Ive read a great deal about anonymity in the last few days; mostly critical to be sure. From comments on Electrolyte:
Regarding blog pseudonyms: I don’t like ’em. I try not to make an issue out of it, and I know people of all stripes who feel they have good reason to use them. But it bothers me. When I’m in a dispute with someone who calls themself “Pericles” or whatever, I feel very much at a disadvantage. Patrick Nielsen Hayden is a real person; you can look me up in the phone book, you can accost me in front of my office building, you can find me at conventions and public appearances. “Pericles” is a drive-by with mirrored glass windows. (comment by Patrick Nielsen Hayden)
From Den Beste:
When someone won’t even reveal his name, it should set off alarm bells unless he provides a legitimate reason for keeping it secret. If someone is confident about what they’re saying, they should be willing to own up in public to holding those opinions. A person who debates anonymously may not be wrong, but you should certainly be far more skeptical about anything they say.
Now, to be blunt, I think these comments are directed here and here, more than at me.
But they do give me pause to reflect, and to try and explain why I chose to be, and for now, still choose to be anonymous.
First, because one of the reasons I started this blog is to try and reconcile some of what I perceived to be contradictions in my own politics. How can I have dinner with Jeff Cooper (that one, not the law one) and still send money to Amnesty International (although Ive stopped in light of their recent piss-poor performance in the Middle East)? How can I believe in progressive taxation, and be opposed to teachers unions?
One of the features of modern political life (that I continue to beat on in the vain hope that it will get up and walk and talk, thereby dazzling my readers) is the fact that we are first and foremost formed into narrow political teams. We wear our team colors, and sing the fight songs from scripts handed us by the marketing division of the team thats playing today.
The problem is that there is no Americas team any more (Sorry Jerry Jones), even though pretty much every team would have us believe that secretly, its really them.
And, like a lot of people, I belong to more than one. So when I talk to my progressive friends, its hard to address shooting or gun rights without triggering yet another dead-end disagreement. When Im with my friends who shoot, I really dont spend a lot of time debating environmental policy, because Im not going to convince them to look beyond what Rush has said. Its simpler that way. When Im with my friends who work in politics, I dont spend a lot of time dwelling on the failures of our electoral system, because no matter how diplomatically I couch what I say, Im talking about them and their livelihood.
Now the reality is, that I lose and they lose in that, because I cant express my full self
cant as it were come out of the closet
and they dont get their worldviews broadened. It even feels kind of cowardly right now as I write it.
But the reality is that our political lives are so Balkanized (meaning that we passionately defend and exploit the boundaries in the narrowly fragmented landscape) that I have to question whether its worth it to be engaged in battle every day, and so I quietly hold my tongue.
This page is where I get to speak out.
There are other petty practical issues as well. I contract for a living, meaning that like an actor, I need to audition for work several times a year. (did I mention that Im looking for consulting right now?) Getting and not getting work can seem capricious and in fact is highly political. Which means that I need to exercise care not to overtly offend those who put bread on my family table.
And on this page, I get to offend them. Like almost everyone else in the Blog-verse, Id love to make my living opining, and so be free to stand behind my words. Id also love a pony, as long as youre delivering on wishes
Date: 08/12/2002 00:00:00 AM
Myself, I have no trouble with pseudonyms so long as the author under the name responds to queries and questions. Drive-by attackers, of course, earn no credibility no matter what name they use, but most people with their own blogs simply don’t do that sort of thing; I wouldn’t call it a code of honor, exactly, but rare is the blogger who hits and runs.As for this name, well, it’s mine, and since I don’t work in or on anything that could possibly be construed as operating in the national interest, I don’t think I’m jeopardizing anything by using it. Besides, at this point in my existence, I need all the egomania I can get.
Date: 08/12/2002 00:00:00 AM
Engagiung Den Beste’s cheap ad hominem ploy on its merits is a waste of time.No one has to provide a “reason” for being anonymous. Its a free choice. People can take what you say seriously, or discount it. That too is their choice.But I’m not going to play Den Beste’s game.http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2002_08_11_counterspin_archive.html#80122255–Hesiod
Date: 08/11/2002 00:00:00 AM
What confuses me about this is that complaints about pseudonymity are at heart ad hominem attacks- how can they possibly address anything but the person who is making the argument, rather than the argument itself? (Indeed, they might be worse- I can see valid critiques of someone’s arguments based on their past arguments and style that imply that the person isn’t really qualified to make the argument, but such things have nothing to do with complaints about pseudonymity).In any case, I agree entirely with your insights, Armed Liberal. There may come a time when I decide that I no longer wish to speak through the Demosthenes persona, but I know that I won’t ever be goaded into such a thing by the frustrations of those I debate with.
Date: 08/13/2002 00:00:00 AM
I am so closely in agreement with Roublen Vesseau that I could almost have written that comment myself. I intensely dislike the tendency some people have of judging opinions based primarily on who gave the opinion rather than the merits of their arguments.
Date: 08/12/2002 00:00:00 AM
A pseudonym is a shield from accountability. Anyone is free to use a pseudonym, but they shouldn’t gripe when people discount their opinions because of the pseudonym. That’s the way it goes.
Date: 08/11/2002 00:00:00 AM
The “don’t trust anyone who uses pseudonyms” view is part of larger tendency to believe that who is saying something is more important than what is being said, an opinion that I have always cordially disliked. Obviously some people who use pseudonyms have perfectly sensible reasons, some have something to hide, and some are just plain neurotic. But for those who think pseudonyms are terrible, terrible things which discredit the work, I have two counter-examples: george orwell, mark twain.
Date: 08/11/2002 00:00:00 AM
I’m with you on the anonymity issue as well as most of the others you outline. (Not quite there on gun issues, but no longer support Handgun Control, etc.) It’s one thing for tenured professors or paid activists or editorialists or content-neutral techies to use their real names. It’s quite another for those whose signed opinions may draw the wrath of clients or funding agencies they depend on. When I used to work for an academic unit (at a state institution) that was invulnerable to fiscal retaliation, I wrote periodic letters to the local paper and signed my own name. When I later began working for an academic unit that was far more vulnerable to fiscal retaliation, I stopped letter-writing entirely. And it’s not because I suddenly stopped being able to articulate critical opinions. I’m fairly careful in the blogosphere as well, even though my opinions usually tend toward the “moderate extreme” (like President Truman’s two-handed economists). Although I don’t risk being fired for my opinions, I do risk undercutting the unit I work for, and I care about the work it does.