7 ms·

I generally pro-anon, but I agree entirely with TPB in this matter. When I read Virgin's statement, I thought, "here's an ISP who gets it." They weren't seeki

I generally pro-anon, but I agree entirely with TPB in this matter. When I read Virgin's statement, I thought, "here's an ISP who gets it." They weren't seeking to punish pirates; they just wanted legal alternatives. That's all any of us want. The danger and strength of an amorphous group like Anonymous is that no one person or group controls the message. Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. There are certainly those who would view Virgin's position as a sell-out, but there are many more who see them as one of the good guys. Ultimately, any attempt to cast Anonymous as being a particular sort of entity based upon one action alone misses the point. The anons who defaced the UN home page in support of Palestine are not those who set up darknets in Zuccotti Park, who are not those who attacked Scientology. Too often, we see people who decry a particular action and claim that Anonymous has "jumped the shark". Whether or not there was a shark to jump is beside the point: the actions of any given anon are only indicative of their, and only their, beliefs. If there can be any description of Anonymous as a whole that applies to all "members", it is this: Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name. That's it. There's really not much more that can be read into the group. Note: the above descriptor is primarily intended to describe moralfags, although it can be adapted to describe lulzfags, as well.

kiba 14y ago
I view anonymous as more about feeling good about themselves rather than doing good for people. They are more like terrorists. Terrorists are in those organizations to feel good about themselves and create a sense of belonging. They don't care about achieving purported political goals. They often alienate people. They consider terrorist attack as first resort, not last resort. What sense would it make for Al Queda to attack fellow Muslims or even have bombs exploded around Muslims, for example? Would a Muslim support Al Queda if he fear his family getting killed in some random attack? Even more, they're not even good at murder. Anonymous are that way. They don't care about the consequence. They don't care about the goal they're trying to achieve. They are doing it to feel good. They are a dysfunctional organization.
- cagenut 14y ago
  That is offensively over the top nonsense. Being immature and being murderers are not even remotely "like" each other.
  - kiba 14y ago
    Terrorists are ineffective. So is anonymous.
- antihero 14y ago
  This is ridiculous. Anonymous are more like the black bloc - they are the last line, a demonstration that united, people have the power to topple giants, that we won't just lie down and take what's handed to us. Whilst the damage that is done is superficial, it is directed at targets that, for better or worse, embody what is bad about our planet - the censors, the passive observers. Taking a site down for a couple of hours isn't censorship, it's making a point. Yes, there would be more desirable outcomes (pwning their systems and disabling their blocking filter, for instance), but other than that, the goal of anonymous is simple - keep the government and companies remembering that there is many, many more of us than them, and if they decide to just push us around and infringe on our freedom, there will be consequences. The comparison to bombing which actually kills people is quite frankly offensive and you should be ashamed.
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    No, Anonymous is better than the black bloc. Anonymous does things on their own, in such a chaotic way that the people who they are supporting can disavow their actions pretty easily. Whereas the black bloc attaches themselves to peaceful demonstrations organized by entirely different groups and fucks them up. The black bloc is a demonstration to the spectator that, deep down, under every group of peaceful demonstrators for peace or civil rights, is a scary looking bomb throwing terrorist who wants to hurt you because you like Starbucks. P.S. Comparing things is not the same as saying they're the same, and the doublespeak and doublethink required to avoid comparing That Which Should Not Be Compared makes the world stupider and you should be ashamed for participating in that kind of public shaming. It's probably the defining characteristic of America, the Uncomparable.
sneak 14y ago
> Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. ...then... > Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name. You were right the second time. Anonymous no more has "members" than "libertarian" has members. It's just an adjective.
tkahn6 14y ago
Anonymous is group of predominately middle-class 16-24 year olds who want to feel purpose, control over their lives, control over their environment, and part of a community. They're angry and feel disenfranchised and want to feel like they have power. That's it. In order to achieve those goals they manufacture or adopt causes which pit them against some 'evil' which they can 'fight'. It's a lynch mob. Even if I thought they were going after entity I didn't like, I would never say I was 'pro-anon' in the same way I'm not 'pro-lynch mob' when the lynch mob is going after someone I don't like.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  Is the idea of Anonymous as a united front driven by the fragmented constituents themselves, or rather, by the media who strengthen their story by portraying the (non)organization as a unified, extremist, crusader-gone-awry? Middle class 16-24 year olds feel stronger if they can claim a greater purpose, united as one. The reporters can rile up their readership by projecting an "us versus them", "civilization versus computer-barbarians" story to its audience. I have to wonder which of these groups is the driver of this nonexistent "Anonymous United Front". One? The other? Perhaps even Both?
- jeffool 14y ago
  I feel like your description could exactly (well, maybe slightly higher age/class) be used by the UK royalty to dismiss American revolutionaries. (note: I'm not actually conflating the two groups, just saying, your criticism seems a little pointless to me. My response would be "So?") To that end, I think it all depends on the issue, the strength one feels for it, and from which direction they're coming. Definitely some people are just bored, without dedication to a cause, and looking to start shit on a scale that makes them feel important. That makes them feel like they've contributed to something. But to completely toss out a group because they're being led (knowingly or unknowingly) by those who have purpose? That's crazy.
  - tkahn6 14y ago
    > I'm not actually conflating the two groups Of course you are. If you weren't you would explain in what way the two situations are related instead of throwing out some one-off vague analogy in an appeal to nationalism or some insinuation of elitism. > My response would be "So?" My underlying point is that supporting or apologizing for a group whose raison d'être is to fill the void in its members' lives a la Project Mayhem of Fight Club is wrong. But of course that point is predicated on the reader's belief that that sort of motivation is bankrupt (morally and intellectually). I was just pointing it out. If by 'tossing out' Anonymous you mean 'rejecting the validity of its raison d'être', then that is what I'm doing and I don't see how it's crazy.

kiba 14y ago

I view anonymous as more about feeling good about themselves rather than doing good for people. They are more like terrorists. Terrorists are in those organizations to feel good about themselves and create a sense of belonging. They don't care about achieving purported political goals. They often alienate people. They consider terrorist attack as first resort, not last resort. What sense would it make for Al Queda to attack fellow Muslims or even have bombs exploded around Muslims, for example? Would a Muslim support Al Queda if he fear his family getting killed in some random attack? Even more, they're not even good at murder. Anonymous are that way. They don't care about the consequence. They don't care about the goal they're trying to achieve. They are doing it to feel good. They are a dysfunctional organization.

cagenut 14y ago
That is offensively over the top nonsense. Being immature and being murderers are not even remotely "like" each other.
- kiba 14y ago
  Terrorists are ineffective. So is anonymous.
antihero 14y ago
This is ridiculous. Anonymous are more like the black bloc - they are the last line, a demonstration that united, people have the power to topple giants, that we won't just lie down and take what's handed to us. Whilst the damage that is done is superficial, it is directed at targets that, for better or worse, embody what is bad about our planet - the censors, the passive observers. Taking a site down for a couple of hours isn't censorship, it's making a point. Yes, there would be more desirable outcomes (pwning their systems and disabling their blocking filter, for instance), but other than that, the goal of anonymous is simple - keep the government and companies remembering that there is many, many more of us than them, and if they decide to just push us around and infringe on our freedom, there will be consequences. The comparison to bombing which actually kills people is quite frankly offensive and you should be ashamed.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  No, Anonymous is better than the black bloc. Anonymous does things on their own, in such a chaotic way that the people who they are supporting can disavow their actions pretty easily. Whereas the black bloc attaches themselves to peaceful demonstrations organized by entirely different groups and fucks them up. The black bloc is a demonstration to the spectator that, deep down, under every group of peaceful demonstrators for peace or civil rights, is a scary looking bomb throwing terrorist who wants to hurt you because you like Starbucks. P.S. Comparing things is not the same as saying they're the same, and the doublespeak and doublethink required to avoid comparing That Which Should Not Be Compared makes the world stupider and you should be ashamed for participating in that kind of public shaming. It's probably the defining characteristic of America, the Uncomparable.

sneak 14y ago

> Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. ...then... > Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name. You were right the second time. Anonymous no more has "members" than "libertarian" has members. It's just an adjective.

tkahn6 14y ago

Anonymous is group of predominately middle-class 16-24 year olds who want to feel purpose, control over their lives, control over their environment, and part of a community. They're angry and feel disenfranchised and want to feel like they have power. That's it. In order to achieve those goals they manufacture or adopt causes which pit them against some 'evil' which they can 'fight'. It's a lynch mob. Even if I thought they were going after entity I didn't like, I would never say I was 'pro-anon' in the same way I'm not 'pro-lynch mob' when the lynch mob is going after someone I don't like.

hkmurakami 14y ago
Is the idea of Anonymous as a united front driven by the fragmented constituents themselves, or rather, by the media who strengthen their story by portraying the (non)organization as a unified, extremist, crusader-gone-awry? Middle class 16-24 year olds feel stronger if they can claim a greater purpose, united as one. The reporters can rile up their readership by projecting an "us versus them", "civilization versus computer-barbarians" story to its audience. I have to wonder which of these groups is the driver of this nonexistent "Anonymous United Front". One? The other? Perhaps even Both?
jeffool 14y ago
I feel like your description could exactly (well, maybe slightly higher age/class) be used by the UK royalty to dismiss American revolutionaries. (note: I'm not actually conflating the two groups, just saying, your criticism seems a little pointless to me. My response would be "So?") To that end, I think it all depends on the issue, the strength one feels for it, and from which direction they're coming. Definitely some people are just bored, without dedication to a cause, and looking to start shit on a scale that makes them feel important. That makes them feel like they've contributed to something. But to completely toss out a group because they're being led (knowingly or unknowingly) by those who have purpose? That's crazy.
- tkahn6 14y ago
  > I'm not actually conflating the two groups Of course you are. If you weren't you would explain in what way the two situations are related instead of throwing out some one-off vague analogy in an appeal to nationalism or some insinuation of elitism. > My response would be "So?" My underlying point is that supporting or apologizing for a group whose raison d'être is to fill the void in its members' lives a la Project Mayhem of Fight Club is wrong. But of course that point is predicated on the reader's belief that that sort of motivation is bankrupt (morally and intellectually). I was just pointing it out. If by 'tossing out' Anonymous you mean 'rejecting the validity of its raison d'être', then that is what I'm doing and I don't see how it's crazy.