Here's an idea: Let's disband Anonymous.

BlueFishie

New member
Jan 4, 2010
93
0
0
We are Anonymous.

Watch us type on an internet forum.

We are Legion.

Expect us.




Read this before looking at my username for the most authentic experience! Now you can go ahead and look. I'm no longer Anonymous. It's pretty magical.

Anyway, it's been a fun read, and it appears the topic has pretty much been covered. So I'll just leave this pointless bit of nonsense here.

The way I see it, there's more or less two types of people who call themselves Anonymous. There's the major trolls who think it'd be fun to hack something, then there are those who desperately want the real world to be a piece of cool cyberpunk fiction, where they get to be the hacktivists who save the day.

While I understand the temptation of cyberpunk goodness, DDOS attacking websites, trolling religious extremists and what have you from behind your computer honestly doesn't accomplish much. The only Anonymous people that annoy me on some level are those who claim to "fight for free speech". You won't accomplish that from a computer.
 

Lyri

New member
Dec 8, 2008
2,660
0
0
espada1311 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.
Pardon?

You did just say that a groups message is weaker than an individuals right?
Not only that but the very reason that they have the mask is that it loses the touch of the individual. It's not about what's best for you, it's what is best for everyone.

Individuals are more driven by an agenda than a movement, because movements don't happen unless you all want the same thing.
One person having power over the masses leads to corruption and abuse of power.
 

little.09

New member
Jul 21, 2009
258
0
0
BGH122 said:
Lyri said:
Anon isn't a group.

The Anonymous movement is an idea, it can't be disbanded and it can't be unthought. It just is.
You can say Anonymous isn't anything any more but the fact it was something will make people think it up all over again.
You can't stop people thinking for themselves, wearing a mask and standing up and saying "No".
Huzzah! Many people in this thread understand Anonymous.

To put it simply, Anonymous is a meme. Every time you invoke it, positively or negatively, its power grows. One can't force a meme into existence, nor out of it. It's the classic Schneider's Polar Bear: don't think of a white polar bear and all you can do is think of it. Similarly, the more we try to disavow our acknowledgement of Anonymous the more we end up thinking about it.

The reason that it's not a single entity is because it's just a meme, it's just individuals liking their interpretation of a particular concept and running with it. There is no 'Anonymous' in the same way that there is no 'lolcats', there's just the individual invocations of both concepts.

Making any discussion about Anonymous is tantamount to making a discussion saying "I love Anonymous!" because all you're doing is helping to spread the meme.
your pretty much right on the money, except for one thing, i am a lolcat!!!!!
 

370999

New member
May 17, 2010
1,107
0
0
I thought anon was abunch of quirky middle class male teenagers. They are hardly evil. That said, if they do something illegal prosecute them. If not then leave them alone. people should be free enough to do as they want.
 

TonyVonTonyus

New member
Dec 4, 2010
829
0
0
Deamon Toss said:
TonyCapa 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.
As if thats not a bad thing. Calling somebody out for what they are, doesn't make them the bad guys. You would be singing a different tune if they suddenly decided to focus all their efforts on you.
I don't doubt that but its the biased of the injured party to look back and wonder why they were attacked in the first place. I'm sure if they attacked me I would turn against them simply because they would have attacked me. The defender of people's rights is only liked by the people who's rights he defends.
 

ReverendJ

New member
Mar 18, 2009
140
0
0
karamazovnew said:
SNIP SNIP SNIP
Ok, I'm with you on the "who do we believe?" bit. The ability to discern truth from lies is more important to the individual now than ever. The Information Age doesn't just let us disseminate information more quickly, it also lets us distribute lies more efficiently as well. However, one must needs beware the slippery slope, my friend.

Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City, 9/11... there's an argument for each of these being an "inside job" designed to frighten the populace into accepting more regulations on their lives. Unfortunately, the Third Reich's little gag with the Reichstag fire provides us with a historic precedent: Governments CAN and WILL lie to their own populations. (The US does it fairly regularly, but this is neither the time nor the place.)

So who do we trust? No one. We can't. We live in worlds built of hearsay.

Could Anon be some part of a larger conspiracy? Perhaps... but I find it unlikely. Look at the way Anon behaves. Going up against Scientology? The only states that give two shits about the Scientologists are Germany and Australia. What does that gain for the Con (whose stated goal is apparently global totalitarianism)? How about the endless Habbo raids? Is all of this designed to make us hate and fear teh interwebs?

Wikileaks. Note that none of the world's governments have disavowed any of the information there, they're all just throwing shit-fits about the release. If anything smells fishy about that one, it's the rape charges. Besides, I'm not sure the "benefits" would outweigh the "cost." We end up distrusting the internet because we saw footage of a helicopter gunning down journalists. Is the mistrust of the internet worth the mistrust generated in the government's ability to properly pick targets?

I understand the idea of the "false flag" operation, but honestly I'd think more of it in this case if I didn't see some Anon call for some new Operation every other week. Some get picked up, some don't. If it was operated by the CIA, more of those would come to fruition. Oh, and Castro'd probably get mentioned somewhere, you just KNOW that they're not ready to give up on that guy.
 

espada1311

New member
Sep 19, 2010
59
0
0
Lyri said:
espada1311 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.
Pardon?

You did just say that a groups message is weaker than an individuals right?
Not only that but the very reason that they have the mask is that it loses the touch of the individual. It's not about what's best for you, it's what is best for everyone.

Individuals are more driven by an agenda than a movement, because movements don't happen unless you all want the same thing.
One person having power over the masses leads to corruption and abuse of power.
have you ever heard had a situation where you would normally not do something. say, for example, get drunk. Then you got to a bar with friends and they complain at you, "just one" or things of that ilk, eventually you cave and have one, then another, then next thing you know, you're piss-drunk. You've sold your values in order to gain acceptance from the group. That is what's called "Pack Mentality" and that is the main reason i dislike groups like anonymous. It's not that the individuals who enter that are bad, it's the group together that influences each other to make bad decisions.

That example doesn't include the idea of a leader, if there was the pack adopts the behaviors of the leader, which can always be better or worse depending on the leader in question.

Also, i have a question for you, which do you find to have a more profound impact on you as a person in regards to African American rights? The "I have a dream" speech made by Martin Luther King Jr. or any one particular protest made by hundreds, if not, thousands of African Americans?

When you associate a face to an idea it holds far more weight than a group of faces or a group of one face.

And lastly, we can always use some rare and precious item called common sense to avoid the problem of corruption.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
I agree that we should disband Anonymous.

And, after we have done that, can we disband Twihards? I mean, seriously, those books were terrible.

I'd also like to disband wankers who consider themselves experts on warfare due to playing FPS that claim to be realistic.
 

mirror's edgy

New member
Sep 30, 2010
506
0
0
Jaime_Wolf said:
Yet another topic from someone who doesn't understand what Anonymous is or what it does.
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your obvious intellectual superiority. Brevity is the soul of wit, but I prefer inflammatory assertions to have actual reasoning behind them.
 

espada1311

New member
Sep 19, 2010
59
0
0
chimeracreator said:
espada1311 said:
Lyri said:
You can't stop people thinking for themselves, wearing a mask and standing up and saying "No".
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.


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.
In an age where performing such stunts can stop a high school kid from getting a job six years down the line hiding behind a mask makes sense. Soldiers don't line up in the open to exchange fire, they do it from behind cover. It might not be "honorable", but when the alternative is suicide "honor" becomes a synonym for stupidity.
This isn't a matter of honor, you seem to confuse honor for bravery. If you truly believe in what you stand for, you don't give a damn for the consequences, even if it means death. When John F. Kennedy did what he did, he knew he'd be targeted by the cruelest, meanest and worst people the world had to offer, but he went ahead anyway. that's our problem of today, no one has the balls to stand up for what they believe in.

And last time I checked, it doesn't show on my criminal record if i decide to go on a podium and give a speech on whatever subject I want. besides, soldiers are for war, don't use their tactics for something that isn't war.
 

espada1311

New member
Sep 19, 2010
59
0
0
Imperius said:
espada1311 said:
Lyri said:
You can't stop people thinking for themselves, wearing a mask and standing up and saying "No".
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.


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.
An individual can be destroyed. Ruined, torn apart. Look at some of the current politicians. Some of their careers were ruined by what they did 20 years or or the opinions they had then. Humans are flawed. We make mistakes, and those mistakes can often be thrown back at us years after the fact.
Being a faceless voice is wise, because then people can't retort by attacking the character of the presenter, they have to face the issue.

Besides, if you truly want to "stand up" start using your full, real life name in your username. That way everyone can know what you stand for.
The fact that people can be taken down is exactly what IS inspiring about an individual instead of a group. When you look at a single person, relatively speaking, they are so frail and easy to break when compared to a group. But the fact that this single person is willing to stand up and be unafraid to speak their issue is what makes it so inspiring. a thousand times more so inspiring than any one of anonymous' protests or attacks. And yes, people will always be petty and attack the person rather than the issue, however, it is up to you to ignore their BS and focus on the issue.

Besides, having issues come to haunt you and people attacking the character of the presenter comes from IDENTITY not INDIVIDUALITY. I can say anonymous is cowardly because so far, they have almost exclusively attacked servers from third world nations, or how the people there are pussies because they dont want to put their real faces out there. Those attacks come from IDENTITY, i have used the identity of the presenter against them, not the individuality. have you ever heard an attack like "oh look at him he's all individual and shit whoop-dee-doo" on a singular figurehead?

Also, my name is Maximillian Guglielmi-Vitullo, and i am not afraid of speaking my mind. And i have the balls to come out and say it with my real name.
 

Great North

New member
Feb 3, 2010
84
0
0
Fuck anonymous. You have something to say, something to give? Be a real hero, one with a FACE. All I see in this so called "anonymous movement" is a bunch of hackers and bullies and trolls that need to get lives. I can think of pretty much one thing "anonymous" (I keep putting it in quotes because I feel a little ridiculous even addressing the idea) has done to be any sort of force for good. I've heard there is more, but I don't know any so please prove me wrong.

Let us not forget Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/

EDIT: Also V for Vendetta was a pretty good movie, but I'm not a squeeling fangirl about it like sooooome people I know.
 

magnuslion

New member
Jun 16, 2009
898
0
0
Feel free to stick your neck out dude. but I think you are wasting your time. whether or not you believe Anon is or is not a group, its not going to effect them in the slightest.
 

Lyri

New member
Dec 8, 2008
2,660
0
0
espada1311 said:
have you ever heard had a situation where you would normally not do something. say, for example, get drunk. Then you got to a bar with friends and they complain at you, "just one" or things of that ilk, eventually you cave and have one, then another, then next thing you know, you're piss-drunk. You've sold your values in order to gain acceptance from the group. That is what's called "Pack Mentality" and that is the main reason i dislike groups like anonymous. It's not that the individuals who enter that are bad, it's the group together that influences each other to make bad decisions.

That example doesn't include the idea of a leader, if there was the pack adopts the behaviors of the leader, which can always be better or worse depending on the leader in question.

Also, i have a question for you, which do you find to have a more profound impact on you as a person in regards to African American rights? The "I have a dream" speech made by Martin Luther King Jr. or any one particular protest made by hundreds, if not, thousands of African Americans?

When you associate a face to an idea it holds far more weight than a group of faces or a group of one face.

And lastly, we can always use some rare and precious item called common sense to avoid the problem of corruption.
What does pack mentality come into it, you join a cause with anon to remove a common enemy or fight a cause you believe in.
Anon is anon, who are you gaining the respect of? Nobody.
You can cave in to your friends requests because you'll see them the next day, you'll suffer the ribbing that goes with it.
With anon you don't have to and likely nobody cares. You're associating a problem with two styles of groupings.

Of course I'm going to say MLK, it's been drilled into your head since we learnt about it. What else did you expect?
MLK has been more popular because he had a whole movement of a country behind him, sure the other movements are no less powerful in message but media powered MLK above all the others.

You also dismiss corruption far to easily as something to be solved with "common sense".
 

ChuQue37

New member
May 16, 2011
84
0
0
You guys disappoint me. Seriously, this whole thread disappoints me.

I am disappoint.

jericu said:
Oh god, you're serious, aren't you?

Anonymous cannot be disbanded. Anonymous cannot be destroyed. It is an amalgam of every halfway decent hacker who believes in free speech and the first amendment. There are no entrance fees, no members list, anyone who wishes to be a part of Anonymous may be a member of Anonymous, in however large or small a way they desire. Disband Anonymous? The idea is preposterous, and impossible. Even if it is possible, it certainly won't be achieved by making a post on an internet forum.

What's the reason for this? They've "Lost their way?" That we "Can't take anything they say at face value?" Are these problems supposed to be unique to Anonymous? Are you trying to say that any organization or group to which these phrases apply should destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up? By this reasoning, one could make the same claim about anything. Politicians. The media. Religion. The internet. Movies. Video games. The human race. You can't make a vague claim of "They don't have the RIGHT to be a group" without better reasoning than "They don't stand for what they originally stood for!" Especially since, far more than most organizations, they do still stand for what they originally stand for.

While I'm sure you have good intentions with this post, I'm almost entirely certain that it's in vain. The few members of Anonymous, if any, who read this post will most likely ignore it, leave you a troll face with a "U Mad, bro?", or send you a message with your IP address and some other information about you with a "WE ARE ANONYMOUS, FEAR US" at the bottom. As you said, you're trying to light a match, but I'm afraid it's already been dipped in a bucket of water.
Also, this. A whole large bucket of this.

If you would allow me to elaborate:

Anonymous isn't a group, you dingwits. It's an adjective. "BUT!" you hastily reply. "Anonymous is an adjective which applies to a certain GROUP of people. Therefore, everyone who comprises 'anonymous' is within this group and should be disbanded FORTHWITH!"

D'ohoho, my cheery opposition! You overlook several factors. The first being that although anonymous does apply to several people who at first glance appear to comprise some sort of organization, (hackers, angsty, probably pimple-ridden) that there are several other defining attributes that separate them as entities and as comrades!

"Comrades? You mean not to imply that they are at odds with each other?"

Certainly! But more on that in a moment. We must consider these attributes. First, there is the problem of principle. What these pasty-faced, basement-dwelling hackz0rs want. Some demand privacy, some demand freedom of information, so on and so forth. Anonymous as a group cannot hold a single set of principles because of the split nature of their contingency. Did you notice how even everyone in this thread considered anonymous to stand for something different?

"I did!"

They are also separated by a very interesting word, legitimacy. I find it interesting because a 'anon' who is legitimate might not appear so to every observer. I'm sure many of you frequent the establishment known as /b/. This is a wonderful place for observing phenomena in the inner workings of anonymous. Have you noticed the hierarchy of legitimacy within /b/, old chap?

"Of course! I know exactly what you mean: 'oldfriends*', 'newfriends**', and 'summerfriends***'!"

Right-o! You must have also noticed how many are given these titles, when they are in fact, not so! And 'oldfriend' may troll a 'newfriend' by pretending to be a 'summerfriend'. And so on and so forth.

"I only have a vague idea of how this ties into anonymous at large. Please, elaborate!"

Very well! In this thread, and in many, many other places, we see people wondering at how one might discern whether an 'anon' is holding true to the tenants and ideals of the group as a whole, or whether they're simply doing it for the lulz.

"Aha! I believe I understand. Since we've already established that anonymous can not hold ideals and principles as a whole, there can be no such thing as an legitimate anon, or vice-versa!"

Now you're getting it!

"But I also think I'm beginning to understand something else. Anonymous isn't a group, for all the reasons you've elaborated on, but also for another: Anonymous cannot be simplified. It is a seething, writhing, teaming mass of PEOPLE: all wanting to take it in this direction or that. People are complicated; Hundreds of people are even more so. Because of this, it cannot be reduced to the sum of it's parts. Trying to characterize it as one thing or another is foolhardy."

I couldn't have said it better myself.


And oh yeah, OP, you sound like the kind of cont(inental breakfast) that writes his biography first and does his heroing second.
 

DustStorm

New member
Oct 30, 2008
83
0
0
Harlief said:
From what I've read, there are some good guys in Anonymous and some absolute Jerks, I think the good guys should band together and distance themselves from the rabble of attention seekers who consider themselves part of Anonymous. They should also be more selective about who they let into their group.
They don't select who enters their "group" because Anonymous is simply an idea. It's people who share similar goals and so identify themselves as anonymous. There is no way to stop people from joining Anonymous because anyone who wants to be an Anon can be an Anon, no restrictions of any kind.