On Anonymous

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Chatboy 91:

CM156:
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don't/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don't want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying "I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life". It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.

Uh, in the HBGary attack they openly revealed EVERYTHING Aaron Barr had collected on Anonymous. The huge report that he was going to sell to the FBI, they gave out for free. They would be fine with the same thing happening on Wikileaks.

They are not terroists, they are activists, they are not hypocrites, they are not bullies.

Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.

Clipclop:

I'm not provoking anybody, I'm not trying to provoke anybody. I'm simply not going to role over and except that ridiculous mindset of anon. Just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i'm provoking you.

Second of all, there are many a chan with a /i/ board, and you and i both know what that is. I've lurked on plenty of them and know for a fact 80% of the targets on them don't deserve to have hundreds of poeple trying to screw them up. They are bullies, nothing but. Freedom of speech does not extending to dropping dox on somebody because they fucked you over in a online game.

Thats called being a prick.

I don't agree with all subsets of Anonymous, but I do agree with some.
I also never stated you provoked me, at least it was never my intention to do so. It was more of a statement of how it's organized; if someone provokes them, insulting their ideals, they attack. That's pretty normal, and human, really.
I disagree with the part of Anonymous raiding Habbo, and invading sites for no reason; yet I do agree with those that protest without harming anyone. At least not directly, anyway.
The only problem with Anonymous is how confusing the entire thing is; they have some degree of organization, yet it's ruined by the fact that there are several groups using the same name, standing for the exact opposite.

CM156:

Chatboy 91:

CM156:
snip

snip

Not all they do is evil, I will admit. But they do enough in my mind to be called bullies. A bully thinks might makes right, that if they can do it, it is somehow justified. That is the same logic train Anon uses

Also, they would have not been fine with the whole Wikileaks hyothetical, because they would not be anonymous, and would actually be forced to account for what they had done. And that is my main problem with them: they have no accountibility. "With great power comes great responsibility". They have the first, but not the second.

Also, by your logic, are the WBC just "activists"?

It's not a matter of simply they can do it. They attack when something goes against their ideals.

As I said, when they compromised HBGary, they released a document which had a large list of names, phone number, addresses, and handle names for Anonymous members. They gave up their anonymity for the freedom of information.

I don't agree with the WBC on any level, but they have the right to freedom of speech as anyone else.

Chatboy 91:
When exactly did people decide that it was specifically Anonymous who attacked Jessi Slaughter? It's the exact same issue as with the PSN hack, if it was a small splinter group in Anonymous, you can't hold all of Anonymous responsible. In the case of Jessi Slaughter I would sooner primarily blame 4chan, and the few members of /b/ who had the means to actually retrieve information about her.

When it was coming from the same font of human kindness as the rest of this shit.

Chatboy 91:
The Justin Bieber issue was more of a joke then anything, I will be the first to admit it was unnecessary, but in case you forgot most of the members like "teh lulz". I am unaware of any major negative side effects.

The point is the Bieber thing was unprovoked. It was random. It was, in point of fact a result in the breakdown of their chain of command during a larger operation. But to say that it is "okay because it's a joke" kinda misses the point. These guys are playing with live ammo. There are no jokes at that point, just fuckups.

Chatboy 91:
Gene Simmons was an idiot. Freedom of speech is one thing, threatening people with law suits and prison rape is a whole other issue.

Of course Simmons is an idiot. He's insane. It's impossible to do what he wants for a number of reasons. But that doesn't revoke his right to say it. And it isn't a threat. Not legally, and not under any sane definition of the word that makes sense to someone with a functional understanding of the English language.

Chatboy 91:
You're also ignoring the fact that they have done numerous other positive operations and protests. Revealing corruption in the Bank of America,

Hardly. When you look at BoA's trackrecord, Anonymous didn't do shit. And that huge cache of information wikileaks had on an unidentified bank remains missing in action as well. If they'd had any positive influence on this we'd still be talking about Bank of America months later, but we're not, because they had no effect, really.

Chatboy 91:
they properly ignored Westboro's threats,

By hacking their website ON TV. Yeah, that worked well.

Chatboy 91:
they up held their beliefs of freedom of information in the HBGary attack,

Which was, let's review, dumb luck. They didn't go out of their way to uncover HBGary's nefarious plans, they went out there to bitch slap someone for daring to reveal who they actually were. Along the way, they got lucky and secured a data cache they shouldn't have. That's a black eye to how shitty HBGary's internal security was, but it wasn't a positive gain.

It's like breaking into someone's house to steal their TV because you don't like what they're saying about you. Along the way you find out they were planning to murder someone. That isn't a net positive, you still committed a fucking crime getting in there in the first place, and you can still be charged with that.

Chatboy 91:
they helped during the Egyptian revolution by taking down government websites and helping provide internet access, they attacked Tunisian government websites to remove censorship of Wikileaks, and the list goes on.

Well, one of these things never happened... the rest... well, the rest never happened either. Let's take this apart. Tunisia happened first. Anon "noticed" the protests after they'd been going on for weeks, and decided to jump in ass for brains first. They launched DDoS attacks against the State sites. Tunisia went batshit, and cracked down harder on the protesters. We had people being disappeared, we had an internet crackdown, we had people dying. After the dust cleared, Anonymous patted itself on the back, told themselves they'd done a great job and rolled onto the next target.

In Egypt we had another anonymous instigated crackdown. You can say they aren't connected, and there is a legitimate fallacy: post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, but at the end of the day, this was cause and effect, not just before and after. Anonymous got people killed.

A group of anonymous hackers did work on getting around the internet lockdown in Egypt, but it is seriously doubtful that they were affiliated with Anonymous for a simple reason: they were competent. To date all of anon's attacks have been pathetically low tech, low skill intrusions or DDoS attacks on a compromised utility.

In the end, they hid behind anonymity, claimed success and glory for the victories regardless of their influence in them, and ignored their failures.

Chatboy 91:
They absolutely believe in freedom of speech, freedom of information, and de-censorship of the internet and aside from a very select few, they are not a group of bullies.

Ars Technica article, linked above:
"Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.

... Right. You were saying?

For those not keeping score at home, "Owen" was one of those ShadowAnons who functioned as an actual leadership structure while hiding behind the masses claiming there was no underlying structure.

Link

An interesting article as usual, Shamus. Though the comments section seems to be going rather ridiculous. Or, rather MORE ridiculous than usual, I guess.

Hackers are annoying, I wont deny that, but coming from a guy whose own website was just hacked last night by spammers (and who had to spend a large chunk of today wrangling with issues to fix it) all but the worst of them are just nuisances at most. And Anonymous are mostly just teens and manchildren using basic denial-of-service software they just downloaded and double-clicked on who, as you rightly put it, have no monetary gain in mind. Basically they're after attention for their deeds.

Frankly, if occasionally having to deal with nuisances like Anonymous or the kindly spam jerks who complicated my day is the price of having a big, free internet with so many interesting things going on and being said, then I'd be prepared to pay it.

Also people, there's no need to quote the last seven comments in a conversation thread every time you quote somebody, yeesh.

Nick_Snyder:

Chatboy 91:

Nick_Snyder:
snip

snip

A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.

Fair enough, there are always casualties in these instances.

Chatboy 91:
As I said, when they compromised HBGary, they released a document which had a large list of names, phone number, addresses, and handle names for Anonymous members. They gave up their anonymity for the freedom of information.

While claiming they were in fact releasing the names, phone numbers, addresses, and handles of people who were completely innocent of any crime and were being incorrectly affiliated with anonymous by HBGary.

Oh so noble a gesture.

Chatboy 91:

Nick_Snyder:

Chatboy 91:

snip

A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.

Fair enough, there are always casualties in these instances.

I sure hope you get around to explaining those links and how they are meant for to help my freedom of expression. I would really like to know how that implies.

Chatboy 91:

Nick_Snyder:

Chatboy 91:

snip

A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.

Fair enough, there are always casualties in these instances.

The fact of the matter is, Anon has demonstrated, time and again, they don't care about the collateral damage of their actions. Which kinda puts a damper on the whole, "we're doing it for you" angle.

Clipclop:

Chatboy 91:

CM156:
snip

snip

Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.

Right, because the idiots on those boards actually have any true affiliation with Anonymous.

Chatboy 91:
It's not a matter of simply they can do it. They attack when something goes against their ideals.

But that's just the problem. Someone goes against my ideals, I adress my grevences within the boundries of the law. They don't.

As I said, when they compromised HBGary, they released a document which had a large list of names, phone number, addresses, and handle names for Anonymous members. They gave up their anonymity for the freedom of information.

Let's look at what wikipedia has to say on this?

On February 5-6, 2011, Anonymous hacked their website, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account in revenge. Anonymous also claimed to have wiped Barr's iPad remotely, though this act remains unconfirmed...

What HBGary was doing was wrong, yes. But last I checked, if you kill a murderer (in normal cases) you are a murderer. Break the law to expose a lawbreaker, and you STILL broke the law.

I don't agree with the WBC on any level, but they have the right to freedom of speech as anyone else.

Didn't quite answer my question there.

Chatboy 91:

Clipclop:

Chatboy 91:

snip

Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.

Right, because the idiots on those boards actually have any true affiliation with Anonymous.

of course they do and you know it. Hell they recite the "pledge" a thousand times across the boards. They aren't even a splinter group, just anons, you admitting to it or not is rather moot to the obvoius. They make no attempt to separate themselves from the collective and anyone at any time can jump in and out and claim they are or not anonymous based on either they think the raid is worthwhile.

This is the part of anonymous they don't want you to see.

Clipclop:

iDoom46:

Clipclop:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.

If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.

I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.

While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

iDoom46:

Clipclop:

iDoom46:

If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.

I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.

While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

If I wasn't browsing one of the /i/ boards right now, I would actually consider whatever your saying. I am looking right now at a 140 post thread of a group of anons just railing this black guy... and guess for what? for nothing basically the thread consensus is "he's a nigger and does nigger things" Its a lynch mob without ropes. And there is nothing warranted about it, there is nothing to be learned its just bullies being bullies. They already dropped his dox, they already harassing him with racist calls they apparently smacked down his myspace page. For. no. reason.

he's just a guy who they settled on for nothing. Sure is justice in here.

Clipclop:

Therumancer:

Clipclop:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.

wait.

Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.

Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.

because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.

[Blinks]

You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right? You talk about horrible offshoots like Anonymous was some kind of heroic group to begin with. This is a group that singles out little girls like Jessie Slaughter and pretty much ruins their lives (even if she was kind of a twit). I just mention here because she's old news, but still pretty recent and I believe was mentioned on this site.

Anonymous was never a free speech, hacktivist group, they WERE an elemental force of chaos, and made no bones about it. Sure, they did some positive things here and there, but they were (or I should say they are) always primarily out for "the lulz" above and beyond anything else.

Anonymous by it's very nature would never say "we didn't do it" and that in of itself raises some questions about that denial... but that really isn't the subject here.

Anyone who thinks that this was against the standards of Anonymous, or against their creed, or whatever else, really has no idea what they are talking about, or who they are talking about, and I'm not just talking about Anonymous' own statements... I'm talking about their deeds. They have a body of work going back many years now, even if many people are just now becoming aware of them.

Lulzsec might be an Anonymous offshoot, but then again Anonymous claims typically claims to be itself irregardless of whatever else is going on.

The point here being that right now a differant group/name is taking responsibility here, and that does seem to imply that Anonymous is not involved in the most recent chaos. That by no means says anything about Anonymous overall... I very much doubt if Anonymous as a whole cares what anyone thinks about them. I just think that if we're going to talk about this issue we should at least be clear about the guys who are claiming responsibilit

Clipclop:
If I wasn't browsing one of the /i/ boards right now, I would actually consider whatever your saying. I am looking right now at a 140 post thread of a group of anons just railing this black guy... and guess for what? for nothing basically the thread consensus is "he's a nigger and does nigger things" Its a lynch mob without ropes. And there is nothing warranted about it, there is nothing to be learned its just bullies being bullies. They already dropped his dox, they already harassing him with racist calls they apparently smacked down his myspace page. For. no. reason.

he's just a guy who they settled on for nothing. Sure is justice in here.

Yeah, that's the 4chan we all know, love, and want to pull out and nuke the site from orbit just to be sure. Kinda puts a damper on the whole "we're the good guys" bullshit.

iDoom46:

Clipclop:

iDoom46:
[quote="Clipclop" post="6.288908.11445240"]they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.

If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.

I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.

While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.
iDoom46
Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

(Crap, sorry, my computer screwed up on the quoting thing. The above portion is from iDoom46. I'm sorry about that one.)

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.

Nick_Snyder:

iDoom46:

Clipclop:

If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.

I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.

While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.

You might want to go back and fix your breakdown, you screwed up the quote boxes.

Therumancer:
You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right?

You know that "white knights" used to be a Klan rank or an epithet for their members?

Sorry, it's not that I don't disagree with you, it's just, in context, alternately either very clever or... something.

Therumancer:

Clipclop:

Therumancer:

Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.

because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.

[Blinks]

You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right? You talk about horrible offshoots like Anonymous was some kind of heroic group to begin with. This is a group that singles out little girls like Jessie Slaughter and pretty much ruins their lives (even if she was kind of a twit). I just mention here because she's old news, but still pretty recent and I believe was mentioned on this site.

Anonymous was never a free speech, hacktivist group, they WERE an elemental force of chaos, and made no bones about it. Sure, they did some positive things here and there, but they were (or I should say they are) always primarily out for "the lulz" above and beyond anything else.

Anonymous by it's very nature would never say "we didn't do it" and that in of itself raises some questions about that denial... but that really isn't the subject here.

Anyone who thinks that this was against the standards of Anonymous, or against their creed, or whatever else, really has no idea what they are talking about, or who they are talking about, and I'm not just talking about Anonymous' own statements... I'm talking about their deeds. They have a body of work going back many years now, even if many people are just now becoming aware of them.

Lulzsec might be an Anonymous offshoot, but then again Anonymous claims typically claims to be itself irregardless of whatever else is going on.

The point here being that right now a differant group/name is taking responsibility here, and that does seem to imply that Anonymous is not involved in the most recent chaos. That by no means says anything about Anonymous overall... I very much doubt if Anonymous as a whole cares what anyone thinks about them. I just think that if we're going to talk about this issue we should at least be clear about the guys who are claiming responsibilit

That's just it. There are poeple in this thread going out of there was to insist that they are in fact a "free speech, hacktivist group" and saviors of internet freedom. When anyone with any brain knows they are not.

Clipclop:

Nick_Snyder:

iDoom46:

I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.

While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.

You might want to go back and fix your breakdown, you screwed up the quote boxes.

Sorry about that one, I'm new to posting on this website and am not quite used to it yet.

I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.

Starke:

Chatboy 91:
snip

By hacking their website ON TV. Yeah, that worked well.

Chatboy 91:
snip

Which was, let's review, dumb luck. They didn't go out of their way to uncover HBGary's nefarious plans, they went out there to bitch slap someone for daring to reveal who they actually were. Along the way, they got lucky and secured a data cache they shouldn't have. That's a black eye to how shitty HBGary's internal security was, but it wasn't a positive gain.

It's like breaking into someone's house to steal their TV because you don't like what they're saying about you. Along the way you find out they were planning to murder someone. That isn't a net positive, you still committed a fucking crime getting in there in the first place, and you can still be charged with that.

Chatboy 91:
snip

Well, one of these things never happened... the rest... well, the rest never happened either. Let's take this apart. Tunisia happened first. Anon "noticed" the protests after they'd been going on for weeks, and decided to jump in ass for brains first. They launched DDoS attacks against the State sites. Tunisia went batshit, and cracked down harder on the protesters. We had people being disappeared, we had an internet crackdown, we had people dying. After the dust cleared, Anonymous patted itself on the back, told themselves they'd done a great job and rolled onto the next target.

In Egypt we had another anonymous instigated crackdown. You can say they aren't connected, and there is a legitimate fallacy: post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, but at the end of the day, this was cause and effect, not just before and after. Anonymous got people killed.

A group of anonymous hackers did work on getting around the internet lockdown in Egypt, but it is seriously doubtful that they were affiliated with Anonymous for a simple reason: they were competent. To date all of anon's attacks have been pathetically low tech, low skill intrusions or DDoS attacks on a compromised utility.

In the end, they hid behind anonymity, claimed success and glory for the victories regardless of their influence in them, and ignored their failures.

Chatboy 91:
snip

Ars Technica article, linked above:
"Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.

... Right. You were saying?

For those not keeping score at home, "Owen" was one of those ShadowAnons who functioned as an actual leadership structure while hiding behind the masses claiming there was no underlying structure.

Link

They hacked the website after a member was provoked, primarily to prove a point, the original hacks had nothing to do with it.

I would love to know where you heard that they decided to infiltrate HBGary's website solely to prove a point and not find information. The stealing metaphor doesn't exactly work when you consider that they were trying to simply undermine HBGary through information.

Anonymous not only took down state websites but also supplied information to protesters, which helped topple the government. As you say it is a fallacy to link the death or disappearance of individuals to Anonymous, blame the corrupt government, not the individuals seeking to help those in a fight, the same goes for Egypt.

In the case of Owen, the words of one do not out weigh the words of many.

But, let's face it we're arguing on the internet. You're set in your current beliefs, I'm currently set in mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time.

I will be the first to admit that Anonymous isn't perfect, but they have done good, and they certainly still have the potential to do far more good. I'll wait and see if they can.

Nick_Snyder:

wolas3214:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.

You're a newfag aren't ya.

Mostly a lurker, I like to post on these anon threads however.

Nick_Snyder:

wolas3214:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.

You're a newfag aren't ya.

Damnit, double post.

wolas3214:

Nick_Snyder:

wolas3214:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.

You're a newfag aren't ya.

Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.

I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.

Nick_Snyder:

Hristo Tzonkov:

Clipclop:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.

Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.

No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?

When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.

Nick_Snyder:

wolas3214:

Nick_Snyder:

You're a newfag aren't ya.

Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.

I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.

Agreed, unless you somehow thought i was sticking up for them? Although i will admit i am biased torwards anon. They used to be decent people and that spirit does show up every now and again. Frankly, i think it should just run its course. What some people dont seem to understand is that many anons are just unloved man-children. You can appeal to them just like any other person.

draythefingerless:

Nick_Snyder:

Hristo Tzonkov:

Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.

No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?

When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.

When i was 12 and was punished, i had my dad tell me off and smack my ass a bit, not a a bunch of complete strangers who are grown men hounding me, calling my phone, cracking into everything i own online and calling me curse words.

Oh, and if a 12 year odl child goes parading her middle finger around the mall, a horde of grown men don't poof into exsistance to pummel her. Most likely the parent would remove her from the mall or if things where actually that bad mall security would ask the parent to do something about the child. I don't even know where you where going with this terrible analogy that makes no sense in any real life context.

edit: adding to say that if a grown man actually confronted and talked/acted like that in a mall to a child to begin with, he would swiftly find his way to a ass kicking and a jail cell. I hope when you have kids you don't let random faceless men dispense their warped versions of discipline wherever you go.

draythefingerless:

Nick_Snyder:

Hristo Tzonkov:

Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.

No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?

When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.

There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.

wolas3214:

Nick_Snyder:

wolas3214:

Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.

I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.

Agreed, unless you somehow thought i was sticking up for them? Although i will admit i am biased torwards anon. They used to be decent people and that spirit does show up every now and again. Frankly, i think it should just run its course. What some people dont seem to understand is that many anons are just unloved man-children. You can appeal to them just like any other person.

Didn't really mean that, I guess it came out wrong. But, yeah, it used to actually seem like they were getting some things done that actually helped people as a collective. Now not so much.

Chatboy 91:
They hacked the website after a member was provoked, primarily to prove a point, the original hacks had nothing to do with it.

Which makes him dumb enough to rise to the bait. Real skill there. Of course the entire mess was an entire fucking trap so they could try to sue Anonymous in the first place. So yeah, real skillful there.

Chatboy 91:
I would love to know where you heard that they decided to infiltrate HBGary's website solely to prove a point and not find information. The stealing metaphor doesn't exactly work when you consider that they were trying to simply undermine HBGary through information.

Research is your friend. You should get some experience with it. But here's a quick cheat sheet for you. Anon was provoked by Barr's announcement that they would disclose information about Anon's leadership at the BSides San Fransisco conference.

Chatboy 91:
Anonymous not only took down state websites but also supplied information to protesters, which helped topple the government. As you say it is a fallacy to link the death or disappearance of individuals to Anonymous, blame the corrupt government, not the individuals seeking to help those in a fight, the same goes for Egypt.

No, that's like a man dangling a small child in front of a pitbull and then kicking the dog. Sure, you can blame the dog for what followed, but it wasn't the dog's fault, and no court will agree with you.

And this is not a case of before and after. Anon pissed people off. Anyone who thinks that DDoSing a state website in the middle east will contribute to the collapse of the regime is either insane, so egotistical as to be capable of generating their own gravity well powerful enough to sucking their own head out their sphincter, or too stupid to live. Pick one.

As for "feeding information to protesters"? The only places I've seen information about this outside of Anon's own circle jerk sessions claimed that anonymous individuals were working to feed information around, the same as the anonymous individuals working to circumvent the internet lockdown, but not Anonymous members. Anonymous doesn't get to pick and choose like that, they don't get to include people that aren't part of their membership to make themselves look good.

Chatboy 91:
In the case of Owen, the words of one do not out weigh the words of many.

Depends who it is. In this case it's someone who carried real weight in the organization, even if you didn't realize it at the time.

Chatboy 91:
But, let's face it we're arguing on the internet. You're set in your current beliefs, I'm currently set in mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time.

I took an oath long ago not to rest while people were making irrational arguments and claiming it was their opinion, and that was all that mattered, because clearly their opinion was worth more than a rational logical argument.

Chatboy 91:
I will be the first to admit that Anonymous isn't perfect, but they have done good, and they certainly still have the potential to do far more good. I'll wait and see if they can.

At the rate their leadership is being vanned, and the effectiveness of their movement falters in the face of prosecution? No, their time is passing, all they can do now is flail about and claim that someone was hacking their wireless routers all this time.

Nick_Snyder:

draythefingerless:

Nick_Snyder:

No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?

When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.

There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.

What is your point here? Because she is 12 she is absolved of all responsibilities? That because she is 12 she cannot get pummeled to the ground when she does stupid shit? This girl teased them. They do not seek out people minding their own business.
Perhaps i am a bit cruel, but if you play with fire, you get burned. the fire doesnt care if youre 12 or 30. You wanna go on the internet and prance about mocking everything, dont go surprised or offended when people maul you down. The world is cruel, and if you dont know so, its your own befault to what happens to you.

Also, if youre 12, you shouldnt even engage in what she was engaging, IE, mocking people, teasing people older than her, and overall, being a camwhore.

In the end you can complain all you want, a 12 year old got punished, and she will live on her life normally, but aware to not fuck with people anymore.

I dont defend those who attack her, but i defend that she was punished with reason.

draythefingerless:

Nick_Snyder:

draythefingerless:

When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.

There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.

What is your point here? Because she is 12 she is absolved of all responsibilities? That because she is 12 she cannot get pummeled to the ground when she does stupid shit? This girl teased them. They do not seek out people minding their own business.
Perhaps i am a bit cruel, but if you play with fire, you get burned. the fire doesnt care if youre 12 or 30. You wanna go on the internet and prance about mocking everything, dont go surprised or offended when people maul you down. The world is cruel, and if you dont know so, its your own befault to what happens to you.

Also, if youre 12, you shouldnt even engage in what she was engaging, IE, mocking people, teasing people older than her, and overall, being a camwhore.

In the end you can complain all you want, a 12 year old got punished, and she will live on her life normally, but aware to not fuck with people anymore.

I dont defend those who attack her, but i defend that she was punished with reason.

actually it does. Their actions are completely unjustifiable. I can go to many a website and see children acting like complete twats, they are CHILDREN. attacking them because they go overboard is utterly inexcusable. adult man jumping down a childs throat because she has a loud mouth is a extremely unnerving and creepy thought. Its outright terrifying.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here