# Anonymous



## SAWitall (Mar 24, 2011)

just wondering who else has seen them pwn westboro baptist church; scientology, the guys trying to stop wikileaks and censor the internet 
if not, heres a place to start.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQKbHBqDwSI


----------



## SirMyghin (Mar 24, 2011)

Wow that woman is annoying.


----------



## -42- (Mar 24, 2011)




----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 24, 2011)

Anonymous are wierd. They've done some good shit, but also are a big threat to security.


----------



## Customisbetter (Mar 24, 2011)

Anon is a a strange phenomenon for sure. Only time will tell if Anon will be an ultimate force of good or evil.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 24, 2011)

THEY SAID YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE!


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 24, 2011)

Scientology is a puppet cult. Go do some research on them, you'll enjoy the lulz!



Their founder is an inspiration, for comedy! Take two bean tins, some wire.... and battery... Aha, a device for measuring the inner souls conductivity!!! L. Ron Hubbard, who else in history put an initial BEFORE their first name..... *sigh*



Westboro Baptists.... Big comedy target for several years....


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 24, 2011)

Also, wanted to add this....

* Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid!!! *



* O M G, they take themselves seriously!!! *


----------



## orb451 (Mar 24, 2011)

Seem like a bunch of misguided common criminals to me.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 24, 2011)

I don't say much about them in case they don't like me and ruin my life. I'm not even sure what to think about their whole movement, anyways.


----------



## Meshugger (Mar 27, 2011)

They are a wierd group for sure, a bit chaotic maybe. But they can do good things on the internet as well.

Anonymous pays their regards to a WWII-veteran's 90th birthday

The story was that the guy had posted on the bulletin board at local mall that he was celebrating his 90th birthday, and he wished to invite as many as possible since he didn't have much friends or family left. Someone took a photo and posted it on the 4chan boards and simply asked people to send him some birthday cards. The result was (as you can read in the video):

- 50 Bouquets of Flowers
- 20 Cakes
- Countless cards.
- He said 5 UPS have pulled up today with stuff for him.
- They also said the local Postal Mail had 2 trucks full of cards.

Don't worry, it's ok to shed a man-tear every now and then for things such as these


----------



## Explorer (Mar 27, 2011)

I thnk it's infinitely more clever to use a group's tactics against them In the case of the WBC, I previously had talked about all the options for someone to picket alongside them, with signs that said things like "Forgiveness? Not in my Bible!" and "Jesus got it wrong! We got it right!" 

Basically, by embracing what someone says at face value and running with it, one has more opportunities for traction than by breaking the law.

Larry Flynt was brilliant for finding people who had dirt on all those who were protesting the behaviour of Clinton. It's hard to be sanctimonious when someone is publishing that you've been fucking around on your wife all those years you've been shouting about the kmportance of family values.

To vandalize someone's home, business or property doesn't seem very amazing. To use someone's own words or actions against them... that fits *my* definition of "pwning." 

Maybe I just have higher standards. 

"Wow, someone broke into his car! He got pwned!"

Lame.

*laugh*

By the way, I think it would be funny to use that woman's slur against a Jew in some sort of stuttering music video, with her ranking on Jesus.


----------



## GazPots (Mar 31, 2011)

Meshugger said:


> They are a wierd group for sure, a bit chaotic maybe. But they can do good things on the internet as well.
> 
> Anonymous pays their regards to a WWII-veteran's 90th birthday
> 
> ...



So they ain't just a bunch of interweb douches after all.  Epic.


----------



## Winspear (Mar 31, 2011)

Over 9000 sins


----------



## Deadnightshade (Mar 31, 2011)

Wow Tom Cruise's speech was deep as an unrecessed knob cavity.


----------



## gunshow86de (Mar 31, 2011)

L Ron Hubbard said:


> "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."


----------



## Origin (Mar 31, 2011)

They also harass innocent teenagers and make death threats to their families and think it's cool and funny. Sooo, really I'm on the fence. Doesn't really matter to me if they've messed with some cults if they're also trying to make people kill themselves. Kind of really goddamn sociopathic.


----------



## SAWitall (Apr 1, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I thnk it's infinitely more clever to use a group's tactics against them In the case of the WBC, I previously had talked about all the options for someone to picket alongside them, with signs that said things like "Forgiveness? Not in my Bible!" and "Jesus got it wrong! We got it right!"
> 
> Basically, by embracing what someone says at face value and running with it, one has more opportunities for traction than by breaking the law.
> 
> ...


 

you definetly have a good point...but in the case of scientology and wbc u cant fight em, fire plus fire makes a blaze. as many many anti-protesters have tried and failed. sometimes u just gotta


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Apr 1, 2011)

The thing with Anon is that some of them are just good people, some are hacktivist, and others are trolls. The voices for Anon, it seems, though, try to separate themselves from the trolls. 

I did a report last month on Anon for a current event project in my US History class, and really got some insight into how it works, and that is that it doesn't work. Anon has no leadership whatsoever, no real way of planning since, well, everyone's anonymous. That's the key to its survival, though. Because Anonymous never has one general direction in its ideals, its always in the middle of an enormous discussion on the issues, creating new, refined ideas. The anonymity of its members also assist's in newer "members" putting there ideas forward, as no one can have any bias towards another member as know one knows who's posting. 

Remember their motto,
We are Anonymous.
We are legion. 
We do not forgive.
We do not forget. 
Expect us. 

Though recent events have caused some of their members to use a different motto, one that I kind of like.

We may be Anonymous, but we are still human. 
We may never forgive, but we are still capable of compassion.
We may never forget, but we are still a bad memory for some. 
Expect us. Just not all of us.

NOTE:I am not a "member" of Anonymous. I do, however, follow what they are doing, the hacktivist part. It really is interesting to watch how they work, just check out Anon News a few times a day and you'll see what I mean.

Example of a troll in Anon(Who really should be kicked out for removing his Anonymity):
p2pnet news » Blog Archive » Anonymous leader identified: Barrett Brown

Actual good guys in Anon:
AnonNews.org : Everything Anonymous
AnonNews.org : Everything Anonymous


----------



## Explorer (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm suggesting something much different from an anti-protest. I'm suggesting joining them, and being completely enthusiastic for their ideas... including the one's they aren't saying out loud because *they know they will lose all credibility.*

More than once, I've joined groups who were promoting civic projects or agendas which I thought were off-base. I go through the whole process, attending the meetings, and make my public testimony, and then when people hear the reasoning behind the often repeated talking points, they vote that shit down.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 3, 2011)

Explorer, why would you do that? 

Isn't it better to judge their actions based on their merits instead of the reasoning behind it? 

From what I hear about them their reasoning could be anything from "fucking bored" to "just love fucking with people" to "satisfaction from helping out some good cause", in any case, as long as they're helping spread information that are valuable to the public, I'm for them, I don't care if they're all pedophiles.


----------



## SAWitall (Apr 3, 2011)

yeah for the most part i think there good folks...its just interesting to see the ppl that are very very WELL versed in the net actually put it to some real world use rather than just trolling boards and lulzy 4 chan nonsense. not that that stuffs not fun but there really out there showing the real world potential of the internet


----------



## Explorer (Apr 3, 2011)

silentrage said:


> Explorer, why would you do that?
> 
> Isn't it better to judge their actions based on their merits instead of the reasoning behind it?



Two examples:

There was a proposed shopping center in my old neighborhood. There was one proposal where the developers had previously grabbed what they could, and left everyone else holding the bag. In their previous arrangements, there obviously hadn't been an escrow arrangement to ensure completion.

(The other proposal was doable on a much smaller scope, and fit with the neighborhood.)

So, I joined up with the larger group. I was just as enthusiastic... but I kept emphasizing one point: "Our guys believe in doing the right thing, and therefore will pay for excrow and a completion bond for all the neighborhood amenities they're promising. They'll consider the neighborhood things first, just so we know we can trust them!" I added one further point: "People can say anything. What matters is what they will agree to sign."

So, the big presentation comes up, and I make those two points. The developers' lawyer opens his mouth: "We have never agreed to any stipulations regarding completion." The county council asked why not, and when the justifications started rolling out, the vote went entirely to the smaller project.

Which, incidentally, turned out really beautifully, and created a nice little neighborhood center with water features for kids to play in and around, food places surrounding that, and larger stores here and there. All of it used existing surface streets, and parking was integrated as well. As the center was walking distance from many residents, and no apartment buildings were torn down for the plan, more tax revenue was raised as well over time.

----

In high school, I joined up with a group which wanted school prayer. It turned out that a bunch of Christian fundamentalist pastors were behind it, and my friends and I did a bit more research than they might have wanted.

When we got to present to the school board, we pulled out our posters, showing the percentage of students who worshipped the Christian god, the Muslim god, the Jewish god, and the number of days of school prayer each would receive. We also had days for the kids who professed to worship Satan, those who followed Hinduism, and there was one token day for those who said they worshipped the Norse pantheon. And, of course, there were days with no prayer, for the atheist students.

The school board members asked if this research, done to ensure representative prayer and fairness, had been our idea. "Yes, but the real movers behind school prayer were pastor X and preacher Y, who are sitting at the back of the auditorium. They said that we shouldn't talk about their being involved, because the rules and the law say that they weren't allowed, but I'm sure they have the courage of their convictions. Why would men of God want to use the tools of the Deceiver?"

That proposal was voted down as well.

----

I've been asked if I ever join a group, assuming the worst of people, and then am proved wrong. Every time I join such a group, and I go in willing to take their stated values at face value, they eventually show that side that I suspect is there when I join. 

Isn't that sad?

Anyway, if someone wants to cast doubt on evolution because they want good Christian values taught instead, I think that their true reasoning is definitely part of the discussion. If someone wants to keep 12-step programs going because those programs rely on a Supreme Being/Higher Power, even if their recidivism rate is far higher than other programs, then *why* those programs are retained despite their failure rate is part of the discussion. 

If you can't talk about the true reasoning... well, actually, why *can't* you talk about the true reasoning put into something? If one has to invent something to cover that reasoning, then the cover story is just concocted to sound good, and isn't necessarily sound. Give me someone who comes up with something without a hidden agenda, and I'll give it more credit. 

Wow! So, to rephrase your question...

If someone is ostensibly doing good, does it matter to you if they have a hidden agenda which might bite you on the ass at some point? Or should that never be considered? 

Case in point: "Gee, Michael Jackson really loves having those less privileged boys over, and showing them a good time! He says he loves all children... er, even though he doesn't include girls... Nope, I'm not going to worry about it! Have a good time, son!"


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 3, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Two examples:
> 
> There was a proposed shopping center in my old neighborhood. There was one proposal where the developers had previously grabbed what they could, and left everyone else holding the bag. In their previous arrangements, there obviously hadn't been an escrow arrangement to ensure completion.
> 
> ...



If I am reading this correctly, Explorerer, you are advocating the use of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster for the uninitiated) style argument?

Awesome stories btw.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 3, 2011)

Lol, great stories.

You should always watch out for the development of a movement or idea, regardless of whether you find it to be altruistic at the start, because all ideas could turn bad, all movements could change direction. There is some real worries that advanced societies can turn fascist when faced with a great crisis. So in that regard I do agree with you. 

What I'm saying, which is rather idealistic and may not apply entirely practically, is that, say Neo-Nazis want to feed and cloth homeless Jewish people, I would support them, but if they start secretly putting them in camps and gasing them, then obvious they need to be stopped. 

If a devious individual spends his whole life pretending to be a righteous individual, then there is no difference between him and a truly righteous individual, which I think may be the case with anonymous at the moment.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 3, 2011)

silentrage said:


> Lol, great stories.
> 
> You should always watch out for the development of a movement or idea, regardless of whether you find it to be altruistic at the start, because all ideas could turn bad, all movements could change direction. There is some real worries that advanced societies can turn fascist when faced with a great crisis. So in that regard I do agree with you.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with Explorer. Its prudent to question the origin of a groups' motives before aligning yourself with them. On the surface I could easily support Christian missions that feed starving children. However those missions also propagate the spread of religious dogma that I can't agree with. One has to understand fully what they are supporting and one can only do that by asking questions and examining motives.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 3, 2011)

That's totally cool by me, what do you guys think their motive or ulterior motive might be?


----------



## Explorer (Apr 3, 2011)

silentrage said:


> What I'm saying, which is rather idealistic and may not apply entirely practically, is that, say Neo-Nazis want to feed and cloth homeless Jewish people, I would support them, but if they start secretly putting them in camps and gasing them, then obvious they need to be stopped.
> 
> If a devious individual spends his whole life pretending to be a righteous individual, then there is no difference between him and a truly righteous individual, which I think may be the case with anonymous at the moment.



Regarding the Neo-Nazis, if such a group suddenly decided to change its focus, while *still* insisting it was affiliated with the Nazis... then it would be clear that there was some ulterior motive, don't you think? To do good works for the Jews in the hopes of rehabilitating the name of Hitler, who planned to exterminate them all, is like Michael Jackson giving money for disadvantaged children in order to have access to them, for whatever reason. 

If a devious individual spends his whole life pretending to be a righteous man, but at the last moment abuses the position he's gained by pretending to be a righteous man, then the consequences are too grave. Simple example: A family man who marries, has children, goes to his church, and then brings something home from work at some virus lab and unleashes it to wipe all humans off the face of the planet. If there were indications that he had felt that way from the beginning, but those indications were to disappear... would it be evidence of there being no problem, or of such thoughts being better hidden?

That's why they do such deep background checks in order to issue security clearances for critical posts and positions. Motives do matter, and it's too dangerous to take on chance for some things.

----

Here's a real-life example, revealing how strange motives can be: There was a woman who fought against abortion and contraception, and who managed to alleviate much suffering among the poor, all done in the name of her god. After she died, her writings revealed that she doubted her god existed. So, with so much of her efforts helping to prevent contraception and good information about AIDS in Africa, would you say Mother Teresa's ideas and thinking were dangerous, even if she managed to help some of those to whom she denied access to birth control and barrier methods?

Weirder still, she threw herself into the breach in order to bolster herself in the face of her lack of faith. She inflicted the results of what she thought her faith would have demanded, if it had but existed.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 5, 2011)

So, Anonymous have announced they basically want to take down Sony.

This should be entertaining.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Apr 5, 2011)

Tech2 : PlayStation 3 - PSN Down a Day after Hackers Promise Revenge on Sony

Apparently it's already happened. What they were going to do anyway.


----------



## Marv Attaxx (Apr 5, 2011)

Could you freakin' hackers please leave my beloved PS3 alone?

I'm gettin tired of this shit!!


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 5, 2011)

Attack Sony? They've lost any respect I might have grudgingly gave them. Attack Wal-Mart or something, come on guys. How am I supposed to play Assassin's Creed 3 online now?


----------



## Customisbetter (Apr 5, 2011)

I hate Sony as well. Sucks to be a PS3 owner though.


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 5, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I hate Sony as well. Sucks to be a PS3 owner though.



You...hate...Sony?













Jesse used

*FANBOI RAGE ATTACK*

It's super-effective!


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 5, 2011)

Everything involving 4chan and anon is childish and stupid, IMO.


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 5, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Everything involving 4chan and anon is childish and stupid, IMO.



I'm starting to think so, too. For as many good things as they do, they at least double that in attacks motivated by retribution.


----------



## Mordacain (Apr 5, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I hate Sony as well. Sucks to be a PS3 owner though.



Yea, I've got a grudge against the evil overlords myself. 

While it sucks that users get put out, an attack like that is the only real way to damage a company. Lost revenue gets attention from the corporate mind.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 5, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Everything involving 4chan and anon is childish and stupid, IMO.



Eh, it fluctuates with time. Old 4chan members, by the stereotype, are the cold-hearted, ruthless people who do raids for the lulz, and are feared. New 4chan members, by the stereotype, are a bunch of underaged pre-teens who spurt random memes to somehow impress others. 

All in all, it doesn't matter who you are if you can LOIC, etc. The lack of guidance isn't the issue, but the lack of organization. Remember when Anonymous took down Mastercard and all those other companies after the Assange thing happened? That's not an easy thing to do.

Once you sift through all the horse porn, child porn, furry porn and other shit on 4chan, you'll find some real concern for the world around us, the problem is there's too much clutter of useless shit that doesn't really matter.


----------



## Marv Attaxx (Apr 5, 2011)

I don't care anymore if Sony's lawyers gang-rape geohot and those other fuckheads 
I've never used the Other-Os feature (like most PS3 owners). I love my PS3 and I love my PSN so stop hacking it goddammit 
Is 3.60 still save btw?
There were some rumors that some guy (mathieu or something) hacked it but is too scared of Sony's wrath to release it lol.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 5, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Eh, it fluctuates with time. Old 4chan members, by the stereotype, are the cold-hearted, ruthless people who do raids for the lulz, and are feared. New 4chan members, by the stereotype, are a bunch of underaged pre-teens who spurt random memes to somehow impress others.
> 
> All in all, it doesn't matter who you are if you can LOIC, etc. The lack of guidance isn't the issue, but the lack of organization. Remember when Anonymous took down Mastercard and all those other companies after the Assange thing happened? That's not an easy thing to do.
> 
> Once you sift through all the horse porn, child porn, furry porn and other shit on 4chan, you'll find some real concern for the world around us, the problem is there's too much clutter of useless shit that doesn't really matter.



That's good, it'll confuse the authorities even more, and no organization means it's hard to take them down, they kind of don't exist. :/


----------



## Xaios (Apr 5, 2011)

silentrage said:


> That's good, it'll confuse the authorities even more, and no organization means it's hard to take them down, they kind of don't exist. :/



True, but 8 years ago people thought they were safe from the RIAA while downloading illegal MP3's, until people started getting sued left, right and centre.

Sony has the resources to deal with these kinds of people.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 5, 2011)

The RIAA is a chubby coon and a basket case, I don't want to do their spells and shit.

Oh yeah I live in Canada and no one gives a fuck about downloading music here, I'm safe.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 5, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> The RIAA is a chubby coon and a basket case, I don't want to do their spells and shit.
> 
> Oh yeah I live in Canada and no one gives a fuck about downloading music here, I'm safe.



If you download music illegally, you're an asshole. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Apr 5, 2011)

dragonblade629 said:


> The thing with Anon is that some of them are just good people, some are hacktivist, and others are trolls. The voices for Anon, it seems, though, try to separate themselves from the trolls.
> 
> I did a report last month on Anon for a current event project in my US History class, and really got some insight into how it works, and that is that it doesn't work. Anon has no leadership whatsoever, no real way of planning since, well, everyone's anonymous. That's the key to its survival, though. Because Anonymous never has one general direction in its ideals, its always in the middle of an enormous discussion on the issues, creating new, refined ideas. The anonymity of its members also assist's in newer "members" putting there ideas forward, as no one can have any bias towards another member as know one knows who's posting.
> 
> ...



Guitarman, Reverend, read what I posted earlier.

OR

tl;dr version-Not everyone in Anonymous is an asshole.

It wasn't really that long, though.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 5, 2011)

Xaios said:


> If you download music illegally, you're an asshole. That's all there is to it.



Come at me bro. I'm not in the habit of paying money for an album that I'm not sure I'll like, especially one from a major label band that will only get like 10% of the album proceeds anyways. If I like a band, I'll see them live and buy their merch, which gets them more profit than an album purchase. Not to mention I'm poor as fuck. And also not to mention: try finding half the stuff I've downloaded in hard copy or just anywhere. Pretty hard to find stuff.

Either way, if a band is only in it for the money, then that's disappointing. To be fair, all the songs I'm releasing in the next few years for all my one man side projects are being released for free and I'll even seed the torrents them myself, so it's all good.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 5, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Come at me bro. I'm not in the habit of paying money for an album that I'm not sure I'll like, especially one from a major label band that will only get like 10% of the album proceeds anyways. If I like a band, I'll see them live and buy their merch, which gets them more profit than an album purchase. Not to mention I'm poor as fuck. And also not to mention: try finding half the stuff I've downloaded in hard copy or just anywhere. Pretty hard to find stuff.
> 
> Either way, if a band is only in it for the money, then that's disappointing. To be fair, all the songs I'm releasing in the next few years for all my one man side projects are being released for free and I'll even seed the torrents them myself, so it's all good.



You can try and justify it all you want. Illegally downloading music makes you a thief. You're stealing from both the band and the label, and regardless of your personal feelings about "stickin' it to THE MAN," stealing from a label is still stealing. If you like a band, go ahead and go to the shows, pay for the merch, power to you. But don't steal the music. Your current socioeconomic status is no excuse to commit theft, especially theft of something you don't actually need to survive. Life isn't fair, but that's how it is. If you don't like it, then do what you have to in order to make your situation better, just like the rest of the people in world have to do.

The bands who's music you're downloading from signed a contract with their labels. Whether or not the terms to which they agreed were fair, the fact of the matter is that they still agreed to them. The record execs didn't force them to sign at gunpoint.

If you want to make educated decisions regarding the music that you buy, then listen to the samples they provide for legal listening and read the reviews. If they don't exist, then you'll have to do what the rest of law-abiding citizens of the world do and buy it on faith, or not. I read dozens of album reviews every week from a whole bunch of different sources, and as a result only a very few of the couple hundred and some albums that I've *LEGALLY* purchased have disapointed me.

You can come up with all the reasons you like, but there's no excuse.

Anyways, this thread is going way o/t.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 5, 2011)

How bout we stop here because neither of us is going to change our opinions and it's just a waste of time?


----------



## Xaios (Apr 5, 2011)

I can agree to that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 5, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Come at me bro. I'm not in the habit of paying money for an album that I'm not sure I'll like, especially one from a major label band that will only get like 10% of the album proceeds anyways. If I like a band, I'll see them live and buy their merch, which gets them more profit than an album purchase. Not to mention I'm poor as fuck. And also not to mention: try finding half the stuff I've downloaded in hard copy or just anywhere. Pretty hard to find stuff.
> 
> Either way, if a band is only in it for the money, then that's disappointing. To be fair, all the songs I'm releasing in the next few years for all my one man side projects are being released for free and I'll even seed the torrents them myself, so it's all good.



Keep that discussion off this forum or I'll come at you bro.....with the ban hammer.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 5, 2011)

I don't want to perpectuate a heated discussion or anything, but I do have an interesting perspective I think.
This comes after seeing periphery live for the first time last week. I fucking love their music, but even though they played at a club that had nice audio, I still couldn't hear all the intricate details that I know bulb painstakingly put in the songs. 
I would prefer to just send some money directly to their paypal account, and download their music, and maybe in exchange I get a voucher that I can use to go to one of their future shows just to meet them, shake hands, shoot some crap, or something. 
Cut out the middle man.


----------



## -42- (Apr 6, 2011)

Xaios said:


> Sony has the resources to deal with these kinds of people.



Ten bucks says it's little more than extensive use of low orbit ion cannon (look it up).

Not much that can really be done about that.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 6, 2011)

Two observations:

If someone really has the courage of their convictions, then they don't hide. 

This group doesn't really believe in what it's doing, and is trying to avoid the consequences for the crime and vandalism. Activists get arrested all the time because they genuinely believe in their cause. 

----

Judge a man by the company he keeps. 

I know a lot of people who are concerned about the world, and who put a lot of time into trying to change it. They don't associate with horse/child porn fans while they're doing so. 

Just some thoughts!


----------



## silentrage (Apr 6, 2011)

I think that might be a little contradictory, if they're ALL hiding, and most don't know who each other are, then they're not really associated in a way that criminal networks can be said to be "associated", IMHO. 

Also, rebel/guerrilla fighters in a war usually try not to get caught, if the people involved consider themselves at war with the establishment, an oligarchy or whatever it is they think they're fighting, then it would make sense to hide. You might have mistaken their intention as being peaceful protesters. I don't think that they think they are.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Apr 6, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Two observations:
> 
> If someone really has the courage of their convictions, then they don't hide.
> 
> ...



My feelings exactly.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 6, 2011)

It all just reminds me of that awful 'Hackers' movie from the 90's.


----------



## caskettheclown (Apr 6, 2011)

old but good. I love Anonymous so much

always doing it for the lulz


----------



## Xaios (Apr 6, 2011)

synrgy said:


> It all just reminds me of that awful 'Hackers' movie from the 90's.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 7, 2011)

I try not to post from here at work, but something&#8217;s been bothering me a bit about how a few facts fit together, and regarding perceptions.

Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve learned from the discussions here:

Anon seeks to control people who have religious beliefs, or those who might have pricing or business practices, with which Anon disagrees.

Anon has the computer skills and will to go after those who are exercising legal rights&#8230; but leaves alone those who distribute pictures of kids like your younger brothers and sisters, and possibly you, being abused at the ages of 1,2,3 and 4 years old. In fact, they hang out in the same places with those people. 

Do these facts make you admire them more&#8230; or less? 

You&#8217;re right, they&#8217;re not peaceful protesters&#8230; but there are other groups which believe in what they are doing, even if they don&#8217;t embrace non-violence, and who have courage. They don&#8217;t camouflage themselves among and ignore the activities of child molesters while protesting what someone else is doing. 

Dude, if there was someone for whom I decided it was worth breaking the law to get, it would be child molesters. Some of you might feel otherwise.

But you might not. 

It's up to you to decide who you admire. For me, it's easy. If the facts regarding all this still leave the issue hazy for you, you might ask yourself... would you really want to hang out with someone who couldn't decide, based on those same facts?


----------



## -42- (Apr 7, 2011)

Just a heads up, Anonymous has actually been involved in facilitating the capture of several child predators.

The posts regarding child porn stem from the inability of most people to distinguish between Anon and 4chan (the former being a massive group of Internet 'vigilantes' if you will, and the latter being an image board).


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 7, 2011)

-42- said:


> Just a heads up, Anonymous has actually been involved in facilitating the capture of several child predators.
> 
> The posts regarding child porn stem from the inability of most people to distinguish between Anon and 4chan (the former being a massive group of Internet 'vigilantes' if you will, and the latter being an image board).



I think trying to draw a line between Anon and 4chan is flirting with fudging the facts. Anonymous got its start on 4chan, is where a lot of self-described Anonymous members hang out, and will always be linked with 4chan. As such, they rub their digital elbows with truly some of the worst filth the internet has to offer.

I wonder what sort of long-lasting effect Anonymous will have on the world. Petty vendettas and crashing the websites of their adversaries isn't having any concrete results that I'm aware of. They'd do better to tackle their issues in a legitimate manner.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 7, 2011)

I'm going to espouse what I'm sure is a very unpopular opinion, but I don't think looking at pics of naked children on the internet is all that bad. And my main arguments are that A. Some people simply find children attractive, they could be genetically predisposed or have been conditioned/cultured by their environment, society, suffered from emotional/psychological trauma, and a variety of other potential reasons. B. Finding children attractive and being evil are not the same thing and it does not exclude the capacity for altruistic deeds in any way. 

You could say looking at child porn images perpectuates child exploitation, and I would agree that child exploitation is a bad thing, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You could just as well say looking at normal porn, or hiring prostitutes, perpectuates women exploitation, and it would be equally wrong.

Prostitution and pornography are legal in many areas of the world because the need for it is recognized as part of human nature, even if it only applies to a minority. Even child sex had been condoned or perfectly normal in some societies in the past. 

The difference is, adults have the *capacity to choose* to participate in pornography or prostituion, whereas children don't have that capacity, and therefore *should be protected by law from being exploited as such*. 
I'm sure there are people who abduct children and sell them into bondage, people who buy them as slaves or servants, people who molest or sexually abuse children, parents that force children to marry their cousins, parents who beat their kids, and there are people who jerk off to pics of them, then there's people who post pics on forums for shock/humor, aka the "lulz". You can't lump them all together. 
So in conclusion, the innate attraction some people have to children *does not* mean that they get pleasure from harming children, nor does it prove such intentions. It also doesn't mean that they must be evil and are incapable of having good intentions or performing good deeds.

edit: I just thought i'd clarify that this is not some crusade to defend anon, I don't even know much about them, just a comment on north america's attitude regarding children and sex in general.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 7, 2011)

silentrage said:


> I'm going to espouse what I'm sure is a very unpopular opinion, but I don't think looking at pics of naked children on the internet is all that bad. And my main arguments are that A. Some people simply find children attractive, they could be genetically predisposed or have been conditioned/cultured by their environment, society, suffered from emotional/psychological trauma, and a variety of other potential reasons. B. Finding children attractive and being evil are not the same thing and it does not exclude the capacity for altruistic deeds in any way.
> 
> You could say looking at child porn images perpectuates child exploitation, and I would agree that child exploitation is a bad thing, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You could just as well say looking at normal porn, or hiring prostitutes, perpectuates women exploitation, and it would be equally wrong.
> 
> ...



You've touched upon the important point: consent.

If your mother was upset that someone had taken pictures of her without her permission, and posted them on the internet, her argument against such a person would center directly on that lack of consent.

Children can't give consent.

There have been court cases regarding nude photographs of children which were considered to be art, and I'm sure there will be more. Howeer, those art photos are the kind of anonymous thing being discussed in this context.

----

If your mother wasn't aware of the photos being taken, would her lack of consent matter? How about if she was knocked out at the dentist, and the guy took off her clothes while she was under sedation? What about if some guy put his member in her mouth after she had major surgery, and was in recovery? 

Sure, your wife or girlfriend might never find out about someone doing this to them, but the law was broken to obtain those photos. 

The point is, society can argue about whether certain things should be allowed in the future, but in the present, children being used in this way is illegal. They cannot give consent, and distributing photos of a crime is a crime. 

----

Since I'm blessedly free of knowledge of 4chan, only having seen mentions of it here, I don't know if it is a website/forum, but if it is... why not crash it, to teach those predators a lesson? Especially if one is going to go after people one thinks is bad?

The answer, to me, would be that the members of Anonymous copnsider the people doing legal business dealings are bad and not to be free, and that a service which allows distributing of child exploitation material to be a freedom issue.

----

I wonder if this is an age issue. Younger members can't make the mental leap to imagine the toll child molestation wreaks upon the young victims, so they lack the horror, and sympathy for the victims thereof. If it's not them or someone they love, then it's for the lolz and is acceptable. 

----

I had a friend who was a little rough around the edges, to put it mildly. He found out his scumbag brother-in-law had acted inappropriately with his niece, and told him that if it happened again, he would kill him.

It did, and my friend did as promised.

He went to jail for one year. That's it. Jury wouldn't go for more than a token. H. had the courage of his convictions, and took his lumps.

He was treated as a king in prison, where child molesters are normally taken out within a day or two of being put in Gen Pop. 

What does it say that convicted murderers feel that child molesters are the worst of the worst, and that the groups being talked about here might think that such material is just fodder for laughs?


----------



## silentrage (Apr 7, 2011)

I have touched on consent, and I havn't said anything contrary to you, so why are you arguing with me on that point? 

You're still not separating the issues. 
Sexual attraction to images of children != Intention to harm children != Inability to be moral

Driving a SUV doesn't make you directly responsible for the massacre in Libya. 

You have to admit american culture is way too PC about children and sex, or just sex in general. Case in point, in some states, if an underage boy and underage girl had sex, one of them is going to jail, probably the boy, that is wrong. A parent could be interrogated/arrested by police for having a pic of his child in the shower printed at walmart. And why are every adult woman who had sex with a younger boy in jail? Half the 15-16 year old boys would probably love it if their teacher had sex with them, I know I would've. 

I would argue that a government attempt to cover up documents proving its connections to banks, insurance companies and credit card companies, who conned investors and tax payers out of trillions of dollars does way more damage than all the child molestation in the US in the last 100 years put together. 

How things are right now is irrelevant, what matters is what they should be. Right now your political system is completely broken, and Glen Beck is one of the most watched tv personalities. 

Your emotions might tell you any form of child molestation is worse than any other crime, but I don't think it is. Any crime where people who exploit those who lack the intellect, the life experience, the physical strength or will power to defend themselves is a heinous crime. 
Most people are probably completely ignorant of how their lives are being controlled and ruined by some of the elites in our society, the degree to which they're overpowered by their exploiters completely dwarf the degree to which a child molester overpower his victims.

Lastly, why does it matter what convicted killers think? If they could think rationally they wouldn't be convicted, or killers.


----------



## -42- (Apr 7, 2011)

silentrage said:


> Any crime where people who exploit those who lack the intellect, the life experience, the physical strength or will power to defend themselves is a heinous crime.



Wouldn't child molestation fall under that category?


----------



## silentrage (Apr 7, 2011)

I don't think you're understanding that particular argument. I'm saying all crimes that fall under that category are equally bad.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 7, 2011)

So wait...Explorer doesn't know what 4chan is, but he talks about it like he knows exactly what goes down there, and also...thinks Anonymous = 4chan? Am I getting this right or do I not know how to read?


----------



## Xaios (Apr 7, 2011)

@ Silentrage - I sympathize with your point of view that being attracted to children doesn't make a person evil. However, by looking at child porn they willingly make themselves part of a cycle that involves the exploitation of children. People who produce child pornography do so because there is a demand for it, and by seeking it out, a person is basically saying "my desire for this material outweighs any moral reaction I have to the knowledge that the children involved in its creation were taken advantage of." They become part of a system, a vicious circle that inevitably leads to the continued exploitation of more children.

It's the same thing if you're a hard drug addict. The fact that you've got a dependancy on a particular drug doesn't make you an evil person, but your continued purchasing of said product funds gun running over borders and turf wars between drug cartels in Mexico and that have quite literally killed thousands of people.

It's not the act on it's own that makes a person evil, it's the failure to see the big picture and how the become a part of it.

Thread is going OT again.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 7, 2011)

Arkane, I'm going from what has been posted in this thread, including that SS.org members have mentioned various types of porn (including, IIRC, child and animal porn) being some of the things shared on 4chan. 

If the members here were mistaken, then I have obviously drawn the wrong conclusion about that site/forum, and I apologize. They should be corrected.

if the members here were correct (and, weirdly enough, it sounds like you affirm what they said), then apparently enough SS.org members know more about the site than I care to learn from visiting it/them.

----

@SR: It's not my intention to argue for or against the morality (or lack thereof) of being attracted to children. What I *am* saying is that if someone takes action, even if just taking compromising photos without someone being able to consent, then that person has demonstrated that they don't give a shit about the person they're exploiting, and those who forward those things on also don't give a shit about the person being exploited. 

Regardless, even absent a value judgment about someone's internal life, if someone breaks the law involving a minor and sexual activity, that indicates that the person is acting out. It isn't a thought crime. It's child abuse. 

I'm agnostic on the idea of computer generated art which simulates forbidden activity, incidentally. I don't necessarily feel that movies, videogames or art force people to think in different ways, in the same way that I don't think I'm going to commit suicide because some band has a song called, "Commit Suicide!" 

As soon as someone takes those ideas and puts them into practice, though, then they've broken the law, no?

Anyway, the reason I tried to be so specific was that I wanted to be clear: as soon as you have photos of child sexual abuse, then it doesn't matter what your internal compass says. You've robbed a child of the right to become an adult and to offer or refuse consent based on that adult judgment. 

I wasn't sure if you were trying to make a case regarding what members here (including Arkane) have asserted regarding 4chan, and that it wasn't bad to distribute such things, based on the idea that action would be as harmless as just thinking about action. If you weren't defending distribution or acquisition of child pornography, then I apologize.

Cheers!


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Apr 7, 2011)

The amount of animal porn/child porn on 4chan is negligible. Sure, it's there, but there's actually more bestiality than child porn most of the time. Although, if you think about it, there's dedicated bestiality porn websites out there, and it's easily accessible. With child porn I don't think there's any websites, that's beyond illegal, but chances are that whoever is into sick stuff like that can easily access the deep web or find ways to get it. So really, 4chan isn't something out of the ordinary for the common sick fuck who enjoys child porn, but it seems like a crazy hub where all the pedophiles hang out to normal people.

Really though, it's just an imageboard that provides anonymity. And even then, that anonymity is only between posters, since it automatically registers your IP and everything when you access the site, which is why you can get banned. You can't get banned if you don't get tracked. And really, most of the boards have nothing to do with /b/, where all the random/'sick' shit goes down. It's truly getting demonized by people who don't know what they're talking about.

As for Anonymous, they're not completely unrelated to 4chan, but 'members' frequently go on there. Still, anyone can get behind a computer to do something like LOIC an IP and they could be considered a member of Anonymous by anyone else, it's not like a fucking treehouse club where you have to sign up and list your favorite beverage on the application sheet written in crayon before you're in.

That's also the problem and the savior of Anonymous. No centralized leadership = disorganization (to a certain extent) = no leader can be taken down which means no loss of morale/resources. No one knows who anyone else is = more security between the people involved = less organization. 

As for what they do, it all varies on the individual. If you have someone post a thread on 4chan saying "let's do X to Y," you can either choose to be part of it or not. This reflects on the image of Anonymous as a whole: if someone says "let's take down these websites that are anti-child porn" and those sites don't go down, it's because you have a majority of the individuals abstaining from being a part of it. Why? Because you have a bunch of people who think child porn is bad.

Take for example when they took down Mastercard and the other major companies when they closed Assange's accounts. You needed a hell of a lot of people doing the same LOICing for a long time for those websites to be taken down. It shows that they have their heads on their shoulders. Just cause you get a few bad apples doesn't mean the whole thing is bad. In the end it's impossible to stop an innumerable amount of ghosts who are there to wreak havoc.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 7, 2011)

@xaios @explorer
I think we're all more or less on the same page, just looking at different aspects of it, but it's good to have a conversation on this topic without someone freaking out. ^^


----------



## caskettheclown (Apr 17, 2011)

Since their is no leader or sure way to see if someone is or isn't in anonymous. Then of course they are going to get a bad rep. also there is no one to enforce what anonymous does.

Truth is they have done some very good things for people but there is also a lot of people doing horrible things in the name of anonymous.

i'm sure i'm repeating a lot of what was said here but I just had to get it out.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Apr 19, 2011)

I personally think that Anon is the greatest thing since Chomsky. They have consistently attacked Pedos (despite embracing Pedo Bear), Religious Nutjobs, and tried to protect Wikileaks (which is the greatest thing since Thomas Payne). 


The fact that they break illegitimate laws doesn't bother me in the least. When the laws are written by sociopaths specifically to enable them to subjugate the other 99% of the population, those laws shouldn't be followed by anyone.


----------

