Definition : Jumped the Shark
Anonymous, or those purporting to be Anonymous have released the following:
Now while I appreciate their sentiment I can’t help but think this comes off as:
- juvenile
- undemocratic
- posturing
What say you readers?
Related posts:
- Darwin City Council Rules the “Lord’s Prayer” non-religious Ben Langford reporting in the NT News writes: DARWIN...
- Filtering Wrap Up: Of Swallows and Silver Bullets Below is a piece I have written for Somebody Think...
Loading ...
I would expect nothing less from them. That was great.
I am concerned that they seem to be targeting and threatening a duly elected government.
I think it is difficult to argue that they were elected on this issue. They kept this under their hats until after the election. My enemies enemy is my friend.
Sorry Luke not understanding what you are saying :S with regard to "elected on this issue"
"Anonymous" isn't a specific group in which membership is permanent. It's a load of people who sometimes agree to do the same thing at the same time.
The "things" they end up doing are usually devised by one guy who posts on one of the #chans saying "Hey how about we do this". If it's a popular idea, more and more people agree to it. If it's an unpopular idea, no one bothers.
That video is unlikely to be representative of the thousands/millions of "anonymous" worldwide, it's most likely just a single guy with some beef who wants to try and prod the rest of them into action. And probably fail. Steam really ran out after that Scientology thing.
Just out of interest, and I don't mean to be condescending and/or patronising (and I'm aware that this statement is usually followed by something that is indeed condescending and/or patronising, but I'm honestly not trying to be), do you know what anonymous actually *is*? Having been there from the start of it (in various forms), I sometimes assume that other people know as well. But with all the news attention that "anonymous" has been given over the last couple of years or so, it's hard to tell how many people know the truth, and how many people believe that newspaper/Fox claim that Anonymous is a specific, permanent group (heh… "internet hate machine").
My only knowledge of Anonymous is their relation with Scientology protests. Not condescending at all, thanks for your perspective/information. Note I did preface with those purporting to be Anonymous – I think this particular vid does the "cause' more harm than good and it devalues the "anonymous brand". Why bother having a recognizable symbol or logo if any loose canon can devalue it with a ridiculous message.
Certainly undemocratic and posturing. No more juvenile than much of the other political posturing I've seen perpetrated by so-called adults.
But then what would you expect from an essentially anarchist movement which developed out of 4chan?