Customize

Nambla crying about our efforts to stop them.

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by FloGold, May 25, 2013.

  1. FloGold Moderator

    Hipster Vigilantism and the New Populist Attack On Free Speech


    anonymous%20hands%20off%20my%20internet.jpg
    "Anonymous" the self-styled cyber-vigilante group, widely recognized by its use of Guy Fawkes masks to conceal members' identities, yesterday launched another flurry of DDOS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attacks to overload and thereby silence the websites of organizations which it identifies as "promoting paedophilia". Several of those organisations targeted were NAMBLA and Boychat which suffered temporary website outages.
    Yesterday, we were, once again, reminded of the self-righteous - if inchoate - rage which periodically bubbles to the surface in an effort to deny the rights of others to speak freely.
    In the past, this atavistic fury would have taken the form of book burnings or, even earlier, the burning of people. Today, it is expressed through the sabotage of complex computer networks and requires a modest level of technical expertise that is itself worn as a badge of honor by those who imagine themselves serving a societal good in their concerted efforts to silence us.
    A very public - and heroic - identification with that which is good and virtuous, as in every moral crusade of the past, is very much a driving force behind these contemporary mob rallies.
    As the targets of these actions, we know, from years of experience, that those 'hipster vigilantes' responsible for these "take downs" are, invariably, almost studiously ignorant of our message and our mission as well as the actual danger our ideas pose to their mythological preconceptions.
    Their representation of our views and our motives are as scurrilous and distorted as any claims made by tabloid journalists or government agencies. But, of course, they would be.
    Considering that most of them are young and grew up in the age of hysteria - in other words, since the 1970's - then we understand all too well why this is so.
    As children and adolescents, they were spoon-fed a continuous diet of stranger danger, warnings of "bad touches", alerts of missing children, and continuous surveillance by qualified adults while their permitted range-of-movement within which to explore life, love and humanity, shrank.
    Theirs was a childhood informed by a continuous stream of missing children on milk cartons, indoctrination sessions lead by alarmist teachers and earnest visiting policemen, hysterical t.v. news and the obsessive demands of parents that they remain within the ever-narrower boundaries which had come to define the limits of childhood and adolescence.
    That all of these messages about strange men, in particular, were continuously delivered to them throughout their earliest years with an existential level of urgency makes it trivially easy to understand the levels of vehemence and intolerance our organizations - and our websites - now face.
    Angry, destructive bands of crusaders, along with ever more oppressive laws are the result of a more than thirty-five year campaign to systematically suppress dissenting voices and contradicting evidence in order to fundamentally re-engineer society along strictly partisan - and paranoid - lines.
    In this way morality, the perception of risk, and reality itself have all been gradually, but dramatically, shifted over several generations while society feverishly wrings its hands, seemingly oblivious to the ongoing experiment in which it plays a starring role.
    So, when we asked ourselves, many years ago, what the long-term effects would be of the sudden and astounding efflorescence of paranoia we were then witnessing we now, finally, have our answer.
    guy%20fawkes%20government.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  2. FloGold Moderator

    Now that I think about it, I really recent that hipster comment :S
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    What a load of shit. Good on ya anonymous. Nasty old perverted douchebags can rot in hell for all I care.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Anonymous Member

    "Deny the rights of others to speak freely." I wish they would speak freely. I wish every pedo would stand in the center of their town square and state their name and their predilection. Then, parents wouldn't have to teach their children to be leery of everyone. But, because they know they're freaks, know the majority of society thinks they're disgusting, know what they are doing is immoral and illegal, they do their shit in the dark.
    I'm proud to play any role I can, big or small, to help those that are anonymous and those that are known, shed light on these blights of society.
    • Like Like x 6
  5. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Tears...... Delicious
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Anonymous Member

    Just you wait till im done with the guy that wrote the piece. your belly will be full for years to come. :3
    • Like Like x 3
  7. anonysamvines Member

    I resent it too
    some of them are more hip replacement than hipster!

    Age has nothing to do with disdain for nambla - just common decency and the understanding that your desire to get ya sexy on does not override a child's right to and desires of safety, and to not participate/be tricked into participating in the same

    .
    • Like Like x 1
  8. mongrel Member

    • Like Like x 2
  9. Anonymous Member

    They think Society will accept them as GLBT have been excepted.
    A couple of thoughts-
    He is defending "Strange Men" and is against Stranger Danger. Most of them natter on about "caring relationships" , he just wants anonymous rape.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. anonsoldier Member

    This is delicious. I applaud all of those involved.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. FloGold Moderator

    Aaaand...

    We got more whining and complaining from Nambla, Namely some guy named Eric Tazelaar and Joe Power.

    http://nambla.org/anonymous_reasoning.html




    anonymous-dunce-2.jpg
    The 'Non-Wisdom' of Crowds

    We received an email recently criticizing our previous feature, "Hipster Vigilantism and the New Populist Attack On Free Speech Anonymous' Decidedly Illiberal Campaign To Silence Us"
    both Joe Power and I wanted to address some of the issues raised by
    his criticisms and did so in the following, separate, responses:
    a response by Eric Tazelaar
    "You forced me to hit you because you said things I disagreed with!"
    That, in effect, is the logic of one email writer in his angry retort to last week's piece.
    Apparently, he believes that we are free to speak only so long as we don't say things Anonymous finds offensive and, once we do, then we invite - through our words - whatever act of vandalism that collectivist mob wish to commit against us.
    Not only that but, apparently, their imagination, alone, forms the only limits of punishment which they might wish to inflict upon us. Additionally, they appear to believe that we should have no legal recourse or remedy as a result of their arbitrary and capricious attacks nor should those vigilantes be made to suffer any criminal sanctions by their actions.
    He was genuinely angry that we would have dared to criticize Anonymous for exercising what he clearly identified as their legitimate right to attack our website!
    According to him, Anonymous has got quite an extraordinary amount of power to do as they please!
    But of course, he's quite wrong!
    He goes on to say that we are "ignorant" in claiming that our "first amendment rights" were under attack by arguing that the Bill of Rights protects us from government, not from individuals or bands of ignorant and malicious vigilantes (okay, my words, not his). He might have an arguable point, had we actually said that, but we did not.
    What we do have is the right to lawfully conduct our organization - as we do - and to express our views through our own resources (in this case, our website) without interference from government or, for that matter, malicious criminals.
    In this instance, our property rights are important in safeguarding our speech rights which he, in any case, does not have a right to impede unless he owns the means of conveying or reproducing that speech.
    But he does not since we own our server and we pay for our access to the Internet. He doesn't. Without that property right then we are effectively denied our speech rights, too!
    I hadn't thought it necessary to mention property rights in my earlier piece since I thought that was sort of obvious. I had forgotten that people such as those found within Anonymous are not likely to have any particular knowledge or regard for property rights since they tend to cling to ideologies more consistent with those of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.
    Here's some more of his appallingly ignorant rant, italicized, with my comments bolded (and not italicized):
    "Free speech" DOES NOT equate to freedom of the consequences of your free speech. WHAT CONSEQUENCES? Consequences of us stating our views? Anyone in society also has the freedom to knock you down a peg and to thwart and oppose you for the free speech you exercise, especially since you advocate the torment and abuse of children."
    Anyone in society has a right to SAY whatever they want to about us (within the constraints of libel laws which we reserve the right to seek remedy within) so long as they do not infringe upon our rights which includes the right to our property (in this case our webserver) and other rights, such as freedom of expression, which are contingent upon property rights.
    He does not, however, have the "freedom" to "knock us down a peg" or to "thwart"the exercise of our free speech if, by "knocking us down" or "thwarting", he means illegally attacking our servers or otherwise denying us the use of our property or committing any other illegal act against us.
    And if the angry email writer had bothered to read any of our freely available content on our website, he would have found that we have never - at any time - advocated for the "torment and abuse of children". His insisting that we do simply reveals him to be an ignorant fool who knows only that which he has learned from other ignorant fools.
    ***
    Some observations about vigilante mobs
    Mobs aren't evil because the individuals who comprise them think of themselves as evil. In most cases, I believe their constituent members believe themselves to be moral beings carrying out morally useful and justifiable violence.
    Mobs - and the individuals who comprise them - are, instead, evil for the acts they commit. Their violence is particularly insidious: individuals tend to do things when they are part of a mob which they wouldn't ordinarily do as individuals. They acquire a false sense of legitimacy for their actions simply through their aggregation into mobs. And, above all, as with the stoning of women or men by entire communities for crimes of adultery, no one individual is solely responsible for the violence they commit. Instead, their responsibility is borne by the abstract construction of the whole while its constituent parts remain blameless. Blameless and mutually congratulated.
    Denial of service attacks are hardly comparable to, say, Kristallnacht, but I think that it is obvious that if vigilantes had the means and the ability to get away with it, they would readily inflict far greater damage, confident in their self-righteous fury and their arrogance.
    "Give a man a mask, and you'll
    see what he's hiding".

    - an adaptation of a quote from Oscar Wilde
    a response by Joe Power
    The kind of misunderstanding presented in your email is all too common in a society that uncritically approves the squelching of unpopular opinions.
    You seem to be under the impression that Congress alone has the ability to violate free speech and therefore Congress alone is enjoined from doing so. The Bill of Rights is an explicit list of things the government is enjoined from doing added to the Constitution in order to gain the support for its ratification by some anti-federalists who feared that without it the government would grow tyrannical. It did not speak to the actions of non-governmental actors.
    When Anonymous launches a DDoS attack they are acting in the tradition of church and state (going back centuries) as censors. You seem to be confusing censorship with editorial discretion - You have the right to publish what you will (accepting the legal consequences of what you publish) and SO DO WE.
    Neither of us has the right to deny this to the other. As Robert Heinlein said:
    "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects,'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't
    conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
    You find your misapprehension of our message (which is actually that society's approach to sexuality is pathological, that the extreme segregation of clades by age flies in the face of thousands of years of human history, and that depriving young people of their rights to protect them works about as well as it did for women, blacks & Indians) to be odious.
    Fine. Proclaim it to the four corners of the world. We'll be happy to engage in reasoned debate that may well improve both sides' arguments. We are prepared to defend our position.
    Apparently Anonymous isn't if all they can do is resort to shouting down anyone they disagree with by launching a DDoS attack.
    You say that we cannot defend our speech properly, but surely you can see the absurdity of that when we are prevented from speaking in the first place.
    In the past voices against slavery, teaching the Bible in school as literal truth, prohibition, males-only suffrage and many other positions were suppressed. Positions that later came to be embraced. Drowning out dissent drowns out the possibility of progress.
    Anyone is free to believe that an opinion is silly, unworkable or otherwise not worthwhile, but can you really predict which ones? Are you aware that only recently the theory of plate tectonics or the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium were also once ridiculed but now proven correct?
    Centuries ago the Inquisition forced Galileo Galilei to recant the notion that the Earth went around the Sun instead of the reverse. To challenge Geocentrism was to challenge what the vast majority of society believed (and what people could see with their own eyes). It could not be allowed.
    "Eppur si muove" ("And yet it moves")
    (PS – Galileo was a boy lover!)

    For those who care, following is the email writer's full message. We have removed his name to save him, what would have to be, humiliation and embarrassment.
    Saw your post where you were complaining that your "free speech" was "violated" by Anonymous, thought I'd point a few things out to you.

    1) Anonymous is NOT the government. If you bother to read the United States Constitution, Amendment I says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    So unless you think "Anonymous" is "Congress," then none of your rights to free speech were violated.

    2) "Free speech" DOES NOT equate to freedom of the consequences of your free speech. Anyone in society also has the freedom to knock you down a peg and to thwart and oppose you for the free speech you exercise, especially since you advocate the torment and abuse of children.

    3) You think your "free speech" is somehow sacrosanct and above criticism or consequences. This shows the world that your "free speech" is based on faulty, indefensible, illogical thinking. You cannot defend your speech properly, so you must rely entirely on the cries of "FREE SPEECH!" as the only basis of support your arguments have.

    I hope you suitably alter your writing posted on your webpage to reflect the inaccuracies you originally wrote into it, unless you want to add an addendum stating you think "Anonymous" is "Congress" that is. I am not a member of anonymous, just a concerned citizen who would exercise my rights to free speech to tear down any arguments you or your members would ever make in public. It would be shameful and embarrassing for you
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    I love how these criminals want to hide behind the law and Constitution. If they are aiding and abetting pedophilia and child pornography they are criminals, therefore their speech, server and web pages, that are used to propagate these crimes, are forfeit. It's like a drug dealer calling the cops to report a burglary, because someone stole his supply or a prostitute wanting to file a theft of services report, because a john didn't pay her.Too, if they are advocating the exploitation of children, then they are advocating the torture and abuse of children, just because they found a loophole that somehow keeps them from being accountable, doesn't absolve them of this fact.
    Laws regarding the sexual abuse and exploitation of children are as much a protection for pedophiles, as it is a recourse for parents to take in order to get justice for their children, in lieu of them bashing their fucking head in.In essence, a deterrent for vigilantism, possibly saving them from undue severity or harshness, another definition of tyranny.
    The United States Government is for the people, by the people, but it has, unfortunately, become tone def because of greed, corporations, lobbyists, ideology or any combination of the aforementioned, who I'm sure the likes of Eric and Joe are well represented by at least one if not more of, and are just an example of how pervasive the problem has become. Our speech isn't free, payments are made regularly, by their varying degree, based on the ability of the participant, from the soldier to the activist. Some of them have children of which these individuals will try to pool from, to exploit.
    Our actions have consequences, and to speak is an act. If I stood in a shopping mall yelling all women were sluts, I would be jeered, insulted, possibly even spat upon, and rightly so. These people speaking in avocation of the perpetuation of criminal activity is collusion, I'll even go with conspiracy. Why more isn't being done to stop them is beyond me, the fact they are even trying to use the Constitution to justify their behavior is as obscene as the behavior they participate in.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    "bwaaaaa- property rights-bwaaa"
    Question- is his moral stance on property rights actually legal or just pedohype?
    Because this sounds like a BringItOn, and the US government prosecuting anyone for taking down a pedo site is lol. I'd love to see the legal pleadings for that.
  14. Anonymous Member

    All this nattering about US bill of rights is lovely as many of that board are not US citizens just like anonymous. Are they here? If not we should invite them. The Dome, it waits. After a suitable period up here.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. FloGold Moderator

    I'm thinking of inviting them over to our irc network.
    Still got to work out the details with server owner.
  16. FloGold Moderator

    Its kinda like a catch 22 anon, will the government put sufficient attention to our claims and investigate them or get distracted and go after us for being anons and forget all about the claims we are makining?
    Its a fucking guilty by association type thing i'm afraid. :(
  17. Anonymous Member

    Can we entice them here? After all, we talk to Scientology all the time. And moonbats.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Why?
  19. Anonymous Member

    For great justice and follow up.
  20. FloGold Moderator

    No, this is kinda like an archive of sorts for easy access to information and exchange of ideas. I dont know about you bu I dont want any pedos lurking around here, I think this poor place has enough with OSA and conspiracy theorists and people who think every hack anon does is because of this website.
    We have other ways of communicating that are better fit to deal with what you are asking. Pm me and ill direct you to where we have our fucking hugbox :D
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins