I genuinely thought people here would have more compassion and sense of decency than 4chan.
Two millenia later, Christians are the new Christians.
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.
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.)
"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.
However it was poorly put, so apologies for the confusion.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.