SOPA: Anonymous Lists Their Demands

[exangel]

@[member='KingdomBlade']

How can you say such a definite thing as an outsider?

 

[Koumori_Knight]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

 

[KingdomBlade]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation. The point of my post is the fact that a fraction as minimal as this isn't substantial enough to make a huge difference, in any case. Maybe I should've worded this better - Anonymous isn't going to be making much impact. Sure, it's possible that Anonymous could inform people about their individual rights, however they are pretty much preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place. The majority of people aware of anonymous are those that don't need their liberties informed of them.

If you're talking about either the crappy MTV TV show or the coast off of New Jersey, then I do, but otherwise I have no idea.

 

[Koumori_Knight]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation. The point of my post is the fact that a fraction as minimal as this isn't substantial enough to make a huge difference, in any case. Maybe I should've worded this better - Anonymous isn't going to be making much impact. Sure, it's possible that Anonymous could inform people about their individual rights, however they are pretty much preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place. The majority of people aware of anonymous are those that don't need their liberties informed of them.

If you're talking about either the crappy MTV TV show or the coast off of New Jersey, then I do, but otherwise I have no idea.

You can't word a blunt statement like that better. You might have expanded upon it better though. Please try to remember that Anonymous is making quite an impact in the states, where they were bred. Do not discount the people in this situation, they are the ones who have the money that the riaa and the mpaa need to survive. Also, please justify how they are "preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place". I do not understand this rather sweeping statement, how are they the wrong people? Who then are the "right" people in your eyes?

 

[KingdomBlade]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation. The point of my post is the fact that a fraction as minimal as this isn't substantial enough to make a huge difference, in any case. Maybe I should've worded this better - Anonymous isn't going to be making much impact. Sure, it's possible that Anonymous could inform people about their individual rights, however they are pretty much preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place. The majority of people aware of anonymous are those that don't need their liberties informed of them.

If you're talking about either the crappy MTV TV show or the coast off of New Jersey, then I do, but otherwise I have no idea.

You can't word a blunt statement like that better. You might have expanded upon it better though. Please try to remember that Anonymous is making quite an impact in the states, where they were bred. Do not discount the people in this situation, they are the ones who have the money that the riaa and the mpaa need to survive. Also, please justify how they are "preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place". I do not understand this rather sweeping statement, how are they the wrong people? Who then are the "right" people in your eyes?

First off, Anonymous is a global movement. Certain sectors of it are part of the United States, but Anonymous as a whole was not bred in the United States. By preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place, I mean that the majority of people who mind Anonymous and are those that already readily support Anonymous' movements. They're not doing much to expand their audience. The people who they reach out to are the ones they've reached out to before. That's what I was implying by "wrong people."

 

[Koumori_Knight]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation. The point of my post is the fact that a fraction as minimal as this isn't substantial enough to make a huge difference, in any case. Maybe I should've worded this better - Anonymous isn't going to be making much impact. Sure, it's possible that Anonymous could inform people about their individual rights, however they are pretty much preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place. The majority of people aware of anonymous are those that don't need their liberties informed of them.

If you're talking about either the crappy MTV TV show or the coast off of New Jersey, then I do, but otherwise I have no idea.

You can't word a blunt statement like that better. You might have expanded upon it better though. Please try to remember that Anonymous is making quite an impact in the states, where they were bred. Do not discount the people in this situation, they are the ones who have the money that the riaa and the mpaa need to survive. Also, please justify how they are "preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place". I do not understand this rather sweeping statement, how are they the wrong people? Who then are the "right" people in your eyes?

First off, Anonymous is a global movement. Certain sectors of it are part of the United States, but Anonymous as a whole was not bred in the United States. By preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place, I mean that the majority of people who mind Anonymous and are those that already readily support Anonymous' movements. They're not doing much to expand their audience. The people who they reach out to are the ones they've reached out to before. That's what I was implying by "wrong people."

Thats a hell of a lot of nuance for people to have to read from one single line isnt it?

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

Not exactly something that screams subtlety or complexity.

Anonymous is indeed a global movement, but this situation is as much a global issue as it is an American issue. Here is the big trouble though, the law originates in america so only large diplomatic action could make any dent in it, a byproduct of which would be an increase in tension between all parties involved. Not exactly an ideal outcome. The only place actual change can emerge from is here in America the place of origin for this overbearing law. That said, you must understand that Anonymous' actions have garnered a huge amount of attention where it matters, the DDoS'ed the MPAA, the RIAA, and have done many other attacks that--though they wouldn't really matter to people outside the USA--have drawn the subject to every media outlet in the American mediasphere. That in turn brings out discussion and understanding. Most might not agree with their methods, but no one wants to have their rights truncated. That is not preaching to the wrong crowd, thats just spreading the word. Guess what, it looks like it succeeded too given that the measure has been sent back to the drawing board, thanks to the people who took notice.
Its amazing how only a few people can do that.

 

[KingdomBlade]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation. The point of my post is the fact that a fraction as minimal as this isn't substantial enough to make a huge difference, in any case. Maybe I should've worded this better - Anonymous isn't going to be making much impact. Sure, it's possible that Anonymous could inform people about their individual rights, however they are pretty much preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place. The majority of people aware of anonymous are those that don't need their liberties informed of them.

If you're talking about either the crappy MTV TV show or the coast off of New Jersey, then I do, but otherwise I have no idea.

You can't word a blunt statement like that better. You might have expanded upon it better though. Please try to remember that Anonymous is making quite an impact in the states, where they were bred. Do not discount the people in this situation, they are the ones who have the money that the riaa and the mpaa need to survive. Also, please justify how they are "preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place". I do not understand this rather sweeping statement, how are they the wrong people? Who then are the "right" people in your eyes?

First off, Anonymous is a global movement. Certain sectors of it are part of the United States, but Anonymous as a whole was not bred in the United States. By preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place, I mean that the majority of people who mind Anonymous and are those that already readily support Anonymous' movements. They're not doing much to expand their audience. The people who they reach out to are the ones they've reached out to before. That's what I was implying by "wrong people."

Thats a hell of a lot of nuance for people to have to read from one single line isnt it?

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

Not exactly something that screams subtlety or complexity.

Not exactly the best, clearest, or most intelligent thing I've said. Oh crap, I think I might've been in one of my "furious typing" modes at the time.

Anonymous is indeed a global movement, but this situation is as much a global issue as it is an American issue. Here is the big trouble though, the law originates in america so only large diplomatic action could make any dent in it, a byproduct of which would be an increase in tension between all parties involved. Not exactly an ideal outcome. The only place actual change can emerge from is here in America the place of origin for this overbearing law. That said, you must understand that Anonymous' actions have garnered a huge amount of attention where it matters, the DDoS'ed the MPAA, the RIAA, and have done many other attacks that--though they wouldn't really matter to people outside the USA--have drawn the subject to every media outlet in the American mediasphere. That in turn brings out discussion and understanding. Most might not agree with their methods, but no one wants/ to have their rights truncated. That is not preaching to the wrong crowd, thats just spreading the word. Guess what, it looks like it succeeded too given that the measure has been sent back to the drawing board, thanks to the people who took notice.
Its amazing how only a few people can do that.

Though I still don't believe that the effects were THAT substantial, I understand it better now.

 

[Koumori_Knight]

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

But I bet you have heard of the Jersey Shore haven't you? It isn't simply about getting senate attention, Its about drawing the people with real power into the fray. Those people are not bloated, corrupt, and well bribed senators. They are the American people. Try and remember the words "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." when you make comments like that. Their point isn't to make the changes themselves, its to convince other people that they should care what happens to their freedom.
Maybe you are just to mired in apathy to bother to look, but not everyone is.
Besides to which, as exangel noted, you aren't an American so you can't know what the culture is like here any more than I could argue politics in your country, so don't go making comments you can't back up.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation. The point of my post is the fact that a fraction as minimal as this isn't substantial enough to make a huge difference, in any case. Maybe I should've worded this better - Anonymous isn't going to be making much impact. Sure, it's possible that Anonymous could inform people about their individual rights, however they are pretty much preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place. The majority of people aware of anonymous are those that don't need their liberties informed of them.

If you're talking about either the crappy MTV TV show or the coast off of New Jersey, then I do, but otherwise I have no idea.

You can't word a blunt statement like that better. You might have expanded upon it better though. Please try to remember that Anonymous is making quite an impact in the states, where they were bred. Do not discount the people in this situation, they are the ones who have the money that the riaa and the mpaa need to survive. Also, please justify how they are "preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place". I do not understand this rather sweeping statement, how are they the wrong people? Who then are the "right" people in your eyes?

First off, Anonymous is a global movement. Certain sectors of it are part of the United States, but Anonymous as a whole was not bred in the United States. By preaching to the wrong people in the wrong place, I mean that the majority of people who mind Anonymous and are those that already readily support Anonymous' movements. They're not doing much to expand their audience. The people who they reach out to are the ones they've reached out to before. That's what I was implying by "wrong people."

Thats a hell of a lot of nuance for people to have to read from one single line isnt it?

No one could give less of a fuck about Anonymous. Most especially not the senate.

Not exactly something that screams subtlety or complexity.

Not exactly the best, clearest, or most intelligent thing I've said. Oh crap, I think I might've been in one of my "furious typing" modes at the time.

Anonymous is indeed a global movement, but this situation is as much a global issue as it is an American issue. Here is the big trouble though, the law originates in america so only large diplomatic action could make any dent in it, a byproduct of which would be an increase in tension between all parties involved. Not exactly an ideal outcome. The only place actual change can emerge from is here in America the place of origin for this overbearing law. That said, you must understand that Anonymous' actions have garnered a huge amount of attention where it matters, the DDoS'ed the MPAA, the RIAA, and have done many other attacks that--though they wouldn't really matter to people outside the USA--have drawn the subject to every media outlet in the American mediasphere. That in turn brings out discussion and understanding. Most might not agree with their methods, but no one wants/ to have their rights truncated. That is not preaching to the wrong crowd, thats just spreading the word. Guess what, it looks like it succeeded too given that the measure has been sent back to the drawing board, thanks to the people who took notice.
Its amazing how only a few people can do that.

Though I still don't believe that the effects were THAT substantial, I understand it better now.

Thats all anyone ever asks for.
We can agree to disagree.