* Kathy Shaidle posts: It pains me to agree with Frum, but he’s right.
I don’t come from a rich family, or am a Canadian-genetic-lottery-winner like him. Quite the opposite. I have been writing professionally for over 30 years, and blogging since 2000, mostly on the topics of religion, politics, race and crime. I was politically incorrect when that phrase was in its infancy.
I have never used a pseudonym and never would.
I have also been sued for libel, libeled back too many times to count, threatened, cautioned by the cops and possibly lost work. (The thing about that is, if someone googles you and doesn’t hire you, they don’t exactly call you up and let you know.)
Everyone here is missing the obvious point:
That pseudonyms would be rendered unnecessary overnight if EVERYONE WOULD STOP USING PSEUDONYMS.
I’m a middled aged woman in mediocre shape, under 5 feet tall, can barely lift my youth-model 20 gauge, and yet have the guts to not only sign my own name to my words but to violate multiple Canadian “hate speech” laws every time I hit “publish.”
If you don’t, you’re a wimp, and should at least have the decency to be ashamed of yourself.
I should add here that my annual income is above average and has been for some time.
You’d be surprised at how many people will hire you BECAUSE they agree with you ideologically, and not just in the media world.
One reason I suspect all you “SHITLORD 3000″ types have had the opposite experience is that you also happen to be personally unpleasant, unambitious and vocationally ill-trained.
Hey, Mr. Anonymous, I have confronted those shitlords on their turf. Whatever made you think I hadn’t? I was writing about GamerGate before it even had a name. Next?
Wow, Mr. Candid Observer, you must be new around here:
http://takimag.com/contributor/KathyShaidle/250
http://www.vdare.com/users/kathy-shaidle
https://www.fivefeetoffury.com/?s=picked+its+own+cotton
https://www.fivefeetoffury.com/?s=IQ
I could go on but have an actual job.
Now what’s your excuse? You don’t have one. You’re just another trollish keyboard warrior.
How many books have you written, Mr. Anonymous? I’ve written quite a few, including one that was a Conservative Book Club selection.
It was, in fact, about those Canadian Human Rights Commissions which, by the way, are capable of finding the “guilty” to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention the $$$ legal fees.)
Precisely because I’m Canada, and not the US (although you guys aren’t MUCH better) I actually take MORE risks by using my real name that you would ever be able to handle — which I know is true because… you’re an anonymous coward.
Here, welcome to my world, if you dare:
Mark Steyn: I hate to say I told you so. Actually, I don’t. I love it
I can’t decide whether you’re really dim or just pretending as a limp attempt as wit, but do note that bragging about how stupid you are doesn’t make you look smart; I know that’s a favorite trope with you fellows, but you really do need to retire it.
Should you actually be asking for an explanation, I thought it was obvious:
They can’t fire us all. They can’t arrest us all. They can kill us all.
If “men” like you had chosen to share the risk years ago, and not hidden behind fake names, then the necessity to do so would have been greatly REDUCED by now.
It’s quite possible that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, to mention the most famous of recent free speech martyrs, would still be alive if their killers had thought there were more such souls around.
Anonymity is the pacifism, the welfare-bumming, of rhetoric. You are living off the hard work undertaken by your betters, and then having the gall to think you’re actually one of the brave ones.
You have ZERO skin in the game. Therefore you don’t (or shouldn’t) get to play it.
* Are James Watson or Jason Richwine “personally unpleasant, unambitious and vocationally ill-trained”?
* For better worse, it’s human nature to pay more attention to the speaker than to the message. You can observe this in any school yard, or indeed on any internet discussion forum.
Statement X may be true, but unless it’s asserted to be true by certain specific people nobody will believe it.
* Internet commenting is a hobby, and not my top avocation at that. IRL there are bills to pay and a marriage & dependents to support.
I’m not ashamed of what I write pseudonymously. As far as heft on matters social, political, and historical — there’s nothing in my background to impress you, anyway. The audience can appreciate or revile my words, as they will. (Or, at unz.com, Ignore commenters with reverse-exemplary records; works for me.)
That said: you, Steve, Razib Khan, Randall Parker, and others get an extra measure of respect from me, for writing thoughtful dissent under your real name.
* Oh, you mean like Brendan Eich?
And what is it, after all, that you are brave enough to say under your own name? Do you declare in no uncertain terms that the by far the best evidence is that human groups differ genetically on IQ or tendency to criminality, and that we should give up hope therefore that some groups — subSaharan blacks, in particular — will ever achieve parity in our modern societies with Europeans or East Asians?
If you were to say that under your own name, how much of a career do you think you’d have left? How many people would have your back?
So shut up, please, until you have something to say that violates taboo to its core.
For many of us here, it is precisely these sorts of things we do wish to say, because it is precisely these sorts of things we consider to be both true and very important.
* Pat Boyle: When I was using the name Albertosaurus one day I looked on the web at the blog by Razib Khan to find that he had posted an article (not a comment an article) called something like “Pat Boyle is a Fool and a Scoundrel”. He had written a whole piece on what a bum I was because I had differed with him on some political issue.
It was quite startling. I had thought that my identity was secure behind my pseudonym, but obviously I was wrong. Khan has a rather nasty personality. He is quite brilliant but seems to be mired in endless disputes occasioned by his temperament. He is a doctoral student but can’t seem to manage to earn his degree. I suspect he blows up too often for most schools. In any case he banned me from his blog and I never wanted to have anything to do with him again.
It taught me that there really is no anonymity on the Web. I thereafter uncovered.
* If the author of The Federalist Papers, Publius, had wimped out and used a pseudonym, there might be no First Amendment in the United States today.
* Mark Steyn posts: “Kathy Shaidle and Gavin McInnes have been discussing online anonymity. I agree with them. You’re not in the battle unless you put your name to it – and don’t give me that Scarlet Pimpernel stuff: you’re not riding out after dark on daring missions, you’re just reTweeting some bloke’s hashtag…
“Mr McInnes is withering about the cyber-warrior ethos – the butch pseudonym, the graphic-novel avatar. But, cumulatively, it’s making the Internet boring and ineffectual for everyone other than Isis…”
“As Kathy Shaidle notes, many of the commenters to the McInnes video are talking past each other. There are always rational reasons for not flying under your flag. But cumulatively and objectively they have a corrosive effect. McInnes cites the stand-up mommy who, in response to the arrest of a parent who let her children walk home from the park unaccompanied, organized a “Leave Your Kids At The Park” day – to demonstrate to the statist control freaks that they can’t arrest us all. Her name is Lenore Skenazy, not “WarriorPrincess437”.”
* “It’s quite possible that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, to mention the most famous of recent free speech martyrs, would still be alive if their killers had thought there were more such souls around.”
That is theory. It is something that you pulled out of your head.
The following is reality. It is something that occurred in the real world.
“The Hundred Flowers Campaign, also termed the Hundred Flowers Movement, was a period in 1956 in the People’s Republic of China during which the Communist Party of China encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. Differing views and solutions to national policy were encouraged based on the famous expression by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong: ‘The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science.’ The movement was in part a response to the demoralization of intellectuals, who felt estranged from The Communist Party. After this brief period of liberalization, Mao abruptly changed course and pressed those who challenged the communist regime by using force. The crackdown continued through 1957 as an Anti-Rightist Campaign against those who were critical of the regime and its ideology. Those targeted were publicly criticized and condemned to prison labor camps.” (Wikipedia)
It is important to distinguish between theory – that is, what sounds good in words – and reality – that is, what actually was or is taking place. Theories are neither facts nor arguments. What convinces about a theory are the facts it organizes, not the intention of its author or its aspirational quality.
Anyone can pull a theory out of the place I referred to, to fit a momentary rhetorical need, and anyone did.
More serious would be examples of dissident movements that disclosed their members’ identities en masse to the regime and won. There is the American Revolution (the signers of the Declaration of Independence used their real names), but that was a declaration of war, a statement by people intending to engage in violent revolution. I can’t think of an example, but perhaps someone here can.
* I have the impression that today in the West the censorship is not something a ruling elite (like the communist party) imposes on the people, but rather something which many normal people really want.
* You’re mistaken, I am counter-attacking her. She dropped in insulting all anonymous posters in high and amazing terms, using specious arguments. If someone is going to attack, there is going to be a response from someone else.
And yes, her being a Jew in this context is germane. Much of the animus against free speech on race topics – creating the real need for anonymity in many cases – is self-consciously Jewish-originated, e.g., from the ADL. Her alt-light material would be more impressive if it addressed this fact head-on, in the critical manner exemplified generally by an Israel Shamir, et al.
As Derrick Jensen (a Jewish guy, by the way) sadly observed, punching down may be the rule in most human societies, with “sending violence back up at the abuser” (his words) being the most abominated and forbidden action.
And we know that the people in the saddle and their fellow-travelers don’t distinguish between speech and violence. Talking back is fighting back and both are intolerable to them.
I’m glad people come out fighting publicly but only if it they are prudent and have a base of support. Urging any others into exposing themselves is like someone with a parachute goading someone without one to jump out of a plane: “Whatssmatta? You chicken?” It isn’t well-intentioned.
* Kathy Shaidle, peace be upon her, has no “hostages to destiny,” except possibly a cat. It is easier to be brave when all the blows will fall on you alone.
* Perhaps the pseudonymous commenters are playing a different game. This is akin to online video games. Knowing your opponent’s identity isn’t really important. Just playing the game well is its own reward.
It isn’t important for comment readers to know the commenter’s identity either. Even if the people behind the pseudonyms can’t achieve a reward in status, they do get to promulgate ideas, which, being ideas, can stand and fall on their own merits. Is this not useful? It is somewhat akin to a novelist putting ideas into the words of his characters.
Tying a debate over ideas to the real-world status game–being in The Arena–changes the incentives of the debaters, some ways for the good. Some positive incentives for being associated with a real name are that by having skin in the game, you are exposed to social pressure. This pressure can promote honesty and politeness. It encourages debate to remain within established parameters, avoiding esoteric minutiae and Talmudic squirrelyness. But even this pressure has the negative effect of cautioning debaters against following the logic of their arguments all the way to certain unpalatable conclusions (cf. John Derbyshire’s critique of Mark Steyn’s America Alone).
Of course, debate between a pseudonymous commenter and a real-name commenter is asymmetric. The real-named commenter’s history and personality are known and open to attack. The pseudonym only has his ideas to attack. In that sense, anonymity is unfair. Mark Steyn is therefore correct to refuse to debate some no-name on twitter.
I think that for a real debate over ideas to work, the audience must be able to detach the ideas from the presenter and be able to evaluate the arguments disinterestedly. This is a big presumption.
Several years ago, Steve wrote a post called “Two Modes of Intellectual Discourse”, describing the traditional form of debate, debate as sport, and contrasting it with a newer form of debate that has been emerging among postmodern intellectuals and filtering through the culture at large. Steve quotes intellectual Alistair Roberts describing the new form of discourse:
“In contrast, a sensitivity-driven discourse lacks the playfulness of heterotopic discourse, taking every expression of difference very seriously. Rhetorical assertiveness and impishness, the calculated provocations of ritual verbal combat, linguistic playfulness, and calculated exaggeration are inexplicable to it as it lacks the detachment, levity, and humour within which these things make sense. On the other hand, those accustomed to combative discourse may fail to appreciate when they are hurting those incapable of responding to it.
Lacking a high tolerance for difference and disagreement, sensitivity-driven discourses will typically manifest a herding effect. Dissenting voices can be scapegoated or excluded and opponents will be sharply attacked. Unable to sustain true conversation, stale monologues will take its place. Constantly pressed towards conformity, indoctrination can take the place of open intellectual inquiry. Fracturing into hostile dogmatic cliques takes the place of vigorous and illuminating dialogue between contrasting perspectives. Lacking the capacity for open dialogue, such groups will exert their influence on wider society primarily by means of political agitation.”
In this new arena, the traditional rules of disinterested detachment no longer apply. If the older rules of debate held, the audience could detach the ideas from the person; with the newer rules, the ideas are attached like the Scarlet Letter to the arguer.
The response to disagreement has become disproportionate and capricious. Why does Justine Sacco get fired from her job for making a lowbrow joke on Twitter? A lot of people believe this is a good idea, and “non-partisan” corporations are willing to do such things just to keep activists assuaged. Some bosses are less cowardly. But does Joe Blow, 53 year old manager of a Scranton auto parts distributor, want to bet that his boss won’t wilt under the pressure of a determined public relations attack when one local SJW notices his post arguing against gay marriage on Facebook?
If the old arena was a boxing ring, the new arena is a Colosseum full of hungry lions. Who can survive in The Arena now? Heavyweight, experienced, well-armed combatants such as Mark Steyn or Ann Coulter, thrive there. Smaller, nimbler combatants who are part of high-trust communities, such as Steve Sailer, can survive by avoiding the Emperor’s gaze. Toxic lunatics with no social points left to lose like Richard Spencer or Vox Day, whom the lions find inedible, can survive there.
For most, the only effective defense is camouflage. You can get your ideas out there. You don’t get killed by an internet mob. Maybe you remove the camouflage if you find yourself in a position of strength and are able to reap the rewards of a battle well fought. This might not be entirely honorable, but the Marquess of Queensberry Rules don’t apply when fighting lions. And ideas are spread that would have otherwise been unspoken.
I think that to win the battle of ideas we need to have both pseudonymous commentators and named commentators. The pseudonymous are necessary for the production of new edgy ideas, most of which will be terrible. But that shield of anonymity allows new ideas to be generated freely, and for those ideas to be refined and improved. For ideas to win out in the Battle of Ideas, however, real people need to stake their reputation to those ideas and argue them openly. Can’t we all just get along?
