Anonymous makes a good, albeit threatening point. I think the looming music in the background is a bit much personally, I get you’re serious anonymous, I get it. What I don’t get, is why all the focus solely on Vic? It isn’t just one dude, in control of this bill, (I’d say person, but it IS the Harper Gov after all, where chicks are just for show, right Rona?). Bill C-30 won’t quit, even if Vic does/is forced. That said, I agree with anonymous, in that I also think this bill is bullshit. More than the bill itself, justifying this bill as a means to control child pornography, embarrasses me as a Canadian, and disgusts me as a human being. This is the conservative governments pretend answer to controlling child pornography? Just don’t look at it? That is an despicable abuse of children in and of itself. Don’t get me started. Don’t even get me started.
February 22nd, 2012 at 1:52 pm
MC:
Well, if Anonymous is ‘threatening’, then it is merely in response to the very real threats posed by the government: if governments make no distinction between civil libertarians and child abusers, AND have the power to send men with guns to your home to enforce such draconian laws… let me just say, that is some serious threat, so I view Anonymous’ ‘threats’ (scary music!) as a completely justifiable form of self-defense.
Vic is the target, because he is the point man: he’s the one who smeared his opponents as “siding with child pornographers”, so he has painted the target very clearly on his own forehead (not smart for a man with so many seedy skeletons in his own closet).
What is little appreciated in the ‘lame-stream’ media is the reason why Anonymous, and by extension all internet-based activism, is so powerful: it is truly leaderless, truly democratic. “Anonymous” isn’t an organization, anymore than “the online community” is an organization.
I read a funny article where the writer talked about “the online community” being overwhelmingly against the bill, and I thought, “who does that phrase include, exactly?”… you could just as easily substitute the phrase with the word “people”, and suddenly, it seems a lot clearly what we’re talking about. People are against this bill, and people communicate their revulsion for it on the internet…. and the people who understand the internet the best are the ones who are most against this kind of legislation.
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:13 pm
MC:
“and suddenly, it seems a lot clearly…”?
What was I going to write, before I switched thoughts there, I wonder…
Relevant: http://www.whynotharper.ca/#printablelist
February 20th, 2012 at 8:44 amAnonymous makes a good, albeit threatening point. I think the looming music in the background is a bit much personally, I get you’re serious anonymous, I get it. What I don’t get, is why all the focus solely on Vic? It isn’t just one dude, in control of this bill, (I’d say person, but it IS the Harper Gov after all, where chicks are just for show, right Rona?). Bill C-30 won’t quit, even if Vic does/is forced. That said, I agree with anonymous, in that I also think this bill is bullshit. More than the bill itself, justifying this bill as a means to control child pornography, embarrasses me as a Canadian, and disgusts me as a human being. This is the conservative governments pretend answer to controlling child pornography? Just don’t look at it? That is an despicable abuse of children in and of itself. Don’t get me started. Don’t even get me started.
February 22nd, 2012 at 1:52 pmWell, if Anonymous is ‘threatening’, then it is merely in response to the very real threats posed by the government: if governments make no distinction between civil libertarians and child abusers, AND have the power to send men with guns to your home to enforce such draconian laws… let me just say, that is some serious threat, so I view Anonymous’ ‘threats’ (scary music!) as a completely justifiable form of self-defense.
Vic is the target, because he is the point man: he’s the one who smeared his opponents as “siding with child pornographers”, so he has painted the target very clearly on his own forehead (not smart for a man with so many seedy skeletons in his own closet).
What is little appreciated in the ‘lame-stream’ media is the reason why Anonymous, and by extension all internet-based activism, is so powerful: it is truly leaderless, truly democratic. “Anonymous” isn’t an organization, anymore than “the online community” is an organization.
I read a funny article where the writer talked about “the online community” being overwhelmingly against the bill, and I thought, “who does that phrase include, exactly?”… you could just as easily substitute the phrase with the word “people”, and suddenly, it seems a lot clearly what we’re talking about. People are against this bill, and people communicate their revulsion for it on the internet…. and the people who understand the internet the best are the ones who are most against this kind of legislation.
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:13 pm“and suddenly, it seems a lot clearly…”?
What was I going to write, before I switched thoughts there, I wonder…
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:15 pm