Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://gizmodo.com/5813560/lulzsec-and-anonymous-declare-open-war-against-all-governments-and-fat-cats

Discuss.

This does not surprise me at all.

Wait... Are they gonna steal our credit card info? I didn't do anything to them or anyone else...

Originally posted by jaden101
http://gizmodo.com/5813560/lulzsec-and-anonymous-declare-open-war-against-all-governments-and-fat-cats

Discuss.

I think these guy have watched Fight Club one too many times. At least the "Lulzsec" peeps, don't know much about the other group.

They could probably put their exceptionally high skills to better use.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think these guy have watched Fight Club one too many times. At least the "Lulzsec" peeps, don't know much about the other group.

They could probably put their exceptionally high skills to better use.

Anonymous used to have the line "we are everywhere, we are the people who make your food" in their motto. Definitely people who have seen too much Fight Club, also people who sort of missed the whole point (just like EVERYONE who "likes" that movie).

Looks like Project Mayhem has moved out of the basement.

Viva la Revolucion!

Hmm, interesting. I can't predict this one.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Hmm, interesting. I can't predict this one.

They won't find the things they want and will end up faking documents, creating an entire new generation of inane conspiracies.

Wait, does this have anything to do with the AntiSec movement? (which from the looks of it is really bizarre ideology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisec_Movement

I would love to see this be for real.....and be successful.

if it becomes any more than a curiosity among those of us who live on the internet, there will be a net-patriot act

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anonymous used to have the line "we are everywhere, we are the people who make your food" in their motto. Definitely people who have seen too much Fight Club, also people who sort of missed the whole point (just like EVERYONE who "likes" that movie).

What do you mean by this? Which point did majority of people who like this movie miss?

Originally posted by Robtard
I think these guy have watched Fight Club one too many times. At least the "Lulzsec" peeps, don't know much about the other group.

They could probably put their exceptionally high skills to better use.

They've done DDoS attacks on a load of different targets.

Scientology websites
The Tunisian government during the protests and the beginning of the so call Arab Spring.

Most of them were infantile such as spamming youtube with porn movies disguised as childrens videos.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What do you mean by this? Which point did majority of people who like this movie miss?

The Project Mayhem is massively hypocritical. They justify the end (?) of consumerism on the basis of freedom but in the end no one gets a choice, they force their new world on everybody else. Maybe its just me but it always seemed like a way of bringing one of the inherent flaws of anarchist fiction to the fore.

Basically, Lulzsec and Annonymous work for the CIA. They never do anything truly damaging to the 'powers that be', instead now they are showing how hackerz are a threat to the general public. This will allow draconian internet control and policing to be put in place.
Lulzsec are another example of social engineering and mind control.

Originally posted by jaden101
They've done DDoS attacks on a load of different targets.

Scientology websites
The Tunisian government during the protests and the beginning of the so call Arab Spring.

Most of them were infantile such as spamming youtube with porn movies disguised as childrens videos.


Dissing Ton Cruise and duping young children into watching pornography, whoa, these anarchist mean business.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dissing Ton Cruise and duping young children into watching pornography, whoa, these anarchist mean business.

Exactly, they are a scapegoat for a media driven moral panic about internet regulation. Basically lulzsec and anonymous do nothing but allow the powers that be to create hackerz folk devils and further there aims of net restriction.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anonymous used to have the line "we are everywhere, we are the people who make your food" in their motto. Definitely people who have seen too much Fight Club, also people who sort of missed the whole point (just like EVERYONE who "likes" that movie).

People that got it, hate it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
People that got it, hate it?

I think that if you walk away from Fight Club thinking "I want to be Tyler Durden" you missed the point. He's not the hero. Neither is Alex from A Clockwork Orange or the Joker from The Dark Night.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that if you walk away from Fight Club thinking "I want to be Tyler Durden" you missed the point. He's not the hero. Neither is Alex from A Clockwork Orange or the Joker from The Dark Night.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that if you walk away from Fight Club thinking "I want to be Tyler Durden" you missed the point. He's not the hero. Neither is Alex from A Clockwork Orange or the Joker from The Dark Night.

I agree, I do think you can like the movie and not sympathize with Durden or his cause.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that if you walk away from Fight Club thinking "I want to be Tyler Durden" you missed the point. He's not the hero. Neither is Alex from A Clockwork Orange or the Joker from The Dark Night.

They're not?

Originally posted by jaden101
They've done DDoS attacks on a load of different targets.

Scientology websites
The Tunisian government during the protests and the beginning of the so call Arab Spring.

Most of them were infantile such as spamming youtube with porn movies disguised as childrens videos.

I trolled a couple of what I think were "Anonymous" boards (not 4 chan though). It looks like there is legitimate "debate" among "members" about how much they want to do important things versus people who just want to "do it for the lulz".

It seems like they might be going toward the former, but who can say. All it takes to make something an "Anonymous" operation is to say, "this is an Anonymous operation", preferably with some ominous music in the background and a computerized voice

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that if you walk away from Fight Club thinking "I want to be Tyler Durden" you missed the point. He's not the hero. Neither is Alex from A Clockwork Orange or the Joker from The Dark Night.

wait, what?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree, I do think you can like the movie and not sympathize with Durden or his cause.

I think you can sympathize with Durden's cause without considering him a moral hero

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree, I do think you can like the movie and not sympathize with Durden or his cause.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you can sympathize with Durden's cause without considering him a moral hero

Sure, why not.

You can also see him as a moral hero, you can do whatever you want, man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, why not.

You can also see him as a moral hero, you can do whatever you want, man.

I value your continued and vocal support.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I value your continued and vocal support.

Haha, thank you. :-)

Originally posted by inimalist
wait, what?



I think you can sympathize with Durden's cause without considering him a moral hero

He was an ******* who brain-washed idiots and got a man killed in the process. Granted, he's an insane personality disorder, but I can't sympathize with him.

Top movie though/

sockie

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
sockie

Irony is lost on you, isn't it?

Originally posted by Robtard
He was an ******* who brain-washed idiots and got a man killed in the process. Granted, he's an insane personality disorder, but I can't sympathize with him.

Top movie though/

brainwashed?

for as much as the movie is against the methods Durden uses, it certainly hits on a theme of disenfranchisement that many people have. People were all too willing to have their "brains washed" by something that gave them value in this "consumer" society.

Thats what I mean. Durden is wrong because he picked methods that were no less destructive than the thing he fought against, not because he was deluded into thinking people didn't feel they had anything to live for. Its fairly easy to sympathize with someone who is looking for an alternative to consumer based society and culture, and, as the movie shows, people are so willing to buy into any alternative that they willingly give up their freedom.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, why not.

You can also see him as a moral hero, you can do whatever you want, man.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM

Originally posted by inimalist
brainwashed?

for as much as the movie is against the methods Durden uses, it certainly hits on a theme of disenfranchisement that many people have. People were all too willing to have their "brains washed" by something that gave them value in this "consumer" society.

Thats what I mean. Durden is wrong because he picked methods that were no less destructive than the thing he fought against, not because he was deluded into thinking people didn't feel they had anything to live for. Its fairly easy to sympathize with someone who is looking for an alternative to consumer based society and culture, and, as the movie shows, people are so willing to buy into any alternative that they willingly give up their freedom.

Yes. Those "space chimps" were slowly indoctrinated into believing the "us against them" of Project Mayhem.

If they don't like their consumer driven society, they can simply not partake, no one made them buy that pair of extra-pricey jeans.

I can't really sympathize with him. Norton's character, sure.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes. Those "space chimps" were slowly indoctrinated into believing the "us against them" of Project Mayhem.

the "space chimps" who were supposed to represent an average sampling of the public at large? These were average people with average lives, almost defined in that way. I almost have to think Palahniuk made them as archetypal as possible. The jobs they did, their lives in general, were sculpted specifically to make the members of project mayhem as much like you or I as possible. Maybe they are "space chimps", but the intention is clear, we all are those space chimps. These aren't some special group of people who have nothing because of their own faults, they are people who have nothing because society is such that they are taught to feel like they are always searching for something. It is the statement that you or I, as normal people, aren't going to ever be satisfied in a consumer market, because it is set up against us in the first place.

Originally posted by Robtard
If they don't like their consumer driven society, they can simply not partake, no one made them buy that pair of extra-pricey jeans.

I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Sure, they could have not bought the jeans, but the point is, Palahniuk, imho, is saying that the way consumer society is built, and the degree to which it is internalized by people who grow up in it, leaves them feeling that they will never belong, because identity isn't a final place in such a society, but is constantly dictated by marketing and the drive for greater profit by others.

It seems like you are saying "these disenfranchised people wouldn't have had a problem if they weren't disenfranchised", which, tbh, seems as nuanced as "they wouldn't have been a terrorist if they just never decided to be a terrorist". The point isn't so much about the fact people have a choice, in some ultimate sense, but in the human perception of choice and what people are willing to give up in order to feel they have that choice.

I suppose, at the very base of it, might be the idea that even though it is possible to find meaning without material things, it takes getting hit in the face in a basement sometimes to realize it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can't really sympathize with him. Norton's character, sure.

huh... I'm not sure I would distinguish between the two. There is much more of an Id v ego/superego thing going on imho, than there is a dynamic between 2 characters

Originally posted by inimalist
the "space chimps" who were supposed to represent an average sampling of the public at large? These were average people with average lives, almost defined in that way. I almost have to think Palahniuk made them as archetypal as possible. The jobs they did, their lives in general, were sculpted specifically to make the members of project mayhem as much like you or I as possible. Maybe they are "space chimps", but the intention is clear, we all are those space chimps. These aren't some special group of people who have nothing because of their own faults, they are people who have nothing because society is such that they are taught to feel like they are always searching for something. It is the statement that you or I, as normal people, aren't going to ever be satisfied in a consumer market, because it is set up against us in the first place.



I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Sure, they could have not bought the jeans, but the point is, Palahniuk, imho, is saying that the way consumer society is built, and the degree to which it is internalized by people who grow up in it, leaves them feeling that they will never belong, because identity isn't a final place in such a society, but is constantly dictated by marketing and the drive for greater profit by others.

It seems like you are saying "these disenfranchised people wouldn't have had a problem if they weren't disenfranchised", which, tbh, seems as nuanced as "they wouldn't have been a terrorist if they just never decided to be a terrorist". The point isn't so much about the fact people have a choice, in some ultimate sense, but in the human perception of choice and what people are willing to give up in order to feel they have that choice.

I suppose, at the very base of it, might be the idea that even though it is possible to find meaning without material things, it takes getting hit in the face in a basement sometimes to realize it.



huh... I'm not sure I would distinguish between the two. There is much more of an Id v ego/superego thing going on imho, than there is a dynamic between 2 characters

Yes, I got the point, the "you are not your khakis" was clear. I'm still not sympathetic to Durden's cause. Granted, if my debt was wiped clear one day I'd be happy, but I doubt there'd be no aftermath of shit-storm proportions for us all.

I don't know, maybe I'm less inclined to blame society than the people making the actions. I've turned into a cheap consumer as I've aged. I don't do fads or trends.

Norton's aspect had to shoot himself in the face to end the madness, though it was too late. He I can sympathize with.

I don't really care to get into a "what Palahnuik meant" type of debate. I've only watched the film and not read the book, so from that point, I'm at a loss.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know, maybe I'm less inclined to blame society than the people making the actions. I've turned into a cheap consumer as I've aged. I don't do fads or trends.

I also have to imagine you aren't someone who feels that the car they drive says a whole lot about who you are on the inside. I'd suspect computer nerds who voluntarily meet on the internet to discuss geo-politics in countries they have never visited might have a broader perspective on identity than the average citizen.

I don't think it is as simple as choice vs society, but rather, the choices we feel we have available to us because of society. No matter how free you are, if all you have ever learned is X, not only is choosing something other than X hard, so is knowing that this choice even exists. That is why people simply jump from "consumerism" to "project mayhem". in neither case are they free to think for themselves (which is obviously preferable), but they willingly seek out an alternative to a system that is set up to leave them unfulfilled once they realize that the choice is there.

Maybe a more optimistic message would be to have them come to terms with their own identities and feel like they don't need things to define themselves, but I don't feel that would be a more realistic depiction at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Norton's aspect had to shoot himself in the face to end the madness, though it was too late. He I can sympathize with.

this is true, but there is also the fact that Norton's character was really the most satisfied when he acted like Durden, who really just represented his repressed feelings.

So like, when he destroys the blond guy's face, this is no different than Durden wanting to destroy debt, or the wearing of black and having no names. In it, we see haves and have nots. Someone who epitomizes wealth (beauty) being forced, through violence, to be equal with the masses, and in fact, penalized for being in possession of something most people can't have. The "I wanted to destroy something beautiful" line could have been from Durden himself. The thing with his boss is similar.

When Norton gives into these ideas, that are really his, characterized by Durden, he feels more at ease, and in fact, "good" things happen for him (in the case of the boss, he is able to game the system itself).

he ends the "madness", but you really can't shoot dead an aspect of your personality. Durden might very well no longer be an aspect of his consciousness, but he wasn't choosing consumerism over disenfranchisement, in fact, it seems Norton is going to be continually disenfranchised by the world, and still harbour those thoughts of belonging to something more important. I really don't see him as feeling there is any greater sense of identity or individuality at the end of the film. The only resolution seems to be that his psychological issue might have run its course.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't really care to get into a "what Palahnuik meant" type of debate. I've only watched the film and not read the book, so from that point, I'm at a loss.

actually, neither have I, so the book and the movie might be entirely different in that regard, I just figured if I was going to mention the writer, I should get it right

I read the book.




Yes, I can read!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I read the book.




Yes, I can read!!!

In how many languages? :-)

Originally posted by I'm Gay
In how many languages? :-)

2, at a reasonable level.

Originally posted by Bardock42
2, at a reasonable level.

jeez, isn't only 2 languages like illiterate by European standards?

Originally posted by inimalist
jeez, isn't only 2 languages like illiterate by European standards?

Yeah, kinda. Thanks for pointing it out.

Originally posted by inimalist
jeez, isn't only 2 languages like illiterate by European standards?

Not if you speak English. It's the Mastercard of Europe, accepted everywhere.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, kinda. Thanks for pointing it out.

lol, don't worry, 2 is still 2 times more than most in North America speak

I'm lucky to get one right most of the time

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Project Mayhem is massively hypocritical. They justify the end (?) of consumerism on the basis of freedom but in the end no one gets a choice, they force their new world on everybody else. Maybe its just me but it always seemed like a way of bringing one of the inherent flaws of anarchist fiction to the fore.

I think it's just you. If you were truly an anarchist then you would oppose anything that would force your views or any views on anybody. The entire purpose is to draw your own views based on your observations and experiences and formulating an idea for society without the need for governance.

It's easy to call yourself an anarchist though and go around terrorising people. Politicians love it when people do that.

Just like that, poof, they were gone!

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/40000/The-Usual-Suspects-South-Park-40447.jpg

I disagree with their actions, understand their motivations, and can't help be be impressed with some of the things they've done.

I would certainly love to sit down with their top 10 hackers and be taught everything they know. Those guys make me look like a script kiddy.