You wouldn't blame an individual member of a subculture (whether self or third-party-identified) for the actions of other individual members of said group (I hope). I think the same applies here. If you prefer - think of it as a very loose gang. Though you might suspect every "member" as a potential criminal simply by association, you must give each splinter group and each individual the benefit of the doubt and judge them by their actions.
The anons who are still driving this movement (now composed of more than just those people), if they were involved in the bad stuff at all (no doubt a fair few were) have either grown up and got on with it, or have gone back to their chans. Some have taken action against what they perceive as a moral crusade that's anathema to their rather strange ethos. I would suggest that it's those latter who have most in common with the reservations you have of people identifying as "anonymous". They are simply ignored by the movement.
You're missing the point, although I'll concede it's an easy thing to do with points such as this.
We live in a world where everyone is divided into groups with labels - either chosen by themselves, or imposed on them by others who seek to classify them. When someone chooses a label, they identify themselves as belong to a group - a set of individuals that share something in common.
A person who says "I am a deer hunter", for instance, is placing himself in a group - a set of individuals who choose to participate in a certain activity. When you hear someone describe himself as a "deer hunter", you can feel safe making certain assumptions about things he does - to wit: at some point during the year he arms himself and travels to an area where deer hunting is allowed, and he tries to kill one or more deer. Perhaps he makes more than one trip, perhaps not. You can feel safe making that assumption because doing those things is precisely what makes someone a "deer hunter". If the person who identified himself as a deer hunter did NOT do those things, he would be lying, or mistaken. But assuming he is being honest, he belongs to that specific set of individuals - that GROUP. He may belong to a formal organization, composed of other members of that GROUP, but not necessarily. Perhaps he just goes out with some friends, who don't have any kind of organization about them. Perhaps he goes all by himself. No matter which, he belongs to that group with which he chooses to identify. That group of individuals who all choose the same label, and all engage in the same activities.
Any label works this way. If I person describes herself as a pilot, you know that he flies airplanes or helicopters (or perhaps just steers large boats - context is important). If someone describes himself as a Republican, you know that he holds, by and large, to a general set of political views. If someone describes himself as a beekeeper, you know that he owns some beehives and works with his bees on occasion.
The point is, unless you make up a brand new label for yourself, you're using a label that's been around and has some connotations already attached to it, that people WILL think of when they hear you describe yourself so. Imagine a person, a teacher for instance, who works with children, and absolutely loves it. She belongs to that set of people who also love kids. What label would she choose? Literally speaking, the word "pedophile" means "one who loves kids", but should she use that label? No. Because the world "pedophile" carries specific connotations which, if she wants to continue working with kids, she wouldn't want people to attach to her.
Full circle. You seem to be trying to describe "Anonymous" as an informal set of individuals who are basically nothing more than computer bulletin board enthusiasts,
some of whom have engaged in a malicious prank now and then. I think this portrayal is absolutely dead-on wrong, wrong, wrong. There are all kinds of computer bulletin board enthusiasts; there are all kinds of particular sets within that larger set. Based on what I myself have seen, the commonality - the thing which makes the "Anonymous"-labeled set of computer bulletin board enthusiasts different from all the other sets - IS their delight and mockery of others' tragedy and suffering. That's the characteristic - again, according to my personal observations - that makes "Anonymous" "Anonymous". Certainly, the actual
actions committed weren't committed by everyone. But the actions aren't the commonality. The commonality is the mindset that such things are funny, or at least tolerable. "Lulz", if you will.
I understand very clearly that the vast overwhelming majority of people who are actually, physically showing up to these protests have about as much to do with Anonymous as I do. They're not there because they saw the words "Anonymous Scientology protest", they're there because they saw the words "Scientology protest". Yet, they identify themselves as belonging to or working with Anonymous - likely for no other reason than that they've been told that's who's "running the show", no matter how true it is by this point in time. They're the kid-loving teachers who, having never heard the negative connotations of the word "pedophile" before, decided to use the label because it means "one who loves kids". However noble I find their intentions, I can't share their folly, knowing it is a folly.
As for the others - the few surviving operators who actually WERE part of the "original" Anonymous, the ones you say may very well at some point had been sending black faxes or running DDOS attacks, or making silly "threatening" YouTube videos, but just aren't anymore - well, they know very well what Anonymous's defining characteristics are. Perhaps they don't mind identifying themselves as sharing those characteristics, or at least being sympathetic towards them. Fine - no business of mine. But I will certainly not be following any effort they are leading. Even against Scientology. The enemy of my enemy does NOT have to be my friend.
Isn't that a tad melodramatic? They are just a bunch of kids not the spawn of Satan.