Here's an idea: Let's disband Anonymous.
- Thread starter FalloutJack
- Start date
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.
I can see where disbanding Anonymous would make things easier on people. There would no longer be some kind of centralized site to rally people to your cause, no more easy access to people with the knowledge to hack and cripple sites, and maybe some small measure of more accountability for the people who do coordinate enough to still cause problems, but...
Anonymous is more or less an online idea and has had enough publicity across the net that people will take up the mask and spout off memes even without an official group to hide behind. This means more stories of "Anonymous plans to do something!" because the name still holds some power with some people. That and news groups can be annoyingly slow to pick up on changes.
Anonymous is more or less an online idea and has had enough publicity across the net that people will take up the mask and spout off memes even without an official group to hide behind. This means more stories of "Anonymous plans to do something!" because the name still holds some power with some people. That and news groups can be annoyingly slow to pick up on changes.
I agree. The thing is that Anon doesn't exactly stand up and say, "No" to meaningful ideas. They like to stand up and say "No" to, let's say Scientology. People should have the right to follow what ever religion they choose to believe. It doesn't hurt those who aren't involved and they do have good practices.Lyri said:
OT: When they have a noble cause, I support it. Otherwise they need to just go away. I don't really understand why they need to hide under a blanket to protest anyway.
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.espada1311 said:
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.
No, they're not.Imperius said:
They're a bunch of twats. Being twats.
They declare that they are a "movement" and some other bullshitty newspeak.
They have ideals! They have your best interests at heart!
The cover story is immaterial. Their good intentions are irrelevant.
Their actions, which are all that really matter, are criminal.
Anonymous is a bowel movement.
Every asshole can do it.
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.espada1311 said:
I will say this much. Yeah, if "they" stopped identifying themselves as anonymous, the Group, then there wouldn't be any media outrage at a group that isn't even an organization, since blame cannot be placed on an organization that does not exist as a cohesive force but rather a loose group of individuals that take up the name of the fictional organization without consent from a hierarchy.FalloutJack said:
What I'm getting at is, if any Anons might read this, is that if you stop identifying as Anonymous, the group, and just perform your actions as a truly anonymous person that does not identify with a loose organization, blame can hardly be directed at you as no one would...
...fuck it, this line of thought is confusing me and is starting to devolve into nonsense. its 2am, I'm going to sleep...
So you'd disband a bunch of people who want to go their own way, against what is "right"?
So we should also have disbanded this lot?
and, ironically, these guys
And definitely these bunch of anarchists
Fancy trying to split from the state that controls them.
So we should also have disbanded this lot?
and, ironically, these guys
And definitely these bunch of anarchists
Fancy trying to split from the state that controls them.