Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Alan Moore on V For Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the verily-this-vichyssoise-of-verbiage-veers-most-verbose dept.

Your Rights Online 286

First time accepted submitter tmcb writes in with a piece by Alan Moore about the influence his comic has had on the hacker group Anonymous. "On Saturday protests are planned across the world against Acta — the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The treaty has become the focus of activists associated with the Anonymous hacking network because of concerns that it could undermine internet privacy and aid censorship. First published in 1982, the comic series V for Vendetta charted a masked vigilante's attempt to bring down a fascist British government and its complicit media. Many of the demonstrators are expected to wear masks based on the book's central character. Ahead of the protests, the BBC asked V for Vendetta's writer, Alan Moore, for his thoughts on how his creation had become an inspiration and identity to Anonymous."

cancel ×

286 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore? (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995243)

I'd be lying if I didn't admit that whatever usefulness they afford modern radicalism is very satisfying.

Wow, that's the first time I think I've ever heard Alan Moore expressing anything remotely akin to...dare I say..."happiness."

This article *must* be a hoax.

Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995337)

I am pretty sure the BBC don't do hoaxes

Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995355)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_tree_hoax

Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore (1)

Suferick (2438038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995367)

Except on April 1

Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995825)

It's like you're actually a character from V for Vendetta and not the hero. ;)

Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995673)

I've spotted him laughing along at a couple of comedy gigs in Northampton of late. And showing a great deal of bonhomie with the acts too.

Guess what, we're all human.

Re:Are they sure the writer is the real Alan Moore (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996563)

That's "H" for hoax :)

At Least... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995297)

...the V for Vendetta guy had the decency to die for what he believes in.

When will we see Anonymous punks start offing themselves? I suggest they do self immolation. Doesn't hurt anyone else really and the spectacle is great!

Re:At Least... (0)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995343)

Several of them have gone to jail. No doubt they knew about that risk. They haven't blown up any buildings yet, either.

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995425)

Haven't some of Anonymous been murdered by the mexican maffia?

Re:At Least... (4, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995517)

I think the only way to get a grouping of people that doesn't have members that have been murdered by the Mexican Mafia, is to make the group "People who haven't been murdered by the Mexican Mafia."

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996587)

It could be argued that members of Anonymous cease to be members of Anonymous when the mexican mafia know who they are because membera of Anonymous have to be anonymous to be Anonymous, and they are not anonymous when the mexican mafia know who they are.

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996591)

How about these groupings:

Nobel Prize Winners.
Residents of Greenland.
Members of the Japanese Royal Family.

Re:At Least... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995527)

The also rolled back from targeting the Mexican cartel the moment it was clear their lives would be in danger...

Re:At Least... (4, Interesting)

Spykk (823586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996559)

They chose continuing to live over making a pointless gesture? Pathetic.

Re:At Least... (5, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995443)

You say that though
I was re-watching the film recently and it was the scene at the end where the mob marches on the armed police and the police use their own judgement and decide not to fire. Maybe I've been spending too much time on /. but I can't believe that in the current climate in that situation in the real world the police wouldn't fire and then chase them down.
After seeing what happened at the recent protests with police attacking protesters with disproportionate force, the kettling, the staying away from areas where riots were actually taking place I can't believe that with today's police force would do what happened to V's supporters. I honestly found the resolution to be unbelievable because they have shown they're willing to attack huge crowds of protesters for political gain.

That was England... (-1, Troll)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995583)

The movie takes place in Britain, which is a bit more level-headed than the USA...

Here in America, the police would just mow down the crowd with machine-gun fire and call it a day. Sure, there would be some news reports about police brutality, and some videos would show up on Youtube, but that would be about it.

Re:That was England... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995693)

Don't worry, once ACTA passes the police will own the copyright on such videos and they'll be taken down posthaste to prevent piracy.

Re:That was England... (4, Interesting)

Dasher42 (514179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995717)

Nah, the news would show some guy taking a dump on the flag, some smashed windows, not cover the rest of the story. The viewers would be telling the trigger-happy police "Atta boy!"

Re:That was England... (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995743)

There would be some news reports about alleged police brutality with no facts, images, or video, but with a few interviews of older white middle class people saying that they are glad the police are protecting society from the dirty hobo looters.

Re:That was England... (2)

UngodAus (198713) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995905)

I think in some ways the UK police are as bad as anything the US can bring. Note the OC mentions kettling. This is a very distinctly European (and especially London/British) police behaviour and terminology.

Re:That was England... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996063)

We're so level headed we passive/aggressive police tactics like kettling ignoring those we squash when forcing them into tight spaces.

Re:That was England... (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996381)

All the examples I used were from things that have happened in the UK recently.
I'd move somewhere else, but I can't think of anywhere that's any better Australia is about the only one but then you trade a government trying to control you for wildlife that's trying to kill you.
I'll take the oppression over their wildlife anyday ;-)

Re:At Least... (5, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995627)

My guess is that today's police forces are slightly more independent then the one in the movie. Their commanders are unlikely to be executed or disappeared if they do something that the political leadership does not approve of.

In the movie, the country was extremely centralized, and both of the 'leaders' were dead at the time the barricades were breached. The army could easily have stopped them, and probably wouldn't have felt bad about it. What they didn't dare do was act without orders.

Re:At Least... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996091)

Our countries' police force IS for the most part centralised already. Most police policies across the country are determined in London.

Re:At Least... (3, Interesting)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995681)

I offer you a quote that might shed some light on the difference between Hollywood's version of good guys, and the real thing.

"If soldiers thought, they wouldn't be soldiers."

The line between police and military is becoming grey in the US. They want them to be interchangeable. Once the general public has accepted the fact that your liberties are provided to you by the government, and not your Creator we will be doomed.

Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator.

Re:At Least... (4, Insightful)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995731)

My parents were my creators. That at least is provable.

Re:At Least... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996565)

mod troll, and douchebag, for trying to start shit.

Re:At Least... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995753)

Guess that means Civil War: I'm willing to fight because I know your "Creator" doesn't matter in a secular society. You know, the secular society those religious people you love so much purposely created.

Your freedom of religion ends where my freedom from religion begins. If you don't like that, vote more unqualified idiots into Congress who don't know what the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is.

Re:At Least... (1, Troll)

Oyjord (810904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995933)

"Don't believe in a creator? That's fine, but understand this country was founded by Religous people and we will always be fighting to govern it, because we know our rights are provided by our Creator."

*sigh* /facepalm

Was the United States of Dumbfuckistan founded by Yahweh, Zeus, the FSM, Amaterasu, Marduk, or Odin?

Deism != Christian God

Re:At Least... (5, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995961)

Your country (assuming you're American) was founded by people who were either atheists or had very non-standard (for the time, and even by today's standard) religious views. Certainly not "Religious people" of the kind you imply.

Believing your rights and liberties are granted to you by your government is obviously a bad idea - it puts the government in charge. Believing your rights and liberties are granted to you by a creator not only doesn't make much sense (you don't have rights in the jungle), it's ALSO a bad idea - it puts the creator, or rather whoever you believe speaks for him, in charge. Religion was harnessed to be an effective means of controlling the people long before governments came along to try the same thing. And to head off the obvious protestant objection, you most likely still regard some form of holy book as speaking for your creator, and if you're Christian, the details of that holy book are nasty if interpreted literally and/or completely.

You live in a democracy. Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you). When people realize this, democracy will actually work properly and the world will be a better place.

Re:At Least... (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996125)

Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).

Ha, that is most certainly not true. If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.

You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later. Basic health care would be a good example: it isn't a basic human right, but it can be granted as a right by a society that passes a certain stage of wealth and medical technology.

Re:At Least... (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996307)

Not parent, but:

Ha, that is most certainly not true.

Why, because you don't want it to be?

If it was, how do you justify saying "slavery was wrong"? Or don't you? Because if rights are only granted by society, then if society as a whole decides certain people don't deserve certain rights, then they don't get those rights and that is perfectly justified (if what you say is true). Perhaps you meant to add certain qualifiers.

Right and wrong is subjective. Slavery was wrong to some, right to others. Since I find slavery to be wrong, I'm glad most society agrees with me, but the fact is that there's no reason to consider one of those positions to be objectively right, therefore they're both valid.

You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human.

OK, then please prove it.

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996507)

That's wonderful philosophy you've got there, the problem is, History doesn't support that assetion. In fact, history supports "Might makes right". Over and over again in the past, we have seen examples where larger societies decide that a minority or a weaker majority doesn't have certain rights and takes advantage of them. Any group can CLAIM certain rights, but, those rights have to be enforceable, otherwise, they are just effectively wishful thinking.

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996547)

...slavery ... is perfectly justified (if what you say is true).

Uh, what he said doesn't imply that at all. You can only reach that conclusion if you think "natural born rights" are the only source of morality.

You have to say there are certain rights that humans possess by being human. And then there are certain rights that society can grant later.

No, you don't have to say that; I wouldn't say that. Your first category is non-existent, and your second category fully encompasses all "rights".

I believe that a society without a certain set of "rights" granted to everyone would be a really shitty society that I would not want to be a part of or allow. But, that doesn't mean I think there is some magic natural rule that says "it must be thus: just 'cause".

There may be a huge portion of the American subset of our society that thinks morality and "rights" are inherently present due to a deity (from which all of your arguments seem to come), but don't say that has to be what everyone else thinks, too.

Note: I'm not the GP.

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996597)

You live in a democracy. Your rights are granted to you by society (i.e. the people, i.e. you).

It's sad that any American Slashdotter modded you insightful for such a fantastically ignorant statement.

The following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence neatly sums up the philosophical basis for the American society and its government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable Rights are rights that each man is born with and cannot be transfered or sold, surrendered, or alienated from the individual. They are not "granted" by society. If people were reminded of this truth, then Democracy would work (or at least have chance of working).

Re:At Least... (1)

Slider451 (514881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996021)

I offer you a quote that might shed some light on the difference between Hollywood's version of good guys, and the real thing.
  "If soldiers thought, they wouldn't be soldiers."

Whoever you're quoting, they, and you, have clearly never spent quality time with any soldiers.

Re:At Least... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996105)

Actually the US wasn't founded by religious people. Don't believe the current rewriting of US history.

Re:At Least... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995821)

there is a certain level of public participation and opinion at which police/military side with protesters. this has been the case in all previous occurrences in different countries. in usa, its not yet there.

Re:At Least... (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995903)

At least in the movie, they were never actually ordered to fire. Here's the dialogue as the protesters approach the soldiers:

Enemy is approaching fast. Requesting orders. General, what should we do?

There's no response from Command, or from party leader Creedy, or from the High Chancellor.

Bloody hell, stand down! Stand down!

Perhaps if V hadn't taken out Creedy and the Chancellor things would have been different. Certainly the movie takes quite a few liberties with reality, but this one is somewhat believable. Without those people to order horrible things, we were left with average people firing or not. The decency of most average people was a theme in the film (Evey; the gay guy; the people who attacked the guy who killed the little girl; the lesbian; the inspector), so it's not terribly surprising that the general didn't order them to. If the general had in fact given the order, they probably would have fired, though, based on the rest of the movie.

This makes me want to read the graphic novel. I wonder if it's significantly different from the movie.

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996147)

Forget that, they're missing a part of the movie.

First of all, as a police officer under an extremist regime, fascist or communist or whatever, they're the first ones to see what the secret police does to innocent civilians (every regime has one of those in one form or another). It's pretty much like this, they sometimes pick up a guy at random, give him a thorough beating for some made up reason, then they send him back, back and blue perhaps crippled for life. He or she doesn't have to be a bad guy, in fact more innocent is better, because if that guy is a jerk, you'd say "he had it coming", so what, but if it's someone who they had no reason to touch, then what about you? That's how terror works for them.
When you're a police officer with a gun, facing a mob of faceless/masked individuals and the commander behind you screams that if you don't fire, your whole familiy will suffer at the hands of the secret police(and trust me, you'll be there BECAUSE you have a family you care for), which will you choose?

Don't look into fiction for the answer, look into history. Don't bother with China, they're still going strong, and the current leaders will constantly try to bury their actions as soon as possible, try the fall of the communist regime in Eastern Europe and see how it was done, a lot of those files were opened up, still, even now they don't get much viewing because the current powers still try to keep them burried, even the innocuous stuff.
Captcha: bastards :)

Re:At Least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996225)

It's the movies.... and that scene doesn't really translate well to the modern world.

In the real world, before all those police are sent out to barricade a mob from marching down the street, they're given instructions on what to do. And more importantly, they're given instructions on what measures to not exceed. I.e., use force you deem necessary but by god, don't shoot an unarmed protestor. At least, not in the back.

The reality is, in an equivalent situation, the mob would get tear gassed, stomped, and beaten to a pulp, as we've seen in almost every mass demonstration throughout the world over the past year.

The hand of organized authority and it's measure of enforcement is very apparent. To even consider that scene to be translateable to the real world is disturbingly naive.

Re:At Least... (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996427)

I had a very good friend who was on the steps of the capitol at the fall of MiloÅeviÄ. She told the story of the police arriving. She said, "The boys were in front and ready to fight, and we girls in back were ready to die and bandage them up. But then, the police put their guns down and joined us. That's when we knew we won."

So yeah, it sometimes happens and there's a happy ending.

Re:At Least... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996477)

Really? Show me where the police forces of nations like the US, UK, France, etc are opening up on civilians with machine guns, tanks, etc that are not isolated incidents(and generally where the person involved is disciplined). I'm sorry, but disproportionate force is killing people. Mildly excessive force is hitting them with a baton and pepper spray. The Freedom Riders would have loved to trade police forces with those people like Occupy face today. You want brutality? Look at what they put up with.

Re:At Least... (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995647)

I suggest they do self immolation.

Hilariously, your comment was modded as Flamebait.

Based on previous reactions of Moore's: (4, Funny)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995347)

I expected any external use of his writings whatsoever to cause him to roll-over in the grave which I can only assume he sleeps in every night.

Re:Based on previous reactions of Moore's: (1)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995575)

I'm not sure whether that fits Moore's MO--would rolling over in the grave be something he could borrow from the Charlton Comics, but then get indignant about when other people used it?

What's the message here? (5, Interesting)

GMonkeyLouie (1372035) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995349)

Moore sounds like he is satisfied with his contribution to the movement, but not as satisfied or validated with the achievements of modern radicals (yet).

I love seeing symbols and characters borrowed from history and re-used, or re-purposed. It reassures me that our actions could potentially matter to future generations.

Re:What's the message here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995479)

I love seeing symbols and characters borrowed from history and re-used, or re-purposed. It reassures me that our actions could potentially matter to future generations.

It bothers me that future generations might, as this one has, move further away from finding intrinsic value in original thought. The general public's response to the strategies of the music and film industries is enough to cause concern; a cover is fine every so often, but reboots are naked assaults on history. One can make a new story without redefining the past: it's called $TITLE, not Batman: Bet You Didn't Know He Was a Ninja!

Re:What's the message here? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996323)

I'm not sure how far back the story of Batman's martial arts training originated, but it was portrayed much like it was seen in the recent movie in the '90s Batman: Animated Series cartoon. And AFAIK he's always had martial arts skills and I don't think we're supposed to assume he was born with them.

Re:What's the message here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996461)

Batman has been a ninja since Detective Comics #33, sorry.

Noob.

Re:What's the message here? (1)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996463)

The general public's response to the strategies of the music and film industries is enough to cause concern; a cover is fine every so often, but reboots are naked assaults on history. One can make a new story without redefining the past: it's called $TITLE, not Batman: Bet You Didn't Know He Was a Ninja!

First, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a reboot. It's the best way of having an artist give his own take to a story without actually ruining the other story. Since you're using Batman's example, it's easy to talk about Nolan's Batman vs. Burton's Batman, and it's easy to enjoy both of them in their own way.

More specific, as far as comic books are concerned, reboots happen so often in comic-book land that having them in the movies is just one more way in which you can be faithful. I'm just waiting for the Superman movie world to finally get to the John Byrne era, as I'm tired of seeing pre-crisis superman. He's just far too darn powerful.

Even more specific, "Batman: Bet You Didn't Know He Was a Ninja!" is a somewhat entertaining title, because I bet you didn't know he was a ninja :) The Batman Begins story of his training is actually the pretty consistent we have with the comic books. As long as we're talking post-crisis anyway. In general, one thing you can say about Christopher Nolan is that he definitely did his comic book research. The portrayal of the Joker was dead on with "Killing Joke" Joker, right down to telling people multiple inconsistent stories about his origins. Nolan certainly didn't decide to create whole new worlds and characters, and just call it a Batman movie...you can't accuse him of redefining the past, he's been extremely faithful to the comic books.

Re:What's the message here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995609)

Moore sounds like he is satisfied with his contribution to the movement, but not as satisfied or validated with the achievements of modern radicals (yet).

I love seeing symbols and characters borrowed from history and re-used, or re-purposed. It reassures me that our actions could potentially matter to future generations.

For as long as you have many children, you can be confident that you'll influence 'future generations' :-P

Re:What's the message here? (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996285)

If that's the case, it's going to be a very Duggar future...

Re:What's the message here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996221)

Generally I love the fact that we are Learning From The Past, if anything.
I just wish more of society did such a thing instead of being consumer whores. We'd be at Alpha Centauri by now! (just kidding)

The human race has so much potential as a race. But huge multinationals have sought to dumb people down, turn them in to slaves for X (fashion, etc.), and essentially pay the entirety of their paychecks towards it. Whether it is drugs or the newest clothes you will wear once and never touch again.
Not calling for a nofun society, but damn, we don't half do some pointless crap for the majority of our lives.

That doesn't even need to go in to the fact that the majority of the human race is poor and malnourished. Governments have failed their countries, continental collaborations are falling to their knees (such as the EU on the brink of a huge fallout, the UK is already for leaving)
If that falls apart, trade will get a bit dodgy at best, possibly even trading borders closed between various countries (both if THIS gets passed and if it doesn't, due to the unrest it causes either way)

I fear for the future... not a "oh noes world war 3" sort of fear, just as "oh god, everybody hates everyone, its freezing, there is crappy food about, the internet is gone and borders are closed" sort of fear.
Isolationism might make a comeback in the near future. That is a terrible thing if it grows. It will only lead TO wars after a while...

difference (-1, Flamebait)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995385)

V for Vendetta was about opposing a fascist government. Anonymous is about getting free movies and software. There's the difference.

Re:difference (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995429)

anonymous@earth > diff3 "V for Vendetta" "free movies"
No differences found.
You see? They are actually the same. The file name is different, but the file data is all the same.

Re:difference (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995447)

Indeed, instead of opposing a fascist government its now about opposing a government controlled by big corporations.

Re:difference (3, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995721)

instead of opposing a fascist government its now about opposing a government controlled by big corporations

Was that intentional? Like in "King of the Hill" where a character says something along the lines of: I'm not sad, I just feel sense hopelessness and depressed mood. If it was intentional, very funny.

Re:difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995763)

Yeah, because fascism and a government controlled by big corporations are so totally different. /sarcasm

Re:difference (5, Insightful)

Dasher42 (514179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995803)

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

I assume that's the quote you wanted! And since we see Monsanto execs running the FDA and regulatory officials literally sleeping with BP execs, it sure seems spot on.

Re:difference (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995487)

except that even as a non-pirate I can see that the means employed to stop these "anonymous thieving pirates" are becoming increasingly fascist and removed from the principles of enlightenment. Take special note of how "trade agreements" which "must" be agreed upon in secret are used to introduce laws in a step to side-step national parliaments, the overwhelming police brutality and tactics (like transporting people 20km away from a city center and dumping them by the roadside, in the middle of the night if they so wish to, without needing to ensure that they have any means to get home safely. In fact we have had at least one death due to this already as a man froze to death. All perfectly legal) used to make sure protesters can't be there to voice their displeasure at avenues (such as trade summits) covered by the media.

mod parent up (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995749)

im out of points.

Re:difference (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995819)

like transporting people 20km away from a city center and dumping them by the roadside, in the middle of the night if they so wish to, without needing to ensure that they have any means to get home safely. In fact we have had at least one death due to this already as a man froze to death.

Link? I searched and couldn't find this story.

And the GP is spot on. Not flamebait. It really is that simple.

Re:difference (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995521)

yeah.. you're wrong.

ignorance much ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995809)

fascism is a certain wealthy segment, which manifests as various corporate holders, holding the administration through a dictator they support. there has been no exceptions. nazis, mussolini, peron, they all had a certain corporate elite backing them into power, which continued to dictate policies through them after they got dictators placed. for example, not even at the highest peak of world war ii, when germany needed full mobilization very badly, nazi government did not take control of companies and factories, and instead kept performing 'bid-contract' method of capitalist government acquisitions for both resources and military design and manufacturing.

fascism is basically corporatism. just, in the u.s. you are in the early stages of it. if it goes a bit further, you will see the fascist traits you know by default. actually a number of them, like ndaa, the attempts to censor are already here.

Re:difference (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996389)

... except the V mask has been appropriated by the Occupy movement, which is protesting about more serious matters than IP.

Huh (-1, Flamebait)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995531)

And here I thought that the movie version of V for Vendetta was just a piece of thinly veiled propaganda against the latest Bush administration.
Go ahead and mod me down as flamebait if you want, but you know it's true. Propaganda can be used by anyone.

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995675)

You idiot!

Post anonymously if you are going to say stuff like that!

Re:Huh (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995773)

And they deserved it. Now we need the V response to Obama's tenure.

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995947)

Well, if we had a decent opposing candidate, that might have some traction, but the GOP seems hell-bent on nominating Gary "The Smiler" Callahan.

Re:Huh (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996169)

Not Obama's tenure, the whole system of government. The US is in bad need of a third political party, everybody thinks with a binary attitude to the issues in life. A third party would do wonders for debate.

Re:Huh (2)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996127)

I find it interesting how so many movies were labelled as "propaganda against the Bush administration" just because they had an evil politician in them...

Re:Huh (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996187)

Actually, Moore agrees with you. The film was different from the graphic novel:

I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it, and I'm not going to be going to see it. When I wrote "V," politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We'd had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we'd had anti-Thatcher riots, we'd got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. "V for Vendetta" was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, "fascism" and "anarchy," occur nowhere in the film. It's been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you've got a sinister group of right-wing figures â" not fascists, but you know that they're bad guys â" and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It's a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives â" which is not what "V for Vendetta" was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn't it have been more direct to do what I'd done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?

(Emphasis mine)

http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060315/ [mtv.com]

Re:Huh (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996293)

Thank you for posting that. The quotation better depicts the opinion I was trying to express.

masked based on book? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995593)

people who say the mask is based on that book or V for V movie are funny, the mask is this guy (pun intended):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes [wikipedia.org]

Re:masked based on book? (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995787)

people who say the mask is based on that book or V for V movie are funny, the mask is this guy (pun intended):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes [wikipedia.org]

Yes, but the masks used by protestors are very much based on the version drawn by Alan Moore (and which the movie intentionally used, being a cinematic version of Moore's work). Had they been directly drawn from the original source, they would have looked more different.

Re:masked based on book? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995919)

Moore didn't draw it. David Lloyd did.

Re:masked based on book? (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996041)

Moore didn't draw it. David Lloyd did.

I stand corrected.

Re:masked based on book? (3, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996153)

Yes, but the masks used by protestors are very much based on the version drawn by Alan Moore (and which the movie intentionally used, being a cinematic version of Moore's work). Had they been directly drawn from the original source, they would have looked more different.

...and not subject to royalties. [nytimes.com]

Anonymous, thanks for inflating the profits of one of the big media companies you are protesting against.

Re:masked based on book? (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996213)

people who say the mask is based on that book or V for V movie are funny, the mask is this guy (pun intended):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_fawkes [wikipedia.org]

Yes, but the masks used by protestors are very much based on the version drawn by Alan Moore (and which the movie intentionally used, being a cinematic version of Moore's work). Had they been directly drawn from the original source, they would have looked more different.

I'm aware of all this (as I'm sure most on Slashdot are); what I haven't been able to find is an image of what Guy Fawkes masks looked like before V for Vendetta. As stated in the article, when creating the look for V in the graphic novel they used an existing cardboard Guy Fawkes mask as a reference - anyone know what these "original" masks looked like (no doubt they changed significantly through the years even before David Lloyd and Alan Moore left their mark)?

Re:masked based on book? (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996405)

GIS for "antique guy fawks mask". There were two of them on the first two pages. Uglier and less elegant than the V for Vendetta version.

Re:masked based on book? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996553)

I'm aware of all this (as I'm sure most on Slashdot are); what I haven't been able to find is an image of what Guy Fawkes masks looked like before V for Vendetta. As stated in the article, when creating the look for V in the graphic novel they used an existing cardboard Guy Fawkes mask as a reference - anyone know what these "original" masks looked like (no doubt they changed significantly through the years even before David Lloyd and Alan Moore left their mark)?

I don't believe there was a canonical mask before V. Google Image search "Penny for the guy" and ignore the V masks; there's little in common.

I can't find the interview, but I recall one with David Lloyd in which he said that the big change he made was to the smile -- but the mask they based it on wasn't a widespread image before that.

They shouldn't mess with me (-1, Troll)

LennyDotCom (26658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995595)

I have contacted the attorney general and I have posted My home for sale by owner http://lenny.com/ [lenny.com] Connecticut real estate management are deffinatly incompetent and possibly criminal I am currently gathering more of their criminal activities to forward to the attorney general LIke when Cathy Hired a friend for $40,000.00 a year job with our money The finacancials are all a mess they have no idea where all our money is or going Cathy could be putting money in her pocket and nobody would know any better

Wow. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995685)

To be honest, i never thought that i would see such thoughts and philosophies, and such awareness about the depravity of the current system in mainstream in my lifetime.

im quite pleased in the direction the awareness is going. i think, even if i dont see the full materialization of these ideals immediately in my lifetime, i can still die a happy camper. however, at this rate things are going, i may actually see the realization of those ideas before i bite the dust.

its exciting. i thank everyone who is participating in these awareness movements to change the world for the better.

Re:Wow. (1, Flamebait)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995873)

If this small article makes you feel that good, you should take a look at the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

People will object to this because they will view it as political, but I doubt those people are Vets. I doubt those people would step in the ring with a Pro Boxer, but will argue freedom and liberty with those who take it on professionally. No man is perfect, otherwise he wouldn't be a man, but a God.

Re:Wow. (0, Flamebait)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996069)

If this small article makes you feel that good, you should take a look at the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

I can recommend that. A good laugh every time. It's even better when you realize that he's serious!

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996297)

donal.k.fellows@40manchester.ac.uk??
Its survival of the fittest! To bad your weak ancestors decided to grovel at the Queens feet! Shouldn't you be doing the same?

Don't comment on things relating to freedom, because it's clear you haven't the first clue.

Re:Wow. (1)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995925)

i can still die a happy camper

Getting more involved in these movements should speed that part up for you.

How long... (3, Interesting)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996035)

until anyone wearing or owning one of those masks can be arrested for "suspicion of activities detrimental to state security"?

Re:How long... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996429)

I'd be surprised if the US government wasn't already monitoring the sale of these.

Oh its deeper than a comic book (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996093)

The protests happening around the world are a sign of a transition happening.

Population growth drives need for change. We have been through such transition before and there are stories indicating such. Like the tower of babel, where we moved from bicameral mind mode of social interaction to a conscious mode capable of the creation and use of higher level abstraction. When we made that transition the misuse of higher level abstraction was the discovery of deception and the value of its intentional use, or misuse of the tool of higher level abstraction, to cash in on teh values of others at the expense of others but benefit of the individual deceiving.

Today the population has grown to over 7 billion and its has become obvious to the majority that the deceptions are no longer working to fool the majority. So the focus has turned to the whole and what is good for the whole as well as the individuals, but the few who have been cashing in on the many do not like this as it means they lose their position of power and control.

Anonymous helps to not provided a target to kill... that is all and it so happens V for Vendetta only brought the idea of anonymous up.

The Wachowskis brought the comic to the masses with the movie, as they brought something else to the masses with the Matrix trilogy. Which was the mechanics of how we must create and process Abstraction. Only the Matrix trilogy attempted to kill what cannot be killed as does V for Vendetta bring violence which is also in error of solution direction. All that is needed is exposure of the truth of what those in positions of power are doing to cheat the rest of us, and how, so they cannot continue to do so.

http://threeseas.net/vicprint/VIC-basic.html [threeseas.net]
http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php [abstractionphysics.net]

Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996303)

The Matrix sucked. It's time to get over the fanboi ramblings about geek culture fodder and move on.

Re:Oh its deeper than a comic book (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996407)

Yeah, the Matrix sucked as they lied and killed off that which cannot be killed off in reality. The Wachowskis had the opportunity to do something wonderful, instead they chose to cash in on an attempt to suppress. As V for Vendetta is wrong about the need for violence by those protesting, which will only fuel excuses of the lying elite to kill those awakening to the wrongs of the elite...

As such you should read the links I provided, as regardless of the fictional movies, in real life you cannot avoid that which you do to create and use the tools of abstraction. And it is intentional misuse of abstraction by which cheats cheat. Understand the mechanics of the tools will help you see past the cheats.

That's Because He's Getting Paid (-1, Troll)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996115)

For every Fawkes mask sold, Warner gets a cut.

For every cut Warner gets, Moore gets a cut.

Alan is probably the world's biggest fan of Anonymous.

Re:That's Because He's Getting Paid (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996339)

For every cut Warner gets, Moore gets a cut.

Nope. He had his name taken off the film and directed that all profits he might be due from the film be given to Lloyd instead.

Is he (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996119)

any relation to Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 911) or Gordon Moore (Moore's Law)

Holy Pretentious Batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996157)

Holy Pretentious Batman!

Next up (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996271)

The creator of Zero Wing [wikipedia.org] explains how his game served as an inspiration to Anonymous.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?