Annonymous and organization

[fdbluth]

I will admit that Annonymous is a much needed "organization", in today's society. They do stand for free speech, freedom of information, etc, and that's a noble goal to stand for. But the way they are organized (semantically speaking, that last word is probably wrong) is... odd, to say the least. They say that they do not have leaders, only members (who can declare themselves to be members and thus become members) who act independently towards their overall goals. That sort of anarchistic mindset seems to be self-destructive, if not idiotic. It only takes a bunch of immature idiots to try and do something stupid to go ahead and tarnish the whole Anonymous group (much like the PSN debacle seems to have done for the group, at least in the eyes of the public). You can't have a movement against the wholly-ingrained societal beliefs of corporatism and fascism (I use that word in the context of quelling free speech and information, not the traditional definition) without some sort of plan. These aren't a bunch of old helpless men, sitting around with monocles, flabbergasted at the kids doing things with the series of tubes known as the Internet. The people Anonymous has perpetually antagonized and will continue to antagonize have power, and they will retaliate, sooner or later. Think of it as the Vietcong vs. U.S., except there is no Geneva Convention to forbid extreme behaviors or innocent, doe-eyed people to convince.

(Man, that's a stupid analogy once written out, but I hope you get the point.)

My hope is the well-meaning and the more intelligent of the group will actually splinter off (from what I hear, the group is already splintering off somewhat, although in its current state, that means nothing), and form an actual organization that battles for free speech and information.

What do you think?

 

[Saelune]

Alot of terrorists fight for "noble causes" too.
Fighting for good does nothing when you don't do any good.

 

[fdbluth]

Alot of terrorists fight for "noble causes" too.
Fighting for good does nothing when you don't do any good.

No, they don't. By definition, terrorists are those that use terror and fear to accomplish their goals, which means that they strongly believe in a violent manner of persuasion. When one is willing to kill innocents and destroy lives for any goal, the goal no longer becomes one of improvement, but control, power, and destruction.

And what's your definition of doing good? It doesn't always have to be physical actions that have direct consequences like building hospitals (although that's always nice). It can be about simply standing for an ideal, giving others the same beliefs, who will go on to spread the idea further and further. You can build something that may or may not vanish, but an idea is more durable. That's what Anonymous does at this point, and that's a valuable contribution to today's world.

Besides, are you trying to compare Anonymous with terrorists? Because I think that makes less sense than the vietcong-analogy I made earlier.