Quote: (09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
I don't correlate the end of anonymous comments with the limiting of contrarian views. I simply think it serves to enhance civilized discourse.
I disagree with this completely. The end of anonymous comments exactly means the limiting of contrarian or dissenting views. Ending anonymity online means people will be less likely to say what they really feel about feminism, gay marriage, or any number of articles which are politically correct.
Furthermore, why do I have to let myself known on the internet? Why should companies/people/government know exactly who I am and what I think, especially when those views are not going to fit within their narrative.
Quote: (09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
A guy who is as clever a writer as Scorpion, for instance, would def see his comments well-received on just about any controversial issue. It's all about knowing your audience (and knowing you have support somewhere in the first place) and how well you present your thoughts to them. Every great writer and orator knows/knew this. Even Hitler.
Again, disagree with this. It doesn’t matter how clever of a writer you are, when it comes to politically correctness, no matter how well Scorpion words his comments he is going to be ridiculed regardless.
Have you considered the other angle to this? Let’s say Scorpion (real name “John Smith”) posts a very well thought-out argument on a feminist article. He is extremely articulate, doesn’t resort to name calling and gets attacked by other people and still holds his cool. Now a feminazi or one of those Gawker/Jezebel/the intern who got two firefighters fired yesterday looks at his comments. She sees John Smith’s comments and gets enraged. She must do a piece on it. She must expose him. She must let others know what a sexist, racist, misogynistic pig John Smith is. She tries to find him on Facebook and he is smart enough to make his profile private. Tough luck. She tries to find his Twitter, again tough luck. She googles his name, and OH, his linkedin profile comes up. Now she starts tweeting at his place of work and even though he did not troll, the company fires him because it draws negative attention towards them.
That sounds too far-fetched? Okay, this will not. Let’s say you post under your real name and you are lucky enough to avoid a feminist crusader who will do everything to expose you. BUT, you apply for a job and the HR girl googles you. All of the comments you left, which mind you were very civil and “clever” as you said have just been seen by this HR girl. You are the best candidate but she cannot allow her company to hire somebody like you who is a misogynist and doesn’t believe in equality.
Quote: (09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
We need more reasonable writers like Scorpion and less of the idiots like the anonymous trolls who only further isolate our message. Anyone who seeks to jump through loopholes via IP address hacks, etc just to make a dissenting anonymous comment - when they can easily voice their opinions through their own or alternative outlets - is by definition a troll.
If your argument can't be constructed in a way that's palatable to an article designed for a mainstream audience, then don't comment publicly on it (unless you're willing to take the heat for it). Work on your writing skills instead.
We do need more reasonable writers like Scorpion but you are thinking of it from the only the point of view that some of us views which are not palatable for the mainstream audience. I am against this not just because I want us to be able to say whatever we want online but also because this is a bigger issues which signals a complete loss of privacy online. I know, I know, companies still have your IP address when you visit them, government can trace you easily but having to use your real name destroys all privacy online.
I don’t understand your argument here, HC.
I was with you on the Business Insider Pax guy. He shouldn’t have tweeted those almost trollish tweets using his real name. Now you want everybody to use their real name so none of us can say what he said (albeit a lot more smoothly and without quoting Mel Gibson).
Just because I don’t want to use my real name online, it doesn’t make me a troll. I also don’t want to give all companies my basic Facebook profile information (Age, DOB, Sex, Location) which they get once I use FB to post a comment.
Quote: (09-19-2013 12:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
As WC pointed out, women are a prized demographic for many businesses. They spend more money than men without a doubt. That's why the establishment seeks to empower as much as possible. They put more money into (rich) men's pockets.
One of the wisest comments on this thread came from Ali. He's absolutely right that the best way to deal with the cultural onslaught is by passive-aggressive resistance. Even the author who wrote the End of Men - Hanna Rosin - conceded that it's the feminists who are self-sabotaging while she has rarely encountered resistance at her book events from the opposite sex. As you can imagine, her observation has ignited a firestorm among feminists.
I was with you and WC on the Pax issue but you guys have completely lost me here. Women are a prized demographic but this is about ending anonymity online which you can bet your ass will eliminate dissenting views online. Moreover, when it comes to newspapers (even if they are left-leaning), there needs to be a provision for an open discussion without fear of reprisals and loss of privacy. (Please don’t tell me I am wearing a tinfoil hat. Afterall, two firefighters in Toronto got fired for quoting the motherfucking Office and South Park).
This has nothing to do with women and business.
In the end, this may be a lost cause but I am going to resist as much as I can and use fake FB accounts if need be.
To me, ending anonymity online destroys one of the purpose of internet which is discussing, debating, and arguing over issues without any fear. Trolls do exist and will continue to exist but trolling is the price of anonymity which we pay and should pay.