5 ms·
Like I said, this is not Anon. Think about it. Anon aren't stupid. And going up against Facebook is stupid.
by palish 15y ago
Like I said, this is not Anon. Think about it. Anon aren't stupid. And going up against Facebook is stupid.
- inconditus 15y agoThere is no better example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
- xtal 15y agoNo, that doesn't apply here at all. There's no (public) definition of who is or isn't Anonymous.
- Radix 15y agoSure it does. No true scotsman breaks down to a claim that some group has some Trait, then claiming that because some individual does not share the Trait they are by definition out of the group. I guess sometimes it's valid, but not here. Anon hasn't shown itself capable of an attack like this and if you look at the attacks by anon on scientology you'll be left wondering they were able to form a group identitiy with their fringe (core?) As it is. Palish might be right that this doesn't sound like its from any of the main group.
- natesm 15y agoIsn't "Anonymous" anyone who claims to be it?
- samstave 15y agoYou must work for congress, quick, lets make being anonymous illegal. That'll stop this!
- samstave 15y agoYou must work for congress, quick, lets make being anonymous illegal. That'll stop this!
- atomicdog 15y agoWithin reason. It's anyone within the Anonymous subculture that claims to be it.
- cookiecaper 15y agoThere is no way to tell if someone is credibly "within the Anonymous subculture" and "Anonymous" "releases" conflicting "press releases" with some regularity. There is no organization to "Anonymous", it's just an MSM-manufactured boogeyman to represent any teenager and/or groups of teenagers which knows how to send a lot of requests to a website simultaneously. samstave is also correct that those in power relish this since it gives them a lot of latitude to scare the commoners and get better tracing tools in place.