No, that's far too simple a way of thinking it. You can't just say "Oops, you mentioned it so you're now on their side.". That doesn't actually make sense.canadamus_prime said:
Here's an idea: Let's disband Anonymous.
- Thread starter FalloutJack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
they aren't a real organization. How do you expect we ban them from doing ANYTHING? The truth of the matter is until someones can find out who they are, they are 'anonymous'. We can't act against someone with no identity. But the feds are tracking down members of the group 'lulzsec' and working agaisnt arresting the members.
When did I say that? I never said that. But for your plan to succeed you cannot acknowledge the existence of Anonymous even if such acknowledgment is to decry them. Which brings me to the fundamental flaw in your plan, rallying others to follow you in your plan requires acknowledging the existence of Anonymous, so you plan is doomed to fail.FalloutJack said:
Yeah I agree. I mean it worked wonders against Lulzsec when they took down the Escapist and no-one GAVE A FUCK, even though everyone knew it had happened. I checked their twitter feed afterwards and their was significantly less traffic about it than their other targets.FalloutJack said:
Dude, you're being recursive. You can't say an idea against another fails because it mentions the idea it's against. Things don't work that way. What? You think they're like Voldemort? Get outta here...canadamus_prime said:
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. The Escapist hiccupped because of the lulzies and not a fuck was given that day. Well then, there's the validation of the plan.GrizzlerBorno said:
It does it this case because Anonymous' very existence is dependent on people acknowledging it for good or for ill.FalloutJack said:
the only way to disband anonymous is to start arresting people or to increase internet security to the point that they can only attack small organizations then they will destroy their support base and eat themselves alive.
In other words treat it like a low intensity conflict and let them burn themselves out.
In other words treat it like a low intensity conflict and let them burn themselves out.
Still too simplistic an argument. I deny you and your line of thinking. And my mentioning you does not make you right. Good day to you, sir.canadamus_prime said:
But he got a point. If you want to go on an agenda in hope of of disbanding an idea, you have to acknowledge that idea, which is what you say, that you will defeat them by not doing. Hence, you can't defeat it. Sure, it sounds simplestic, but it's not our fault that your entire line of thinking is rather simple, seeing as so far all you've wanted to do is "We disband Anon. By not achknowledging it", so quit trying to outsmart your own idea. Why do you want to defeat an idea that persists due to people being able to say "No", anyway? Seems rather pointless in my eyes. But for the note, good luck with your little plan. I think it's bound to be roughly as successful as if you tried to remove free speech, in all honesty.FalloutJack said:
Edit: Stop telling people their arguments are flawed, when your own is not better. You can't call an argument for simple, if only because that person uses common sense and puts 2 and 2 together from what you've been saying earlier. Right now you just deny people who point out flaws in this "Master plan".
What I'm saying is, these vague descriptors for what it takes for an organization to need to be rebuilt are, in all honesty, too vague. I said that you can't claim an organization has "lost it's way" and demand it be redone from scratch and be taken seriously. Anyone can take any action made by a group and say the group as a whole has "Lost it's way." If that were the case then any organization, right now, should be destroyed and rebuilt. Not "later." Not "If it became really, really bad from what it is right now." I mean, right now, everything would have to be, as you put it "killed with fire, destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up."EdwardOrchard said:
They aren't a group like a nation or a club. You don't sign up to become part of Anonymous. Anonymous is simply a collective of people fighting for the greater good as they perceive it. And yes some work in group but for the most part work alone. They just happen to be branded anonymous because they're "cyber terrorist" as someone who disagrees with them would say.
>Implying that anonymous gives two shits about what you think.FalloutJack said:
>Also implying that Anonymous is a concrete organization.
I've been seeing a lot of criticism and skepticism recently about Anonymous's power and potential. Some deride them for squandering their influence on immature tantrums; some denounce that they really have any power at all.
I do believe that Anonymous has power, influence and untapped potential. I don't believe they can be disbanded by anyone. But I feel they do have the ability to become more focused and prioritized.
Using their hive-mind metaphor, I imagine Anonymous as I would a rebellious teenager. They haven't solidly defined their values amongst themselves yet, even though their actions reveal underlying ideas. They are riddled with internal conflict, practically a crisis of identity. And their general moodiness, flippancy, deviancy, inconsistency, and attention-whoring matches the stereotypical teenager just as well.
Along these lines of thought, I think only Anonymous can make up it's mind about what Anonymous will be. But that doesn't mean we can't put pressure on them, as even the most temperamental teenager have their weaknesses.
Give them a crisis. Something that will crush them if they don't adjust. If it's an empty threat, they will only scoff it off; If it's too direct, they will ***** about being victimized and won't change. It will take a delicate balance of persuasion and threat.
It doesn't matter if they still aren't completely mature and rational, just as long as they stop breaking things they shouldn't.
I do believe that Anonymous has power, influence and untapped potential. I don't believe they can be disbanded by anyone. But I feel they do have the ability to become more focused and prioritized.
Using their hive-mind metaphor, I imagine Anonymous as I would a rebellious teenager. They haven't solidly defined their values amongst themselves yet, even though their actions reveal underlying ideas. They are riddled with internal conflict, practically a crisis of identity. And their general moodiness, flippancy, deviancy, inconsistency, and attention-whoring matches the stereotypical teenager just as well.
Along these lines of thought, I think only Anonymous can make up it's mind about what Anonymous will be. But that doesn't mean we can't put pressure on them, as even the most temperamental teenager have their weaknesses.
Give them a crisis. Something that will crush them if they don't adjust. If it's an empty threat, they will only scoff it off; If it's too direct, they will ***** about being victimized and won't change. It will take a delicate balance of persuasion and threat.
It doesn't matter if they still aren't completely mature and rational, just as long as they stop breaking things they shouldn't.
Hey guise, I haz this uber 1337 idea.
Let's disband Christianity.
Oh and after that Let's disband philosophy.
Ooooh and lets be really kick ass and disband all human thought!!!!
-.-
Get my point?
Anonymous is an idea. If you want to "disband" it then you will need to wipe out the human race.
Good luck.
Let's disband Christianity.
Oh and after that Let's disband philosophy.
Ooooh and lets be really kick ass and disband all human thought!!!!
-.-
Get my point?
Anonymous is an idea. If you want to "disband" it then you will need to wipe out the human race.
Good luck.
*Shrugs*Imperius said:
Well, if you insist...
*Hits the button*
BEEEEEEEEIIIIIIBEEEEEEEEEEERRRRR!!!
(Just kidding. I'm not gonna Beiber us all.)
Yeah, it's a bit optimistic, and even I doubt anyone could successfully mount a threat to Anonymous without either causing a massive public backlash or being shot down my Anonymous itself, or both.
... I don't think I understand... a group that we can't even define as a group should disband because we say so? ... I really don't follow...
I love that, apparently, you need a Guy Fawkes mask to be allowed to say no? how about we just do it with our real faces, it's easy to hide behind a mask, it's hard to face a problem as a human.Lyri said:
A mask dehumanizes, it removes the individual, no individual gets a say and it's only the group's voice that comes through. This makes any message loose all the weight it ever had because it's no longer the people saying "no" it's a corporation. A faceless, soulless corporation who is driven by an agenda.
People with real faces need to rise, not douche bags in a mask.
If you're anti-anonymous you're either uninformed or a fascist.
Not to be particularly rude or anything but you have to understand that while Anon has some shady dealings from time to time, the whole stands freedom of speech, information and an unregulated internet.
People just interpret what "freedom" is differently.
But please, do some research before form an opinion instead of just taking Foxnew's word for it.
Not to be particularly rude or anything but you have to understand that while Anon has some shady dealings from time to time, the whole stands freedom of speech, information and an unregulated internet.
People just interpret what "freedom" is differently.
But please, do some research before form an opinion instead of just taking Foxnew's word for it.