Is anonymity "gutless"?

[Klorgia1]

It was smart, wise, pragmatic, and in my opinion, Kind to this man/women's family and friends who may not want the president screaming at 'em.

[Kowani]

I personally think that it is cowardly, but that is not my biggest criticism of the author, whoever he may be.

An honorable man does not continue to take a salary while actively working against the person paying him. If one cannot do the job one was hired for due to ethical/moral considerations, the only path for a person with a sense of personal honor and responsibility is to resign. This seemed obvious to most people, both left and right, in the Kim Davis SSM case and I do not see a difference in principle here.

Admittedly, coherent and consistent principles seem sorely lacking in today's world.

Cough cough -Schindler cough cough.

[Steffan]

And now apparently Trump thinks the op-ed is "treason"...
Ahem:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Des-Bal]

I personally think that it is cowardly, but that is not my biggest criticism of the author, whoever he may be.

An honorable man does not continue to take a salary while actively working against the person paying him. If one cannot do the job one was hired for due to ethical/moral considerations, the only path for a person with a sense of personal honor and responsibility is to resign. This seemed obvious to most people, both left and right, in the Kim Davis SSM case and I do not see a difference in principle here.

Admittedly, coherent and consistent principles seem sorely lacking in today's world.

Donald Trump doesn't pay the fucking administration, America does. This isn't Kim Davis folding her hands and refusing to work- if that was the case they wouldn't be anonymous we could just say "hey that guy who isn't doing his job, that's the guy." This is multiple people who feel that Trump's interests are not America's interests.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And now apparently Trump thinks the op-ed is "treason"...
Ahem:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Someone give the POTUS, who's a fucking dunderhead, a dictionary, please.

[Des-Bal]

Someone give the POTUS, who's a fucking dunderhead, a dictionary, please.

It is crazy to me he doesn't know what the word means after being accused of it so many times.

[Lord Dominator]

In any case, I think anonymity isn't gutless, but it's still a double-edged sword.
On one hand, it somewhat allows things like whistle-blowers and people talking about horrid situations while avoiding consequences, on the other; well that'd be the Internet.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Someone give the POTUS, who's a fucking dunderhead, a dictionary, please.

It is crazy to me he doesn't know what the word means after being accused of it so many times.

It seems to me that Trump's vocabulary isn't very extensive anyway.

[The Emerald Legion]

Not really. No. Frankly, I'm of the personal opinion that any interaction of actual identities and the internet is 100% guaranteed to be shit. Or at the very least 97%.

As for the New York Times thing, the issue isn't that 'Anonymity is Gutless' as it is 'This Article is fucking stupid.'

Either A.) The New York Times are lying through their teeth, and are manufacturing the article. In which case, they can effectively defame the president all they want and hide behind Journalistic Ethics.

or B.) Trump really is deranged, he has multiple people on his staff quietly working to contain that derangement and you just embarassed him in front of the whole blasted nation while revealing that. Meaning every single time someone tries to STOP him from doing something insane, he's going to think they're one of the ones the article talked about.

[Elwher]

I personally think that it is cowardly, but that is not my biggest criticism of the author, whoever he may be.

An honorable man does not continue to take a salary while actively working against the person paying him. If one cannot do the job one was hired for due to ethical/moral considerations, the only path for a person with a sense of personal honor and responsibility is to resign. This seemed obvious to most people, both left and right, in the Kim Davis SSM case and I do not see a difference in principle here.

Admittedly, coherent and consistent principles seem sorely lacking in today's world.

Donald Trump doesn't pay the fucking administration, America does. This isn't Kim Davis folding her hands and refusing to work- if that was the case they wouldn't be anonymous we could just say "hey that guy who isn't doing his job, that's the guy." This is multiple people who feel that Trump's interests are not America's interests.

And yet, they have no problem pretending to work for him. The job they were hired for was to implement the administration's agenda. They are working against it. They are, therefore, taking their salary under false pretenses. No, they do not have the guts to say "I won't do it" like she did, instead they sneak around like cockroaches in the walls of government.

[Des-Bal]

And yet, they have no problem pretending to work for him. The job they were hired for was to implement the administration's agenda. They are working against it. They are, therefore, taking their salary under false pretenses. No, they do not have the guts to say "I won't do it" like she did, instead they sneak around like cockroaches in the walls of government.

This isn't an issue of valor it's the difference between someone petulantly refusing to do their job and someone working around their idiot boss to avoid destroying the country.

[Great Minarchistan]

Counter question, are we not all somewhat anonymous when posting here?

How do you even know I’m real?
I could be an elaborate AI created by Soros to sell people on the Illuminati

no thats me

[Erythrean Thebes]

Surely you can live without those guts

[The Emerald Legion]

And yet, they have no problem pretending to work for him. The job they were hired for was to implement the administration's agenda. They are working against it. They are, therefore, taking their salary under false pretenses. No, they do not have the guts to say "I won't do it" like she did, instead they sneak around like cockroaches in the walls of government.

I think you missed your stop.

Britain is across the pond.

America is the land of 'Fuck Honor, I want to Win.' And has been ever since we decided it was a lovely idea to kill people in their sleep on christmas.

[Dahon]

Ah, this brings back memories. Bitter, bitter ones. But to get back to the subject of gutlessness:

A few months, an Indonesian artist named Rizzy drew up a comic celebrating Pride Month in the US, while wistfully wishing that he could do the same in his native country -- something he couldn't do given the prevalent homophobic attitudes in his corner of the world.

Hoo.

A few days -- maybe weeks? -- after that, out comes the news that this same Indonesian artist tried to kill himself by ingesting unspecified "household chemicals", due to being doxxed by people he was interacting with on Discord...

... hoo...

... it was claimed that these people were angered by his Gay Pride comic, and so threatened to release the info they had to the government unless he tidied up his act.

Dunno if that's really the case -- initial sources were biased against political correctness, Muslims in general, etc. -- but... hoo... anyhow, he's safe for the moment, but profoundly, profoundly fucked.

And he's gutless. Or at least his kidneys are so fucked they can't function, which means lifetime dialysis.

... hoo...

[Scomagia]

In general? No. In cases like the NYT op ed, it is if the source remains anonymous longer than is prudent. I can understand remaining anonymous while still working under Trump(for job security and continued deflection of presidential insanity) but if Trump resigned then it would be gutless not to come forward.

[Dahon]

In general? No. In cases like the NYT op ed, it is if the source remains anonymous longer than is prudent. I can understand remaining anonymous while still working under Trump(for job security and continued deflection of presidential insanity) but if Trump resigned then it would be gutless not to come forward.

Deep Throat remained anonymous for three decades after Nixon resigned and a decade after he died.

[Scomagia]

In general? No. In cases like the NYT op ed, it is if the source remains anonymous longer than is prudent. I can understand remaining anonymous while still working under Trump(for job security and continued deflection of presidential insanity) but if Trump resigned then it would be gutless not to come forward.

Deep Throat remained anonymous for three decades after Nixon resigned and a decade after he died.

And that was hypocritical. The Nation had a right to know the misdeeds of their President, yet no right to know who gave them the information?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Sometimes it is necessary when revealing the wrong doing of powerful people.

Though even heroic whistleblowers get treated like shit afterwards. You reveal that your hospital is killing babies in a way that could be easily remedied, and you will never work again. Nobody likes employing someone who will reveal their mistakes.

[Abarri]

No, anonymity is not necessarily gutless. Often it is needed to protect oneself when trying to find dirt on someone or something very powerful/influential. Ostracism, alienation, or dire threats might follow if said anonymous person decides to reveal his/her identity. Saying something to one's face as a form of criticism probably works better on tête-à-tête talks anyway.

(I also think searching for the unknown author is a massive distraction and waste of time.)

[Mystic Warriors]

No, sometimes putting your name out there could put you are your family at risk. Best to hide in those cases

[Page]

Depends on the situation and what the consequences for coming out would be. With whistleblowers in high stakes situations, anonymity is sometimes necessary for self-preservation.

As for this whole White House deal, I don't have strong feelings about these anonymous people either way, but I love imagining Trump's paranoia and rage. I'm starting to think that rather than removing him from office, letting him continue to be President is the most fitting punishment for him. The job is breaking him.

[The Emerald Legion]

Deep Throat remained anonymous for three decades after Nixon resigned and a decade after he died.

And that was hypocritical. The Nation had a right to know the misdeeds of their President, yet no right to know who gave them the information?

Why is who gave them the information relevant? Truths do not become Untrue based upon the speaker.

[Katganistan]

All I have to say is, anonymity is a useful tool to protect yourself from those who would be vindictive about your decision of viewpoint.

Like someone who pulls security clearances from people who disagree with them but have not in fact done anything wrong, hypothetically speaking?

[Scomagia]

And that was hypocritical. The Nation had a right to know the misdeeds of their President, yet no right to know who gave them the information?

Why is who gave them the information relevant? Truths do not become Untrue based upon the speaker.

I never said such.

The reason it's important is simple: closure. The downfall of Nixon did a lot of damage to the collective spirit of the country and, in the end, provided little in the way of a satisfying conclusion. Deep Throat had a moral obligation to the country to reveal himself and not leave yet another disappointing thread behind for decades.