My real name is Dick Cheney. Those of you who have read my comments know fully why I post under a pseudonym

There’s a lot of chatter going on in the blogosphere right about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging and whether or not it is right to out a pseudonymous blogger.
Yesterday, Ed Whelan of Bench Memos outed an pseudonymous blogger (who blogged unde…

But, three lefts make a right.

~EdT.

I mean, what did publius do that was so wrong? How did anonymity give him such an incredible advantage over Ed Whalen? And more to the point, what made Whalen feel so threatened that he had to look up his adversary's name and place of work, then publish it gleefully?

Honestly, anyone who condones this is either being contrary just for attention or has no sense of basic human decency. And yes, there is decency….even on the internet, and even in the blogosphere.

those who out gay politicians (and it was pointed out on prof. volokh's comment section that mike rogers, who runs blogactive, outs both repubbbs and dems) are usually outing the politicians that are actively working against gay civil rights (or at least those who are actively demonizing gays).

your question would only be relevant if publius was constantly working against the right of pseudononymous bloggers.

but thanks for playing.

and yes, i am not really named skippy. my real name is duncan black.

But Ed Whelan is extremely immature for doing the “outing”. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Polimom argument is the same type of argument Sean Hannity and other right-wingers use it all the time… it's simply two wrongs make a right.

No, I presuppose no such thing. I was honestly asking. And it's downright laughable to suggest I'm parroting a right-winger talking-point. Two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrings simply make two wrongs.

Many who use pseudonyms have established identities. They have known positions, views and opinions, and a long online history. They can be contacted and interfaced with. They comment or respond with these identities. They have, in short, established reputations online.

This contrasts wildly with anonymous commenters who have absolutely nothing invested — and therefore nothing to lose.

A good deal of the “toxic talk radio political culture and the kind of angry and personal tone” to be found on the web that Gandelman decries is very much associated with anonymity. Proof of this is easily seen by perusing the comments sections on any left- or right-wing blog or for that matter, any site devoted to politics where “trolls” of either or both sides are allowed to comment. Most comments are, in fact, anonymous, and under that cloak, a great many outrageous things are written by the readers of blogs. It's hard to doubt that being obliged to identify themselves would result in a huge drop in the number of comments and a marked improvement in their quality and tone.

That's not to say that anonymous bloggers present the same problem. But there surely is some restraint associated with posting under one's own name, as I do. If you're not comfortable with expressing views in a particular way with your relatives, co-workers, neighbors or friends (as apparently was the case with “publius”),
should that not give you some pause about expressing them that way online?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of named bloggers of the right and left who are snarky, nasty, mean and even vicious. Still, anonymity encourages more of this, not less. People really should think hard about the virtue of taking responsibility for their opinions, if they want civility in politics.

Apart from all this, I also find Blevins use of the pseudonym “publius” a bit annoying. Presumably. he meant to associate his own anonymity with that of Madison, Hamilton and Jay. But these three submerged their identiites in publishing The Federalist Papers not to hide them but to detach their singular personalities. known personal politics and regional ties from the joint endeavor of laying out the arguments for federalism to the whole nation. Professor Blevins had no such exalted mission.

http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/

For years and years co-douchebag Sean Hannity would use same blatant list of obvious logical fallacies straight out of Joseph Goebbels propaganda techniques and Colmes would never called him on it.

In short, both kinds of outing are cruel, but Whelans's doesn't have any backing argument, making it pettier.