Bon_Clay said:
If you can still donate money to the KKK why not wikileaks?
Because being ignorant and hateful unfortunately is not "illegal." You have the RIGHT to say whatever you want and think whatever you want.
On the other hand, the moment the KKK steps over that boundary from "thought" to "action", the government is there to put their asses in check.
Nobody has a problem with Wikileaks doing or saying what it wants.
The problem is that they are doing and saying it with information that has been either stolen or was classified at some point.
And again, you Joe nobodies might puff yourselves up to feel as important as you need to so you can get through the day, but the reality is, NO, NO YOU don't need to know EVERYTHING. YES, YES sometimes there is a need for secrecy.
Sorry, that's called REALITY. You can argue about that all day long with eloquent quotes and impassioned rhetoric, but where the rubber meets the road, at the end of the day, Bullsh_t walks. Hell, you can't even say everything you want here on the ESCAPIST. What makes you think Wikileaks is above reproach.
Sadly, most of the people who love this Wikileaks stuff only do so because they aren't in a position to have anything of theirs exposed. They don't own businesses. And our innate curiosity makes us WANT to know. Wikileaks is only tapping into that same human need for information the way tabloid magazines do..
Assange and Wikileaks to me are no better than a political TMZ.
Dr.Nick said:
@Hyene
Wouldn't that make the government kinda like terrorists or at least working against the people in that case then? They certainly pressured paypal and visa rather than going after wikileaks itself.
You know, that's something that I'd like to shed light on as well. People keep saying "The government PRESSURED paypal and Visa and Mastercard" but is there ANY proof of this?
This presumes 2 things:
1. That someone somewhere has irrefutable, clear proof of the Government coercing or threatening any of these companies directly. (There is none, only hearsay and rumor).
2. That either of these companies was going to decide NOT to take that course of action. (More than likely, they were going to do this anyway simply because it would have been BAD BUSINESS to continue to do business with people who potentially might one day steal YOUR company secrets and "expose" them, depending on which way the wind was blowing that morning).
People who want to believe in Robin Hood's and Anti-heroes will find ANY excuse to redeem Anonymous as something more than just a bunch of punk ass kids throwing little tantrums and calling it "resistance" or whatever other heroic label you'd like to apply to it.
In reality, they are just another side of the same dark coin as the government: People who want to control somebody else.
If Anonymous really cared about "Freedom" they'd have SUPPORTED Paypal and Mastercard/Visa's RIGHT to DECIDE WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT. TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE.
There is NO gray area here. It's that simple. Black or white. Either you are free to CHOOSE or you aren't FREE at all.
Actual said:
If we're going to do silly comparisions, this one is far more accurate:
You are a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns they don't want you to sell to any customer who looks middle-eastern. You don't want any hassle so you just cave and tell any Asian looking folks that you won't serve them.
An anonymous group of vigilantes then padlocks your doors closed so you can't do business with anyone and they leave a note on the door that says "Don't be a douche".
Again, the vigilantes aren't doing anything better.
And your analogy needs adjusting:
I am a shopkeeper, the government decides that due to "terrorism" concerns, they would APPRECIATE IT if I didn't sell to any customers who look middle-eastern. Of course, I have the right to decide, and I figure I kinda side with the government, so I comply with the SUGGESTION.
Now along comes a bunch of self-styled "vigilantes" who then padlock my doors closed so I can't do business. So I'm faced with a dilemma... if I give in, I might be supplying terrorists. If I don't vigilantes will shut me down. The Government merely suggested it to me... the VIGILANTES took ACTIONS that were CONCRETE and damaging.
SO um... who should I be more concerned about? Who do YOU think is the bad guy in that scenario? Cause from where I'm sitting, as the shopkeeper, I should get the CHOICE to decide whatever the hell I want to, and it was the VIGILANTES who decided to make sure I don't get that illusion of choice.
Daverson said:
Good riddance I say.
Anonymous don't represent any kind of freedom, they represent a very serious threat to freedom in fact. Glaze over the facts all you want, they're pretty much the embodiment of mob rule.
spot freaking ON.
A Pious Cultist said:
They were breaking the law. With the exception of accidents intention does not change legality.
If you kill a man you go to jail. If you killed a man because he was complying with the goverment and giving away his customer's details then you still go to jail.
Paypal getting pressured? That's bad.
Paypal getting DDosed for doing what practically every other single buisness would have done? That's bad and illegal.
EXACTLY THIS.
Why do people keep making excuses for them? These people are not saints, martyrs, or even freedom fighters. They are just doing what they think gives a small amount of purpose to otherwise boring and meaningless lives that also requires very little effort or sacrifice on their own part.
What, they couldn't be bothered to put together a few signs? Maybe they should BOYCOTT Visa and Mastercard by not using their products? Good luck with that.
No, they just throw the virtual equivalent of a tantrum on their site and then go around patting themselves on the back and passing about Orcish ale to one another as if they just saved the merry old king of Scotland.
. 
