130 replies to this topic

[Geoffrey]

"Believers never die." Peaceful protest is the only way to bring forth peace. You are not contributing to the cause of peace if you yourself are one of the agressors. Go and learn from Gandhi (who's not beyond question but much more so than many). An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

I'm not sure I understand your quote, as everyone dies eventually. I'm not saying that peaceful protest will never enable you to win, but I am saying that it is unlikely. It worked in Ghandi's case, but I've only heard of limited success in other cases (I could be wrong, it's just what I've heard). But for something such as the Occupy movement, where they are demanding large scale change to many fundamental components of our society. Why would a corrupt government (yes, I am accusing the US government of corruption) agree to radically change that which gives them power?

[Sheik]

I'm not sure I understand your quote, as everyone dies eventually. I'm not saying that peaceful protest will never enable you to win, but I am saying that it is unlikely.

So what? It was considered unlikely that a man will ever step a foot on the moon yet it happened. It was a big step for humankind, to reference the famous quote.
The future is nonviolence. It has to be the next stage of humankind, another big step. Violence will bring forth ever more violence, for eternity. The best mean against violence is nonviolence. Violence has no postive effect on the aim which is peace. Effectivity requires nonviolent hope. Violence is not interested in hope. I prefer hope over violence, and hope is nonviolence. If it works that repressors and repressed debate about the end of repression, no violence will be nessecary anymore. Who's violent is not interested in communication, though. Peaceful protest gives no reason for "counter-violence", as there is no violence to begin with.
The message of a Mandela, of a Martin Luther King is one of hope, beyond ideological confrontations. It's a message of understanding, not of violence.

It worked in Ghandi's case, but I've only heard of limited success in other cases (I could be wrong, it's just what I've heard).

Ghandi, Mandela, M.K. King. At the top of my head. You should read about what professer Phillip G. Zimbardo, a social psychologist, has to say about heroism if you want to know about the sucsess level of it. It's higher than you would guess. There's one particular example where a simple man ("tank man")walks in front of a tank and thus stops a whole department of the forces of China from shooting down countless people (protestors I believe). Peaceful prostest is the key. It saves human lifes. Had he thrown stones at the forces, the results would have been others.

But for something such as the Occupy movement, where they are demanding large scale change to many fundamental components of our society. Why would a corrupt government (yes, I am accusing the US government of corruption) agree to radically change that which gives them power?

The why isn't as important as the how. As for the why, maybe because they are human too, or more likely because their citizens deny them any further support and thusly make them practically unemployed (and sadly most important, stop the money rain from falling down on them).
I can't give you satisfying answers, but I can predict that non-peaceful protest will bring forth only more suffering while loosing it's purpose. Peaceful protest is my hope for a change.

Edited by Yoshimi, 04 November 2011 - 04:18 PM.

[Shane]

Todays the day... Well over here.

Anyways will it be today or tomorrow we get to find out?

Edited by Shane, 04 November 2011 - 07:25 PM.

[Radien]

Losing Facebook wont be too bad for me, but my Mom will be devastated, I will be seriously peeved though, freakin' hackers thinking they own the internet, if people don't wanna be "spied on" (if they even are) then just don't join Facebook.

As said before, Facebook's privacy agreement is ever-changing, and it basically means that the user is held accountable while Facebook itself is NOT. They can change the agreement whenever they want.

Think about it: what if you took out a loan, and signed a contract, and then the bank changed the contract several times over the years... all the while saying "if you don't agree with the new contract, simply pay off your loan and you can abstain from renewing it." It doesn't make sense there, and it doesn't makes sense for Facebook, either. People may not have monetary investment in Facebook, but they put lots of PERSONAL investment into it: time, social energy, emotions, and contact-building. They shouldn't have to give up all of that at a moment's notice just because Facebook wants to change their standards every few months.


Next, I want to reply to two posts that both touched on some specific points....

Even with the side note, I have huuuuge issues with this statement.

Right now the occupy movement appeals to anon users because it's chaotic, and (increasingly due to police action) becoming anti-authority. The actual start of the movement doesn't have any roots in these folks though. Sure, they encourage it, but it's the actual people who go to these occupations that deserve praise, not a collective body of bored teenagers.

Radien, can you give me a source for the claim that Anonymous started Occupy? I actually don't quite believe this to be true. And just because they agree on Ocuupy's goals doesn't mean anything yet. As Erich Kästner put it: "There's nothing good in the world unless you do it."

So... Perhaps I should be more clear here for both of you. This is rather off-topic and political, though, so I'm going to keep it in hidden text.

Political

• First of all, the whole Guy Fawkes mask thing (along with the "Fifth of November" rhyme) has been a symbol for Anonymous ever since V for Vendetta became popular amongst Anonymous. The same goes for the "We Are Legion" chant, even though it hasn't been used much (or at all?) in Occupy. Also, the first Occupy announcement I heard of any sort was from 4chan. And that's not because I was just hanging out on 4chan and happened to see it. I don't go to 4chan -- in fact, I intetionally avoid it. So anyway, I think they deserve some credit... but since Anonymous is, well, anonymous, you could say that there's no identity to attach that credit to. It is impossible, obviously, to take a definitive census of who is affiliated with Anonymous and who is not.

• Secondly, my purpose for the comparison was to show that involvement in one is superior to the other. It's not quite fair to label Anonymous as a bunch of bored teenagers, even though 4chan seems to be proud of that identity. Anonymous is broader than that stereotype, and the "bored teenager" types on 4chan seem to be less interested in taking action. Launching attacks on Facebook in response to policy changes shows that Facebooking is among your #1 priorities. Protesting the RIAA's actions is something you might do if listening to downloaded music is what you value most. If THOSE are your highest priorities for protest, it suggests you are comfortable middle class youth spending all your free time at your computer...rather than worrying about food, health insurance, or a deteriorating mortgage situation. Taking part in Occupy, on the other hand, shows a much broader concern, a "we're not gonna let people step on us" attitude, and to anyone who really understand the Occupy movement, it also disproves any notion of "laziness."

• Lastly, don't assume that "credit for starting it" is intended to be a very big deal. Compare it to this smaller example: on another IRC network, there is a very busy channel that I founded. I don't go there anymore, in fact I had a bit of a falling out. Most people there don't know that I founded it.
  
  Does it MATTER? Not very much. In fact, it matters so little that I don't even mention it. The channel grew organically. I can't claim credit for making it what it is; all I can claim credit for is originally registering it and encouraging a few people to join it.
  
  Similarly, even if it turned out that Anonymous DID start this movement, they don't get credit for the ENTIRE movement. It's the people of America who made that happen. Credit needs to be spread across all the people who worked to make it happen, not focused on just a few people who took the helm.
  
  ...In fact, that model very accurately describes what many of the Occupy protesters think is wrong with the American economic system: credit (a.k.a. wealth) is disproportionately focused on a very small number of people. So in a way, they're demonstrating how a society SHOULD work, all within the movement itself.

I hope that clears it all up.


EDIT:

I found a number of videos showing Anonymous' attempts to drum up protesters for Occupy Wall Street. It doesn't conclusively show that they "founded" the movement (I'd have to sift through countless sources to find out which one came earliest), but they were definitely on board VERY early, before it began. These videos were uploaded to YouTube on or before Occupy Wall Street's start date, September 17th:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7Nvb4HaXVMM
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4QXX7eEHT0A
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=l6jdkpQjueo (Same video as the previous, reposted)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4QXX7eEHT0A

Given, just about everything Anonymous does is overdramatic, but in this case I think something good came from it.

[Sheik]

Radien, I see where you are coming from. It's somewhat clearer to me now. Still, all the drama seems rather pathetic. Alone the V for Vendetta references are pretty teenager-ish.

Facebook works just fine for me. Not dead. Let's see what the rest of the day brings.

[Taco Chopper]

to hack or not to hack that is the question... while you people ponder that here are a few tips should facebook go down @ 9am est.

1.rethink yourself on your other social networks. Perhaps there is still someone at freindster.
2.make flyers and posters with your picture on, include what you like & doing or what you do. Distribute the flyer to your friends and hang the posters in the city.include Phone number to build a large circle of friends.
3.Invite your new friends to a little film showing, and show them all the YouTube videos you just found or uploaded.
4.Contact your friends by letter. Google helps you figure out how to do it safely.
5.(repeat after me)I am not alone, others are also affected.

Nice emergency plan for those of us who would struggle without it. Stole it off of a Facebook friend actually.

[Adem]

Facebook still works fine for me. I won't be home for the rest of the day, so something might happen while I'm away, but I harbor my doubts. It really seems, to me, that Anonymous failed this time around.

Suck it, Anonymous.

Edited by Adem, 05 November 2011 - 09:21 AM.

[Hunter P Brown]

I've been on facebook all day, both mobile and on my computer.

They either didn't go through with it (due to Occupy Wall Street), or they failed like Operation Amazon. Either way, fail. lol.

[Koh]

I thought they called this off? Didn't someone point this out earlier in the thread? *too lazy to dig through posts*

Like I said, either way , even if it did happen, it wouldn't affect me, since I don't use that silly site .

[Hunter P Brown]

I thought they called this off? Didn't someone point this out earlier in the thread? *too lazy to dig through posts*

Like I said, either way , even if it did happen, it wouldn't affect me, since I don't use that silly site .

They said earlier that they have nothing to do with it, but I didn't believe it one bit.

[Sheik]

So, shall we move this to General Entertainment now?

[Rover]

yeah nice job anonymous you didn't do anything

[NoeL]

They said earlier that they have nothing to do with it, but I didn't believe it one bit.

There's no "they". That's the point of Anonymous.

[Moosh]

Don't you see, guys? Facebook has been killed! It's been killed so bad they aren't even alive. Looks like Anonymous gets the last laugh, eh? No. No they don't. Because they suck.

[Bourkification]

Facebook is down for me.The desktop and mobile versions aren't working. So either Anonumous went through with it, or it's a coincidence.

EDIT: Something's wrong with my internet, so it was just a strange coincidence that Facebook was the only site not working.

Edited by Bourkification, 06 November 2011 - 09:11 PM.