As anonymous, we have the power of the masses (albeit un-organized). So far from what I can gather on these forums, Anonymous is about standing up for our rights...anonymously...or something like that (kinda new here so spare me the lurk moar mssgs XD) Problem: People almost always take a REACTIVE approach to world news/events When people take this kind of approach, it can get violent and give people ideas to do stuff like DDOS attacks, Blackmail etc. to get the situation changed. (such as a bill that would take away our rights) Solution: Instead of taking the above approach, I wonder what would happen if someone aligned with ANONYMOUS was in a high-ranking position...such as a senate, congress, maybe even the president. Ideal Outcome: Instead of always saying we are (in your schools, military, government) why don't we actually get some die-hard members in said positions? Imagine a society where 80% of the companies executives are members of anonymous, the senate, congress, and house of representatives, and finally the President are members If this idea were to come into reality, anonymous would be able to stop local events (such as a bill) as well as world events (like a war) from happening, or push for them (such as a bill or rescue effort). Lemme know what you think!
OP, This is cancer pant's own speshul way of giving a personal compliment, which is a rarity from him, as he is always very critical. He is sexually frustrated, too. Mom already knows. ok <3<3 cancer pantalones
..............But, i don't know that there is ever an "ultimate solution" to anything. I am not sure that there ever has been any single solution to any number of challenges in history, both personal in perspective and social in consciousness. So i feel silly and inauthentic trying to push for any one agenda, because i don't have one. I have my own imperfections and challenges and am the last one to give some silly speech to anyone else. Better to just enjoy a little silence. And, i suppose the "test" of any idea is if one can actualize it for themself, whatever their aspiration might be. i am tired.
Pants, I agree with you but only in part, op is an hopeless idealist, which is extremely endearing. ther is some of that in each of us, otherwise most of us wouldn't be here.
"OP" is a periodless acronym. ("original post[er]") "Op" or "op" is a periodless abbreviation. ("operation") Please be accurate. Now back to the bunnies and helping.
Some good points about what we do. The main problem with your plan is, as you mentioned, there is no "we" . That would take a huge amount of organization and essentially that group would no longer be Anonymous. Their identities would be be known to the group working like this. It becomes a conspiracy for "the greater good" and that never ends well.
I was thinking of a stealthier approach and one on a more "personal" level. The the problem with < would be communicating annonymously. HOWEVER, what people of anonymous could do is to pick someone (anonymous) and have them actually try to infiltrate the highrollers of society ^^ (yes I know this is a pipe dream......a plausible one tho) think of when hackers use a bot net to control activity on a global scale...be it DOS,DDOS, Ransomware, Extortion, Spam, click fraud etc.... now think of the "human" version of that and you can get the general picture of my idea while taking out the bot master part lulz
Well on a personal level there is always talking 1:1 to your friends about things you think are important. No need for anonymity there, and it can be a lot more powerful than showing up somewhere in a mask. What exactly is your point here?
First we don't do illegal things here. There are slews of books and movies based on a conspiracy to infiltrate power. First it takes $$, u got some? Then it takes people who will live their lives as a lie. You? It's an interesting idea but good people can't lie about who / what you are.
How about a compromise? We put adorable bunnies in all the important positions in the government, industry, education and business, and the problem is magically solved. Let me know when you all need something else important figured out.
1,You will never get a Politician to associate him/her self with Anon. 2. You will never get lobbyists to back your candidate if chosen from any of us. 3. Would you really want any of us running the government? Have you seen how tragic this forum has gotten? 4. If any of us was elected into office of any sort that is just 1 Senate or House vote. Really wouldn't help much. You would need to win the Senate or House majority and that would require many anon getting voted in.
I appreciate you optimism guy, but as previously mentioned, no incumbent U.S. politician will want to associate with Anonymous. The closest there will ever be to an Ultimate Solution for Anonymous is what it does now: -Civil Disobedience (lulz) -Hacktivism (typing really fast and drinking all the soda) -Spreading the Information. Let everyone we can know about what Anonymous is; and what it works for, not to try to convert people but in the hopes of growing, or at least getting the message out. (Bloggin' like a bat out of hell)
Its like saying the ultimate solution for, oh, journalism is for journalists to take over the Congress. I suppose it might, but then they aren't journalists anymore, they're politicians. The same thing would happen to any hackers that managed to infiltrate a legislature. What's really needed in not more power for anonymous hackers, but less power to elites. And the only way to do that, I think, is by empowering the general public to actively discuss their interests with each other and generate consensus solutions to shared common problems. In other words, whats needed is an open forum where members of the public can debate things and do things for themselves, not infiltrating the corrupting halls of centralized decision making. In other words, reproducing Why We Protest out in the open where anyone could take advantage of it. I don't mean on the internet, I mean something like setting up a bicameral city council somewhere, where the lower house is a residents' council. That way, its the thought process itself that is infiltrating the political arena. Not such a radical idea, either, except in the US.
Dude, the general public is much too interested in things like trashed celebrities or the score of the next Cowboys game to do things like debate, reason, or engage in civic policy. Christ, our own government is actively spying on us online and most people have absolutely no idea who Snowden is!
So? I only want them to discuss things that affect them directly anyway. Why does a city council (thats what I proposed) need to discuss Snowden (or Federal surveillance) for anyway? What can they do about it?
