Yo my fellow human beings~

So like we know about Anonymous right? There was a thread on the main page a while back about them. But anyways, guess who's taking action against the KKK?~
I'm about a day late on the news, but hey. There wasn't a topic thread yet and it's pretty ducking interesting.

[Here's the first site i visited about the incident. But like News week has some info on it and basically if you google anonymous and go to news, you'll get a bunch of info)
http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-seizes-klu-klux-klan-twitter-account-over-ferguson-threats-7000035836/

For those of you who just want a basic little take-to-go info, well lets see. The KKK threatened the protesters at Ferguson, and Anonymous was like "oh hellz no" and shot back by hacking KKK twitter accounts. (In the video they posted, they also revealed some Facebook pages. I haven't checked to see if they're real) It's my opinion, but I think it's some pretty cool stuff they're doing--taking action like that. But some people have said "what's the point of hacking twitter accounts?"

Well.
I don't really know. But I don't mind.

So anyways, the topic's been raised. Hate it? Love it? Don't care?
What's your opinion on Anonymous' latest move?

Pic Out~

I can only imagine what people will do to those racist fanatics.

it's stupid and gay
it's all sjw bullshit
anon used to mean something, now it's just a trendy bandwagon and a gimmick

>>3
social justice used to mean something, now it's just too mainstream huh?

>>4 Yea, actually.
It's not that it's "mainstream" though.
It's that it's a vapid bandwagon.

>>5
That may be true, I'm not arguing the fact. But I don't think it plays a role in this case. KKK has well deserved what they got.
If anonymus should be adding other initiatives to their list, is a whole other question.

>>6 What about KKK members that haven't done anything wrong, I'm sure they will be in the middle of it.

What about those random people that attacked other people outside of sports game in retaliation of the initial Ferguson incident?
Do they not deserve it just as much as other who would incite violence?
Or are they exempt because of modern social justice?

I'm not trying to defend the KKK, and I'm not saying that they don't deserve whatever.
I'm just saying that anon has really lost itself and what it stood for.

OP asked my opinion, and I gave it.
Don't try to straw man me.

I don't know much about this anonymous group, but I don't like what I've learned about them from wiki. However I admire their ability to make a difference. I believe the dollars have the potential to make as much of an impact as them, and our impact would have only positive affects since we don't discriminate against any group, we want to make the world a better place for everyone.

>>4
It's more like those who preach Social Justice are bigots themselves, and what better platform to be right than social justice? If anyone "disagrees" with you, you can just call the other person a bigot, or a sexist since they disagree with the "equality" and "feminism" you, the sjw stands for (really, the person is usually disagreeing with the sjw and the kind of social justice they are trying to push, not equality for all, who doesn't want that?), and it's not easy to turn these sexist and what have you labels around. Once a famous tabloid site has published a story on how you are a sexist pig, no matter how important you are, or how much you've done for the human population, these people will tear you down.

Just look at the recent #shirtgate scandal, where the guy in charge of an operation that landed a rocket(?) into a comet for the first time was criticized for wearing a retro-themed shirt. He was forced to apologize in television for wearing a shirt a (female!) friend made him, because it was "sexist". It's so bullshit.

Anonymous must really be desperate to stay relevant.

IMO, anon are all criminals that should be hit right back. I wonder why more people haven't gone against them. This was just a dumb attempt to enact "justice" and fight "for the people to keep their image up.

>>10 anon died in 2011, I remember that shit.

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

>>7
What about them? They are all members of a racial hate group. I can't really be sad for them that they can't tweet now...
Let's stop kidding ourselves. It's not as if they have been impaired by anything serious. On the other hand these people need to be educated anyways. And this one should serve as a good lesson.

Yes, they do. But that's in no way related to what anonymus should or should not be doing.
But if you find it so revolting then why don't you do something about it instead of judging other's actions against social justice sitting comfortably behind your monitor?
What good does it do that you're bitching here?

So then what do you think they did stand for, that's excluding what they were doing now? And what have they truly achieved in the regard they did stand for?

I saw your opinion and I replied.
Don't try to get butthurt.

>>9
Well depends what you understand under social justice warrior. Still, I don't see how this would apply to anon, since KKK deserved what they got. We have nothing to lose from that. And of course in a sense it's also right what you say, but if you don't come up with any solution to social problems, there's even less to be gained. But there could exist a much healthier balance to this kind of thing.

And yes. I don't support that kind of unnecessary extremism either. I was so irritated by that too! They successfully perform a yet in no way performed scientific experiment, they manage to land that satellite or samplebot (if memory serves right) on the meteor and what does everyone care about? A fucking shirt? I mean, for fuck's sake they landed a machine on a comet. You know, those feminists wouldn't say a word if the same man would just save their lives with a successful operation, or open the door for them like a gentleman.

Anyways, a scientist in a shirt filled with pin-ups is not in any case a sexist pig. A guy raping a woman "because she was asking for it" would be for example.
But the same way, someone saying "Nigga please" might not necessarily be a racist. Someone joining a hate-group which has been lynching black people for more than just decades just because they believe that their race is inferior, would make a great example though. I hope this helps you understand how I see this.

>>12 lol didn't read just skimmed.
I don't give a fuck about people not being able to tweet.
I think social media is dumb.
To judge is my right as a human being, just as you're judging my opinion on the matter.
I don't feel the need to get myself involved because I'm gnostic.
I'm not trying to do any good, I'm trying to bitch.
Which I succeeded in. So fuck you.

anon isn't supposed to stand for shit lol

Also, not butthurt.
But if you're going to come at me like some kind of smart guy, at least leave out the logical fallacies.
Makes you look like a big dummy.

>>13 Well, this seems to have escalated beyond "people not being able to tweet". Apparently, Anon wants to get rid of the KKK permanently.

My input, I'm all for Anon doing their thing and ignoring it. In the long run, they do some good (with the exception of releasing personal information of innocent bystanders). I think it's safe to say a majority of people think that the KKK are idiots that hold no merit.

Though, I think Anon's latest videos go a little to far.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/21/anonymous-video-warns-kkk_n_6198810.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics

At this rate, it'll turn out to be one huge shit fest or worse, an actual all out fight. Why do I think this? Because the KKK are a bunch of trigger happy rednecks. They won't give up without a fight, and any fight involving them will be violent. Especially when Anon's vowing to get rid of them forever.

Lastly, I get what Anon's plan is, I really do. Still, they aren't going to get rid of the KKK completely. Just look at the Nazis.

http://rt.com/usa/207587-kkk-anonymous-threaten-shoot/

Point and Case.

Not trying to be a negative nancy, and not trying to spam this thread, which I'm obviously failing at, but this is just escalating too quickly for my comfort. Also, the last link I posted was kind of a coincidence considering (and proving) my "trigger happy rednecks" input.

>>15 I think that's 'Case in point'? And, I'd have to agree that the KKK are a violent group, or at least they have very violent members.

What kind of shit is this!? I thought Anonymous was all about "the free flow of information", it's the whole reason why it started up in the first place. Suppressing the KKK's movements is stupid, they like anyone else can speak freely in this society; fucking America! I think the KKK's message is worthless but I respect their freedom to exercise their rights within the boundary of the law. This doesn't sound right, this is not the Anonymous I once knew and fought with. This all sounds too fishy for me.

>>18 Yea, it's because anon is secret FBI now.

>>18 If you read it the KKK was planning a violent protest against a peaceful protest. Anon says they support freedom if speech. But the kkk is going beyond that and threatening to hurt people. This was before they threatened to shoot it up because anon got involved

>>20 When is there ever a protest where you don't here someone say that "those guy's plan to hurt people"? It's happening even now with the Ferguson case on CNN, people saying that they are ready to fuck shit up, might not be true but people like to talk ya know!?

The officer wasn't sent to jail, and the protesters reacted violently to the news. I'll update the news when I hear more. After all, Anonymous did say there would be consequences if the cop wasn't sent to jail.

>>13
"I don't give a fuck about people not being able to tweet." glad you finally understand.
"I think social media is dumb. " Glad you do.
"To judge is my right as a human being" As is to shut your mouth and think before you write something down ;)
Just because you got the right to do something doesn't mean you necessarily have to do it too.
"judging my opinion on the matter" No I haven't yet. ~ What you say is retarded. ~ Now I have.
"I'm gnostic" Great for you, who cares.

pappara-papparam! ~ CONGRATULATIONS ~ You have succeeded in bitching.

------ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Bitching like a boss-------------

"anon isn't supposed to stand for shit lol"
like they give a fuck about what you think lol

I understand my good sir, and I will respect your status as a boss Bitcher. Sorry for offending you good sir. Please, don't worry about me, or anyone else for that matter commenting on what you write, just bitch away freely into the void.

"But if you're going to come at me like some kind of smart guy, at least leave out the logical fallacies." Sorry, I didn't have fallacies at the time, only arguments. You may have realized that if you wouldn't have (lol) "just skimmed"
And that just makes me look like...oh wait, I don't care about it.


>>18
"I thought Anonymous was all about "the free flow of information""
So protesters don't have freedom of speech, but hate groups with a history and ideology of lynching any group racially different from them do? They're all about freedom of speech, right?
I find this especially funny with a racial group, that wasn't even aboriginal to north american land. They are left over slavers, that's what they are, freedom of speech or not.

And one more thing. If there truly is freedom of speech in Murica, then why can't you guys say nigger, whetbag, motherfucker or cunt on television? Somebody wanna answer me how that constitutes to freedom of speech? That kind of freedom is an illusion. If you had real freedom of speech, you wouldn't know you had it, since there would be nothing to compare it to. You could ->practically<- say what you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.

>>23 >>18 >>13

You're all missing the point. Anon said that they support the KKK's freedom of speech, but you also forget that the KKK has a long standing history of violence. The KKK threatened the protesters, and that's why Anon fought them. They support the freedom of speech, not the freedom to murder groups of peaceful protesters for protesting peacefully, and not freedom to threaten such.

Get your facts straight.

>>23 >That kind of freedom is an illusion.

We have the freedom to talk shit about Obama without getting shot or having our family dragged out into the streets and stoned to death. This is freedom of speech. I don't give a shit about not being able to hear 'motherfucker' on public television, I don't feel oppressed by that. Some censorship in that regard goes a bit far, maybe, but that's public television. You can always go deeper, which is not an option in some other, less fortunate countries.

>If you had real freedom of speech, you wouldn't know you had it

I don't know how this works. If we have it, everyone else in the world somehow has it? That seems like something I can compare to.

>So protesters don't have freedom of speech

Sorry, where are you getting this from?

Also
>just bitch away freely into the void
You keep using the argument that "no one cares what you think", "you're just typing on a forum lol", etc. while you are doing the exact same thing. You are putting them down for bitching on a forum by bitching on a forum. You are trying to argue against Chrome, not their arguments, which makes you look bad like they said.

>>24
And where have I written anything which disapproves that? Please, don't couple me with a bunch of idiots.

>>25
So freedom of speech is the freedom of not getting killed for what you say, but sued? It definitely offers more freedom in choice of what you might be allowed to say, but it's not my definition of freedom of speech. It might be that you don't feel oppressed by that, but freedom is not defined by what you feel oppressed by and what not.

"I don't know how this works. If we have it, everyone else in the world somehow has it? That seems like something I can compare to." You have a point there. So let me correct myself:
If you had real freedom of speech, you wouldn't know you had it, until you'd get to know another culture, where there are limitations to speech. Hope you get the point.

"So protesters don't have freedom of speech" is a conclusion of what >>18 stated. Also, it's sarcastic. It's a reply to his fallacy. Also the full sentence goes: "So protesters don't have freedom of speech, but hate groups with a history and ideology of lynching any group racially different from them do?" Before you misunderstand, I'd like to clear this one up, since I was not very clear with my use of words. What I meant was, that if you protect the KKK's freedom of speech, you're basically saying they can say anything. Including gunthreats. So here's the paradox: their freedom of speech threatens the protesters' freedom of speech. Have at it.

>>26 There's more to it than that.
There is no much thing as freedom. 'True' freedom would be anarchy. Anarchy allows someone to go out at night and kill people. Those people don't have the freedom to walk around without getting killed. Allowing freedom restricts freedom by definition, and thus by definition freedom for all is impossible.

Freedom of speech is simply the theoretical 'best balance' between your speech being inhibited and your speech inhibiting others. 'True' freedom of speech would allow you to slander who you like, and in turn could restrict their freedom to present their opinion. America is not perfect by any means at all, but they are close to that balance, if only because of their limited power in restricting speech.

This is my definition of free speech.

I understand your conclusion for the protestors now, and I agree that it creates a paradoxical situation sort of like the one I just described. I don't think the KKK should have the freedom to say something that restricts someone else's freedom to say something. The only problem is what exactly constitutes restricting speech is left much to personal opinion based on their own experiences. Someone that gets easily scared shouldn't be tailored to by restricting speech further so they feel comfortable saying what they want. In this case, though, the threat is very real given they have shot and killed many people before and have the potential to do so again. I don't see the fear as unreasonable here, and I think it is okay to start restricting the KKK to allow more freedom elsewhere.

Also, I should mention the KKK as a whole has fairly differing opinions. Certain members have pretty tame beliefs, like white people shouldn't have sex with black people, but other than that they can and should interact with each as regular human beings. Other members, of course, have quite strict and close-minded opinions involving the outright elimination of an entire race. It's not exactly inaccurate to say the KKK is a hate group, but I think targeting all its members does not make sense given not all of them are hateful people in the slightest. I'm not sure if this has actually been as issue thus far (it seems like it's just been attacks on the more vocal and hateful members), but this is something I thought was worth mentioning.

>>23 When the hell did I hint to this ("So protesters don't have freedom of speech, but hate groups with a history and ideology of lynching any group racially different from them do?") seriously bro all I said that the KKK and everyone in the world should have the right to speak freely.
Of course speaking is one thing, actions should be maintain within the boundary of the law, hurting people is a definitely something that should not happen.

Also you said ("If there truly is freedom of speech in Murica, then why can't you guys say nigger, whetbag, motherfucker or cunt on television?") first I like to say thank you for saying Murica, even though it's not spelled right I still get you were trying to say America; land of the free, home of the brave. You don't use those words because they infuse hate and some people realize that, and would rather have a logical discussion rather than piss-each-other-off. I don't like using words to racial profile people (unless im trying to describe their appearance to a friends or a cop or something). Instead of saying nigger, wetback, rice-picker, honky, or sand-nigger why can't we just call eachother Americans; that seems fair right!?

Also what you said in >>27 ("Freedom of speech is simply the theoretical 'best balance' between your speech being inhibited and your speech inhibiting others. 'True' freedom of speech would allow you to slander who you like, and in turn could restrict their freedom to present their opinion') Well, we got laws to restrict bad shit from happening to others, but it obviously doesn't work all the time. If you say some shit to me and I didn't like it I could beat the shit out of you, your "freedom of speech" dosen't protect you from an ass-beating on the spot. But that's just human of us to do thing like that; were not heartless we feel and act on emotions. So we still have freedom of speech just don't be afraid to speak your mind and say what you fell the need to say; sure there may be unfair consequences but that's why people have to just stop being pussy's and start acting like the free Americans they are.

>>28 Yes, my freedom of speech protects me from your beating. Your beating gets you thrown in jail. Unfortunately, that's the best protection I can get unless we implement a true Big Brother type system of security, but in other countries that limited protection isn't even present. Freedom of speech is a measure of that protection, nothing more. It has nothing to do with whether or not people will beat you up for saying something, it's about what the police will do about it.

>>27 "'True' freedom would be anarchy"
Yes, in a way that is true. True freedom would mean you can do whatever you want. "Anarchy allows someone to go out at night and kill people. Those people don't have the freedom to walk around without getting killed." The law doesn't really hold them back either. If somebody wants to kill you, they will, you die even if your killer goes to jail.
Also, consider this, just because you are allowed to do something, does not mean you are going to deterministically do it. The real question is why a guy is gonna kill if he's allowed to? It's because he has a motive to do it. It serves his interest. If he has no interest in killing you, having that freedom won't restrict other's freedom. So nope "Allowing freedom restricts freedom by definition" is a fallacy again.

"Freedom of speech is simply the theoretical 'best balance' between your speech being inhibited and your speech inhibiting others" Well that's what you are made to believe, yes. But then again freedom of speech is simply freedom of speech. And best balance isn't. What you're having is the best balance currently known to you, not freedom of speech, that was my point. I know a better best balance with a higher degree of freedom in an other system.

Also, a comment on your last paragraph: I understand some are only members with tame beliefs (although I still don't get why they need to join the KKK because of that), but they are represented by their group if they are handled as one organization, and truth is, they know as well that they are, or at least they should know, that they will be. That is the price you pay when you join a group, people form oppinions based on your group identity, which is a choice you made yourself. (Although this is not at all correct, since I don't believe humans make choices, but I don't wanna get into all of that). So as sorry as I am for them, they are still part of the KKK's resources, making them larger and letting them play a greater role.

>>28
What I am trying to tell you is that in the current system, both parties can't have freedom of speech. You can only support that freedom for one of those. In another system, it may be different, but in the current one, if you say that the KKK has freedom of speech then the protesters don't have it. If reversed, the KKK doesn't have it.
"hurting people is a definitely something that should not happen" Don't worry, I didn't mean it like that. I assumed you wouldn't support that.

Ok, first off the words don't do anything. If they would, everyone would be infused with hate right now. It's the context that the words are used that may infuse hate. So I may say you're a badass motherfucker, meaning that I like your badassness,but I can't since I don't have that freedom of speech on american television. It's the same with a lot of other words. Lot of their racial or hostile meanings are concluded from context. And that's where the problem lies. Also people rather piss each other off instead of holding a logical discussion because they are not educated in ways of how to hold a conversation _with_ each other, instead of conversing _at_ each other. Most people I see especially on television rarely talk to each other, it's more like they're talking at each other not exploring arguments and reaching conclusions but throwing a random bunch of arguments at each other jumping from one topic to the other.
Also I believe it is beautiful that everyone is different, it's also ok to call an american an american, but it should also be ok to call them whatever they are as long as the context isn't hostile to them. It would also make people have to clear up more misunderstandings thus educating those who have less understanding of the topic at hand.

"hat's why people have to just stop being pussy's and start acting like the free Americans they are" So if you're afraid of getting beaten to shit, you're a pussy?

>>29
The best protection you could get is him getting no motive to beat you up, meaning, a relevant education where he understands that whatever you say does not mean a direct threat to his value, and (here comes the important part) where he understands that whatever you say, you say for your own reasons, so if he disagrees, he can only change your oppinion through a discussion.
You may say that this doesn't guarantee your safety, but laws don't as well, if they would, there would be no violence happening anywhere. And of course a relevant education is also not a guarantee, I'm not saying that, nor disagreeing with anyone saying that it's not, but I believe it solves the problem on a more fundamental level, thus offering a higher level of safety, guaranteeing more.

Note: Violence by my oppinion is the supreme faliure of two human beings trying to bridge their differences.

Hacking the twitter accounts of the KKK will show all the followers that Anonymous means serious business. Anonymous has every right to hack them because of what they have done to the protestors!

>>31 Yea hack their Twitter accounts, because THAT will teach them. Their adults not kids, your not going to ruin anything that way.

>>30 Yes you are a pussy for not standing up for what you believe in, and maybe in the right situation you might be a tool. You might get hurt but you show others and that person that you don't take that shit from others, that you don't keep your mouth shut because everyone else is.

>>32 Revealing identities to the public and connections to the police force sounds legit to me. It's not about ruining. It's about disempowering.

Oh grow up -_-" I'm not talking about not standing up for what you believe in, I'm saying that it might not be worth risking your life for. Have you ever been almost beaten to death? Do you know what it feels like? You judge other people so easily. So what if you're a weak person? If you may die from a single blow to the nose? Is a person like that a pussy for not standing up for what he believes in? There's nothing in his beliefs that will protect him from getting pulverized.
I'm sure you wouldn't talk so big if you would be looking down a barrel of a gun. But even if you'd do, you would just throw your life away. But maybe you're ok with that, and that's ok. Just don't judge other people. You don't know how it feels to be in their shoes. Simpletons like you honestly think violence is a solution, instead of helping society come up with a better solution.

BONUS (only read if you're willing to use your brain "muscle" too): If everyone would stand up for what they believe in, everyone on this planet, who do you think would have his way? Those who offer and believe in the most optimal solutions for _all_ of society, or those who are the strongest, acting like primeval apes? If the way of development is not determined by civilized discussion between all types of people, where each type of individual is handled as an equal, only a select few will gain it's benifits. In your case, those who you think aren't pussies. So who are you to judge that?

>>30
>The law doesn't really hold them back either. If somebody wants to kill you, they will

This is not true. Consider fear. This is the true power of the law. Putting criminals in jail to prevent them from committing a crime again is a minimal benefit compared to the fear of essentially ending one's life by committing that same crime. This is much more powerful than it seems. Consider the difference of civility between a city block right now and a city block during a nation-wide power outage. There's no fear of repercussion, and when that fear is gone, the difference in behavior is very large. It's large enough that fear alone is good protection. Like you said, it is not guaranteed, but nothing is.

>just because you are allowed to do something, does not mean you are going to deterministically do it

No, a single human may not do it, but when you look at a population of millions upon millions of humans, many of them will. Consider entropy: you can't disprove it by looking at a single proton that is not decaying. We've concretely determined entropy is a universal law of nature, despite being contradicted in small instances, because the law concerns the over-all behavior of a system and not the individual behavior of its parts. This is the same for humans. With no rules and true freedom, many people would keep to themselves. However, many people would do things with the freedom that would make other people less free to do what they wanted. These may not be as numerous as the peaceful situations, but they would exist.

You present one situation in which two people's uses of freedom happen to coincide and not interfere:
>If he has no interest in killing you, having that freedom won't restrict other's freedom.

But if he does, then having that freedom will restrict other's freedom, and my original point stands. It is safe to say that given the number of cases to consider. Yes, if you boil my point down to an essential level, it is not true in all cases of two or three people all having freedom and not doing anything to change that. But that kind of analysis is not relevant since we're talking about freedom of speech, for millions and millions of people. That is the only time when my point stands.

>Violence by my oppinion is the supreme faliure of two human beings trying to bridge their differences.

I would wholeheartedly agree.

I think that we as a WHOLE human race, are just being total idiots. KKK is totally racist and total BS. Go anonymous!

>>34
"This is not true. Consider fear."
I have. What I'm saying is that a person who understands global interest wouldn't kill out of self interest anymore. I'm saying that education and rehabilitation/re-education is a better alternative than fear of law, which only works until the paticular person's interest or goal becomes more valuable than his fear for his own safety. The law doesn't protect you from everyone, especially not those who can abuse it's authority. An educated society would at least root out any monetary/material self interest. That's a better guarrantee for me than fear of law. If that would work, courts, judges, police and lawyers would go broke.

"No, a single human may not do it, but when you look at a population of millions upon millions of humans, many of them will" Yes that's true. And what I'm saying is many of them have the same type of interest for that, mostly monetary. It's a problem that could be reduced grandly, with the solution I'm trying to explain right now. As I said above. Nothing is a guarrantee, but there are more effective ones than the law.
" These may not be as numerous as the peaceful situations, but they would exist."
Yes, well they do now too, although we have the law(or to be clear, the justice system), we still have that, so the justice system doesn't work that well either now does it? So I don't get how that would be worse. I'm saying this could be reduced with relevant education making people understand that it is in our group identity's interest not to reduce the numbers of our problem solvers (every human in this sense) based on monetary gain. That would require another monetary/resource system which I don't want to dig too deep into, but it would reduce the number of murders drastically. Also a relevant education reduces ut extremism, and misbelief which are also causes of acts of violence. And I could go on with the list, but figure it out for yourself, how many failures to bridge differences could be solved with this.

"But if he does, then having that freedom will restrict other's freedom" Yes on second thought I gotta agree with that. Still, I believe a relevant education would give everyone the freedom to not resort to "problem solving tools" like killing. I know we're talking about a lot of people and I'm not saying it would be easy, I'm only saying it would be possible. I don't know if that makes sense to you. That not having to kill is more freedom for all people on an equal footing even though it's permitted, than it not being permitted, but people overstepping it continuously. And I know that would not be fully possible, but it could be reduced to it almost feeling like nothing compared to how often it's happening presently. Anyways, yes you have certainly made a point, there is a possibility for one to restrict another's freedom if he is on equal footing in terms of being allowed to kill. But also I don't think disallowing it helps. I think making one understand why it's not right/optimal/why it doesn't help his interests ultimately even though it's permitted would lead people equally to more freedom of expression and existance. Because you only need freedom for what you possibly might want to do. I hope I managed to explain it well enough.

One small correction: "But also I don't think disallowing it helps. " I would like to correct that to:
I don't think disallowing it helps more than what I'm writing after that

>>37 You're a faggot.

>>33 Let me explain my statement. I do believe that your a pussy if you don't stand up for what you believe in but im not trying to say that you have to dick punch everyone that doesn't believe you, every action we take must be maintain within the boundary of the law. As for putting your life on the line, yes I believe you should get away from that kind of situation because you can't do anything about the problem when your dead; you just basically lost. HOWEVER you can't live in fear of dieing or you won't be able to live, that is true and if you disagree with that then I will dick punch you.

I cannot say I have stared down the barrel of a gun, the most experience that I do have is being one step away from getting myself in a very life-risking situation, and I almost killed someone one time and now were best friends (it's funny how that works out if you ever been into something like that) and I have known 3 friends who have almost died right in-front of me. So no, I can't say I have felt the true pressure of life and death but I do know what that means. Trust me I will be more than willing to die for the good or protection of my country or even it's people (that's because im dumb and passionate) just like some of the first Americans did to fight the British to because they knew it was the right thing to do. So I understand when people put their life on the line for what they believe in.

"BONUS (only read if you're willing to use your brain "muscle" too)"
I honestly laughed at this because you make me sound like a brute, but I understand where your coming from. I think it be nice to see everyone in the world stand up for what they believe in, unity is something we lost as the American people and yet I see it so much in other country's I have been to. It can easily turn into people imposing their will on others through bad methods. But (your going to hate this I know) I believe that justice finds away to prevail through everything in the end, no mater what the good will always be more powerful than the bad. I sound like an optimist and I am but this is what I believe in, and I trust the American people to realize what is is to be an American.

With that being said what >>35 said I can't agree with. This is a country where we can express our belief within the boundary of the law, many have died and bled for this and you should consider yourself especially lucky as an American to have these freedoms; honestly is a beautiful site to see when I walk by it. Of course those who can't fall inline to this and go ape-shit and hurt others for the sake of their cause should be dealt with, but more often than not we mix up peaceful demonstrators with the angry-looting-pissed-off-people and fuck up that freedom of speech we are given (look at whats happening at Ferguson). There are peaceful kkk members who present their ideas within the boundary of the law (shocking I know -_-) so we must do our best to discriminate these people from the Americans that do follow the law and shut down those that don't.

>>38 Oh thank god, at least I'm not a retard like you.í

Sincerely yours,
faggot

>>39
Depends on what your possibilities are if you stand up for what you believe in. I still don't think violence is a solution to this. But let me disprove your fallacy this way: I'm even standing up for what I believe in, because I disagree, so come and dick punch me you fuck of a simian ape.

Again. Why is there this continuous irritation to fight? "I'm gonna die for my friends" "I'm gonna die for my country" "I'm going to support my people by dying for them" "I'll kill in the name of my country" It's all worthless bullshit. Why don't you never say, I'm gonna sit down, and study how land works, to make land more arable, to feed the hungry in my country? Or that you want to study housing to house the homeless? That you want to study finance so you can help the less fortunate? People like you are hypocrites, talking big when it comes to violence, but you will never be truly able to help your people, raise the standards of living, you're only going to be useful, if violence is involved, and let's face it, the more civilized we treat a matter the less it's involved. Yes sure there are times when it's still needed, but let's not glorify it. If every person like you would be made a problem solver...Ah why am I even trying. You won't even get it.

Ok, since you haven't understood the bonus part, I urge you to use your brain again, and think about what I wrote. There was no mention of good or bad. Nor americans. Please grow up and understand what I was trying to say there.

>>40 I don't think that YOU understand what the hell im trying to say, so it looks like were at a stalemate. It's easy for me to see that your a good person anyway, and I know my ways are not ultimately right (im not fucking Hitler ya know). Of course America needs all those people you listed to thrive, but I see a lot of Americans just sitting and waiting for something to happen and in other country's I see the people take matters in their own hands and it gets dealt with.

>>36 I can see how a relevant education like you have said would solve a lot of these problems. However, as it stands, I am saying freedom of speech for everyone with no conditions is not possible. It might be if everyone was great friends all around, but it isn't now. I don't quite know if a relevant education would change that or not (with regard to speech inhibiting speech, not violence), I'll have to think about it some more. But, as we can clearly see from this situation, the KKK having freedom of speech restricts others, so it makes sense to place some conditions on freedom of speech to make it more free for everyone else.

Teaching would definitely reduce violence as a means of communication. While natural, it's harmful and we made a whole system of language for a reason. People don't want to get hurt, and there's a better way to do things so we don't. My example of violence was originally intended to link back to freedom of speech. If everyone has freedom to say whatever they want, other people will lose some of their freedom. Just saying you are going to kill someone is a legitimate threat coming from a group that has done it before, and this act of free speech restricts other's freedom. I think we agree on that, yes?

So, then would you agree with my original idea that there can't really be 'true' freedom of speech and we have to restrict it somewhat? Or, at least not when your idea of reasonable education has yet to be brought about?

>>41
Yes I do. I do understand. I don't have a problem with taking matters into your own hands. It's your way of solving the problem, and your judging of other human beings who have (to you totally) unknown backgrounds, what bothers me.

Also, I'd like to emphasize this one: " Of course America needs all those people you listed to thrive" No. Not to thrive, but to keep the growing human problems as low as possible. To develop and to ultimately raise the quality of life _for everyone_ pussies or not pussies. I'm not kidding, it's the only way.
"I see a lot of Americans just sitting and waiting for something to happen" Well, they have their reasons. Maybe if you wanted to understand their reasons instead of judging them, you could change them. Just by saying "Take matters into your hands" nobody is going to. It doesn't offer any practical help in my oppinion.

>>42
"It might be if everyone was great friends all around" They don't have to be, as long as they use milder tools for bridging differences than violence. I think of it as a kind of development.
But except of that I agree, concerning my oppinion, yes you are in the right sir.

Yes of course. What kind of freedom people intend to use depends on their background. If someone grows up to be a KKK member they will naturally want the freedom to lynch black people, be able to exercise their superiority, use violent threats, etc. It's what they think in their and their surrounding's best interest. I don't blame them, they aren't essentially evil, they are miseducated. Not by schoolteachers or by lecturers, but by their surroundings. So anyway, as long as we don't care more about our way of development as humans, there will be people who's freedoms conflict each other, I agree on that with you.

Yes, until people come to an understanding about that, I can only agree with what you wrote. I just think it's a shame, since we already have the tools and the knowhow to do be able to develop a relevant education, it's just that the idea has to reach many many more people.

While they have some influence, in the end, they're just another radical group. Until things actual start changing that is all they will ever be. Sometime when things are overused, ( I believe Anonymous (simply because people sometimes perceive them as joke) is in that category. Don't kill me) they need something to push back. When I saw what going on here, I believe this is a good first step.

"I don't blame them, they aren't essentially evil, they are miseducated. Not by schoolteachers or by lecturers, but by their surroundings. So anyway, as long as we don't care more about our way of development as humans, there will be people who's freedoms conflict each other." I like what you're saying here, but what necessarily is the right way? Everyone's surrounding while growing up is different, even if just by a little bit.You can change someones actions if you like, but you can't change someone's thoughts. The mind is the true 'freedom' only.
Bottom line, I like what Anonymous is doing. Maybe there will be a total peace where everyone is cool with each other one day, but it doesn't happen all at once, and not everyone is going to be okay with. If there was a law against the KKK that forced them to terminate the group, those people will still be racist.

Anon is shit now. They just reference when they are good and threaten governments. Sure they might think its for a good cause but they don't do shit. North Korea still doesn't have free internet and they do nothing about the "Illuminati".
>>3 agreed
Honestly I think we can be better just by not being morons and being nice. Anons just want to say they hacked something when there are really only like 5 hackers in anonymous. There bullshit now

>>45
"Everyone's surrounding while growing up is different, even if just by a little bit.You can change someones actions if you like, but you can't change someone's thoughts. The mind is the true 'freedom' only." That's a fallacy. You are ~always~ changing someone's thoughts as others are always changing yours. This is the way we communicate. Let's say I'm going to the coffee dispenser and a fire breaks out. You run after me to tell me about it, so I'll be alarmed. If you couldn't change my thoughts, I'd happily wait for my coffee while the building burns down. Just so there's an example of what I mean.
The question is, what kinds of behaviours, what kind of background forces this kind of development in a person's value system. That's what you have to change for everyone equally. The rest of the factors can stay as diverse as they want to be. That's part of what I mean by relevant education.

I have to say that after this convo with Inuhakka, I don't believe there is a true freedom, if I understand right what you meant. There are only causes and effects. Freedom is a man made term for having the means for achieving an effect we have a cause for.

"If there was a law against the KKK that forced them to terminate the group, those people will still be racist." I got to agree with you on that. This might sound very naive and ideal, but people have to be rehabilitated by clearing up their misconceptions, not punished for something they haven't known or experienced. That would be an ideal world.

>>46
I don't know why people have these expectations for anon, as if anon would owe them anything...

well... if you watch the video they posted ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVLU0ODrThM ), apparently someone in KKK said that they will shoot anyone who wears anonymous mask. They stated their motive clearly saying that they wage cyberwar because KKK agitated them to do so (KKK kinda dig their own grave).

Thanks to the Freedom of Speech amendment included in the American Constitution, being any group of practicing beliefs is in no way illegal, nor is it punishable to be a KKK member, leader, or activist. However... the things they /do/ in this group are punishable by law if they're caught.

>>47
They say there gonna do shit but never get it done. Anon has been dead for a while now.

>>49
"Thanks to the Freedom of Speech amendment included in the American Constitution, being any group of practicing beliefs is in no way illegal, nor is it punishable to be a KKK member, leader, or activist. However... the things they /do/ in this group are punishable by law if they're caught."
Yeah I don't get Anon's anymore. They say they want full Freedom of Speech but don't respect others over a simple disagreement.

In my fullest opinion I feel they only attack others rights when they feel they are being harmful towards others around them, i understand it in this way because i do the same. Anonymous as a movement is unbiased and leans toward peace more so than they do violence, but as it turns out a lot of the individual members smug the reputation on Anonymous with annoying, immature conniption fits over the internet because they don't like when someone disagrees with them, as if they strongly believe being wrong is a bad thing.

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6uHnL_Ua4 ]

>>50
I don't get how this makes them appear in a negative light concerning the current events regarding the KKK...

>>51 Again, what do you mean by full freedom of speech? What does that mean? There is no such thing. You might want to read back about what we talked about here with Inuhakka >>36,>>37,>>42,>>44

>>52 I pretty much agree with what you linked, but I don't exactly get what you're trying to say with your reply. Could you elaborate?

Of course, i tend to speak in ambiguity a bit so that others may form their own opinions around the one i shared and maybe make it they're own if they feel the need to; I've watched some videos on Anonymous and i really agree with what they're trying to portray. I feel they take an outstandingly unbiased, peaceful approach to bring corruption to light where i can be dealt with as the cards fall, but if someone is to attack them with violence, they act enough force to send a message and make an example out of who ever attacked Anonymous. They claim to be more defensively assertive than they are aggressive, but when hostility is met, hostility is had. At the root they mean no harm and always give whoever they attack a chance to work it out peacefully, but when they swing, anon swings back, and 9/10 whoever they confront swings back, and sense they have no idea they've avoided becoming brotherhood-like and moved toward becoming an entity .

Everything i've listed is what Anonymous claims with some observations thrown into the mix, but i cannot and will not speak for each individual member because as you know every group has it's bad eggs.

Here are some links to help support my opinion:

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDNbXmIP3ww ]

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ0JfKq44Ew ]

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjZgvDwpVds ]

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbsnU7I3aG0 ]

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP3IRUX8j4I ]

>>54
I can't watch the videos, especially so many, since currently I'm at work, but I guess I understand now what you were meaning with the previous comment too. Yes, I kind of agree with that. Anon isn't perfect either and it's a shame, but at least they represent one of the better alternatives at choosing an approach, and also, if you think of it, I can only guess, but being a collection of anonymous people, I don't know how well they are organized, so having some individuals who are more aggressive is in the mix I guess.
I still think that information warfare is a much milder way of solving a conflict than death threats and violence.