Switch to full style
Primary discussion forum. Also, feel free this use as a hangout for fans of the funny non-story based comics.
Post a reply

Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:56 pm

Now I said "members of", so I'm not saying everyone, just in case I'd let you know.

I stumbled upon an article and saw this picture:

Image

Although Anonymous seemed to be associated with human rights to me (Scientology and the PSN hacking), It made me think suddenly about some of the members' perspective towards the economy. I've been absent from the forum for some time, and I wanted to ask you guys also what you guys think of the current situation regarding the protest.

I was having a Socratic Seminar-like discussion with my English class about some of the things that were in Washington Irving's short story "The Devil and Tom Walker". And the class was also talking about the economy as well, so I decided to turn my attention to this out of curiosity even though it's something beyond my understanding.

EDIT: I just found the answer to my question.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-1 ... tests.html

Like I said at the top of the post. It's not everyone from Anonymous. But this isn't much of a big deal.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:17 pm

Rosso Rose wrote:It's not everyone from Anonymous.
This makes me laugh.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:12 am

Yeah, firstly the hacktivist group "anonymous" is just an insanely small portion of the anonymous culture that came from imageboards, but they are as loosely defined as the latter.

There's not even any organized hacktivist "group". Being part of "it" is completely capricious, they don't have a power structure or a manifesto or anything. Someone who might've participated in the DDoS attacks on MasterCard might not participate in this protest and vice versa. So it can't be "everyone" because there is no "everyone", there's no membership structure.

What "anonymous" is these days, is simply a moniker that many completely different "activist groups" took from the original definition of an anon used on imageboards, because they thought it sounded cool. That's it. Many of the hacktivists' don't even try to remain anonymous or post on any imageboards.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to my opinion on the protest(since you asked for it). I'm not American, so I may not "get" the entire situation. Plus I think matters concerning a sovereign state should be handled by citizens of that state and foreigners should restrain themselves in commenting to avoid making ignorant or smartassy drivel.

But to me, it seems that while the stated reasons for it sound interesting and could raise a good discussion, the stated goals are absolutely insane and unrealistic. Many, if not most, of the protesters are there only to protest for the sake of protesting. To "stir shit up" so to speak, And there's not much that's constructive about it. So the true impact of it will be very limited.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:58 am

Last I heard the group was even less organized than anonymous, as anonymous at least had a single stated goal in their physical protests.

The current protests have about 20 and they range from finances to banning nuclear power. I want nothing to do with the Luddites solely for the latter part of that alone.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:59 pm

That's an alright answer I guess, Rival.

Doesn't the United States also owe countries a heap of money? And I hear that some bad things having to do with the banks and homes are happening recently. I forgot that detail from the Seminar-like discussion I was in.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:56 am

Rosso Rose wrote:Doesn't the United States also owe countries a heap of money?

It does, but my country is more affected by the crap in Greece. Which is connected to US problems in a way, but it's more due to bad planning of the Eurozone, which didn't have properly planned mechanisms in case of a crisis.

So I'm not gonna preach when we have really badly handled econonomy over here, too.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:02 am

I'm gonna repost an article by a fellow named Karl Denninger, who's been following the economic situation (and heavily criticizing our responses to it, i.e. bailouts and the like) for some time:

The Market Ticker

So Obama said the other day that "What Wall Street did was immoral, but it wasn't illegal" in response to a question about why nobody had gone to jail.

Really Mr. President? None of the following is illegal?

* Laundering drug money. Wachovia admitted to doing it in court. They got a "deferred prosecution agreement" and not only did nobody go to jail nobody other than a few bloggers like myself raised hell about it until days before that agreement expired. Then, magically, it got news coverage. This is a clear black-letter felony; where are the handcuffs?

* The former chief risk officer for Citifinancial testified under oath before the FCIC that the company knowingly sold loans on to investors that did not meet their quality guidelines and published claims. In fact, he testified that by 2007 80 percent of those loans were defective. This is functionally identical to selling you a car and rolling back the odometer, peddling tainted medicine or selling melamine-laced baby formula. There is nothing complicated about this and there is under-oath testimony establishing that it was not an accident or an "error in judgment" as it continued for more than a year after it became known and was the subject of internal memos to corporate officers. This is not my conjecture or analysis, it is factual sworn testimony before a government body. Where are the damned handcuffs?

* Ponzi Schemes generally. Those are all illegal. They locked Charlie up for it (the originator of the name, natch) and more recently Bernie Madoff went to prison. Ok, Mr. President, how about all the stock analysts, the market callers, and pension fund managers along with the real estate industry that have been pumping 8, 10 or 11% annualized returns for the last three decades? These claims are all pyramid schemes and thus by the very definition of such a scheme are illegal. An 8% "annual return" for 45 years, the average working man's period of effort (20 to 65) produces a return of nearly 32 times the original amount invested. The 9% growth rate of medical cost over the last year (close to the premium increases over the last decade in annualized terms) for the person of age 50 that the government claims "will not see their Medicare harmed" has the annual cost of their medical insurance (assuming no increase due to age or greater risk) go from $5,000 a year to $100,000 by the time they're 85! The claims of Realtors that home prices would go up 10% "for the indefinite future" turns a $150,000 house into a $4.21 million house in 35 years. None of this was ever going to actually happen, and it still won't. Why did Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff go to prison when your administration, every member of Congress, those on Wall Street and otherwise in the "finance and investment" business community have not for the exact same offense?

* Jefferson County Alabama jailed several politicians and others for bribery and other crimes related to the infamous "sewer bond" nonsense. Why have no bankers gone to prison? It takes two people to commit bribery and similar offenses - someone who offers a bribe, and someone who accepts a bribe. One party went to prison while the other did not. No crimes in this case among the banksters? Pull the other one Mr. President; the damage here remains in that the water bills of these residents remains at ridiculously elevated levels as the financial harm done to the county was not forcibly returned from those banksters.

* Perjury is a felony in most circumstances. Banksters admitted to more than 100,000 instances of it by withdrawing perjured ("robosigned") affidavits. Just as with the testimony under oath in the case of Citifinancial, just as in the Wachovia admission of drug money laundering, in this case the violation of the law is clear. Perjury can only be cured at "no penalty" up until it is clear that the defective statement or filing will be discovered; once you're "caught" you cannot avoid liability by withdrawing the filing. Whether someone was paying their mortgage or not is immaterial as to whether filing a false affidavit is a criminal matter -- it is. Again, where are the damned handcuffs?

* Sarbanes-Oxley criminalized false accounting statements. There have been multiple bank failures by public companies that filed balance sheets under penalty of criminal prosecution were they to be false just weeks before they blew up -- balance sheets that showed perfectly-healthy institutions. The FDIC has documented dozens of bank failures, privately-held and publicly-traded, where those balance sheets were proved factually false, as the losses have been 20, 30, 40% or even more just a few weeks later. It is beyond comprehension that the assets in question could have actually lost 30 or 40% of their value within that period of time. The only rational explanation is that these financial statements were a work of fiction. Sarbanes-Oxley makes this a criminal matter. Again, where are the handcuffs?

I and many other bloggers and "alternative media outlets" have spent four years documenting these outrages and showing through simple mathematical analysis that the claims made by these charlatans, including yourself Mr. President, are mathematically impossible. That's the definition of a pyramid scheme. They're illegal because they cannot, mathematically, work. It is therefore illegal to hawk them to the public because they are by definition abusive; they will ultimately result in those who believe in them losing their money.

Your claim, Mr. President, that these acts were "morally repugnant but not illegal" is a lie. The simple fact of the matter is that your administration is intentionally refusing to enforce long-standing law and by doing so you and your administration have lent official support to an organized effort to defraud and rob the American public.


However, any message of this kind coming from OWS is being drowned out by calls for 'free health care' and 'guaranteed jobs' and 'debt forgiveness'. The 'message' - if you can call it that, since the whole 'movement' is a cluster of disparate interests, saddled together by the backing of leftists and unions - a continuation of the 'something-for-nothing' mentality that has been fostered for years by the political and bureaucratic Eloi who keep trying their damnedest to stave off the consequences of their own policies.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:45 am

anonymous aren't even a thing

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:41 pm

Jonathon Redley wrote:I'm gonna repost an article by a fellow named Karl Denninger, who's been following the economic situation (and heavily criticizing our responses to it, i.e. bailouts and the like) for some time:

The Market Ticker

However, any message of this kind coming from OWS is being drowned out by calls for 'free health care' and 'guaranteed jobs' and 'debt forgiveness'. The 'message' - if you can call it that, since the whole 'movement' is a cluster of disparate interests, saddled together by the backing of leftists and unions - a continuation of the 'something-for-nothing' mentality that has been fostered for years by the political and bureaucratic Eloi who keep trying their damnedest to stave off the consequences of their own policies.


Legal and just have been different terms for a long time time now I'm not sure why the President's blatant admittance of that comes as a shocker. I'm also not sure why it's surprising that a movement of people who paid no attention to the years of warnings mentioned in the article can't prioritize effective and rational demands. Seems like par for the course for the American public.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:20 pm

well by definition anyone who claims to be anonymous is anon, so yes, they joined the protest because the protesters identified themselves as anon.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:51 pm

Jonathon Redley wrote:*whole bunch of shit I didn't know about that supports my preconceived notion about the protests*

Yeah I agree with this guy. :o

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:07 pm

I've been talking with some people, and we really wonder sometimes if this protest doesn't have the potential to be the left's version of the Tea Party.

It just lacks the high-profile backers and politically established faces to give it cohesion, as far as I can tell.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:20 pm

Aye, but isn't that the point, what with it being anonymous and all?

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:30 pm

Wasn't Danny Glover and a bunch of celebrities there? I saw it on CNN I think. Oh well, I've been away for a month and I have no idea what's going on.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:38 pm

bot

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:13 pm

now i see there is a bot here, but weirdly, Rosso Rose reported Mr. Froggy's post under "Warez" and "Advertisement".

That's weird.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:47 pm

I did?

What the hell, I meant to report somebody else. My bad. Sorry Mr. Froggy.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:34 am

No offense, but with the way I've heard the mainstream media talk about it, they want all the quick fixes for the country handed to them all nice and neat. If the government had bothered to do their jobs correctly the first time they wouldn't be telling John and Jane Doe to be drawing up exactly what needs to be done point by point. If these people knew exactly how to fix everything what would we need the people in office for?


As for what their demands are: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/1 ... ebyuserrec [dated november 17, 2011]

and of course their first official list from october: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/0 ... all-Street
Last edited by jenlan on Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:18 am

jenlan wrote:No offense, but with the way I've heard the mainstream media talk about it...

Image

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:15 am

Anonymous doesn't mean jack squat in the sense that it can project some sort of immediate, tangible "hacktivist" power; its disorganized "support" instead reflects the general opinions of an anonymous people who speak whatever the hell's on their minds.

Honestly, I find them embarrassing to the whole movement, them and their stupid masks. Sarah Palin interviewed a guy who quit his wall street job, recognized that we were at a breaking point, predicted greater popular power over government and business, refused to identify himself as a Republican or a Democrat, and spoke fairly coherently under the circumstances, and you've got this jackass with a Guy Fawkes mask on pointing at the dude's sign and jumping around.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:11 am

Hey hey, don't diss the masks. Alan Moore's V for Vendetta, mate. They may be posers, but the masks themselves are cool.

Then again most of those people probably never read the comic, and just go with the movie where V is a glorified hero, but oh well.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:09 pm

Not everyone who wears a mask like that is of the same sect as the hacktivists. The idea behind anonymous is that we're all apart of it because we're all in the fight for our rights together. The group does not support hacking in any way, true there are sections of people that decide to take matters into their own hands in the wrong manner at times, but as a whole that is not what anonymous is about. As for the whole Guy Fawkes mask, it has been said by a few that it is only to give a uniform appearance while protecting the identity of the wearer.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:13 pm

Grey wrote:
jenlan wrote:No offense, but with the way I've heard the mainstream media talk about it...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploa ... .jpg/quote]
It's amazing to me at times how much better a job foreign news services do about reporting about these issues.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:43 am

Whatis6times9 wrote:It's amazing to me at times how much better a job foreign news services do about reporting about these issues.

Oh so true. http://rt.com/ has been covering it since day one on the majority of it's streams along with the other big movements in other countries. They really seem to be on top of things.

Re: Are members of Anonymous joining the protest?

Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:23 am

Rival wrote:Hey hey, don't diss the masks. Alan Moore's V for Vendetta, mate. They may be posers, but the masks themselves are cool.

Then again most of those people probably never read the comic, and just go with the movie where V is a glorified hero, but oh well.


http://www.mangareader.net/331-22651-3/akumetsu/chapter-1.html I can think of a cooler mask that is pretty relevant.
Post a reply