Anonymous Worse?
Thu, 12 Feb 2004, 03:20 amcrgwllms1 post in thread
Anonymous Worse?
Thu, 12 Feb 2004, 03:20 amThere have been a few occasions recently where comments have been made about those who post opinions here under the cover of a pen-name, usually with no valid email address.
Generally the attitude is to belittle the writer, claiming them cowardly, and their opinions to carry less conviction because they would not put their name to them. But is this necessarily the case?
There are a lot of you out there who I have never heard of. Your name may be valid, but for all I know it makes little difference. I am really only interested in what you say.
If you post frequently under the same name I start to form an opinion about you, but it's only a construct based on your use of language; it still is nothing to do with you personally. If I haven't met you, you might as well be using a pen-name.
While I do admire people who are willing to put their name to their convictions, it's not such a sign of weakness to choose an online persona. In fact, I would guess that most of us are more likely to argue and/or ridicule opinions made anonymously than they would be with people we are likely to know and meet personally...this results in a more honest (albeit brutal) dialogue with the pen-namers, which only improves the quality of the argument. If you know the other person's real identity, conversations become more political, the agenda determined by the outside relationship.
Sure, there's a relative safety in anonymity from which sometimes inappropriate statements can be made. But invariably, others come online to reply and let the author know they were out of line...so they still cop the punishment they deserve for speaking out of turn, it's just that it doesn't have to be associated with their private life.
When 'known' persons make inappropriate statements, that's not being any braver...merely inappropriate.
Those of us who do freely advertise our identities are often relatively safe too...safe in the knowledge that we have some literary skill or are practiced at argument; so there's far less danger that we may be taken to task in a debate. Perhaps it's not being any 'braver' or having 'courage of conviction', as much as being smug and ego-driven. There's a certain notoriety and perhaps respect to be enjoyed if you get a reputation for speaking your mind, or arguing reasonable points of view, which is denied the anonymous author. So sometimes it's slightly self-serving to sign your own name; those who don't show some discretion.
I find it interesting how many 'real world' conversations I have with people who admit they follow these website discussions quite regularly, but never contribute. Nothing wrong with that - they have an interest, and keep abreast of events, which I encourage. I just point it out to show an even greater degree of anonymity, which puts the 'nom de plume' crowd in better perspective.
And there's a good argument for not wanting to put a valid email address, as well...something to do with ham in a can. I have a pretty good junk mail filter, but it's still tedious watching it download and clean away over 200 junk messages a day...and I still have to read many each day that slip through. Email is a brilliant tool, I love it, but the exponential amount of crap I receive is a serious negative. Not including an address might not be cowardice, sometimes it's practical. People are free to reply to you in the open, here under your post, rather than the whole world getting your personal email details.
People who don't know me may have thought I'm using a pen name. It's actually a very obvious corruption of my own name. I never adopted it intending it as any form of disguise...it was actually my Chinese year 9 maths teacher who seemed to pronounce my name as if it had no vowels. I liked it and started signing my name that way, more than a decade before the internet. When I first got online, all user names were required to be 8 letters long and unique - perfect!
Cheers,
crg
Generally the attitude is to belittle the writer, claiming them cowardly, and their opinions to carry less conviction because they would not put their name to them. But is this necessarily the case?
There are a lot of you out there who I have never heard of. Your name may be valid, but for all I know it makes little difference. I am really only interested in what you say.
If you post frequently under the same name I start to form an opinion about you, but it's only a construct based on your use of language; it still is nothing to do with you personally. If I haven't met you, you might as well be using a pen-name.
While I do admire people who are willing to put their name to their convictions, it's not such a sign of weakness to choose an online persona. In fact, I would guess that most of us are more likely to argue and/or ridicule opinions made anonymously than they would be with people we are likely to know and meet personally...this results in a more honest (albeit brutal) dialogue with the pen-namers, which only improves the quality of the argument. If you know the other person's real identity, conversations become more political, the agenda determined by the outside relationship.
Sure, there's a relative safety in anonymity from which sometimes inappropriate statements can be made. But invariably, others come online to reply and let the author know they were out of line...so they still cop the punishment they deserve for speaking out of turn, it's just that it doesn't have to be associated with their private life.
When 'known' persons make inappropriate statements, that's not being any braver...merely inappropriate.
Those of us who do freely advertise our identities are often relatively safe too...safe in the knowledge that we have some literary skill or are practiced at argument; so there's far less danger that we may be taken to task in a debate. Perhaps it's not being any 'braver' or having 'courage of conviction', as much as being smug and ego-driven. There's a certain notoriety and perhaps respect to be enjoyed if you get a reputation for speaking your mind, or arguing reasonable points of view, which is denied the anonymous author. So sometimes it's slightly self-serving to sign your own name; those who don't show some discretion.
I find it interesting how many 'real world' conversations I have with people who admit they follow these website discussions quite regularly, but never contribute. Nothing wrong with that - they have an interest, and keep abreast of events, which I encourage. I just point it out to show an even greater degree of anonymity, which puts the 'nom de plume' crowd in better perspective.
And there's a good argument for not wanting to put a valid email address, as well...something to do with ham in a can. I have a pretty good junk mail filter, but it's still tedious watching it download and clean away over 200 junk messages a day...and I still have to read many each day that slip through. Email is a brilliant tool, I love it, but the exponential amount of crap I receive is a serious negative. Not including an address might not be cowardice, sometimes it's practical. People are free to reply to you in the open, here under your post, rather than the whole world getting your personal email details.
People who don't know me may have thought I'm using a pen name. It's actually a very obvious corruption of my own name. I never adopted it intending it as any form of disguise...it was actually my Chinese year 9 maths teacher who seemed to pronounce my name as if it had no vowels. I liked it and started signing my name that way, more than a decade before the internet. When I first got online, all user names were required to be 8 letters long and unique - perfect!
Cheers,
crg