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

[Jaime_Wolf]

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.

It's not my intellectual superiority so much as it is the complete lack of understanding of what Anonymous is or the complete lack of thought behind the OP's sentiments.

I suppose I can write out a more full response so I can save it and paste it in when another one of these topics gets made two weeks from now.

You can't disband an organisation that doesn't exist. The whole point of Anonymous is that treating it as a group is part of the joke. The only way in which it's a group is that it involves more than one person and they go under the same name. There is no charter they agree to, there is no system of beliefs they uniformly adhere to. There are general trends, but that's more to do with the demographics of the sort of people who'd be interested in this stuff than it is with a concerted effort to band together in the name of some set of ideals.

It's not that anyone can claim to be part of Anonymous or that they "might as well" be part of Anonymous, it's that anyone can be part of Anonymous. That's the entire point. You don't sign up for it. You don't have to know other members. If you go off and do something and claim credit for Anonymous, it isn't that you're misrepresenting Anonymous, that's exactly what Anonymous is. It is definitionally impossible to misrepresent Anonymous.

Trying to answer "who Anonymous is" is a futile endeavour - that's the entire point of the joke. It isn't an entity. It doesn't have real membership in the conventional sense. As for it being hard to trust claims made "by Anonymous", that's the entire point. Anyone can speak for Anonymous, which means that no one actually speaks for Anonymous. If you think it's hard to trust people representing Anonymous, you're right. In fact, you shouldn't trust them at all because there is no actual organisation to represent, just a bunch of individuals going under the same name. Again, it's definitionally impossible to actually speak for the group.

There are no "pretenders" or "rebels" falsely acting in the name of Anonymous because acting in the name of Anonymous makes you part of Anonymous. It is not possible to claim to be part of Anonymous and not actually be a part of it since the only prerequisite for membership is to claim membership.

The sentiment that you can somehow cause the concept to stop existing is ridiculous. There is no part of the concept that requires them to keep their name out of the mud or to hold to any sort of organisation. It might be sensible to suggest that if we just ignored everything they did, they'd eventually get tired of it and stop, but suggesting that by no longer recognising them as a group they magically stop being one makes no sense. Not only does that make no sense for the vast majority of social groups in general, but it also makes especially little sense when there isn't an actual organisation in the first place. Even if everyone got tired and moved on, all it would really take for Anonymous to continue to exist is one person claiming to be part of it.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

...What the fuck are you talking about? Sorry, but you obviously don't know anything about what anonymous is. It's not a group. It's a bunch of people on the internet using the same name to mess with people.
Anon is as much of a group as people who want animals to be treated nicely is a group. Sure, they hang out in similar places and share interests, and sometimes get together to say "Don't torture cows". But on every other day one is blowing up a farm and the other is collecting way too many cats.

 

[Harlief]

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.

My point exactly, Anonymous' current bad name is due to the fact that any old attention seeker can claim to be part of Anonymous.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Just to throw this out there, Extra Credits made a perfect analogy a while back: Punk Rock.

The Anon mentality is almost directly parallel with the "punk" styling.

There are no leaders, no defined entrance requirements, nothing that clearly defines who is and who isn't Anon/Punk. But you know if you are. And you know if you aren't. Likewise, neither group is likely to go away anytime soon. They may wax and wane, but both Anon and Punk will be around for a long while.

And I'm pretty sure that a forum thread on an obscure video game website isn't going to change that.

 

[spartan231490]

You have good ideas here, except that Anonymous serves as a perfect cover for doing exactly what you want. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who want to do what they want without facing the consequences, and so they will continue to use anonymous as a shield to hide from responsibility. The only thing that doing this would accomplish is causing the "good" members of anonymous to abandon the organization, leaving it as a completely fictional existence that only covers the actions of spoiled brats who refuse to live with the consequences of their actions.

personally, I think that's all anonymous has ever been, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion. I only bring it up because I think it would be more beneficial to the actual stated aims of anonymous if the people did what Martin Luther and Ghandi did, form a public entity and face the consequences of their actions as a way to gather greater support for their actions and to prove that they aren't just criminals, but are instead actually activists who are willing to fight, and suffer for their cause.

 

[FalloutJack]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

meme= something only a certain group knows about.

No, a meme is a mind-virus; something that gets spreads around a lot. It can be the game, where when you think of the game you lose or it can be a picture, be it on the internet or a physical copy. As long as the knowledge of it is spread, it survives. If it doesn't spread, then it ceases to be a meme any longer.

OT: Yeah, idea and all that crap. While I agree with the viewpoint that Anonymous is an idea, it's also an organisation. The organisation is the execution of the idea, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone can claim to be Anonymous, but not everyone is Anonymous. If you understand the ideas of Anonymous and take part in making them a reality then you are Anonymous.

To put it bluntly, you can't destroy Anonymous, Anonymous can only ever fade away. Think of it the same way you'd think of the IRA, they're the execution of the idea of Ireland being an independent country. They can fade away but, as long as the idea remains, they will return.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

-Anon-o-snip-

Ah, but here's the beauty of it. If said announcement happens, if Anonymous is seen to collectively bow out, then they sort of enforce their own venture into obscurity. You can't have it both gone AND remaining. Anything that stays behind isn't Anonymous. It's leftovers, a shadow on the wall. Everyone who's left doesn't have the same morale highground. They're the people that drag the name through the mud. You scythe through them like so much wheat, and they can't even back the same defense.

See my post above. Anonymous is definitionally whoever says they're Anonymous. There can't be anyone who claims to be, yet "isn't Anonymous". Any moral high ground that exists presently is the result of a few people claiming to speak for the group, but since there is no actual group, it's just wind. The extent to which the agenda of Anonymous (pretending like such a notion makes any sense in this context) is uniform is simply the extent to which the people claiming to be Anonymous happen to come from the same moral and ethical demographics.

Anonymous can't bow out because no one can speak for Anonymous. It isn't actually an organisation. Anyone can speak for it, meaning that no one ever actually speaks for it. Even if a bunch of people collectively got together and said they were done, that would mean nothing because there was never an organisation to disband in the first place.

Edit: I also think you're thinking too deeply on the V for Vendetta iconography. It's an attractive and easy disguise that happens to embody a sense of resistance - it isn't supposed to be representative of some grand plan. One of the more famous sayings from the movie, that you can get rid of people or groups, but you can't get rid of ideas, also fits in with the concept of Anonymous.

And regarding Anonymous making announcements: Anonymous can't really ever make announcements. That's groups of independent Anonymous members (since all members of Anonymous are independent) making anouncements since, as stated repeatedly, it is not possible to actually speak for the whole group (since anyone can accurately claim to speak for the group).

Everyone continues to treat Anonymous as an entity, but suggesting that it is an idea is a much better way of looking at it. And I'm not just saying that to sound profound. It isn't an entity because the only uniformity is in the name. Probably the best way to look at it is as a joke: one day someone just said "We're Anonymous. You can be Anonymous too. Anyone can be Anonymous. All you have to do is say that you're part of it.". Going by the same name like a group without actually being one is the whole point of the gag. Since it isn't actually an organisation, people making statements AS Anonymous can be seen as just another facet of the joke.

The joke works because they appear to work as a relatively uniform group just because they happen to come from the same demographics and tend to believe and work toward the same ends. After all, there are bound to be relatively few people who would claim to be part of Anonymous without agreeing to what they see other members doing. So it self-enforces a sort of loose uniformity. But that's independently true of the group of people regardless of whether they act under a particular name, not something actually dependent on their all acting under the same banner. The whole concept is a joke about how the concept of an "organisation" makes very little sense in an anonymous environment.

(That was the last edit. I promise.)

(I lied. THAT was the last edit.)

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

But we didn't destroy every single person who believes in having a King. This is why Britain is still a monarchy.
You don't seem to understand what Anon is. It's not an organization. It seriously is an idea, and a pretty nebulous one at that. If we're using the US as an example, sorry, you can't shoot a bunch of people who call themselves Anonymous until they fork the internet over to you.

 

[FalloutJack]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

But we didn't destroy every single person who believes in having a King. This is why Britain is still a monarchy.
You don't seem to understand what Anon is. It's not an organization. It seriously is an idea, and a pretty nebulous one at that. If we're using the US as an example, sorry, you can't shoot a bunch of people who call themselves Anonymous until they fork the internet over to you.

Excuse me, sir, but the idea was not to usurp the crown, but to prove that independence was the right and proper ideal over subservience to the king. That is true and irrefutable.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

But we didn't destroy every single person who believes in having a King. This is why Britain is still a monarchy.
You don't seem to understand what Anon is. It's not an organization. It seriously is an idea, and a pretty nebulous one at that. If we're using the US as an example, sorry, you can't shoot a bunch of people who call themselves Anonymous until they fork the internet over to you.

Excuse me, sir, but the idea was not to usurp the crown, but to prove that independence was the right and proper ideal over subservience to the king. That is true and irrefutable.

...What? It was both. If we didn't want to usurp the crown, why did we start shooting British soldiers? Your response also has nothing to do with the fact that monarchism didn't die out with America.

 

[Ldude893]

Anonymous is not a group but an idea, and unfortunately for you ideas can't be disbanded no matter how malicious or scandalous they are. Destroy/eliminate the holders of these ideas if you want; it'll either slip by to another person or a similar idea will emerge from someone else sooner or later.

 

[Exosus]

I love that you think anyone gives a fuck whether you read their opinion or deem it too 'loud' to be heard. I also love that you think you can just decide who is and isn't a group. Most of all, though, I love that you barely speak the English language and yet think you can make inspiring missives which will get us to forget about Anon like this was fucking snow white.

 

[FalloutJack]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

But we didn't destroy every single person who believes in having a King. This is why Britain is still a monarchy.
You don't seem to understand what Anon is. It's not an organization. It seriously is an idea, and a pretty nebulous one at that. If we're using the US as an example, sorry, you can't shoot a bunch of people who call themselves Anonymous until they fork the internet over to you.

Excuse me, sir, but the idea was not to usurp the crown, but to prove that independence was the right and proper ideal over subservience to the king. That is true and irrefutable.

...What? It was both. If we didn't want to usurp the crown, why did we start shooting British soldiers? Your response also has nothing to do with the fact that monarchism didn't die out with America.

I see, so you believe that the colonies fighting the Revolutionary War, in declaring independence from Great Britain, were in fact planning to go back overseas to conquer England, killing or exiling King George in the process.

Off with ye, I say. On your horse. Go forth and ride like the wind, you are not arguing with me on HISTORY of all things. Go now, and do not look back. Here I stand, putting forth an idea that people do not like, and you wish to diddle around with the years of America's independence. Nobody in America gave a DAMN what King Geoge did once they were rid of his influence. He was a LOONEY and the english could well have him!

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

But we didn't destroy every single person who believes in having a King. This is why Britain is still a monarchy.
You don't seem to understand what Anon is. It's not an organization. It seriously is an idea, and a pretty nebulous one at that. If we're using the US as an example, sorry, you can't shoot a bunch of people who call themselves Anonymous until they fork the internet over to you.

Excuse me, sir, but the idea was not to usurp the crown, but to prove that independence was the right and proper ideal over subservience to the king. That is true and irrefutable.

...What? It was both. If we didn't want to usurp the crown, why did we start shooting British soldiers? Your response also has nothing to do with the fact that monarchism didn't die out with America.

I see, so you believe that the colonies fighting the Revolutionary War, in declaring independence from Great Britain, were in fact planning to go back overseas to conquer England, killing or exiling King George in the process.

Off with ye, I see. On your horse. Go forth and ride like the wind, you are not arguing with me on HISTORY of all things. Go now, and do not look back. Here I stand, putting forth an idea that people do not like, and you wish to diddle around with the years of America's independence. Nobody in America gave a DAMN what King Geoge did once they were rid of his influence. He was a LOONEY and the english could well have him!

...I'm sorry, I seriously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, since I suggested none of those things. You're talking about ending anonymous. I asked you when the strategy worked. You said it worked in America. I responded it didn't, because we didn't end monarchism. I'm not saying we should kill every monarchist. But that is the only way you can end monarchism as an idea. Same goes for anonymous. The difference is, the internet doesn't work by popular vote. The internet works by who's acting. As long as one person calls themselves anonymous on the internet, anonymous survives. It doesn't even matter - if you had an extremely successful anti-anon group that got millions of people and posted everywhere on the internet, you wouldn't convince people not being anon is better. You'd cause a massive shitstorm.

 

[FalloutJack]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Name one time in the history of forever that this has worked.

America.

The idea which was proposed was that Great Britain should rule a colony of people as it branches out into the world to expand its command of territory, resources, and anything of value. It determined how the original colonies should behave, what rights it has, what money and goods were Yay or Nay, and so forth.

In opposition, a people and a congress did gradually disagree with mounting grievances until war broke out, independence was declared, and a nation was born. Years later, that nation is in quite a bit of jeopardy, but it is much more than the nation that originally bore it, and there is your evidence that such things happen in history.

I'm sure picking up other books will levee you other answers.

But we didn't destroy every single person who believes in having a King. This is why Britain is still a monarchy.
You don't seem to understand what Anon is. It's not an organization. It seriously is an idea, and a pretty nebulous one at that. If we're using the US as an example, sorry, you can't shoot a bunch of people who call themselves Anonymous until they fork the internet over to you.

Excuse me, sir, but the idea was not to usurp the crown, but to prove that independence was the right and proper ideal over subservience to the king. That is true and irrefutable.

...What? It was both. If we didn't want to usurp the crown, why did we start shooting British soldiers? Your response also has nothing to do with the fact that monarchism didn't die out with America.

I see, so you believe that the colonies fighting the Revolutionary War, in declaring independence from Great Britain, were in fact planning to go back overseas to conquer England, killing or exiling King George in the process.

Off with ye, I see. On your horse. Go forth and ride like the wind, you are not arguing with me on HISTORY of all things. Go now, and do not look back. Here I stand, putting forth an idea that people do not like, and you wish to diddle around with the years of America's independence. Nobody in America gave a DAMN what King Geoge did once they were rid of his influence. He was a LOONEY and the english could well have him!

...I'm sorry, I seriously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, since I suggested none of those things. You're talking about ending anonymous. I asked you when the strategy worked. You said it worked in America. I responded it didn't, because we didn't end monarchism. I'm not saying we should kill every monarchist. But that is the only way you can end monarchism as an idea. Same goes for anonymous. The difference is, the internet doesn't work by popular vote. The internet works by who's acting. As long as one person calls themselves anonymous on the internet, anonymous survives. It doesn't even matter - if you had an extremely successful anti-anon group that got millions of people and posted everywhere on the internet, you wouldn't convince people not being anon is better. You'd cause a massive shitstorm.

Okay, hang on. I'm calming down. I'm over the burst of patriotism. I must confess that I did, in fact, watch the musical rendition of 1776 today. It does that to you. Gonna explain what you've missed in what I was saying rationally.

You asked me to demonstrate a point in which one idea strikes down another in history. I stated that the birth of America as its own nation was this. I did not mean 'destroy monarchy', unless it can be interpretted as 'destroy a monarch's influence over America'. In this one country, the revolution and the acts there in have proven that one idea (America-ruled America) is better than another (England-ruled America). That was the long and the short of my point.

The problem which many of the posters in here have caused is the assumption that I mean 'all or nothing', two extremes. I mean that if an idea is not working, that it should step back, stop what it's doing, and re-think itself. And I don't mean EVERYTHING has to change either. I don't mean that suddenly everyone is naked as babes on the internet. Anonymous with a capital A is not the same as anonymous with a little a. Many of the people here in this thread have made this assumption which is not what I mean and not even true. We are all Anonymous? I'm not, clearly.

This was, like anything else, an idea. You and many others did not receive it well. I understand that, of course. I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion and I certainly didn't do much fighting on this thread. And for that, I have been sneered at and spoken to in a manner befitting pigs, for the most part. Suffice to say, to those who necro'd this thread just to cast flamewads, I don't burn quite so easily.

 

[Ratlover]

I say we stab the bastards and then go out for drinks.

 

[Zorpheus]

You might as well try to destroy the Internet.

 

[Ammutseba]

Yeah, no, let's not. It's not really a group so good luck with that. I wouldn't want Anonymous is disappear anyway.