If any of them are looking for sympathy...

It's between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.

If the kid gets 10 years then how many other people are going to agree that the judicial system is broken?

Stay off my computer Only the hacker could get mad because of that

But it's true, it's annoying, how media represents them, but don't worry all the media is annoying these days.

Give the kid a reward, fuck Scientology, go go revolution, Sue the Pope, sue the FCC. All is fair in love and war. Rationalism is not law, if it was, I wouldn't break the law. Free speech is always a WAR. Get it on ... I bring a sword .... war to end all war, to divide separatists from oneness ... the battle is on .... turn it up.

Judas Priest - Breaking the Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=380C_nVJotY

Fuck him. I hope he does time.

Anonymous is not just a scientology protest group. They're a gang of malicious cyber-goons who get their jollies from stealing personal information, impersonating people and harassment. Anyone who thinks that these guys are heroes should check into the stunt they pulled involving attempting to induce epileptic seizures in victims visiting a site for epilepsy.

Yeah yeah friends, war sucks, but so it is. Who are the real hero's? Perhaps I didn't read the OP coherently, but my point is needed revolution is always punished, and so we muddle thru the mud at a slow pace to improvement .... The law? .... Who's law?

  Thanks butter , your last link works.

   This kind of relates, the ending is most cool ....

"The Machine is Us/ing Us" , 4 min http://www.dharmaflix.com/wiki/The_Machine_is_Us/ing_Us

Also, no offense, but I don't think anyone here is in a position to snub potential allies, or at least ideological cousins (e.g. anti-religious movements relying on publicity stunts, hacking notwithstanding).

The view implied is, pardon the comparison, rather Christian. You can draw a line around an idea or morality, and say that all that falls outside of it is a failure; then pretend every failure is some kind of aberration that was wholly unexpected. It's more accurate to think people congregate around an idea, with the majority in some proximity to center, with a fuzzy edge of aberration to be considered within the equation. I won't defend Anonymous, because it's impossible to speak for it. A voice will rise from the fray, and if the idea it raises is compelling, so people will be compelled. Some voices will stand out more than others, and be kinda-sorta leadership. Creating a formal organization is largely illusory, IMO. The people involved will still follow the same patterns, coming to compelling ideas (i.e. The Blasphemy Challenge, or L. Ron's birthday), and dropping off when the novelty wears thin. Anonymous is largely harmless because people are largely harmless. But it's not totally harmless, as people are not. That's life without the ideological security blanket of religion or disproportionate reverence for wonkiness. It's messy like that. You can accept the reality of what people coming together for a cause really looks like, or you can start an organization and pull the No True Scotsman whenever a member embarrasses the group.

I find the disapproval quaint, though. Thanks for that.

That being the only way to frame it that works for a mindless pseudo-skeptical RRS fanboy. Oh, ha, and I just noticed your signature. Not that DG doesn't merit respect, but wow, smooch smooch. Anyhoo, my friend from America's Hat, I think I framed this in a way that should make sense to anyone not pulling the Godwin card from their well-worn Magic deck of shambling failure.

Like it or not, Kev, the so-called "Anonymous" (there is only a so-called anymore) has made a positive impact on people. The protests are full of well-meaning people, thumbing their nose at Scientology's intimidation tactics, getting young people involved in activism, emboldening former members to speak out, and current members to question their beliefs. Is everyone who calls themselves "Anonymous" going to be cool? Maybe the uncool people have more of a claim to the title than the rest! But it doesn't matter apart from an academic exercise. And, as I'd said before, the only difference between a "group" like Anonymous and a formal group is the latter has leaders that can disown their transgressions. "This does not represent us," they say. Everything represents Anonymous, because anyone can claim it. Is that claim valid? If anyone believes it, it's valid enough for the purpose.

The wonks can just keep preaching to the converted, or impressing a minority of people interested enough in facts to be influenced by them alone. And they can waste their time trying to perfect some theoretical ideology, or complaining about the dubious origins of other ideologies, etc., but it doesn't mean shit. Trying to impress the public with facts is pure masturbation.

Anonymous will go away when the novelty wears off, or when a "member" does something bad enough to spoil the name for everyone. Just like formal groups, except without all the whining and protracted "We're not dead yet. Oh, OK, we are." phase.

Here's the original:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

This is specifically what Kevin was referring to:

This part will make you just fall in love with em, so hilarious, and lulzy!  HAHA!

If you had just taken the time to read all my posts... then I would feel sad for you, actually. That would be the way to support your position that I'm a doodyhead.

This qualification implies guilt, ass-kisser.

No, I don't remember. That you do concerns me. I haven't in this thread condoned any specific actions, so neener neener. Even if I had, I'm comfortable with my own double-standards, so the hypocrisy card doesn't bug me. Such is the world.

OK, I'll think of a different red herring you can borrow.

Something about babies and bathwater. We have the luxury of opposing religion now because we know its positive traits don't belong to it; but that fact alone is not compelling to the vast majority of people -- even those with every reason to favor progress and technological advancement over superstition. If there's something good happening, and people are off their asses momentarily, it must be taken advantage of even if it's not perfect. If there's something without the mixed reputation of "Anonymous," that can capture people's imaginations, then by all means spit it out.

If it's about an individual that's one thing, but if that person is taken to represent "Anonymous," it's about the protests, the hackers, et al. If the subject is really that narrow, then I withdraw my comments as irrelevant. But I don't think the subject can be narrowed anymore; such would require the public knowing the intricacies of a "group" that's already nebulous.

Where did I say anything about charges? I said they (the hackers, the protesters, et al) are reaching more people at the moment with a message of empowerment than a nasty git jacking off to Pale Blue Dot. But, that's not necessarily to be disparaging. The world's not black and white; even the most unpleasant, shrill and obsequious can probably reach a few people.

The founding is only as important as the strength of its connection to the broader range of those involved. From my experiences, the thing is completely decontextualized, with the individuals involved making up their own reasons for being so.

Like you could grow a beard.

An epileptic bit my lucky Blackwing in half. You can't get those anymore. I was upset when I started that. Get off my back.

Anyway, already addressed this.

I remember a good friend of mine getting involved with 4chan and all the other crap before Anonymous was started, and then when it all was started he kept me updated on all their pranks and attacks on various websites, most of them were to just annoy or piss people off, most were random though some were enemies of them. When he told me that they were going to openly declare "war" on Scientology I just laughed, I pictured a bunch of preteen wannabe hackers literally storming Scientology churches across the globe or something but he told me that their main means of attack are general pranks involving (obviously) the internet and various things relying on the internet, protesting openly in publc with masks on, etc etc.

Personally, I think it's stupid and their "war" on scientology could very easily be linked to skeptics and atheists and therefore make people like me look bad when I think they're a bunch of lunatics. One of their main platforms was one woman who was supposedly abused severely by Scientologists to where she actually died. If that's good enough of a platform for them then I think if people considered the body count for Christianity and Islam it'd be without a doubt a much greater tool but do you see me doing that? No.

The enemy of my enemy is....

a bunch of confused kids hell-bent on controlling and/or causing internet chaos for the lulz???

Are we hanging our heads in despair or laughing our proverbial asses off?

The only thing that would make this funnier/sadder is if the Raelians were providing some computer funding for Anonymous.

Clonaid

Clitoraid

Hackeraid.

"Supposedly," eh? Then you must have evidence that Lisa McPherson wasn't wasn't neglected and denied legitimate medical treatment until her untimely death.

Then you must have a really great plan for generating public involvement. I look forward to your manifesto.

On a more serious note, people have an easier time conceptualizing small numbers. A single tragedy is a more potent image than a huge, undifferentiated mass. To quote Stalin, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Just another amusing quirk and obstacle to motivating people to act.

I definitely see what you mean. I didn't want to say anything for sure because I haven't been keeping up to date with all the information regarding their platform, it was vaguely in the back of my mind when I posted originally on this. I should've worded that different I would love if it were possible to motivate that many people to move towards peace and atheism, but I don't think the world is ready at this point. I think religion is a poison that is slowly dying off with older generations of people as newer generations come out as skeptics, trying to pursuade indoctrinated people is (as most of you know) a perilious crusade.

I've been re-reading Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine," which is an expansion on the premise that neo-conservative ideology is comparable in economics and sociology to shock therapy and torture in psychology. That is, their goal is to erase what  exists currently in some arena, and replace it with something artificial based on their philosophies. I think we share that conceit, in a way, if we look at something like the United States, and think, "If only..." No matter how much I'd like it if we could get past this religion thing, and on to better topics, I do see the arrogance in my position. "Anonymous," for lack of a more precise term, struck some significant chords with people. And, no, it can't steer them squarely into one ideological playpen or another, but it does raise consciousness in its way. I think, outside of lifetime quests, all we can hope to do is chip away, taking advantages of trends, trying to raise consciousness in similar ways.

It's kind of like, "Believe in God? We can fix that."

I'd rather they put themselves to the task of class warfare; intruduce our betters to the other side of unfairness. If, by some monstrous turn, Obama loses by a small margin, I can't imagine something not happening. Much of this exchange has been small minded, myopic and disappointing; based on adherence to ideological purity and methods that have either waned in efficacy, or outright failed from the beginning. To make my words match my creeping thoughts, I'm not looking to RRS, or any existing organization, for the next big move. Nor am I looking to "Anonymous." Centralization is dead, and the power dynamic has shifted. The next big thing will rise from the noise and tumult, and all we can do is amplify and direct it.