I have said this before, and I will say it again. When you get up the courage to come out from behind your pseudonym and identify yourself by your real name, I will allow you onto this blog, whether you agree with me or not. But I do not like cowards, and I do not waste my time responding to them. So come down off your high horse and tell us all whom you are.
Wolff, not to stir the bee hive, but I've been consistently posted with my name - for about a year now - and you really have the slightest idea 'who' I am, i.e. that essence of what makes me Chris.
ReplyDeleteI must say, I think this post is exactly right. The number of anonymous of pseudonymous comments I receive on my blog posts is amazingly high and the authors take so little time or care with them (presumably because they can't be traced back to them). And, of course, the idea that someone attempts to attack me or an idea of mine without providing any information about him- or herself is stunning. Why should I (or anyone who reads my blog) care about the thoughts of someone who might very well have no knowledge at all about the subject at hand!
ReplyDeleteDoes the illustrious Professor also support requiring voters to let their employers know for whom they voted? Or the wearing of a Star of David? Or all homosexuals to be registered with the government? Or the Mutant Registration Act?
ReplyDeleteOne of the first steps by all tyrants (again, cue a Hitler reference) is to neatly identify who dissidents are, so that any troublesome thought experiments they offer can be easily dismissed. Rather than pay attention to what someone says, it's easier to just see from the label that it is the Other who is speaking, and therefore ignore them.
As this one is female, privately bisexual, a very minor public figure in her location, and Google-able, it is impossible for her to wear such a Star. Forcing everyone to reveal their tangible identities and sources of support on the internet is a great way to make sure that no one says anything unpopular, and that the internet becomes as useful a source of information as mainstream media.
This concept is why cops don't publish the identities of mob informants in the New York Times if they want to get any more informants.
Which, of course, is why the Professor wants to know just who is saying those things so dangerous that they must be deleted: it's so much easier to frighten people into silence than to engage them by ideas alone. Works great when you're able to fail them for not parroting back the right things, or when you can crush their career for being too esoteric or unreasonable. The internet, for this brief time before it becomes perpetually linked to tangible people, is an opportunity to exchange ideas freely.
If "I" were struck by lightning tomorrow, and failed to ever post again, but someone else stepped into "my" shoes and carried on the same discussion, would not the discussion still be valid? What are you so afraid of? That you can't deal with the ideas?
And Mr. AK, who speaks very much like a man, tihs one updated something just for you (at the bottom):
ReplyDeletehttp://higharka.blogspot.com/2011/12/sunflower-part-2.html
this, even. >.>
ReplyDeleteAK,
ReplyDeleteThe internet is too vast and all encompassing for you, or anyone, to everyone 'know' who all your potential responders are. Unless of course you occupy some cozy seat at the NSA.
Which NSA thought experiment then raises the question, "Does knowing someone's age, gender, location, occupation and stated views mean that you know everything about them?"
ReplyDeleteDo you come to the internet--or to life--seeking validation, or seeking learning?
For some of us, pseudonymity is the only thing that permits any access to the public forum whatsoever. A privilege afforded to the authors of the Federalist Papers should be afforded to the rest of us. Without anonymity, freedom of speech simply doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteOK, perhaps I'll say a bit more ... since I was traveling when I left the original comment and haven't been back to see all the negativity. What I mean to say is this: on my blog, and on Professor Wolff's blog, we're not bound to offer a platform to anyone. Nor are we bound to go read what people have written wherever on the internet they might write. If you want to comment on my blog, I'd be most interested if I knew something about you. That's my prerogative, just as it's your prerogative to write your own blog and call me whatever names you would like (which, if it's anonymous, I probably won't spend much time reading).
ReplyDeleteI insist upon judging books by their covers.
ReplyDeleteWhy pay attention to something unless you already know where it's coming from? It's so annoying to have to deal with information without being able to prejudge the information based on who delivered it.
Mr. Wolff, does your great connection to other humans make you feel any qualms about supporting someone who launches robot bombs that slaughter so many children?
ReplyDeleteYou have a great cheering section of clowns who are impressed by your degree into pursuing your affections, but in a very substantial way, you are a terror of the human race. You are a bloated white wealthy citizen of empire who supports its foulest doings. Your actions stand wholly against your words.
Dead children. In piles. Millions of them. Dripping blood on your pretty keyboard. Do you care enough to stop calling on us to support the mastermind who killed them?
Your blogs are really awesome and full of information. I would like to say thank you to share such good information.
ReplyDeleteElectronics Assignment Help
This article is quite interesting and I am looking forward to reading more of your posts. Thanks for sharing this article with us.
ReplyDeleteManagement Assignment Writing Service