Anonymous Threatens Fox News Over Occupy Wall Street
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are you claiming that the comic book ending of Watchmen was the product of a stable mind?Soviet Heavy said:
Regardless, I'll be keeping my ear to the ground on this one. Hopefully it's not just some kid with Windows Movie Maker who thinks he can start something. If it's the core group though, I'm happy to see someone ruffle Fox News feathers.
Simple: presenting my bona fides. When I say that "Faux News" existed BEFORE Fox News, I'm not engaging in hyperbole. The point being, there's a strange habit a lot of people have of declaring Fox, and ONLY Fox, to be the bane of modern news.Jingle Fett said:
The reality is, OWS has been getting more and more negative coverage the longer it goes on, which is far from limited to Fox --- but the reaction from Anonymous targets only Fox, and support for Anon's actions are based almost wholly on pre-existing hate for Fox.
It's an over-the-top kneejerk reaction that's already gotten old and stale. It does nothing good for OWS to cheer this kind of thing on, either; it only feeds into the "radical fringe" stereotype currently developing.
Anon isn't "the people" (much less "THE people") any more than the Tea Party or OWS. All three are subsets. None represent the majority (although all of them claim to).
Not quite.
The reality is that few people start out deliberately lying. They start fudging the facts, and then lying, when they feel a need to defend their existing worldview, because that's easier in most cases than admitting they may be (or are) wrong.
This is because of two social forces:
1) Being wrong is commonly treated as a sign of intellectual inferiority.
A person does not want to admit to themselves that they may be wrong, hence denial, but they also do not want others to see them as wrong, hence derailing and deflecting. Lying occurs when someone has been internally convinced they may be (or are) wrong, but don't want to externally admit it.
2) Questioning a trusted info source is perceived as a breach of that trust.
People have friends and allies --- most, if not all, of whom naturally feel threatened when they make a claim and someone challenges it (see above). There is a strong "go along to get along" desire which causes most folks to generally accept what their friends and allies say at face value, especially if there seems to be nothing obviously wrong with the claim being made, or if it meshes closely to beliefs already held.
It's hard to change a view once you've already accepted it, because you have the twin forces of self-esteem ("If I'm wrong, I must have been suckered!") and social pressure ("You're saying I'M wrong? Some friend you are!") working against you.
It is best, therefore, to start from the general assumption that someone (including oneself) may be misinformed rather than just being a dirty rotten scumbag liar. Such people exist, but they are an extreme minority; unless you know for sure, don't leap to the assumption.
Seek original source data if at all possible, instead of relying wholly on "trusted sources" to provide all your info. You'll never achieve perfection, but it's always preferable to improve on accuracy.
And finally, never settle for "feeling good" about what you believe. Reality does not change regardless of one's opinion, so having an uninformed or misinformed opinion can and will cause damage if it's acted upon. Similarly, treating someone as a liar when in reality they are simply misinformed, will only result in unnecessary backlash.
Americans can be a little odd with the things they will believe. You have some that run around thinking the moon landings were faked. One of the greatest events in human history and some Americans just have to look for something evil, shady, or under handed with it.Danzavare said:
So there is a market for anything that will attempt to confirm the crazy conservatives fear that anything even the least bit liberal is evil to it's core and out to destroy the United States from within.
If it wasn't Fox News selling fear mongering to the right wing of America then someone else would. Before Fox News the 700 Club was fairly popular as the place to get your fear of liberalism.
*facepalm
"Lets go after someone everybody else likes to hate too." I used to think Anon was badass, now they look like a bunch of attention whores.
Why don't they "go after" the real problems in this world? Fox News? They're just a group of right wingers, giving a select audience what they wanna hear.
Fuck, I'm so tired of everybody jumping on we-hate-fox/racist-bastards bandwagon but they're just like every other news station. Opinionated. They have an opinion, just like you and me. You may not agree with it, I usually don't agree with it but does that give us a reason to bash them? Hell, I don't agree with most news groups. They all put a perspective based spin on everything that happens. Thats called R-E-P-O-R-T-I-N-G. Get used to it.
Anon, you just got boring.
"Lets go after someone everybody else likes to hate too." I used to think Anon was badass, now they look like a bunch of attention whores.
Why don't they "go after" the real problems in this world? Fox News? They're just a group of right wingers, giving a select audience what they wanna hear.
Fuck, I'm so tired of everybody jumping on we-hate-fox/racist-bastards bandwagon but they're just like every other news station. Opinionated. They have an opinion, just like you and me. You may not agree with it, I usually don't agree with it but does that give us a reason to bash them? Hell, I don't agree with most news groups. They all put a perspective based spin on everything that happens. Thats called R-E-P-O-R-T-I-N-G. Get used to it.
Anon, you just got boring.
The protesters are calling bankers and wall street types greedy, money-grabbing idiots. Which is true. Plus they are saying it for the purpose of getting shit corrected for the good of the common man.erttheking said:
Fox News is calling the protesters hippies, anti-semites, idiots, drug addicts, socialists and a whole bunch of other stuff. Which is not true. Plus they are saying it to slander people to keep their fat-cat masters happy.
You see where the divide comes?
OT: Good for you Anon! Both for the Guy Fawkes/V for Vendetta thing, and for hitting back in some small way at Fox News. Even though all that will come of it will be Fox News bitching about "vicious techno-terrorism from hateful Progressives" for the better part of a week.
But honestly? Given my new habit of hanging around Fox News.com article comments sections... that site needs to be taken down, even if just for a while. It's fucking horrific over there. You have never seen a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
When I read the title I thought "Okay so three extremists are going to shut down Fox's website. Okay." So when is "Anonymous" going to shut down cnn, msnbc and the others for belittling Tea Partyers? OH NO! Did I say extremists?
Uhg.. I'm gonna get some shit for this.
I'm a liberal guy. I despise Fox News. Legally, I don't think they should even be allowed to call themselves a news station any more than a hardcore porno could call itself children's programming.
That said, they have the same right to free speech as everyone else. It isn't ever right to censor someone just because you disagree.
I'm a liberal guy. I despise Fox News. Legally, I don't think they should even be allowed to call themselves a news station any more than a hardcore porno could call itself children's programming.
That said, they have the same right to free speech as everyone else. It isn't ever right to censor someone just because you disagree.
I'm not really seeing how taking down a website accomplishes anything. Regardless I'm hoping it will damage fox news a bit.
Far be it from me to stand between Fox News and their right to lie to the public. As noted, they've apparently proven their right to do so in court.
But shame on anyone who believes their line for their failure to do the slightest bit of checking. A lot of the protesters are very well spoken, and while the whole doesn't have a single "list of demands" (as it would be difficult for a group with no de facto leaders to have such a list) many of the issues that they've mentioned are well worth being brought to people's attention. The so-called "dirty hippies"- including the senior citizens, veterans, and union workers- have stayed firm through all kinds of weather and, not infrequently, the threat of violence to their persons; I think for people without a political predisposition to think otherwise, the word for that is admirable. It's true that by themselves they probably won't change the world, but at least they've started to make others aware that the problems aren't going unnoticed.
And, yes, they're in the right place. Down the street from the people who came up with the idea of selling toxic assets as investments, and were responsible for the S&L debacle before, and pay for lobbyists to keep the regulations that enable such chicanery. The ones who regularly justify their actions as necessary to benefit the interests of their investors- and turn out to have been working against those interests when it was to their benefit.
But shame on anyone who believes their line for their failure to do the slightest bit of checking. A lot of the protesters are very well spoken, and while the whole doesn't have a single "list of demands" (as it would be difficult for a group with no de facto leaders to have such a list) many of the issues that they've mentioned are well worth being brought to people's attention. The so-called "dirty hippies"- including the senior citizens, veterans, and union workers- have stayed firm through all kinds of weather and, not infrequently, the threat of violence to their persons; I think for people without a political predisposition to think otherwise, the word for that is admirable. It's true that by themselves they probably won't change the world, but at least they've started to make others aware that the problems aren't going unnoticed.
And, yes, they're in the right place. Down the street from the people who came up with the idea of selling toxic assets as investments, and were responsible for the S&L debacle before, and pay for lobbyists to keep the regulations that enable such chicanery. The ones who regularly justify their actions as necessary to benefit the interests of their investors- and turn out to have been working against those interests when it was to their benefit.