Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

So what if the internet started a public fund that governments could put money into; to be publically monitored? I'm sure there is a software or website for that, and if not, there is a free idea.

To fund what?

Good point. What do you think would work? I think a fund for building materials for after the fighting is over. I also think perhaps a fund for doctors and the logistical support for transport of wounded to hospitals in neighboring countries and transportation of international medical teams, preferably from the region; or something, also ASAP.

[Ampersand]

Modern international relations are not comparable to international relations when one of the 'nations' is a feudal state that is technically the personal property of a king. Take note of how the relationship between the US and France shifted Dramatically when Napoleon took power. Debts from the American Revolution were not paid because they were not owed to a nation called France, but to the Crown of France, whom the Revolutionaries killed off.

[Willfor]

If you have the need to argue with me over semantics, feel free. I happen to know quite a bit about American History. My example was not accurate, but there isn't an accurate example that could be relevant to the average American that really explains how bad of an idea it would be for America to muck around in Libya. The average American has no clue how pissed the rest of the world is at them. China tends to be pretty institutionally hated here though, and explaining it in the form of the Chinese claiming credit for battles seen as being hard fought would make a good comparison based on typical American views of the associated events and people.

Nice try though!

I don't need to argue with you, I only had (rather lengthy) problems with your example. I agree that America should stay out of it, I just thought you were pointing it out in a less than authentic way.

[Aqizzar]

Debts from the American Revolution were not paid because they were not owed to a nation called France, but to the Crown of France, whom the Revolutionaries killed off.

Let's be honest, that probably has nothing to do with international relations involving monarchies (especially since royal France was certainly not the "personal property" of the French King), and much more to do with nations, especially a broke-ass nation like early America, using any excuse it can to get out of paying debts.

[Puzzlemaker]

Politics are fucking confusing.  Trying to sum it up a political situation is like trying to sum up a teen pregnancy with three potential fathers. 

[Kogan Loloklam]

I don't need to argue with you, I only had (rather lengthy) problems with your example. I agree that America should stay out of it, I just thought you were pointing it out in a less than authentic way.

Well if you have a better way to point out how the people in Libya would feel about it, feel free to offer the example

Good point. What do you think would work? I think a fund for building materials for after the fighting is over. I also think perhaps a fund for doctors and the logistical support for transport of wounded to hospitals in neighboring countries and transportation of international medical teams, preferably from the region; or something, also ASAP.

I don't think anything will work. What would come the closest to acceptable if you must toss money at the country would be direct money infusions into their local city councils to fund projects they have always wanted but could never afford. Not things YOU would think are useful, but things those individual councils would do regardless had they been given money to do it. A fancy water reclamation plant is all fine and good, but if the people in the city didn't care and wanted a road to get better quality crops in, that would just be a huge waste of effort. Likewise would be a hospital that requires a lot of overhead when they just want an airfield to take emergency cases out. But most importantly, This stuff has to be designed, built, and owned by Libyans.

[Duuvian]

I don't need to argue with you, I only had (rather lengthy) problems with your example. I agree that America should stay out of it, I just thought you were pointing it out in a less than authentic way.

Well if you have a better way to point out how the people in Libya would feel about it, feel free to offer the example

Good point. What do you think would work? I think a fund for building materials for after the fighting is over. I also think perhaps a fund for doctors and the logistical support for transport of wounded to hospitals in neighboring countries and transportation of international medical teams, preferably from the region; or something, also ASAP.

I don't think anything will work. What would come the closest to acceptable if you must toss money at the country would be direct money infusions into their local city councils to fund projects they have always wanted but could never afford. Not things YOU would think are useful, but things those individual councils would do regardless had they been given money to do it. A fancy water reclamation plant is all fine and good, but if the people in the city didn't care and wanted a road to get better quality crops in, that would just be a huge waste of effort. Likewise would be a hospital that requires a lot of overhead when they just want an airfield to take emergency cases out. But most importantly, This stuff has to be designed, built, and owned by Libyans.

I agree with all of this. I know what you mean in my own way; my dad had to fight the local government against a sewer system that would not have benefited us in any way, but would have cost quite a bit with it's mandatory hookup. We won, but it took a lot of effort on his part and ate up a lot of his time.

But most importantly, This stuff has to be designed, built, and owned by Libyans.

I agree with this especially.

EDIT:

Also, I was reading this: http://www.chronicle.su/politics/descent-into-anonymous/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Anonymous shows every sign of being manipulated by somebody. I know what kind of mind is behind Anonymous. It is the pet project of a genius with an unnatural ability to create viral ideas. He or she has carefully crafted Anonymous just to take it for a joyride. To this person, the power from Anonymous is its own end. Yet I would also consider the possibility that Anonymous has been carefully engineered by a government or multi-national corporation. To them, Anonymous is only a means to quicken the erosion of internet freedom, an imminent threat to their power.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this paragraph that it is a very real possibility that an attempt would be made at some point to control Anonymous by assuming a leadership position by facilitating the necessary infrastructures. Anons should be extremely wary of this sudden leadership and resist attempts to be used for evil. Use your own judgment as to what needs to be done, and act with knowledge.

Well done so far though. I salute you.

[Zorgn]

1. Post Ponies.
2. ? ? ?
3. Lead Anon to glorious world domination.

I'm just not seeing it...

[Bouchart]

I've had in the back of my mind the possibility that Anonymous is really a CIA/NSA project of some kind.

[Mondark]

Anonymous shows every sign of being manipulated by somebody. I know what kind of mind is behind Anonymous. It is the pet project of a genius with an unnatural ability to create viral ideas. He or she has carefully crafted Anonymous just to take it for a joyride. To this person, the power from Anonymous is its own end. Yet I would also consider the possibility that Anonymous has been carefully engineered by a government or multi-national corporation. To them, Anonymous is only a means to quicken the erosion of internet freedom, an imminent threat to their power.

I think I figured it out:

Anonymous is Peter Wiggin!

Everything makes so much sense now...

[GamerKnight]

For Christsake Anonymous is Xenu!!! When did this get so hard?

[Kogan Loloklam]

EDIT:

Also, I was reading this: http://www.chronicle.su/politics/descent-into-anonymous/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Anonymous shows every sign of being manipulated by somebody. I know what kind of mind is behind Anonymous. It is the pet project of a genius with an unnatural ability to create viral ideas. He or she has carefully crafted Anonymous just to take it for a joyride. To this person, the power from Anonymous is its own end. Yet I would also consider the possibility that Anonymous has been carefully engineered by a government or multi-national corporation. To them, Anonymous is only a means to quicken the erosion of internet freedom, an imminent threat to their power.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this paragraph that it is a very real possibility that an attempt would be made at some point to control Anonymous by assuming a leadership position by facilitating the necessary infrastructures. Anons should be extremely wary of this sudden leadership and resist attempts to be used for evil. Use your own judgment as to what needs to be done, and act with knowledge.

Well done so far though. I salute you.

Lol Anon doesn't have a leader.

It has lulz. The guy trolled himself
Epic.

Of course WBC got hit. And while he might/might not have had the ability to tell Anon it wasn't really anon when it was, it was going to be hit regardless, because of what Anon is.
Anon isn't someone's personal army. It's EXACTLY what the revolutionaries in Libya are, and EXACTLY what the protesters in Egypt are. A bunch of people that seem to be acting together because they are moving in the same direction, but when you look closely everyone is doing their own thing. They will take ideas and make them their own, and just as quickly abandon them. Anon can very easily be lead, but only in the sense any angry mob can be lead. The thing to remember though is they aren't always angry. Neither are some groups of guys that go out for a night on the town and end up gang raping some innocent girl either. It's only people who believe Anon is someone's personal army that buys the crap about it being cause orientated. Anon is a social movement, but it's a social movement of the Internet at large.

What will really be funny is when some Anons organize and become official under the Anon name, and then pretend they are anon, and get offended when the real anon acts. They will be guilty of forgetting what Anonymous is

But not GamerKnight. He understands.

(Edit: Don't get me wrong, I don't think Westburo v1 was an anon action. I think it was an actual organization with an agenda pushing that. I do believe the hacking on live tv was anon though, but none of this really matters to the egypt situation, so I'll end it here.)

(Edit 2: And yes, I realize he is taking credit for claiming it wasn't an anon action, but since I had this belief prior to even checking into it, while I was watching on a youtube link (before even the time when it crossed to Anon attack) without checking anonnews (which rarely has anything interesting going on anyway) I don't really give his "I'm in your brainz, controlling yer actions" line any merit.)

[GamerKnight]

Yep. But I do like the idea that there's a nerd behind Anon who is getting bullied by a little sister into trolling whoever she doesn't like.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Yep. But I do like the idea that there's a nerd behind Anon who is getting bullied by a little sister into trolling whoever she doesn't like.

Maybe he was in Tunisia, and that's what started this whole thing?

Anon got bored with their leader dead from self-immolation, and out of boredom they overthrew their countries.
And for some random reason, they were all Arabian. See, just goes to show you that Anonymous=Terrorists.
Quick, get some dogs!

[SalmonGod]

I see Anonymous as a somewhat cohesive group due to arising from common social hubs.  They're ideas that become visible within these places and are likely to have a portion of the population in agreement and willing to act based on them.  There may be specific people that are really good at viral placement of ideas, but their persuasive abilities would be the only thing that makes them leadership.  Otherwise, they have no leverage to actually make anyone do anything.  If they plant ideas/suggestions that are unpopular, then there's no inherent pressure for anyone to go along with them.

When an idea is accepted enough to result in action involving a large group of people, it is labelled as "Anonymous" due to the nature of the event, not due to any officiality.  These videos with the headless suit explaining Anonymous' intent are basically someone taking the initiative to explain what's going on, as an identifying participant in whatever it is.  It's the memetic nature and spontaneity of internet organizational tools that have led to a certain style of semi-hive-minded flash mob which anyone who wants to can be a part of at any time, and Anonymous is just a label for this type of event.

This is the way I currently understand it, anyway.  Something to think about.