Dumbest Protest Signs

[Lithp]

Hacking the FBI is blatantly criminal, & they can kind of steal important information. Maybe you would prefer it if I used the example of when they hacked Sony & jeopardized its' customers' information.

Or maybe you just want to cling to this inane Batman myth, like Anonymous isn't 4Chan, & therefore likely cut from the same cloth as as the trolls who harass suicide victims' families.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Hacking the FBI is blatantly criminal, & they can kind of steal important information. Maybe you would prefer it if I used the example of when they hacked Sony & jeopardized its' customers' information.

Or maybe you just want to cling to this inane Batman myth, like Anonymous isn't 4Chan, & therefore likely cut from the same cloth as as the trolls who harass suicide victims' families.

That was actually Lulzsec, not Anonymous. That said, they used to be, but it's been a long time since then. Anonymous gets results, unlike standing around holding signs or signing petitions. Remember Steubenville?

[Lithp]

That was actually Lulzsec, not Anonymous.

Unsurprisingly, LulzSec was formed from Anonymous members, frequently collaborates with Anonymous, shares members with its parent group, & is effectively just a branch ofAnonymous.

Anonymous gets results, unlike standing around holding signs or signing petitions. Remember Steubenville?

...Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

[PosthumanHeresy]

That was actually Lulzsec, not Anonymous.

Unsurprisingly, LulzSec was formed from Anonymous members, frequently collaborates with Anonymous, shares members with its parent group, & is effectively just a branch ofAnonymous.

Anonymous gets results, unlike standing around holding signs or signing petitions. Remember Steubenville?

...Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

They might be related, but it is not the same. Additionally, the blame lies on Sony for not protecting their customers. It was inevitable that someone, whether a group or person, would try it. And, no, I'm not. My point is, all groups have their bad actions and bad members. If you want to say that since LulzSec is just a branch of Anonymous, it's still their fault, then you have to agree with the Republicans that since radical Islam is a part of Islam, all Islamic terrorists are the fault of all of Islam. Of course, you won't agree with that, even though it's the same logic. Anonymous does more good than bad, and that makes them good.

[Yla]

Additionally, the blame lies on Sony for not protecting their customers. It was inevitable that someone, whether a group or person, would try it.

BS. If someone breaks into your house and your lock was rusty, the burglar is still guilty. "It was so easy to do it!" is not a valid defense.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Additionally, the blame lies on Sony for not protecting their customers. It was inevitable that someone, whether a group or person, would try it.

BS. If someone breaks into your house and your lock was rusty, the burglar is still guilty. "It was so easy to do it!" is not a valid defense.

This is different. If a burglar robbed a bank and got all your personal details because the bank just left them out in the open, you'd flip shit at the bank, too.

[Witchyjoshy]

Additionally, the blame lies on Sony for not protecting their customers. It was inevitable that someone, whether a group or person, would try it.

BS. If someone breaks into your house and your lock was rusty, the burglar is still guilty. "It was so easy to do it!" is not a valid defense.

This is different. If a burglar robbed a bank and got all your personal details because the bank just left them out in the open, you'd flip shit at the bank, too.

Yeah, but I'd still flip my shit worse at the burglar for stealing them.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Additionally, the blame lies on Sony for not protecting their customers. It was inevitable that someone, whether a group or person, would try it.

BS. If someone breaks into your house and your lock was rusty, the burglar is still guilty. "It was so easy to do it!" is not a valid defense.

This is different. If a burglar robbed a bank and got all your personal details because the bank just left them out in the open, you'd flip shit at the bank, too.

Yeah, but I'd still flip my shit worse at the burglar for stealing them.

I'd be madder at the bank for failing to protect it. They should have known someone would try. They have that stuff. Everyone knows it. Someone trying to steal it is as likely as a hurricane hitting Florida.

[Shane for Wax]

You're like one sentence away from blaming the victims for having their personal information stolen.

[Askold]

Well, they shouldn't have dressed like that. / Well, they should have taken more safety precautions. / Well, they shouldn't have been there.

Just because the theft was easier to do due to (ok, that sounded silly) poor safety precautions does not mean that the hackers aren't 100% responsible of their own actions.

Granted that I do believe that the victim being careless is also stupid. Doesn't mean that they were "asking for it" just that they were stupid.

And since we are talking about victim blamin I might as well put this out as well. Victim blaming and rape cases: Even though the rapist is still 100% guilty of rape, which is not reduced simply by the victim placing himself/herself into a position where the rape is easier, in some cases the victim really has been a dumbass. Here's the thing though, this is not some mathematical equation where the victim bearing some responsibility of his/her becoming a victim would also mean that the rapist is less than 100% guilty of his/her own actions.

Now the ones who claim that "someone deserved to get raped because of X" on the other hand can go eat a bag of cocks. No one deserves that.

I guess I'm not good at explaining my point here. It's just that in the whole "victim blaming issue" I don't think either of the extremes is right. Nothing the victim did can give the rapist a right to rape that person, so no they didn't "deserve that." No clothing or reckless behaviour is a justification for rape. But on the other hand, in the other extreme are people who get furious over any criticism of the victims behaviour. Sometimes the victim really has been stupid. No, still not a "justification" for rape* but for some people ANY criticism of the victims actions is taboo.


*And if I hadn't seen so much evidence for it I would not believe that there are people who want rapists to be released from charges just because of the victim somehow "deserving to be raped." Like for example the comments from Steubenville case. Getting so drunk that you pass out? Stupid. Does that mean that the people who took advantage of her are somehow not rapists? No. No one forced their hands, no one made them do it, they themselves were responsible for what they did.

So no, I'm not saying there should be a reduced sentence for cases where the victim was dumb.

[Witchyjoshy]

Additionally, the blame lies on Sony for not protecting their customers. It was inevitable that someone, whether a group or person, would try it.

BS. If someone breaks into your house and your lock was rusty, the burglar is still guilty. "It was so easy to do it!" is not a valid defense.

This is different. If a burglar robbed a bank and got all your personal details because the bank just left them out in the open, you'd flip shit at the bank, too.

Yeah, but I'd still flip my shit worse at the burglar for stealing them.

I'd be madder at the bank for failing to protect it. They should have known someone would try. They have that stuff. Everyone knows it. Someone trying to steal it is as likely as a hurricane hitting Florida.

...Everything you just said is so wrong that I can't even begin to tackle it.

[Sigmaleph]

Anonymous gets shit done. I feel a little suspicious of any anti-anonymous person, because it feels like they're trying to undermine any success.

Anonymous is a bunch of assholes who are occasionally assholes against the right person.

Still not terrorists, though.

[RavynousHunter]

Anonymous attacks whomever it wants, because Anonymous doesn't give a shit, so long as its entertaining to them.  Sometimes, they attack bad people and they, occasionally, attack regular dicks like us.  Like everyone else, they do good, and they do bad...its just that they tend to take it to extremes no matter which direction they go.

[Jack Mann]

Anonymous isn't an ideology beyond "We want to do some shit without people knowing it's us."  Sometimes you have politically-minded Anons going after the FBI or the Church of Scientology, sometimes you have cash-hungry Anons stealing people's credit card information to get their money, and sometimes you have bored anons who try to trigger epileptic fits because hurting others is hilarious.

Anonymous is less of a group and more of a tactic.  It has no overarching ideals, aside from a desire to do what they want without consequences.  Sometimes they do good things.  Sometimes they do absolutely terrible things.  There are many groups within Anonymous, because it isn't a consolidated group.  It's just a bunch of different people who all took up the same idea of keeping up anonymity to let them act with relative freedom.

And no, even when Anons hack the FBI or make obscene phone calls to a teenager, they're still not engaging in terrorism.  That's regular old criminal activity and being a douchebag.

[Witchyjoshy]

Fuck, I'm Anonymous precisely because I claimed so.  That's literally all you have to do to be part of that "club".

Being Anonymous is meaningless, and I'd venture to say most people are Anonymous because it lets them take credit for good/funny things that other Anonymous do.