In the past /b/tards have attack the epilepsy website and yes the demarcation is blurred and yes the purpose of the attack was both unjustified and offensive. But should the possibility of the press using past transgressions to attempt to tar a cause stop those involved in arguably positive cause activism from taking part due to these prior transgressions by others
Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:26,
archived)
Should the WWF shut up shop because phil the Greek is a bit of a racist?
No, but they should perhapsdrop the Anonymous banner and put their names to the cause they believe in.
Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
(Shit sticks, and Anonymous is forever going to be tarred with trolling of quite a nasty nature.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:33,
archived)
As demonstrated amply by assange and manning associating your name with politically and legally questionable activities no matter how admirable the objective is fraught with risk
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:12,
archived)
But it alsogives an organisation legitimacy and shows someone's convictions.
Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
(Anonymous seem to use bullying and threat, rather then discussion, and so could never gain the respect that an organisation like Wikileaks has.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:23,
archived)