I speak way more forcefully as anonymous than i do with accounts i am known by in real life. I'm still maintaining cover IRL. The threat of Communism is very real, and if it hits i plan to be the 'good commie' to the commies, but irl i'll be getting in to mess their shit up, and leak it online.
Hedging my bets for now. Want non-anonymity?
that threat is going to have to be removed completely first.
Same. Under my sock puppets I am no holds barred. But lately I don't even care anymore. It would take someone who gave a shit all of 2 min to find out my real name. I think I've just gotten to the point where I don't care if anyone IRL thinks I'm a nut or not. I know I'm on the right side of history.
I love Dr. Peterson. He's helped me greatly in my life. That being said I do have some strong disagreements with him, this being one of them.
Maybe it's because he's Canadian, but our founding fathers intention (one of them) with our 1st amendment was to essentially to protect those who contribute to public conversations privately/anonymously. They knew back then that not all people had the luxury of being able to attach their name to things and maintain a level of personal safety.
The first amendment says nothing about anonymity. And rights can only be asserted by identifiable individuals. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe in anonymity. That is a craven view of defending liberty.
Because he recognizes that our moral struggle is with The Lie (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it---one of Peterson's guidestars). Having no identity is a halfway house to falsehood, encouraging us to operate under false pretenses.
I post on Facebook under my real name. I can't say there is much difference in how I post there vs. here, aside from the fact that Facebook typically does not entertain much discussion that is the main fare here. Here, I recognize that the handles are whimsical, and take some ironic humor in the notion that the one I picked is completely truthful. Even that part of the truth bugs some people here.
I would like to know what the "Dark Tetrad" is, however. I haven't heard that before from him.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
Back before the internet, anons words were limited to what they could spray paint on the side of the building under the cover of night, eg: "Resist!", which might be seen by a few people the next day.
But now we can give full directed piercing attacks to the cold black heart of evil, with examples, and evidence, and then it can spread around the world in a few hours.
There is no comparison to back then and now. We aren't hiding our light as anonymous. some people are letting it shine brighter than they want to do in person, because they will be targeted if they did that in person.
I don't want to be known, i have no desire for attention or for people to 'follow' me. I am a red pill bomber and truth teller, and i back my things up.
And here you are, singing to the choir. I don't kid myself by thinking being on this page entitles me to a place in history. That is laughable. Maybe what I say in my true person might count. This is like Fight Club. We get to trade punches, but we don't talk about it, nobody knows about it---and who knows if we do anything when we walk on the street?
I talk about it tacitly in real life, dropping red-pill questions, and probing slowly.
Anonymously outside of this site i'm a ruthless red-pill bomber with a fleet of clones to drop the pills anons bring up here. I allow no quarter, and i chase those fleeing to shove as many pills down their throats until they block or the clone is banned - greatly hated for forcing the truth on them and making them into blathering idiots.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation.
Not irl consequences perhaps, but if someone uses an online name to lie or say stupid crap, it’s going to damage the reputation of their online persona. Look to all of the drama surrounding Fishyman for evidence of that. (Not saying that he always lies and says stupid things, but he is controversial despite being anonymous here). There are a number of trolls, shills, and idiots here that illustrate the same idea.
If a private (non government) company wanted to introduce a voluntary system like the one you describe, I wouldn’t personally have a problem with that. There are still two issues though:
Most social media companies may technically be privately/ publicly owned, but in reality they are extensions of the government/mainstream media.
Your system does not directly prohibit censorship, nor does it even guarantee that anons stay anons if the CEO changes his mind at the behest of his Congressional pals.
The foundation of this issue is that Elon said he would preserve the privacy of people who want to be anonymous, and Dr Peterson has publicly come out against that. He’s against the fact that you and I both comment anonymously on the internet because “muh dark tetrad” psychobabble. I just think that telling other people what they can and can’t do online is generally a bad idea and invasion of 1A rights.
And if you don’t like the “filth” that comes with anonymity, then you don’t have to look at it. It’s that simple.
I wonder if Patrick and Jordan live in gated communities with guards? Maybe have personal security when they choose? Fly First class? Have the resources to quickly move about maybe by private jet? They make money with their names. Most of us don’t. If their speech was under an anonymous name, they get no more attention and the average Joe. And certainly no money from their comments. Hard to push their books from anonymous tweets.
If Anons weren't Anon in public forums, we become targets. Trust me. I'm very active in local politics and groups with zero anonymity, and the hivemind is coached to doxx, harass, attack... they call employers, schools, friends/family, they will stop at nothing to silence and damage us in the process.
Even this is happening on the local level, to presume it wouldn't get worse on a national level is stupid AF.
Remember when they published the full list of Trump donors ahead of the 2020 election? With maps pinpointing street addresses? I'm all for them coming to my house and trying some shit - I'd just prefer not to have to perforate those who step on my property and threaten my family.
When a person exposes corruption and gives factual information that is irrefutable the establishment will ignore the information and attempt to discredit the person. If the persons identity is anonymous one is forced to confront the information. You can attempt to distract from the information by discrediting the post on the bases of the anonymous has no credit, but the distraction is much more effective if it's an actual person your discrediting. Discrediting an actual person has more of an effect because you can create lies that are personal and generate emotional responses. Also, the persons tribal position can be leveraged as in they are extreme right, racist, Maga, boomer, etc. Anywho, that's my perspective for what it's worth.
What "factual information that is irrefutable"? A lot of people posting here are content with denying irrefutable information about Moon landings, contrails, and a round Earth. Why should some invisible anonymous nobody be more credible than a somebody with a past and a track record. Nothing is easier to discredit than a mask or a pseudonym, with supposition and "logical inference." Especially cowardice...which would be a vital strike, because true.
It seems that people don't understand the way that persons like Solzhenitsyn and Peterson survive the attacks on them is that they have chosen to operate in the spotlight, where they have plenty of visibility. You want to have a lot of eyes on you, in order to avoid being defeated by stealth.
A prime example of this is Trump, who is the most conspicuous person on the planet, by a strategic choice to be so. He has done things anonymously---and no one knows about them. That is fine. But what we need him to do for us cannot be done anonymously. Thank God he is willing to stand up for truth and put his name on it. Shame on any of us who think we can stand up for truth and put a lie on it.
I think I am calling into question what "effective" can mean. On this page, we are sometimes singing to the choir. Is that "effective"? Probably not, in the sense of making a difference. We are sometimes at odds with the crazy conspiracy hoaxers and may possibly clear their heads. In some indirect sense (dispelling folly), that may be "effective." At least it will make them less ineffective. But when we reach out to some actual person in our actual selves, we may be informing them or educating them. I think that is the best form of "effective," though it may not be perfect.
I guess I am thinking this environment (anonymous) is like a training gym, but the real contest occurs outside the gym. If we are to the point where people feel fearful of telling the truth, lest there be reprisal---then we are past the point where people should be telling the truth because our lives and freedom depend on it.
As an aside, do you realize that people today seem nervous about their names, addresses, and phone numbers being known and knowable to nearly anyone. They get all squinchy if their address or phone number is mentioned. I find this incredible, inasmuch as I grew up with CITY TELEPHONE BOOKS that consisted of an actual alphabetized list of EVERYONE IN THE CITY WHO HAD A PHONE, complete with street address and phone number. We didn't think anything of it. Nothing bad came of it. If you expressed any anxiety about this, you would be looked at like you were fresh from the looney bin!
They have special laws to protect whistleblowers but suddenly everybody online should be outed??
One would think that these scaaary "Dark Tetrad Types" are exactly the type of people who should be opposed which can only happen if the opposition is protected from them. And yet the "psychologist" is claiming anons should all be outed because...we'll all be protected from those same Dark Types? Somehow?
I don't think that my username is secure. I know that those who want to know can identify me. Since I don't have the juice that they have, maybe it is better for everyone to just clearly identify themselves. If it's true, don't be afraid to state it
Peace. I was chiming in to what you said about not being able to spread truth if one is afraid of judgments and persecution. "That would be a sad fate...etc." It was a rhetorical question about anyone who did that. A question is not a lie.
There is a reason Antifa wear mask. That same behavior translates online. I know I say stuff to people sometimes that I would be embarrassed if my family and friends knew I was speaking to someone that way. That is not to say that to those people did not deserve it, but we are not called to give people what they deserve but to show them the way.
Just be careful about that. It's way better to say things that you, your family and friends would be proud to hear.
It's one thing to be a jerk under anonymity, but something else to practice good principles and interactions when anonymous. either choice can affect you in person, because you're practicing it anonymously, and it's far better to be principled. It's harder to do, but it makes it all the more worthwhile in the long run.
I speak way more forcefully as anonymous than i do with accounts i am known by in real life. I'm still maintaining cover IRL. The threat of Communism is very real, and if it hits i plan to be the 'good commie' to the commies, but irl i'll be getting in to mess their shit up, and leak it online.
Hedging my bets for now. Want non-anonymity?
that threat is going to have to be removed completely first.
Same. Under my sock puppets I am no holds barred. But lately I don't even care anymore. It would take someone who gave a shit all of 2 min to find out my real name. I think I've just gotten to the point where I don't care if anyone IRL thinks I'm a nut or not. I know I'm on the right side of history.
Makes sense for those with a following. Maybe not so much for us anons
THIS ^^^^
Dr Peterson: communists and government censorship are bad.
Also Dr Peterson: no one should be anonymous on the internet.
Why is he like this?!?
He isn't right in the head. Par for the course for his "profession"
I love Dr. Peterson. He's helped me greatly in my life. That being said I do have some strong disagreements with him, this being one of them.
Maybe it's because he's Canadian, but our founding fathers intention (one of them) with our 1st amendment was to essentially to protect those who contribute to public conversations privately/anonymously. They knew back then that not all people had the luxury of being able to attach their name to things and maintain a level of personal safety.
The first amendment says nothing about anonymity. And rights can only be asserted by identifiable individuals. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe in anonymity. That is a craven view of defending liberty.
Definitely not meth.
Because he recognizes that our moral struggle is with The Lie (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it---one of Peterson's guidestars). Having no identity is a halfway house to falsehood, encouraging us to operate under false pretenses.
I post on Facebook under my real name. I can't say there is much difference in how I post there vs. here, aside from the fact that Facebook typically does not entertain much discussion that is the main fare here. Here, I recognize that the handles are whimsical, and take some ironic humor in the notion that the one I picked is completely truthful. Even that part of the truth bugs some people here.
I would like to know what the "Dark Tetrad" is, however. I haven't heard that before from him.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
Anon, our anon is more potent now.
Back before the internet, anons words were limited to what they could spray paint on the side of the building under the cover of night, eg: "Resist!", which might be seen by a few people the next day.
But now we can give full directed piercing attacks to the cold black heart of evil, with examples, and evidence, and then it can spread around the world in a few hours.
There is no comparison to back then and now. We aren't hiding our light as anonymous. some people are letting it shine brighter than they want to do in person, because they will be targeted if they did that in person.
I don't want to be known, i have no desire for attention or for people to 'follow' me. I am a red pill bomber and truth teller, and i back my things up.
And here you are, singing to the choir. I don't kid myself by thinking being on this page entitles me to a place in history. That is laughable. Maybe what I say in my true person might count. This is like Fight Club. We get to trade punches, but we don't talk about it, nobody knows about it---and who knows if we do anything when we walk on the street?
I talk about it tacitly in real life, dropping red-pill questions, and probing slowly.
Anonymously outside of this site i'm a ruthless red-pill bomber with a fleet of clones to drop the pills anons bring up here. I allow no quarter, and i chase those fleeing to shove as many pills down their throats until they block or the clone is banned - greatly hated for forcing the truth on them and making them into blathering idiots.
You have a glorious self-image, or a great sense of humor.
Not irl consequences perhaps, but if someone uses an online name to lie or say stupid crap, it’s going to damage the reputation of their online persona. Look to all of the drama surrounding Fishyman for evidence of that. (Not saying that he always lies and says stupid things, but he is controversial despite being anonymous here). There are a number of trolls, shills, and idiots here that illustrate the same idea.
If a private (non government) company wanted to introduce a voluntary system like the one you describe, I wouldn’t personally have a problem with that. There are still two issues though:
The foundation of this issue is that Elon said he would preserve the privacy of people who want to be anonymous, and Dr Peterson has publicly come out against that. He’s against the fact that you and I both comment anonymously on the internet because “muh dark tetrad” psychobabble. I just think that telling other people what they can and can’t do online is generally a bad idea and invasion of 1A rights.
And if you don’t like the “filth” that comes with anonymity, then you don’t have to look at it. It’s that simple.
I wonder if Patrick and Jordan live in gated communities with guards? Maybe have personal security when they choose? Fly First class? Have the resources to quickly move about maybe by private jet? They make money with their names. Most of us don’t. If their speech was under an anonymous name, they get no more attention and the average Joe. And certainly no money from their comments. Hard to push their books from anonymous tweets.
Yep, anonymous is mainly for pushing truth to benefit everyone and not for the benefit of yourself.
Even the founding fathers used pen names to hide their identity when speaking out against the British.
Not when it counted, e.g., Declaration of Independence. They all paid the price.
If Anons weren't Anon in public forums, we become targets. Trust me. I'm very active in local politics and groups with zero anonymity, and the hivemind is coached to doxx, harass, attack... they call employers, schools, friends/family, they will stop at nothing to silence and damage us in the process.
Even this is happening on the local level, to presume it wouldn't get worse on a national level is stupid AF.
Remember when they published the full list of Trump donors ahead of the 2020 election? With maps pinpointing street addresses? I'm all for them coming to my house and trying some shit - I'd just prefer not to have to perforate those who step on my property and threaten my family.
When a person exposes corruption and gives factual information that is irrefutable the establishment will ignore the information and attempt to discredit the person. If the persons identity is anonymous one is forced to confront the information. You can attempt to distract from the information by discrediting the post on the bases of the anonymous has no credit, but the distraction is much more effective if it's an actual person your discrediting. Discrediting an actual person has more of an effect because you can create lies that are personal and generate emotional responses. Also, the persons tribal position can be leveraged as in they are extreme right, racist, Maga, boomer, etc. Anywho, that's my perspective for what it's worth.
Good point too, anonymous removes that vector of "oh look see! that person did did x y and z so we can dismiss them!" ad-hominems.
Well said! You nailed it in a nice short paragraph.
What "factual information that is irrefutable"? A lot of people posting here are content with denying irrefutable information about Moon landings, contrails, and a round Earth. Why should some invisible anonymous nobody be more credible than a somebody with a past and a track record. Nothing is easier to discredit than a mask or a pseudonym, with supposition and "logical inference." Especially cowardice...which would be a vital strike, because true.
It seems that people don't understand the way that persons like Solzhenitsyn and Peterson survive the attacks on them is that they have chosen to operate in the spotlight, where they have plenty of visibility. You want to have a lot of eyes on you, in order to avoid being defeated by stealth.
A prime example of this is Trump, who is the most conspicuous person on the planet, by a strategic choice to be so. He has done things anonymously---and no one knows about them. That is fine. But what we need him to do for us cannot be done anonymously. Thank God he is willing to stand up for truth and put his name on it. Shame on any of us who think we can stand up for truth and put a lie on it.
You make some good points. Are saying that it is more effective not to be anonymous?
I think I am calling into question what "effective" can mean. On this page, we are sometimes singing to the choir. Is that "effective"? Probably not, in the sense of making a difference. We are sometimes at odds with the crazy conspiracy hoaxers and may possibly clear their heads. In some indirect sense (dispelling folly), that may be "effective." At least it will make them less ineffective. But when we reach out to some actual person in our actual selves, we may be informing them or educating them. I think that is the best form of "effective," though it may not be perfect.
I guess I am thinking this environment (anonymous) is like a training gym, but the real contest occurs outside the gym. If we are to the point where people feel fearful of telling the truth, lest there be reprisal---then we are past the point where people should be telling the truth because our lives and freedom depend on it.
As an aside, do you realize that people today seem nervous about their names, addresses, and phone numbers being known and knowable to nearly anyone. They get all squinchy if their address or phone number is mentioned. I find this incredible, inasmuch as I grew up with CITY TELEPHONE BOOKS that consisted of an actual alphabetized list of EVERYONE IN THE CITY WHO HAD A PHONE, complete with street address and phone number. We didn't think anything of it. Nothing bad came of it. If you expressed any anxiety about this, you would be looked at like you were fresh from the looney bin!
They have special laws to protect whistleblowers but suddenly everybody online should be outed??
One would think that these scaaary "Dark Tetrad Types" are exactly the type of people who should be opposed which can only happen if the opposition is protected from them. And yet the "psychologist" is claiming anons should all be outed because...we'll all be protected from those same Dark Types? Somehow?
Magic perhaps?
I don't think that my username is secure. I know that those who want to know can identify me. Since I don't have the juice that they have, maybe it is better for everyone to just clearly identify themselves. If it's true, don't be afraid to state it
That would be a sad fate for any Christian, to forswear the truth of the Law and Gospel for the fear of oppression. Go to your grave denying Christ?
Peace. I was chiming in to what you said about not being able to spread truth if one is afraid of judgments and persecution. "That would be a sad fate...etc." It was a rhetorical question about anyone who did that. A question is not a lie.
I ain't scared. Except maybe spiders and snakes
seriously though, who cares what this grifter thinks?
Awesome. Although I think he just craves the attention.
Whelp, PatrickByrne is entirely fucked as well.
There is a reason Antifa wear mask. That same behavior translates online. I know I say stuff to people sometimes that I would be embarrassed if my family and friends knew I was speaking to someone that way. That is not to say that to those people did not deserve it, but we are not called to give people what they deserve but to show them the way.
Just be careful about that. It's way better to say things that you, your family and friends would be proud to hear.
It's one thing to be a jerk under anonymity, but something else to practice good principles and interactions when anonymous. either choice can affect you in person, because you're practicing it anonymously, and it's far better to be principled. It's harder to do, but it makes it all the more worthwhile in the long run.