Superman fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way (which isn’t always compatible with Truth and Justice), and we don’t know his identity.
Although, come to think of it, I’ve never seen Superman and Kent Clark in the same room at the same time.
<shrug> I was talking to someone else, about someone else.
It’s not *all *about you.
As long as we don’t keep changing names, I don’t see how it makes any difference. Mangetout is the identity I have used for all of the 40-something-thousand posts I’ve made on this board, and I have no intention of changing it.
What useful purpose would be served by me using my IRL name here? It’s not like I’m a celebrity that you’d have heard of outside of this context.
In fact, my opinion on any given matter is more likely to change than my posting ID, so why do you need to know who I am? (Other than that I am known by the aforementioned posting ID?
Pleased to meet you Dennis, Kieran here. I suppose it’s rather ironic considering my handle that I haven’t been very reluctant to reveal my name to anonymous chaps over the internet… I recognise strong arguments in either direction. The primary argument for allowing people to separate their online identities from their offline identities is the legitimate threat of black hats. Everyone I’ve personally known has revealed information online that they would not repeated verbatim to their parents or employers, but once one’s personality is consolidated by an individual such as this, there is a severe power imbalance. They are anonymous, you are not. I’m not exception to that rule: I rely on the fact that I don’t have anything they can extort and “the great anonymous ‘they’” have particular reason to be interested in me.
This also manifests itself in the fact that dissidents have the possibility to release information to wikileaks and other similar websites without facing reprisals from their governments or employers. If we had to type our national security numbers in to sign in, we’d probably be reluctant to do anything remotely risky.
The antithesis to this point of view is the fact that becoming anonymous enables one to be capable of speaking to an audience without seeing their reaction. There is no indication that psychopaths are incapable of using the internet (I’m certain 4chan is infested with them), but even people capable of empathy that are limited by the disapproval of individuals suddenly find it hilarious to mock suicidal children.
The same mechanism that can be quite liberating can turn people horribly unempathic.
Okay. Please accept my apology… just working the SD system out. No probs. DAP
My real name is Paul Murphy. It’s not a secret really, but you try signing up for a message board with such a ridiculously common name…
The Paul Murphy???
Sorry mate.
hahahahahahahahahaha …cheers mate, you made my day, thankyou…
Hi Keiran… you wouldnt believe this but I just spent 2 hours writing up a reply and lost the lot, probably took too long, supposed to be a quick response I suppose…
Anyway, basically said thankyou for an honest reply…
…my approach was a bit awkward and haphazard, felt like I was being thrown out by security in the end.
…gist of my argument was your latter point: the lack of empathy that occurs when humans become part of a “faceless mob” … I am sure The Straight Dope doesn’t want a bunch of Yes-Men clones hanging on their every word but neither do we, the teeming millions, want to be a part of a "fan club " anonymity where its possible to act with impunity… I simply refuse to play that role or support such a faction for that very reason, individuality within the mob or separate from the mob is more important to me. They are my thoughts expressed as words and I will take responsibilty for them…
…again, due to the awkwardness that I introduced myself, I have no problems with those who choose a psuedonym, in fact some can be quite colourful and creative (if not amusing). I just hope those who do so give their new name some thought and expresses their identity with their own individuality in mind.
…lastly, just to thank you again for a considered and thoughtful opinion.
Cheers mate, I dont expect you to do anything you dont want to do. My attempt at the whole debate was awkward to say the least. The basic gist was: Anonymity can lead to impunity and when humanbeings are impuned to things in their environment they can and will create havoc… in my own way I was questioning the SD Motto of Fighting Ignorance by allowing anonymity to create impunity. No hard feelings, Dennis Arthur PERRETT.
Sorry mate, just got caught up in the moment.
Are you in favor of voting by secret ballot?
See, I think you are creating a straw man here. Do you have any examples or cites of anoniminity leading to impunity, or creating havoc?
An alternate argument might be that someone posting under their real identity is less likely to be truthful, because they’re worried about future employers, mates, friends, family or whomever coming across an ill-considered or unpolitically-correct post from a decade ago; perhaps when the individual was younger and stupider (or, younger and smarter.)
Basically I think for anyone halfway internet-savvy, perhaps not fully-baked, perhaps with an eye towards being in the public eye, using one’s real name will have a chilling effect on honest discourse. Or be a deal-breaker.
I’ve met and befriended people I’ve come to know initially online; in fact today I’ve expressed interest in a local Straight Dope meetup - IME most people are fairly honest about who they are online. But there’s a BIG difference between having a nom de plume or separate online identity, and being willing to have your life, address, phone number and everything you say online available to everyone else in the world, forever.
The Straight Dope claim of “Fighting Ignorance” is no doubt a clever tongue-in-cheek expression to attract interest from the teeming millions. Correct? However where does Cecil Adams stand on the serious question of anonymity of the individuals who make up the teeming millions and his own anonymity? Anonymity on a large scale can lead to impunity with disastrous consequences. Cecil Adams, as a person who is respected and called upon, shouldn’t you lead by example when it comes to Anonymity (especially under the banner of “Fighting Ignorance”) as some out there may abuse your position and read more into the slogan than the cheesy newspaper expression it actually is?
What consequences can possibly be disastrous in the context of a message board and newspaper column?
How is it possible for one person to abuse another’s position?
What are the consequences of reading more into “Fighting Ignorance” than it “actually is”?
Moved from General Questions to ATMB.
samclem, Moderator
This was a separate thread in GQ; merged with existing thread on basically the same subject in CCC.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I’m the only one that counts.
You know those “Google your own name” things that come up on message boards? My record is that I got to page 33 of the results and still hadn’t found anything that related to me. After that I gave up.