So, Will, I pretty much called it. It is less about giving the appearance of fighting for what is morally right and all about how much power can a few exert to intimidate.

Democracy is all well and good but it does have one slight flaw, it applies to everyone, even idiots, in a democracy everybody gets to have their say, the problem is the majority of people barely have the intelligence to realise when an election is happening let alone bother to vote, why should they have as much of a say as someone who actually knows what they are voting for.

So, Will, I pretty much called it. It is less about giving the appearance of fighting for what is morally right and all about how much power can a few exert to intimidate.

Who ever said anything about fighting for what is morally right? some of the members may have jumped on that bandwagon for the moral issue but being a"champion of morality" is both an overused and under realized term.

As far as intimidation, where does it come in? Its such a petty individualistic term. Have you ever tried to intimidate someone online? Waste of time doesn't even begin to come close to describing what kind of activity it is.

Its not about intimidating other people or rising to the top through fear. You rise to the top in a situation like this because people agree with you. You've got your finger on the pulse of your audience, you know exactly what they want. The minute your will and theirs deviates, you're done.

Each action is its own election where your only competition is yourself and your only reward is the satisfaction of knowing that someone shares the same beliefs you do. If you step out too far, you lose support, if you dont step out far enough you lose support.

And losing support is an example of my shallow minded thinking. Its broader than that. Lets say you have 100 people in a room with a yellow side and a red side, or a hot and cold side. "x" number of people move to 1 side.

Its not about influence or leadership or even a group decision making session. Its simply a percentage of a population sharing a characteristic.

Now, open up the idea of millions and millions of people online. "x" number of people make a decision and become a defacto group even if they dont know it.

In the future, you could be involved with some campaign to write letters in opposition of some new law or policy, and you may not even know, but some thousands of people could be writing in with you. You become part of a movement without anyone asking you to or saying anything about it. Maybe you start chatting in rooms with people who share similar views, maybe you post about how on next tuesday you are going to send out a bunch of letters. Other people read this, a percentage of them think its a good idea. You've now "organized" your resistance. Even though you never asked anyone and never planned on having help. You just decided to tell "the population" what you were doing. And a percentage helped.

Thats why a group like this is such a scary but beautiful thing. Its all of us, its the "good" and the "bad" of us.

The individual stops mattering and the social morality of a community and maybe even a society influences what numbers of groups separate from the population to do something.

What really scares some people is they see groups under that name doing good thing after good thing and they think hey its all well and good they are good people, and then something truely horrible happens.

The observer thinks OH WTF and bails out. Not because it really scared them, but to look and stare into the truth that if it wasn't him who did this it was his neighbor, or his neighbor, or her neighbor, and so onand so forth. A section of our population, encouraged an action. It speaks out about all of us. Both when its good, and when its bad.

Originally Posted by daisymae70

So, Will, I pretty much called it. It is less about giving the appearance of fighting for what is morally right and all about how much power can a few exert to intimidate.

Daisy. Anon never claimed to me moral. They say they started out because they wanted the internet to be 100% free speech. Anyone that tried to put rules and restrictions on the internet, Anon would attack. They attacked a few government sites in Australia for blocking thepiratebay.com. (which is a site where you can download illegal movies, games, etc. They would send gay porn to people that tried to shut down porn sites on the internet.

They are getting people to support them because of attacking Bank of America, Sony and the child porn sites. From my understanding, they started doing these type attacks because they joined forces with WikiLeaks.

They may be trying to do some things that are good and help out, but they are far from moral.


Anonymous: Sony is incompetent (and we don't steal credit cards)

Anonymous Bank of America e-mails: Where's the fraud and corruption? - Slate Magazine

IP addresses of alleged child porn viewers released - TODAY Tech - TODAY.com

and TBH sony IS pretty incompetant -.-

More on the Anonymous group. A real upstanding group.




'Leaked' FBI document calls Anonymous a national security threat | ITworld

sentence one of them to 500 years, harse but effective.

Why'd you link the conservative lie machine onto our site -.- Now I gotta find some bleach to get the bigotry out.