Print

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

[Aqizzar]

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.

I'm not making it sound like that.  Force once, the strawman presentation of what I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying.  Either Anonymous is everyone and no one, no rules or restrictions or leadership, or it isn't.  You can dress it up in all the fancy poetry and language that you want, if you want to maintain control over an image of your group, with is exactly what denials are for, then you're not a free-association idea, you're an organization, with rules on who is and isn't in.

Try to think about it from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a shit about Anonymous.  "They", such as they are, claim in one breath that they're a "social movement" where anyone can take action towards virally-created goals with no identity or control, but c'mon people those other things that look like random dickishness with our name on it weren't really Anonymous, that was just anonymous nobodies calling themselves Anonymous (maybe even as part of a conspiracy to discredit us).  Just like the mission statement, but it makes us look bad, therefor it's not.  Surely you can appreciate how hollow that sounds to someone who isn't necessarily rooting for them?

[Max White]

It's not like this is the first time anon has been shown as a hypocrit. Anonymous loves to fight for freedom of speech, with the veiw that civilisation can only advance through the free exchange of ideas and media, yet there weapon of choice is to DDoS sites, stopping this free exchange of ideas. Let's face it, without any strict guidlines, it is bound to contradict itself when two internal ideas collide.

[G-Flex]

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

No, no. I'm saying the Scientologists have likely done things in the past and pinned them on Anonymous, to make Anonymous look bad, back then Anonymous and the CoS were squabblin'. Hence Anonymous members possibly being paranoid that another entity would do the same.

I'm not making it sound like that.  Force once, the strawman presentation of what I'm saying is exactly what I'm saying.  Either Anonymous is everyone and no one, no rules or restrictions or leadership, or it isn't.  You can dress it up in all the fancy poetry and language that you want, if you want to maintain control over an image of your group, with is exactly what denials are for, then you're not a free-association idea, you're an organization, with rules on who is and isn't in.

Again, this could also be said about Christianity. Christianity is not a group with strict rules or leadership. Would you say that Christians shouldn't denounce that Christians as a group are not responsible for the acts of isolated wackos doing things in the name of Jesus? Should Christians not say of the WBC "these guys don't stand for what we stand for even if they say they do"? It's perfectly reasonable for Anonymous spokespeople to claim that a given person isn't really representing the group as a whole if what that person did falls outside the bounds of what that group would collectively deem acceptable.

It's not like this is the first time anon has been shown as a hypocrit. Anonymous loves to fight for freedom of speech, with the veiw that civilisation can only advance through the free exchange of ideas and media, yet there weapon of choice is to DDoS sites, stopping this free exchange of ideas. Let's face it, without any strict guidlines, it is bound to contradict itself when two internal ideas collide.

The DDoS, strictly speaking, is less about restricting information on those sites, and more about affecting the functionality of those websites/organizations. I don't think restricting the exchange of ideas is part of the plan there.

[Aqizzar]

Again, this could also be said about Christianity. Christianity is not a group with strict rules or leadership. Would you say that Christians shouldn't denounce that Christians as a group are not responsible for the acts of isolated wackos doing things in the name of Jesus? Should Christians not say of the WBC "these guys don't stand for what we stand for even if they say they do"? It's perfectly reasonable for Anonymous spokespeople to claim that a given person isn't really representing the group as a whole if what that person did falls outside the bounds of what that group would collectively deem acceptable.

Let me make this clear: forget about Christianity or any other comparison you want to make.  I'm judging Anonymous' activity by its own description of itself, which should invalidation your comparison anyway.  To wit, any given member of the group is the whole group, and all you have to do to be a member is say you are.  That's the fundamental idea.  And again, either it's true or its not true, it doesn't get to be the best of both worlds, of both having control over what counts toward your image or not, and being all inclusive and total decentralized.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Aqizzar, you don't get it. When you are associated with another group running an agenda that isn't "lulz first and always", then it isn't an anonymous action. It is an action taken by an organization who is attempting to use the anonymous brand to push it's own ideology, but they aren't in it for the lulz. They are in it for an agenda.

That is what everyone forgets about anonymous. Anonymous is just as likely to hack a facebook shrine to a departed person and rule 34 it up as they are to post secret documents that save the world. It isn't about the cause, it's about the lulz. There are some unspoken ideals that most of anon agrees on for the most part, but like you said, they are all and therefore they contain the other extreme. The problem with this wasn't that some secret group inside anon wasn't responsible, it was that the person who did it is a part of a different organization with an agenda. As such, it wasn't anon, instead it was "secret".
Anon will no doubt hit westburo again, it is just too loaded with lulz for them not to now. Creepy smile girl has ensured that the world knows about the lulz to be had. They just have a lot more things they can do right now by people less trained at taking it, and as such hitting westburo isn't as fun. I am sure they've got random crap thrown at them just from the sidelines because they are now in Anon's radar, but the whole thing started by a group with an agenda, so wasn't really an Anon action.