bad)" or from making a big deal about their piety and "clean lifestyle", that they're susceptible to such pranks in the first place.
I thought they were susceptible to this because of security problems with a website, and not specifically because they're religious?
Reasonable people unconcerned with maintaining a squeaky clean image would indeed just laugh it off.
Right, so if someone did the same thing to you, you're absolutely sure you'd think it was hilarious and laught it off, without feeling even a hint of annoyance about it?
I thought they were susceptible to this because of security problems with a website, and not specifically because they're religious?
Reasonable people unconcerned with maintaining a squeaky clean image would indeed just laugh it off.
Right, so if someone did the same thing to you, you're absolutely sure you'd think it was hilarious and laught it off, without feeling even a hint of annoyance about it?
If you are going to throuw around an opinoin of what religous people believe at least pretend that you aren't totally ignorant about what it is that they actually believe. Christian beliefs about the afterlife and what it takes to get a good one are varied and range from and there are some which definitely would 'dock them some Heaven Points.'
I think the real point is that Christians, like muslims, Jews, Budhists, Atheists and every other person in the world, don't like to be slandered in front of their friends, family, associates, prospective employers, etc... and you're characterizing their attitudes doesn't justifiy it.
I think the real point is that Christians, like muslims, Jews, Budhists, Atheists and every other person in the world, don't like to be slandered in front of their friends, family, associates, prospective employers, etc... and you're characterizing their attitudes doesn't justifiy it.
Thanks, but I went to a religious High School and know everything necessary about Christian beliefs. Anyway, your ludicrous superstition does not gain credibility just because others can not be bothered to learn the exact details.
And well, yes, I suppose they do not like to be "slandered" in front of others. I don't remember suggesting they did. Their characters might not justify it, but they plainly explain it, or at least the motivation for it.
And well, yes, I suppose they do not like to be "slandered" in front of others. I don't remember suggesting they did. Their characters might not justify it, but they plainly explain it, or at least the motivation for it.
Figures, you rarely find someone as bigoted as your appear to be who didn't have an ax to grind against some nuns or something or other. The truth of any idea (and the way people should be treated because of it) is not affected by others ignorance about it, but your ability to discuss it rationally is.
And well, yes, I suppose they do not like to be "slandered" in front of others. I don't remember suggesting they did
Really? your useing that tact?:
Hell, isn't being oppressed what religious people like?
Seriously, I'm done with you. :rolls eyes:
And well, yes, I suppose they do not like to be "slandered" in front of others. I don't remember suggesting they did
Really? your useing that tact?:
Hell, isn't being oppressed what religious people like?
Seriously, I'm done with you. :rolls eyes:
Yeah, I doubt it would cause too much trouble in my peer group either. But I know people outside my peer group, my friends' parents for example, who don't take everything as lightly as our nihilistic generation.
So in order not to be nihilistic, you have to take everything too seriously? Screw that! I can find meaning and joy in existence and still not think Facebook is worth getting upset over.
If it happened to my friend i'd laugh my ass off. But if it happened to me? not so much.
Why not? It's funny. Congratulate the people who humiliated you, and go on with your life.
Oh and it's also not that funny... Maybe it's just me? Well I do love seeing people suffer and get hurt. Love those Japanese game shows, but these people didn't ask for it. The were targetted causes they were Christian?
Well, imagine going to your fathers profile page and seeing a photo of him with shit on his dick. After YOU persuaded him that being on Facebook would be fun. Maybe not so funny after all...
But it's also not some tragedy, either. It's a practical joke. A prank. That is all.
Hey, that might be clear to you but for 99% of the people checking out those profiles it might take a while for that to sink in.
Yeah? And the one with the fake suicide note? That would be a funny joke if it was your little sister?
Ugh. How old are you?
By this logic, the Darwin Awards aren't funny either.
Yes, these people aren't culpable in the same way, yes it's a bad analogy, but it doesn't stop it from being funny.
Yes, these people aren't culpable in the same way, yes it's a bad analogy, but it doesn't stop it from being funny.
We can't always align our sense of empathy with our sense of humor. Ever seen comedy movies or sitcoms where all kinds of embarrassing things happen to the characters as a result of malicious outside forces?
if it happened to someone close to me, it would still be simultaneously awful and hilarious.
My biggest problem with 4chan is that despite knowing they're doing awful things and inflicting pain on people who don't deserve it, they still manage to be really funny and so I lose the will to strongly condemn them.
every once in a while they do get someone in their crosshairs that does deserve it, though.
And the christians deserve it because...?
never said they did, and didn't mean to imply it if i did. just saying, they do target some people that deserve it, sometimes.
Initially I got a laugh of out of some of the edits, because they were so ridiculous they almost couldn't be believed.
It stopped being funny once I saw the faked suicide note in one of the posted screenshots. Not like I'm surprised by anonymous internet pranksters crossing the line, of course.
It stopped being funny once I saw the faked suicide note in one of the posted screenshots. Not like I'm surprised by anonymous internet pranksters crossing the line, of course.
But mostly hilarious.
Mostly awful, though.
Nobody deserves that, even if you don't like them or don't agree with what they believe.
Nobody deserves that, even if you don't like them or don't agree with what they believe.
One of those jokes that's really funny -- as long as you're not the one getting trashed in public.
[deleted]
If you wouldn't laugh at getting hacked like this yourself, then you really need to get a life.
As painful this might be for the victims, I enjoy when online social networks "explode" into people's faces like this.
If you read the replies on the screenshot, you notice the OP's sister posts a message (granted, we don't know if it's for sure the OP's sister, but it is implied). The interesting part is that the last name of the "sister" is not blurred, whereas the OP's is. Maybe she's married and has a different last name though.
God bless those little /b/tards.
Come on guys (and girls). 4Chan pranks on HN? Leave it for reddit.
The evidence of 4chan's involvement here is kind of shaky.
Christ NO, are you kidding? I was browsing 4chan when threads about this shit started going up. They are pretty clearly behind it.
I was just wondering when it would hit the MSM and then HN.
Not very long, it turns out.
I was just wondering when it would hit the MSM and then HN.
Not very long, it turns out.
4chan is just a message board. A forum if you will. Unless you're saying that the administrators had a hand in this, then '4chan' isn't behind it.
That's like saying that 'Hacker News' is behind something just because a bunch of Hacker News users used a thread to coordinate some sort of attack. 'Hacker News' isn't behind anything unless pg/ycombinator/etc somehow had a hand in it.
4chan is nothing but a medium for information shared between people. And to try and group the entire 4chan userbase under the term '4chan' is an effort in futility. There is a very wide and varied group of people that frequent 4chan. Keep in mind that many people visit 4chan without ever visiting /b/ or /r9k/.
That's like saying that 'Hacker News' is behind something just because a bunch of Hacker News users used a thread to coordinate some sort of attack. 'Hacker News' isn't behind anything unless pg/ycombinator/etc somehow had a hand in it.
4chan is nothing but a medium for information shared between people. And to try and group the entire 4chan userbase under the term '4chan' is an effort in futility. There is a very wide and varied group of people that frequent 4chan. Keep in mind that many people visit 4chan without ever visiting /b/ or /r9k/.
A good point, and I can't understand why you're being modded down for it.
But that said, it's generally understood when someone says "4chan did it", it's shorthand for "dickhead Anons on 4chan's /b/ did it."
But that said, it's generally understood when someone says "4chan did it", it's shorthand for "dickhead Anons on 4chan's /b/ did it."
The problem is that when these stories reach the mainstream media, '4chan did it' leads to the assumption that everyone associated with 4chan had some hand in this attack. If these things reach the mainstream media enough, then it will just be a rally cry to 'take down 4chan' without anyone putting much actual thought behind it (much like the people whose only argument against government healthcare is "but it's socialism... I don't want no socialism in my guberment" while those same people will violently oppose getting rid of welfare payments/social security/medicare -- which are all 'socialist' programs).
Not trying to be some sort of grammar nazi or something about this, but I don't want stories like this getting to the mainstream media just to turn people against places like 4chan based on reporting that is lacking in the specificity to tell people that only part of the 4chan userbase is responsible for these attacks.
Not trying to be some sort of grammar nazi or something about this, but I don't want stories like this getting to the mainstream media just to turn people against places like 4chan based on reporting that is lacking in the specificity to tell people that only part of the 4chan userbase is responsible for these attacks.
My point was more that the article itself gave absolutely no evidence besides pointing out that a thing was happening and that there is a website called 4chan that does things like this.
I personally do not browse 4chan but the evidence in that article was kind of shaky.
I personally do not browse 4chan but the evidence in that article was kind of shaky.
There is another thread in this article asking how I would feel if this happened to a friend. The answer is "I don't care". I thought a bit about how this would make me feel if it happened to me, and the answer is "I don't care, because I don't use Facebook".
I then thought about what would upset me, and I realized that I would be upset if someone edited my blog and added random technical inaccuracies.
Then I realized that I digitally sign all of my blog posts, so this is mathematically infeasible.
(Example post: http://blog.jrock.us/articles/App::Persistent.pod/raw)
I then thought about what would upset me, and I realized that I would be upset if someone edited my blog and added random technical inaccuracies.
Then I realized that I digitally sign all of my blog posts, so this is mathematically infeasible.
(Example post: http://blog.jrock.us/articles/App::Persistent.pod/raw)
Unless you accidentally publish your private key online (longshot, but still).
This is the typical way to 'use' 4chan. One of the few guys there with a bit of knowledge breaks into something, gets a list and then his job is done.
Post the list to 4chan and have that community wreak havok with it. 4Chan is a semi-intelligent botnet.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The vulnerability allowed you to navigate to a person's profile by entering the user id and skipping authentication.
Once you got there the change password form had the passwords in plain text. Someone wrote a scraper and now the entire database is on Mediafire and contains thousands of email/password combinations.