quote:Being influenced is not the same as being brainwashed.
That very much depends on what level of influence and what you are using as your definition of brainwashing.
Regardless of what you call it, the degree of influence that can be wielded over many people when they are a suggestible state created by the techniques described throws serious doubt over the idea that they are freely choosing their actions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LDS church circulated a letter around 2001 cautioning people about involvement with secular self improvement groups. Some of the techniques they warned about were the encouragement of divulgence of private experiences, unnaturally close bonds with non-family members, sleep deprivation. Those were the main ones I recall.
I guess there's no standard to being called a religion, if one wants to go through the legal channels of declaring a religion. But if we don't know what is a religion, how can we keep it out of our schools?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My brief research indicates that "proven" is an overstatement of the facts.
In what way? Surely none of what you posted indicates this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:. . . for twenty years, starting in the early 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research (notably including Project MKULTRA) in an attempt to develop practical brainwashing techniques (possibly to counteract the brainwashing efforts of the Chinese), and that their attempt failed.
quote:Regardless of what you call it, the degree of influence that can be wielded over many people when they are a suggestible state created by the techniques described throws serious doubt over the idea that they are freely choosing their actions.
But that is precisely what is highly controversial. If you said that some research indicates that these techniques can cause some people to be in a highly suggestible state -- that would be valid. But this is far from proven. In fact it is highly controversial.
Suppose you go to a party. You are surrounded by people who are friendly and accepting, they flatter you, there is loud music being played, the lights are dim, you are given some alcohol, it gets to be 2 AM. All of those are things which can put people at least some people in a highly suggestible state. At this point, if some one suggests a gang rape, would you seriously doubt that the participants were able to freely choose there actions?
What do you see as the defining significant difference between my scenario and what goes on in religious cults? Is there a clear point at which people are no longer free to choose and therefore not responsible for their behavior? If so, where is that line.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that is precisely what is highly controversial. If you said that some research indicates that these techniques can cause some people to be in a highly suggestible state -- that would be valid. But this is far from proven. In fact it is highly controversial.
No, it isn't. The high suggestibility is strongly supported and none of what you posted contradicts this. The contraversy with brainwashing theories is based on the level of control possible and especially the longevity of the influence.
---
quote:Is there a clear point at which people are no longer free to choose and therefore not responsible for their behavior? If so, where is that line.
A clear line? Not that I'd want to stake out. There are, however, degrees of diminished responsiblity and conscious control.
Can you hold someone responsible for acting on post-hypnotic suggestions?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without taking a side on Scientology itself, it's generally considered a religion. There's probably a line somewhere between disparaging a religion for its claims and disparaging an adherent of a religion for his beliefs, but that's a fuzzy line, and I'd rather we stay entirely to one side of it.
The original topic was a news story. Discussion on that topic is welcome. To misquote another thread, "Participants are capable of going a long way without using epithets. There is no reason to begin now." I ask that you endeavor to tread lightly.
[Edit -- this does not mean that discussion is limited to the original post. Thread drift happens, and it's fine.]
My fellow Hatrackers. I'll be your guide in this magic carpet ride through the wonders that this war is and what it means.
First of all, I'd appreciate it if the OP to would be kind enough to c/p the list I included on the bottom, since it's stuff that's crucial to this whole thing.
First of all, I need you guys to understand what the concept of Anonymous is all about. Like they say, it's everyone and no one at the same time. It's not just 4channers, ebaumsworld, Gaiaonline, 'furries', hackers, 711channers, gamefaqers, SomethingAweful, etc. It's pretty much anyone that wants to do something. Meaning, that Anonymous is not just a 'group' or a 'bunch', it's a whole identity and a whole institution composed of thousands of people, perhaps even millions.
For once, they are doing something that can actually have an deep impact on society. It's not just about Habbo Hotel, or Faux News. They're not just doing it for the lulz, the simple fun of it. They're doing it for the world. And for once, the Cult of Scientology, is faced with an adversary they can't ignore or threaten with a lawlsuit or death.
This will be EPIC.
Now, I have some reading material for you peoplez, so make sure you know what's going on. Project Chanology FTFW.
Links of UTTER importance: Why are they Dead?<-- The site Anonymous is trying to promote as much as possible.
posted
Putting aside specific ill-doing, Scientology seems to tell its adherents that it's the [only] solution to many of their problems, cadge money from them, and enforce ideas (such as the wrongness of use of antidepressants) that may be actively harmful to them.
When you combine that with a history of fanatical and pathological willingness to take extreme measures to intimidate and silence those who are critical of the Church, how can you have anything but poison?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am no friend of Scientology, or any religion for that matter. But supporting the extra-legal tactics that Anonymous uses will compromise the ability to object when they turn those tactics on their next target. Perhaps they will take a dislike to Hatrack or decide it is really the Mormons that they disagree with.
There are very good reasons to oppose vigilantism even if you don't like their target. Eventually, the guys dressed in sheets arrive on your lawn too...
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I am no friend of Scientology, or any religion for that matter. But supporting the extra-legal tactics that Anonymous uses will compromise the ability to object when they turn those tactics on their next target. Perhaps they will take a dislike to Hatrack or decide it is really the Mormons that they disagree with.
There are very good reasons to oppose vigilantism even if you don't like their target. Eventually, the guys dressed in sheets arrive on your lawn too...
Objecting to Anonymous is purely symbolic. There is no membership in Anonymous. Anonymous will exist as long as human nature remains the way it is.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Ah, my old friend Anonymous. Well, look, this is dumb.
Anonymous is not capable of doing anything serious to the church of Scientology. At best they may make a minor nuisance of themselves before losing interest and moving on to other things.
Don't get me wrong -- some of these people are smart people and the chaos they create can be mystifying.
But they have no mission.
I have no real problem with Scientology; pick your poision.
I think you underestimate anon. "They've" taken out people before "losing interest". Not that any of those targets are as enormous as Scientology.
Though I wrote this before reading Atarbabel's post which I feel kinda weird about, never thought I'd see someone pimping intimate details of raids like this on Hatrack. Of course things have just become weirder and weirder since I heard a Fox reporter use the phrase "truly epic lulz".
quote:I am no friend of Scientology, or any religion for that matter. But supporting the extra-legal tactics that Anonymous uses will compromise the ability to object when they turn those tactics on their next target. Perhaps they will take a dislike to Hatrack or decide it is really the Mormons that they disagree with.
Lurk moar, etc.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you underestimate anon. "They've" taken out people before "losing interest".
I suspect that if you think Anonymous is capable of systematically dismantling an organization as large as the Church of Scientology, you are vastly overestimating their capabilities. This is a little different than prank-calling Tom Green until he stops taking calls or pulling salacious pics of a teenage girl off a back-end of photobucket and emailing them to her parents or threatening to kill Hal Turner's wife or sending pizzas to his house or coordinating a denial of service attack on some website.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then we agree, that would be overestimating. I guess I did give off that vibe.
It's ignorant (or something less insulty) to say "at best they would make..." You do make it sound like there's no pride or dedication, just something to do before and after other things on some random day.
I wouldn't be surprised if Anonymous accomplishes something significant with this. I pretty much expect it. And it will be really funny.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's ignorant (or something less insulty) to say "at best they would make..."
Ignorant in what sense? I'm ill-informed or I'm a jerk? If the former.....no. If the latter, I don't know what to say.
I mean, look -- I'm not insulting anybody, here. Don't take it defensively.
I'm saying, first of all: be realistic in your expectations.
Second: If you gain some kind of self-satisfaction or sense of identity (for pete's sake) or pride from the activities of Anonymous, I've got to suggest, as humbly as I can, that... ...that is a very mistaken path. Being easily led to should not be a source of pride.
quote: It's not just 4channers, ebaumsworld, Gaiaonline, 'furries', hackers, 711channers, gamefaqers, SomethingAweful, etc.
No, it pretty much is. The thing is, the social rejects in those groups think that anyone or anything worth caring about are already in those groups.
(In fact, to be harsh, I'd eliminate "hackers" from that list. Any "hacker" who considers himself a member of "Anonymous" is already a member of one of the other groups on the list, and just happens to also be a hacker.)
quote: You do make it sound like there's no pride or dedication, just something to do before and after other things on some random day.
There's lots of pride. There's no dedication. It's all about choosing to be the biggest griefer in the littlest pond. If they took it seriously, it would be possible to actually hurt them. As it is, Anonymous is the world's most annoying pudding; it is hard to overstate how awesomely, historically lame they are.
posted
TL - No no, I'm not trying to fling at'cha, I couldn't come up with a different word. So we just have different perspectives on the same info, or something.
I don't Anonymous, I just lurk, and lol when it is there to had-ed. I'm more in it for the memes and theads, but I was very amused by the Hal Turner thing. I don't think most of the griefing, like prank calls (Tom Green, Girl Talk), is funny.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: It's not just 4channers, ebaumsworld, Gaiaonline, 'furries', hackers, 711channers, gamefaqers, SomethingAweful, etc.
No, it pretty much is.
This is true.
quote:There's lots of pride. There's no dedication. It's all about choosing to be the biggest griefer in the littlest pond. If they took it seriously, it would be possible to actually hurt them. As it is, Anonymous is the world's most annoying pudding; it is hard to overstate how awesomely, historically lame they are.
Don't agree with this though.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Longtime Scientologist Nancy Cartwright---best known as the voice of Bart Simpson---last year gave the church $10 million to help spread the word of founder L. Ron Hubbard into other galaxies.
It was all part of Scientologys Global Salvage effort, which aims to "de-aberrate" Earth---meaning to rid mankind of psychology ills and other "aberrant" behavior.
Surprisingly, Nancy, 50, forked over twice as much as the Scientologys most prominent member, Tom Cruise, who only gave $5 million in an installment plan.
posted
We should start up a fund to provide Scientologists with free psychotherapy sessions. (You know how that would get their goat! It is ironic how they claim that psychologists are the great Satans of their worldview.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
