Poll: So where do you stand on Anonymous and why?
- Thread starter creager91
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Anonymous is essentially youth culture, aspects of them that are a bit more tech-savvy being involved in political action as of late, so for me to say I stand for or against it would be such a great over-generalization as to be rendered meaningless.
In all bluntness, they don't bother me. They entertain me sometimes and quite often I find myself agreeing with their reasoning, if not their methods.
Some of the silliness that it creates can be funny if it's not happening to you. I sure as heck wouldn't want to annoy them to the point of them attacking me. I've seen what they're capable of, whether you think their hiding their identities classes them as cowardly or not.
Some of the silliness that it creates can be funny if it's not happening to you. I sure as heck wouldn't want to annoy them to the point of them attacking me. I've seen what they're capable of, whether you think their hiding their identities classes them as cowardly or not.
I used to raid everything with em from the australian government to paypal and even habbo hotel but now I've been trolling less and because of that have been raiding less. also anonymous doesn't stand for anything and probably never will, people often say that they stand for the freedom of speech etc when in reality they stand for the thing that has A: the most supporters in the internet folk or B:the thing that being with provides the most lulz aka trolling
I'm not bothered by who they are harassing at the moment, but I wouldn't be happy if that factor changed.
The short, short version. Like I say I've been debating this issue with myself for about six or seven years now, maybe longer, and I still haven't come to a full conclusion of how exactly I feel about it.flying_gazzelle said:
I believe that the Primary Right of every human being is the right to freedom from oppression, be it physical, verbal, mental or any other form of oppresion. I'm not so naieve as to think that claiming we have a right to something makes it so, but that's the singular right I would defend to the death.
The Secondary Right of every human being is the right to freedom of speech (also thuoght and expression, but that's a very separate issue for me), except when it conflicts with the Primary Right of another human being. If your exercising of your second right knowingly and with forethought conflicts with the Primary Right of another person, you have sacrificed your right to freedom of speech.
In practice: The Westboro Baptist Church verbally insult and abuse homosexuals, the Marine Corps, the Jewish religion, and a whole range of others which I probably couldn't even list here. Thus they have used their Secondary Right to knowingly oppress other people, violating the Primary Rights of anyone they attack. Thus the Westboro Baptist Church from my perspective have lost their right to freedom of speech.
In some ways I don't believe freedom of speech even is a Right. I believe it's a privilege and a responsibility, and if you can't exercise restraint when addressing wrongs you feel, then you don't deserve it.
Before the inevitable counter-argument, yes, I know that the primary argument against my personal philosophy is that by saying that someone else no longer have the right to freedom of speech that is a violation of their primary right to freedom from oppression, but in some ways I feel the two are connected. This is why I also largely support the spirit of politically correct language, if not the letter of it.
It is possible to have debates, arguments, even heated fights, exhibiting every form of free speech, and not oppress someone. If you meet on even grounds for discussion, then all's fair. But if you knowingly use your power to subjugate somebody else either with or without the pretense of liberation then you are in the wrong. (This is getting into the sub-issue of freedom and rights, that is to say power and the distribution thereof, so it's only tangentally related, and I won't dwell on it.)
But it is another part of why I don't like Anonymous. They have all the power, and they don't use it responsibly. They don't meet people on even ground, they meet them as bullies with greater power. Gene Simmons. Did they defend his right to freedom of speech when he disagreed with them? Where were their morals and ethics then? If the one tenet of Anonymous is defending to the death a person's right to say something, why is it that when that thing is said against Anonymous they suddenly have carte blanche to oppress the person who spoke against them just because they have the power to do so, and no inclination to try and argue rationally, instead of striking out like a petulant child?
But like I say, that's becoming a discussion of power politics in human society.
In summation, I don't believe in freedom of speech for several reasons, partly because I don't believe it's a right but a privilege, partly because I think that exercising freedom of speech to oppress other people is a greater wrong than having your own freedom of speech oppressed because you carried out oppressive acts first, and partly because I think that power ratios must be equal for there to be true freedom, and since there is no balance of power, there can be no equality.
Where do I "stand"?
When did this become a polticol issue?
They are a group of very skilled people who act as, for lack of a better term, Chaotic Good at their best, and evil at their worst, but most of the time are in neutral.
They have good intentions for the most part, they want freedom. They just have bad PR.
When did this become a polticol issue?
They are a group of very skilled people who act as, for lack of a better term, Chaotic Good at their best, and evil at their worst, but most of the time are in neutral.
They have good intentions for the most part, they want freedom. They just have bad PR.
I agree with some of their actions disagree with others, their stance against Scientology and promotion of Wikileaks is good however uploading porn onto youtube videos advertised as Justin Bieber so that kids see it is just wrong.
I agree with this, and with what you said about the possibility to forfeit free speech if you are using it to violate another person's "Primary Right." There's a distortion somehow to the spirit of freedom that it can be used to take from someone else, who is supposed to be equal to you in freedom, their freedom, or diminish it at least - not all speech should be protected, and then we get into the value judgements and the slippery slope and all the other dark alleys of philosophy, but practically speaking it remains true.
I am not sure I consider what Anonymous is doing to be "oppression" so much as "inconvenience" - there hasn't been a target I know of who wasn't fully capable of continuing their daily lives with only some embarrassment at having been disrupted slightly. I don't think the feelings they've engendered even in their 'victims' have come to a level to compare with those grieving a fallen soldier and loved one to the angry chants of homophobic head cases.
I'm not 'fired up', I'm merely wondering why my generation likes to identify itself with the stupidest shit imaginable.creager91 said:
I have no strong feelings one way or the other!
...because I like what they stand for but don't necessarily approve of their methods.
they do stuff for lulz, some of its entertaining some of it is wrong. But most of the time its lulz