Nevermind Obama - Vote Anonymous in 2012

22

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

HeartBurnKid

If the organizers of APOA decide to stop kicking the hornets' nest that is Anonymous, I would suggest allying themselves with the United States Pirate Party instead.  They seem to share most of the same ideals.

avatar

Greg4422

avatar

boodiespost

Seriously, Brad.. Bra, why are you guys falling for it?  That is what these punk kids want.  Attention.  So please do us a favor and stop glamorizing these punk bisquits.  We don't want to know.  Please stop submitting news regarding lulsec.. nut sacks.

avatar

Marthian

this is anonymous, not lulsec. Lulsec *supposedly* stopped their attacks.

Either way, hackers are still not helping anyone.

avatar

lindethier

This.

avatar

DDRDiesel

"the server's not resolving at the time of publication."

 

Because Anonymous is DDoS-ing the Hell out of them.  Not surprised

avatar

TerribleToaster

'"Anonymous is not a f**king group [...]"'

*Googles "Anonymous"*

Top Result:

Anonymous (group) - Wikipedia, the free encycolpedia

Sounds like a group to me, let's check for sure

*Opens link*

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) [...]

Hmmmm, mass nouns... 

*keeps reading*

 Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech.

So they are a collection of people that work in sync? But that's not a group.

 

Then again, this is coming from an anarchist group.

avatar

Ghok

Anarchy just means a lack of leadership. Not a lack of working together. (A pipe dream, I think, though it is a nice thought).

I like to think of Anonymous as a banner. People rally under this banner to fight for a common cause, but it's not really the same as an organized group. Of course, it's still technically a GROUP, but that has a pretty broad definition. That's all this guy means.

avatar

twister753

This.

avatar

TerribleToaster

It is actually impossible for true anarchy and a collective effort to exist in the same thing. Simply because it must mean you accept someone is above you in doing some thing (collaboration, no matter how democratic, always requires an acknowledgement of someone being in some position).

 

Esseintally, it is impossible to have organzied anarchy beacuse a side effect of anarchy is a loss of organization. If you aren't organize you can't be collaborative.

It's why self-proclaimed anarchy organizations like Anon are self defeating. Of course, anarchy isn't the only side of Anon, but it is the one I find most amussing.

avatar

steakkills

But that is just the way our society is run I'm positive if there were some way to work out a true communist state the world would be better no major equality wars or ethnic wars would take place bcause everyone would be the same in the eyes of that ideology.

avatar

TerribleToaster

Not sure who this was directed at, nor what it was addressing because I don't think anyone talkeed about Communism.

But I'll point out that Communism does not equal Anarchy. Though there is a form of Anarchy (or Communism, depends how you want to approach it) called Anchro-Communism that blends both.

avatar

illusionslayer

In a perfect Anarchy everyone is equal. If a member of the group does not flow with the group or threatens to harm the group's ideals or the group itself that member is pruned and thrown out.  Have you ever actually given this any thought or are you just repeating what your popPsy teacher told you?

 

Everyone votes on every matter.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

"In a perfect Anarchy everyone is equal."

No, in a perfect "Democracy" everyone is equal. In a perfect Anarchy, no one is equal.

"If a member of the group does not flow with the group or threatens to harm the group's ideals or the group itself that member is pruned and thrown out."

Anarchy's can't act as a group, as that requires representation. If it was a Anarchy they would be required to, in order to stay an Anarchy, to do nothing about a "rogue member" of the "group". If the "group" acted together to throw out the rogue member, they would be creating a leadership position (that is, the group is the leader and its members the followers), which would be a Democracy.

"Have you ever actually given this any thought or are you just repeating what your popPsy teacher told you?"

Baseless personal attacks totally prove your point. -_-

"Everyone votes on every matter."

That is called Democracy. Literally, it is the definition of it.

 

avatar

steakkills

they arent really anarchist they are just pushing for a more true democratic system

avatar

TerribleToaster

They claim to be anarchist group. They have made this claim multiple times. :P

You are right that what they really push is a more "true" democracy, but I am also right that them thinking of themselves as an "anarchist group" is, well, wrong.

avatar

illusionslayer

Also, if I claim to be an 8'7'' purple unicorn and make that claim several times it makes it true in some fashion?

avatar

TerribleToaster

That was my point. They claim it, but it's not true. Your hostility is pointless as you are agreeing with what I'm saying.

avatar

illusionslayer

Tell me, how can a group that is so massive and uncontrolled make a collective claim. I for one know that Anon is not an Anarchist. It follows a group mentality based on what a few members suggest they protest. Someone throws together some facts on a pretty poster that's made to aggravate Anon and they attack.

You would be right about them being wrong if they actually thought they were anarchists. Sure some newfag might tell you "Anarchy ftw man. Fuck The Police!" But I assure you that is not the collectivew agreement, as evidenced by this splinter group.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

"Tell me, how can a group that is so massive and uncontrolled make a collective claim. I for one know that Anon is not an Anarchist." 

As do I. If you had read anything of my posts, you would realize this. A simple summary of all I've said so far: 

"Anon Central thinks of Anon as anarchist, they are not." 

Pointing out they aren't Anarchist is a pointless (i.e. red herring), it's a agreed upon fact.

 

"You would be right about them being wrong if they actually thought they were anarchists."

What was the point of your first paragraph? It's clear from this sentence that you already know I don't think Anon is anarchist.

"Sure some newfag might tell you "Anarchy ftw man. Fuck The Police!" But I assure you that is not the collectivew agreement, as evidenced by this splinter group."

Funny thing is that if you read my post you realize I was quoting the Anon central claim that anon was not a group/organization. Which I then pointed out that this anarchist idea was false and that Anon was a group.

 

From what I've seen of what you posted here, I must have somehow pushed your buttons because you aren't even trying to prove a point, but rather disagree with me for the sake of it.

 

avatar

steakkills

That is a similar conclusion I drew up

avatar

iceman08

anarchist collective that collaborates*

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.