As I've said before, Clayton Cramer has always been a gentleman with me (despite disagreements going back to the very inception of this blog), and I have endeavored to do the same. It seems silly to have to point this out, but Cramer has never threatened me in any way, nor is he the type of person who would utter anything remotely resembling a threat. The idea is laughable.

The problem is, I'm not laughing.

While I hope it doesn't represent the future of the blogosphere, (because I think it's pretty pathetic) the fact is that an anonymous blogger named "BinkyBoy" has claimed that Clayton Cramer is threatening him. With guns!

The blogger, BinkyBoy, began with an implicit accusation wrapped inside what appears to be a demand that Cramer stop threatening him:

....don't threaten me with guns. No matter how big of a gun you buy your penis will never grow, Clayton.

And by the same logic, Glenn Reynolds is threatening everyone with knives! I would consider this non-logic a source of humor (as a matter of fact, I did consider it humor just a few days ago when I accused Glenn of plotting a "Knight of the Long Knives" coup), because it it's silly. But here I am, being forced to address in a serious manner a form of nonsense that struck me as hilarious just a few days ago.

Sorry, but I can't. Life is too short. Besides, I'm already worried about Glenn's knife collection, and now I have to worry the guns of Cramer.

Hmmm. And probably the penis of BinkyBoy.

Well? After all, he does have one -- even if it's an "anonymous penis." Should I feel threatened?

Listen BinkyBoy, don't you threaten me with your penis! Just as I've stood my ground against the knives and guns of Glenn Reynolds and Clayton Cramer, I'm not scared of you and your Idaho schlong!

(I suppose if I had kids I could also gratuitously interject "don't threaten my children!")

My apologies for the crudity and infantilism of the comparison, but it's about the level of the logic of BinkyBoy, and like it or not, such logic passes for "dialogue" in some circles.

Is it just comedy? Might I be missing BinkyBoy's subtle humor and clever wit?

I don't think so, because after having scolded Cramer for the imaginary threat, BinkyBoy escalated. He now sees Cramer as being somehow connected to anonymous unverified videos posted by David Neiwert purporting to show angry "Minutemen" threatening to shoot -- and actually shooting -- border crossers. Reacting to these videos (at least one of which has been shown to be a hoax), BinkyBoy sees Cramer as not only morally culpable, but poised to threaten him "again":

right wing xenophobes that peddle in hate speech, others are about to reap from what you have sown.

Maybe for all of this Clayton will threaten me with his guns some more.

Does he really think this, or is it political hyperbole? I can't be sure, but if this is serious, I think it's an example of what can happen when anonymity mixes with hyperbole. As I keep pointing out, we all have an unfortunate human tendency to engage in hyperbole, especially in politics. I try to keep mine under control, but I am human. My identity is public, though, and I think that tends to restrain me a bit more than if I hid behind an anonymous blog. An anonymous blogger could be anyone at all, anywhere in the world, and there is absolutely nothing to restrain such a person. (Not even the threat of loss of credibility, because if you burn one blog, burn one identity, you can just shut it down and start it up again somewhere else.)

As I said, I think hyperbole is addictive, because it is fueled by emotion and adrenaline and in return fuels more, and creates the need for more. (That is why hyperbole tends to be self-escalating.) When compounded by anonymity, the process is fueled further, and it explains why anonymous commenters are generally the ones who become the most unhinged, and the same is true with anonymous bloggers. Not that I would censor either, but I do think that, just as a signed document from a known individual has more credibility than an anonymous writing on a piece of paper, it's fair to take a known blogger or commenter more seriously than an anonymous one.

I say this not to dwell on "BinkyBoy" (who is as replaceable as a cotter pin), but to comment on a general phenomenon.

I noticed that another blogger who disagrees with Cramer, Snowflakes in Hell, has also come to his defense:

I may have my disagreements with Clayton on a lot of social issues, but if this is what passes for reasoned discourse among Idaho progressives, no wonder it's a Republican dominated state. I sincerely hope this site isn't run by grown adults.

To the above, Cramer left this comment:

There are days that I wonder if BinkyBoy even lives in Idaho-where gun ownership is the norm, not the exception.

Cramer's reply to the allegation:

I've never threatened anyone with a gun, much less BinkyBoy. Such a threat is a criminal offense. BinkyBoy needs to either confess that this is entirely in his head, or file a criminal complaint. Then we can see him go to jail for filing a false report.

Anonymous bloggers who make anonymous allegations don't file complaints. Their smear tactics speak for themselves.

When the unverifiability of a statement lies in the anonymity of a source, the net result is a big fat nothing.

(At least, nothing to be taken seriously. I think we'll see a lot more of such nothingness, though.)

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and welcome all!

(Have to say, it certainly was magnanimous of Glenn to give BinkyBoy free career advice, all things considered.)