If you’re sure of your sources and don’t want to be outed as the outer, there’s always the editing of his wikipedia entry to be more exhaustive.
However, there’s no way anybody could read that article and not know this guy’s a right wing racist nutjob, and I can’t imagine his writing would influence anybody away from Obama who wasn’t already pretty flakey.
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
If you’re sure of your sources and don’t want to be outed as the outer, there’s always the editing of his wikipedia entry to be more exhaustive.
[/quote]
That was what I was going to do.
Yea, clearly. In a way he’s done people a favor. You can now quote it to make right wing attacks by McCain look ridiculous.
Last month he wrote a column promoting Putin for president of the U.S. (tongue in cheek of course, but still nutty).
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
If you’re sure of your sources and don’t want to be outed as the outer, there’s always the editing of his wikipedia entry to be more exhaustive.
[/QUOTE]
That would be unethical, as it breaks wikipedia’s rules for what counts as a valid source. It sounds like the only evidence is the OP’s interpretation of the authors writings, which while they very well maybe accurate, aren’t a valid cite for wikipedia and would count as vandilizing the article.
I’m sure it’s easy enough to find another venue to out him on, though, if that’s the course of action you choose.
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
That would be unethical, as it breaks wikipedia’s rules for what counts as a valid source. It sounds like the only evidence is the OP’s interpretation of the authors writings, which while they very well maybe accurate, aren’t a valid cite for wikipedia and would count as vandilizing the article.
I’m sure it’s easy enough to find another venue to out him on, though, if that’s the course of action you choose.
[/QUOTE]
I have other sources, but I wouldn’t out my sources. Though, by outing him, I would be outing them, so I guess it wouldn’t matter at that point.
As for Putin, I think he harbors some Great Game fantasies and wants to see some sort of American Bismarck.
We believe in the freedom of speech. That means putting up with speech with which you don’t agree. Keep quiet.
[QUOTE=mswas]
So a writer on an internet publication who I’ve been having dealings with for a couple of years now, wrote something that I feel is beyond the pale into the territory of white supremacy. This article was even quoted by Rush Limbaugh on his website.
I know who he is, I know things about his past, and I know that he would collapse under the light of scrutiny.
I am not going to point out who this is pseudonymously, nor will I out him here, but I want to know what people think on this subject. I am pretty disgusted, but I also feel that perhaps the man has the right to perform as he does. In otherwords let the ideas stand on their own merit. Also, the information I have was passed on to me by more dilligent people who I consider my friends. It would also destroy an internet community that I was a part of.
Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
Let me make sure I’ve got this right. You want to fuck this guy over, perhaps drastically, because he expressed a repulsive opinion? Not because of anything he did to you or yours (other than the injury to your sensibilities, which is hardly the same as an intentional, and direct attack on you would be) – but because you find his viewpoint objectionable? And your doing so would cause harm to others who are blameless in this situation?
Because if that’s the gist of your question, my emphatic reply would have to be “Hell, no! What’s an incredibly arrogant, malicious, and underhanded thing to do! You’re better than that – aren’t you?” I’m including that last part because, even though I don’t know you, I assume and hope that you are, actually, better than that. To go after the guy like that before he has acted aggressively toward you is casting yourself in the role of the Bad Opinion Police or a one-person vigilante squad, who is also the self-appointed judge, jury and enforcer; do you really want to be seen that way?
The subject of our discussion has a right to think and believe as he does, and to the free expression of his beliefs, no matter how loathesome or meretricious or flat-out wrong, and it isn’t really your place to punish him for having bad thoughts. Attack his words and ideas with your own arguments, yes, of course! But don’t try to be the engine of retribution; righteousness and coercion are inappropriate and most unbecoming for a person of any amount of consciousness, unless that one’s name is Erinyes or something similar.
Now, if you’d asked should you out the guy as payback for something he’d done to hurt you, personally, or someone with a particular claim to your individual loyalty and concern, I’d say “Go for it. Hit him hard and dirty!” because I’m a big believer in retribution when one gets fucked with. But as it is, we not only can’t punish general assholes for just being general assholes, we’re also a lot safer and freer that way, ourselves.
I only read the article briefly, but couldn’t detect any racism in it - could someone point it out to me? I think if it was ‘hate speech’ then I would encourage the ‘outing’ of the author, as I would especially want them to be accountable for their free speech. But this looks like a slur, making the dubious connection of anthropologist=‘leftist’=communist sympathiser.
As for:
That sounds like a damned tangy cocktail. I had no idea Obama was such an accomplished bartender.
I know of at least two cases where the name of a person who used a public pseudonym was revealed in Wikipedia despite their efforts to keep their identity private. I participated in a debate on this issue (where I argued in defense of their privacy) and the consensus was that identities could be revealed.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
We believe in the freedom of speech. That means putting up with speech with which you don’t agree. Keep quiet.
[/QUOTE]
No it doesn’t. Free speech doesn’t mean consequence free speech, and there’s no constitutional right to anonymity.
My point wasn’t that revealing peoples identities was in and of itself vandelizing wiki, it was that you need a valid source to support your claim. MSWAS’s own intepretation of Spengler’s message board posts isn’t such a source.
Simplico It would have to be contested in order for that to occur. The process of contesting it would spread his identity. I mean I could always make a website dedicated to him, it would take all of an hour. 
I’m not going to out him, I just needed to blow off some steam.
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
No it doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Yes it does. It’s a contract: you agree that they can say what they like and you can say what you like. If you want to censor someone, why shouldn’t someone censor you? That way lies tyranny.
I’m glad.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Yes it does. It’s a contract: you agree that they can say what they like and you can say what you like. If you want to censor someone, why shouldn’t someone censor you? That way lies tyranny.
[/QUOTE]
Who’s censoring? In what way is revealing a persons actual identity censoring them?
To me, it boils down to:
First, has he made any indication that he has the intent and means to hurt someone? If that’s the case, then I feel that you are obligated to out him to authorities.
If not, then it comes down to:
Has he specifically asked you not to identify him if asked? If yes, and you have agreed, then ethically, you should not out him. If no, then you have no ethical obligation to protect his identity if you are asked.
I don’t know if I’d consider it unethical to name him for the sole purpose of naming him, though. Rude, yes. Unethical? I’m not sure.
I just don’t think that Rush or this guys fans would care if he was a member of the KKK.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
I just don’t think that Rush or this guys fans would care if he was a member of the KKK.
[/QUOTE]
His fans would. Implicit racism falls under the aegis of ‘the culture wars’, so it’s one thing, explicit racism is generally condemned.
I’m still not clear.
Suppose that you, mswas, find that Lemur866 is an account used by Ann Coulter posting here under a pseudonym. And you debate sharing that information with others.
Is the point to discredit Lemur866 by showing that I’m really Ann Coulter? Or is the point to discredit Ann Coulter by showing her fans that Lemur866 isn’t a barking baboon?
In other words, I’m still not clear what the “outing” is, and what damage would be caused to who by which outing.
Is the guy a relatively normal guy who does relatively normal writing, and you want to discredit his normal writing by revealing that he also writes right-wing screeds pseudonymously?
I have to say this, as a former journalist whose byline appeared over almost every story I ever wrote, and whose photo appeared alongside almost every opinion piece I ever wrote:
Anonymity on the Internet is fun. That’s why I use the pseudonym Sunrazor instead of Jeff Rice, and why I give my location as County Road 370 North instead of 13450 CR 370, Sterling, CO 80751. But tha’ts all it is, just fun. A guiding principle of journalism is that you must be willing to be publicly identified with your opinions. This, what we do here on the Dope, what bloggers do, what everyone does on the Internet in terms of projecting their opinions, is potentially among the purest forms of journalisms in the world today. Only two things keep it from being called journalism – anonymity and the near absence of gatekeeping.
If you are certain of the person’s identity, out him or her. But only if you, too, are willing to publish your own identity.
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
IA guiding principle of journalism is that you must be willing to be publicly identified with your opinions.
[/QUOTE]
Why come?
-FrL-
[QUOTE=Frylock]
Why come?
-FrL-
[/QUOTE]
Credibility. If you don’t have the courage to be publicily identified with your opinions, you have no credibility. Courage = credibility. If you lack that courage, your words are not worthy of being considered.
Just for the record, I won’t debate this point any further. It’s a journalistic principle, has been for over two centuries, and I’m not in any position – nor have I any inclination – to change it.