|
January 03, 2010
anonymous, unverifiable, but authoritative?
In a comment to my post about the practical problems of constitutional issues, Veeshir stressed the importance of anonymity, We've come full circle back to when it was best for your gov't to not know your name.The right to anonymity is an important right, and fortunately, it is constitutionally protected. Anonymity (and I include pseudonymity) can be a two edged sword, though. In voting, it is of paramount importance. Where it comes to the sharing of ideas and experiences, though, one of the problems with anonymity is that credibility tends to suffer. This might not matter in the context of pure idea sharing, because arguments stand or fall based on their factual accuracy and soundness of the thinking involved. The actual identity of an anonymous critic (or supporter) of government policies or global warming theory would make no difference if his argument is, say, based on the contention that the numbers don't add up, and he explains why, because these things can be independently verified. But once a claim is based on his particular experience, or special knowledge or inside position (whether in the government, the military, academia, etc.), the argument is weakened, because there is no way to verify any of it. This is just as true of anonymous bloggers as it is of anonymous commenters. I don't care how long someone has been blogging, how articulate or how many readers he or she has, none of that invests an anonymous blogger with the kind of personal credibility that comes from independent verifiability. The only checks and balances on anonymous bloggers is when they are unmasked, as a man calling himself "Libertarian Girl" discovered: One thing I learned from this blog is how easy attractive woman have it. When I had a blog as my real self, no one linked to me, no one left any comments, it was as if the blog existed in a vacuum. But things were different for Libertarian Girl. Every day I'd check Technorati and discover new unsolicited links. It was like I had warped into an alternate universe where all the rules had changed. At the rate things were happening, this would have been an A-list blog in a few more months.Human nature being what it is, bloggers suffer from a natural temptation to do whatever is necessary get hits and links, and in that sense, anonymous bloggers like "Libertarian Girl" have a huge advantage. I can't claim to be a woman, because I am writing under my name and people know me. The best I could do was a frivolous satirical claim that I was a pre-post operative sex change. what I'm wondering right now is why I can't be a pre-post-operative female-to-male transsexual trapped in the body of a man, but who, because of pure luck, has no need to go through with the surgery, because I already have male anatomical features (i.e., a woman who wants to become a man but who is by accident of birth already trapped in the body of a man). It would be a terrible hardship (a cruel travesty, even) to make me surgically become a man trapped in the body of a woman who wants to become a man because the man is trapped in her body, if I can shortcircuit the entire process and merely accept the fact that I am already where I would be after surgery back and forth.Now, that was in 2005, and even though I realized how ridiculous I was being, that did not stop the ACLU from filing suit on behalf of another lesbian trapped in a man's body. (I'd sue the ACLU for infringement, except that the lesbian-trapped-in-man's-body idea seems to be in the public domain.) Anyway, the fact that there's no way to verify whether an anonymous woman is actually a man highlights a serious problem which arises when anonymous bloggers make factual claims based on unverifiable life experiences, or offer opinions based on their personal claims of expertise or superiority. There's that old rule that when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. I think that applies in spades to anonymous bloggers who say what people want to hear. posted by Eric on 01.03.10 at 12:46 PM
Comments
anonymity which is psudonymity, only without a fake name, is valuable when expressing opinions. The ONE time, I have made a direct attack on someone, I surrendered my anonymity, because it was only fair because I attacked someone directly, and they shared their name, and it was only right for me to share my name. In all other cases I use the silence of anonymity, in fact, I rarely voice my opinion at all. If you attack a person personally you should share your name (which I have done once) so that they have the same weapons that you are wielding against them. However, there are few people with scruples, so I don't do that anymore. At least not often. I really don't know how to respond, is what I'm saying, having used way too many words. The very few times I have shared my actual name has almost always lead to me regretting it, because there was always someone who wasn't willing to share their name to dig crap up, and attack. Meanwhile I can't be anything but honorable and allow for a level battlefield if engaged in an argument. It sucks, so I just don't do it anymore. Douglas · January 4, 2010 02:05 AM What most people fail to realize is that the GREG newsom · January 4, 2010 04:11 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Are You Now Or Have You Ever Fudged The Data?
anonymous, unverifiable, but authoritative? there's no way to opt out of the in-your-face cycle The University of Sydney Is Building Small Polywell Constitutional principles, practical obstacles The Two Wings Of The Party Death to "mouth peace"! It took 40 years, but it's crystal clear now Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your doom! What Darwin Never Knew
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"Anonymous, unverifiable, but authoritative?"
Well, yes...as long as you have your "followers". It's your "followers" that give you the authority to influence their thoughts, opinions and behaviors.
If you disagree, may I suggest you take a look at just how well another "verifiable person", President Obama, is doing, as his "followers" are having second thoughts.
And then there is GOD, who as far as I know, is NOT a "verifiable person", but he still has his cadre of "followers" from multiple religions spanning the globe.