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.