'Anonymous' Strikes Again

[irishScott]

So basically you're a fan of law-breaking and vigilante justice when it coincides with your particular viewpoints. I understand but don't agree with it. It's a really popular position on P&N. I'm sure everyone will be loving it when more mainstream organizations are attacked.

I'm a fan of justice in general.

What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing. By any rational definition the WBC is guilty of multiple counts of harassment at the least, but they've been able to exploit the legal system and avoid any serious punishment. When the system fails, vigilantism may or may not be warranted. It depends completely on the individual situation and cannot be neatly generalized.

What Anonymous did is not hurting anything, and is morally justified.

 

[Darwin333]

As usual, you completely miss the point that it's not about individual 'free speech' - you can stand on the corner babbling and no one listens - but about the media ownership.

US public opinion is dramatically shifted by what the 'influence industry' pushes, and what they push is heavily determined by powerful interests.

It's not that the owner of a media outlet, Fox excepted, is some scheming ideologue, but corporate ownership creates limits, and having think tanks and armies of immediately available 'commentators' from those think tanks and similar organizations has a strong effect on the coverage and the views that get airtime.

How much do we hear about a return to record wealth inequality in mainstream news?

Going on about support for 'your right to say something idiotic' is pointless compared to dealing with the media issues that actually matter to public opinion.

Sure, in an extreme situation - a dictatorship - your right to say something on a street corner can become a right that's in question, but that's not the issue here.

What would you propose as an alternative?

 

[Darwin333]

So basically you're a fan of law-breaking and vigilante justice when it coincides with your particular viewpoints. I understand but don't agree with it. It's a really popular position on P&N. I'm sure everyone will be loving it when more mainstream organizations are attacked.

At some point we all "a fan" of vigilante justice when it coincides with our particular view points. The difference is just the view points and where we draw the line.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Best story about Westborough is when they were somewhere being idiots and got their tires slashed. Every tire store in town told them to get lost. They had to get towed home.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm a fan of justice in general.

What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing. By any rational definition the WBC is guilty of multiple counts of harassment at the least, but they've been able to exploit the legal system and avoid any serious punishment. When the system fails, vigilantism may or may not be warranted. It depends completely on the individual situation and cannot be neatly generalized.

What Anonymous did is not hurting anything, and is morally justified.

You like vigilante justice (you admit it yourself). Honestly, the fact that you're trying to defend it makes you unworthy of debate.

 

[Infohawk]

At some point we all "a fan" of vigilante justice when it coincides with our particular view points.

Not really. You're perhaps referring to people in an autocratic regime or absolute monarchy but that's not our situation. We live in a democracy. People who've been slapped or illegally harassed by WBC can take them to court. Where appropriate the state punishes them as well. Losers like Craig are trying to suggest that the system is rigged and that anonymous needs to take the law into its own hands but that is absurd in the context of the WBC. Again, I'd love to see everyone's reaction when their favorite pet organization gets targeted.

 

[Craig234]

What would you propose as an alternative?

In the last few decades, regulations preserving diversity of ownership in media, that supported more local control, less monopoly, were repealed after big media lobbying.

I'd restore those regulations, so that 5 companies don't own something like 90% of the media.

That would be one improvement.

 

[irishScott]

You like vigilante justice (you admit it yourself). Honestly, the fact that you're trying to defend it makes you unworthy of debate.

And the fact that you won't even acknowledge your own generalizations makes it clear you never intended to debate in the first place.

I don't condone vigilante justice in all cases by any means. In this case, I do. Specificity is a wonderful thing.

 

[Infohawk]

And the fact that you won't even acknowledge your own generalizations makes it clear you never intended to debate in the first place.

I don't condone vigilante justice in all cases by any means. In this case, I do. Specificity is a wonderful thing.

It's not wonderful, it's called being arbitrary. Which is precisely my point about you. I don't think we're really disagreeing. It's just that you're trying to make your positions look noble when in fact they are sloppy and selfish.

 

[irishScott]

Not really. You're perhaps referring to people in an autocratic regime or absolute monarchy but that's not our situation. We live in a democracy. People who've been slapped or illegally harassed by WBC can take them to court. Where appropriate the state punishes them as well. Losers like Craig are trying to suggest that the system is rigged and that anonymous needs to take the law into its own hands but that is absurd in the context of the WBC. Again, I'd love to see everyone's reaction when their favorite pet organization gets targeted.

So you look to the United States Legal code for moral guidance, and any who would suggest flaws in that code or in the enforcement thereof are suggesting flaws in your morals. Got it.

Don't get me wrong I'm not supporting Craig, but the system is hardly as ideal as you think it is. In a perfect world you would be right. In this world your opinion is simply naive.

And you could call the NRA one of my "pet organizations". Would I be pissed if Anonymous took their site down? Possibly, depending on the reasons. Or I may be supporting them. Once again, specifics are required.

 

[irishScott]

It's not wonderful, it's called being arbitrary. Which is precisely my point about you. I don't think we're really disagreeing. It's just that you're trying to make your positions look noble when in fact they are sloppy and selfish.

It's called making a moral judgment based on my own moral code. Adults do that sometimes.

 

[Infohawk]

It's called making a moral judgment based on my own moral code. Adults do that sometimes.

Your own moral code that is arbitrary and inconsistent. Love how you call it a "code." You really don't get it do you?

 

[irishScott]

Your own moral code that is arbitrary and inconsistent. Love how you call it a "code." You really don't get it do you?

Lol and you would know this how? Off of one post? One thread? Several threads? Yeah, you obviously know everything about how I think and what I base my decisions on.

In any case, I explained my basic reasoning for approving of Anon's actions. The WBC has yet to be punished for crimes committed. If that punishment comes from Anonymous as opposed to the system, in this specific instance with these specific variables, I approve. If the variables changed, say, anonymous committed arson and burned some of the WBC's kids alive, I wouldn't approve.

You see the difference? Both forms of vigilante justice, one I approve, one I don't. It's not arbitrary or random, it's based on the situation, what I've been taught, what I feel and what I know.

Sorry if you satisfy your need for structure by applying inaccurate blanket statements, real world doesn't work that way. That or you're just too lazy to think.

 

[Infohawk]

In any case, I explained my basic reasoning for approving of Anon's actions. The WBC has yet to be punished for crimes committed.

Who was the "judge and jury" of the crimes you allege WBC committed?

 

[zsdersw]

So basically you're a fan of law-breaking and vigilante justice when it coincides with your particular viewpoints. I understand but don't agree with it. It's a really popular position on P&N. I'm sure everyone will be loving it when more mainstream organizations are attacked.

This will not happen. As the level of extremity grows or shrinks, the risk of "attack" grows or shrinks, respectively.

With any action, the perceived consequences and their perceived likelihood of occurrence is considered. As such, the actions of Anonymous in this case are entirely free of consequence. Anonymous is both worldwide and armored with Internet anonymity.

WBC brought this on themselves by choosing to provoke; to engage an enemy they are woefully unprepared and unable to thwart. The Internet is not the eminent domain of any one country or minority group of countries.

 

[Axon]

Unless you're Amazon. Then you just yawn at the ddos attack.

 

[irishScott]

Who was the "judge and jury" of the crimes you allege WBC committed?

Does it shock you to know that my moral opinions are not decided by committee or subject to an external legal expert?

If you're asking for evidence, google it yourself. It's obvious. I'm not going to do 1st grade level research for you.