Is anonymity "gutless"?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

This is inspired by Trump's remarks about the NYT editorial, but I'm leaving it out of any exiting megathread as I feel it touches on a much broader issue.

Putting your real name out there doesn't just subject you to all perceptions; valid or not; of what you're saying. It also subjects people's perceptions of everything you're saying to the effects of their perceptions of everything else you're saying.

So if they're biased against you on one subject, they're more likely to perceive it as "discrediting" you, and that's going to increase their bias against you on another subject.

I would think that would stack the deck against the opinions of those who speak out against the flaws of prevailing ideas, while stacking the deck in favour of those who conform to the crowd. I would think, therefore, that anonymity might be the only thing holding echo chambers back, regardless of whether or not that's people's intentions in being anonymous. (Hard to prove either way.)

What say you, NSG?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It is often the most intelligent and wise thing to do. A whistle-blower, for instance, who remains anonymous can continue to gather more incriminating (or should be incriminating) evidence, but otherwise cannot. For someone to tell their identity in a circumstance similar to whistle-blowing is ill-advised, brave, and dumb.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I can understand the idea that if you're going to criticize something, you should do so upfront and without subterfuge, which is probably the way some people feel about anonymity. ''Don't hide behind proxies, say it to my face'', sort of mentality. But anonymity is a necessity, more so in an age where someone with enough research skills can look you up online and threaten your family and livelihood with doxxing, just because you criticized an idea or a point or a game they really were behind with and that angered them.

We unfortunately live in petty times too. Criticism, and a name to go with, can result in very bad outcomes. However, I agree with your point, the fact that we can utter criticism of ideas and viewpoints, and do so anonymously, is probably one of the deterrents of places becoming echo chambers.

[Iridencia]

No. In many situations, it's a useful form of protection that makes people more likely to speak up about things. For worse sometimes, sure, but also for better.

Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

[Valentine Z]

After hearing many cases of doxxing or being Swatted (having SWAT called on you), it's not gutless, and rather, is a practical and sensible decision.

Yes, you should be able to say what you want up-front and without hiding your face, but no matter how well-intentioned, someone will always take it the wrong way and come after you with threats.

[Askina Velti]

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.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It’s only gutless in the same sense it’s gutless to take cover when someone is shooting at you instead of standing around hoping they miss

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.

I have a new signature.

[Lord Dominator]

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

[Internationalist Bastard]

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

[Lord Dominator]

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

How do I even know Soros is real?

[Internationalist Bastard]

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

How do I even know Soros is real?

Because I made him an AI so he could create me

[The Lone Alliance]

Really these days there's a lot of people who seem to want to end Anonymity, especially online in this era of "Everyone I doesn't like is a Russian\Soros bot".

In the era of social media mobs, political outrage from the chronically offended on both sides who'd love nothing more than to Dox, harass, and maybe even Swat people for going against "Their side" it's necessary.

Sure it's not as 'brave' as standing up and saying "I'm challenging your views" but take a look at how things are going these days, anyone who challenges views these days will get harassed by one side or another depending on their views...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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

I think of it in terms of game theory. If some people are anonymous, and some people aren't, the anonymous people can smear non-anonymous people with impunity. Doesn't make it necessarily hypocritical to remain anonymous until a solution that requires everyone to give up anonymity comes along.

That said, if Facebook's anything to go by, it's not anonymity that's really the problem here anyway. It's the fact that we are typing from a keyboard and there is no evolutionary instinct that could prepare us to comprehend the consequences, even to ourselves, even when all logic dictates that they are present. (See also; people who get fired over social media posts.)

[Lord Dominator]

How do I even know Soros is real?

Because I made him an AI so he could create me

Makes perfect sense to me

[Aclion]

Not unless you're trying to speak as an authority on the subject.

[Avuncula]

The accusation "gutless" coming from trump is....ironic

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because I made him an AI so he could create me

Ah yes but truth is....I created you so you could do that, to sell people on the Fascist Nazi Zionist Illuminati who wanted to genocide the Zionists and Jews and fight Fascism because Fascism is our only hope!

Relevant
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IHQr0HCIN2w

[Albrenia]

Depends on the context, like most things.

Anonymously trolling some random person hiding behind the internet is gutless. Anonymously outing the truth about something for which one would otherwise be horribly punished for revealing, is not... usually.

[Steffan]

Yeah no, it's pragmatic and makes sense, and in my opinion does far more good than harm.

Anonymity is necessary a lot of the times, and in this specific case, I believe it was well-founded.


Still we're all aware who obviously wrote that article right?

No. I'm interested to hear who you think though...
And no. In this context, concealing yourself from a clearly unstable, petty, and vengeful president isn't "gutless".

[Cetacea]

Anonymity in this case was understandable but that’s because they had already taken the cowards path of not invoking the 25th Ammendment.

They need to hide their faces (and names) in shame as any bad thing that might happen as a result of Trumps supposed instability is now their fault.

They are traitors both to their employer and to their people

[Des-Bal]

"It's gutless to try and anonymously stop me from doing things that you think are horrible and bad for the country, come out where I can fire you."

Edit: Also calling for the press to give up a source with the nebulous threat of "national security" is like twelve different flavors of fuck no.

[Steffan]

"It's gutless to try and anonymously stop me from doing things that you think are horrible and bad for the country, come out where I can fire you."

Edit: Also calling for the press to give up a source with the nebulous threat of "national security" is like twelve different flavors of fuck no.

And twelve different flavors of

[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.

[Galloism]

"It's gutless to try and anonymously stop me from doing things that you think are horrible and bad for the country, come out where I can fire you."

Edit: Also calling for the press to give up a source with the nebulous threat of "national security" is like twelve different flavors of fuck no.

What a satanist.
He's the exact opposite of what Christ wanted. He played the Christian Right like fools.

I'm pretty sure Satan would find that insulting. He takes pride in his work, you know.