So a bunch of people incoherently protest a wide range of unconnected issues all at the same time while wearing masks that depict a religious fundamentalist terrorist. No wonder progressive causes always lose.
And your better idea is?
I've been involved with some political organizing, so I know it's hard to organize people with diverse agendas into a coherent movement. But these demonstrators are simultaneously protesting fracking and high fuel prices?
Russell Brand, one of the world's greatest thinkers...he's up there with Larry the Cable Guy
I'm sorry, but those repellent Guy Fawkes masks have got to go.
Do people know how silly they look in them?
These "anonymous" demonstrators are starting to look like all those ex-hippies from the 60s who took up vague causes in the mid-80s in order to feel a sense of belonging and togetherness, but who wound up becoming bloated, sofa-bound wastes of time as they grew out of protesting and grew more into Internet stock trading.
I'm guessing that most of Anonymous members don't know who Guy Fawkes was, but I also think that you've got it backwards. Guido (Guy) Fawkes was discovered on November 5, 1605 with enough gunpowder to blow up Parliament. Hence the assassination plot was thwarted and King James was saved, preserving the freedom that England won from the Catholic Church.
I can understand Anonymous as a global subculture and a suite of political tactics associated with that subculture. But, I'm kind of at a loss at what it means that there are global demonstrations for Anonymous. It would be like having global demonstrations for punk rock. That is, I feel like this is a good sign, generally speaking, but I'm not sure just what we've seen demonstrated.
Says the man sitting behind his computer doing nothing on the Internet...
What? Huh? - maybe next time be direct, without the lukewarm sarcasm.
I have no clue how to respond to your comment...sorry.
Different protest but works anyway.
Apparently, in the capitol of Norway, Oslo, it's illegal to wear masks: (link is in Norwegian): http://www.osloby.no/nyheter/Maskerte-demonstranter-stoppet-av-politiet-7363778.html
Protesters were stopped and asked to turn in their masks(!) by the police who stated (translated): "It's punishable by law to be masked in Oslo". In actuality, the (probably, IANAL after all) relevant law is a bit more precise, referring to public events. http://lovdata.no/lov/1995-08-04-53/§11
Actually, progressive causes are often correct, but they are also often ahead of their time. The unthinking masses take a while for new issues to sink in, while those who are unwilling to passively accept the status quo are marginalized by those in power. Think about civil rights in the 60's. Or marches against the Viet Nam war. Or support for workers rights. Think about legal pot, or interracial marriage, or voting rights or universal health care, or social security, or medicare. These are all progressive causes, and they have all either succeeded already, or are in process.
Progressives lead. And they often win in the end.
Bummer though about the failure to gain the people's freedom from King James.
Nice content-free ad hominem.
Try his Thatcher send-off, a brilliant combination of erudition, sparkling wit and righteous fury:
And if you can't be bothered to read it, then you're probably the one who's up there with Larry the Cable Guy.
One problem with "knowledge is power" is that we currently have a substantial subculture which explicitly rejects the value of knowledge.
Must agree that the masks make this too much a self-parody. I'd like to approve of people speaking out, but caricatures speaking out just doesn't have the same impact. And, as with Occupy, I'd like to see some coherency arise from "we're mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more"... not least because I want to know what causes I'm marching alongside before I lend them my support. Sorry, but I'm one of those who reads contracts.
"Thanks" to the Ku Klux Klan, there are many places in the US where it is also illegal to wear a mask in public.
Why the masks? At least in Britain, they wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for the presence of Forward Intelligence Teams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Intelligence_Team) who are deliberately used to scare people away from protest by overtly photographing those involved.
Got a public-facing job? Demonstrating against corporate interests who may be connected to your employer at some level? Thinking about ever applying for anything that requires security clearance at some point in the future? There are a lot of reasons why people should expect a right to anonymity in protest, and the Guy Fawkes mask is, in truth, a lot less scary than the alternative, which is a scarf around one's face. The scarf has long been demonised as being indicative of a desire to riot and those wearing it will often be singled out by the police; it carries connotations in a way that the mask (being uniform, slightly silly, and from a comic book/hollywood movie) doesn't.
It's practical, unifying, and less easy to demonise than the scarves-and-jackboots-blac-bloc look. What's to hate about it? Let them have their fun; once it gets widespread enough, the state'll just illegalise masks altogether (last time they tried was 2010) and then it will be beatdowns for anyone who has any expectation of a right to privacy. Yay!
Only for common knowledge: Some weeks ago, in Rio de Janeiro, pass a law who ban the use of masks or anything who cover the face, except in "Cultural Events" (aka. Only in Carnaval).
Why, your comment is nothing more than sna....
Oh. As you were!
While I don't take Anonymous that seriously, I mean let's face it, they're an evolution of the Internet Police, I like this.
They demonstrate how people can organise in a headless, international way, sharing resources and ideas without borders. If they can do it, who else can?