Recently (around Nov 17 2014) a typical "internet bullying" alpha dominance struggle took place between some KKK groups and Anonymous.
These things are kind of funny, sometimes useful, sometimes not. Anonymous decides they want to stamp out the things they hate, like hatred. Okay, aside from totally and completely eliminating freedom of speech based on their own hatred of hatred the act is doubly hypocritical because they are hating haters by stamping out the free speech, that they claim to believe in, of the haters that they hate.
Everyone is hypocritical about something sometimes. This does suppress free speech though. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
Social networking was used by protesters in several countries to organize what essentially became revolutions. In this case, the KKK can use social networking to organize "murder squads" to kill protesters. That means shutting down the electronic social networking aspect of the freedom of speech of these scumbags can be considered a "good thing". Kind of like clamping a hand over the mouth of a person shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire.
BUT, it also limits the ability of law enforcement to monitor and intercept the plans of these scumbags.
While I really hate the jerks in the government who ignore the rights of the people to privacy and security from unlawful searches and seizures of their electronic communications, there are times, like when people are actually talking about shooting up bunches of other people, that I think the intrusion is just as appropriate as clamping a hand over the mouth of someone shouting....
Yeah, so beat that to death. People who are supposed to be enforcing the rights of people to privacy or free speech actually violating the rights of the people to...
Now which intrusion into our rights am I less disgusted with?
The intrusion into the privacy of these jerks by law enforcement officials who can arrest and imprison, maybe shoot some, of these scum bags?
The intrusion into the Freedom of Speech by Anonymous, who essentially force the scumbags underground into different lines of communication?
I'm afraid that judgment will have to wait until after the protests. If the KKK losers shoot some people and get away because Anonymous shut down their monitored lines of communication, well, bad move Anonymous. And they will be blamed, make no mistake.
If the KKK is shot or arrested I won't care much either way. I'll just be disgusted with the suppression of rights by both the U.S. Government and Anonymous.
If the KKK is all mouth and no action, which I think is probably true, I won't care much. I'll just be disgusted with the suppression of rights by both the U.S. Government and Anonymous.
Personally, I'm not second guessing the cop in Furguson. I have disarmed people pointing guns in my face and I will happily show anyone how to do it. Practicing until one has enough ability to actually do it in a life or death situation is the responsibility of the one taught, not the demonstrator. For all I know this kid who was shot was just as capable of taking a gun away from someone as I am. Maybe more capable because I am older, fatter and slower than I used to be.
In the end, there are times when we are so passionate about an idea that we have to take action, even if that action is hypocritical according to our beliefs as in the suppression of Free Speech by a group supposedly interested in supporting Free Speech and the reasoning behind that suppression is hypocritical, hating haters.
The U.S. Government and Anonymous are both guilty of the same crimes, ignoring the rights of others while they assert their dominance over people they disagree with.
Anonymous probably believes they are helping save lives, and as incompetent as most cops are, they might be right. Maybe they are, but, I doubt if the indirect action of interfering with a couple of methods of communication or "life ruining" some of these scum bags is going to change anything.
I've had scumbags hack me, mess up my credit, etc, etc, and my viewpoints haven't changed and neither have my actions. Pointing a gun at someone, or restricting their access to free speech, just reduces options. It does not change people's beliefs. Okay, it chases away the dilettantes, but not the "true believers".
All this indirect action also assumes that people value their reputations, data and their credit and etc more than they value their beliefs.
This indicates that these hackers actually value their on-line reputations, their credit, their data, etc, more than they value their own beliefs. Their beliefs appear to be flexible based on the group whose "respect" they are trying to achieve.
We would call people whose beliefs are flexible, "dilettantes", but, I'm sure they don't believe that they are since they are taking hidden and indirect action against people they hate. In fact, since these things are so important to them, they probably feel their indirect actions are actually direct.
Which means, when push comes to shove the hackers will probably avoid the gun fights, the knife fights, the blood, the death, that guys like me, and unfortunately many others including many cops and probably some of these scum bag KKK jerks won't avoid. When the blood runs in the streets, dilettantes always run. It takes a very hard core belief and passion to stand when one is facing twenty or more attackers by themselves. I've seen too many people who claimed to be brave run in the opposite direction when I am walking into trouble.
These alpha dominance struggles always come down to who is willing to become most violent and has the most muscle. The U.S. usually wins these struggles because, when the U.S. commits, it is more than willing to destroy everything in its path and the U.S. has the muscle to do that.
As our species moves from hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary development of alpha dominance based on violence and the threat of violence, non violent methods are developed and used. So far, when push comes to shove evolution has won and violent methods have prevailed. Maybe that will change, in a few thousand more years.
Evolution works slowly.
Until evolution completes a transition to non-violent forms of alpha dominance there will be struggles between non-violent forms of dominant influences, like hackers bullying people they don't like over the internet, and violent forms of dominance struggles like a kid being called a "fag" and getting beat up at school. These are socially unacceptable alpha dominance struggles because they interfere with people's civil rights. It doesn't matter, evolution hard wires us for dominance struggles so we compete how we can.
But, are they always "wrong"? What is "wrong"?
There are inflexible moral standards of "right" and "wrong" taught by most religions, and usually the practitioners of these religions violate their own standards. Depending on the religion and denomination of the religion deviations from high standards can be forgiven or punished harshly. It all comes down to the decision of the social group involved, and like individuals, social groups can be hypocritical too.
A lot of people thought it was wrong when the U.S. began monitoring private communications. Others, not so much.
Are they always "right"? Again, depends on the social group.
Hitler and his social group, the National Socialist Party, thought they were right. Others, not so much.
Without a set of inflexible standards of behavior to which all people strive there can be no "true" "right" and "wrong". Since all people will never subscribe to the same standards, people will always be striving to place their standards in dominance over people who reject those standards. Just as Anonymous and the U.S. Government do, even when it is completely hypocritical and rejects their own declared standards.
This is the alpha dominance struggle, and it ain't going anywhere. Ever.