CoS Bigwig Likens Wikipedia Ban to Nazis' Yellow Star Decree 567
We mentioned on Thursday that Wikipedia has banned edits originating from certain IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology; reader newtley writes now that Scientology leader (CEO and Chairman of the Board of the linked, but legally separate, Religious Technology Center) David Miscavige calls the ban "a 'despicable hate crime,' and asks, 'What's next, will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?' During World War II, Hitler forced Jewish men, women and children to wear a a yellow cloth star bearing the word Jude to brand them in the streets of Europe, and in the Nazi death camps."
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
I remember saying very close to the same thing quite a number of times to various people when I was... 10?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between the actions taken by Wikipedia and the holocaust.
There is nothing stopping the Scientologists from using their own channels. They are free to use whatever channel they like.
It's more like a newspaper - the editor can chose to not publish an article on whatever grounds he like.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Please watch your sources. That site is obviously planted by lord Xenu to undermine the efforts of the great Church of Scientology.You shouldn't be quoting the guy who trapped all these dead souls on earth and enslaved the human race under the evil John Travolta... oh wait, I think I mixed up the Hubbard plots...
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Persecuted?
From Webster's dictionary:
" to cause to suffer because of belief"
I'm not sure how lack of Wikipedia access is comparable to being thrown in a death camp, but perhaps someone with more perspective can tell me.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
The Church of Scientology can access Wikipedia just fine, they just can't edit it. So this is basically analogous to having your story submits summarily rejected by a newspaper because you've submitted so much crap in the past.
And no, that's not really equivalent to being sent to a death camp, but then again, scientologists aren't exactly known for their sanity or truthfulness, that being one of the reasons why they're being banned.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
If just losing editing rights is as bad as Nazi prosecution then by comparison other forms of prosecution must be like killing kittens with sledgehammers.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, did you just impy that killing kittens is worse than killing people?!?
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Funny)
If just losing editing rights is as bad as Nazi prosecution then by comparison other forms of prosecution must be like killing kittens with sledgehammers.
Didn't you know? Scientologists perform a semi-annual rite in which they kill kittens with sledgehammers and then inject their blood with the contents of the kittens' brain stems. I read it on Wikipedia before the Scientologists edited the article to hide these facts.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
State Secretary Rigmor Aasrud said that the activities in question might be prosecuted as fraud or as violations of existing healthcare regulations.
Whoa, wait a second. That's actually an excellent point. Are personality tests the domain of psychologists, particularly when used to render a diagnosis (even as simple as "you're depressed") unless clearly being used to entertainment value? If so, then it would seem that Scientology is either:
I can't see how they could avoid being subject to HIPAA if they're presenting their tests as legitimate, informative procedures. If HIPAA does govern them, then I can imagine about 1,000 ways they've violated it based on headlines over the years.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Informative)
The Church, which is located only meters from Ballo's dormitory, states that the results had shown Ballo was "depressed, irresponsible, hyper-critical and lacking in harmony."
Family blames Scientology for daughter's death [wikinews.org]
Apparently she suffered from periods of depressions; the critical and negative response she received from CoS pushed her a bit too far. She was twenty years old.
This particular case combined with other reports have caused the Norwegian Government to take a stern look at the practices of CoS; and try to evaluate if their practices comply with the law.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
They had loads of fun in Canada, too. You see, Health Canada investigated their "auditing" and found them to be, in fact, pedaling "Alternative Healing" but doing so in a fraudulent manner, and they published this report. There was also a Canadian couple that quit Scientology and was telling their story. Now, fast forward a bit, and the Church of Scientology has infiltrated the US government almost to the top. There is a huge raid on their offices, which uncovers a lot of interesting information. First, it had information all about their undercover ops in the US and Canada. It also had information about how they bound and held prisoner Michael Miesner. For whatever reason, those charges in the USA got themselves vanished, but not before the FBI forwarded this information to Canada! Now Canada finds here in their cabinets, confidential government of Ontario and RCMP memos! They find they have agents infiltrating the hospital where the doctor who wrote that scathing report on their psychic healing works! They find they have guys in Canada Revenue looking for dirt on the couple I mentioned before, anything to bring them down! Not willing to bring charges on that alone, the RCMP sent two undercover agents into the Toronto branch. Using information they gathered, warrants were issued and all kinds of files and audiotapes were seized. They had all the evidence they needed for these break ins and thefts and assorted other crimes. They had also broken into many Toronto office buildings to steal corporate information, too, anything to potentially in the future be used against their enemies (who are legion). In the end, 14 people plus the Church itself were all summonsed. The Church tried to get the warrants invalidated. They failed. They tried to blackmail the judge, they failed. They tried to plea bargain, "we'll donate millions to any charity you want if you drop the charges against the church, you can have our members, fine, but not the church." It was declined. They tried to get all of their files detailing their undercover ops and breakins and criminal harassment ruled as confessional material, and inadmissible in court due to priest-parishioner confidentiality. That failed too. Then they tried a massive smear campaign against the Crown prosecutor. THAT stunt got the church itself a $1.6 million dollar judgment. And since their lawyer was spewing it too in press releases, he himself got a $400,000 judgment. (never libel nor slander a LAWYER). In the end, all of the criminals working for the Church were convicted (some cases are still ongoing I believe, 20 years later). The church is still trying to appeal its own convictions and judgments. Their fine for libel though, and their lawyer's, those have been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court, so that's done, no more appeals, only took 10 years! They repeated their slander every step of the way, too, in press releases and in court, and in every appeal they maintained its truth even though most of it was provably false. I would have thought that continuing to repeat the same lies after a judgment for doing so would be contempt of court, and get their lawyer hauled before the judge in irons, but I guess the Canadian legal system doesn't work like the American versions do on TV? ;)
And yes, the Church called the Ontario government Nazis. The church has its own fake "tolerance" watchdog organization. According to their brochures, they stand up against all intolerance, though in practice only if it is against the CoS. It condemned the government for persecuting a poor religion, when all the religion did was slander, libel, and order criminal acts against Canadians and their government. I believe the argument went, "Members of the church give all their worldly possessions to us, and we support them. So fining the church directly punishes all of our members! You have a slippery slope that says a church is responsible for the actions of its members, and you can punish all members of the church for the actions of one
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
You have a slippery slope that says a church is responsible for the actions of its members, and you can punish all members of the church for the actions of one.
See Scientology v. Cult Awareness Network in the US.
Essentially, Cult Awareness Network works to spread information gathered about cults. One woman at a CAN meeting wants help to get her son out of a cult. Another person volunteering for the group (but not acting on behalf of the group) recommends a cult deprogrammer.
They pick up the son and try to deprogram him. Sadly, the son is over the age of 18, which makes what the deprogrammer did tantamount to kidnapping and illegal imprisonment.
$cientology funds the sons resulting lawsuit against CAN, alleging that CAN was responsible for the actions of its volunteer, even though the action was not taken by the group, but an individual outside the actions of the group.
CAN is bankrupted by the legal bills. In the bankruptcy auction, a $cientologist buys up CANs assets, including name, logo, trademarks, and phone number.
Now, when you call the Cult Awareness Network (New CAN), you're calling a scientologist. If you think you're going to get help, you're not.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
I supposed it depends on the people in question.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Funny)
So this is basically analogous to having your story submits summarily rejected by a newspaper because you've submitted so much crap in the past.
Well.... they should come on down to Slashdot, let Kdawson show em' how it's done!
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Informative)
And their members can, in fact, edit Wikipedia from other locations. But this wasn't "members" editing. This was the cult's own staff doing a planned campaign to distort and eliminate the postings of others.
Remember, few "members" are permitted to deal with skeptical outsiders. That's a task reserved for the "Office of Special Affairs", their group that took on dealing with reporters and former members, after the "Guardian's Office" had its leadership convicted of planting bomb threats to discredit the author Susan Meister and convicted of a large array of other crimes. Look it up: this is _precisely_ the material that these astro-turfing censors wanted to eliminate from Wikipedia. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Affairs [wikipedia.org], it's fascinating what this cult has done historically to harass writers and former members.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientology is an elective class of people, on the whole. It is not an ethnic grouping of some historical standing, with traditional relations - good and bad - with the broader community.
CoS shared some characteristics with Israeli intelligence and guerilla information warfare outfits. Beyond this, the analogy that refers to this effort by the "Church" to control its public perception to the Nazi program to decimate European Jewry is disgusting.
"Calling 4Chan!"
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually if the author had looked it up in Wikipedia he would have found that Scientologists would not wear the Star of David.
More accurately;
If they were a religion they would wear a purple triangle
-or-
If they were mentally ill or an "asocial element" they would wear a black triangle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even that bad is it? They still have access, they just can't edit... from IP addresses belonging to CoS... from home IPs is fine.
So yes, obviously Mr Miscavige is being repellantly disingenuous here.
If any block of IPs - regardless of who owns it - is routinely responsible for sabotaging the encyclopedia then it seems appropriate that the admins should ban that block of IPs.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no obligation to religion/superstition by private groups. It is time anti-religionists went on the offensive to assert ourselves (legally) against superstition.
We don't have to give religionists anything we are not obliged to in law, and we do NOT owe respect to superstition. Scientology in my opinion is a blatant con game, and hence worthy of (legal) denial of support. Supporters should be exposed so those of us who oppose Scientology can (legally) choose the manner of our interaction with them.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe L.Ron Huber's views of a, "Church of Scientology" [scientology-lies.com], are a form of Passive Intolerance. Much of today's news is filled with the antics of those who do not Tolerate. Proud Ignorance, to me, is not a badge of honor, but a cancer of the inner self. Also, in a some-what permissive culture such as what I live in, I find it troubling that the "Scientology Show-off's" find it easier to to sue their detractors, than live by a way where strength in conviction has always proven to be the best offense.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
The analogy is horribly flawed: The stars identified Jews so they would be discriminated against by other people as well as by the state (e.g. employers, benches, certain events, buildings etc.)
Filtering IPs from the CoS prevents them from contributing or skewing an already established work: it doesn't attach an indelible mark with which others can identify them with (and use against them) and it doesn't promote wide-spread "We hate you" feelings - it's just saying "We don't want your 'contributions'"
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Filtering IPs from the CoS prevents them from contributing or skewing an already established work: it doesn't attach an indelible mark with which others can identify them with (and use against them) and it doesn't promote wide-spread "We hate you" feelings - it's just saying "We don't want your 'contributions'"
Then again the CoS is probably worse than the Nazis since their attitude is closer to pinning the yellow star on everyone else.
Actually, I'm ok with the yellow star thing (Score:4, Funny)
I think the idea of identifying CoS members has some merit, although a dunce cap might be more appropriate than a yellow star.
Or maybe the Puritans had something: we could dunk them in water, and if their body thetans don't weigh them down, they're truly "clear" and then we can put the dunce cap on them.
I don't know about you all, but I want to be able to identify people with goofy beliefs. At least on Sunday the religious nuts go to church so for a few hours a week we know where they're all at.
Anyway, everybody knows the only true belief system is Thelema.
Re:Actually, I'm ok with the yellow star thing (Score:4, Funny)
Anyway, everybody knows the only true belief system is Thelema.
I know you were being sarcastic, but damn... when it comes to people with goofy beliefs, you sure know how to pick 'em. Crowley was nuttier than a Snickers bar.
Re:Actually, I'm ok with the yellow star thing (Score:5, Interesting)
People don't realize that Crowley was crazy like a fox. He played the religion game the same as the Scientologists do: mix in some common sense advice with some absolutely crazy BS. Crowley says to do things like meditate, exercise, and do yoga, but it's all mixed in with nonsense. His stuff was designed to appeal to a certain kind of English spiritual dilettante, and in some ways can be considered a huge joke at their expense.
Re:Actually, I'm ok with the yellow star thing (Score:4, Insightful)
...half the time. When the wind was southerly, he knew a hawk from a handsaw.
He's an interesting character. He was one of the first Westerners to take an interest in yoga and in Buddhism, and his early writings on these are insightful. Some of his work shows a understanding of ritual magic as psychological exercise -- for instance, in a preface to his and Mather's version of The Lesser Key of Solomon, he wrote that "The spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain.... If, then, I say, with Solomon: 'The Spirit Cimieries teaches logic,' what I mean is: 'Those portions of my brain which subserve the logical faculty may be stimulated and developed by following out the processes called "The Invocation of Cimieries."'"
And then he had a nervous breakdown and started top believe that he was "the Prophet chosen to proclaim the Law which will determine the destinies of this planet for an epoch," and "in a class which contains only seven other names in the whole of human history".
Some more thoughts on poor ol' Aleister here [infamous.net].
So: wacky, yes, but I'd take Crowley over L. Ron any day.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It's clear you are a COS member
2) I can go back 15 generations in my family tree because the Nazi's had a habit of being thorough and making sure people were in now way "jewish", even if they were christian for 10 generations, they had to be christian for at least 15. I have a hard time believing they would hire anyone jewish as a soldier or a member of the police.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:4, Funny)
Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed?
The ones with money who fled early.
Frankly, you can take your bad analogies & shove them up your... no, scratch that - you'd almost certainly enjoy that.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Too perfect.
Your argument is hilarious. What does the existence of Jews willing to slaughter other Jews have to do with anything--or even defend the analogy!
Your deflection of the errant analogy with some sort of pointless note of some Jews working for Nazis during the Holocaust is borderline antisemitic in my book.
Grow up. They can't edit an online encyclopedia! How do you compare that with stripping an innocent of their right to live?
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
These people are being persecuted because of their beliefs and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.
Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed? It was the ones that joined up with the Nazis as soldiers and police. Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.
"BadAnalogyGuy". Yeah...no kidding.
Nobody at Wikipedia is forcing CoS members to go against their principles and fellow members and kill them, or even speak poorly of them. They aren't being persecuted for their beliefs. They're being told to leave Wikipedia's private property alone, not even because of their beliefs, but because of their track record of propaganda edits. Which is both completely different, and also legal.
Considering the CoS's history of making promotional propaganda edits to Wikipedia articles about them, I'd say it's also a very good idea.
The only way your analogy would work is if certain CoS members were forced to make derogatory edits to Wikipedia, rather than do nothing at all. And they're not even being forced to do nothing; only to do nothing from their own offices. Members can still make edits from home, libraries, Internet cafes, Starbucks' hotspots, and dozens if not hundreds of other places.
I suppose another way to make your analogy work is if the Jews in Germany/Austria were banned from having loudspeakers in the public square making public service announcements about how Judaism is the salvation to all people and things, and how they're much better than all other religions, and won't sue you for leaving the church, and don't force you to buy ridiculous electronics to practise the religion, and don't keep their most holy books locked up under copyright where nobody can even read them, and loads of other crap. (None of which is true about Judaism, BTW....this is just an example)
But the Jews didn't try to do this stuff, and they didn't get banned from it. So your analogy doesn't work.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.
Oh dear, it was the fault of the Jews all along, was it...who'd have guessed it!
So there you are, surrounded by all your technology and information - and still...
Maybe you should try our free personality test...?
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with his analogy at all - for people who can't tell horse shit from roses. IF the Jews were only being prevented from trespassing on other people's (intellectual) property, THEN the analogy might fit. CoS has been abusive and arrogant in their dealings with the Wiki. The Wiki isn't exactly "public" property - that is, it is not owned by the government, it wasn't built by the government, and taxpayers don't have a monetary interest in it, in any way. The Wiki, like any private individual, can ban any person or group of persons for almost any reason, and they don't even have to justify it in a court of law. In this case, however, it could be easily justified in any impartial court, without ever once mentioning relious beliefs. CoS needs to change their conduct, plain and simple. Wiki doesn't care that they are a bunch of nutcases, they only care that the nutcases are abusive.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not being persecuted for their beliefs at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, I'm guessing you're comprehension is on par with Miscavige. His comparison is absolutely flawed so much that I have to wonder if he's either that stupid or if he knows its bad but just hopes that dropping the term Nazis will make people overlook the enormous gaping logical flaw in his argument.
Religous beliefs do NOT give you the right to blatantly break the rules of a website. If you somehow think thats the case, then I don't know what that makes you.
Godwin! (Score:5, Funny)
He loses the argument. End of story.
For a real argument, editing Wikipedia is not akin to, say, being able to buy food. IPs can and do get banned for all sorts of reasons.
Re:Godwin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Talk about lacking a sense of proportion - any member of any 'banned IP' group - be they MPAAers looking for torrenters or the Scientologists - can just nip round to the local cyber café or wifi hotspot. Not an option for the people Hitler and his cronies persecuted and slaughtered.
Re:Godwin! (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry to reply to my own post, but it just struck me, it actually would be a good idea if the nutjobs were forced to wear some distinguishing badge.
They already have one. Just look for people who jump up and down on couches and generally look like idiots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking like an idiot doesn't make you a Hubbardite, even if being a Hubbardite makes you look like an idiot.
Re:Godwin! (Score:4, Funny)
ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ORLY? (Score:4, Funny)
Looking at Germany's past history of being overrun by a malevolent cult; and considering Germany has barred Scientolgists from serving in public offices and had moved toward banning them all together at one point...
Wait, the Scientology leader compared Wikipedia to what?
Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, it's the first time I've ever seen a conversation Godwin itself from the original argument.
Well, if nothing else, you've got to admire his efficiency....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am simply saying that if these people got off their lazy a$$e$ and worked, our economy/life would be better without these corner preachers.
It might be better right now, but it will be so much worse when Lord Xenu's starship comes out from behind Jupiter, and he finds his church has been subverted, messengers silenced, and his wrath rains down upon us.... :)
Actually, Xenu is the bad guy. ^_^
strawwmen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:strawwmen (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding. It isn't like Jimmy Wales is sending out his WikiGestapoForces to round them up and send them to Auschwitz if they run down to corner espresso bar and fire up their wifi.
Besides, Wikipedia is private non-profit organization. It's their servers, it's their site, and they are fully within their rights to say who is and who is not welcome to use them. It's no different when the Church of Scientology comes knocking on your door passing out their pamphlets and you slam the door in their face and tell them to get lost. Private property is private property.
"Oh, but it's Private Property(TM)" (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate seeing this argument pop up again and again. Wikipedia has a lot of de facto power. We gave them this power by using the service and promoting it among our acquaintances. We didn't give Jimmy Wales this power so that he could use it to advance a personal agenda of changing social perceptions or silencing arbitrary voices. There's a certain amount of accountability here.
But the decision to ban Scientology's IP's was perfectly in line with a reasonable prior policy. That's what makes this is OK, not the fact that Wikipedia is private property.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a weak semantic point, raised in an effort to justify a rigid, easy-answer ideology. :(
It's harder to commit extensive abuses of power without the force of law, I'll grant you. But when someone with an agenda can, in a targeted fashion, change how millions of students do research, that's the kind of "power" that doesn't require double quotes. You can say that's not censorship, but then I can call you a naïve ideologue, so that's fair.
or... (Score:5, Funny)
or six.
*rimshot*
Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
The CO$ got banned because they systematically abused the PRIVILEGE (not a right) to do edits on Wikipedia because they were doing so to silence criticism.
If they'd made edits to correct factual errors instead of their own (since they have already violated Godwin's Law) NAZI like internet tactics this never would have happened.
Now I wish Wikipedia would start banning other corporate abusers, such as Sony, who also notoriously edits out any criticism of them and their ethics. Go look at all the edits on the Star Wars Galaxies article and SOE liar in chief John "Smed" Smedley.
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. If a child won't play nice with his toys, he'll lose his toys, plain and simple. There's no "right" to be able edit Wikipedia, it's a privilege which you keep if you follow and respect the rules
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right. If a child won't play nice with his toys, he'll lose his toys, plain and simple. There's no "right" to be able edit Wikipedia, it's a privilege which you keep if you follow and respect the rules
A better analogy:
If a child won't play nice with someone else's toys, he won't be allowed to play with them anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making a biased edit isn't sufficient for a ban - in fact, admins are incredibly generous in that even outright vandalism won't get a ban on a first try, only a polite "please don't do this" style message to begin with.
It can be funny, actually, when someone playing in a non-World of Warcraft MMO tries to justify why their MMO has less than 1% of the subscribers than WoW has despite being "so much better."
As opposed to a WoW fan trying to justify his purchase by mocking a small number of people playing some
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they are punishing those who abused it. They have done nothing to prevent anyone from editing while at home. They have simply blocked those IPs that are owned by the CoS as an organization. IPs that are used by the CoS in an organized internet whitewashing scheme. It's not possible to just get the IPs of the abusers, since they will
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the Jews had to wear the stars due to the fact that they were pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Being a Jew, I feel strongly that the Jews were treated this way due to the anti-semitism of the times, which is NOTHING to do with the current Church of Scientology situation.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Mr. Miscavige, (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you hate what happened doesn't make it a hate crime.
Hahaha (Score:5, Funny)
Hahahaha
If they didn't like what Wiki did, they're going to hate being Slashdotted!
Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yellow stars have been done to death (Score:5, Funny)
will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?
Actually I was thinking they should be marked with something like a scarlet letter on their foreheads.
Perhaps a big "I" for Idiot.
It would certainly make them easier to spot.
all for it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for Scientologists wearing something we can easily identify them by, so we can avoid their ignorance.
Comparing your 'religion' to Judaism is ridiculous. I won't go into detail as to why I think so, because I think all religions are absurd, but it's like comparing pop tarts to a t-bone steak. One company, running a website, decided to block all IPs linked to Scientology. You are not being 'persecuted'. No death marches, no concentration camps, no shootings in the street. But we can all hope for that! Just kidding.
And did he just godwin himself?
Reg Oversimplified Wikipedia's Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
The Reg article really oversimplified the Wikipedia ArbCom ruling, making it sound more one-sided than it was. If you actually read it [wikipedia.org], you'll see that it recognizes both pro- and anti-Scientologists as troublemakers, and includes sanctions for some hardcore Scientology critics as well.
This is actually a relief to me, as anti-Scientologists can get as wacked out as the Scientologists themselves. Wikipedia ArbCom has made some bone-headed decisions in the past; it's good that they were level-headed in this case.
This is only the beginning. (Score:5, Funny)
Next thing you know Jimbo will be rounding up Scientologists,forcing them into camps near active volcanos, and then blowing them all up with H-bombs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Next thing you know Jimbo will be rounding up Scientologists,forcing them into camps near active volcanos, and then blowing them all up with H-bombs.
Ok...when do we get started? :)
nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Is that like the chewbacca defense with a Jewish twist?
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes but..... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot feeding a troll ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Weird and ironic... (Score:3, Funny)
Religion's CEO? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll skip commenting on the "Wikipedia Ban = Nazism" claim. Many, many other people, I'm sure, will point out just how ridiculous it is. After you place that ridiculousness to the side, however, I found something odd. The person making the comparison is "Scientology religion's chief executive officer Mr. David Miscavige". A religion's "chief executive officer"? Since when does a religion have a CEO? Am I just ignorant of the structure of religions other than Judaism (which has a very loose-knit make up - the joke is that if you ask two Jews a question, you'll get three opinions)? Are there other religions with CEO's?
Re:Religion's CEO? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Religion's CEO? (Score:5, Informative)
Just so you know i'm not trolling, the Institute for Works of Religion [wikipedia.org] is run by a banking CEO.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes each of the three main religions have a CEO going by the aliases God, Jehovah and Allah.
OT: Why can't I see subject lines? (Score:5, Informative)
What hoops do I have to jump through to see subject lines on Slashdot again?
Re:OT: Why can't I see subject lines? (Score:5, Funny)
The subject lines are fine, perhaps you are overrun by eyeball thetans that are blocking your ability to see them. Only Scientology can restore your ability to see Slashdot subject lines!!
Yellow star? I was thinking DC-8. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were Jewish I'd be really insulted by this. I wouldn't want the genocide of my people compared to getting kicked out of McDonalds for repeatedly setting the restroom on fire.
Not sure of the validity of the OP (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I actually clicked through to RTFA, and was stunned by the article. I'm pretty sure it's a fake. Just to quote it - "There is so much nonsense on the internet about Scientology, all of which was written by anti-religion extremists in the employ of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry. Many are also being paid by certain depraved, degenerate factions within the German government. You can't believe any of it. If these scumbags had their way, all children would be psych-drugged into oblivion, most eventually becoming high school gunmen; vicious de-programmers would constantly be leaping out from shadowy corners; there would be all-night electroshock parlors on the high street of every village, town and city; and anyone who tried to live an ethical life would quickly receive an icepick lobotomy."
That scans more like Burroughs than anything else. Kind of a satirical send-up of the scientologists, you know? If it *is* real, I think this guy should write more press releases.
Re:Not sure of the validity of the OP (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know any scientologists? Have any friends,or family members who are scientologists?
My friend, that is not satire in the slightest. That is what these people actually believe.
Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
So the church of Scientology actually recognises the Holocaust now? Ah well :)
The problem with Nazis... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that they did a lot of bad things. Are you only allowed to say "this person is doing this bad thing" if:
(pick one)
- Nazis didn't do it
- Some person more well-known than the Nazis, who was not themselves a Nazi, did it
- The person you're talking about has ALSO killed six-million jews
Just because the Nazi's killed a bunch of people doesn't suddenly excuse everything they did leading up to killing a bunch of people, or make it okay.
264 countries? (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
The Scientology religion is the only major religion to have emerged in the 20th century.
You're forgetting Jedi - which scored higher than you multiple national censuses. Whats that you say? Its made-up science fiction? Yes, and so is Jedi.
It is the world's fastest growing religion, found in over 264 countries
And this is why they don't let you edit Wikipedia. You only get to 264 countries if you include Narnia, Mordor, Ankh-Morpork, Azkhaban, Ruritania, Elbonia, Grand Fenwick, and about 55 other places that are as real as Xenu.
(sorry if this is a dupe, but my link to /. went down a few hours ago when I was posting this)
Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)
Make no mistake: WE are the ones making huge progress in the Global Obliteration of Psychiatry. Wikipedia is acting at Big Psychiatry's beck and call.
This guy needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.
Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)
This guy needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.
It's nothing an R2-45 won't cure.
Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From the article (Score:4, Funny)
And here I thought it was just acid reflux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
To be clear, there are subtle differences between what you said and what wikipedia said. They didn't say "This is the truth", they merely said, "CoS is unable to behave itself, so it can't post anymore". The rest of the world at large is still free to post new articles or update any current ones.
By banning CoS, they are essentially trying to keep their content 'open' to all, not just a single corporation who can pay enough to keep the articles the way they want them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice try to look impartial.
The reason they are banned is because they were trying to stop the openness, by deleting all that they didn't agree with. Your attempt at reversing who's actually doing somethin incorrect here is quite simply wrong. If they would have behaved they would have just allowed the criticism to exist, and simply adding their own stuff as a rebuttal. That is the point of wikipedia. And individual scientologists will still be able to do that, just not while they're working from any of the
Re:Dangerous (Score:4, Informative)
SmallFurryCreature, I disagree with your statements about how (summarized) this IP ban is a step on a slippery slope toward arbitrary censorship. Your handwringing is emotional but not cleanly argued. Here are my responses:
Your statement that the CoS is being shut out of Wikipedia is false, and you have received a number of responses pointing this out. In effect, Wikipedia is merely making it more inconvenient for CoS to vandalize their content. Vandalize? Yes, see the next point:
Wikipedia has instituted a process for submitting information (including changes thereto) and for keeping content as factually correct as possible, given the circumstances. The CoS has knowingly broken the rules. Stopping CoS, at least in part, from subverting the proven effective process, is not just Wikipedia's right but their obligation. Most users operate on the assumption that Wikipedia's content is factual, provable and unbiased. Their process has been shown to be effective, on the whole, thus so as not to disappoint their user's expectations, they are applying said process.
Wikipedia represents "the knowledge of the world." Unless and until they manage to "clear the planet [xenu.net]," the world is bigger than Scientology. What they're doing is interfering with the rest of mankind documenting the current state of their knowledge. If CoS wants documentation of their own view of things, then they're welcome to set it down in a less global venue.
The fact that CoS willingly, knowingly and repeatedly break the rules must make the rest of us question their ethics. In fact, Scientology ethics do perceive Scientology to be above the laws of the rest of the world, based on the notion that the CoS is more capable of making informed decisions on behalf of the rest of humanity. It is precisely because of this self-righteousness, which extends logically to demand the overthrowal and replacement of currently acting governments, that the CoS has been declared illegal/unconstitutional in a number of enlightened countries, of which the USA is unfortunately not one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess size opens you to outside contributions against your will? So GM must allow you to make any car you want? Time Warner must allow you to make a feature film?ÂMonsanto has to make you seedless mangoes because you asked them to?
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also saddening to see how quickly otherwise liberal minded people revert to the old, dictatorial, oppressive and ultimately ineffective ways of trying to silence people they don't like.
It's not about silencing anyone, Scientologists still have the means to express their views through their own websites (and countless others). They have just lost the privilege to edit Wikipedia, since it apparently has been found that they have been misusing that privilege. It's like telling someone who is shouting in your ear to shut up: technically, it is limiting their freedom of speech, but don't you think it's justified?
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand censorship:
"the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
In this case, it's the CoS that are trying to censor Wikipedia by editing articles to remove the parts they don't want the public to read.
As you said censorship on the Internet doesn't work, and Wikipedia just proved that by banning the censors - in this case the CoS.