Paging Mr. Anonymous

[degringolade]

 

Neo-Romanticism / Theodor Severin Kittelsen/ Big troll in Breifonnen - Stortrollet i breifonnen

So:  Joe asked a good, meaty question:

So why is it that if I write a letter to the editor in a newspaper that gets published, my name appears?  Why the fuck should the internet and all its Twits be granted anonymity.  Yes, I know why it got that way, but why should it be allowed to continue?

Since I am stuck here looking out at the fucking snow, I will venture an response (let’s not give the following the dignity of being referred to as an “answer”, It has to go through the rinse, lather, repeat process several times to get the edges knocked off of it.)

So, let’s talk about the actual process of putting out an opinion about something.  Then we will talk about the very connected process of answering that process.  Then we will talk about the societal changes that bring us here to this odd impasse.

There is an old saying:  There are as many opinions as there are assholes. Since I have an asshole and have at frequent times in my life been an asshole, lets begin with the most expansive view of this saying.  Everyone has an opinion (let’s include ostomies of course).  When you put your opinion into print, whether it is a book, an article, a thesis, a dissertation, a letter to the editor, or a stream if inconvenienced electrons on the internet, you are simply stating that you are right.  

I got no problem with that.

I write here almost every day.  I give up opinions and thoughts on many different issues.  I think that I am right and love to have folks agree with me.  But what I really treasure is when folks take the time and point out where I am wrong.  Then I change my mind.

But here is when it gets hinkey.  And things depend on the interplay of the competing ideas.  Most folks who write think they are right and are hoping, should they allow comments, for fawning praise about the quality of their thoughts.  A whole bunch of the time the responses are less than positive and can be downright offensive to the writer.  Well buckaroo, that's what happens when other folks are involved.  The chances of two people seeing the same way is pretty dang slim.  

But responding to someone else's writing is another thing altogether.  A lot of the time the responses aren’t really constructive and the asshole who wrote them is just trying to be a dick….and succeeding.  But tell you the truth, that is part of the process.

Where Joe seems to be frustrated is the chief asshole of the internet...someone named “anonymous”.  This guy is usually quite a jerk.  I always kinda cringe when I get a comment from him.  Sometimes they are good comments, but usually they are just trollish trash, seeing just how far they can push being a dickhead from the safety of being a heckler.  Now anonymous loves the internet.  He is the same person that is the un-named source in sketchy news articles.  

I have always thought that anything that you write in the public forum of the internet should be able to be traced to you.  I have always thought that the media should have no right to “protect their sources”.   Now...to be very clear and very specific, your e-mail is off limits, but when you write is a public forum, or if you respond in a public forum, you should be required to identify yourself.  Now that might be a good use for blockchain.

We love the internet for the reach it gives our words, but we are unwilling to take responsibility for our words.  So, I will stay here in my quiet cul de sac of the information superhighway.  You know who I am and what I am thinking.  If you want to comment, I really appreciate your time.  I read all the comments.  I usually choose to delete anything from anonymous.  I rarely respond to comments, if something more needs be said, I’ll say it at another time.

A quote from the Novel "Crytonomicon" by Neal Stephenson:

 

“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

Comments

Censorship Done Right

[mschmidt]

SCIENCE: Censorship Done Right

Man invented science to escape from a world of conspiracy theories.

Science insists on two things. First, a person is not “right”; rather, they have a hypothesis. Second, with regard to the result explained by the hypothesis, the person is expected to explain why other explanations for the result should be discounted.

It is obvious that science is too complicated to be applied to everything.

The solution is to presuppose that a hypothesis is right, and all other explanations are wrong. With this one mental step, all the boring requirements of science are eliminated, and a person intentionally enters an imaginary world where all other explanations are known to be wrong. From then on, a completely rational thought from the person living in the imaginary world might seem to be irrational to someone who has not taken the same mental step.

An author with a hypothesis typically asks the reader to enter into the imaginary world where there is no doubt that the hypothesis is true. A reader who doubts the hypothesis can step into that other world, but the person will then step back out of the imaginary world because they believe that other hypotheses could be true.

But after stepping into the other world, a person who doubts the hypothesis might discover that the unlikely hypothesis is profitable, and for that reason decide not to step back out of the imaginary world. Or a person might do the same thing because the hypothesis is entertaining.

Man invented science to negate these possibilities. Science is censorship.

Censorship is a response to the ability that words have to convey an understanding that is not the desired understanding, when there is a desired understanding. The desired understanding might be the truth, or not. Science wants to eliminate what is not true; but science does not censor understanding; rather, it tries to negate the word “desired” so that there is no such thing as a desired understanding. The enemy of science (truth), is desire, be it for profit, or fame, or entertainment.

Desired Understanding

[mschmidt]

"science does not censor understanding; rather, it tries to negate the word “desired” so that there is no such thing as a desired understanding."

Once a writer has put forth an understanding based on their brilliant insight, that understanding becomes a desired understanding because if it is wrong, they will stop being brilliant and might become the opposite.

I think that "a writer" (above) includes everybody who writes.

Maybe a writer should have to overcome the urge to keep their mouth shut, not the urge to write about everything they think - which they might do if they are known for brilliant insights. The problem with writing brilliant material to a schedule, is it eliminates the possibility of keeping the yapper shut.