reply to post by silent thunder
I can definitely agree there's a tension that exists between the concept of a movement, which seeks to coalesce and shape opinion, and the concept of
a discussion forum where differing and potentially opposing opinions are solicited. I'm just pointing out that a movement dedicated to promoting the
expression of differing opinions can, in fact, exist.
I see that as a central ideal of ATS, but of course the reality will always fall short of the ideal.
Still, movement toward that goal is possible, and just as other movements assert themselves against opposing forces, so does ATS. In practice, that
means taking action to reform or remove those who are unwilling to respect the rights of others to share their opinions without being attacked, and we
can be quite unyielding in that respect. There is often much wailing and gnashing of teeth on that point, but it can always be avoided by doing
nothing more than following the Golden Rule.
Ultimately, when we "collapse the ATS waveform", I'm hopeful we see the liberation of a great deal of intellectual energy, and the creation of
numerous diverse particles of independent thought.
A bit of a tortured metaphor, but I hope you know what I mean.
For The Birds
Originally posted by The Revenant
3) Do NOT attempt to pigeon-hole or assess Anonymous. This is a warning ScepticOverlord, for the communities benefit - if you attempt to classify,
define or delimit Anonymous in any way, you will inevitably raise the ire of a part of the Anon.
This is precisely the sort of puerile puffery that discredits whatever shards of credibility might remain under the tattered, ephemeral banner of
Threats and intimidation are the domain of thugs, posers and hangers-on, and have no place on ATS. As members, we will say what we will say, and no
amount of ominous innuendo will change that.
All this shadow puppetry in the supposed name of disparate, temporary ad hoc groups is meaningless, carries the same spooky overtones as a group of
children crowded around a Ouija board by flashlight trying to give each other the creeps, and is no more convincing.
No one can speak for Anonymous, because that very act exposes the fraud of doing so. Yet you make claims on "their" behalf, presuming to predict what
"they" will do and dictate what can or cannot be said about them/it/whatever. The self-contradiction of doing this disproves itself, and is emblematic
of the bizarre blend of irrationality and cognitive dissonance surrounding the endless conflicting claims of what "Anonymous" is.
"Anonymous" is whatever people make it out to be: at best a hazy ideal, most often an amorphous, ever-changing myth, and at worst an excuse for crime
and sociopathy. It is ultimately a paradox. The ghost no one sees. Presuming to define it in any sort of concrete terms becomes an exercise in
pointlessly describing what it is not, and presuming to speak for it is to pretend to be what one is not.
"Anonymous" is many things, and nothing.
But perhaps the most important thing to know is this:
Anonymous is too busy swapping Rule 34's on 4chan to hack websites.
P.S. What about the lulz? It used to be about the lulz, man.
edit on 7/13/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)