Westboro Baptist "Church"...again

[labrys 0]

Quote

Douchebags vs. douchebags. Two wrongs do make a right

Below, a point of view that I agree with... and I've been both horrified by WBCs actions for a very long time and in total agreement with their right to free speech. Thing is, there's a line that they've finally crossed that's going to bring some slap-down on them from a source that they can't sue.

Hard to criticize Anonymous for targeting Westboro Baptist Church

Owned by Remi #?

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

Quote

They may have just pissed off the wrong people:

Anonymous targets WBC

Douchebags vs. douchebags. Two wrongs do make a right

It's very hard to have any respect for anyone/thing who hides behind a "name" such as Anonymous.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[labrys 0]

Quote

It's very hard to have any respect for anyone/thing who hides behind a "name" such as Anonymous.

Well... when the fundamental purpose of membership and underlying philosophy of a group is that everyone involved with it is anonymous and anyone can participate anonymously and independently... what's so wrong with calling it "Anonymous"?

Do you also have issues with Alcoholics Anonymous?

Owned by Remi #?

[oldwomanc6 38]

Apples/ Oranges , and you know it.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[labrys 0]

Quote

Apples/ Oranges , and you know it.

I don't know it. Explain how?

The entire idea is based on what a group can do as a collection of anonymous participants. Why is using the name "Anonymous" to describe an anonymous collective "hiding"?

Owned by Remi #?

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

Quote

Apples/ Oranges , and you know it.

I don't know it. Explain how?

The entire idea is based on what a group can do as a collection of anonymous participants. Why is using the name "Anonymous" to describe an anonymous collective "hiding"?

I never heard of AA threatening anyone. They seem to be a noble enterprise.

Beyond that, YOU tell Me!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[labrys 0]

Quote

I never heard of AA threatening anyone. They seem to be a noble enterprise.

Beyond that, YOU tell Me!

You expressed disdain for a group because they call themselves Anonymous.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think that a group that's founded on the principal of anonymity is wrong to call themselves Anonymous.

Edit to add: That was my purpose in mentioning AA. They are also founded on the principle of anonymity. I didn't question motives or mention threats, you did.

Another edit because I'm seriously curious.

There's a group called The Patriot Guard Riders who frequently threaten to disrupt WBC pickets. Sometimes they don't even need to actually show up because WBC sees the threat as very real and stays away. I LOVE those guys. I love what they do, but ultimately they are getting their way by means of threat.

They call themselves Patriot Guard Riders because they are bikers who have a desire to guard patriots and their family members from harm.

Is that very much different from an anonymous collective who calls themselves Anonymous threatening to disrupt the activities of WBC?

Want to see how many Patriot Guard Riders have expressed a desire to have a WBC member step across a line so that they can give them a good beating?

Google won't take long.

What's your problem with the name Anonymous again?

Owned by Remi #?

[regulator 0]

Maybe she doesnt like hackers. Personally I would love to see anonymous torch the wbc. Fuck those assholes.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Maybe she doesnt like hackers. Personally I would love to see anonymous torch the wbc. Fuck those assholes.

I guess not. And I don't think that there's anything wrong at all about that dislike. They've done good and bad. I'm absolutely thrilled that they've made this an op and I hope that they can stay cohesive long enough to have a real impact.

WBC is a special breed of hate and greed that far surpasses many others. The problem is that they don't break laws and the law can't pursue them. Law abiding people can't stop them.

I hope they're scared as shit right now.

Owned by Remi #?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Maybe she doesnt like hackers. Personally I would love to see anonymous torch the wbc. Fuck those assholes.

Not so much in favour of the 1st amendment as you are of the second?

[regulator 0]

I'll leave it with you this way;

I am personally against any person or organization that wants to breed hate at one of the most vulnerable times...greiving for a lost loved one. If they wanted to protest on the steps of the white house and relay their message of hate and angst at police and other professionals thats their perogative. Its nice how simplistic you are that you can just eliminate all the emotions and only stand by the actual words. But then what do you care? You dont even live in this country.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Not so much in favour of the 1st amendment as you are of the second?

You didn't ask me this question but I'd like to give my opinion about the topic. I'm 100% in favor of both amendments and I believe that WBC deserves the full protection of the law. I believe in their right to protest.

I also believe that now that they've pissed off some folks who aren't that picky about laws, I'm not going to feel the least bit of sympathy for them. It's not a first amendment issue. The government isn't involved.

One of the WBCs primary tactics is to enrage people to the point that someone actually assaults them. They then litigate for damages. I think that it's fucking hilarious and they can't sue Anonymous and they really can't do much more than go off grid, close up their bank accounts, get new SSNs, etc. until Anon backs off.

Owned by Remi #?

[regulator 0]

+1

Great post.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

You didn't ask me this question but I'd like to give my opinion about the topic. I'm 100% in favor of both amendments and I believe that WBC deserves the full protection of the law. I believe in their right to protest.

I also believe that now that they've pissed off some folks who aren't that picky about laws, I'm not going to feel the least bit of sympathy for them. It's not a first amendment issue. The government isn't involved.

Well it is a first amendment issue. If their speech has made them a target of violence, they should be protected by the government.

But then I am happy with the way my country handles free speech, which isn't as free as in the US. I am also mostly in favour with the way my country is currently handling guns, which is not a constitutional right.

Hence, I guess one could say I am not 100% in favour of either amendment.

Quote

I think that it's fucking hilarious and they can't sue Anonymous and they really can't do much more than go off grid, close up their bank accounts, get new SSNs, etc. until Anon backs off.

Would you find it hilarious if I did that to some of the posters here who like to inflame? Or do you only find it hilarious when you don't agree with the message in the first place?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Well it is a first amendment issue. If their speech has made them a target of violence, they should be protected by the government.

I totally agree with that. What I meant was that the government isn't involved in trying to harm them or deny their rights.

How do you propose that the government protect them from Anon? Should they pass laws making what some of the stuff Anon does illegal? They've already done that. Should they prosecute when they identify and catch someone? They already do that.

Should they turn off the Internet?

Quote

Would you find it hilarious if I did that to some of the posters here who like to inflame? Or do you only find it hilarious when you don't agree with the message in the first place?

I've never seen anything here that approaches a fraction of a percentage of the vileness that WBC preaches. The WBC has been in the periphery of my life for a very, very long time and they've been doing sick, twisted, mean stuff that entire time.

I don't generally approve of this sort of action that Anon is taking. This is a special case. I've had a lot of personal interaction with WBC members.

Owned by Remi #?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

It's very hard to have any respect for anyone/thing who hides behind a "name" such as Anonymous.

Well... when the fundamental purpose of membership and underlying philosophy of a group is that everyone involved with it is anonymous and anyone can participate anonymously and independently... what's so wrong with calling it "Anonymous"?

Do you also have issues with Alcoholics Anonymous?

Well there's a significant difference between a group that promotes anonymity both to:
A)To prevent a charismatic leader from hijacking the primary purpose of the group

B)To allow those who are afraid of being labelled and stigmatized to get help.

And a group that commits crimes against people and organizations they don't like.

While I despise the WBC and what it stands for, the do have a 1st amendment right to their position and to publicize it.

A bunch of hackers attacking them while hiding behind the anonymity that the internet allows is cowardly at the least, and terrorism at the worst (I wouldn't go so far as to label them "terrorists", but some do).

They aren't a whole lot different than the KKK hiding under the white hoods so that the rest of the townfold wouldn't know who they were.

And the PGR doesn't advocate violence or even the threat of it. They will eject anyone who behaves that way.
They simply offer a shield between any protesters and the funeral service.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Well it is a first amendment issue. If their speech has made them a target of violence, they should be protected by the government.

Still not a first amendment issue. It could possibly be a first amendment issue if the government denied them equal protection due to their odious speech, but there is no evidence of this.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

Quote

I've never seen anything here that approaches a fraction of a percentage of the vileness that WBC preaches.

Actually there's one prominent poster here who agrees with everything the WBC preaches, he just disagrees with their methods. Ironically, he also touts his membership in the PGR.

- Dan G

[regulator 0]

I've had a lot of personal interaction with WBC members.

I'd like to hear about that sometime.

[oldwomanc6 38]

Thank you for your reply, I've been pondering how to say it articulately, and you did that for me.

Intent behind the anonymity is the difference.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Skyrad 0]

A 'thought protocol' is an oxymoron.... Just saying.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[labrys 0]

Quote

Intent behind the anonymity is the difference.

I agree that there is a difference in intent between the 2 groups. I never tried to argue that. You said:

"It's very hard to have any respect for anyone/thing who hides behind a "name" such as Anonymous."

And I asked you how an anonymous collective using the name "Anonymous" was hiding anything behind a name. Hell, they're telling you exactly who they are right in their name... that's the point. They're hiding who they are, but that's not hiding behind a name. It's just hiding.

If they were a bunch of people remaining anonymous and using the name "The group of people with a public list of our personal information"

That would be hiding behind a name

Owned by Remi #?

[lurch 0]

I am reminded of a dialogue in a Gibson novel regarding this exact sort of 21st century insanity: "Had us a group here once call Sword Of The Pig. What they'd do is, they'd break into factories and steal the big fire extinguishers, then recharge them with blood from a slaughterhouse. Only they'd let out that the blood was, you know, human. Then they'd go after the Jesus people when they marched, with those same extinguishers..." "Jesus." "Exactly."

Starting to look like the kind of thing that could actually happen. I'm rooting for Anonymous.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[wmw999 2,121]

A piece of me roots for Anonymous, but another piece hopes that they don't then decide, if this effort is successful, to go after some other group. And then another one after that.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BillyVance 34]

Fucking shitheads now want to picket the Webster, NY firefighters' funerals.

Fortunately, fire departments from around the country plan to form a protective cordon to keep them away from the services.

Blast them with the air horns, sirens and firehoses, boys!

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban