TO start: I am not saying what they did is right, but I am saying you do not have a right to call it "Cowardice".
>The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison)
There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. IT is a fight a fight is a war. There are very few rules in war.
Many actual freedom fighters have died in places like Bhutan, Burma, etc. This does not make them superior fighters, this diminishes the power to the cause (because they perish and are hard to replace), prolongs the struggle.
I am sure you have seen more than most people and work hard and I am not saying you didn't do this or accusing you of anything because I do not know you enough, but your short essay needs to be more tactile in certain locations specially in this context.
You call upon Hacker News to grow up but must of your statements in your piece are childish:
>I know actual freedom fighters, that is publishers of opposition magazines and organizers of nonviolent protests, from Taiwan
>If you really want to learn about effective popular action to bring about more freedom, point your Web browser to the Albert Einstein Institute publications
>You and your first world problems have NO IDEA how to fight for freedom
>The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice
WHY? Because staying in prison is not a tough guy thing. Doesn't make you smarter or an "Actual freedom fighter". It inhibits you to fight. I am focusing on the concept of a fight as you realize, a struggle, a battle...
You cannot know when it will manifest, when it will ignite and when it will finish. There are stages of undetermined amounts. Not to mention collateral damage. So if you think there is a "fight" here from the beginning, which, by your essay you seem to think so, please analyze what a fight is. A fight, battle or whatever you may label it, does not go through an essay out of some institute. It has strategical value and may come in handy at some point, but it is not a doctrine and going by it will actually put you at an disadvantage. So I suggest before calling people coward and claiming you know "Actual Freedom" fighters and starting your comment with a childish statement that literally translates to "you don't know what you are doing, I am the real deal", I suggest you read on Sun Tzu, The Prince, On guerrilla warfare. If you think there is a fight for freedom going on because what they do may serve a purpose that depends on the length, importance and tactical situation in the fight. Yes these are strategy books and maybe you will claim you are a peaceful activist and don't need these which is fine, but, make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner.
>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom.
There are two wrong ways to fight for freedom (or any noble cause): (1). to fight unjustly and (2). to fight ineffectively. Starting a fight is not without a cost to a side that loses the fight, that cost may be in lives, money or emotional energy. To fight ineffectively for a noble cause is to fight unjustly since you hurt your chances of winning, to fight unjustly but effectively for a noble cause turns a noble cause into an unjust cause.
>IT is a fight a fight is a war.
Not all fights are wars, nor are all wars fights (for examples wars have been fought to pump up nationalism or to test a doctrine with neither side actually engaging in real fighting. If you read 'The Prince' much of the wars between the cities of Italy are not fights).
>There are very few rules in war.
The appeal to a war mentality you are making is an appeal to as you say "few rules". This is both untrue in that most wars are fought within a large number of rules and limited in scope, most wars are not absolute wars, and absolute wars tend to consume the original causes for the war. Absolute wars are wars for the sake of war rather than wars for the sake of principal. To advocate a war mentality for the purpose of arguing that few rules apply is completely self-defeating since such a war destroys the original purpose you are attempting to achieve.
>make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner.
This is certainly not true, you can have all losers, all winners or any combination thereof. Who wins in a absolute nuclear war? Maybe invertebrates, maybe not.
Do not take this post as defense of the earlier poster.
>The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison)
There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. IT is a fight a fight is a war. There are very few rules in war. Many actual freedom fighters have died in places like Bhutan, Burma, etc. This does not make them superior fighters, this diminishes the power to the cause (because they perish and are hard to replace), prolongs the struggle.
I am sure you have seen more than most people and work hard and I am not saying you didn't do this or accusing you of anything because I do not know you enough, but your short essay needs to be more tactile in certain locations specially in this context. You call upon Hacker News to grow up but must of your statements in your piece are childish:
>I know actual freedom fighters, that is publishers of opposition magazines and organizers of nonviolent protests, from Taiwan >If you really want to learn about effective popular action to bring about more freedom, point your Web browser to the Albert Einstein Institute publications
>You and your first world problems have NO IDEA how to fight for freedom
>The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice
WHY? Because staying in prison is not a tough guy thing. Doesn't make you smarter or an "Actual freedom fighter". It inhibits you to fight. I am focusing on the concept of a fight as you realize, a struggle, a battle...
You cannot know when it will manifest, when it will ignite and when it will finish. There are stages of undetermined amounts. Not to mention collateral damage. So if you think there is a "fight" here from the beginning, which, by your essay you seem to think so, please analyze what a fight is. A fight, battle or whatever you may label it, does not go through an essay out of some institute. It has strategical value and may come in handy at some point, but it is not a doctrine and going by it will actually put you at an disadvantage. So I suggest before calling people coward and claiming you know "Actual Freedom" fighters and starting your comment with a childish statement that literally translates to "you don't know what you are doing, I am the real deal", I suggest you read on Sun Tzu, The Prince, On guerrilla warfare. If you think there is a fight for freedom going on because what they do may serve a purpose that depends on the length, importance and tactical situation in the fight. Yes these are strategy books and maybe you will claim you are a peaceful activist and don't need these which is fine, but, make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner.