home

Do I Need To Know Who You Are To Realize You're Talking Nonsense? A Defense of Anonymity in Blogging

My latest defense of anonymous blogging:

A few days ago, on [Comment is Free], Daphna Baram wrote in favour of stripping the anonymity from website commentators, arguing:
We are being made to believe that the defamation is a price we have to pay, especially those of us who write on contentious topics, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or anything to do with feminism. [. . .] There's nothing democratic about a state of affairs where people put themselves and their opinions on a public platform only to be confronted by a hooded, faceless crowd, often armed with rotten eggs and over-ripe tomatoes.

Is her objection to the facelessness or the rotten eggs? Like Garance Franke-Ruta before her, Baram arrives at a solution to speech she deems offensive - eliminate anonymity. She does not accept that anonymity provides a safeguard to free speech on the web. Her evidence for her assertion? Well, none. Instead, Baram ignores the history of pseudononymous writing, from the ancients to the modern American examples of Poor Richard, Publius, Mark Twain and Atrios.

. . . In the end, Baram's proposal would shut out the thousands of voices out there that comment anonymously for the same reason I tried to. I think a few harsh words directed at us by some idiots is a small price to pay for allowing these voices to be heard.

Go throw a few tomatoes and rotten eggs at me if you are so inclined.

< Are Our Presidential Candidates Committing Political Suicide? | Happy Birthday, Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Tomatoes and eggs, comin' up! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    From an opinion published the other day, striking down a federal speech-regulating statute as facially unconstitutional:

    Additionally, the First Amendment protects an individual's right to speak anonymously. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995) ("[A]n author's decision to remain anonymous . . . is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."). This statute not only regulates a person's right to [ .. speak...], but it also requires that person to identify him or herself as the photographer as well as identify the individual depicted. While the individual depicted is shown in the photograph, that person still has a First Amendment right to not provide his or her name and therefore retain a certain level of anonymity. See Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc., 536 U.S. at 167 ("The fact that circulators revealed their physical identities did not foreclose our consideration of the circulators' interest in maintaining their anonymity [in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)]."). It is clear that this statute covers quite a bit of protected speech.

    To paraphrase a bon mot from Heinlein, Daphna and Garance (where do they get these names?) can take their proposal to unmask us anonyms, fold it until it's all corners and, ... well, you know....

    Unlike the dainty Republicans who want names so they can stalk them, I am neither afraid of anonymity, nor of freedom.  Further distinguishing myself from them, I not only believe in having rights, but also in exercising them, too.  They're pretty useless without exercise.

    Daphna is a Hebrew name (none / 0) (#8)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:03:03 PM EST
    It means "victory". It's the same name as Daphne, which I assume you've heard of. And I personally like the recent proliferation of foreign-sounding and atypically "American" names in the media and politics. Enough of all these tired Georges, Richards and Donalds. Although I could do without another Condoleeza, myself.

    Btw, while we're talking unusual names, Barack means "blessed". I believe that it's Swahili in his case, but it's a variant of an old Semitic word that's pronounced "Baruch" in Hebrew, and also "Barack" in Arabic.

    Many people would also be quite surprised to learn that many common names in the US are of biblical, and thus Hebrew or Semitic origin. E.g. Michael, David, John/Jon, Mary, Elizabeth, Paul, Sharon, Sam, Ben, Debbie, Ethan, Aaron, Esther, etc.

    Don't know about Heinlein or Garance, though. German is not my forte.

    Ok, enough pedantry for today...

    Parent

    Others are actually intelligent (1.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    I think most people know the basis of David, etc.

    Parent
    Can you tell us the derivation of (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    Obama's middle name?

    Not that there's anything wrong with it...

    Parent

    Um, ever heard of Google? ;-) (none / 0) (#15)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    But since you ask, from the Wiki entry:

    Husayn (name)

    Husayn, Hussein, Hussain, Husain (Arabic:حسین), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "beautiful" or "handsome". It is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims, after Husayn ibn Ali. In some Persian sources the form Háosayn is used [1]. In Turkish it is Hüseyin.

    So, he's blessed and handsome. Which I would tend to agree with. I tried to look up Obama but couldn't find a meaning. Perhaps he has an Irish ancestor who went to the University of Alabama? ;-)

    Parent

    and handsome. (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    You must be an ears man.

    Parent
    So you're a homophobe too now? (none / 0) (#18)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:22:12 PM EST
    At least you're "out" about it. Can't stand those closeted homophobes myself.

    Only a wingnut homophobe would have a problem with a man calling another man handsome. Which Obama is, by any objective standard.

    You're not just a troll, but a supertroll. Don't you have some Regnery books to read or a Rush book signing to go to?

    Parent

    Only a liberal with (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Pancho on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 08:33:11 AM EST
    a chip on his shoulder would see homophobia in that remark.

    Parent
    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    And I have over four years of comments in the archivez that prove it. I'll provide one for every 20 dollars that you contribute to TL. (I have grown weary of being the only one who provides links in the various arguments with you.)

    I mean, you really should study history before shooting off your mouth.

    BTW - Do you actually think that referring to a physical characteristic of a person of the same sex is homophobic??

    I mean, you are the one who declared him:

    So, he's blessed and handsome.

    Tasteless? Perhaps. And if so, I plead guilty. As should all those on the Left who call Bush "Monkey Man," etc.

    Parent

    I didn't declare it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    I pointed out that it's what his names MEAN, and then (parenthetically) added that in his case, I thought that they certainly applied.

    He is blessed, given his life story, i.e. coming from mixed ethnicity, growing up in various countries, having a loving family, being so intellectually gifted, going to top schools, being a senator. I don't think that there's much dispute on this one.

    As for handsome, well, that's always subjective. But most people, myself included, would say that he's good looking, without necessarily being "attracted" to him. There is a difference, you know.

    And I don't think that "tasteless" is quite the right word for it. More like clueless, as in adolescent, juvenile, infantile, etc., as in "A guy found another guy handsome, hee hee". And the homophobia was in the subtext, of an obviously adolescent sort.

    Parent

    On The Nose (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:14:01 PM EST
    PPJ's comment about you being an ears man was definately said with a fake lisp in the style of a schoolyard taunt. IOW suggesting that you were gay and making fun of it.

    Parent
    It's always the towel-snappers (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    who are projecting and trying to mask their insecurities. As if that needed to be pointed out.

    Or, to invoke an old proverb that's on his mental level, "He who smelt it, dealt it".

    Am I supposed to provide Wiki links or something to "back" this up?

    ;-)

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    You'll have to describe it for me. Not familiar  myself.

    BTW - Have you acquired a channeling ability? No?

    Then how do you know what I meant? Of course you don't. So what do you do. You make things up.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    BTW - My offer to Rovie is also available for you.

    Parent

    So, if you thought they applied (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    Then I see no mistake in my comment.

    And be nice or I will change by comment from "Tasteless. Perhaps." to

    An exact description.

    As for your homophobia bit, get over it. Donate some money and I will pound you with archived comments proving you not only wrong, but totally wrong.

    But I can see that someone  with the "Lay the guilt trip on'em" like you would try and make such a spurious claim.

    BTW - Have you forgot? You lectured Pancho, and me, on the fact that the person making the claim is expected to provide some proof. A link  being customary, or perhaps a verifiable quotation.

    You have provided absolutely NO poof. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. Just a smearing claim.

    Are you Squeaky in disguise???

    Parent

    Hahahahhaha (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    It's the ppj squirm. Twist and shout.....

    Parent
    I have no idea what this means (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:05:06 PM EST
    What am I supposed to "prove" or provide links to back up? I already linked to what his names mean. And the meaning of the subtext of your comment needed no backing up, nor could I come up with any. Are you saying that commenting on a comment properly requires one to first exhaustively research a commenter's entire commenting history, to make sure that the subtext was understood properly? Am I supposed to devote my life to categorically "proving" that which is blatantly obvious?

    You're trying to be clever, using your bag of trollisms, but not really succeeding. No matter how much you cry about lack of "proof" or links or underline your words. Emphasis does not constitute thesis. The ancient Greeks called this sophistry, or trying to win an argument by engaging in false but superficially appealing logic. There are all sorts of ways to do this. You succeed at none of them. Except, of course, in your own head.

    Parent

    How drool. (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    You have accused me of making a homophobic comment.

    And I don't think that "tasteless" is quite the right word for it. More like clueless, as in adolescent, juvenile, infantile, etc., as in "A guy found another guy handsome, hee hee". And the homophobia was in the subtext, of an obviously adolescent sort.

     

    Quite Coulteresque, really (5.00 / 1) A(#50)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:53:43 PM CST
    I.e. making an obviously insulting insinuation, and then taking it back by saying "Oh, I was joking--get a life!" or "That's not what I meant!".

    and now you write:

    What am I supposed to "prove" or provide links to back up?

    The claim, Kovie. The claim!!!!

    And I love your attempt at excusing yourself.

    Are you saying that commenting on a comment properly requires one to first exhaustively research a commenter's entire commenting history, to make sure that the subtext was understood properly?

    Well, if you wanted to be accurate, yes. If not, then you should just accept the explanation.

    Your choice.

    When can I see the proof?

    Parent

    You ask for a standard of "proof" (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    that NO ONE employs in blogs.

    But if you want "proof" that your statement was Coulteresque, first you make a stupid comment about a man finding another man handsome, that can only be views as homophobic (even if it wasn't necessarily consciously meant to be, on which I'm willing to give you some benefit of the doubt, even though I think it's not deserved) within today's cultural and social context, and then you sort of take it back, by calling it perhaps "tasteless"--i.e. a bad joke. This is precisely what Coulter does, making tasteless and offensive jokes, and then claiming to take then back. You don't actually expect me to go and cite the many things that have been written on this? Or do I have to start proving that George Washington was the first president every time I mention him in a comment now?

    This is common knowledge. Or at least accepted as such. I.e. the sort of thing one doesn't have to regularly "prove" in a reality-based blog. And I will not bother to try to do so, for your amusement.

    Your comment, whether or not meant to be, was homophobic in the same way that Biden's comments about Obama (ironically) were racist.

    Parent

    Nope that wasn't it. (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:28:58 AM EST
    And the homophobia was in the subtext, of an obviously adolescent sort.

    That was your claim.

    Now prove it.

    And no. GW as 1st Pres is well known, and not contested by GW.

    Your claim re homophobia is not known, and I contest it.

    Quit ducking and hiding.

    Prove it.

    Parent

    Tell you what. (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 08:55:40 AM EST
    I'll make you a deal.

    You define "prove".  And I'll ask around and try to help you find someone stupid enough to think you make sense.

    Parent

    For someone with a limited resume (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    you certainly like to call people stupid, peasant, etc.

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    The people you mention are "commentators."
    You surely don't think they are "news" broadcasters, do you?
    No wonder you act so confused.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]
    I don't think they are (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    anything remorely resembling "news" broadcasters.

    But the peasants seem to think so.

    And to demonstrate your smarts:

    No. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    There is no equivalence, ppj.
    White supremacist nutbars have barely grown feet from their flippers and crawled out of the primordial slime pits. They are eons behind anyone they try to demonize.
    There will probably never be equivalence.

    [ Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5  ]
    edger (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    So you don't claim equilavence between the christians radicals, small though they may be in numbers, and the radical Moslems, your claim is that they are much worse than the radical Moslems.

    And then there is your lack of respect for free speech:

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Prove something to you?

    heh

    Parent

    I've been looking all weekend. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    But I still can't find anyone stupid enough to think you make sense. Sorry. I'll keep trying, though I don't think I'll ever have much success in the search. I'm sure there's gotta be one or two out there somewhere though. Even if they just "fake" it and pretend to be stupid. You do have "friends", don't you?

    Have you defined "prove" yet"?

    Parent

    homophobia shading into (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jondee on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    closeted, (or, airport stalled) frustration, is probobly closer to it.

    It always expresses itself in that adolescent vein.

    Parent

    homophobe? He was making a joke about obama's ears (none / 0) (#20)
    by jerry on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    If anything this reveals him to be a Ferengi, but a homophobe?   Set down the keyboard and grab some fresh air.

    Parent
    Actually the (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    devil made me do it.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Yeah, right, whatever (none / 0) (#24)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    But I got the fresh air though, thanks.

    Parent
    Here's a teaser you get for free (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    Re: Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendm (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:45:10 PM EST

    Jondee - You continue to demonstrate a complete like of memory, which matches up very nicely with your demonstrated mental capability. I have commented time and again that I don't care who marries who, as long as they are consenting adults. So go snark around someone else. et al - The real issue is simply this. The only involvement government should have with marriage is the enforcement of any contractual dispute resolutions. Beyond that, we have the civil recording of the act, etc. So what we should have is a civil contract. Period. For marriage within a church, that should be up to the church. Seems simple, but both sides see it as a chance to score points rather than do right.


    Parent
    Thanks for the offer, but... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Lora on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    I agree with you completely this time.

    Besides, how would someone's identity be verified, anyway?  Would a DNA sample be required?  A photo?  A social security number?  A street address that matches Mapquest?  It's ridiculous.

    Pseudonyms are okay (none / 0) (#41)
    by Natal on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    Personally, I'm just interested in reading opinions. Personal names I don't care. But pseudonyms are useful to tie opinions together.

    Parent
    1 + 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 <> 3 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    Whether or not you're Squigygy McGiggles, or John Smith. An opinion, a recitation of facts, and an argument, are EXACTLY the same whether you're "hiding" behind a pseudonym, or using your real name. People who lie do so equally whether they're using a pseudonym or posting as themselves. Same goes for people who are telling the truth. As for people who make sense, and don't make sense, who are smart, and stupid, good-hearted, and bad-hearted. And so on.

    Is Dana Perino telling the truth just because she's standing there as herself?

    Was BTD lying when he was anonymous?

    Is Digby any less credible because she posts under a pseudonym?

    Is Glenn Greenwald any more credible because he posts under his real name?

    Are the celebrity blogs on the Huff Post any more coherent just because they're well-known celebrities writing as themselves?

    Were the Federalist Papers any less seminal and important because they were written anonymously?

    There is zero correlation between what one writes, and who ones writes it as.

    ZERO.

    Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    There is zero correlation between what one writes, and who ones writes it as.

    If someone is concerned that their comments will result in personal attacks, either from individuals or the "organization," they will not be open if their name  will be known.

    Conversely, they will be more open if it is not known.

    This has no relationship to the accuracy of their comments, which is a separate issue.

    Parent

    I was obviously (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by kovie on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    referring to your last line. I.e. the truthfulness, accuracy, relevance, virture, usefulness, etc., of one's comments has nothing to do with what identity one chooses to assume when making it. People lie and say stupid things as themselves, and tell the truth and say brilliant things anonymously. If they feel that they might suffer repercussions if they post as themselves, then they should post anonymously. If they don't think this, don't care, are willing to take the risk, or feel that it would enhance the perceived credibility, then they are certainly free to post as themselves. But the point I made was that the inherent truth of a comment is not related to the anonymity of the commenter.

    Parent
    No (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:02:44 AM EST
    There is a lot of truth in:

    "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

    People are more apt to uninhibited if they believe no one knows who they are.

    Was it the Italians or French who had a grand old at "costume balls?"

    Parent

    You continue to miss the point (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    I was speaking to the truth, or lack thereof, of a actual comment, which is inherently disconnected to the anonymity or lack thereof of the commenter, and NOT to whether anonymity increases the likelihood that a comment will be truthful.

    I.e. while it may well be true (or not, I'm just positing this as a hypothetical) that, all other things being equal, anonimity leads to greater honesty online, it doesn't in the slightest alter the actual truthfulness or lack thereof of an ACTAL comment.

    A factual statement is ultimately either true or untrue, regardless of the probability that the person making it was or wasn't lying due to their anonymity or lack thereof. Plus, it could just as easily be argued that anonymity makes it easier to lie, as it could be argued that anonymity makes it easier to tell the truth.

    Either way, such probabilities don't matter, so long as one has a way to verify or infer the likely truthfulness of a poster's comments, based on objectively known reality, or a poster's comment history.

    Bush and his people have been lying for years, under their real identities. Lots of bloggers I read state the truth, even though they're anonymous. When it comes to blogging, I care not in the slightest who a blogger is, so long as they tell the truth, make sense, and appear to have some sort of credibility on the topics that they address (which in many cases is merely a matter of having a brain and being smart and honest in how one uses it).

    Parent

    I see that you deviate from (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    hypothetical to Bush in two paragraphs.

    Why is everything in the Left's world POLITICS?

    At this point I am not sure if we agree, disagree or don't know. I repeat.

    I think a commentator should be required to use a moniker or a real name. It provides a method of tracking what the person has said. You may have noticed that I am quite willing to refer to mine.

    And yes, a moniker allows people to say things they might not say otherwise.

    That would mean they are more likely to be dishonest. See Beauchamp and TNR.

    That would also mean they are more likely to be honest in their feelings/statements regarding others/situations, etc. See Kdog.

    Parent

    Anonymity.... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    leads to more honesty and less civility.  The trade-off is worth it I think.

    I'd be leary of posting my knuckleheaded anti-establishment rhetoric under my real name.  

    Anonymity good? Like the diaper, Depends (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Scarabus on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    The current political climate in the U.S. offers a number of clearly legitimate reasons for maintaining anonymity. At the top, Dick Cheney was so eager to punish Joe Wilson for speaking truth to power that he was willing to initiate what Valerie Plame has been willing to call treasonous behavior.

    (Irony: Plame's job was monitoring Iran's nuclear capability. Paranoia: was that the reason for revealing her covert identity...or just a reason? How far ahead was Cheney thinking?)

    At the bottom, Mitch McConnell, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly... etc. forever.

    In addition, Pope's observation in his Essay on Criticism remains apropos:

    Some judge of Authors' Names, not Works, and then
    Nor praise nor blame the Writings, but the Men.

    No "hominem" to attack, then it's not as easy to attack ad hominem rather than addressing an opponent's actual argument.

    Finally, I have a right to subject myself to personal attack. But what about my family? What about the organization for which I work. Logically, I can speak for myself. Legally, I can speak for myself. But in the world of Rove, Cheney, Malkin, Limbaugh, etc.? When I exercise my right to free speech, I put innocent others at risk.

    Quite Coulteresque, really (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    I.e. making an obviously insulting insinuation, and then taking it back by saying "Oh, I was joking--get a life!" or "That's not what I meant!".

    Yeah, right, whatever.

    At least I'm open about it when I call someone a liar and an idiot. No insinuation needed. Nor would I deny it if accused of it.

    I also happen to think that Edwards is handsome (not Kucinich, though). I guess that makes me supergay.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    Invoking the blond she pundit, as she is called here, is about right. He imitates them all, but is not nearly as talented, which is better than worse.

    Parent
    Gotta give him credit (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:57:44 PM EST
    for being so persistent, in his trollishness. Must get paid a lot to do it, or else have a lot of free time on his hands and nothing better to do. Guess he's exhausted that Regnery collection and finished reading "Conscience of a Conservative" for the 30th time.

    I'm still not sure what purpose these people serve. Clearly, they're not winning anyone over. Not among active members here, at least. Perhaps this is part sick adolescent entertainment (hee hee, I love making those moonbats so angry!), part ideological self-reinforcement (the more I spout this stuff, the more I"ll believe it and overcome those lingering feelings of self-doubt), part an attempt to win over converts (mostly futile, I suspect, but perhaps there are some lurkers who fall for this crap), part showing off to the buddies at Redstate and such, and part actual shilling, whether for pay or on a volunteer basis (i.e. they view themselves as fighters for a noble cause).

    Whatever.

    At least Coulter's figured out how to make lots of money off of it, which isn't commendable, but at least somewhat rational. I hope he has too.

    Parent

    He has "faith". (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:01:59 PM EST
    Faith that someday he might find someone stupid enough to think he makes any sense.

    Parent
    Actually, I'm sure that he has (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    Just not anyone in the reality-based and brain-using community.

    I also don't believe that he believes what we states. Maybe some of it he does, but the rest appears to be for show, or to avoid cognitive dissonance, every wingnut's greatest fear. Reality is not something that they're very comfortable with. I could cite about a thousand quotes by Bush, Cheney, Condi, Kristol, Rush, Ann, Michelle, etc., but I refer anyone who asks for "proof" to their entire body of incoherent and delusional ramblings.

    E.g. "last throes", "dead or alive", "social security's going broke", "the surge is working", "Iraq is about protecting the US", "our childrens do learn", etc.

    You get the point, of course.

    Parent

    Prove your claim (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:10:11 PM EST
    As they use to say when a challenge to duel was imminent...

    I am at your service.

    But you won't. You'll just whimper and play the "guilt" card.

    tehe

    Parent

    You keep asking me to prove things (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kovie on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    without explaining what it is that needs to be proved. Can you be more specific? Am I supposed to prove that Coulter does this, or that you did this? If it's the latter, the text and subtext are all the proof I'd need--and they're already there in black and white, upthread.

    There is a difference, you know, between being liberal on gay rights--which if you are I commend you for--and being a homophobe. One can fully support the rights of gays to not be discriminated against, be able to marry, even enjoy affirmative action types of rights, and still be a homophobe.

    By way of example, getting back to Coulter, she supports the neocons' blanket support of Israel's (i.e. the Jewish state's) most aggressive policies, yet she's clearly an anti-Semite ("Jews need to be perfected").

    Now, perhaps you were truly being merely "tasteless", to use your words. But since you're smart enough to realize that such a "tasteless" comment would likely be "misinterpreted" as being homophobic, the fact that you made it anyway seems to indicate, if not actual homophobia, then at least a lack of aversion to it or the impression of it.

    Your only possible defense here is "tastelessness" AND "cluelessness", given the cultural and social context in which such remarks are viewed in today's world.

    If you will admit to both, I will take back my assertion that you're an overt homophobe. But that the statement itself was, regardless of intent, homophobic, within its context, is pretty much beyond question. How else can one interpret finding it funny that a man finds another man handsome? Can you prove to me that such a statement can plausibly be anything but homophobic?

    Parent

    Uh, you are the one making the claim. (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    It is up to you to prove it.

    Since is an American thing, I can see why you don't understand it.

    Now Kovie, let's see some proof.

    Or go troll.

    Parent

    Define "prove". (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    I know it'll be torture for you. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:52:08 PM EST
    But do your best. Maybe some water will help.

    Parent
    Squeaky smears (1.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:07:01 PM EST
    Why do you make things up? I did not write:

    and as you point out impossible to know what you are saying

    I wrote:

    BTW - Have you acquired a channeling ability? No?

    Then how do you know what I meant?

    Knowing what I was saying, the ability to read, is totally different from knowing what I meant.

    Jerry got the point immediately. I was making fun of the Junior Senator's ears, which I have admitted as perhaps tasteless. I will now revise that as being accurately tasteless.

    As I assume you think calling Bush "Monkey Boy" is.

    So unless you can provide some proof for your "homophobic" claim I think I will just mark it down as another smear. I mean, you did write:

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had written.)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (You replied.)I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    BTW - I love the way you justify making things up.
    The old two wrongs make a right trick. I think Goebbels did that himself a few times.


    hahahahahaha (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 05:34:21 PM EST
    Squirm all you want. The tip off was when you invoked the archive of all your social liberalisms.

    hahahaha

    Parent

    You wrote what you wrote (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:19:58 AM EST
    Enjoy

    Parent
    Changing The Subject (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    Is your favorite squirm. Usually, as in this case, an non-sequitur attack on anyone that calls you on your BS.

    Well second favorite squirm, the first two are tied: your lipservice about being a social liberal an intentioanlly deceptive and fictious claim, and your claim to being a naval avaitor, an equally dubios claim.

    Parent

    B W Squeaky's problem (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    is that not only that he wrote what he wrote, he wrote it twice, about a year apart. So we know that he not only meant it, he was dedicated to it.

    As for my social liberal credentials, I invite, no urge, you to provide some links with proof.

    You won't because you can't, which, of course, reaffirms the fact that you regularly smear, and brag about it.

    Parent

    anonymous comments (none / 0) (#1)
    by azportsider on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    Thanks, Daphna, but I'd just as soon not see my home address in Michelle Malkin's hateblog.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:19:12 PM EST
    Well, at some point, my identity, likely because I did not cloak it properly, was used to attack me because of my expressed views.
    but my hunch is that how you express your views is probably the biggest reason you find yourself attacked in return. But I'm sure that concept's not news to you.

    btw, why, when you started blogging here at TL, were you anonymous, and why did you decide to come out?

    Some of the people here get (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    vicious and juvenile in a way that would get their asses beat in the real world.

    Parent
    Real World? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:24:53 PM EST
    As if you would have a clue.

    Parent
    Good one Squeaky! (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:32:10 PM EST
    Where's Edger to rate that a "5"?

    Go high five yourself.

    Parent

    Sorry that should have read (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    why were you anonymous, and why did you decide to come out?


    Parent
    I can see an argument for both sides (none / 0) (#10)
    by Michael Gass on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    1)  writing anonymously

    Sure, there are (I'm sure) thousands of examples of anonymous writing throughout history.  But, WHY was it anonymous?  1) It had to be for fear of persecution, 2) It had to be to be published, and/or 3) To protect the author's identity and personal life from scrutiny.

    You see it today with actors, singers, etc, using fake names.  You saw it with Mark Twain, who was actually Samuel Clemens.  You saw it with women writing under a man's name when women authors weren't allowed.  You saw it with our own founding fathers.  Sure, I can accept that people write under false or anonymous names.  I did it myself.  No biggy.

    2) Stripping away the anonymity

    I can see a reason for this; credibility as an "expert" on a subject.  A very standard line is; I'm not a doctor, I just play one on the internet.

    A person can use google and, suddenly, they can be a doctor on a blog.  Or an astronaut.  Or a cop.  Anything other than a Burger King grill boy/girl.  

    Even though I have about 19 years as a bomb technician, I don't consider myself an expert on the subject (we got that drilled into us at NAVSCOLEOD) even though, by rule 702, because of my experience, training, etc, I would be considered an expert witness.  And with 6 years in law enforcement, I most surely don't claim to be an expert.  I claim to be "knowledgeable" in my fields.

    But, the issue online becomes one of credibility.  Take Larry Johnson at No Quarter, for instance.  He is much more credible to read on intelligence analysis than some person on the internet who comments/blogs under a nick of "Spyman".

    The best example I can think of where this came into play is an email exchange I had with an individual who blogs anonymously on the internet about 9/11.  The person commented that "anyone who believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories wasn't credible" (paraphrasing)and mentioned Ray McGovern specifically.  My response to this person was that if this person wanted to put their credibility as an anonymous blogger against the likes of Ray McGovern, Paul Craig Roberts, Catherine Fitts, Bill Christison, etc, they would lose that battle every time.  It was a laughable statement.  An anonymous person was claiming that Ray McGovern wasn't credible!

    For myself, I started out commenting under an anonymous name.  Then I started my own blog under a moniker.  I wrote diaries under that moniker.  I "outed" myself when I got politically active and I saw zero reason to stay anonymous on the internet.     Others have followed the same route I have, so, it isn't new or unheard of (an example right off the top of my head would be Brandon, aka, The Angry Rakkasan at DailyKos).

    I think it all comes down to the individual and if they are comfortable with being "out" or not.  Most aren't, and that is fine.  Some are.  Some need to be.  

    As for your premise of "do I need to know who you are to realize you're talking nonsense", that is a double-edged sword.  No, on the one side, you (or anyone else) don't have to know who the person is to disagree with them.  People disagree all the time, even two people in the same profession.  Disagreement is common.  But, and this is the other side, when you use words like "nonsense" in the disagreement, it becomes a matter of credibility on the issue.  Truly, how much credibility does "Spyman" have to tell Larry Johnson his analysis is nonsense over the internet?  

    I guess I am a bit hung up on the word "nonsense" here.  Disagreement to me is one thing.  People disagree all the time.  I disagreed with an analysis Larry Johnson wrote, but, I never told him that his analysis was nonsense - just that I disagreed with it and why.

    But, I do grant there are times for it, like, calling anything Ann Coulter writes nonsense.    

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    But, I do grant there are times for it, like, calling anything Ann Coulter writes nonsense.
     

    I am impressed with the openness of your mind.

    (sarcasm alert)


    Parent

    Anonymous blogging (none / 0) (#14)
    by reder01 on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    I hate anonymous comments posted on my blog.  If someone cannot identify himself/herself, even just by a valid e-mail, how can I be sure I am not being set up by people whom I criticize in my blogs.  I see that you require bloggers to register first and give a valid e-mail, perhaps that's what I should do.

    Robero in Utah

    PS I too have an interest in the First Amendment and freedom of speech.  However, when it comes to blogging, I don't think my bias for identification violates the spirit of the First Amendment.  On my own blog, I post my own name, why not people who want to post on my site?

    Well said, BTD (none / 0) (#21)
    by jerry on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:15:06 PM EST
    Today there are plenty of speech code enforcing mobs on all sides.  And Modern Feminists are filled with them.

    It's amazing the numbers of former feminist leaders that decry the directions that modern feminist has taken.  Nancy DeCrow, Doris Lessing, Betty Dobson and many others.

    If you spend time at the major feminist blogs, you can see lots of speech code, thought policing in action.

    As a commenter and not a blogger, I have been struck by how insightful my partition of the blogosphere is, the free commenters vs. the heavily moderated commenters.

    Free commenting blogs include (in no particular order.)

    Atrios, Hullabaloo, Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, TalkLeft, Oliver Willis, TBogg, Cathy Young, Glenn Sacks, Brad DeLong, Amy Alkon, Balloon Juice, Political Animal, TPM Cafe, Salon

    (I don't have much experience with the mega group blogs like the great orange satan)

    Heavily moderated blogs where I have personally seen many people banned, and comments deleted and even altered with no mention of this to the readers:

    Little Green Footballs, Free Republic, Red State, Hot Air, Patterico, Protein Wisdom, TheGarance, Pandagon, Feministing, Feministe, Alas a blog, and many other right wing blogs and it seems almost all modern feminist blogs.

    I think the way these blogs have partitioned themselves is very revealing.  It tells me that the "modern feminists" and the right wing bloggers are authoritarians that require message control and probably have other things in common as well.

    It also tells me that many women that identify as libertarians, or not as "modern feminists" are actually much closer to what I consider are liberal progressive values that the modern feminists are who cozy up to these values to hide their actual pernicious messages.

    The feminists bloggers usually say they require the heavy moderation in order to create a safe environment in which women can be encouraged to speak out.  I have no idea what that means.  I can understand the need for this in the real world, in an auditorium, but on the net?  Where almost everyone uses a pseudonym?  They are telling me that woman are every bit the equal of men (something I absolutely believe) but that they are so shy and fragile that they would be afraid to speak out in a forum unless that forum has heavy comment moderation and banning of users?

    Due to that I try to take some of my cues from the fervid free speech advocates: Wendy Kaminer, Nadine Strossen, ....

    Anyway, thanks, well said.

    i find this kind of amusing really, (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    since everyone here, with the exception of the blog owners, is anonymously posting. i doubt "Big Tent Democrat" is your given name, unless maybe it's an old family name, from the well known ancient roman circus family you descend from. nor, is "sarcastic unnamed one" likely a real name. michael gass might be, or not, i have no clue.

    we are all pretty much anonymous because, as someone else noted, how would we know for sure? and really, how much difference does it make? an idiot is still an idiot, whether they're anonymous, or sean hannity.

    where i really have a problem is with anonymous sources for "news" stories. usually breathless revelations about someone, with no actual hard evidence to support the allegations. there it does make a difference, in my not so humble opinion.

    I do like to make guesses from the names (none / 0) (#23)
    by jerry on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:30:36 PM EST
    I am not sure, but I think "cpinva" means you're a Urologist from Virginia?

    Sometimes my guesses are wrong....

    :)

    Parent

    I always figured SUO (none / 0) (#25)
    by jerry on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 10:49:25 PM EST
    came from a really big family

    Parent
    See, that's funny. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 11:49:04 PM EST
    A really big really mean family.

    Long time poster glanton gave me my (apt) moniker after one of my very first anonymous TL posts, way back in the day when you could post w/o registering. He still keeps me in line, though we've both mellowed a lot since then.

    Personally, I would have no interest in a "real commenter names" crime/political blog. Not enough honesty.

    I contribute regularly to two other blogs, both of them being "real names only." Of course crime, faith, politics, etc., are not allowed on either of them...

    And while I do care more about those other two blogs and feel they have much greater societal value than TL, they're not nearly as much fun as bloviating my opinions and shredding (or thinking I'm smart enough to shred)other's equally bloviated opinions here on TL.

    cpinva, you really don't see BTD's real name over there on the right side under J and T. Chris's names?

    Parent

    i see 2 names, under jeralyn's & TC's, (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:19:22 AM EST
    neither of which is identified by their blog moniker, so how would i possibly know?

    part of that is correct, i am in va. i only wish i was a urologist! alas, i am nought but a simple, poor, country cpa. it was that whole blood thing that kept me out of medical school. oh, and most of the other requirements to gain entry.

    picky, picky, picky! :)

    Parent

    BTD is Armando Llorens (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 11:49:10 AM EST
    What's A Matter With Ezra ? (none / 0) (#29)
    by RedHead on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:35:38 AM EST
    Aren't you friends with Klein?

    I saw him on Hardball tonight, and Tweety starts in on the Hillary and Woodstock nonsense, and instead of redirecting the focus by saying something simple and strong like "We should focus on getting out of Iraq, not 40 year old arguments"  Ezra says "I think debating who is a hippie or a soldier is dull."  It's bad enough that Tweety didn't even bring up the word "hippie" but he whiffed on a juicy-fat-one Tweety left hanging over the plate (due to Tweety's mccain-man-crush).

    Why does he perform so badly on this show?  It's just the natural nerves that arise from standing on a stage?

    First (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 09:35:00 AM EST
     We need to distinguish between the use of pseudonyms and anonymity. Samuel Clemens, for example, was not anonymous even though he wrote as Mark Twain. Essentially Clemens openly "played the role" of Twain for marketing purposes.

      Obviously, as I write here anonymously under a pseudonym, I believe in the  benefits of doing so. Some of my perceived benefits are entirely personal. Whether or not I wrote anything controversial there is the possibility that in a forum accessible to anyone,  mischevious or worse uses  could be made of my identity in areas that have nothing to do with politics and with no personal motive against me, just exploitaion of an opportunity.  Moreover, as I do very occasionally write something controversial I don't want to be take even the slight risk of people  angered by what I have written doing something malicious or just crazy.

      Beyond that I do think people do feel more open to make certain comments that are enlightening precisely because the source is unknown. I'm self-employed so unlike some others I don't have the worry that something I might write would offend or anger my employers, partners or fellow members. Is it possible though that something I have written would be be viewed negatively by a judge or client or prospective client? I really don't want to test that and at the least would be more circumspect in  if not refrain entirely from debates if known.

      So, I think self-censorship for fear of complicating professional relationships is a real likelihood and I think that would contract the "marketplace of ideas."

       On the other hand there is no doubt that the cloak of anonymity raises its own potential negatives. One is the lack of mutual trust sometimes displayed here. We see, less frequently recently it seems, accusations levied that certain people are falsely portraying themselves in various ways ranging from  embellishing credentials to being "enemy agents" working in an organized effort to accomplish some nefarious purpose. That sometimes leads the discussions into less than worthwhile directions.

      As nothing can be perfect, I personally favor the allowing of anonymity for those who prefer it.

    I prefer a moniker or name to be required (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    because it provides a chain of what is said, thus helping to prevent trolls to change their position when ever it is convenient.

    It is also a safety issue. Cliff E, who no longer comments here, told me that he quit the first time because of personal threats against him and his family. I have no idea if they were on TL or another blog.

    Parent