Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlgreco | Hacker News Reader

My point, in this case, is that your analogy is shit.

My point in other places in this discussion is that I suspect "Al Queada" is more like "Anonymous". There are people who self-identify as "Anonymous", and there are other people who identify others as "Anonymous". Are any of them actually members? If my barber claims to be apart of "Anonymous", is he actually? Is "actual membership" even a concept that makes sense? I think that these are entities or affiliations that does not exist in the ways that we have traditionally thought of them. Both have become something new entirely; a concept that we don't yet have effective language for.

View on HN

I don't see how you've proven the illegitimacy of my analogy.

It's really the same argument you're making. Perhaps there are Al Qaida affiliated cells that are only Al Qaida affiliated in name and ideology but do not receive funding or orders from anyone else.

In any case there are people that identify as being members of Al Qaida (Al Qaida proper or affiliated groups).

I don't see what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organizations and a heterogeneous group of organization that have a shared ideology.

I think this is what you're saying that Al Qaida is but I don't see how this distinction is significant for any intent or purpose.

> "I don't see how you've proven the illegitimacy of my analogy."

Simply put: there are established and agreed upon ways of determining whether somebody is a member of North Dakota; it isn't an association that can be created retroactively or without proof.

Furthermore, I can claim that I am North Dakotan, but I simply am not. I can claim it as much as I want, but it doesn't make it true. With Anonymous or Al Qaeda? Claiming membership seems to be all that is required.

Fair enough. I see your point. North Dakota is a geographical region. Either you reside or have resided in that area or you haven't. It's not an ideological movement or organization.

I'm interested to hear your response to the other part of my argument. That is, what, effectively, is the difference between a monolithic organization and a heterogenous group of organizations with a shared ideology?

It concerns me because there is typically little to no evidence that there is are shared ideology, or a shared anything besides "(probably) being Muslim, and shooting at us".

Specifically why this concerns me I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6471710

Reply on news.ycombinator.com