Print

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

[G-Flex]

Also: To act like a sane investigator would and find out who actually did it and what his own connections were, rather than blaming it on a hideously abstract social group.

[breadbocks]

Does anyone here know anon's IRC server/channel? I kinda want to talk with the hidden masses behind the works.

[Max White]

Does anyone here know anon's IRC server/channel? I kinda want to talk with the hidden masses behind the works.

Something of intrest.

[breadbocks]

Does anyone here know anon's IRC server/channel? I kinda want to talk with the hidden masses behind the works.

Something of intrest.

I'm not looking for anonnews, silly. I already have that. I just want the IRC info.

[Aqizzar]

That is not reasonable, even if it is in line with the statements Anonymous makes about its composition.

...that they're a loose group with no defined membership, authority, ideology, or anything else. That does not imply that anything done by anonymous people can be blamed on them, or that they aren't a group at all.

You really don't see the contradiction in that?  You're literally saying, "Anonymous" has the right to claim they are less a group than an idea, of totally decentralized impenetrable hackivism guided by calls rather than people, but when somebody comes along and slaps an Anonymous banner over some strike the "core" group doesn't, they shouldn't be held accountable for it.  You know the risks when you put on the uniform - you have to take the lumps with the lulz.

Unless of course the idea is total bullshit, which is perfectly fine.  I'm just saying, I'm not going to take any of that "we are everyone and no one" business seriously unless the people wearing the label do too.  If it's supposed to be a philosophy rather than a fancy name for a script kiddie team, then let it be a philosophy.  That's the price for lauding a philosophy that says no one's in charge; nobody is in charge.

Does anyone here know anon's IRC server/channel? I kinda want to talk with the hidden masses behind the works.

It's like The Great Gatsby.  If you have to ask how to get in contact with the movers and shakers, they probably don't want you to know how.

[G-Flex]

You really don't see the contradiction in that?  You're literally saying, "Anonymous" has the right to claim they are less a group than an idea, of totally decentralized impenetrable hackivism guided by calls rather than people, but when somebody comes along and slaps an Anonymous banner over some strike the "core" group doesn't, they shouldn't be held accountable for it.  You know the risks when you put on the uniform - you have to take the lumps with the lulz.

A lot of groups are like that. If a fundamentalist psycho Christian sings "Joy to the World' while blowing up a building, you don't blame "Christians". Whether or not you blame a group for the actions of one of its members, when the group isn't organized or structured, is to identify whether or not what that person did was in line with the general consensus of the group. No, this isn't easy, but you can't just hold the group as a whole responsible.

Unless of course the idea is total bullshit, which is perfectly fine.  I'm just saying, I'm not going to take any of that "we are everyone and no one" business seriously unless the people wearing the label do too.  If it's supposed to be a philosophy rather than a fancy name for a script kiddie team, then let it be a philosophy.  That's the price for lauding a philosophy that says no one's in charge; nobody is in charge.

Again, you could say the same thing about Christians. Or Wiccans. Or Socialists. Or punks. Or any number of disorganized, decentralized groups identified less by official stances and membership and more by a hazily-defined ideology and common symbolism and goals. When a religious zealot (of a religious movement with no central authority or members, so not the Catholic Church or Scientology or anything like that) does something ridiculous and out-of-line with what most members of his religion would support, do you blame the religion? Hell no.

"Anonymous" is more akin to a social trend or movement. It's silly to think of it as a "group" any more than you'd think of "Buddhists" or "liberals" as a group. It's a movement with a sense of camaraderie behind it, just like many others, and doesn't deserve this "if someone does it in the name of X, then blame X" bullshit any more than those other groups do. Yes, they have that "we're everybody and nobody" rhetoric, but if you take that literally then you're not doing it right; the point of that rhetoric is that they have a collective and, well, anonymous approach to doing things, and seriously, anything they say like that shouldn't be taken too seriously in the first place.

[Aqizzar]

Yes, they have that "we're everybody and nobody" rhetoric, but if you take that literally then you're not doing it right...

Fuck me for taking people at (the closest thing they have to) their official word, eh?  But seriously, that kind of response is exactly why I don't take it seriously.  I don't think the comparison to religions or whatever is apt, because "Anonymous" is fundamentally different.  Namely, religions and causes and such want to be respected and welcomed and have their message heard.  As far as I have ever gathered from all the press releases and transcripts and chats I've seen, that isn't the point of "Anonymous".  The point is to be feared.

The idea reminds me of fictional secret societies and such from long before Anonymous, which comes back to a philosophy I've heard ascribed to both the CIA and al-Qaeda.  Do nothing to protect your brand, let anyone adopt it, and take credit at every opportunity.  Your organization will appear vastly more powerful, and far more deranged, than its core acting group really is.  If anything, I believe that's the foundation of the "everyone and no one" idea - that anyone can take any action, and slap the Anonymous label on it, and ipso facto it is.  No membership, no leadership, doin' for the lulz first and always.

[Max White]

A lot of groups are like that. If a fundamentalist psycho Christian sings "Joy to the World' while blowing up a building, you don't blame "Christians". Whether or not you blame a group for the actions of one of its members, when the group isn't organized or structured, is to identify whether or not what that person did was in line with the general consensus of the group. No, this isn't easy, but you can't just hold the group as a whole responsible.

A fundamentalist psycho Christian is a single entity. Even a fundamentalist psycho Christian group is a single entity, formed from many. Anon is trying to say it isn't a distinct entity, so your cmparasin here isn't exactly accurate. However, I would go so far as to saying that yes, a Christians blew up a bulding, and it would be wrong of other Christians to deny that he was a Christian just because they didn't want that image. I wouldn't say all Christians are going to blow up buildings through.

Just like I'm not saying that everybody who could be part of this 'anonymous' was part of this attack, because by the definition of anonymous that includes me, and I know I didn't DDoS those sites.

[G-Flex]

A fundamentalist psycho Christian is a single entity. Even a fundamentalist psycho Christian group is a single entity, formed from many. Anon is trying to say it isn't a distinct entity, so your cmparasin here isn't exactly accurate. However, I would go so far as to saying that yes, a Christians blew up a bulding, and it would be wrong of other Christians to deny that he was a Christians just because they didn't want that image. I would say all Christians are going to blow up buildings through.

The problem here is that Christians in general are not a single, homogenous entity as such, so it would be unwise to blame the group. Yes, saying he was a Christian is still accurate (unless it's evident that he's being disingenuous or is so out-of-line with Christian thought that he's one in name only), but saying "Christians are responsible for this" wouldn't be right.

So blaming "Anonymous" for something just because the perpetrator did it in their name is no more right than saying "Christianity" or "Christians" (collectively) did something just because the perpetrator did something in the name of that.

Fuck me for taking people at (the closest thing they have to) their official word, eh?  But seriously, that kind of response is exactly why I don't take it seriously.  I don't think the comparison to religions or whatever is apt, because "Anonymous" is fundamentally different.  Namely, religions and causes and such want to be respected and welcomed and have their message heard.  As far as I have ever gathered from all the press releases and transcripts and chats I've seen, that isn't the point of "Anonymous".  The point is to be feared.

Why does it matter if they're trying to be respected or feared? That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the group deserves blame for anything done in its name; that's a matter of categorization and responsibility.

The idea reminds me of fictional secret societies and such from long before Anonymous, which comes back to a philosophy I've heard ascribed to both the CIA and al-Qaeda.  Do nothing to protect your brand, let anyone adopt it, and take credit at every opportunity.  Your organization will appear vastly more powerful, and far more deranged, than its core acting group really is.  If anything, I believe that's the foundation of the "everyone and no one" idea - that anyone can take any action, and slap the Anonymous label on it, and ipso facto it is.  No membership, no leadership, doin' for the lulz first and always.

That's completely different. A group like Al-Qaeda is, in fact, an organized group with well-defined goals.

Al-Qaeda (and most other groups like this, as well as the CIA) has centralized leadership and decision-making. It is not just some abstract, loosely-defined organizationless group that people claim to do things in the name of; it's a structured organization. Your analogy falls apart pretty seriously here. Al-Qaeda will take credit for attacks done by a third party in order to make Al-Qaeda appear more powerful. This is not remotely a case of that. Alternatively, the third party might claim he's doing it for Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda might go along with it. Anonymous cannot "protect its brand" because it is not a centralized group to begin with. It can't "protect its brand" any more than the whole of Christiandom can, or the Buddhist faith, or Marxists. Anonymous has also collectively denounced many attacks they claim weren't done by them, such as things the Church of Scientology did and ascribed to them.

[Max White]

The problem here is that Christians in general are not a single, homogenous entity as such, so it would be unwise to blame the group. Yes, saying he was a Christian is still accurate (unless it's evident that he's being disingenuous or is so out-of-line with Christian thought that he's one in name only), but saying "Christians are responsible for this" wouldn't be right.

However, the spokes person fron anonymous said 'No, it was not anonymous, they did not do this!' If a christian did blow up a building, and I wrote a letter to the church demanding they explain themselves, they would say that the actions of this one christian did not represent the veiw of all christians, rather then denying the fact that he was christian.

[G-Flex]

That is fair enough, but you can interpret the spokesman as meaning basically the same thing: That Anonymous, as a group, didn't do it.

Keep in mind that Anonymous also has a minor recent history of other groups doing things under the banner of Anonymous specifically to make Anonymous look bad; the Scientologists likely did this. So they're probably a bit paranoid, and not too unreasonably so.

[Aqizzar]

And my point was just that, if you're not going to own up to the "everyone and no one" line, you're just another run of the mill hacker group, not a grand philosophy.  Nothing wrong with that, but there it is.

[Max White]

By definition, if a scientologist attacks a website, under the banner of anonymous, and they do so by pleading a well put together case, convincing others why this site should be taken down (And realy, a site called 'Godhatesfags' is just longing to be DDoSed) then that scientologist is a member of Anonymous. The fact that he or she is scientologist is irrelevant, because Anonymous dosn't care about your gender, age, race or religen, it just cares about what you have to say and how valid those arguments are.

Or so the theory goes. I'm sure there are a few misguided youth in there who think this is all good fun and will attack anybody with a taget above there heads without thinking. And I'm sure many see them as having a negitive effect on the cause.

[G-Flex]

And my point was just that, if you're not going to own up to the "everyone and no one" line, you're just another run of the mill hacker group, not a grand philosophy.  Nothing wrong with that, but there it is.

I don't get why it has to be one or the other with no other options. You make it sound like the two options Anonymous can take are: 1) "Anonymous" can collectively be blamed for anything ever done under the banner of "Anonymous" no matter who does it or why, or 2) "Anonymous" is a well-defined group and not a less-well-defined ideological or activist movement.

Again, Anonymous is more like a social movement or religion in the sense that it's based more on common goals and loosely-defined ideals, not organization or leadership or typical group activity.

By definition, if a scientologist attacks a website, under the banner of anonymous, and they do so by pleading a well put together case, convincing others why this site should be taken down (And realy, a site called 'Godhatesfags' is just longing to be DDoSed) then that scientologist is a member of Anonymous.

The problem here was that they specifically did things Anonymous wouldn't like to be credited for. Why would you try to defame Anonymous by doing the same stuff Anonymous already enjoys taking credit for?

[Max White]

I don't know, why would scientologists attack the WBC? Especialy if they can pin it on anon? You said yourself.

the Scientologists likely did this