I'm on another psuedo-vacation (meaning, not at home, but not lounging on a beach somewhere), so posting is light. Particularly as my internet connection is super slow here, and it takes about a minute just to get a page up. No, it's not dial-up or anything, it's just pointlessly slow. I think it just doesn't like me.
But since Publius was finally outed, I've got to ask: Can anyone provide a good explanation for why conservatives are so intent on hating pseudonymous bloggers, beyond the basic issue of punishing them for blogging? I mean, what does the idea of enforcing "accountability" mean beyond allowing them to be punished for what they write?
I mean, I sorta understand the problem with anonymous commenters; though I still think the same rule applies in that we shouldn't out anyone unless there's a very compelling reason to do so (such as, if you found out I was also Dick Cheney). But I'm entirely accountable for what I write here and elsewhere, as y'all all know me as Doctor Biobrain. I've got a reputation to uphold and several years worth of writings to back me up, as opposed to many conservative commenters who attack pseudonyms, yet have very little presence on the internet. Of course, that's not a perfect example, as I really am Doctor Biobrain; but you get my point.
But again, I can think of no reason why "real" names are superior to "fake" names, as long as we're not playing games with it; like creating sock puppets to defend ourselves. And it all just comes down to the desire by conservatives to punish those they disagree with. That's all it is.
Update: Please disregard the mention in this post of me being Dick Cheney, as it was made in error and in no way was meant to imply that I have ever Vice Presidented under that particular pseudonym. I could have been Dan Quayle, for all you know. Or perhaps I VP'd as Gore or Biden. It could have been any of them guys. You don't know. And you never will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Using real names is the privilege of those who do not fear adverse consequences. During the Bush administration it was prudent for me to use a pseudonym. I respect those of any political viewpoint who wish for whatever reason to protect their identity, so long as they do not abuse it by actions which threaten imminent harm of some kind.
I just happen to think that pseudonyms are cooler. I don't care about protection. Fake names are cooler than real names, every single fucking time. Case closed. Fake names are just cooler.
You are so cool. :-P
Considering that if the conseratives find out your real name and address and they don't like your profession (abortion doctor) or interests (UUC church going liberal) you might be physically safer with a pseudonym.
Of course the other thing that nobody talks about is reputation.
It's as if slander and libel don't exist anymore. Why is it okay for a conserative to call me a liar and a thief and a communist when I am not any of those things. Maybe I have a real life reputation to protect.
I did NOT about my pseudonym by doing the same. I tried to act in my pseudonym writings as if I was a responsible person who had to prove any claims I made about people. (The rules for slander and liable)
And I agree with Goldman above. If someone makes death treats to another then legally they can be help responsible.
I came to your blog just when I was surfing on this topic. I am happy that I found your blog and information I wanted.
Post a Comment