An answer - maybe

[agoodwinsmith]

I think The Anonymous Collective and the Billings Bridge group have found a viable option: disrupt and destroy the weapons.

Here are links (that currently work) with meagre details:
https://www.uniindia.com/story/Anonymous-group-declares-cyberwar-on-Russia
https://breachmedia.ca/the-battle-of-billings-bridge/

Billings Bridge stopped a resupply group to the Ottawa Occupiers, and made them surrender their gas cans; and Anonymous is disabling Russian digitals tools, which is no small potatoes. Even ten years ago, if the internet was down, none of us could do anything in the office – other than filing physical things locally.

I can find nothing about Anonymous on my mainstream media right now, and only a brief blip once about Billings Bridge. But they are happening, and they make you wonder what other gnat bites might be going on below the Journalistic radar.

So while this debating and waiting does tend to fragment the consensus-seeking group, because it is a spectrum and not an absolute, consensus-seekers do act, but not uniformly or cumulatively. In general, I think that consensus-seekers have consensus about what needs to be addressed, but no consensus about how to bring action to the issues. This is effective because it is unpredictable. Also, finding and eliminating one group doesn’t stop the rest. And, even, one group can get tired and stop, but something else will be going on somewhere else.

I feel that I should feel more guilty about splitting hairs, because violence is violence, but I think violence against things is slightly more justifiable than violence against people (even jail). I think acting against the tools of the aggressors is an effective way to hinder them.

Comments

[dewline]

Violence against things that prevents or delays violence against people in particular or living things in general...might be preferred in the Putinist Russia v. Ukraine situation. If you can stop or slow down a war crime...