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

MaxwellEdison

New member
Sep 30, 2010
732
0
0
FalloutJack said:
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.
By Paragraph:
1. Fair enough, I've had that experience.
2. But it didn't strike down the idea. Monarchism, as a thought, exists.
3. The reason is because with the internet, it is all or nothing. Lulzsec is a good example of the fact that with even a few people you can cause untold damage. Even one anon keeps anonymous working. You keep saying the idea is not working. It is. You may think it's wrong, but those who operate under that idea obviously think they're in the right. They're not going to randomly agree with you. For the last of this - yeah, it kind of is. Check out anon's reaction to Wikileaks, cat beatings, or even Scientology. Guess what? They're on every side imaginable, because anonymous is anyone working with that name.
4. I'm really annoyed when people pull the "well, you're allowed to have your opinion" thing. I know I am, you don't need to tell me.
 

Archany

New member
Jun 16, 2010
13
0
0
for all the shit Anon does, they also do their fair share of good guy stuff as well, they've been fighting Scientology for years, they're working to make sure no one reads the Norwegian shooter's manifesto, etc. They work off of their own moral code, fighting whatever they feel, as Anonymous, needs to be fought, Anonymous aren't the ones posting cp and pranking people, that's just /b/, Anonymous are the ones hacking politicians emails, digging up whatever they can on people who shouldn't have power, basically doing what they can to make the world a better place. They'll never admit it, but deep down Anonymous just wants to make a better world, they're fighting internet and irl injustices, it's just the misconception that /b/ is Anonymous, and all the people pretending to be anonymous, like the psn guys, that are obscuring that vision.

And really? good luck disbanding Anonymous, it's impossible.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
MaxwellEdison said:
FalloutJack said:
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.
By Paragraph:
1. Fair enough, I've had that experience.
2. But it didn't strike down the idea. Monarchism, as a thought, exists.
3. The reason is because with the internet, it is all or nothing. Lulzsec is a good example of the fact that with even a few people you can cause untold damage. Even one anon keeps anonymous working. You keep saying the idea is not working. It is. You may think it's wrong, but those who operate under that idea obviously think they're in the right. They're not going to randomly agree with you. For the last of this - yeah, it kind of is. Check out anon's reaction to Wikileaks, cat beatings, or even Scientology. Guess what? They're on every side imaginable, because anonymous is anyone working with that name.
4. I'm really annoyed when people pull the "well, you're allowed to have your opinion" thing. I know I am, you don't need to tell me.
By number!

{1} Fabulous.

{2} But you're trying to simplify it to just 'monarchism' when the idea defeated, and the intention is 'monarchy in the U.S.'. That's one whole bite. I have never heard anything in that time about destroying monarchy itself. That wasn't the idea, so I didn't use it. I used what DID happen.

{3} Yeah, well, I'm NOT all-or-nothing and I think that the idea of it on so vast and complex a system is wasted. If I might borrow from TvTropes, I'm a "Take A Third Option" guy at times, especially if I don't like either option. Someone else here said fascist, and I don't have the mustache for it. Must we bring in Godwin so soon?

{4} It's habit-forming. There's alot of people out there, including here on the Escapist, who immediately assume that someone is trying to set forth commands and state opinions as facts. Sorry this bothers you, but this happens and I STILL got people in this thread saying I was trying to push them around with my words when I said, FIRST LINE, that not everyone was going to agree with this. I admitted that this idea was not gonna go over well, but I decided "What the hell?". When the OP knows straight up how this is gonna go, don't assume he's trying to control the audience.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
It's impossible to fight an organization with leaders and coherent structure. It's trying to destroy a pillow by punching it. Dissolving the group will only occur when people cease to want to be part of it and it simply fades from existence.
 

Neonshot

New member
Aug 8, 2011
6
0
0
You cant disband a set of idea's and ethical values.

And what would you suggest users of an internet video game forum do anyway?

Feel bad that ive only made three posts here on these forums and all of them have been in defense of the anonymous movement, really wanted to talk about games =( But, this community seems horribly misinformed on the whole issue :-/
 

TheEnglishman

New member
Jun 13, 2009
546
0
0
You're right, and I'll tell the guy with a gun to my head that I refuse his right to be part of the group of people currently robbing my house, that'll deal with him, wait, he's not appreciating me typing give me a moment
 

AmaterasuGrim

New member
Jul 16, 2011
89
0
0
How do you disband a group with no membership it's a call yourself Anon if you feel like it group it's not something you can disband or get rid of since everyone & no one is anon.
 

MaxwellEdison

New member
Sep 30, 2010
732
0
0
FalloutJack said:
By number!

{1} Fabulous.

{2} But you're trying to simplify it to just 'monarchism' when the idea defeated, and the intention is 'monarchy in the U.S.'. That's one whole bite. I have never heard anything in that time about destroying monarchy itself. That wasn't the idea, so I didn't use it. I used what DID happen.

{3} Yeah, well, I'm NOT all-or-nothing and I think that the idea of it on so vast and complex a system is wasted. If I might borrow from TvTropes, I'm a "Take A Third Option" guy at times, especially if I don't like either option. Someone else here said fascist, and I don't have the mustache for it. Must we bring in Godwin so soon?

{4} It's habit-forming. There's alot of people out there, including here on the Escapist, who immediately assume that someone is trying to set forth commands and state opinions as facts. Sorry this bothers you, but this happens and I STILL got people in this thread saying I was trying to push them around with my words when I said, FIRST LINE, that not everyone was going to agree with this. I admitted that this idea was not gonna go over well, but I decided "What the hell?". When the OP knows straight up how this is gonna go, don't assume he's trying to control the audience.
On 2, I know. I pointed this out to show you why this example didn't work for what we're talking about.
On three, it doesn't matter what you are. You don't dictate how anonymous acts, and people will continue to act using the name anonymous for quite a long time.
 

RadiusXd

New member
Jun 2, 2010
743
0
0
FalloutJack said:
BGH122 said:
wootsman said:
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.
Do you even know what a meme is.
Yup! A meme is the idea equivalent of an allele which succeeds because of its success in being spread amongst populations due to its ability to respond positively to the demands of the environment (the environment being, in this case, peoples' desires).

Meme != Funny copypasta. Funny copypasta is one example of a meme, not memes in and of themselves.
No, a meme is a repeated pop culture reference. People are more accurate to call it an idea because a meme is more sub-category of ideas, a KIND of idea. Anon would be another. And the line of thinking I'm having here is that if the idea isn't working, get a new one or improve upon it. This one? Not working.
tell that to the Syrian defence ministry.

ZING!
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
MaxwellEdison said:
FalloutJack said:
By number!

{1} Fabulous.

{2} But you're trying to simplify it to just 'monarchism' when the idea defeated, and the intention is 'monarchy in the U.S.'. That's one whole bite. I have never heard anything in that time about destroying monarchy itself. That wasn't the idea, so I didn't use it. I used what DID happen.

{3} Yeah, well, I'm NOT all-or-nothing and I think that the idea of it on so vast and complex a system is wasted. If I might borrow from TvTropes, I'm a "Take A Third Option" guy at times, especially if I don't like either option. Someone else here said fascist, and I don't have the mustache for it. Must we bring in Godwin so soon?

{4} It's habit-forming. There's alot of people out there, including here on the Escapist, who immediately assume that someone is trying to set forth commands and state opinions as facts. Sorry this bothers you, but this happens and I STILL got people in this thread saying I was trying to push them around with my words when I said, FIRST LINE, that not everyone was going to agree with this. I admitted that this idea was not gonna go over well, but I decided "What the hell?". When the OP knows straight up how this is gonna go, don't assume he's trying to control the audience.
On 2, I know. I pointed this out to show you why this example didn't work for what we're talking about.
On three, it doesn't matter what you are. You don't dictate how anonymous acts, and people will continue to act using the name anonymous for quite a long time.
I believe this is where agreeing to disagree takes place. Shall we?
 

MaxwellEdison

New member
Sep 30, 2010
732
0
0
FalloutJack said:
MaxwellEdison said:
FalloutJack said:
By number!

{1} Fabulous.

{2} But you're trying to simplify it to just 'monarchism' when the idea defeated, and the intention is 'monarchy in the U.S.'. That's one whole bite. I have never heard anything in that time about destroying monarchy itself. That wasn't the idea, so I didn't use it. I used what DID happen.

{3} Yeah, well, I'm NOT all-or-nothing and I think that the idea of it on so vast and complex a system is wasted. If I might borrow from TvTropes, I'm a "Take A Third Option" guy at times, especially if I don't like either option. Someone else here said fascist, and I don't have the mustache for it. Must we bring in Godwin so soon?

{4} It's habit-forming. There's alot of people out there, including here on the Escapist, who immediately assume that someone is trying to set forth commands and state opinions as facts. Sorry this bothers you, but this happens and I STILL got people in this thread saying I was trying to push them around with my words when I said, FIRST LINE, that not everyone was going to agree with this. I admitted that this idea was not gonna go over well, but I decided "What the hell?". When the OP knows straight up how this is gonna go, don't assume he's trying to control the audience.
On 2, I know. I pointed this out to show you why this example didn't work for what we're talking about.
On three, it doesn't matter what you are. You don't dictate how anonymous acts, and people will continue to act using the name anonymous for quite a long time.
I believe this is where agreeing to disagree takes place. Shall we?
Sure.
 

RadiusXd

New member
Jun 2, 2010
743
0
0
BlueFishie said:
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.
you underestimate computers...
 

DustStorm

New member
Oct 30, 2008
83
0
0
Harlief said:
xFreekill said:
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.
My point exactly, Anonymous' current bad name is due to the fact that any old attention seeker can claim to be part of Anonymous.
Well, this is both their strength and weakness I believe that there was an article on The Escapist that analyzed this part of Anonymous and the conclusion the writer made was that due to the lack of connection any "member" has to Anonymous it becomes much harder to place charges on any and also due to the lack of leadership police are not able to follow one man, remove him from the group and let the group fall apart. Also, there is no 'money trail' which police can follow to apprehend Anons because Anons due not make any money off of their Anonymous-related activities, further making it difficult to convict them.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
At this point, Anonymous is a phrase, if it was ever anything else.

Just as you can't kill Fascism or Capitalism, you can't kill Anon. It's a descriptor of anyone who seeks the protection of anonymity so they can act with impunity.