Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
They are? They appear to support the activities of criminals such as Mr Dotcom, the owner of "MegaUpload". I'd hardly call that a praise-worthy act, personally.
|
Yes, but that level of support could be attributed to a fundamental disagreement with you as to the nature of ownership. That disagreement could be seen as honorable in intent were it not for Anonymous members' rather vicious history and present actions.
Their other actions suggest they take acquiring wealth and pleasure through identity theft at least as seriously as human rights and internet freedom.
They're portrayed as white knights in their support and implementation of Occupy Wall Street, for example, and their visible organized outcry against the thievery, censorship and (ironically) human sabotage of Scientology. Many people believe such tactics are excusable in the name of democracy. Even ordinary liberal voters have seen them as fighting the good fight against corporate domination.
My point is this: Even if someone
doesn't condemn their support of Mega-Upload, how is it possible to support Anonymous in any capacity when they seem as dedicated to hurting private citizens as any of the corporations they condemn?
And Ekaros: I've been watching, reading and reading about Anonymous since their initial activism against Scientology. Until now, I had no idea how pointlessly cruel many of their key and founding members truly were.
It makes sense, though, given the content of 4Chan's Random forum, which makes Something Awful look like UNESCO.