Link will you be there? Will anyone from these forums be there. because I live here in Brooklyn NY but I'm kind of a loner here I'll prob show up dressed normally I see no reason to hide my face, and see how these things work and what goes on. Never been to a protest in my life. so this will be a first.
I am going to try to get some time off to go up. I won't be able to go on the 17th due to work issues, but I do plan on getting up at some point for a short bit of time. I'll post when I will be able to get up there (If work even lets me off) when I get the info.
Yeah there was a good article in Cracked about the most commonly misunderstood icons. It talks about him too. But now because of that damn movie, well movies are more relevant than real history.
I think that the masks used by Anonymous are taking on a persona of there own, different then the mask used by Guy Fawkes. That being said, I also agree that people should study history.
EDIT:
If the general populace would like, I can post on the first post places and times people will be there so we can meet up.
This is, obviously, only if people would like this. (And, again, there is not a %100 chance that I will be there.)
Can't help but constantly feel that Anonymous is some sad bunch of young people that have no clue what they're doing, or what they're playing with. But maybe not.
This isn't my fight, I don't even know about Wallstreet. I'm interested to see what will actually happen, if anything will, and I'd be glad if it did make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
But I hope nobody here actually believes they can end any and all abuse without violence. No matter your claims of non violence, no change will come without pain.
Can't help but constantly feel that Anonymous is some sad bunch of young people that have no clue what they're doing, or what they're playing with. But maybe not.
This isn't my fight, I don't even know about Wallstreet. I'm interested to see what will actually happen, if anything will, and I'd be glad if it did make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
But I hope nobody here actually believes they can end any and all abuse without violence. No matter your claims of non violence, no change will come without pain.
But I hope nobody here actually believes they can end any and all abuse without violence. No matter your claims of non violence, no change will come without pain.
Ghandi and Dr. King would tend to disagree with you, but I have to make an important caveat and agree with you. The only time non-violent movements work is when the general populace is either on the fence about the issue or there is an air of shame from the perpetrators that can be exploited. In other words, unless the zeitgeist shifts in the protestors' favor or the problem group can be made to feel shame: you are correct.
Can't help but constantly feel that Anonymous is some sad bunch of young people that have no clue what they're doing, or what they're playing with. But maybe not.
This isn't my fight, I don't even know about Wallstreet. I'm interested to see what will actually happen, if anything will, and I'd be glad if it did make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
But I hope nobody here actually believes they can end any and all abuse without violence. No matter your claims of non violence, no change will come without pain.
While this protest is being strongly pushed as a non-violent protest, I hope nobody fools themselves into going here and expecting to set up non-violent barricades. I have zero love for the police, and (Assuming I get the time off to go) if they do herd us like cattle, akin to how they herded the protesters at the G20 in Canada, we should take every step to stand up to them by any means necessary.
Do I want to fight? No fucking way.
If the police assault me, will I fight? Damn right.
Can't help but constantly feel that Anonymous is some sad bunch of young people that have no clue what they're doing, or what they're playing with. But maybe not.
This isn't my fight, I don't even know about Wallstreet. I'm interested to see what will actually happen, if anything will, and I'd be glad if it did make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
But I hope nobody here actually believes they can end any and all abuse without violence. No matter your claims of non violence, no change will come without pain.
While this protest is being strongly pushed as a non-violent protest, I hope nobody fools themselves into going here and expecting to set up non-violent barricades. I have zero love for the police, and (Assuming I get the time off to go) if they do herd us like cattle, akin to how they herded the protesters at the G20 in Canada, we should take every step to stand up to them by any means necessary.
Do I want to fight? No fucking way.
If the police assault me, will I fight? Damn right.
Edit:
Also, I updated the first post a little.
You need to be slapped.
Edit: I hope the police assault the piss out of you.
Edit: I hope the police assault the piss out of you.
I love you too.
I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be a COMPLETE dick, but I mean seriously, can you tell me what you hope to accomplish by setting up a couple protests and barricades? If I'm trying to get to work on wall street, so I can make money and feed my family, I'll straight up beat the piss out of someone stopping me from going to work. This will have almost NO effect on what you are trying to achieve.
I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be a COMPLETE dick, but I mean seriously, can you tell me what you hope to accomplish by setting up a couple protests and barricades? If I'm trying to get to work on wall street, so I can make money and feed my family, I'll straight up beat the piss out of someone stopping me from going to work. This will have almost NO effect on what you are trying to achieve.
It's not a matter of stopping normal working people like you from making a living. It's the idea that Wallstreet is doing fine so fuck the rest of America. It's the idea that banks and companies are more important then the men and women that run the factories and mills of America. It's the idea that the American people can say that no, this is not acceptable. The upper tier of Americans are doing good, fuck everyone else, this is not the way America is supposed to be ran.
Anonymous is one of the very few groups that seem to be fighting this battle. If there are any other groups, I'd be strongly supporting them as well.
If you honestly believe we should be smacked, You will die. I believe we shouldn't lay down and allow our rights to be stripped from us. there is nothing called Free speech it's a fucking ploy and is non-existent. they say we have free speech yet I can't say what I want. I believe we should all learn from Steve hughes http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7pjrVohm2nE Why shouldn't we stand up for ourselves? If you bend over and get assfucked by the government then you don't deserve the basic human rights. You should fight for them because we are slowly using them so that other people can better themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Fighting for rights? Awesome! What you are doing? Yes, smackdown. I would love to hear an actual account of how your group has helped. Don't give me the 'we've encouraged others!' Naw that's a cop out, actually tell me what evil scheme you have stopped. What plot have you foiled. None? Strange
Fighting for rights? Awesome! What you are doing? Yes, smackdown. I would love to hear an actual account of how your group has helped. Don't give me the 'we've encouraged others!' Naw that's a cop out, actually tell me what evil scheme you have stopped. What plot have you foiled. None? Strange
What has Anonymous done?
Anonymous and the collective provided a voice when Egypt was silenced by making dial-up anonymous servers available for communication.
Anonymous and the collective provided a voice when Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Iran faced censorship from their oppressive governments by providing several key routes of information through the people.
Anonymous and the collective provided detailed information to INTERPOL along with Amnesty International to catch over 300 people working in a human trafficking ring.
What have you done?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
------------------------------------------- Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
I'd disagree with Ghandi and Dr. King; both of their movements were filled with violence.
Having your followers march forward towards their oppressors,
knowing that they have been warned against it,
with the threatened punishment being bludgeoning and possible death,
is inciting violence.
Becoming victimized is sorta part of the movement to get the other side to realize that what they are doing is wrong.
Like the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad in Life of Brian (or more seriously, the monks who burn themselves alive in protest).
Not really, no. Their movements did follow and at times parallel violence, but neither one supported or advocated for it. Having said that, neither one of them has perfect record (nobody does) and inciting violence is a farily poor choice of words. A march or demonstration on public grounds is perfectly legal and permitted and when permits and spurious legalities get in the way of free speech, it's been historically justified to peacefully assemble and demonstrate against something that is widely known to be un-just: hence my zeitgeist caveat. Being victimized is certainly the point, but more importantly it makes that victimization something that's more widely reported rather than swept under the rug.
I wouldn't promote the idea of self-immolation, like some of those buddhists in China, but far better that kind of demonstration than a jihadi approach of inflicting civilian casualties. I don't know if you are disagreeing with me on anything but point of example, but I surely hope you aren't suggesting a homicidal approach to protesting is superior to peaceful assembly when the peaceful alternative can work under the right circumstances.
but I surely hope you aren't suggesting a homicidal approach to protesting is superior to peaceful assembly when the peaceful alternative can work under the right circumstances.
I'm not, I just don't like that our main two examples of non-violent movements were filled with beatings, blood, and death.
Ghandi had his followers go for a salt plant knowing that there were armed guards (with sticks, not guns), and his people got bludgeoned (he got knocked out as well), and some of them died.
I don't consider that a non-violent protest; that is classic line-stepping, or baiting, of a violent opponent.
A true non-violent protest, in my mind, would be one where you do a media campaign that has a zero chance probability of inciting a riot or some sort of tragedy.
Hacking a bank and publishing smoking-gun emails of fraud as opposed to making a human chain around a building.
I agree that you don't need violence to change things; you can just as easily use electronic warfare to destroy your enemies' assets, or their ability to operate, or hold some bit of information hostage until they give in to your demands.
Line-stepping is unavoidable in any serious protest. If you weren't stepping over a line, you'd have nothing to protest. I'm not sure I disagree that leaking damning information to the public isn't a good way to go about it (sounds reasonable to me), but I think you're using a bad example for juxtaposition. What were we supposed to do before the internet or wide-spread visual media? I'd say ghandi had no more than print media on his side and king had only limited positive-support from visual or print media in his day.
Furthermore, the issues of Indian sovreignty and civil rights were already being discussed at the time of these protests and I think it's a mistake to indicate they didn't expedite the processes in both cases. In this anon case, I can't really say if a peaceable public assembly makes sense or not, but there is certainly no harm in it so long as it remains non-violent on the side of the protestors.
Perhaps this is a case of apples and oranges or maybe a new generation isn't up for our old hippie tactics. Either way, we should agree that there are still causes worth protesting over and it's a good sign that violence isn't taking center stage.
I'm not saying Ghandi's protests were wrong, I'm just saying that they were, at times, violent - that the ethical distinction between having your people martyr themselves, and having your people kill the people who would kill them, is pretty blurry.
No, it's not blurry at all. One person only hurts themselves and another hurts hundreds of civilians. Not blurry at all.
Peacefulness, to me, includes the avoidance of violent behavior, not just of yourself, but of others.
Re-read that and tell me if it still makes sense. Of course you aren't going to pursue the hurt of others! That goes without saying. But what others do to hurt you is largely out of your control. If you cannot protest for fear of reprisal then you're going to be easily cowed. Think about all the publishers, magazines, and newspapers around the world that refused to publish the denmark cartoonists' renderings of mohammad. Just the thread of violence caused them to abandon free speech and begin to admonish people who were under thread of death already.
Nowadays, I can't see a large group of young men gathering in any location (for any reason) not being a threat of force, violence, vandalism, destruction of personal property, and looting.
And yet, it's happening right now in China, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere.
vOv
Not gonna be there, busy. Would be better for Anon to hack the "Wallstreet" and find actual evidence of wrong doing (and so many other companies to boot) then this. But send pics, tell us how it went, I'd like a first person view that hopefully isn't edited, like I'm sure the nightly news will do.
That said, I disagree with the idea of getting in fights with police during "non-violent" protests. Why?
A) 100% chance that the media will only show the side they want, whether it is people harassing cops, or vice versa, you're only helping the mainstream media - none of the media companies are really non-biased.
Most cops (not all) aren't bad people, they just want to help protect normal people from real criminals, and they don't really have a choice (especially if you are breaking laws). If you're not, then you're forcing the cop into a terrible position - hurt an innocent person, or probably get fired and not be able to feed for his/her family.
C) People getting beaten, and not fighting back, is a much better way to get your message out. Think of all the strongest images from the Vietnam protests, and they are all one sided.
Young men are a threat, they are quick to temper, they are easily swayed by the pack mentality, and for some awful reason, they see little to no respect in the private property of others, maybe because they haven't been working long enough to appreciate not having other people destroy the stuff they own.
Sorry, but this is a non-argument. You're simply pointing out the fact violent protests do happen and that's got nothing to do with non-violent movements (that are going on, along side those you mentioned). I would also not be so quick to judge what is and is not justified. I had colleagues and fellow studends shot and gassed during Vietnam protests in the US, and I wouldn't consider the government we had back then any more brutal than China or any other example (far less, as a matter of fact). The point is, there are things worth protesting and not everyone is out to justify stealing a TV or burn a car.
A peaceful man would publish anything he wanted, and he would be protecting his freedom of speech. Speech is not violence and the constitution in this country, as well as the UN charter, make that abundantly clear. Washington DC to this day hosts KKK and neo-nazi rallies. I've seen african american policemen protect these very people's rights to march. Not because they agree with their ideology, but because to all of us free speech is the heart of what we believe in. If you're ready to lay down your right to speak against or critique a religion, a government, a politician, or an idea: you're neglecting the defense of your own rights. That, in my mind, is the worst of all cowardice.
I think it's very important for us to practice things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, our right to peaceably assemble. If we start neglecting these they will be taken from us.
I think it's very important for us to practice things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, our right to peaceably assemble. If we start neglecting these they will be taken from us.
Precisely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am going to try to get some time off to go up. I won't be able to go on the 17th due to work issues, but I do plan on getting up at some point for a short bit of time. I'll post when I will be able to get up there (If work even lets me off) when I get the info.
There are plenty of other threads for your viewing pleasure here, here, and here. Enjoy.
I think that the masks used by Anonymous are taking on a persona of there own, different then the mask used by Guy Fawkes. That being said, I also agree that people should study history.
EDIT:
If the general populace would like, I can post on the first post places and times people will be there so we can meet up.
This is, obviously, only if people would like this. (And, again, there is not a %100 chance that I will be there.)
This isn't my fight, I don't even know about Wallstreet. I'm interested to see what will actually happen, if anything will, and I'd be glad if it did make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
But I hope nobody here actually believes they can end any and all abuse without violence. No matter your claims of non violence, no change will come without pain.
+1
Ghandi and Dr. King would tend to disagree with you, but I have to make an important caveat and agree with you. The only time non-violent movements work is when the general populace is either on the fence about the issue or there is an air of shame from the perpetrators that can be exploited. In other words, unless the zeitgeist shifts in the protestors' favor or the problem group can be made to feel shame: you are correct.
While this protest is being strongly pushed as a non-violent protest, I hope nobody fools themselves into going here and expecting to set up non-violent barricades. I have zero love for the police, and (Assuming I get the time off to go) if they do herd us like cattle, akin to how they herded the protesters at the G20 in Canada, we should take every step to stand up to them by any means necessary.
Do I want to fight? No fucking way.
If the police assault me, will I fight? Damn right.
Edit:
Also, I updated the first post a little.
You need to be slapped.
Edit: I hope the police assault the piss out of you.
I love you too.
I'm sorry I'm really not trying to be a COMPLETE dick, but I mean seriously, can you tell me what you hope to accomplish by setting up a couple protests and barricades? If I'm trying to get to work on wall street, so I can make money and feed my family, I'll straight up beat the piss out of someone stopping me from going to work. This will have almost NO effect on what you are trying to achieve.
It's not a matter of stopping normal working people like you from making a living. It's the idea that Wallstreet is doing fine so fuck the rest of America. It's the idea that banks and companies are more important then the men and women that run the factories and mills of America. It's the idea that the American people can say that no, this is not acceptable. The upper tier of Americans are doing good, fuck everyone else, this is not the way America is supposed to be ran.
Anonymous is one of the very few groups that seem to be fighting this battle. If there are any other groups, I'd be strongly supporting them as well.
What has Anonymous done?
Anonymous and the collective provided a voice when Egypt was silenced by making dial-up anonymous servers available for communication.
Anonymous and the collective provided a voice when Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Iran faced censorship from their oppressive governments by providing several key routes of information through the people.
Anonymous and the collective provided detailed information to INTERPOL along with Amnesty International to catch over 300 people working in a human trafficking ring.
What have you done?
-------------------------------------------
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
Not really, no. Their movements did follow and at times parallel violence, but neither one supported or advocated for it. Having said that, neither one of them has perfect record (nobody does) and inciting violence is a farily poor choice of words. A march or demonstration on public grounds is perfectly legal and permitted and when permits and spurious legalities get in the way of free speech, it's been historically justified to peacefully assemble and demonstrate against something that is widely known to be un-just: hence my zeitgeist caveat. Being victimized is certainly the point, but more importantly it makes that victimization something that's more widely reported rather than swept under the rug.
I wouldn't promote the idea of self-immolation, like some of those buddhists in China, but far better that kind of demonstration than a jihadi approach of inflicting civilian casualties. I don't know if you are disagreeing with me on anything but point of example, but I surely hope you aren't suggesting a homicidal approach to protesting is superior to peaceful assembly when the peaceful alternative can work under the right circumstances.
Line-stepping is unavoidable in any serious protest. If you weren't stepping over a line, you'd have nothing to protest. I'm not sure I disagree that leaking damning information to the public isn't a good way to go about it (sounds reasonable to me), but I think you're using a bad example for juxtaposition. What were we supposed to do before the internet or wide-spread visual media? I'd say ghandi had no more than print media on his side and king had only limited positive-support from visual or print media in his day.
Furthermore, the issues of Indian sovreignty and civil rights were already being discussed at the time of these protests and I think it's a mistake to indicate they didn't expedite the processes in both cases. In this anon case, I can't really say if a peaceable public assembly makes sense or not, but there is certainly no harm in it so long as it remains non-violent on the side of the protestors.
Perhaps this is a case of apples and oranges or maybe a new generation isn't up for our old hippie tactics. Either way, we should agree that there are still causes worth protesting over and it's a good sign that violence isn't taking center stage.
No, it's not blurry at all. One person only hurts themselves and another hurts hundreds of civilians. Not blurry at all.
Re-read that and tell me if it still makes sense. Of course you aren't going to pursue the hurt of others! That goes without saying. But what others do to hurt you is largely out of your control. If you cannot protest for fear of reprisal then you're going to be easily cowed. Think about all the publishers, magazines, and newspapers around the world that refused to publish the denmark cartoonists' renderings of mohammad. Just the thread of violence caused them to abandon free speech and begin to admonish people who were under thread of death already.
And yet, it's happening right now in China, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere.
vOv
That said, I disagree with the idea of getting in fights with police during "non-violent" protests. Why?
A) 100% chance that the media will only show the side they want, whether it is people harassing cops, or vice versa, you're only helping the mainstream media - none of the media companies are really non-biased.
Most cops (not all) aren't bad people, they just want to help protect normal people from real criminals, and they don't really have a choice (especially if you are breaking laws). If you're not, then you're forcing the cop into a terrible position - hurt an innocent person, or probably get fired and not be able to feed for his/her family.
C) People getting beaten, and not fighting back, is a much better way to get your message out. Think of all the strongest images from the Vietnam protests, and they are all one sided.
That said, I doubt I'm gonna change your mind.
Sorry, but this is a non-argument. You're simply pointing out the fact violent protests do happen and that's got nothing to do with non-violent movements (that are going on, along side those you mentioned). I would also not be so quick to judge what is and is not justified. I had colleagues and fellow studends shot and gassed during Vietnam protests in the US, and I wouldn't consider the government we had back then any more brutal than China or any other example (far less, as a matter of fact). The point is, there are things worth protesting and not everyone is out to justify stealing a TV or burn a car.
A peaceful man would publish anything he wanted, and he would be protecting his freedom of speech. Speech is not violence and the constitution in this country, as well as the UN charter, make that abundantly clear. Washington DC to this day hosts KKK and neo-nazi rallies. I've seen african american policemen protect these very people's rights to march. Not because they agree with their ideology, but because to all of us free speech is the heart of what we believe in. If you're ready to lay down your right to speak against or critique a religion, a government, a politician, or an idea: you're neglecting the defense of your own rights. That, in my mind, is the worst of all cowardice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
Precisely.