The irrelevance of anonymity in discussion

[_keene]

I need some one piece jammies...

[_The Nehor]

Those who are critical of anonymity are forgetting the most important fact about it. Wether anonymous or not, the arguments still stand. If one attacks another for merely being anonymous they are using it as a straw man to draw attention away from the fact that the attacker has nothing to say.

Considering how often you personally insult people completely independent of any arguments they make, I will now bust out laughing.

Don't you have a sock hop thrown by the singles ward relief society to go to?

Sock hops are so cool. I think that's the highest level of undress allowed at stake dances. All those sexy feet with nothing but thin sock fabric covering them. The memories make me all hot and bothered...not!

And then to get even more hot and bothered, we can imagine the nehor there in his one-piece jammies.

If that doesn't get you going, what else could?

I am sorry but unless gramps is a metaphorical name that describes neither your gender or age I'm not interested. Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams.

[_gramps]

And then to get even more hot and bothered, we can imagine the nehor there in his one-piece jammies.

If that doesn't get you going, what else could?

I am sorry but unless gramps is a metaphorical name that describes neither your gender or age I'm not interested. Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams.

Hummh? Seems to me from following these threads that your choices are very few indeed. Perhaps you shouldn't be so picky (not being able to masturbate and all without having to repent to your neighbor)?

Life must be tough for young singles unable to find a hottie with whom to jump into the celestial sack. How about I pray to Belial to help you out?

[_Jason Bourne]

Those who are critical of anonymity are forgetting the most important fact about it. Wether anonymous or not, the arguments still stand. If one attacks another for merely being anonymous they are using it as a straw man to draw attention away from the fact that the attacker has nothing to say.

Hey Merc!!

We agree

Amazing!!

But then I am just an anonymous hypocrite.

[_Some Schmo]

I think you're on the right track. Merc, but I think Crocket's position is that criticizing people (as opposed to arguments) anonymously is bad. But when called on it, he admits that it wouldn't be any better to libel someone under your own name.

I think that even that argument of Crocket's misses the point. When I criticize online, I try to criticize arguments, not people. Can't say I'm always successful. Anyhow, it seems to me that criticizing an argument is not in any way libel. Criticizing an argument should also be independent of who is making that criticism--save for cases where the subject matter requires an expert to really make sense of it. I wouldn't be much for criticizing an article on nuclear physics for example although I may still be able to point out some basic errors.

I think you're right about this; crock is actually more critical of anonymous personal insults than anything else.

I think the misunderstanding here, however, is that TBM's take a criticism about the church personally, so essentially, every comment about how stupid the church is ends up being a personal attack on the members themselves. So if you make an anonymous comment about how Joe Smith was a con artist, for instance, crock's going to be all over you for anonymous personal attacks.

If Mormons could actually separate themselves from their beliefs, their occasions to be offended around here would decrease significantly.

[_harmony]

I think you're right about this; crock is actually more critical of anonymous personal insults than anything else.

I think the misunderstanding here, however, is that TBM's take a criticism about the church personally, so essentially, every comment about how stupid the church is ends up being a personal attack on the members themselves. So if you make an anonymous comment about how Joe Smith was a con artist, for instance, crock's going to be all over you for anonymous personal attacks.

If Mormons could actually separate themselves from their beliefs, their occasions to be offended around here would decrease significantly.

I think crock's objections is mostly to what he perceives as insults to people who are living. He's not much concerned about dead people. However, your basic premise still applies: criticizing the church is the same as personally criticizing the leaders and crock feels that insults them. He thinks critiquing their leadership is the same as criticiquing their choice in suits or their personal hygiene.

[_rcrocket]

I think crock's objections is mostly to what he perceives as insults to people who are living. He's not much concerned about dead people. However, your basic premise still applies: criticizing the church is the same as personally criticizing the leaders and crock feels that insults them. He thinks critiquing their leadership is the same as critiquing their choice in suits or their personal hygiene.

Partly right.

I care a little about anonymous criticisms of dead people. Anonymity while one is criticizing the Church here and behaving like a normal churchgoer elsewhere demonstrates cowardice, which cowardice is abetted by anonymity. A person who uses his real name here is not really likely to act inconsistently with actual life. Take, for example, Guy Sajer. He uses a pseudonym (that discussed below) but we can figure out who he is. It does not appear to me that he acts inconsistently here as compared to there. Other examples where inconsistency is very unlikely -- Graham, Bachman, Vogel, Peterson. But, it does appear to me that anonymous posters are admitting to, and have admitted to, inconsistent and hypocritical behavior.

Inconsistency is a major basis to undercut one's argument. If one comes here to call Joseph Smith a child molester, but then attends church every Sunday, pays tithing and attends the temple, one could say that the poster really does not believe what he says -- one way or another. Similarly, if I published a piece denouncing Brigham Young over the Utah War, such piece would be thrown in my face at every turn when I wanted to argue the contrary point.

Anonymous criticism of living persons is a different matter. I divide that into public figures versus those that are not. A public figure would be like Pres. Bush or Gordon B. Hinckley or most general authorities. Although I still think anonymous potshots at them are rather cowardly, public service entails having to put up with that.

Anonymous trashing of private persons is a far different matter. One does not become public merely because one wants to teach at a university, post on public internet boards or defend one's religion, race or ethnic origin. Trashing their reputations, their professions, their integrity, their honesty -- anonymously -- is repugnant. Those who cannot see the repugnancy are, in my view. sociopathic -- and the internet tends to attract those types.

A big deal has been made of the Founding Father's resort to pseudonyms. Pseudonyms asserting challenges to public issues and public persons are far different matters than you dialing up my next door neighbor and hurling an anonymous accusation against me that I am dishonest in academic publications. First of all, virtually all the political pseudonyms were by known persons -- just as Guy Sajer's pseudonym is known today, so were those of Thomas Jefferson. Pseudonymity is not anonymity. Pseudonymity is an affectation we see much less of today than we did a century ago, although I point out that Natalie Portmann is a pseudonym she uses to protect her family and, as they say, hide her Jewishness.

The point is made that anonymity is irrelevant, because an insult by one anonymous is no different than an insult by one with a real name. There are real problems with that analysis. Primarily, a real person is not likely to go out on a limb, and say things he doesn't really mean, or something that might embarrass him, if he knows it might come back to him. (As in my case, there have been several threats to go my stake president and one threat to go to my employer [I am self employed].) An anonymous person has not the same restraint. I liken an anonymous person to one who spins out his four-wheel drive on a hated neighbor's lawn and then runs before anybody sees him; he'd never do that with witnesses. For that reason, most people respect real people and do not respect anonymous hits.



rcrocket

[_asbestosman]

So then rcrocket, you're saying that anonymity is bad because it tempteth to the commission of sin?

I disagree. Anonymity is a tool just as guns and cars are a tools. A bank robber might not dare rob a bank without his gun or an automobile, but police officers use them too. In fact, the police use deception as well in sting operations. I am, for example, reminded of one such sting operation into the Gadianton Robbers in the book of Alma. He probably wouldn't have dared attend the meeting while making known his connections and loyalties to Alma.

[_rcrocket]

You have reduced my argument to what it is not.

Could somebody who is not anonymous please step forward and say that anonymity is usually considered a virtue, rather than a vice, when used to criticize a living person?

[_Runtu]

Bob,

I was just thinking that I post pretty much the same kind of stuff now with my own name that I used to post under a pseudonym. Of course, I've never cared that much if people knew who I was. But do you think that it was cowardly to say what I said than and not so today? If so, what's the difference?