Why Anonymous are not to be trusted

[RUSSO]

I encourage grammar/spelling corrections as a response, but please dont make me feel inferior.

Hi Zenkyai, english is not my first lenguage, so dont make me feel inferior

stimulate some new ideas towards the issue of trusting a group that resists our all consuming ontological grasp of reality.

I dont feel frustrate about anonnymous, because i take them as simply as any other movement. A movement that began with noble ideals but fragile in our modern world. Fragile, because like all decentralized movement, it becomes liable to attacks of various kinds such as infiltration and betrayal.

In my mind, being anonymous allows you to enter into a discourse and participate without having to sacrifice your alterity/Otherness.

Well its not because you are using a "mask" that you will be not affect by the other people. They still will be changing/affecting you. For bad or good.

quite frankly, we live in a time where everyone takes alterity is taken for granted

Unless you live alone as a hermit, or has a molded your personality to shield others, in my opinion everyone living in society are affected in some way by the others. Whether positive or negative.

I dont think anyone experienced the results of having their alterity obliterated more than the jews who lived in Nazi Germany

The great lesson nazism let us is that a moral barrier that was previously unbridgeable for our Western civilization, is overthrow and that it is possible to kill millions simply by, previously dehumanizing and depriving them of their most basic rights.

Only a philosophy based on the infinite responsibility for the other, in full recognition of its otherness, will be able to oppose barbarism.

i do not think its constructive to argue about what anonymous has said. If they wanted to be known for what they say, i dont think they would of chosen to go by that name. Instead, i think its more constructive to look at what they have done, and then decided if those actions are those of anonymous. I think its likely that someone is using their god given power, simply to help people that are suffering at the hands of cruel governemtns, and someone realized what this entity was doing and decided to be their voice/mask for the public.

In my opinion the name anonnymous works more as a brand, that carry significance. If they would not wanted to be known, we would not have even that name in surface.  To me this indicates that they are seeking some kind of recognition.

Afterall, Assange ad Snowden are examples. They dont use masks, they are not anonnymous and we all saw what happened to them.

The problem to use "masks" or "avatars" is that we never know the face behind the actions nor the intentions behind the acts.

I feel like anonymous is forcing us to come face to face with the violence of ontology, by denying people the ability to know them an a ontological fashion. 

To me it would only works if you dont use masks. Turn people into an amorphous mass is dangerous.

I dont think we should trust anonymous in the same way we trust our neighbor, but i do think we should trust them as an entity that resists our ontological grasps of the world. Hopefully by positioning themselves outside the box, they will institute real change. We should keep our eye raised, because history has shown us exactly what people can do in a position of power. Only time will tell, and actions speak louder than words

Would be those changes for the better?

I agree with you that we cant trust them. but its diferent when you know the people you are dealing. I know the name of my neighbor, I can act against him if i need to react. Cant say the same about this so-called anonnymous movement.

[Logos]

Regardless, I'm sure we both agree that "psyops" inherently possess the capacity to influence.

Of course, they do; that's the purpose for their creation but this is getting off point, that being that "Anonymous" is most likely not a grass-roots organization as the media would have us believe but rather just another fictional narrative in the gov't/media artificial reality construct, staffed with their agents.

[Glaucon]

Of course, they do; that's the purpose for their creation but this is getting off point, that being that "Anonymous" is most likely not a grass-roots organization as the media would have us believe but rather just another fictional narrative in the gov't/media artificial reality construct, staffed with their agents.

In the context in which organizations first entrench their beginnings, classifying a successfully solidified organization is strictly academic and granular in nature. It'd be rather over simplistic and insufficient for us to discuss the definition of "grass-roots" ,as it pertains in this thread, without a philosophical discussion.