(As an aside - what is it about those who skulk about on the toxic fringes of the leftosphere that they are so loathe to reveal their identities?)
First of all, I'm not exactly sure where those 'toxic fringes of the leftosphere' are, but if and when I find them, I'll let you know. Now, about that being 'loathe to reveal' comment: I believe in privacy. I believe in choice. I believe in safety.
If I claimed to be an expert on any issue, perhaps those who read what I write would have a good reason for wanting to know my identity so they could check on my credentials. I don't, however, make any such claim. I post opinions which can be debated by anyone (as long as they don't accuse me of supporting terrorists like a certain Werner Patels). What does it matter then who's behind my posts?
Perhaps Kate and those who agree with her about bloggers revealing their names have had nice, cushy lives and have never had to deal with threats to their security or person. I have. I helped put a guy away who was threatening to kill five people, including children, in a hostage situation (among other serious situations I've had to deal with). Why would I want to draw people to my political blog by posting my real name so they could continue to attack me? Why would I give up my privacy and freedom to talk about whatever I want to on a blog? For what? To please some Conservative blogger?
I don't think so.
One of the great things about the internets is that anyone can post whatever they want, no matter who they are. Those who demand full disclosure of others on blogs have a choice: if they're unable to gove anonymous bloggers like me any leeway due to our personal circumstances, they can simply stay away. But, attacking someone based simply on the fact that they post anonymously is faulty logic and cannot be used to discount actual opinions unless those opinions hinge on the revelation of the person behind the post. In my case, they don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment