On “Anonymous”: OldFags versus NewFags

A number of oldfags (i.e., people who call themselves Anonymous and align themselves with the Lulz culture) have been leaving comments on this blog pointing and laughing at or scorning the newfags (i.e., anonymous Scientology protesters that call themselves Anonymous). I don’t blame them. While I personally do not agree with the oldfag culture of pissing off or screwing people for the lulz, that was the culture.

Then all of a sudden some of the people that were a part of this culture took it upon themselves to wage war on the Cult of Scientology – for good, and for the lulz. When Mark Bunker made a video message to Anonymous in which he encouraged them to move away from the cyber-terrorism approach and toward traditional grassroots activism, some of the original Anons switched over and many sideliners who had had their consciousness raised with regard to Scientology by Anonymous and the Old Guard Critics were ready to join the grassroots campaign. The result was that thousands of these moral crusaders – whom I’m very proud of, by the way – entered into a thorough-going moral war of awareness against the cult under the banner of Anonymous. The means and ends of those within this new movement were both staunchly at odds with many of those who had been calling themselves Anonymous for years prior to Scientology protest. And now this new movement which flies the flag of Anonymous has become the public face of Anonymous.

Who can blame the oldfags for being annoyed? Who can blame them for saying that Anonymous has been hijacked? As I understand it – and correct me if I’m wrong – the dominant culture of Anonymous prior to February was dedicated to anonymous immoral lulz. It was about being a bunch of faceless and feared assholes. Not about being free hug giving moral crusaders. While I personally have the highest of objections to this culture, that was the culture and I can fully understand why those who appreciated it are pissed.

Furthermore, I also see the risks for the moral/newfags of flying the same banner as the oldfags. Do the newfags really want to be so easily confused with this devilish group? Surely not. Perhaps a public facelift is in order. Many oldfags do not want to be associated with the newfags, and the newfags should not want to be associated with the old. One set of individuals who surely benefits from this confusion, however, is Scientology as they can now publicly cite the acts of oldfags to newfags.

Alright, gotta get back to class.

About these ads
Comments
19 Responses to “On “Anonymous”: OldFags versus NewFags”
  1. One of the things that I’ve always thought about Anonymous is that it functions kind of like a God.

    Although I should probably qualify that before some commenter on this blog takes offense.

    I’m an atheist, so of course I don’t believe in Gods in the literal sense. But I do believe that Gods do exist in a nonliteral way. First of all, they exist as characters in the running narrative that nowadays we call ‘worldview’ but a few hundred years ago was known as ‘Mythos’. Secondly, they exist as a state of mind that can support the worldview that allows them to exist. The final qualifier is that although a God only ‘exists’ through the minds of its followers, the God itself is never entirely under the control of its followers.

    It’s in this nonliteral sense that I think Anonymous functions as a kind of God. Yes, it’s a collective – but something I’ve noticed is that, much like a voodoo ceremony, any individual member of Anonymous can don the mask or the digitized voice and in a sense ‘become’ Anonymous, as if it were an entity. Also, a certain flexibility of mind is required to accept that something like Anonymous could ever exist – essentially, Anonymous is everyone on the internet who presents information anonymously, but most people who aren’t regular internet users couldn’t accept this. They would want to percieve a centralized controller or comitte of controllers, or a decentralized cell-based hierarchy similar to terrorist organizations. You need to have your brain wired up the right way that you can see the world in terms that would even allow Anonymous to work.

    And finally, as has been demonstrated the concept of Anonymous isn’t entirely in the control of those who use it. It’s taken on a sort of life of its own, and there’s been something like a schism – the orthodoxy of Anonymous (the oldfags) and the reformed Anonymous (the newfags).

    I’m probably gonna get slammed for that observation – it’s a debatable point. I just think that it’s an interesting point that you can argue that Anonymous functions kind of like an amoral God of chaos and free public expression. Neither good nor evil on its own, but its followers make it so.

  2. As an aside, the Scientology information I come across is that the Scientologist concept of ‘God’ is what they call the ‘eighth dynamic’, which I assume to be congruent with the level VIII OT’s. Is that the case?

    I was just wondering how you’d contrast the idea of Anonymous as a God against the ‘God’ of Scientology, and see how they stack up against each other.

    I’m weird like that.

  3. Delany says:

    I have no idea what you are talking about! What is “lulz culture,” and why are the anti-scientology people calling themselves “fags”? This is totally confusing! I noticed that the local group (loosely speaking!) in my town that does the anti-scientology demos calls itself some version of “fags”? What on earth is that about?

    Delany

  4. Anon says:

    Delany:

    The “fag” portion of our speech is taken from the oldfag version of Anonymous, and as some of us are oldfags we look to the old ways to make the protests our own in this way. Each movement has it’s own particular form of jargon, this is just the special glossary of Anonymous.

    As it is, lulz is basically a corruption of LOL, which stands for Laugh Out Loud. Truly epic lulz can be achieved by uniting behind a cause to take down something with a large amount of unwarranted self-importance, CULTISH tendencies, and being a lolcow in general.

    If they fight back against us, we get our lulz in the form of making them attempt to impress a faceless collective that is, by virtue of the fact that we’re fighting them, unimpressed with what they have to offer. If they lie back and take it, succumb to the demands and give up, we get the pix, post dox, etc. and move on to the next target. It’s that simple, and $cientology is one of the biggest lolcows out there. They’re going to try to prove to Anonymous and the world that they’re the shit, all while they’ve got blood on their hands, a ship that comprises their ENTIRE navy landlocked for being covered in blue asbestos, and hundreds of people blowing orgs everyday.

    tl;dr, oldfags are oldfags, newfags are newfags, moralfags are idiots, truly epic lulz is being achieved all over the place, $cientology is going to be destroyed in it’s current form or self-destruct from using outdated tactics that make them look less like a religious institution and more like a DANGEROUS CULT.

  5. L. Ron Brown says:

    I’ll respond to Delany here as I don’t have much time and would like to clear up her confusion.

    lulz: “lulz” is an adaptation of “lol” – laugh out loud. It refers to the laughs that pranksters get from pulling pranks or screwing someone over. OldAnonymous has engaged in lulz such as consistently making highly derogatory prank phone calls to Tom Green’s TV show (you can find clips on YouTube – it’s honestly pretty damn funny), bringing down the Scientology website and slamming them with prank phone calls, emails and black faxes (i.e., faxes that are just full of black – so as to not only jam up their fax machines and waste their paper, but to waste lots of their ink), and infamously the flash video links on an epilepsy forum. Anonymous – traditional Anonymous, that is – really does have some very hateful and sadistic people. And they will probably not take that label as an insult, as they tend to be quite proud of it. OldAnons often refer to themselves as the “Internet Hate Machine”.

    Fags. Anons – old and many newAnons – as I understand it use the term “fag” as a suffix to many words not so much as an insult to homosexuals, but as an expression of freedom of speech. i.e., they will use a word that is socially frowned upon, and they’ll use it often. So we have terms like Scifags (for Scientologists), oldfags and newfags (old and new anon), moralfags (another name for newfags), etc.

  6. It looks like the newfag / oldfag distinction is doing the work its supposed to–you might try to bring it to wider attention, but other than that, why worry?

  7. Delany says:

    OK, thanks Ron and Anon. I think I sort of get it, i.e., the history behind use of the term “fag,” but/and it is a bit of a shame, now that Anonymous is getting so big, just because it creates this need to waste time to explain the peculiar and easily misunderstood lingo…

    And I think I like what Uncredible H. says… the emphasis really needs to be on just getting on with it (the exposure of realities about scientology) as effectively as possible…

    Delany

  8. morris108 says:

    Whatever tactics they use, to harrass and intimidate, presumably are tried and trusted methods. While they might get a way with being above the law, they cannot be above the establishment, homeland security types etc. Doesn’t that suggest they can all be in cahoots?

  9. Xander Legere says:

    While I’m all for free hugs, advising Scientology be free, and protecting Rationalism, I do not believe wasting Ink and paper are good ideas hehe.

    FREE HUG FOR ALL!

    – Simpsons –

    “Abortions for some! Miniature American flags for others!”

  10. staturday says:

    Honestly, I think half the point of all the Chan lingo is watching other people get confused.

    staturday.wordpress.com – a Chanology digest

  11. Anon says:

    Most moralfags are newfags which is the problem. They do not know many, if any of the inside oldfag jokes and barely know what mudkips is. Lurk moar!

  12. Neowned says:

    Inside jokes that only a minority elite knows? Or just /b/rethren in general? If it’s the former, who cares? So basement dwellers got together at 100 years ago and made up some half baked memes between themselves and only a minor few know of them. Doesnt always mean newfags are moralfags. You only prove 2 be no different by bawing over it. If it’s the latter, how much then? thousands? This is why the term “basement dweller” is used for you by some. Not everyone has time to sit on their asses all day long to study up on /b/iology >_> If the internet isn’t serious business to you, then stop bawing.

  13. dicks says:

    its all about the dicks everywhere faggot juice

  14. Newfag says:

    I’m an oldfag I’ve been on /b/ all summer!

  15. duvexy says:

    Great. set up a system for people that do not believe in a
    God, and get them fighing among themselves as well.
    Great balkinzation technique.

  16. niggawatts says:

    what the fuck is “good”?

  17. Chantard says:

    @ Neowned, staturday: Internet -is- serious business, the users who identify as Anonymous just tend to be on the other side of the argument, considering the Internet as the last bastion of free speech, good-natured, if dark, practical and verbose humor is simply one of many methods they use to express that. The linguistic aspect of it is not even particularly hard to grasp. You can learn it all in less than an hour, which can’t be said for some of the less… Desirable… Takes on the English language (lookin’ at you American gangsta subcultures). Seeing ‘fag’ used as a suffix for a group several times tells you what it is, a quick Google search will inform you on any jokes, and even then most of them are humorous without research, which is why they make such successful jokes in the first place.

    As for getting away with it, think about it. The successful and celebrated Anonymous raids have next to no casualties. It’s easily explainable too. Large numbers, proxies and getting in and out before anyone official has time to figure out what the fuck just happened.

    And now onto the original topic of discussion. *sigh* This is a sore spot for everyone. The oldfags want their humor to continue, the newfags aren’t exactly what one would call philosophically bright, and the media are a bunch of fear-mongering assholes.

    Cue no one being surprised at that last bit.

    The thing is, oldfags aren’t at odds with taking down Scientology. I wanna get one thing straight about my approach on the subject. Everyone who isn’t a Scientologist or an ignoramus thinks Scientology is fucking stupid. Everyone. It’s not controversial.

    But dealing with the topic at hand, oldfags will totally do it. Humiliate a bunch of idiots who spent millions on a scam religion? FUCK YES. That’s right up their alley. Problem is what that would represent. Caving into the blatantly moral approach of the newfags. Anonymous as an entity doesn’t get much press attention. The acts and their enemies do. Not Anonymous itself. If it goes through with this, everyone and their dog is going to assume that the biggest unorganization in the world has become ‘good’.

    The problem is, it’s not an organization. It’s an unorganization. A collective mass of people who are proud of their assholish, sadistic nature. People are joining ’cause it’s cool or controversial, or hell, even both. People who join thinking that these protests are all there is to it are going to get a bit shellshocked at the utter disregard of the value of a human’s sanity and emotional well-being. So far, there have been three resposnes.

    1: They become used to it, and join in
    2: They actively oppose it in the media (my personal favorite)
    3: They try to change it.

    And that last one is a problem. I’ll try to make it simple for everyone here, because this is an absolute:

    As long as the Internet, that is, -the- interconnected network that joins computers from around the world, as long as that lasts?

    Oldschool Anonymous. Will. Never. Die. Period.

    They’re more resilient than you. It takes a bit to become that removed what people consider regular morality. Completely breaking out of the mold to join a heartless, yet inherently familial, blob of lulz? They’ve probably taken more shit on a day-to-day basis, throughout the course of years upon years, than you could hope to put on them in a lifetime. All that media attention, calling them monsters? They laugh at you. And then they humiliate you. And laugh. -Again-. You can’t defeat this thing. They’ve been at it longer, and have more of a stake in this battle than any other party.

    Actually, I’d like to point out one thing about ‘internet iz srs bznss l0l’… Anonymous has, and I have to quote myself here: “more of a stake in this battle than any other party”. Whenever someone tries to censor the Internet for a Western country, that country’s government pretty much immediately incurs costs, censorship and general large-scale annoyance. A lot of it. Ever wonder how that’s possible? There were more people participating in Operation Titstorm than there were people in Australia.

  18. JohnDoe says:

    I can haz cheezeburger?

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] “for the lulz” (lúdicamente) y empezó a arrogarse responsabilidades extraordinarias, lo que no fue tomado de buena manera por parte del [...]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: