Anonymous Goes After GodHatesFags.com 744
An anonymous reader writes "Anonymous is now recognised as a serious force to be taken seriously, but its activities aren't confined to mass global protests, as the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, is discovering, according to p2pnet. Says the Examiner, 'Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their "Love Crusades," obnoxious displays of insensitivity and homophobia at the funerals of fallen American soldiers. The controversial if monotone message of the "Love Crusade" seems to be to blame everything that is wrong in the world on homosexuality. The crusades are part of a hate-based mission started in Kansas by the WBC and Fred Phelps.' In an open letter on AnonNews, 'We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People – have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism,' says Anonymous, stating 'Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS.'"
"An anonymous reader writes" (Score:5, Funny)
At LEAST it's better... (Score:3)
Do I condone all their techniques? No. But it seems they've come to realize multi-billion dollar corporations are a bit too big to attack for them. Not that I pity Westboro at all (hypocritical demon warshipers)...
Re:At LEAST it's better... (Score:5, Funny)
Not that I pity Westboro at all (hypocritical demon warshipers)...
Fuck me, who let that crazy church build demon warships?!?!
Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
"Anonymous is now recognised as a serious force to be taken seriously..."
C'mon, "a serious force to be taken seriously?" Who wrote that?
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
Serious force is serious.
Re: (Score:3)
Who wrote that?
Don't know, but I doubt anyone will praise them with great praise.
Anyhow, does this mean 'anonymous' should no longer be qualified with 'coward'?
Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's extremely ironic. The fact of the matter is that most activists usually reveal themselves to be wannabe-autocrats. I can understand attacking PayPal or Visa websites over the Wikileaks thing, but trying to silence Phelps and his gang of attention whores demonstrates that, at the core, they have that unique activist capacity for not really getting the underlying point of freedoms.
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand attacking PayPal or Visa websites over the Wikileaks thing, but trying to silence Phelps and his gang of attention whores demonstrates that, at the core, they have that unique activist capacity for not really getting the underlying point of freedoms.
The fundamental problem with what you're saying is that it presumes Anonymous should, could, would, or even wants to maintain a consistent ideology or set of morals.
Anonymous is legion and so are its motivations and goals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or to put it simply, Anonymous really stands for nothing at all. It's a rebel with too many causes. It has about as much meaning or philosophical underpinning as a wet bag of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
So consistency is the cornerstone of morality, philosophy and understanding? Tell me more of this little world you live in, and how I can join.
The article summary has a very poor choice of words in describing these lunatics as "controversial". Controversy requires that there are at least two sides to the issue. A group of self obsessed media whores using outrageous tactics to direct attention to themselves isn't controversial. They just want the spotlight, but lack the talent, cleverness or beauty t
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so wrong about making an exception in this case?
Idealistic human rights aside, if a small group is being grotesquely obnoxious to everyone else (to the point of making the grieving so sick that they barf between wails and tears) - and *everybody* else hates them and what they do - it would not be unreasonable for the vast civilized population to shut them up. It's not even mob rule, it's common sense. You can't yell fire in a theater, you can't threaten another human being, and you certainly can't sexually harass a woman. A lot of that has to do with how other people would respond to it. The panic, the fear, the awkward silence and anger... How is this any different? The list of reasonable exceptions to our great free speech rule is very large, and we're already used to having laws that limit it.
So why not make it illegal to protest a funeral? Who will be disenfranchised by that? Oh boo hoo, some hill-billy backwards family of lawyers isn't going to be able to make the family of the diseased cry. How will they ever make money, once they are unable to sue people who react in extreme but totally understandable ways to their troll-like behavior? Poor Fred Phelps, now that his right to be obscene and grotesquely obnoxious is taken away, what ever will he do? Maybe the family will have to take up real jobs, I bet some clansman ax-murderer would love to have one of them to represent him.
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you try to do that, you'll end up getting it tossed out in the Supreme Court. There's no way that a blanket ban on protests at funerals would ever hold up.
I'm afraid liberty requires that we sometimes put up with some genuinely vile people.
Re: (Score:3)
If "free speech zones" are legal, then it's legal to cage people into a fixed area who want to protest a given event. So why not simply "free speech zone" WBC somewhere "out of sight, out of mind" from the mourners. Either that lets the funeral go on in peace, in which case everyone wins, or they successfully fight the legal battle and find "free speech zones" unconstitutional in a sufficiently high court, in which case everyone wins. I'm having trouble seeing a downside to this plan...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let me throw in a total hypothetical.... So, yeah, this is going to be batshit.
Say that somehow in the US (or your Western nation of choice) there is a real asshole of a politico. As in, all but ate kittens on television. Doesn't matter what his party or politics were. Did the whole hypocritical politician thing with regards to his religion. Went to Christian church, accepted communion, had the blessings of his minister, yadda yadda. In short, total asshole hypocrite.
Said politician dies. His c
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
To whatever extent that Phelp and crazy klan can be limited in where they march by public order laws, I have no problem with that. If the idea, as with any group, is to assure peaceful assembly, then that fits within the idea of liberty. But shutting them off the Internet because you don't like what they say. No, that's the work of people with an autocratic streak. People like Anonymous sometimes achieve power, and that's where we get the Maos and Pol Pots and Stalins from.
As to your Neo-Nazi bogeyman, the Weimar Republic put a helluva lot of effort into shutting down the Nazis in the 1920s to no success, and even the modern German Republic has done all it can to make Neo-Nazism illegal, and yet there it is. Hate doesn't get killed by censorship, hate eats censorship like fuel. I'd argue that guys like the Nazis needed censorship to give them their mystique.
Re: (Score:3)
With all the hatred they spew, it's a miracle that other people haven't attacked/killed/maimed phelps and co yet.
How long until someone is fed up enough that he does something about it?
Free speech is fine, but it does have consequences.
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There will always be a dividing line to be found somewhere. I'm all for free speech, but do find protesting at a funeral to be over the line.
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people see that even free speech needs to have some border towards slander, intimidation, harassment and other related topics. I may be far out there on the "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" scale but I wouldn't take any accusation, any threat or any treatment.
Calling me once is not harassment. Calling me hundreds of times at all hours of the day, even after I've told you to stop is harassment even if you've used nothing but speech. Threatening to bust my kneecaps should obviously be a crime. Lying about me to my employer so I get fired likewise.
The question is one of sensibilities as some could feel slandered, intimidated or harassed for practically nothing. I see the problem, but I can't really go to the other extreme that nobody should ever feel that way. And between the clearly legal and clearly illegal I do see shades of gray.
Re: (Score:3)
And between the clearly legal and clearly illegal I do see shades of gray.
What people often fail to understand is that the shades of grey are usually small potatoes. You have to cut somewhere as a practical matter. The large potatoes are touchy quibbles over intent, but I tend not to think of these as shades of grey.
Clearly illegal: I think everyone in group X should be exterminated.
Free speech: I would be happier if group X didn't exist.
Clearly illegal: I would also be happier if group X didn't exist [and I'm pleased to join your movement to bring this about].
Sometimes you hav
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anonymous should review the ACLU's defense of Nazis in the Skokie case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie [wikipedia.org]
For freedom of speech to work, unsavory speech must be protected. Indeed, it is bottling up unsavory speech, that makes it so dangerous.
Anyway, this is Anonymous' reason not protecting speech:
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Informative)
Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. What those people do is not just speech. They take deliberate offensive action targeted at specific people and do them harm. They are bullies, and Anon are bullies, and is bullying a bully ironic? I don't see how.
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only are Anonymous tactics morally repulsive (you cannot advocate openness and free speech while staying hidden and engaging in selective censorship) but they don't work. This Westboro "church" is a tiny (just one family I believe) group of fringe fanatics that everybody laughs at. Rather than silencing them, Anonymous is just giving them free publicity they don't deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's more complicated than that.
Mind you, I don't think Anony will accomplish much with this other than deface their website, claim victory, and call it a day. Though I'm curious as to if they're thinking of doing more, there's just not that much you can do to the Phelps clan. They're not really a small family, though -- they're about 30 people, almost all of them related to Patriarch Fred by blood or by marriage. And they are all, apparently, lawyers. It's probably part of their home-schooling cu
Re:Ohhh the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno.
Certainly the WBC has the right to say what they like. But that doesn't mean that anyone has to sit there and politely listen to them; counter protesters have just as much of a right to say what they like, and if the volume of the counter protesters drowns out the WBC, I'm not sure that I see the problem, or at least a problem to which there is a solution that protects both groups.
If the counter protesters can convince the WBC to change their minds, or shame them into silence, or simply make it clear that WBC protests won't work, causing them to change their tactics, then the end result is that they're silenced, but so long as they were not forcibly compelled, is that bad?
The usual online tactics of Anonymous seems to be DDOSing. This isn't a very hostile attack and it doesn't necessarily silence the target. It's not hard to see parallels between that and, say, protesters surrounding a building, or holding a sit-in. And WBC can always mount a similar attack right back.
We'll have to see how this all shakes out, of course. But just because you support free speech, that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, and can't aggressively exercise that freedom yourself.
Counter-protesting trolls misses the point (Score:3)
"Change their minds"? "Make it clear that WBC protests won't work"? They're professional trolls, and if you're not offended by what they say, and you've got deep enough pockets to be worth a lawsuit, they'll come up with something that'll offend you too, so you can attack them and violate their civil rights and lose in court. They're not trying to convert you, they're trying to piss you off. They don't actually care how you feel about gays, God, or America's Brave Troops - those are merely popular enou
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I am something of an optimist. And in any case, the alternatives are what?
Having the state censor them would violate their civil liberties, and as much as we may all despise WBC, their rights should be protected. (Plus it's nice when hateful people out themselves; saves a lot of trouble exposing them)
Ignoring them would be okay, to the point where they're basically outcasts from society and commerce. But they could probably get a rise out of some people, sometimes; in the absence of opposition, some p
Ah the cowards reasoning (Score:3)
What this coward says seem to make sense. But can be easily shown its cowardly nature by changing the names a bit.
Is there anything ironic about the self-appointed "guardians of freedom" trying to bully slavers out of existence? No, there absolutely IS NOT.
Only people that prefer for nothing ever to be done about anything because they are scared shitless of ever having to take a stand try to find silly excuses like this.
kind of a boring target, isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Westboro Baptist Church fills an odd role where they're so extreme and, possibly more problematically, rude, that they have very little support. Will damaging them in some way actually change anything? Even people way on the right already dissociate themselves from them, and they have basically no actual influence on anything.
It's sort of the same with Actual Nazis imo. I'm worried about a certain kind of intolerant right-wing strain in the U.S., but I think Westboro types and swastika-flag-waving types are mostly distractions and not where the real problems lie; the right-wingers who aren't actively shooting themselves in the foot like those two groups do are bigger problems.
It'd go the other way too. Say you were a conservative worried about leftism in the U.S. You could attack the Communist Party USA, but would that be a good use of your time? They're a sideshow.
Do not fall for the trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
WestBoro Baptist Church is just a media whore stirring up trouble to provoke a reaction. Whoever claims to speak for anonymous is the same. "anonymous" is just a group of people, in the loosest sense of the term, with no leadership or agenda. You can not declare a warning from something you have no control over. As the wikileaks DDOS attacks have shown us, most of them barely even qualify as script kiddies, and are ridiculously easy to catch. There are some that know enough to do SQL injection attacks, or brute force passwords (or use the built in password reset) but super hackers they are not. The mainstream media is laughable in how clueless they are about it. They can't seem to understand that the internet makes it possible to have a group with common goals who is coordinated through group-think instead of a firm leadership. There is no monolithic entity, no membership, no initiation ritual or brotherhood. It's a loose group whose actions are dictated by a herd mentality.
Re:Do not fall for the trolling (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is they're two whores fighting over the same street corner.
Re: (Score:3)
"As the wikileaks DDOS attacks have shown us, most of them barely even qualify as script kiddies, and are ridiculously easy to catch..."
The problem with this statement is that it is already outdated--Anonymous has changed significantly since those attacks. Their methods are more refined, the tone of their announcements have changed in subtle ways. I think some fence-sitters saw what they were trying to do, were sympathetic and joined them. The efforts of Anonymous in regards to Wikileaks are front page news
Hypocritical? (Score:3)
Not that I really care one way or the other, but shouldn't people who are "The Voice of Free Speech" not really make threats upon other groups use of free speech?
I didn't take the time to look into any of their claims against whoever they are accusing of whatever today.
WE ARE ANONYMOUS (Score:5, Insightful)
WE ARE ANONYMOUS, VOICE OF FREE SPEECH. OBEY US OR BE SILENCED.
Only twats as self-important as they obviously are could write this sort of thing and not even realize what they're saying. Or perhaps they do realize and just think that they're so great that their hypocrisy doesn't matter. I believe we've seen this sort of thing in history before. It starts with a religion and ends with lots of dead people. But hey, maybe this time it will be awesome.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer that no one ever think I was trying to silence any group or deprive them of their right to express their views, or that I in any way approved of any group doing so, or wanted any such group to believe that somehow they were doing it on my behalf. Anonymous has effectively become more depraved than even Fred Phelps, and that is one helluva an accomplishment.
GodHatesFags.com (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone taking bets that Phelps turns out to be gay?
Re:GodHatesFags.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone taking bets that Phelps turns out to be gay?
Gay, not quite. Bisexual, almost certainly.
All the really vocal anti-gay fanatics turn out to be bisexual. That's why they're all so convinced that homosexuality is a choice. For them, it literally is, and they assume it's the same for everyone else.
Westboro Baptist Church and lawsuits (Score:5, Informative)
The Westboro Baptist Church lives off suing people for infringing on their right to free speech, assembly, etc. If the IRC and 4chan douche bags attack them, then WBC isn't going to have anyone to sue, but will try and waste capital in their attempt.
And yes, they have computers, website, businesses associated with them, so there is crap for anonymous to attack.
I don't normally condone vigilantism.... (Score:5, Funny)
...and I cherish the First Amendment above all the others.... ...but just this once....I'm gonna be spending all my time looking in another direction.
And -Damn you to Hell- Fred Phelps, and your inbred collection of Olympic class haters, for pushing me to this hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3)
Streisand effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Pardon me for saying so, but why in hell would Anonymous give PR to this weird little cult? Apart from being grossly disgusting they seem fairly few and harmless and their sole power is the outraged press they garner.
They're the kind of religious nuts you can't reason with because they see everything as proof they are right. Hell, isn't this the same creeps that wanted to show up in the funeral of that 9yo girl that got shot? I think these people are going for martyrdom and hoping someone will open fire on them. I'd be tempted.
They Do It for the Lawsuit Settlements (Score:5, Informative)
Phelps and his gang of Christianist assholes are in the business of provoking angry responses to their hellish displays that Phelps' gang will claim in court violated their rights or damaged them. To blackmail their targets, usually municipalities with the ability to pay, into settling the lawsuit and paying off Phelps rather than pay the extensive legal fees and possibly damages. That's why Phelps' gang is pumped full of lawyers trained at "Liberty" "University", the Christian crusade madrassa.
In this fight, it's Anonymous that's on the side of the angels.
Re:They Do It for the Lawsuit Settlements (Score:5, Insightful)
The Phelps Gang tests the extreme end of free speech. I despise them with all my being, but if it came to push and shove and I had to either choose whether Phelps and his gang of vile hatemongers or Anonymous lived or died, I'm afraid I'd stand on the side of Phelps. Anonymous is attacking Phelps' right to freely express his views, no matter how noxious. Anonymous is wrong on this one, and should be ashamed of themselves, if they weren't, of course, a bunch of halfwitted scriptkiddies with as much of a hard-on for getting attention from the press as Phelps and Co.
Re:They Do It for the Lawsuit Settlements (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no problem with creating a website devoted to hate. What I do have a problem with are their funeral protests.
If someone gives their life in service of the country, the least the country can do is give them a dignified funeral. We already have limits on Free Speech (screaming "fire" in a theater) and I'm not quite so sure adding an additional restriction would lead to repression. I am however, equally happy, that the counter-protesters always outnumber their filth.
Re: (Score:3)
The people in the military who die are no different than you or I. They have fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and it is these people who decide where and how to have the funeral, just like any normal person. The military does not, and legally can not, tell someone where to hold the funeral.
If you are saying that person's who die in the service of their country should have funerals in restricted areas, well, then you are daft. They have the exact same rights and expectations of respect that you have.
Fine with me (Score:3)
We got enough bullets, there is room for one more at the well. No cigarettes though, you guys hate fags.
Re: (Score:3)
The Phelps Gang tests the extreme end of free speech.
To some extent, many believe they're already passed it however. Their funeral protests, which are (quite deliberately) done in a manner to provoke violent responses (so they can sue) are essentially an incitement to riot in order to personally profit. I don't consider this free speech, and neither does the law. Inciting a riot is a crime. No one's stood up to them enough to get this kind of verdict so far however, so they continue to do it.
There's a big difference in saying what you think, however hatef
Free Publicity (Score:3)
golfclap (Score:3)
Way to go, ANONYMOUS, way to pick the tough battle, to go against the grain and stand up against the weight of public opinion.
Almost everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church. It's easy, and also cowardly, to attack people whose beliefs are repugnant to the majority. But it takes true bravery to stand by and respect their right to say repugnant things.
No it doesn't (Score:3)
No it doesn't. It only takes the cowards way out. "Oh I believe in free speech as some kind of right to say absolutely anything anywhere to anyone so I never have to take a stand for what I believe in because it might upset someone so I can sit safely at home feeling good at myself while filth roams the street".
Bravery is fighting for what you believe, not rolling over on your back for everyone with some hate speech.
i love phelps' videos (Score:3)
i look forward to his proclaiming "4chan: land of the sodomite damned!" it may be the first time his judgment is received enthusiastically.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Natural == occurs in nature. That's all it is. It doesn't mean it's optimal, good for the individual or the species, or anything else. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it's natural.
Eh? There's no intention in evolution. There's only genes that get passed on.
Pseudo-Darwinist argument (Score:3)
Here's the counterpoint to your very uneducated Darwinian argument:
A substantially (large) proportion of the human population (~10%) keeps popping out with this particular behavioral trait, i.e., homosexuality (there are others traits, but let's leave it at that.). Much to religious people's chagrin, it just doesn't seem to go away, as much as they pray and curse. It has been so for millenia.
Contrary to what you argued, instead of it being "unnatural" as you claimed, it would seem that there must be some Da
Re:I don't think they care (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse, I doubt anonymous cares about Fred Phelps. heh
Anonymous must fundamentally be about the lolz. You're welcome to credit anonymous if you get even bigger lolz by inciting Fred Phelps. Yet, I'm not sure that's possible, meaning any normal reaction will already involve lolz. Don't let me stop you from trying! Just please make sure your shit is actually funny before you take on the anonymous label.
If otoh you're just looking for some good ol' internet vigilantly action [encycloped...matica.com], may I humbly suggest Muskegon MI Prosecutor Tony Tague [google.com]. Our dear public servant Tony has clearly got a full plate what with a serial killer on the loose in his town [google.com]. Yet, he find ample time to prosecute a youtube comedian for tasteless editing [mlive.com]. Yes, that right, he's sending some poor kid with a guitar up the creek for 20 years over bad taste in editing.
I'd never call harassing Tony Tague, or the parents that put him up to it, an Anonymous action, well no epic here, maybe if the kid was a funner singer, but meh. I'm confident however that many people feel rather annoyed by grandstanding prosecutors and retarded paranoid parents. And clearly this prosecution goes beyond the pale. So here's your chance to vent some frustration and take a stand against stupidity. Just call Tony Tague's office tell his secretary what an ass hat he is for abusing due process like this.
I'm sure they'll be posting the complaining parent's telephone numbers all over /b/ too, but honestly I doubt America's breeders will gain any collective intelligence just because some get bitch slapped by /b/, something awful, etc.
Re:Unfortunately they do (Score:5, Insightful)
For the life of me I cannot comprehend why people do this sort of thing.
The solution when your chosen religion conflicts with your lifestyle and biology is not to try and reinterpret and redefine that religion's beliefs to align with yours, it's to stop believing in that religion and choose another (or none at all).
The motivations of women who wish to be ordained as priests are similarly mystifying.
Re: (Score:3)
In a sense splits in religion are the same. They didn't want to throw everything out, so they just excised pieces and went on their merry
Re: (Score:3)
No. My point is simply that if you don't subscribe to all the beliefs of a particular religion, then you cannot say you belong to that religion.
It's like saying you're playing soccer, then decide that not using your hands is too hard/boring/whatever and pick the ball up.
Anything else is hypocrisy. You're just trying to get the supp
that's how Christianity works (Score:3)
You're falsely assuming that Christianity is some fixed set of beliefs, but it isn't. For 2000 years, Christianity has kept changing its dogma and beliefs for political, moral, and theological expediency, and for about a millennium before that, the Jews were doing
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right. Today's Roman Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
The bible saying homosexuality is a sin does not mean that God hates homosexuals. It says quite clearly in there that God loves everyone, including "fags" and even those crazy Westboro idiots, even if the rest of us don't. Fred Phelps has got his theology muddled up with his personal hatred of homosexuality, he sees a few passages in there where it says to avoid homosexual activity and in his own hypercalvinist way of thinking, that means that the people who commit these homosexual acts are forever damned t
Unless God says so Re:Unfortunately they do (Score:3, Funny)
After reading about the pillar of fire by night and a pillar of smoke by day, I think there may be some truth to this web site's name.
A medical question:
If each cigarette you smoke takes 5 minutes off of your life, but you are an eternal being, how does that work?
Re:I don't think they care (Score:4, Informative)
If they have anyone technically competent around it would be trivial for them to identify and sue participants in a DDOS, ADDING to their cash flow.
You've just demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about the basics of DDoS operations. It is most assuredly not trivial, especially when tens of thousands of compromised machines owned by people who are barely aware of the location of the power switch are involved. Even assuming a handful of folks were stupid enough to carry this out in a manner that were to permit their apprehension, there are probably going to be jurisdictional issues to contend with (likely crossing national borders), coupled with the age old adage that "you can't get blood out of a stone." In other words, good luck identifying any actual willful participant, and good luck getting any money out of said person should you manage to drag him into court.
tl;dr version == Ha, good luck with that.
Re:I don't think they care (Score:5, Insightful)
The WBC are definitely not loons. They're barrators with a money stream that looks like this:
1. Select a sign guaranteed to offend people in a 100% legal fashion, and chant carefully worded slogans trolling for a reaction.
2. Receive reaction in the form of ??? (a punch in the nose, or a city council bannination, either works)
3. File lawsuits and profit !!!
What anonymous seems to be failing to understand is that they're just a bunch of amateurs, while the WBC are *professional trolls*. They make their living by trolling. They will not be stopped by other trolls, as they are simply too disciplined to fall for a troll. It's like trying to con a con-artist.
Some of the other God Hates $(foo) groups may be loonies who believe the hateful crap they're defecating on the world, but do not count the WBC in that group. There is actually little chance the WBC believes their own crap. They just substitute the value for $(foo) that looks like it will offend the local crowds the most.
Re: (Score:3)
have they really won much, or even anything? all I've heard is of their being smacked down, including a huge judgment against them (although it was overturned). anyway, from their websites; videos; and the interview with Phelps' son (who left them at 18), I'm completely convinced they are serious loons. You are right though, from the way Phelps describes his take on "love thy neighbor," he considers it his duty to troll the world. Their theology is an extreme branch of Calvinism, but not unique to them.
as f
Re: (Score:3)
.
Well, they could pray for them on their own hacked website, perhaps.
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prayer: How to do nothing and still feel like you're helping.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As an atheist, I recognize that posting in threads on the internet and prayer are very similar. :)
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:4, Funny)
You mean to say, religion is basically God trolling everyone else? ~
Re: (Score:3)
As an atheist, I recognize that posting in threads on the internet and prayer are very similar. :)
Except for this: when you post in a thread, somebody will get your message :)
In either case nobody will care.
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As do people who believe in numerology and astrology.
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Funny)
Something like 100,000 kind prayers a second.
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
'We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People – have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism,' says Anonymous, stating 'Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS.'"
I don't like anything that Westboro has to say either -- but they damned sure have the right to say it.
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a Constitutional right to petition your government. You do NOT have the Constitutional right to petition the grieving families at a soldier's funeral.
Sorry, but even free speech is not absolute.
However, even though I'm straight, I would certainly pitch in a few bucks to fly some gay men to WBC for a nice love-in on the steps of the church. I say that as both a Christian Baptist and a veteran.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a matter of what they say, it's where they say it at. And within that, the right to petition your government is completely within play.
for instance, you cannot enter my home and preach about my fish tank needing cleaned without my permission. You can however, stand on the court house steps and preach about needing to clean your fish tank. Now we have noise ordinances and laws about holding events and such. and that's a sovereign right of almost any political subdivision in any state.
Phelps has a ca
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not ask the easter bunny for peace in the middle east?
How do you think all these anti-government protests in the middle east got started? I definitely see the easter bunny's paws in this one!
Re:Hate meets hate? (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, that was the work of the *middle* easter bunny.
Re: (Score:3)
What constitutes disrupting others? Should protesting at a funeral be illegal in addition to tasteless?
I like how good-hearted people step in to neutralize WBC protests. Most of the time it's a dedicated group of flag-waving bikers who stand in between the protesters and the funeral-goers, screening them from view. My favorite countermeasure has to be the group who dressed up like angels with huge wings, formed an outward-facing ring around WBC, and sang songs that drowned out their nonsense.
Just goes to
Re:Bit dramatic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Anonymous wasn't DDoSing Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:3)
Well anyone misses one or forty three characters.
I'm sure you won't appreciate the irony that none of the people who actually DDoSed Wikileaks got persecuted. They, *they* are the real defenders of free speech, the people attacking Wikileaks, the corporations suffocating it's lifelines, pressing Wikileaks to shut up and retire. They are the real victims.
I also feel for the poor victims of anonymous, those righteous Scientologists harassing ex-members for talking and suing anyone who discloses their religiou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When was that exactly? How is this any different from four years ago, when a group of Anonymous took Hal Turner's website down because of racist speech?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as "the abuse of free speech". The whole concept of protecting speech is to ensure that speech you don't like is protected.
This all said, I wish anonymous the best of luck, though still believe that nothing short of a good rifle will ever shut the WBC up.
Re:Bit dramatic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People"
This right here is a joke. Anonymous are crusaders against Freedom of Speech. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is targeted by their minions of script kiddies. Not only do anonymous attack anyone they don't agree with but they are also absolute cowards. I don't agree with the Westbro Baptist Church but I have allot of respect for them voicing their opinions and beliefs without hiding behin
The Internet has grown up a bit Re:Bit dramatic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The average mental age on the Internet is at least 13 and the 85th percentile is at least 15.
Re: (Score:3)
When two groups of retards attack each other, no one wins...
Re:Even so Re:Bit dramatic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When two groups of retards attack each other, everyone wins...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, but you are wrong.
When two groups of retards attack each other, everyone wins...
Yes, but we're not talking about Digg versus Reddit, right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought they were just in it for the lawsuits anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how long it will be before some Anonymous fan decides to kill a few people to prove a point.
Anonymous has called down the police on their own members before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan#Threats_of_violence [wikipedia.org]
They want lulz, not a body count.
Re: (Score:3)
Over time the homosexual is no different than women. At first they enjoy sex, then they learn that they are able to use sex to get what they want, then they find that they get stuck in situations where they no longer wish to have sex with someone (or feel obligated to be directed to have sex with someone else), but they need to continue to do it because their director/partner has significant control over their social and financial lives.
Damn I sure wish your mom had been celibate.