#anonops

[xenonreality]

@CIA @anonops @FBI hey 👋 here's a cool spy gadget hidden ear communication device that you likely don't 😉 have already concept that I came up w bc salty & sore loser debate watchers happened 😂 don't worry though it fits within what she was wearing 😏 Here's the rest of the video, remember to check the description for the real way it works (in terms of being able to hear while not being able to hear the sound coming from it & it stays hidden so well it can't be seen w 📷 I'm actually on Kamala's side)

youtu.be/1x2zWT39obQ

[thelunastusco]

AnonOP is spouting some really disingenuous garbage.

When most non-traumagenic systems say they want to be seen as real, they're talking primarily about other systems-- they want anti-nontraumagenic systems to stop attacking, insulting, and fakeclaiming them.

Yes, they often also mean by singlets! As most systems of ANY origin wish. But going "lol these silly endos wanting to be like us REAL systems and then being mad when they are seen as fake like us" is such a feeble bastardization of what's really going on. It's much closer, in reality, to "trauma-formed plurality is accepted by both the plural community AND singlets who do believe in systems, and because trasuma-formed systems know how much it sucks to be seen as fake, we wish they would be more accepting of us, and then we can all work towards wider acceptance together as a unified community".

And they're correct!

Society being unaccepting of system at large isn't the fault of trauma-formed systems. However, the hatred towards non-traumagenic systems within the plural community itself? That is the fault of trauma-formed systems: those who actively engage in it, those who support the hatred even if they don't engage in it themselves, and those who stand by with mealy-mouth "neutral" stances. And it's trash. We should fucking know better.

This submission just reeks of the typical "anti endo" attitude of "these losers are trying to take what's ours and imitate it and then whine about being treated like crap when it's their own fault". Non-traumagenic systems aren't trying to compare themselves to systems with DID/OSDD/etc. (Also, some ARE disordered.) They're not trying to "legitimize" themselves "using" disordered systems. They're saying that they're plural, that they're systems, and that plurality/systems can exist outside the context of disorder and/or trauma. That's it.

And y'all assholes are standing around in a circle with your fingers in your ears going LALALALA FAKE FAKER FAKERSONS CAN'T HEAR YOU, and then getting mad when non-traumagenic systems rightfully get upset about it. And instead of listening to them, and realizing how hypocritical y'all are being, you instead shift gears into HOW DARE YOU APPROPRIATE MY STIGMA AND TRAUMA AND SUFFERING, YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE, I HOPE YOU SUFFER THE TRAUMA I SUFFERED IF YOU WANT TO BE A SYSTEM SO MUCH.

And you're all too myopic to understand how absolutely wretched and hypocritical it is to behave that way, or how it ends up hurting all systems in the long run. Or, maybe you just don't care, as long as you get yours. Idk. We're not in your head, we can't know for sure what's going on in there.

But we very much doubt this is "confusion".

C'mon. This has been going on since around 2011, and non-traumagenic and traumagenic systems all have explained and argued this to death and back many times. Y'all aren't "confused". You're purposefully skewing the issue so you can make non-traumagenic look like the whiny, fake appropriators you think they are.

The sooner "anti-endos" give it a rest, the sooner we can all work together on society as a whole. (Including mental health professionals, regardless of "recovery" desires, which is an ultimately meaningless phrase because not all systems want or need to "recover" and even for those who do, recovery doesn't always look the same.)

Acceptance is possible, good and comprehensive care is possible, but not when "anti-endos" are damned and determined to tear apart the rest of the community for not existing the way they think systems "should".

it confuses me when endos say "we just want to exist without people doubting our existence" like it's the fault of traumagenic systems because?? y'all DO know that a massive chunk of the general population doesn't even believe that DID exists, right? including mental health professionals that they may have no choice but to go to if they even want a chance at recovery? how are you gonna try to legitimize yourself as someone who doesn't have DID by comparing yourself to pwDID... and then scream and shit yourself when the daily treatment of pwDID ends up happening to you, as if it's a massive injustice against you in particular instead of the natural consequences of using a stigmatized condition as the yardstick for which you define yourself? unserious bullshit. i s2g

DISCLAIMER: Posts may or may not reflect accurate information. More info here: https://www.tumblr.com/syscourse-confessions/728819621058232320/disclaimer-treat-posts-here-like-you-would-any

[opepoch-blog1]

#opEPOCH presents: #ANONTELPRO.

(https://youtu.be/rOucD643DiM)

Anonymous’ answer to COINTELPRO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Born of Ether. Built to Win.

anontelpro.blogspot.com #OpEPOCH #ANONTELPRO #PM2012

Make NO mistake, here in America we live in a police state/surveillance society too. As you read this, perhaps even as I’m typing it, the FBI are monitoring internet communications, and operators in the field are providing as much human intelligence (HUMINT) as they possibly can. (The NSA purportedly monitors all electronic comms worldwide.)

An Overview: ANONTELPRO - Or Anonymous Intelligence Program is meant to be an Anti-Counter Intelligence operation. This is meant to be a one-stop-shop for modern anonymous intelligence operators. This means we work to detect, foil, and otherwise defuse the constitutionally dubious efforts and methodology of conventional government controlled intelligence (hereafter referred to as CGCI) agencies; as well as to educate fellow anons, curious onlookers, and would-be AnonInt operators in field craft, agent detection, and spookery in general. Covert or Overt, Intelligence is a fascinating world, and (if you’re not in the biz, or have never been under surveillance) reading this blog may open your eyes to what is going on around you.

This is meant to be especially useful to our Occupier brethren. CGCI will without a doubt, if they haven’t already, infiltrate their ranks. For today, various myths (and vocab that will be in frequent use in later posts) will be discussed. All posts will end with these sections, having content pertinent to above areas of the post. At later dates, various dox will be highlighted in “digest mode” with links provided, illustrative pictures will be provided, and information regarding OpSec and how to better organize and secure a movement against infiltrators will be provided. Little can be done about surveillance, except to control what you let them see as best you can, to misinform them, or to let them know you see them too.

[ktempestbradford]

I don't know the AnonOP's thinking behind saying "spock should not even be paired with Uhura in SNW either" but I don't think it has to mean they're shitting on SNW!Uhura.

I also do not think SNW Spock and Uhura should be a thing because she is an ensign fresh out of the Academy. Starfleet doesn't seem to have rules against senior officers getting involved with junior ones, but Uhura being so very junior would make a romance between her and Spock reeeaaalllyyy sketchy for me.

I don't know the exact number of years between SNW and TOS, but I know it's quite a few years. Maybe even 10. So with TOS you have Spock and Uhura showing romantic interest in each other after having known and served together for a long time and Spock seeing how Uhura grows more awesome every day. As a Lieutenant she's no longer so very junior to him in rank, and she's also well out of the Academy and a seasoned officer. That makes a romance perfectly appropriate.

Right now? In the SNW timeline? It wouldn't be. And that's nothing negative on SNW Uhura or Spock.

Again, I don't know if that's what AnonOP meant. It is why I have no issues with Uhura and Spock not being an item.

Chapel? Enh... My beef is more about the fact that they're making her and Spock WAY too involved in this time when, in TOS, she clearly had a crush but also it was clearly unrequited and not based on some long, deep friendship wth him.

SNW has left me scared. It is going to take time to heal.

In the 1960s we saw all these characters Spock, Uhura, Kirk, Chapel,Pike, Scotty. Regardless of what you thought about gay couples, if you believed in tolerance Spirk gave you hope from watching Star Trek in the 1960s.

The Spirk pairing is the grand dad of slash. If you did not like slash and wanted to pair spock with a girl. Uhura>>>>>>>>>Chapel. Finally, There was a black girl in the 1960s who people were willing to pair with Spock or Kirk over any other girl. A black girl who was not a maid or a slave on TV, but a black female character that was shown to be the beauty and the brains . This was groundbreaking. Still is.

We did not need the JJ Verse films to push a spock/uhura romance, we can just compare the Spock/Chapel and Spock/Uhura scene from TOS to realise Uhura was the better female character to pair Spock with, if you did not se as gay for Kirk.

This was in the 60s when gay marriages or even interracial relationship were still illegal, frowned upon. Yet Trek chose to be progressive in the 60s by floating the idea of a gay and interracial pairing that fans can play with.

Fast forward 2023, we are now backwards to the 1950s were it is about worshiping the hot blonde woman that society has been doing for hundred of years. A woman who Spock already rejected in the 1960s. The woman Spock would never have been with even if he had the chance. the woman that was not even a big part of spock's life like the main crew he still carried photos off till his death.

I am a minority,a person of colour. I knew how important Uhura meant to women of colour and why she was the lead female in TOS and all the guys liked and respected her.

Since when is Chapel, sexy? can fight Klingon and Gorns? She is meant to even be a nurse.

SNW claims it is progressive but all what the show has done is take a lot from the black girl (Uhura) and the potential gay guy(Kirk) and merged their traits into SNW Chapel, all to push the spock/chapel thing that fans and writers already rejected in the 60s.

I feel a lot of black fans, especially black female star trek fans who watch SNW are going to be traumatised- because again, we are seeing society and hollywood still pushing the narrative that the hot blonde woman will always win, always get the guy, always be the status quo.

In the 1960s TOS Uhura challenged this narrative as not necessarily the truth. This is the reason she was far more popular as a character than Chapel. Nearly 60s years later SNW has told us ....yes, that is the truth. the hot blonde women still wins the war, you women of colour only win battles.

As a trek fan who came to respect the spirk pairing and the spuhura paring because they did not represent the status quo-as both pairing been a gay and interracial couple. I am not sure I can ever look at TOS the same again, knowing how the prequel has re-written the narrative. spock should not even be paired with Uhura in SNW either but please anyone but Chapel.

I am sorry but the spock/chapel pairing is an assault and an insult to gay and interracial couples

honestly I don't know about most of this but "I am not sure I can ever look at TOS the same again, knowing how the prequel has re-written the narrative. spock should not even be paired with Uhura in SNW either but please anyone but Chapel."

I cannot stand by that statement. Its frankly disgusting that you are praising TOS!Uhura but still shitting on SNW!Uhura.

Personally I ship T'Pring/Spock and I think that Chapel doesn't even know what she wants (but that she doesn't want to be tied down to anyone at all, like she's even reluctant to have The Talk with spock).

Frankly I think its unfair of Chapel to be playing with spocks feelings (that song about wanting her freedom? hello) but also I'm willing to wait to see if we get a new take on TOS after SNW. I think they should do it just so that we can get justice for Sulu and Uhura (who lets face it were basically sexy lampshades in TOS).

But again your comment that Spock shouldn't be with Uhura... is plain misogynoir. I'm willing to wait for a slow burn romance. And right now they're solidly in the friends phase and I would love to see it blossom into the flirty/romantic gazes we see in TOS (if they opted to redo the original show). I think that spock is figuring out his shit right now but as much as I'm angry that they turned Chapel into a manic pixie dream girl I don't think its an assault to gay and interracial ships.

Like in my mind I can see Spock getting traumatized by Chapel and being afraid to pursue Uhura towards the end of SNW even though he has great respect for her because Uhura is his subordinate.

But if I see you come back in my inbox with this divisive bullshit again I'm just gonna delete you. We don't need these goddamn shipping wars. We're not running this blog so you can spew your misogynoir unchecked.

mod laina

[malevolentcast]

I'm the anonOP asking about mentally speaking/yelling. In my weak defense I started the question with my assurance that it was stupid...I want to blame the torn rotator cuff without pain meds BUT I think it's just me and my brain not knowing what normal is.

Sorry and thank you for not defenestrating your phone through rage 😅 all the best

You absolutely did preface it, it was my mistake in the end 😂

[liria10]

On a completely different note to anonOP whos going off about the video, I found it quite balanced. Not to say he didn't cast incorrect blames sometimes, but he tried to balance it out a little at least

I still don't recommend tho cause it's 3 hours

I see, thanks for the different opinion tbh!

Generally I have a lot of issues with online media crit culture, and the running time of the video is certainly a big one...

[anonijus]

Loading... we're almost there, y'all, don't give up now...

[master-chief-ops]

Stands for Ukraine

#Anonymous #Anonops #Motoko_Kusanagi

AnonOps Meet up. 1 week. Same hour

[zeno7of7elea]

If the enemy allows me I can walk if not I'm frozen solid. That's how bad it's is and you are next. The mind reading CONTROL conspiracy is against the government and will remove your freedom if you continue to ignore This and help Anonops terrorists in your greed. (at Regina, Saskatchewan) https://www.instagram.com/p/CAx_UdgAQyr/?igshid=prk46e634omt

[digitalaudia]

Hackers: “We Are the Internet”

[Emblem related to Anonymous representing its anonymity]

Chicago; November 22, 1987; around 9 PM. 

On Channel 9, the sportscaster Dan Roan is narrating the match between the Bears and the Detroit Lions. The signal flickers up and out into the darkness. A mysterious figure with a rubber mask and sunglasses appeared for thirty seconds. No one understood what happened but everyone recognized Max Headroom, the name of the cryptic figure, who was "the world's first computer-generated TV host" and a cult personality. He appeared again two hours later on Channel 11, this time with audio and for more than a minute. At the time, such intrusions were rare and limited to small stations also because it was believed that they required special knowledge and equipment. The intruder was never caught. 

This type of action can be put in the tradition of lulz, which is, as Gabriella Cameron explains in her chapter “Anonymous and the Politics of Leaking,” something dome just to make people laugh. This feature characterizes the essence of Anonymus. Not by chance, Anonymus referred to Max Headroom’s hack in its campaign against Scientology.

Anonymous refers to a heterogeneous group of individuals involved in different kinds of collective actions all based upon the use of technology and the internet. In the beginning, all the operations were pranks done for the laughs. However, when Anonymous started its campaign against Scientology in 2008, its aim became uncovering incriminating information about the church to bring to social improvement. After this event, some groups within Anonymous organized in-person protests. Indeed, the members of this movement do not only hack into systems to leak information, as it is traditionally believed, but their tasks also include making videos, designing posters, and publishing manifestoes. Anonymous is just a platform that makes it possible. It configures as a free space for everyone to be whoever they want to be, share and build knowledge, and act collectively. 

However, since Anonymous is not a unified movement, there are different subgroups with different agendas. For instance, AnonOps only focused on activist campaigns while VoxAnon stressed the importance of a leaderless structure and privacy. LulzSec, on the other hand, broke away from Anonymous to restore the hacks done just for the laughs. The ideological difference between the two movements created friction between them, but LulzSec disappeared after a couple of months.

The phenomenon of Anonymous is an alternative to the cult of celebrity. Indeed, it is a multitude in which all the actions are related to the whole and not single individuals and groups. The best definition for it is an idea. 

All of Anonymous’s actions can be defined as hacks. Hacks are, according to The John’s Hopkins Guide to Digital Media, clever and untraditional solutions to a problem. Hacks do not only refer to illegal breaks into computer systems. The term was first used in the 1960s by technologists at MIT who produced and improved computer software. They based their work on certain values, such as freedom, skepticism towards authorities, and meritocracy. Similarly, Richard Stallman, in his “Why Software Should Not Have Owners,” shares these hackers’ point of view. Indeed, he believes that digital technology should not be conceived as a physical object. For this reason, it should be regulated differently and not have an owner. People should be able to freely copy, share, and improve any software in the name of voluntary cooperation.

Even if the community of hackers is diversified and heterogeneous, all of them share an interest in bypassing canonical solutions and organizations to spread a message, may it be political or just for the laughs.

[laylahassib99]

The john Hopkins guide to digital media/Why Software Should Not Have Owners/Beyond WikiLeaks: Anonymous and the politics of leaking (COM 311)

The john Hopkins guide to digital media

Hackers are Technologists with penchant for computing and a hack is a clever technical solution  arrived at through nonobvious means. According to the hacker jorgon fire, it can mean the complete opposite of an ingenious intervention, a clunky, ugly fix, which completes the job at hand.The term hacker was used in the 1960samong technologists in MIT, whose lives revolved around making, using, and improving a computer software.Steven Levy conceptualized them as their unstated ethical code as hacker ethic commitment to information freedom, mistrust of authority, and heightened dedication to meritocracy, and the firm belief that computers can be the basis for beauty and a better world. In the 1980s, other technologists defined the term as individuals enthralled with tinkering and technical spelunking but whose history and politics were distinct .Their heirs are the phone phreaks who existed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  These phreaks tapped into the phone system to make free phone calls. Phreaking shaped a subversive tradition that went as far back as the 1960s, and flourished more publicly in the 1980s and 1990s, only to change with the rise of the security industry and new laws criminalizing computer break-ins. Laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, enacted in the United States in 1986, became the weapon of choice to prosecute hacker. The U.S. government has tended to criminalize hacking under all circumstances, unwilling to differentiate between criminal activities, playful pursuits, and political causes. Some hackers started to call those who hacked for illegal or malicious purposes “crackers”. Many also started to use the derogatory terms “script kiddies” to designate those who use scripts to circumvent computer security or deface websites.Who deserves the title of “hacker”?  Two hackers distinguished between builders:  found in free and open-source communities, whose lineage goes back to the university communities explored in Levy and builders: applying creativity and technical knowledge to bypassing defenses. “to hack” can thus mean distinct activities: Free and open-source hackers—those who have used legal means to guarantee perpetual access to source code—tend to uphold political structures of transparency. Hacker underground: These hackers have made secrecy and spectacle into a high art form. Some hackers run political collectives whose names are Rise up and May-first. Those are broadcasting their will for to make this world a better place. Politically minded hackers, who have name such as Anonymous, engage in hacking for the sake of leaking sensitive corporate and government information. Many information security hackers are committed to security and tend to steer clear of defining their actions in such overtly political terms, even if hacking tends to creep into political territory. Among these InfoSec hackers there are full disclosure, one should release a security vulnerability, and the antidisclosure, announce its existence without revealing details. Anti sec is a small, and extreme movement, and is against any disclosure, claiming that it is their “goal that, through mayhem and the destruction of all exploitative and detrimental communities, companies, and individuals, full-disclosure will be abandoned and the security industry will be forced to reform” Hackers of different nationalities have very different goals and do different jobs.  Pakistani hackers are routinely at war with their Indian neighbors. Chinese hackers are quite nationalistic in their aims and aspirations. In contrast to those in North America, Latin America, and Europe, whose stance makes many wary of joining government endeavors.

Why Software Should Not Have Owners

by Richard Stallman

 The copyright system grew up with printing.  It did not take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that. When information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright.

 The four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA) :

- Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.

- Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.

- Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.

- Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as MIT's David LaMacchia, for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.

Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:

·         Name calling: Owners of the softwares use words like piracy, theft, intellectual property, and damage. They’re comparing between programs and physical object to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public. Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects don’t apply don't directly apply to making a copy of something.

·         Exaggeration: Owners say that they experience harm or loss, when people copy programs. There is no harm in copying a program.

·         The law: the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality, yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone. It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong

·         Natural rights: Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and assert their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else. The author call this ethical axiom a bunk, because people only feel any sympathy with the natural rights for two reasons: One reason is the exaggerated analogy with material objects. The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society. The author says that the constitution doesn’t require a system of copyright, and that’s why copyright must be temporary. Copyrights’ purpose is to promote progress and not to reward authors.

·         Economics: This approach is the only legitimate one, because it has a valid goal. It i clear that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.  But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes that production of software is what we want, whether the software has owners or not. If a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something, but not what society really needs. And it causes ethical pollution that affects us all.

Beyond WikiLeaks: Anonymous and the politics of leaking

Gabriella Coleman

The term anonymous belongs to individuals and groups engaging in diverse genre of collective action, ranging from online stunts and political campaigns to expeditions in-person protests. Anonymous is described by a narrow band of words: hackers, hacking, and hacktivism. Anonymous is more open and participatory than WikiLeaks. In summer 2011, smaller groups of hackers became prominent fixtures within the Anonymous landscape, and thanks to media obsessed with hackers, these groups were catapulted into limelight. Anonymous’ hackers’ crew provoked controversy and anxiety. They were encouraged or at minimum tolerated often in the hopes that they would gather politically significant leaks in much the same way as WikiLeaks does.  Anonymous carried forward the experiment, which is leaking. The process of leaking arose over the course of mere months due to accidental discoveries, and took a distant course from WikiLeaks, which disturbed leaks sourced from others. Anonymous led hacking-leaking, which received more consistent media coverage than other anonymous campaigns, were still made possible with that WikiLeaks had set into motion and also were limited and shaped by AnonymousBefore 2008, the name Anonymous in the image board 4chan.org to deliver pranks, to troll,targeting people and organizations,desecrating reputations, and revealing humiliating information, and it was done in the name of lulz. Lulz is the internet slang done on the internet for the laughs.Anonymous was named the “the hate machine” in 2007, so they released a video proclaiming Anonymous “the face of the chaos”. It captured trolling’s terrifying potential, especially for those not in the joke. The activism soon began when Anonymous started trolling the church of Scientology in January 2008. The video was supposed to be serious and persuasive but internet geeks saw it as an    Anonymous political awakening was aided by the distribution of ‘Message to Scientology”, a video made for the lulz alone that calls for the systematic dismantling of the church “for our own enjoyment”. The video provoked Anons to protest and on Feb 10th 200, they protested in the streets against scientology. The protest were very successful and very organized.   It is no surprise that a lot of journalists descries Anonymous as inaccessible, inchoate, and spectral and identifying its attribute as the provocative spirit of lulz.  One of largest networks of the last year is AnonOps. It wasfounded in fall 2010, then it mobilized thousands to protets the action of Paypal and Mastercard. Prompted by Tunisian government’s blocking of WikiLeaks, Anonymous announced OpTunisia on Jan 2,2011. Anonymous leaned on a technical elite who could attack government websites and jam programs used by the dictatorial regime to spy on their citizens. It soon began to help citizens in the Arab spring for example to circumvent censors and evade electronic surveillance and sending care packages with advice and security tools.

[anonijus]

Harness your inherent warrior spirit. Be courageous, not cruel. Do not become a gangster, but a Jedi. Do not be afraid of being gentle. Do not be afraid to live with an open heart. Do not seek vengeance, seek understanding. Do not be scared into doing anything that you know is wrong. Do not be afraid of doing what is right, no matter the consequences. We have a long road ahead of us. But do not be afraid of what lies ahead.

[weaselbeaselpants]

You see, the thing that would make me trust this statement is 1) knowing anonOP's identity and 2) hearing these detractors say the same thing about straight couplings. You know:

"Sam and Danny are forced; Jimmy and Cindy are toxic; Star and Marco came out of nowhere" - not because I really agree but because I can see why people think that and that would in turn cause a lot of the -rational- shippers of these pairings to go "oh, okay I get that".

In LGBT circles people are desperate to get any canonically gay couple they can. Western tv is just starting out so some of the options seem a little limited or feel like they have to be marred by conflict in order to exist at all, which you don't always get with het couples...that in turn gets people to throw out the "you must be homophobic" card everytime someone says "hey this ship isn't that good do I have to ship it just because it's gay?"

To counter that though - lgbtqphobia isn't just hating gay people and representation. Like all forms of bigotry, it's rooted in a rationalized sense of "this is just how the world is" and not inherent intolerance, which is why I ask for some canon het examples as well. The problem isn't that these pairings are problematic - they are - its: do you tolerate the same problematic aspects of these ships in hetero pairings and why is it different for gay ones?

And no, "forced representation" is not an excuse. In creator-run series, the choice to make it's characters gay is always delibrate and usually there because the show runner WANTS to see that ship, the faults in the writing being a writer so fixated on doing that at all that they forget to scratch out the nuances. Used "forced representation" (aka insincere representation; or queerbaiting in this case) when we're talking about companies calling themselves progressive or when Disney remakes think they're more woke for involving the seventh- first gay Disney character who's off to the side and is never stated to be gay in the narrative. The criticisms involved in sincere representation are wholy different than insincere ones.

“I hate when you don’t like pairs like Lumity, Catradora, Korrasami, or others like it, people automatically assume that you have “bad” reasons for not liking it or you haven’t watched the show, saying shit like “Um, have you watched the show?” all the time!? Not everybody who doesn’t like these pairs dislike it because their LGBTQphobic, their blind, or even their racist! People HAVE legitimate reasons not to like these pairs and they have the right to do so. They don’t deserve the hate or be talked down to because they have different opinions OK? It means it’s popular, that doesn’t mean people HAVE to like it. 

I personally think Lumity is forced, Catradora is toxic, and Korrasami came out of nowhere, but the point is that not every person who doesn’t like these ships are blind, LGBTQphobic, racist, or whatever. People just have their shipping googles on.” 

[master-chief-ops]

Stands for Ukraine

#Anonymous #Anonops #Motoko_Kusanagi

AnonOps Meet up. 1 week. Same hour

[unideforg]

#fuck this #country, im taking what small stipidents and moving to #afghanistan

#fuck this #country, im taking what small stipidents and moving to #afghanistan #unidef unidef.org #hacking #deathortaxes #anonymous #hacking #anonops #nmap #freedom #retard #marines #army #army #orgy

i have no idea on this but americans are just fucking evil. they worship the devil or something and he hates everything, and they’re suprised when it backfires, fucking morons

after trump, racism skyrocketed and it led to white police forces from my local police investigating me for crimes such as walking around black and other henious crimes (www.brentwoodca.gov) which led to a medical…

[legionsecurity]

Tweeted

Anonymous is now launching #OpBoliviaFuerte against the violent coup d'etat government in Bolivia which has massacred many, we support democracy and the rights of the people. #Bolivia JOIN US in IRC: https://t.co/QpbCIOkmPJ

— AnonOps (@anonopsofficial) November 22, 2019