Here's an idea: Let's disband Anonymous.
- Thread starter FalloutJack
- Start date
But by even creating this thread you've acknowledged them so you've already failed.FalloutJack said:
I'm sitting on the sidelines to see how Anonymous' latest stunt plays out, and don't have any comment for the OP.jericu said:
However, Jericu, this stands out. You asked, "Are you trying to say that any organization or group to which these phrases apply should be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up?"
The answer is, "Yes, absolutely, why not?"
If a Politician goes back on his word, does the opposite of what he promised, changes his party's stance, what do you do?
Vote him out of office, impeach him, Viva la Revolutione! Put somebody in power who's policies you agree with.
The Media. If a news agency shows an extreme bias to one side while under the guise of fair and balanced media, what do you do?
You'd want it shut down, wouldn't you?
Religion? Really? If the Catholic church were to start preaching something that you don't agree with, what would do?
I don't know, probably go form Protestantism.
If the Internet became Internet 2.0, with rules and regulations everywhere, where nothing is free not even information... What would you do?
You'd probably do your part to form Internet 3.0 or some such, and get things back to the way they were.
If the movie and game industries became some money-driven cesspool, controlled by corporate greed with no care given to the consumer, the Gamer, what would you do?
How about giving the industry back to the Indie Developers? Games made by Gamers, for Gamers.
Humanity? Not sure what you're getting at here. Does not fit.
Anyways, my point is, what the hell are you talking about? A group changing its policies to something other than what it once stood for is a perfectly acceptable reason to want to kill it with fire, destroy it and rebuild it from the ground up.
I think you are working under a falls assumption of what Anonymous is.
Anonymous is scarcely a thing... not even truly an idea. What it really is, is a premise. Have you ever made a post online anonymously? Then you are Anonymous. Anonymous is a form of collective, but not a collective tied by ideology, religion or politics. It is, as it's title suggests, a collective tied together by anonymity. For every Lul Sec, who hack security and are generally a nuisance, there is Chanology, who try to stop the spread of an exploitative cult. For every Anon who posts child pornography there is another Anon who reverses the distortion on those same images and forwarding them to the police so the abuser can be caught and prosecuted. Other then shared Anonymity, Anonymous is a contradiction in terms.
Anonymous is scarcely a thing... not even truly an idea. What it really is, is a premise. Have you ever made a post online anonymously? Then you are Anonymous. Anonymous is a form of collective, but not a collective tied by ideology, religion or politics. It is, as it's title suggests, a collective tied together by anonymity. For every Lul Sec, who hack security and are generally a nuisance, there is Chanology, who try to stop the spread of an exploitative cult. For every Anon who posts child pornography there is another Anon who reverses the distortion on those same images and forwarding them to the police so the abuser can be caught and prosecuted. Other then shared Anonymity, Anonymous is a contradiction in terms.
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:
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.