Response to theVoid:
Anonymous doesn't attack an entity unless it takes action to silence others, which incurs the same fate.
Wouldn't you not want to silence someone who does naught but silence others? They have no right to do so, yet they insist on doing so, much like criminals insist on crime. Might I also point out the line of thought with justifiable homicide in self defense? There we see aggressor(s) attempt to infringe on the right of life of another - normally it is a no-no to kill, but like silencing the aggressor, it is a special case.
All Anonymous is merely an entity that has a tendency of bloodying noses, and has taken up fighting censorship.
Now you may say using censorship to fight censorship is flawed, but then again, a great many things we know of use "fire to fight fire" (ironically, that also happens with actual IRL firefighting).
I knew this anti-WBC thing was fake as it didn't fit with Anonymous' modus operandi.
Anonymous knocked out Mastercard for attempting to knock out WikiLeaks. Anonymous knocked out the Church of Scientology on numerous occasions, with the final goal of spreading it's dogma everywhere enough to expose it to critical analysis and review without fear of censorship, losing the information, etc,.
Anonymous supported Mark Bunker and other Scientology critics when they were tailed, harassed and haragued, and, with poetic justice, turned the same unto Scientology.
There is little to see here but the Golden Rule being applied in reverse - "Be treated by others as you've treated them."
Anonymous doesn't attack an entity unless it takes action to silence others, which incurs the same fate.
Wouldn't you not want to silence someone who does naught but silence others? They have no right to do so, yet they insist on doing so, much like criminals insist on crime. Might I also point out the line of thought with justifiable homicide in self defense? There we see aggressor(s) attempt to infringe on the right of life of another - normally it is a no-no to kill, but like silencing the aggressor, it is a special case.
All Anonymous is merely an entity that has a tendency of bloodying noses, and has taken up fighting censorship.
Now you may say using censorship to fight censorship is flawed, but then again, a great many things we know of use "fire to fight fire" (ironically, that also happens with actual IRL firefighting).
I knew this anti-WBC thing was fake as it didn't fit with Anonymous' modus operandi.
Anonymous knocked out Mastercard for attempting to knock out WikiLeaks. Anonymous knocked out the Church of Scientology on numerous occasions, with the final goal of spreading it's dogma everywhere enough to expose it to critical analysis and review without fear of censorship, losing the information, etc,.
Anonymous supported Mark Bunker and other Scientology critics when they were tailed, harassed and haragued, and, with poetic justice, turned the same unto Scientology.
There is little to see here but the Golden Rule being applied in reverse - "Be treated by others as you've treated them."
