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.
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.