both sides are evil, guess Sony are the Evil ones and Anonymous are the Lesser evil?*Shrugs*Nobody is clearly good here.
I Dont Know: Anonymous are they they the Good guys????
- Thread starter Zeema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Anonymous is not the good guys. While I believe people should be able to do what they wish with their property, the hacking of the PS3 made it able for the pirating of games. Maybe you won't be able to do everything you would like to do with your console, but its important to stop pirating more than customization. Its more of the lesser evil in this situation.
Also, Anonymous takes it too far. Bringing down websites because they believe they are the ultimate judges of freedom is a pathetic reason.
Also, Anonymous takes it too far. Bringing down websites because they believe they are the ultimate judges of freedom is a pathetic reason.
It's like in Assassin's Creed, is Altaïr/Ezio/Desmond good even by killing other dudes who seek a similar goal aka Total power through Control ?
Since they're just a big unorganised group of people with no particular goals, some of them will do things for good, and others will do things (as they put it) "for the lulz"
They have no leader and no actual goals so its just a big group of people all doing extremely different things and going under that name.
They have no leader and no actual goals so its just a big group of people all doing extremely different things and going under that name.
By god, have you even played the games? YES THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS. Thats the entire point. They're trying to prevent the Templars from world domination WITHOUT doing it themselves.Orcus The Ultimate said:
Actually thats chaotic good that are freedom for everyone, chaotic neutral are people who fight for themselves personally despite the fact it break social laws or standards. Chaotic evil destroys things for the sake of destroying things.CM156 said:
I would say chaotic neutral myself, breaking the laws for somewhat selfish reasons, they are the chaotic neutral that falls squarely between good and evil, their cause is good but in the mean time they break things and cause destruction making the methods bad. Although really I don't know enough about what they have done or what for to really have a solid opinion on the matter, I can however say neutral is going out of your way and breaking the law in order to help others, thats good. I would rather like a list of links in order to get information on them actually
Anonymous is a lot like a carnival mirror. Where you stand changes your perception of them.
Personally, I think they're "good" guys, when say, fighting the establishment and taking on Scientology. Some of their methods could definitely been seen as "bad". But still, it's based on where your morals are in comparison to theirs. Anyone could easily see Anon as "good" or "bad" because of where their own morals are.
Personally, I think they're "good" guys, when say, fighting the establishment and taking on Scientology. Some of their methods could definitely been seen as "bad". But still, it's based on where your morals are in comparison to theirs. Anyone could easily see Anon as "good" or "bad" because of where their own morals are.
You want the honest truth?
It's merely a bunch of 13-21yr'olds who spend most of their time lurking around 4chan and coming up with stupid shit to do.
It's like any other idiotic teenager on the internet, except they're organized now.
They're not evil, nor good or neutral, but they are what they are. Simply put.
It's merely a bunch of 13-21yr'olds who spend most of their time lurking around 4chan and coming up with stupid shit to do.
It's like any other idiotic teenager on the internet, except they're organized now.
They're not evil, nor good or neutral, but they are what they are. Simply put.
Anonymous are nothing and everything.
Individual elements will temporarily form under the heading to do something that interests them, others will accuse that element of being fur fags and tell them to yiff in hell, and everybody else will just accuse both of them of being the cancer that is killing /b/.
Of course, anonymous has helped catch pedophiles and animal abusers, amongst other things.
If Anonymous was any alignment, it would be all of them at the same goddamn time.
Individual elements will temporarily form under the heading to do something that interests them, others will accuse that element of being fur fags and tell them to yiff in hell, and everybody else will just accuse both of them of being the cancer that is killing /b/.
Of course, anonymous has helped catch pedophiles and animal abusers, amongst other things.
If Anonymous was any alignment, it would be all of them at the same goddamn time.
Not all anons are from 4chan though, well he never said anons from 4chan at least 
...there are other Futaba and Chan boards wherein anons come to either compliment or rant on someone's upload. Some even to the point of being strong-willed White Knights who justify a conversation or argument, and some being those others who Won't give a single fuck...
In DnD terms, Anonymous is more likely to be Chaotic. But Anonymous could be a pantheon of all 9 alignments.
...there are other Futaba and Chan boards wherein anons come to either compliment or rant on someone's upload. Some even to the point of being strong-willed White Knights who justify a conversation or argument, and some being those others who Won't give a single fuck...In DnD terms, Anonymous is more likely to be Chaotic. But Anonymous could be a pantheon of all 9 alignments.
they are chaotic good, they protect consumers and freedom of speech by all means necessary (don,t confuse them with regular /b/tards). They don,t tend to post CP and only use 4Chan as a base of operation,s (since sites like The Escapist have to report users if they plan stuff like that and would strip them of anonymity)
PS
mostly they take down web sites with DDOS attacks (it,s the same effect as high traffic on a site, the same effect could be reached by allot of people visiting the site at once.
PPS
Anonymous is allot like the Conscript army from WWII it contains allot of people from allot of different backgrounds working towards a common goal, making it even harder to find members.
PS
mostly they take down web sites with DDOS attacks (it,s the same effect as high traffic on a site, the same effect could be reached by allot of people visiting the site at once.
PPS
Anonymous is allot like the Conscript army from WWII it contains allot of people from allot of different backgrounds working towards a common goal, making it even harder to find members.
Anon isn't about good or bad, or right or wrong. Just like society, as in, the whole of humanity, can't be classified as good or bad. You could ask if they're good or bad to (for) society (Like you could ask if humanity is good or bad for the planet), which is a tough question. If you were to take them completly seriously you could probably argue that the presence of anon is harmful to the current state of society, but personally I prefer anon's vision of society than it's current face.
Anon (as a concept) is about freedom and fun, not good or bad. More akin to the morality of Ayn Rand than Plato. It's an incoherent hedonistic amalgamation of post-modern philosophy that discards all "values" and "meaning" for the sake of gratification, on the basis that modern technology has essentially stripped away the archaic need for societal codes of conduct and centralized monitoring and decision making. All actions anon takes are a result of the accidental overlapping of different people's wants and beliefs, not of someone's concious decision to act a certain way.
Wether it's right or wrong mostly depends on your personal stance regarding those ideals, and wether or not you're on the receiving end of it.
Taken in a broad enough perspective, this isn't any different than mainstream society, except that in anon's society people now classified as "normal" would be declared "insane". Given that society's current definition of normality is just as arbitrary as anon's, and that evil and suffering take place as much now as you'd expect from any hypothetical alternative society, I don't see how morality really factors into the discussion here.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Anon and /b/ have done more for freedom (Of speech, thought, morality and otherwise) than any organized mass of society ever has, and for that I appreciate them.
Anon (as a concept) is about freedom and fun, not good or bad. More akin to the morality of Ayn Rand than Plato. It's an incoherent hedonistic amalgamation of post-modern philosophy that discards all "values" and "meaning" for the sake of gratification, on the basis that modern technology has essentially stripped away the archaic need for societal codes of conduct and centralized monitoring and decision making. All actions anon takes are a result of the accidental overlapping of different people's wants and beliefs, not of someone's concious decision to act a certain way.
Wether it's right or wrong mostly depends on your personal stance regarding those ideals, and wether or not you're on the receiving end of it.
Taken in a broad enough perspective, this isn't any different than mainstream society, except that in anon's society people now classified as "normal" would be declared "insane". Given that society's current definition of normality is just as arbitrary as anon's, and that evil and suffering take place as much now as you'd expect from any hypothetical alternative society, I don't see how morality really factors into the discussion here.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Anon and /b/ have done more for freedom (Of speech, thought, morality and otherwise) than any organized mass of society ever has, and for that I appreciate them.
Good and bad are subjective terms, yes I think we should all understand that because that's just good use of terminology.
Are anonymous good or bad? Ultimately they are bad, bad for businesses and bad for internet users. They destroy things. They wreck things. And for what? Slow down a few sites for the sake of personal freedoms? The more attacks they make, the more attention is drawn to the idea of cyber terrorism. The more attention is drawn to cyber terrorism (i.e federal attention) the more likely it is for action to be taken and I do not want to be caught in that backlash.
All Anonymous is doing is being generally annoying. They don't solve anything. They make points but rarely deliver conclusions.
Also, I think people are right for claiming that Anon isn't a group so much as a calling card. Anonymous is a sub culture movement, a name for a form of group action, not a bunch of nerdy anarchists living in some mother's basement, cheerily plotting their next act of vengeance against "the man".
Are anonymous good or bad? Ultimately they are bad, bad for businesses and bad for internet users. They destroy things. They wreck things. And for what? Slow down a few sites for the sake of personal freedoms? The more attacks they make, the more attention is drawn to the idea of cyber terrorism. The more attention is drawn to cyber terrorism (i.e federal attention) the more likely it is for action to be taken and I do not want to be caught in that backlash.
All Anonymous is doing is being generally annoying. They don't solve anything. They make points but rarely deliver conclusions.
Also, I think people are right for claiming that Anon isn't a group so much as a calling card. Anonymous is a sub culture movement, a name for a form of group action, not a bunch of nerdy anarchists living in some mother's basement, cheerily plotting their next act of vengeance against "the man".
