> From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab? This is a logical non sequitur. It’s like being fed your lunch by your kidnapper and when you protest

> From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab? This is a logical non sequitur. It’s like being fed your lunch by your kidnapper and when you protest they say, you’re using the energy I provided to protest. Like that’s a contradiction somehow, it’s not. Whatever the participation in the past may have been does nothing to excuse or make okay future behavior. And to the extent I did understand your point, I was confused because it was such a strawman. As I explained I wasn’t talking about every person in computing (of course). Interacted doesn’t mean they were the same or had no moral distinction. > ineffective moral absolutism I don’t even know where to start with how flawed your thinking is. Effectiveness isn’t the driver for having morals. And obviously it was effective because I’m here protesting. Neither is it absolutism. Objecting to the gross abuse of our government doesn’t equate with absolutism. Computers should serve their owners not corporate interests and dragnet surveillance. That was understood. 2010s Anonymous was a different thing in a different context that I wasn’t contemplating.