Why I Don't Support "Anonymous"

[quasigeostrophy]

(Disclaimer: These opinions were formed upon my initial encounter with the viral "Anonymous" videos yesterday morning, before personal issues struck very close to home as a result of differences of opinion elsewhere.)

1. Behaving in the same manner as one's intended target doesn't differentiate one from that target. Group A hates group B for doing X. So, in order to stop B, A does X to B. Who is the more "evil"?

2. Who gets to define "evil"? No one in history we define today as such ever thought of themselves as such. Hitler believed he was right. So did thousands of others who supported him. Same for the Borgias. Or Genghis Khan. The list goes on. And the definition constantly evolves.

3. Lack of responsibility is already rampant today. Anyone could go join some group similar to "Anonymous" and institute a DDoS against whomever the Target du Jour is and never be held accountable. It's like playing Illuminati with all the cards face down.

4. Freedom of speech is not a matter of convenience. This probably should tie in with #2, but just because group A spouts some theocratic or other message group B doesn't like, group B should just try to get their message out as well or better. The right to free speech doesn't equate to the right to be heard, either, but that doesn't mean group B has the right to prevent group A's message from being delivered.

ETA: 5. Life is not a science fiction story.

Comments

[sistercoyote.livejournal.com]

The villain is the hero of his own story.

That said, although I don't support "anonymous" I also don't have a lot of love for Scientology. They're scary.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I never said I liked them, and I certainly don't. See #1.

[sistercoyote.livejournal.com]

Reading comprehension: I fails it.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

*grin*

[elmegil.livejournal.com]

I have a small amount of sympathy for "Anonymous".

The CoS attack is not simply about religious statements, they have actually gone out of their way to behave, if not criminally, as close to that line as possible without getting caught. Harassment, DDoS, financial fraud, Barratry, allegations of murder, etc. They really, in many ways, have forfeited any reasonable basis to be considered a "good citizen" deserving of freedom of speech. Their establishment as a "Church" is seen by many as a sham to protect their bad behavior from examination and taxation.

All that said, while I can understand the motivation, and agree that the CoS does not deserve some of the more usual deference accorded to religious organizations, that does not make random anonymous script kiddies taking unilateral action an appropriate way to respond to them.

Those script kiddies have already wrongly targeted a dutch school.

As I mentioned to my other in the shower yesterday, you might as well have the Hell's Angel's as your police force.....

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I may understand their point-of-view, but I won't support their stooping to doing the same things the CoS does in retaliation, especially without taking any responsibility. Plus, as I understand it, the CoS doesn't go out of their way to force anyone into their "church"; one has to seek them out.

The misdirected target of that Dutch school is evidence of my points, IMHO.

[elmegil.livejournal.com]

while the CoS doesn't force you to seek them out, once you step up, it can be damn near impossible to get them to let you go. Still very much cultic behavior.

Essentially I agree in broad terms, but I have less focus on the "rights" of the CoS to behave the way they do. :)

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I see your point, but I still don't believe that gives "Anonymous" the right to act similarly. Statements I've seen attributed to "Anonymous" such as Anonymous is an enemy of those who are not Anonymous. Anonymous is not subject to law. etc. scare me as much as an annoying and even dangerous so-called church, if not more so.

[elmegil.livejournal.com]

"Essentially I agree in broad terms" was meant to definitely encompass agreement that Anonymous should NOT be behaving this way.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Clarification is always good. :-)

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

The Scientologists can be quite aggressive. In California I once had one come to my door and refused to leave until the nice policeman suggested that no, my shutting the door in his face really did indicate I didn't want to talk with him.

And the last time I saw them at a table on the Pearl St Mall one called out to me and asked if I wanted to take a free personality test. He did leave me alone after I asked to see the peer reviewed, double blind study that proved his E-Meter measured anything useful.

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

It worked for the Rolling Stones.

Oh, wait... never mind. :)